Beria died. Three deaths of Lavrenty Beria

5 633

One thing is clear: if the party elite went to murder, somehow this person was very dangerous to her. And not with terrible plans to throw her off the throne - Beria made it clear that he was not going to do this. Of course, he was potentially dangerous - but we don't get killed for that. At least that's not how they kill, openly and frankly. The normal Soviet course in the struggle for power was worked out as early as 1937 - to move, remove, and then arrest and falsify the case in the usual manner. By the way, this openness and frankness also contains a mystery - after all, it was possible to wait and remove it quietly and imperceptibly. It looks like the killers were in a hurry...

Khrushchev, in his revelations to foreign interlocutors, is cunning in some ways. He presents the decision on the immediate execution of Beria as a collegial verdict of all members of the Politburo. “After a comprehensive discussion of the pros and cons of both options, we came to the conclusion: Beria must be shot immediately” ... “We!” So now we will believe that nine people, middle-aged, indecisive and rather cowardly, will stamp such a decision - to shoot one of the first persons of the state without trial or investigation. Yes, never in their lives will these people, who have worked meekly under a strong leader all their lives, take on such a responsibility! They will drown the issue in discussions and in the end, even if there are grounds, everything will end with deportation somewhere in Baku or Tyumen to the post of director of the plant - let him seize power there if he can.

So it was, and there is convincing evidence of this. The Secretary of the Central Committee, Malenkov, in the process of preparing the meeting of the Presidium, wrote a draft of its work. This draft has been published, and it clearly shows what was to be discussed at this meeting. To prevent the possibility of abuse of power, Beria was supposed to be deprived of the post of Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and, perhaps, if the discussion goes on the right track, to release him also from the post of Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers, appointing him Minister of the Oil Industry as a last resort. And that's it. There was no talk of any arrest, and even more so of any execution without trial. And it is difficult even to imagine, with all the tension of imagination, what could happen for the Presidium, contrary to the prepared scenario, to make such a decision impromptu. It couldn't be. And if it couldn't, then it didn't. And the fact that this did not happen, that this issue was not considered at the Presidium at all, is evidenced by the fact that the draft was found in Malenkov's archive - otherwise it would have been submitted for processing the decision and then destroyed.

So there was no "we". Beria was first killed, and then the Presidium was confronted with a fact, and he had to get out, covering up the killers. But who exactly?
And here it is very easy to guess. Firstly, it is easy to calculate the number of the second - the artist. The fact is that - and no one denies this - that day the army was widely involved in the events. In the incident with Beria, as Khrushchev himself admits, the air defense commander of the Moscow Military District, Colonel General Moskalenko and the Air Force Chief of Staff, Major General Batitsky, were directly involved, and Marshal Zhukov himself does not seem to refuse. But, more importantly, for some reason, apparently, to stage the fight against "parts of Beria", troops were brought into the capital. And then a very important name comes up - a person who could ensure contact with the military and the participation of the army in the events - Minister of Defense Bulganin.

It is not difficult to calculate the number one. Who most of all poured dirt on Beria, completely losing self-control and presenting him at the same time as a fiend? Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev. By the way, not only Bulganin, but also Moskalenko and Batitsky were people from his team.
Bulganin and Khrushchev - somewhere we have already met this combination. Where? Yes, at Stalin's dacha, on that fateful Sunday, March 1, 1953.

Compromising evidence?
There is one mystery in the events that took place after Stalin's death - the fate of his papers. The archive of Stalin as such does not exist - all his documents are gone. On March 7, some special group, according to Svetlana, “on the orders of Beria” (but this is not a fact) removed all the furniture from the Near Dacha. Later, the furniture was returned to the dacha, but without papers. All the documents from the Kremlin office and even from the leader's safe have also disappeared. Where they are and what happened to them is still unknown.

Naturally, it is believed that Beria, as the super-powerful chief of the special services, took possession of the archives, especially since the guards were subordinate to the MGB department. Yes, but the guards were subordinate to state security while the guarded was alive. Interestingly, to whom was the Kuntsevo dacha subordinated after Stalin's death? Also to the Ministry of State Security or, perhaps, this empty shell was disposed of by some government AHO - the administrative and economic department? According to another version, the entire elite of that time took part in the seizure of the archive, preoccupied with the liquidation of the dossiers that Stalin collected on them. Beria, of course, was also afraid that compromising information on him, located in these archives, would be made public. It’s also hard to believe - with so many accomplices, someone in so many years would certainly let it slip.

Who knew nothing about the fate of the archive, so it is Malenkov. Why - more on that later. There are two options left: either Khrushchev or Beria. If we assume that the archive fell into the hands of Khrushchev, then his fate, most likely, is sad. There could have been a lot of compromising evidence on Nikita Sergeevich - one participation in Yezhov's repressions was worth something! Neither he nor his associates had time to look for all these “dossiers” among the mountains of papers, it was easier to burn everything in bulk. But if Beria was the first to succeed, then here the situation is completely different. He had nothing to be afraid of some mysterious "documents" in the Stalinist archive, which, if made public, could destroy him - there was hardly anything on him, even if by the efforts of the entire jurisprudence of the USSR, despite the fact that it was very necessary, they could not dig up material for one more or less decent shooting case. But he was vitally interested in compromising evidence on Stalin's former comrades-in-arms - both for future possible occasions and to ensure his own security.

Indirectly, the fact that the archive most likely fell into the hands of Beria is evidenced by his son Sergo. After the murder of his father, he was arrested, and one day he was summoned for interrogation, and in the investigator's office he saw Malenkov. This was not the first visit of a distinguished guest, once he had already come and persuaded Sergo to testify against his father, but did not persuade him. However, this time he came for something else.
“Maybe you can help with something else? He said it in a very human way. - Have you heard anything about the personal archives of Joseph Vissarionovich?
“I have no idea,” I answer. “We never talked about it at home.
- Well, how about ... Your father also had archives, didn’t he?
I don't know either, never heard of it.
- How did you not hear it? - here Malenkov could not restrain himself. “He must have archives, he must!
He's obviously very upset."
That is, not only the archives of Stalin disappeared, but also the archives of Beria, and Malenkov knew nothing about their fate. Of course, theoretically, Khrushchev could have seized and liquidated them, but to do it in such a way that no one saw, heard or recognized anything? Doubtful. Stalin's archives were still all right, but Beria's archives could no longer be secretly destroyed. Yes, and Khrushchev was not such a person to carry out such an operation and not spill the beans.

So, most likely, Beria still took possession of Stalin's archive. I repeat once again that it did not make sense for him to destroy him, and even more so to destroy his own archive, and there are nine chances out of ten that he hid all the papers somewhere. But where?

Chesterton in one of the stories about Father Brown wrote: “Where does a smart person hide a leaf? In the woods". Exactly. Where were the relics of the great Russian saint Alexander Svirsky hidden? In the anatomical museum. And if you need to hide the archive, where does a smart person hide it? Naturally, in the archive!

It is only in novels that our archives are ordered, systematized and catalogued. Reality looks a little different. I once had a conversation with a man who had been in the archives of the Radio House. He was shocked by what he saw there, told how he sorted through boxes with records that were not listed in any catalogs, but simply piled up in a heap - there were recordings of performances, next to which were praised Gergiev's productions - like a donkey next to an Arabian horse . This is one example.

Another example can be found in the newspapers, which from time to time report a sensational discovery in one of the archives, where they found something absolutely amazing. How are these discoveries made? It's very simple: some curious intern looks into the chest, into which no one has ever put his nose before him, and finds it. And what about the story of the rarest antique vases that disappeared peacefully for decades in the basement of the Hermitage? So the easiest way to hide an archive of any size is to dump it in one of the storerooms of another archive, where it will lie in complete secrecy and safety until some curious intern looks into it and asks: a what kind of dusty bags are in the corner. And, opening one of the bags, he will pick up a paper with the inscription: “To my archive. I.St.”

But still, they don’t kill for possessing compromising evidence either. On the contrary, it becomes especially dangerous, because it is possible that in the secret safe of a faithful person are the most important papers in an envelope with the inscription: “In case of my death. L. Beria. No, something absolutely extraordinary had to happen for such rather cowardly people as Khrushchev and his company to decide on a murder, and even such a hasty one. What could it be?

The answer came by chance. Deciding to cite Ignatiev's biography in this book, I came across the following phrase there: on June 25, in a note to Malenkov, Beria suggested arresting Ignatiev, but did not have time. There may be a mistake in the date, because on June 26 Beria himself was "arrested", but, on the other hand, he may have spoken about it with someone orally a few days before, or a secret spy in the Ministry of Internal Affairs informed Khrushchev. It was also clear that the new people's commissar was not going to leave the old one alone. On April 6, “for political blindness and idleness,” Ignatiev was removed from the post of secretary of the Central Committee, and on April 28 he was removed from the Central Committee. At the suggestion of Beria, the CPC was instructed to consider the issue of Ignatiev's party responsibility. But all this was not that, all this is not terrible. And then information came that Beria was asking Malenkov for permission for this arrest.

For the conspirators, this was not a danger, it was death! It is not difficult to guess that at the Lubyanka the former chief of the Stalinist guard would have been split like a nut and squeezed like a lemon. What would happen next is not difficult to predict if you remember how Beria kissed the hand of the dying Stalin. None of the conspirators would have met the new year 1954 alive, they would have been killed in Beria’s Lubyanka cellars, spitting on legality for the sake of such an occasion, personally slaughtered with boots.

This is what usually happens with “brilliant impromptu”. What to do? Remove Ignatiev? Dangerous: where is the guarantee that a reliable person does not have a description of the night at Stalin's dacha in a safe place, and maybe many other things. He knew who he was dealing with. So what to do?

And this is the motive! Because of this, Beria really could have been killed, moreover, they should have been killed, and exactly the way it was done. For there was nothing to arrest him for, and because of the dead Beria, as Khrushchev rightly noted, hardly anyone would raise a fuss: what's done is done, you can't return the dead. Especially if you imagine everything as if he offered armed resistance during the arrest. Well, then let propaganda work to present him as a monster and a supervillain, so that grateful descendants can say: "It could be a crime, but it was not a mistake."

January 1955 was the beginning of the "black" mythologizing of Soviet history and the peak of Nikita Khrushchev's struggle for sole power.
Its main competitor is Lavrenty BERIA was already accused of high treason, shot and became such a scapegoat that the Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary soon even stopped mentioning his name. Although in the famous Khrushchev report on the personality cult of STALIN, it 61 times named along with the name of the leader. Many researchers were convinced that Nikita Sergeevich not only slandered prominent statesmen, but also contributed to their death. But they could not scientifically prove their versions. Recently discovered archival materials have allowed historian Alexander DUGIN for the first time to document Khrushchev's lies.
- Alexander Nikolaevich, what new did you find in the archive?
- I went to the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History to see what documents on the history of the 1950s were transferred to RGASPI from the archive of the President of the Russian Federation. And I discovered a lot of interesting things. First, confirmation of the words of Valentin Fadin - he prepared analytical notes for all the leaders of the country from Stalin to Yeltsin. Wrote Khrushchev's foreign policy speeches. And in 2011, he ventured to publicly declare that Khrushchev, wanting to seize archival documents about his participation in repressions, ordered the creation of a group of 200 special officers not only to seize genuine documents, but also to make fakes. Secondly, I discovered these fakes in the "Beria case" and realized that among the forgers there were honest officers who left "beacons" for the descendants to recognize the fake.
- What are the "beacons"?
- There are several of them.

In any case of high treason, of which Khrushchev accused Beria, according to the then Code of Criminal Procedure, there must be photographs of the defendants in the case, their fingerprints, protocols of confrontations. But in materials "Beria case" there is not a single photograph of him, not a single fingerprint, not a single protocol of confrontations with any of his "accomplices".
In addition, there is not a single signature of Beria himself on the interrogation protocols, nor is there a single signature of the investigator of the Prosecutor General's Office for the most important cases of Tsaregradsky. There is only the signature of the major of the administrative service Yuryeva. And on many protocols of interrogation of Beria there are no obligatory clerical "litters": the initials of the typist-performer, the number of printed copies, mailing addressees, etc. But all of the above are just outward signs of a fake.
- And were there internal signs of forgery?
- Of course. On one of the handwritten "originals" of Beria's letters, allegedly written by him when he was already under arrest, there is the date "June 28, 1953", literally screaming "do not believe it!". You can find it at the link: RGASPI, f.17, op.171, d. 463, l.163.
- What exactly "do not believe"?
- The letter is addressed to "To the Central Committee of the CPSU, Comrade Malenkov." In it, Beria speaks of his devotion to the cause of the party and asks his comrades-in-arms - Malenkov, Molotov, Voroshilov, Khrushchev, Kaganovich, Bulganin and Mikoyan: "let them forgive if anything went wrong during these fifteen years of great and intense joint work."
And wishes them great success in the struggle for the cause of Lenin-Stalin. In tone, it resembles a note to friends and colleagues written by a person who is going on vacation or who decides to lie down at home for a couple of days because of a cold. And it begins like this: “I was sure that from that big criticism at the Presidium I would draw all the necessary conclusions for myself and be useful in the team. But the Central Committee decided otherwise, I think that the Central Committee did the right thing. After reading this, I was almost speechless!
The fact is that neither before nor after the death of Stalin, Beria was not subjected to any “big criticism” at any meetings of the Presidium. The first meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU, at which serious accusations of anti-state and anti-party actions of Beria suddenly sounded, as you know, took place on June 29, 1953. That is, the day after this letter from Beria's cell.
- Are you a little speechless because of the date?
- Yes. If the letter had been genuine, it would have dismissed the version of a number of my colleagues, which I shared one hundred percent. The fact that Beria was killed at noon on June 26, 1953 in his mansion on Kachalova Street, now Malaya Nikitskaya.
- Killed by whom?
- A special group sent to Lavrenty Pavlovich by order of Khrushchev by Beria's first deputy for the Ministry of State Security, Sergei Kruglov. Lieutenant General Andrey Vedenin, the former commander of the rifle corps, who became the commandant of the Kremlin in September 1953, told how his unit received an order to carry out Operation Mansion to eliminate Beria. And how it was performed. Then the corpse of Beria was taken to the Kremlin and presented to the members of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU. After such a “face-to-face confrontation”, the Khrushchevites could, without fear, at the Plenum of the Central Committee on July 2-7, 1953, accuse Beria of all mortal sins. Win five months to clean up the archives to destroy the traces of their crimes.
And inspire the people with the official version of Khrushchev: they say, the former Minister of Internal Affairs of the USSR, ex-Deputy Chairman of the State Defense Committee and a member of the Stalinist Politburo was shot for treason on December 23, 1953 by court order. And with Beria alive, Khrushchev could not have concealed the poisoning of Stalin and his complicity in this crime, which I have already spoken about in detail. Let me remind you, in my opinion, in this double murder - first of Stalin, then of Beria - two people were most interested in this. The first was the Minister of State Security in 1951-1953, Semyon Ignatiev, to whom Stalin had serious questions in connection with a number of scandalous trials initiated by this man. Including in the "case of doctors" and the murder of Kirov. On March 2, 1953, the Presidium of the Central Committee was already supposed to consider the issue of removing Ignatiev from office. The second interested person is Khrushchev, the curator of Ignatiev, who since 1946 held the most important post of deputy head of the Directorate of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks for checking party bodies and carried out all repressions against the leadership of the party and the state. In the event of the failure of his ward, Khrushchev would also have thundered to the fanfare. At 10:30 p.m. on March 1, Stalin was found unconscious on the floor. After his death, Beria went through Stalin's archive and, studying the history of his illness, could suspect the named couple.
There was a doppelgänger in jail.

What exactly was Stalin poisoned with?
- Commenting on the medical data published in the recently published book by Sigismund Mironin “How Stalin was poisoned. Forensic medical examination”, the chief toxicologist of Moscow, Honored Doctor of Russia Yuri Ostapenko said that the leader was probably poisoned with pills with an increased dose of a drug that reduces blood clotting. Since 1940, dicoumarin has been the first and main representative of anticoagulants; in case of vascular problems and thrombosis, it was recommended to use it in small doses constantly, as aspirin is today. However, due to its high toxicity, it was withdrawn from use at the end of the last century. Prophylactically drink it once a day, in the afternoon. The laboratories of the NKVD-NKGB-MGB did not cost anything to make tablets with an increased dosage and put them in regular packaging. After all, Ignatiev himself oversaw Stalin's personal protection.
- But someone had to see Beria alive in the cell to confirm the version that he spent five months in prison, waiting to be shot?
- He had several doppelgangers. And, mind you, there are funds of Molotov, Zhdanov and a number of other addressees of Beria's "letters" in the public domain, but there are still no funds of Khrushchev and Beria. And in the official collection "The Politburo and the Case of Beria" there is not a single documented fact that could be qualified as treason. But I managed to find an important document from Stalin's personal archive. He confirms that Khrushchev, accusing Beria of voluntary service in the Musavat counterintelligence, which fought against the labor movement in Azerbaijan, knew perfectly well that he was blatantly lying. This document, dated November 20, 1920, reports that Beria was introduced into the counterintelligence censorship department on the instructions of the Azerbaijani Communist Party. It was requested from the Stalin archive for the last time in July 1953, when the “Beria case” was fabricated. But for obvious reasons, he was not attached to it.
The body was filled with concrete.

- Have you made sure that the “letters from the cell” are fake?
- Yes sir. I took them to an independent handwriting examination. Mikhail Strakhov, the chief specialist of RGASPI, helped me find the original handwriting of Beria. To keep everything clean and honest, I chose lines from which it is impossible to understand who is writing to whom, and paid for the examination out of my own pocket so that no one could influence its result. According to experts, the samples presented by me were written by different people. This conclusion confirms that the massacre of Beria occurred due to the fact that, having taken the post of head of the combined Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of State Security, he was looking for an answer to the question of the true causes of Stalin's death. If he had remained alive, there would have been no talk of any revelations of the personality cult of Iosif Vissarionovich at the height of the Cold War. And in 1961, when Norwegian biochemists analyzed Napoleon's hair on the order of the French government and found out that he was poisoned with arsenic, no one would urgently convene an extraordinary congress of the CPSU. And he did not raise the unexpected question of removing Stalin's body from the Mausoleum and its concreting. Khrushchev covered his tracks!
- Why do you care so deeply about this whole story?
- I decided to do this, because I can’t calmly watch how the heroes of the Frikopedia like Rezun-Suvorov and Radzinsky try to erase all the positive moments of Soviet history from people’s memory, painting it only in dirty tones. And a person, especially a young one, who despises the past of his country, cannot respect his present and build his future in a state where his father, grandfather, great-grandfather are presented as cattle.

Chapter 23
WHY DID LAVRENTY BERIA KILL?

Beria was also killed twice, and if more and more often they come out in defense of Stalin, then for some reason everyone is unanimous about Beria, except for Yuri Mukhin. Even Vadim Kozhinov, who has a good relationship with Stalin, writes: “Much of what is known about Beria does not give reason to see him as a “positive” figure ...”, but at the same time, none of this “much” is cited. And, surprisingly, not only him, no one brings any real compromising evidence on this person. All the "dogs" that are hung on him come down either to the fact that he is responsible for the mass repressions, or to the fact that he "wanted" something. I wanted to kill the Politburo, I wanted to stage a coup, to seize power, but they didn’t let me. At the same time, no evidence of this “want” is also given, just some kind of telepathy ... Even in 1937, at least some, at least fictional facts were put under all the “wants” - but nothing here, just spells! Was this terrible man really so pure in life that not a single line of real compromising evidence could be found on him? To read what he is accused of is such nonsense that the ears wither in the bud! We will get to official accusations, but for now let the writers speak:

“Khrushchev says that Beria twice, first in the forties, and then in the fifties (after Stalin’s death), “maneuvered” to become the head of the party and state. If he refused this intention, then the role was probably played by considerations of a purely psychological nature: after twenty years of tyranny in the USSR of the Georgian Stalin, another Georgian had to be Stalin twice to take his post, and even Beria had to give in to such a prospect. .. Another reason was no less compelling: in the eyes of the people, the professional Chekist Beria was not a servant of Stalin, but a sovereign accomplice, sometimes even an inspirer of Stalin's crimes "...

The funny thing is that a person who takes up writing books about that time does not understand the elementary: in 1953, in the eyes of the people, about whom he talks so weightily, neither "Stalin's tyranny" nor "Stalin's crimes" existed - they appeared only after Khrushchev's report at the 20th Congress. But it's not that. Among all this rhetoric, there is a real thing: even according to Khrushchev himself, Beria “refused” his intention to become the head of the party and state, that is, in 1953 he had no such intentions. What then is he accused of?

“Not out of love for the people, not out of hatred for Stalin, and not out of remorse for the crimes committed, but based on political calculations and personal interests in the new conditions, Beria decided to lead the movement for reforms. Staring into the dying teacher, Beria, perhaps, also did not intend to rule otherwise than Stalin, however, the silent, but formidable joy of the people over the death of a tyrant, advised him: we must take advantage of a rare case in history when the executioner himself can lead the movement of the people against the inheritance the greatest of tyrannies. What Khrushchev did to Stalin three years later at the 20th Congress, Beria wanted to start now. He started this by releasing the "wrecking doctors" on April 4, 1953 and himself accusing the Stalin-Beria police system of falsifying and fabricating cases and the Inquisition.

I don’t know what Beria “wanted” and what “didn’t want”, but I, glaring at the tattered pages of the “samizdat” Avtorkhanov, did not find anything in them, except that Beria was “for reforms”. Moreover, as soon as he became a minister for the second time, he, like the first time, immediately stopped the wave of repressions. What then is he accused of?

Yuri Zhukov, historian:

“But so far the most terrible thing lay elsewhere. The fact that Beria was in no hurry to use the weapons that he received thanks to the uncontrolled leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He didn't even hint who might be the next victim. Waited. Moreover, he suddenly acted as if he wanted to refute the idea of himself as a vindictive and ruthless rival in the struggle for power.

That is, having received under the command of the united MGB - the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Beria did not arrest anyone, did not even hint that he wanted to arrest someone, and even did something that raised doubts - does he even want to fight for power? What then is he accused of?

What happened at these landfills? One was testing a new air defense missile, the other was preparing to test a hydrogen bomb. Considering that in the United States, one after another, more and more new plans for a nuclear attack on the USSR were adopted, and now not only “retaliatory strikes”, but also preventive ones, he considered that this was more important than sitting in Moscow and sharing seats and spheres of influence . However, he did all this, of course, not just like that and not for the benefit of the state, but solely for the acquisition of sole leadership.

It was this key to resolving all international issues that should have made Molotov, an outspoken hardliner, an unquestioning ally of Beria. Turn Bulganin, who was becoming the most formidable military minister of defense in the world, into an obedient satellite of Lavrenty Pavlovich. To win over to your side two of the five members of the narrow leadership who did not claim leadership ...

What a nightmare! What a villain! What a person does not go to in the struggle for power - even to honestly fulfill his official duties! He has no justification either before the court of history or before the party court! “Aleksey Ivanovich Adzhubey, in his book, opened the edge of the veil of secrecy over the motives of the preemptive strike

Khrushchev. It turns out that Beria came up with a cunning move with amnesty after Stalin's death. It concerned large groups of prisoners. Beria was worried that he no longer had the power to automatically extend the terms of imprisonment for those who were sent to camps during the years of mass repression and served their time. They returned home and demanded that justice be restored. And it was extremely necessary for Beria to again send into exile those who were objectionable, to detain those who remained there. It was then that they began to release criminals and recidivists. They immediately returned to their old ways. Discontent and instability could give Beria a chance to return to the old methods.

The horror of the Beria amnesty is most convincingly depicted in the famous film Cold Summer of 1953. True, it is not entirely clear under which category of the released these criminal hari fit - not otherwise, these are pregnant women disguised as raiders. Adjubey lies in the same way as his father-in-law. With the filing of Beria, by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Council, the following were amnestied: those convicted for up to 5 years, as well as for some official, economic, military crimes, women with children under 10 years old, pregnant, minors, elderly and seriously ill prisoners. And where in these categories is the place for repeat offenders?

Beria did a lot of bad things. He stood up for a united Germany, which would be grateful to the USSR for this, and not for a divided one, striving for unification and hating the force that divided it. He insisted that office work in the national republics be conducted not in Russian, but in the local language, and that local personnel work there, and not those sent from Moscow, and much, much more.

In general, he showed himself to be a serious and reasonable statesman, and it is completely incomprehensible what the Politburo could have against him. Beria was absolutely not dangerous, he stopped the repressions, he had no intention to fight for power, which even Khrushchev recognized, and he could not fight for it, because he had no allies in the party elite, and one in the field is not a warrior. The vaunted apparatus of the MGB - the Ministry of Internal Affairs, after seven years of rule by Abakumov, Ignatiev and Kruglov, had to be reassembled piece by piece. He could not do anything seditious and did not want anything seditious.

So what is the mystery of Beria? Why was he killed, and most importantly, why is he so hated by those at whose suggestion this man was declared a fiend of hell - namely, the Khrushchev Politburo? Suppose his hands are stained with blood - this is a lie, but let's say! But after all, the same Khrushchev has blood on his hands to the elbow, but this does not outrage anyone. Suppose he was a pathological womanizer, raped high school girls in a perverted form - this is also a lie, but let's say! But after all, the rehabilitated "victim of Stalinism" Avel Yenukidze raped 10-12 year old girls, and no one is hysterical about this. Suppose he wanted to seize sole power in the country - this is also a lie, but let's say that too! But after all, other comrades-in-arms ate each other like rats locked in the basement, and everyone takes it for granted, no one is offended by anyone. Why exactly is Beria presented in the guise of a villain of all times and peoples? For what?

The answer suggests itself somewhat paradoxical: precisely because there was nothing particularly to blame him for. It was very necessary, but it turned out to be nothing! No real serious crimes were found behind him, and it was necessary to explain why he was suddenly dealt with. And there was only one way for this - to shout so loudly and for a long time about his pathological villainy, so that everyone would hear it, remember it, and eventually believe it. This is not the guard Khrustalev, who can simply be removed, this face is noticeable, justifications are needed here.

And by the way, why is it so easy to succeed? After all, if Beria, an experienced Chekist, got involved in a struggle for power, he should have understood who he was dealing with, and should have been on his guard. One of the researchers of his life, Alexei Toptygin, writes: “If we take the unit of measurement of intuition, it should be called “beria”. And they took him with bare hands. How did he screw up like that? And here, too, a somewhat paradoxical answer arises: that is why they took it that he was not going to fight with anyone - there is some telepathic evidence that he “wanted”, but there is not a single evidence that he did at least step. Already on March 9, in his speech at the funeral ceremony, he spoke of the "steel unity of leadership" and did nothing to undermine this unity. Beria was in the mood for normal work, and even before his death, he probably did not have time to understand - what did he do wrong?

The next, at least according to Avtorkhanov, who collected all the gossip of European boulevards, Khrushchev himself voiced this version. “Khrushchev told his foreign interlocutors, especially the communists, how Beria was arrested and killed. Khrushchev’s direct physical killers of Beria in different versions of the story are different people, but the plot of the story remains the same ... ”(The following is a story about the meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee, about the trap set up by Beria, about his arrest - this plot is quite well known. - E. P.). “Now,” Khrushchev said, “we are faced with a difficult, equally unpleasant dilemma: keep Beria in custody and conduct a normal investigation, or shoot him right there, and then issue a death sentence in court. It was dangerous to make the first decision, because Beria was backed by the entire apparatus of the Chekists and the Chekist troops, and he could easily be released. We had no legal grounds to make the second decision and immediately shoot Beria (and what, can there be legal grounds for execution without trial or investigation in peacetime? - E.P.) After a comprehensive discussion of the pros and cons of both options, we came to the conclusion: Beria must be shot immediately, because no one will rebel because of the dead Beria. The executor of this sentence (in the next room) in Khrushchev's stories is once General Moskalenko, another time Mikoyan, and the third time even Khrushchev himself. Khrushchev emphatically added: "Our further investigation of the Beria case fully confirmed that we correctly shot him."

What was this investigation and what was this case? What was Beria accused of? He was tried under Articles 58 1b (espionage, disclosure of military or state secrets, going over to the side of the enemy), 588 (commission of terrorist acts), 5811 (participation in an organization), 58 "3 (active struggle against the working class under the tsarist regime or among counter-revolutionary governments) and for the rape of a colossal number of women, which is most savored in this case. The list of accusations itself shows that the case was molded according to the recipes of 1937. This topic is also discussed in detail, on many pages by Mukhin, and I again refer all those interested in the details to But even without that it is clear that since Beria was killed, then it was necessary to substantiate it somehow, and the investigative-judicial system (not only ours, but any one) can, with a certain order, substantiate anything. the arrested person is no longer alive and it does not matter to him what will be the basis of the sentence already carried out.

But we will search in vain in these paragraphs for the answer to the most important question.

SO WHY DID LAVRENTY BERIA BE KILLED?

One thing is clear: if the party elite went to murder, somehow this person was very dangerous to her. And not with terrible plans to throw her off her accustomed throne - Beria made it clear that he was not going to do this. Of course, he was potentially dangerous - but we don't get killed for that. At least that's not how they kill, openly and frankly. The normal Soviet move in the struggle for power was worked out as early as 1937 - to move, remove, and then arrest and falsify the case in the usual manner. By the way, this openness and frankness also contains a mystery - after all, it was possible to wait and remove it quietly and imperceptibly. Looks like the killers were in a hurry...

So there was no "we". Beria was first killed, and then the Presidium was confronted with a fact, and he had to get out, covering up the killers. But who exactly?

And here it is very easy to guess. Firstly, it is easy to calculate the number of the second - the performer. The fact is that - and no one denies this - that day the army was widely involved in the events. In the incident with Beria, as Khrushchev himself admits, the air defense commander of the Moscow Military District, Colonel General Moskalenko and the Air Force Chief of Staff, Major General Batitsky, were directly involved, and Marshal Zhukov himself does not seem to refuse. But, more importantly, for some reason, apparently, to stage the fight against "parts of Beria", troops were brought into the capital. And then a very important name comes up - a person who could ensure contact with the military and the participation of the army in the events - Minister of Defense Bulganin.

Bulganin and Khrushchev - somewhere we have already met this combination. Where? Yes, at Stalin's dacha, on that fateful Sunday, March 1, 1953.

COMPROMATIVE?

There is one mystery in the events that took place after Stalin's death - the fate of his papers. The archive of Stalin as such does not exist - all his documents are gone. On March 7, some special group, according to Svetlana, “on the orders of Beria” (but this is not a fact) removed all the furniture from the Near Dacha. Later, the furniture was returned to the dacha, but without papers. All the documents from the Kremlin office and even from the leader's safe have also disappeared. Where they are and what happened to them is still unknown.

Naturally, it is believed that Beria, as the super-powerful chief of the special services, took possession of the archives, especially since the guards were subordinate to the MGB department. Yes, but the guards were subordinate to state security while the guarded was alive. Interestingly, to whom was the Kuntsevo dacha subordinated after Stalin's death? Also the department of the Ministry of State Security or, perhaps, this empty shell was disposed of by some government AHO - the administrative and economic department? According to another version, the entire elite of that time took part in the seizure of the archive, preoccupied with the liquidation of the dossiers that Stalin collected on them. Beria, of course, was also afraid that compromising information on him, located in these archives, would be made public. It is also hard to believe - with so many accomplices, someone for so many years would certainly let it slip.

Who knew nothing about the fate of the archive, so it is Malenkov. Why - more on that later. There are two options left: either Khrushchev or Beria. If we assume that the archive fell into the hands of Khrushchev, then his fate, most likely, is sad. There could have been a lot of compromising evidence on Nikita Sergeevich - one participation in Yezhov's repressions was worth something! Neither he nor his associates had time to look for all these “dossiers” among the mountains of papers, it was easier to burn everything in bulk. But if Beria was the first to succeed, then here the situation is completely different. He had nothing to be afraid of some mysterious "documents" in the Stalinist archive, which, if made public, could ruin him - there was hardly anything on him, even if by the efforts of the entire jurisprudence of the USSR, despite the fact that it was very necessary, they could not dig up material for one more or less decent shooting case. But he was vitally interested in compromising evidence on Stalin's former associates, and for future possible occasions, and to ensure his own security.

“Maybe you can help with something else? - he said it in a very human way. - Have you heard anything about the personal archives of Joseph Vissarionovich?

I have no idea, I answer. “We never talked about it at home.

Well, how about ... Your father also had archives, didn't he?

I don't know either, never heard of it.

How did you not hear?! - here Malenkov could not restrain himself. - He must have archives, must!

He's obviously very upset."

That is, not only the archives of Stalin disappeared, but also the archives of Beria, and Malenkov knew nothing about their fate. Of course, theoretically, Khrushchev could have seized and liquidated them, but to do it in such a way that no one saw, heard or recognized anything? Doubtful. The archives of Stalin were still all right, but it was completely impossible to secretly destroy the archives of Beria. Yes, and Khrushchev was not such a person to carry out such an operation and not spill the beans.

But this is the motive! Because of this, Beria really could have been killed, moreover, they should have been killed, and exactly the way it was done. For there was nothing to arrest him for, and because of the dead Beria, as Khrushchev rightly noted, hardly anyone would raise a fuss: what's done is done, you can't return the dead. Especially if you imagine everything as if he offered armed resistance during the arrest. Well, then let propaganda work to present him as a monster and a supervillain, so that grateful descendants can say: "It could be a crime, but it was not a mistake."

HOW MONSTERS ARE MADE

We quote. Recalls retired colonel A. Skorokhodov:

“In November 1953 ... one evening they called from the Camp Collection Headquarters: “Come as soon as possible, you will get acquainted with one curious document.” The next day it was snowing, a blizzard was blowing. Flights, and therefore training, were cancelled. I went to the camp, to the chief of staff. He opened his safe and pulled out a thin book in a soft gray cover. A list was attached to the book with a paper clip. Finding my last name in it, the major put a tick next to it and handed me a book:

In the middle of the page it was written in large: “The indictment in the case of Beria under Art. Art. Code of Criminal Procedure ... "- and there was a listing of articles that I, of course, did not remember. So that's it! A state of feverish excitement seized me. Now, again, I don’t remember the whole text, but the main sections remained in my memory.

Illegal persecution and execution of Sergo Ordzhonikidze's relatives and the endless dirty adventures of the corrupt marshal of state security. Violence, drugs, deceit. Use of a high official position. Among his victims are students, girls, wives taken away from their husbands, and husbands shot because of their wives...

I read without stopping, without interruptions and reflections. First, in one gulp, then more slowly, dumbfounded, in disbelief, rereading individual passages. Nothing could be recorded. He left the room, gave the book to the cheerful major, who winked:

Well, what is Lavrenty Pavlovich like?

I plunged into a garbage pit, - I answered. At the same time, a mechanism for the future compromise of Stalin was worked out on Beria. "Closed" information, which was distributed along the party line, according to closed lists. One-time reading, with a ban on making notes - so that it was impossible to return to what was read, think and compare. And, finally, a win-win emotional move, shock therapy - to throw into the then puritanical society a story about the sexual exploits of the Minister of State Security. Especially here the raped schoolgirls looked good. After all, after so many years, what remains in the memory of Lieutenant Colonel Skorokhodov? Relatives of Sergo Ordzhonikidze and sex, nothing more. The logic here is simple: even if Beria is not guilty of everything else, then for these women alone, he, the bastard, should have been shot twice. That is, if you call a spade a spade, dirty gossip was launched through party channels, which instantly spread throughout the country. The task was completed, the enemy was disgraced and destroyed. And among other things, the second murder of Beria served as a rehearsal for the second murder of Stalin, which took place three years later.

P.S. By the way, about women - otherwise they didn’t tell about the most interesting thing. Anyone who has ever been to court, flipped through a criminal case or watched a good detective story, knows perfectly well that the case materials clearly indicate where, when and under what circumstances the crime occurs. And if it is said that this happened at work, then at work, and if at the dacha, then it means at the dacha. Moreover, lawyers, in their meticulousness, specify in which room, at what time of day, etc. So, in the case of hundreds of raped ladies, schoolgirls, etc. were planned by him during his walks near his house ... Women were delivered to Beria’s apartment, as a rule, at night ... "And even Beria himself" showed "in court:" These women were brought to my house, I never did not go".

So it’s impossible to make a mistake, the case file clearly states: Beria’s house, Beria’s apartment. Everything would be fine, but the notorious mansion of the “corrupted marshal of state security” was a two-story house, where security and a communication point were located on the first floor, and on the second he lived with his family, occupying five rooms. And the family was like this: Beria himself, his wife, son, daughter-in-law and their two children (at the time of the arrest, the daughter-in-law was pregnant with her third child). At night, they were all, of course, at home. The son in his memoirs did not say a word about the sexual adventures of his father. Moreover, Beria's wife was not a Moscow emancipe of easy virtue, but a respectable Georgian. Anyone who knows Georgian women can imagine what will happen if a husband dares to come home with his mistress. Not otherwise, there was somewhere near the door an exit to the fifth dimension, where the people's commissar raped them. Because there's just nowhere...

I think that other charges, such as spying for the British or the intention to eliminate the leaders of the party and government, can no longer be discussed ...

P. P. S. From a letter from Beria to the members of the Politburo, written in conclusion: “Dear comrades. They want to deal with me without trial or investigation, after 5 days of imprisonment, without a single interrogation, I beg you all not to let this happen ... Once again I beg everyone, especially the comrades who worked with Lenin and Stalin, enriched with great experience and wise in solving complex cases of comrades Molotov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, Mikoyan. In the name of the memory of Lenin and Stalin, I beg you to intervene immediately, and you will all make sure that I am absolutely clean, honest, your faithful friend, comrade, loyal member of your party ...

And so on, a mixture of despair and fear, on the model of those letters that the “oppositionists” wrote before the execution. Does anyone really think that we do not know how to forge letters? He was not a fool, he was arrested at a meeting of the Politburo with the consent of all the same "dear comrades", he perfectly knew their price, knew where he was and what awaited him. Now take a look at Beria's photograph, take a close look: will this man, even under the threat of death, lick the boots of his executioners? Isn't this extra evidence that casts doubt on the authenticity of the whole picture?

P.P.P.S. By the way, do you remember three strange letters from Basil Stalin from prison? A statement, a letter to Khrushchev and a letter condemning the “anti-party group”, which are very similar to fakes? With the second, everything is clear right away: the low-worshiping panegyric to Khrushchev, written by Stalin's son in the style of the worst of the district party newspapers, was supposed to warm the heart of Nikita Sergeevich and, on occasion, could come in handy. You never know, publish it or leave it for history, so that posterity knows how great he was ... But with the other two letters, everything is much more interesting. By genre, they are "a novel within a novel." The author of the letter seems to be talking about one thing, and then, using some small pretext in the text, he suddenly begins to verbosely and confusedly water Beria, so verbosely and with such hatred that one gets the feeling that the letters themselves were written for this only purpose. Here, they say, Stalin's children also hate Beria - and they already know something ... And they overdid it again. The fact that Vasily could not stand Beria can be allowed - what if there is something there that we don’t know, but to believe in his ardent love for Khrushchev and in cordial solidarity with the party squabble - thank you ...

To provide financial support for yourself and your family, it is important to find a good job with high wages. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Employers put forward a lot of requirements for candidates, carefully study resumes and select specialists with the appropriate education. Not everyone was able to get a crust due to various life circumstances. But there is a great way out - to buy a diploma. It will be quite inexpensive.

When do you need to buy a diploma?

Every modern person at least once visited the idea of the importance of obtaining a specialty. This can be done by enrolling in a university for full-time or distance learning. Unfortunately, this is a long and expensive option that not everyone can afford. It is much faster and easier to buy a diploma in Moscow. Fears can hinder the adoption of such a decision:

fear that someone will find out that the diploma has been bought;
to be left without money and the ordered document.

To acquire a specialist diploma without any risks, including financial ones, it is necessary to choose a reliable company. Only a fake can have a very low price. In this important matter, you should not save and make purchases in dubious places, because your well-being is at stake.

Buy a diploma in Moscow on favorable terms

Buying a diploma in Moscow in our company, you can:

save a round amount that is needed for training;
spend several years of your life usefully, and not for study;
save your nerves, as the educational process requires a lot of strength and energy.

This educational document on graduation from the university will certainly provide the following benefits:

a chance to find a good position with a high salary;
the opportunity to acquire several diplomas with different professions, which will speed up the job search;
respect of colleagues, due to the presence of a master's degree from a prestigious university;
career;
the possibility of changing the field of activity when the received profession has ceased to be relevant.

You can buy a university diploma on favorable terms in our company. We offer the most favorable terms of cooperation and the following advantages:

prices are lower than other companies;
production on the original Goznak letterhead;
convenient delivery to any region of Russia;
work without prepayment;
execution of the order in the minimum time;
permanent deletion of information about the client after the transaction.

The company's specialists will produce any document on an official letterhead to order. You can choose not only the desired educational institution and specialty, but also the desired grades in the application. A red diploma of a bachelor, specialist or master is also not a problem. It is in our company that you can get a cheap diploma in Moscow with a quality guarantee.

Latest reviews

Everything is fine, thanks for the diploma!

I want to thank the representatives of your company for the opportunity to buy a diploma of a second higher education. I started to study at the university, but the birth of my second child forced me to leave him. Now I have such a coveted diploma, when the baby grows up, I can get a job in my favorite specialty. Thanks a lot!

Stanislav

The simplicity of buying a certificate just captivated me. I thought that I would have to fill out documents for a long and tedious time, but it turned out that everything about everything takes literally five minutes. This is a well-designed and thoughtful site, it is very easy to use. Now I'm looking forward to my testimony.

How to quickly order a diploma in Moscow

Sale of state-recognised documentation is our specialty. Ordering a diploma with delivery is not difficult. To do this, you need to follow a few simple steps:

Carefully fill out the form on the main page of the site.
Answer manager's questions over the phone.
Check the layout of the documentation (will be sent to the specified email address).
Make corrections or send confirmation of the correctness of filling in the data.
Check the order upon receipt, pay for services.

Buying an institute diploma has never been so easy, and most importantly - safe. Our company has vast experience in the production of the highest quality documentation. In the "Reviews" section, you can read the comments of people who used our services and were able to arrange their lives. Delivery of documentation is carried out by courier in Moscow on the day of printing the document. In other regions, the order is sent by a convenient postal service with cash on delivery. Within a few days you will receive the desired document on a genuine form that cannot be distinguished from the original. The diploma will have all the important levels of protection, seal and signature. It can also be tested under ultraviolet light. No one will ever doubt the originality of your document.

What our employees do

Not everyone has a desire to serve in the armed forces, and if you have already reached the age of 40, then there is simply no time for this. In this case, our company comes to the rescue. We are engaged in the sale of state documents. You can buy a diploma and get a coveted job with a highly paid position. Previously, it was difficult to imagine such a simple solution to the problem. And today you will receive documents from the military registration and enlistment office, registry office, university or any other institution in a short time. We will help you with this.

The new document will give you the opportunity to:

avoid paperwork and wasting time in queues;
in case of loss of a diploma, a guaranteed quick restoration of it;
replacing grades with higher ones;
getting a decent job;
confirmation of relevant qualifications;
change your specialization; get a student visa to another country without any problems;
receive a deferment or exemption from conscription.

In Moscow, there are enough educational institutions with the passage of a military department. You have a unique opportunity to get both a military specialty and a civilian one, and all this without leaving your place of work. For our clients, we offer documents on the completion of secondary education, all kinds of certificates for work or at the place of study. If you entered a university, but there is absolutely no time to study, we will issue a certificate of attendance at sessions or immediately buy a diploma from your university and go about your business. We also issue marriage, birth or death certificates. Turning to us, you will be satisfied with the result!

Evaluation of information

New book "The Last Fight Lawrence Beria". Given with abbreviations. - You know .... In the thirty-fourth killed Kirov, and Stalin ... the case of Abakumov, "the famous letter Central Committee, where he is accused ... of a deputy minister. Who Exactly - it's easy to guess: who made a career...

About something completely different Lawrence Beria on the pages of our newspaper ... he even wrote Ordzhonikidze a desperate letter. “Dear Sergo! I ... more interesting is something else: why killed Beria? The day before, he returned from ... "case Beria". check something who will be? Nina Beria already many...

Portal for the student. Self-training

When do you need to buy a diploma?

Buy a diploma in Moscow on favorable terms

How to quickly order a diploma in Moscow

Evaluation of information

RELATED ARTICLES