The leader of the peoples of the USSR was killed not by Lavrenty Beria, but by the future leader of the party Nomenclature.
The question "Was Stalin killed?" closed to anyone who has researched this topic. But there is no consensus about who is responsible for this. For example, N. Dobryukha claims that Beria organized the assassination of Stalin. Having devoted a lot of time to the study of the era of Stalin and Beria, having written a number of books about it, including “Why did they kill Stalin?”, I can assure the reader that statements about Beria's involvement in the murder of Stalin are nothing more than fiction.
Who initiated the change
There are enough mysteries in Stalin's death, but one thing is clear: the murder of Stalin was in the interests of only Khrushchev. After the death of Stalin and the removal of Beria, Khrushchev - with the support of the decaying part of the Soviet elite - quickly crushed everything and everyone and frolicked with might and main all over the planet, from corn fields to the UN General Assembly conference hall.
Incidentally, later Khrushchev actually admitted his involvement in Stalin's death. On July 19, 1963, at a rally in honor of the Hungarian party and government delegation, Khrushchev, speaking of Stalin, said: "There have been many cruel tyrants in the history of mankind, but all of them died the same way from an ax, as they themselves supported their power with an ax" … This is recorded in archives of the Russian State Archive of Phonodocuments …
But no - since the times of the Chechen “red professor” Avtorkhanov, who defected to the Germans and then served the Americans, the murder of Stalin was “hanged” on Beria, turning a powerful figure of Soviet history into a bloody monster with blood on his elbows …
Trotsky blamed Stalin for Kirov's death. Avtorkhanov, N. Dobryukha and a host of others accuse Beria of Stalin's death, but there are simply no grounds for would-be accusers in both cases.
In one, N. Dobryukha hits the bull's-eye when he writes that changes were being prepared long before Stalin's death and that Beria's role in preparing these changes was great. That's right, but the changes were being prepared on the initiative of Stalin himself. He understood perfectly well that in the Soviet ruling stratum, against the background of the post-war growth of the power of the USSR, degradation began, primarily ideological. And the measures were taken abrupt - without executions, but with knocking out in the ass with a knee.
If an enlarged meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU had taken place on Monday, March 2, 1953, with Stalin alive and well, then a number of "comrades" would have lost their leadership positions, first of all - Minister of State Security Ignatiev, who was rapidly losing Stalin's confidence. Khrushchev would have fallen badly - Stalin had accumulated many claims against him.
And - not only to him …
Political super body
The volume of the article does not allow dwelling on all the key points, and many of the most important circumstances have to be marked with a dotted line. Take, for example, the speech at the 19th Congress of Poskrebyshev, Stalin's assistant. Without comprehending it, we will not understand anything in those days. I will cite only a small part of it - especially formidable and significant:
“There are … cases when some noble officials, abusing their power, inflict reprisals for criticism, directly or indirectly subject their subordinates to repression and persecution. (Hereinafter, the emphasis in bold italics is mine. - Approx. S. K.) But everyone knows how severely our party and its Central Committee punish such nobles, regardless of their ranks, titles, or past merits …"
Could Poskrebyshev - an emphatically inconspicuous and dependent person - say this in the hall where the party's color of the country was gathered? Of course not! Stalin spoke it through the lips of Poskrebyshev. And this one speech immediately revived the fuss of the entire Moscow rag-tag! And she could make a bet only on one member of the Stalinist "team" - on Khrushchev …
Also, for example, the story with the letter to Stalin from the Moscow region zootechnician N. I. Kholodov, - it is described in detail in my book about Stalin's death in the chapter "Winter 1952/53 … What was Khrushchev afraid of." Khrushchev, who had ruined the agriculture of the Moscow region, had something to fear - Stalin instructed the Central Committee commission to study the problem.
For some reason it is not comprehended, and here is the fact … After the XIX Congress, a leading Bureau was formed: Stalin, Malenkov, Beria, Bulganin and Khrushchev. Stalin held several meetings in this very narrow composition - December 16, 1952, January 13 and February 7, 1953.
But the last two meetings in the Kremlin in his life, Stalin held on February 16 and 17, 1953, only with the Troika: Beria, Malenkov, Bulganin. Both times they were with Stalin for 15 minutes. All this looks like an extremely confidential preparation for some important actions. And we should dwell on this mysterious "Troika" in more detail …
On January 26, 1953, the Resolution of the Bureau of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU was adopted: “214. - The question of supervising special works. Instruct the troika in the composition of vols. Beria (chairman), Malenkova, Bulganina, management of the work of special bodies for special affairs."
Formally, the Troika oversaw defense projects, but the difference in official terminology is a delicate thing! Work on "atom", missiles, air defense was usually called special work. The "Troika" was entrusted with the leadership of the work of "special bodies for special affairs."
The work of which such special bodies and on what such special cases were the three members of the Bureau of the Presidium of the Central Committee supposed to direct? The "Troika" was a "Five" truncated by Khrushchev. The main systemic feature of the Troika was that three people could legally confer, without arousing anyone's suspicion: Beria, Malenkov and Bulganin. And only Stalin knew what they consulted about.
In light of what has been said, the Troika looks like a kind of political super-body, capable of instantly becoming the leading triumvirate under the supreme rule of Stalin. In fact, the Troika replaced the leading Five and kicked Khrushchev out of the trusted leadership.
Stalin appointed Beria as chairman of the Troika. And the fact of Beria's appointment as chairman of the Stalinist Troika refutes all anti-Beria innuendos - including the fact that Stalin allegedly started a “hunt” for Beria's “Big Mingrel”.
The ignorant would not be quoted
On the Troika with the "root" Beria, the "coachman" Stalin could have taken Russia to a very tempting future, where ignoramuses like Khrushchev would not be quoted! Could this have bothered Khrushchev - to the point of panic?
At the same time, the "memories" of the former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia Mgeladze that Beria, after the funeral, allegedly cursed Stalin and mocked him, are not worth a dime. It is enough to read the “letters from the bunker” written by Beria after his arrest to understand that he treated Stalin with respect …
Molotov's “recollections” of the fact that Beria-de on the podium of the Mausoleum during Stalin’s funeral said that it was he who removed Stalin and thus “saved everyone” turned out to be frivolous …
No more reliable are the stories about the "people of Beria" in the protection of Stalin. General Sergei Kuzmichyov (1908-1989) can be considered the "man of Beria" in the protection of Stalin in the 50s. But just at the end of 1952, the pro-Khrushchev head of the MGB Ignatiev (who is also the head of the MGB Security Directorate!) Removed him from the MGB to the MIA with a demotion, and in January 1953 Kuzmichyov was arrested altogether. It is significant that Beria, returning to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, immediately released Kuzmichyov and appointed him head of the Security Directorate of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs.
And what are the assurances of N. Dobryukhi about the fact that "Beria, having united into one ministry of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of State Security … took control of the entire political and economic life"?
What political control there is! The policy was then determined by a group of leaders …
And what about economic control? This can be stated only without knowing about Beria's note dated March 17, 1953 to the USSR Council of Ministers, where it was proposed: “… construction departments, office premises, subsidiary plots, research and design institutions, with material resources …"
Huge capacities were transferred to ten sectoral ministries, including those for the extraction of gold and amber! Does this look like the actions of a power-lover and self-lover who dreams of driving the whole country into the Gulag?
Moreover, Beria also refused the GULAG! On March 28, 1953, at the suggestion of Beria, a resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On the transfer of labor camps and colonies from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR to the Ministry of Justice of the USSR" was adopted.
And what is the testimony of Anatoly Lukyanov that Stalin-de “found a successor in the person of Ponomarenko” worth?
PC. Ponomarenko (1902-1984) was a figure in the second row. Allegedly designated by Stalin as his successor, he worked in Moscow since 1948, but only appeared three times during this period in Stalin's Kremlin office. All three times - at the end of 1952 at ordinary meetings. This already proves that Stalin did not distinguish Ponomarenko in any special way. Compared to the same Beria, Ponomarenko was a gray duck in front of a sharp-eyed falcon!
And in order to finish with N. Dobryukha's "discoveries", I will say that the story he painted with Nino Beria's uncle - an emigrant of Gegechkori - was worn out by the consequence of the Khrushchev Prosecutor General of the USSR Rudenko, which distorted the details, reasons, circumstances, and from some moment, as I understand it, and simply composed "interrogation protocols" of Beria …
Conspiracy victim
Yes, Stalin fell victim to a conspiracy. And since Stalin interfered with many - both in the USSR and outside it - it is logical to assume not just a narrow-minded Khrushchev-Ignatiev conspiracy, but a combined multi-layered conspiracy against Stalin. But outside circles hostile to Russia used Khrushchev "in the dark" - he was a latent hater of Stalin, but was hardly a hidden enemy of socialism. Although no one did as much to destroy socialism in the USSR as Nikita Khrushchev.
Beria fell in less than four months, and Malenkov with Molotov and Kaganovich - a little over four years after Stalin's death. So who from Stalin's inner circle won from Stalin's death? Won immediately and for a long time?
The answer is clear: Nikita Khrushchev. In addition to him, the selfish part of the party and state leadership, pressed by Stalin once again, won. This "Parttoplasm", after some fright caused by the US nuclear blackmail, cheered up from the consciousness that it was now also covered by the Russian "nuclear shield" … Now it was ready to prosper uncontrollably, and Stalin prevented it. Knowing how to work energetically, this trash did not need Beria any more than Stalin.
So Stalin was killed.
Poisoned.
And he was not killed by Beria, although the book of Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov "The Mystery of Stalin's Death" has a subtitle: "Beria's Conspiracy."
Avtorkhanov provocatively distorts - Beria, of course, had nothing to do with the conspiracy against Stalin. In addition to quite obvious considerations, this is also proved by a logical analysis, which I have to undertake not for the first time, but - what to do!
For example, Beria organized the assassination of Stalin, using his old connections in the MGB Ignatiev. But this is already unlikely! Seven years after his departure from the "organs", Beria did not have reliable people in the Security Department of the "Ignatievsky" MGB. A conspiracy against the head of state has some chance of success when it is dealt with by the full-fledged head of the special service. He can do everything in the best possible way: gradually pick up the necessary future performers with the appropriate personal, biographical and official data, and then check them and place them at all the necessary points, replacing them with cadres devoted to Stalin and his cause.
Khrushchev's friend, the Minister of State Security and the head of the MGB Security Directorate, Ignatiev, in this sense, had unlimited opportunities in comparison with Beria. And even Leonid Mlechin admits that Beria did not have power in the MGB at that time and could not influence the selection of personnel for the Stalinist guard.
But, as it was said, let's say … Let's say that the personnel subordinate to Ignatiev fulfilled Beria's “order”. Stalin is dead, and Beria gets his hands on the united Ministry of the Interior. Now the cadres of Ignatiev, who eliminated Stalin at the "order" of Beria, are already the cadres of Beria.
Beria - according to his haters, is allegedly aimed at seizing power, and he has at his disposal cadres of security guards who betrayed Stalin, soiled in the murder of the leader. So why not "transfer" them now to the "protection" of, say, Khrushchev or Malenkov?
After all, Beria - according to the same N. Dobryukha - is a criminal, he killed Stalin with impunity! And impunity encourages and inflames … Having taken one successful step, Beria had to quickly take another step - the iron must be forged while it is hot! At the same time, Beria had to behave very carefully, that is, not to irritate colleagues in any way, and especially not to take any initiatives that disturb and annoy them.
Beria, on the other hand, is behaving exactly the opposite of how a conspirator should have behaved. He splashes ideas, suggestions, energetically and constructively intervenes in the economy, in foreign policy, in domestic national policy, but he intervenes openly, submitting proposals to the Central Committee! And each time his proposals are so grounded that they have to be accepted!
Good "conspirator"! He needs to take care of organizing new "deadly diseases", but he will eliminate the GULAG and passport restrictions for hundreds of thousands of people, is busy with projects of republican orders for cultural workers of the union republics, and so on.
And to top it all off, he is seeking a decision by the Central Committee to refuse to decorate buildings on holidays and columns of demonstrators with portraits of the leadership … As soon as Beria was arrested, this decision was canceled.
Simpleton
The behavior of the "simpleton" Khrushchev turns out to be different. If you look at his line, then it is something that completely fits into the conspiracy scheme.
The first step is to remove Stalin. He could only be removed physically - politically he was unshakable. Khrushchev is "on horseback", but so far he is not prancing and behaves quietly.
The second step is that Beria is politically discredited and physically removed. At the same time, it was possible to muddle in complicity almost the entire party and state elite of the USSR.
By the way, what kind of dogs were not hung on Beria at the July 1953 Plenum of the Central Committee, held after Beria's arrest, but Khrushchev did not dare to “hang” the murder of Stalin on him. It would seem - what a convenient reason for Khrushchev to accuse Beria! But no, instead - complete silence. And it is understandable why - the topic was very slippery, and raising it was dangerous for the real criminal - Khrushchev.
Khrushchev's third destructive step was the XX Congress with its political discrediting of Stalin and, in fact, Stalin's deed, that is, building a socialist society in Russia of new, comprehensively educated, developed, and therefore free people.
The fourth step is the political elimination of the "Stalinist core" of the top leadership: Molotov, Malenkov and Kaganovich in 1957.
The fifth and last step taken directly by Khrushchev is the neutralization of the inconsistent remnants of the "core": Bulganin, Voroshilov, Pervukhin, Saburov and the final "domestication" of Mikoyan …
Today we can see that the “chain”, supplemented by a number of new “links” that led us to the 1991 Belavezha Accords, was built flawlessly and efficiently.
Could Khrushchev have thought of all this far-sighted algorithm - he is not smart, but only cunning and at the same time - vicious, vindictive, self-confident, narrow-minded and unable to see the perspective? A person who has become the personification of the muddy concept of "voluntarism".
No, this clever sequence of iron-bound steps could not have occurred to Nikita Sergeevich on his own … Moreover, Khrushchev was not a conscious enemy of socialism. Khrushchev was made the gravedigger of the deeds of Lenin, Stalin, the deeds of millions of USSR citizens without the knowledge of "dear Nikita Sergeevich" himself.
In the dark …
And he just wanted to stay at the pinnacle of power, take revenge on Stalin, and then outshine Stalin …
If Beria remained in the leadership of the post-Stalin USSR, Khrushchev could not have done this, or rather, under Beria, the selfish part of the Nomenklatura and the emerging "fifth column" could not have laid those systemic mines in the building of the USSR - starting with the virgin land adventure, which were gradually supposed to blow up socialism from the inside.
About traitors and patriots
I wrote a lot about Beria and, it seems to me, now I understand his nature well. Beria was devoted to building a powerful socialist Russia already because only in such a "super-corporation" as the Soviet Union could Beria's abilities as an effective manager be fully developed. And Beria, like any active person, was interested in doing great things!
This is not Khrushchev with his resolution: "Aznakamitsa …"
Even the fate of the sons of Khrushchev and Beria makes it possible to understand who was who … Sergei Khrushchev ended up as a traitor to the Soviet Motherland on US bread. After his release, Sergei Beria returned to rocket work, was respected and died on the land of the Motherland …
To this day, the slander against Beria, who allegedly assured Stalin that "there will be no war", is still alive. But Stalin is in this - that's the point! - Khrushchev assured! And Beria for the entire first half of 1941 laid on Stalin's table intelligence reports from the border troops, which clearly warned of the war. How many people know about this?
With grief, they began to talk about Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria as an outstanding curator of nuclear and missile problems … But how many people know about Beria, an outstanding reformer of Georgia? And about Beria - the reformer of the NKVD and the border troops with their developed border intelligence ?! And about Beria in the war ?!
Could such a master of great deeds be intriguing? The wider the USSR developed, the more Beria's potential was revealed. And Stalin saw this more and more clearly.
Could the cleverly disguised rogue Khrushchev not intrigue? After all, the wider the USSR developed, the clearer became the worthlessness and incompetence of Khrushchev, who had already exhausted his already not very great potential.
Stalin's death was desired by many, and many were preparing for it. But it all ended in the end on Khrushchev and Khrushchev's Ignatiev.
Like this…
