Beria and the Beautiful Game
beyondthelastman.com
beyondthelastman.com
>”Evidence suggests that not only did Beria abduct and rape women, but that some were also murdered. His villa in Moscow is now the Tunisian Embassy (at 55°45′34″N 37°35′10″E). In the mid 1990s, routine work in the grounds turned up the skeletal remains of several young women buried in the gardens.”
I think I’d want to choose a different property to use as for the embassy...
Yeah, in my opinion Beria was even more evil than Stalin, only that his "personal failures" kept him out of holding the "first spot" in the Soviet State: you have to be efficient with your time like Stalin was if you want to be a ruthless dictator, if you're wasting your time raping innocent women you're not at all on the right track of being in a position to kill millions of people further down the road.
That's why Khrushchev's counter-coup just a few months after Stalin's death caught Beria by surprise, something like this would have never happened to a guy like Stalin, who was first and foremost interested in killing (or rather, in having them killed) his enemies and especially his political friends, no need to "waste" time in killing or raping innocent women who had nothing to do with politics.
The only other Soviet official who was close to Beria in evilness was Nikolai Yezhov [2], who of course that Stalin had killed once he had done his dirty business for him.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria#Arrest,_trial_...
It’s reflected in their census figures: 56MM before the conflict period, 16MM after the conflict.
How many other monsters get away with evil that we wouldn't even know about to condemn 50-100 years later?
The recent case of Jeffrey Epstein comes to mind, and whoever his "clients" were that still walk free.
The point of the trial wasn't to deliver justice but to eliminate Beria. Khrushchev had to consolidate power first.
Apocryphal anecdote:
Following Stalin's death, Nikita Khrushchev gave a speech to the Politburo denouncing Stalin's policies. A few minutes into Khrushchev's diatribe, somebody shouted out, "Why didn't you challenge him then, the way you are now?"
The room fell silent, as Khrushchev angrily swept the audience with his glare. "Who said that?" he asked in a reasoned voice. Silence.
"Who said that?" Khrushchev demanded, leaning forward. Silence.
Pounding his fist on the podium to accent each word, he screamed, "Who - said - that?" Still no answer.
Finally, after a long and strained silence, the elected politicians in the room fearful to even cough, a corner of Khrushchev's mouth lifted into a smile.
"Now you know," he said with a chuckle, "why I did not speak up against Stalin when I sat where you now sit."
[I can't find the link to this just now, due to company's whitelist approach to deciding which web sites are safe]
In case anyone is interested - the actual number the UK government estimated it would take was 3, the Soviets targetted many hundreds of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJttnC8PoA
In best British tradition it does even manage a bit of exceedingly dark humour.
(For those who haven't seen it, it is grim, but gripping.)
He also made Connections [2] with James Burke, which is a fantastic documentary series about the history of science.
(His later, very commercial Hollywood work is less interesting, though Steve Martin's L.A. Story is great.)
Edit: If you want some nightmare material I can recommend Anne Applebaum's "Gulag: A History":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag:_A_History
Edit: I should correct myself there - of course, there were still those found guilty of 'normal' criminal offences and one of the recurring themes in accounts of life in the Soviet camps were the tensions between the criminals and 'politicals'.
First, the reason for the trial is essentially PR&propaganda, the charges can be absolutely arbitrary but they would be made public, so it makes sense to choose charges that the elites want to advertise. Effecting political change by labeling the previous policy (along with its implementer) as treason and 'counter-revolutionary' is effective - it signals what they want to signal. On the other hand, advertising one of the elites as a rapist would not have a desired effect on the people's morale.
Second, murder and rape were considered less important crimes than 'counter-revolutionary activity'. Slaughtering, torturing and raping people was frowned upon unless you had a good reason or these people weren't considered "proper people", but acting against the state apparatus is something that will be prosecuted with extreme prejudice and violence. And that's the message that was intended for the masses. Not rule of law, but obedience and following the official position. It's imperative that everyone understands that the law won't protect them if they act within the letter of some act but against the will of the state/party apparatus, so some arbitrariness within the trials and executions was intentionally designed, enacting punishments known to be random with the explicit goal of establishing terror (Starting with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror and followed up by Stalin). You can't instill proper fear in the population if they believe that simply being innocent is sufficient to be safe.
There's a quote that's very old by that time but still relevant: "Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror." The system really did not care that much about crimes against individuals, no matter how depraved; "crimes" of inappropriate political acts were more important.
Some of the people who tortured others (who were later 'rehabilitated' by the state, admitted to be innocent) in late Stalinist KGB and gulags are still alive. They have not been tried or convicted or condemned, they're still receiving awards, honors and monuments in modern Russia. There has been no reconciliation as for most other totalitarian regimes.
That makes it interesting to note that since their whole system was formed in a sort of response to the unchecked power of the aristocracy – untouchable people who could do anything to anyone at any time – now that the revolutionaries found themselves in the same position they craved a taste of that power.
The common folk only continued to get screwed over.
If you think I exaggerate, I assure you I do not. Lenin and his bunch -and Stalin more so later- were all bloodthirsty thugs who thought nothing of individuals outside their immediate orbit.
> ... who would miss the odd petty official or jealous husband who stood in his way?
I think also read that in the west we think of there being a 20 year peace between WWI and WWII. Where in eastern Europe that period was one of intercine ethno-national conflict.