Beria and the Beautiful Game(beyondthelastman.com)
beyondthelastman.com
Beria and the Beautiful Game
https://beyondthelastman.com/2019/11/14/death-despots-dinamo-beria-the-beautiful-game/
34 comments
Beria was a serial killer and rapist of young girls as well... strange that this wouldn't be mentioned in passing.
It's alluded to:
> ... who would miss the odd petty official or jealous husband who stood in his way?
> ... who would miss the odd petty official or jealous husband who stood in his way?
Wow. Under "Arrest, trial and execution": He was found guilty of treason, terrorism and "counter-revolutionary activity" but not for his numerous other depraved crimes against individuals?
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.
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.
I think its fair to say that at that time concern for actual guilt or actual crimes wasn't a major factor in the Soviet 'justice' system.
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'.
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'.
Two aspects here.
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.
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.
> The system really did not care that much about crimes against individuals, no matter how depraved
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.
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.
That's how Soviet "justice" worked. He was a powerful member of the leadership, so he could only be taken down by accusing him of being a counter-revolutionary. As to crimes against individuals, or humanity? Pfft, to Stalin and his cohorts there's no such thing when the crimes are to further the revolution.
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.
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.
> He was found guilty of treason, terrorism and "counter-revolutionary activity" but not for his numerous other depraved crimes against individuals?
The point of the trial wasn't to deliver justice but to eliminate Beria. Khrushchev had to consolidate power first.
The point of the trial wasn't to deliver justice but to eliminate Beria. Khrushchev had to consolidate power first.
The hypocrisy was obvious at that time, and Khrushchev had to redirect the country to keep it together.
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]
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]
It's ironic, but these days such a totalitarian leader wouldn't need to ask. There'd be a recording showing who the culprit was. So there's even more incentive these days to stay silent about one's non-conformist opinions.
My 'favourite' Khrushchev story was he apparently got drunk with the British ambassador and the latter gamely try to argue down the number of H-bombs it would take to destroy the UK whereas Khrushchev was arguing the number up.
In case anyone is interested - the actual number the UK government estimated it would take was 3, the Soviets targetted many hundreds of them.
In case anyone is interested - the actual number the UK government estimated it would take was 3, the Soviets targetted many hundreds of them.
One takes out 20% of England's population, if it's London.
I believe the UK estimates were based on the damage required before complete societal breakdown happens rather than simple headcount of immediate casualties. The UK government always was rather realistic about what would happen in the event of a 'general war', even if they didn't make that information widely known.
Speaking of the effects of a nuclear weapon on London, here is an excellent BBC documentary from the early 1980s on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJttnC8PoA
In best British tradition it does even manage a bit of exceedingly dark humour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJttnC8PoA
In best British tradition it does even manage a bit of exceedingly dark humour.
The director, Mick Jackson, later made Threads [1], which is one of the bleakest, most depressing films ever made. Highly recommended, though not for the easily disturbed. It's filmed like a documentary, not too different from A Guide To Armageddon.
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.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)
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.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)
Also Threads, from the same era, incredibly bleak depiction of British society in the aftermath of a nuclear attack.
https://youtu.be/vgT4Y30DkaA
(For those who haven't seen it, it is grim, but gripping.)
https://youtu.be/vgT4Y30DkaA
(For those who haven't seen it, it is grim, but gripping.)
I only knew he wasn’t a good guy (was it possible in Stalin’s circle?), but this guy was just evil:
>”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...
>”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...
> but this guy was just evil:
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_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Yezhov
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_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Yezhov
In terms of hands on evil in the Soviet regime I think I'd nominate Vasily Blokhin as one of the worst - during the Katyn massacre he personally executed 7,000 over 28 nights, one after the other:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Blokhin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Blokhin
That harks to the three kingdoms period where captured armies and populations were slain on the spot day and night day after day.
It’s reflected in their census figures: 56MM before the conflict period, 16MM after the conflict.
It’s reflected in their census figures: 56MM before the conflict period, 16MM after the conflict.
This is an often-popularized figure that the evidence doesn't really support (as much as I enjoyed Pinker's Better Angels, it bears a lot of the blame here). The "after" number is net of the loss of territory representing a quarter of the empire's territory, coincident with the breakdown of the census system, and post-removal of certain classes of people from being counted in the census. It's not a good proxy for lives lost during the course of the Rebellion. On top of that, the armies involved added up to a million people total, a tiny fraction of China's total population. As is almost always the case with large wars historically, the majority of deaths came from famine and disease caused by upheaval.
Surely the numbers are off but I think they are indicative and point to the utter ruthless methodical approach to decimation.
One scene from a Chinese movie is etched into my mind. One of the executioners complains he can’t kill anymore because his blade had become too dull.
Spoiler alert on Beria
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjT2FhubAf0
Anyone interested in this would do well to watch Burnt by the Sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnt_by_the_Sun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnt_by_the_Sun
Lavrentiy Beria was in deed the name that came into my mind reading this headline. Interesting to see an article about that mass murderer here. One consolation is that this scoundrel died of his own medicine.
Indeed, the Stalinist system ate its own enablers. Not just Beria, but his predecessors Yezhov and Yagoda were monsters in their own right.
I think I read that Khrushchev wrote that the thing he was most proud of was that after he was done officials in disfavor were merely demoted and sent away rather than murdered.
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.
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.
If you enjoyed this you'll likely enjoy the masterpiece which is Death of Stalin.
I pictured Steve Buscemi viscerally when I read the story upthread about Kruschev. I sure hope Death of Stalin is a reasonably accurate pastiche of those figures because it's my main impression of them.
The timeline is compressed and key characters in the drama are shuffled in jobs and time for dramatic effect. It is almost as if adapted from a stage play, very much about the egos in the room. It has been critizised for ignoring the systematic banality of mass murder, but I think that misses the point of the movie.
Slightly OT, but you can get a very good impression of what it was like to live in Stalin's Soviet Union from the Julian Barnes book "The Noise of Time", his autobiography of Dimitry Shostakovitch who lived a precarious life at times.
This just makes me think more about what is going on in China and HK.