What if Beria Had Succeeded Stalin?

Background

I recently re-read Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness– A Soviet Spymaster, the autobiography of General Pavel Sudoplatov, who was, inter alia, the brains behind such complex secret operations as the acquisition, in the 1940s, of atomic and nuclear technology from the USA and UK; he also oversaw such sanguinary plots as –and most notoriously– the assassination of Trotsky in Mexico in 1940.

I last read Sudoplatov’s book in 1994, the year of its first hardback publication. On first reading, I did not, perhaps, pay enough attention to the part of the book near the end, dealing with Beria and the Politburo in general after the death of Stalin in 1953.

It might be said that to examine the beliefs and intent of Beria is otiose now that 65 years have passed since his death by summary execution. Also, unsurprisingly, few tears have been shed for him since his death. He was in many ways monstrous: this article is of course limited in scope by reason of, inter alia, lack of space. Beria’s crimes of a political nature were on a vast scale. His more personal crimes were also many and included the regular abduction and rape of women and girls, including some young schoolgirls. Having said that, his swift “trial” (in secret and without defence representation) and the immediately-following execution was a purely political action ordered by those with political records in many ways as bad (Khrushchev, for one).

I start from the following premises:

  • that Western and/or Westernizing conspirators funded and oversaw the Bolshevik coup d’etat in October 1917 (old calendar);
  • that the same cabals set up the Soviet system in the 1920s as a quasi-religious movement (in style) which was atheist (in content);
  • that the quasi-religious character of Bolshevism slowly started to dissipate after the death of Lenin in January 1924, replaced at first by a pseudo-intellectual Marxism-Leninism (incorporating a personality-cult), then by a revival of “Holy Russia” and nationalistic propaganda (mixed with the foregoing) during the war of 1941-45. Finally, there came a late efflorescence of the Stalin personality cult mixed with pan-Slavism between 1945 and Stalin’s death in 1953;
  • that in the (significant number) 33 years from 1956 (the year of Khrushchev’s Secret Speech denouncing Stalinism as a personality cult etc) to 1989, Sovietism continued to decay ideologically, until it finally collapsed into a pile of dust.

Beria, ideologically

Beria was born in Merkheuli, near Sukhumi, which latter was a prosperous resort in late-Tsarist times. His family was not poor. It may be important that (in contradistinction to Russia), the Black Sea littoral was part of the Alexandrine Greek polity and, later, the Eastern Roman Empire. A more cosmopolitan milieu than that of Russia and one which existed for more than a thousand years prior to the first foundation of Kievan Rus.

That area, Abkhazia (geographically a part of Georgia, though historically distinct), was the location of the legendary Golden Fleece and is said to have been the birthplace of wine.

In the Soviet era, peasants were able to (in effect) own their own agricultural or horticultural plots of up to 0.5 hectare (about an acre or so). This was put into law in the mid-1930s. “Special districts” (particularly in Georgia) could have plots as large as 1 hectare (2.2 acres) officially and slightly more unofficially. By 1939, these small plots (only a few percent of the land area of the Soviet Union) produced at least 21% of all Soviet agricultural produce (and a far greater percentage of fruits etc). Some estimates from later times (the 1970s) put the real figure as high as 40%.

The “garden plots” or “household plots” had become important in Georgia/Abkhazia since the end of serfdom in 1865 (serfdom in some parts of the Russian Empire lasted for some years after the formal abolition of 1861).

Beria (b.1899) thus grew up in a milieu quite different from his later Russian and Ukrainian colleagues.

Beria was, as a youth, involved, when a student in Baku (again, a very “capitalist” and cosmopolitan city which, after a long history, had boomed pre-1914 by reason of the oil finds), with both the Bolsheviks and the Azeri anti-Bolshevik Musavat movement, which had Muslim, Turkic and general reformist roots and ideology.

It has been alleged against Beria that he had been involved with British Intelligence in Baku in or around 1919. Not impossible. Baku was of huge strategic importance during the First World War.

Likewise, at his drumhead trial in 1953, it was alleged that Beria favoured soft relations with National Socialist Germany or was even a “traitor” who helped Germany militarily and diplomatically (see the Wikipedia article, below).

Anthroposophy and other Germanic cultural connections

Beria was friendly toward the writer Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, who was educated partly at Berlin University (graduating in 1918) and spent the war years 1914-1918 in Germany and Switzerland as well as France. Gamsakhurdia may well have met Rudolf Steiner (d.1925) at that time, when Steiner was constructing the First Goetheanum (at Dornach, near Basel, Switzerland).

In the 1920s, Konstantine Gamsakhurdia was for 3-4 years a political prisoner in the Solovki concentration camp on the Solovetsky Islands. He would almost certainly not have survived the purges of the 1930s without Beria’s protection.

The son of Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, became President of Georgia in the first democratic elections following Soviet rule. He is generally considered to have been an Anthroposophist, and wrote, among other works, Goethe’s Weltanschauung from the Anthroposophic Point of View [pub. Tbilisi 1985].

Beria’s Preferred Policies

Beria was not an idealist, but a practitioner of Realpolitik, par excellence. This enabled him not only to implement Stalin’s repressions without conscience, but also to see the aspects of Soviet life that were not working.

Had Beria succeeded Stalin,

  • he would have brought back a large measure of private ownership, or at least operational ownership, into agriculture. That would have hugely improved Soviet agriculture, whereas Khrushchev’s Virgin Lands scheme was mainly an expensive and ecologically-negative failure;
  • because Beria was not an ideologue, he would have had no qualms in ending the Cold War early. He would have been, to cite Mrs Thatcher’s view of Gorbachev, someone “with whom the West could do business.” That might have meant no Vietnam War, no Soviet support for so-called “Liberation” movements in Africa, no Cuban Missile Crisis, no Berlin Wall;
  • while Beria would certainly have ruthlessly stamped down on domestic political opposition, he would not have repeated Stalin’s mistaken policy (implemented partly by Beria himself) of arresting millions of people for effectively no reason;
  • Beria would have (as Sudoplatov notes) allowed the non-Russian republics a greater degree of independence, thus creating an earlier and more feasible “Commonwealth of Independent States” [CIS], albeit that they would not be “states” but autonomous or semi-autonomous republics.
  • Beria would have concentrated the KGB (its later name) and GRU on useful intelligence gathering and not on playing spy games and fomenting pseudo-Marxist revolts in Africa, Latin America etc.

Conclusion

While it might stick in the craw of many to conclude that Beria would have made a far better ruler of Russia than uneducated Khrushchev with his half-baked huge projects and his bang-shoe-on-table style of diplomacy, the facts speak for themselves.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhumi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_plot#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musavat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goetheanum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solovki_prison_camp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solovetsky_Islands

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantine_Gamsakhurdia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Lands_Campaign

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria

Literary Note

A British scribbler, one Alex Marshall (formerly of The Guardian, now at time of writing apparently “Europe Culture Editor” for The New York Times) wrote a book called The Caucasus Under Soviet Rule, in which he wrote that “Personally propagating a bizarre Rudolph Steiner-inspired cult of anthroposophy, [Zviad] Gamsakhurdia…[etc]”.

Poorly written, for a start: “Anthroposophy” requires upper-case “A”, just like, say, “Roman Catholicism”. Marshall spells Rudolf Steiner, “Rudolph”, just as those who make fun of Hitler often write his name “Adolph” in petty denigration; also, “a bizarre” should be (if written at all) “the bizarre”.

Marshall’s words sound like a polemic against Anthroposophy, that movement which has achieved so much (though that fact is still not well-known to the masses in the Anglophone countries). To write off Anthroposophy as “a bizarre cult” is itself bizarre: think biodynamic agriculture, Waldorf [Rudolf Steiner] education etc.

I note that Marshall’s book, at least according to some reviewers, contains a number of other factual errors.

In fact, Shevardnadze, who overthrew Zviad Gamsakhurdia, was a ruthless “ex”-Soviet apparatchik who reintroduced large-scale repression into already-chaotic Georgian political life. He was the preferred candidate of the New World Order, completely under the “Western” thumb. I myself was slightly acquainted at one time (c.1995) with one of Shevardnadze’s advisers, who –like me– was on the Committee of the Central Asia and Transcaucasia Law Association [CATLA], a body active in the 1990s and which was supported by the British Government and large London-based law firms with interests in those regions.

http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi/ContBorders/eng/ch0201.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Shevardnadze

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zviad_Gamsakhurdia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner

Update, 24 November 2018

I have located my copy of the book Beria, by Sergio Beria (Lavrenty Beria’s son), so may add to this blog post when I have reread the book.

Corbyn is Set For No.10

Preamble

  • I am not, nor have I ever been, a member, supporter or voter for the Labour Party;
  • No feelings (of any importance) were hurt in the creation of this blog post

Background

The latest opinion polls have Labour at around 40%, with the Conservative Party at a couple of points ahead, perhaps only one point. This is remarkable, after a year (in fact three years) in which Labour has been pretty much demonized. The Jewish-Zionist element in the Press, on TV and radio, on social media too, has attacked Jeremy Corbyn and Labour nonstop, with a constant whine about “anti-Semitism” and other aspects of Corbyn’s and others’ supposed beliefs or behaviours.

At the same time, many Labour MPs, perhaps the majority, have tried on several occasions to unseat Corbyn and to install a Labour leader who is more acceptable to the Jewish-Zionist lobby. So active have been some “Labour”-label MPs in plotting against Corbyn that newspapers discovered that they rented a regular “safe house” in the countryside where they could conspire in secret.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-critic-mps-hold-13043018

https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-labour-mps-plot-coup-against-corbyn-over-anti-semitism-row/

I have previously blogged about how it seemed “destined” for Corbyn and the anti-Zionists to take over Labour: how Corbyn was only able to be on the ballot paper the first time because several MPs who had no intention of voting for him yet nominated him! Even so, Corbyn only got the exact number of nominations he required (plus his own vote). That exactitude speaks to me of supernatural intervention (see my own similar experience of 1978 below this blog post).

Why is it necessary for Corbyn to lead Labour? Why would a Corbyn premiership be a good thing?

Until Corbyn took over as Labour leader, the Jewish-Zionist element controlled both main System parties in the UK. Now, “they” control only one, whereas Labour is fitfully breaking free (though its leaders still feel the need to offer lip-service to the “holocaust” narrative etc).

The best aspect of Corbyn leading Labour is that hundreds of thousands of recent Labour members and supporters now exist, many of whom have been radicalized, not so much by Corbyn or Labour as such, but by the fact that they now see through the Zionist influence and power working against and inside Labour (ex-Israel propaganda employee Ruth Smeeth MP, Jess Phillips MP, disgraced alleged sex pest John Woodcock MP, John Mann MP, Chuka Umunna MP etc). Those Labour supporters have in many cases been radicalized, ironically, by the sheer hate-filled dishonesty of the Zionist fanatics themselves. Those hundreds of thousands are not, and are not yet ready to go, overtly social-nationalist, but they have cast off most of the shackles of Zionist mind-control and that is very significant for the future.

A Corbyn-Labour government would take the whole UK politico-social matrix to the brink. Power would be cast into the hazard, and that can only be good for those of us sacrificing, thinking and fighting for the future in the as yet shadowy ranks of social nationalism.

Labour’s Chances

In 2022, boundary changes will reduce presently Labour seats by about 30. Only a few Conservative MPs will be affected (and the LibDems will be all but wiped out). Labour may struggle if 2022 is the date of the next General Election. However, there is every chance of a General Election in 2019, just as the possibly chaotic Brexit events are occurring. The economy is about to tank. Big investors are pulling out of the UK. London properties in the highest priced categories are not selling. Huge numbers of families are going to be hit even harder shortly by reason of the implementation of the botched Iain Dunce Duncan Smith “Universal Credit” “reform”. All of that plays to Labour’s advantage.

Against the above, all that the Conservative Party has in its quiver is yet more lip-service about controlling mass immigration (which the “Conservatives” have failed to do in 8 years; words are cheap…) and negative public relations about Corbyn, Labour etc. My assessment is that even the existence of Diane Abbott and other ethnic minority deadheads as potential Cabinet ministers (!) may not be enough to win over for the Conservative Party the floating voters in marginal seats, and they are the ones that count.

My conclusion is that, albeit probably on a minority-government basis, Labour will be in power and Corbyn in Downing Street before 2022 and quite likely by mid-2019.

Final Word

In the blog post above, I promised to give an example of when I myself was the subject of what might be called “Divine intervention”. I could give a number of examples, but here is one: after returning from Rhodesia in 1977, and doing some part-time or short-term jobs in the UK for a year or so, I conceived the idea in January 1979 of visiting a mountain in the far West of Ireland, on the Dingle Peninsula (then not the tourist destination that I believe it now is). I had no money at all, really, and the First Class rail and ship ticket would be £126 in the money of the time. At that moment, I received a tax refund, from work done at least 2 years previously, of exactly £126! I had not applied for any refund. Makes you think…

Update, 19 January 2022

Well, I was right about a general election in 2019, but wrong about the result of the General Election of 2019. I had, perhaps, underestimated the influence of Britain’s basically Jewish-controlled msm on the mass of the voters. Also, the msm was constantly puffing stupid “Boris” Johnson as a dynamic and charismatic “prime minister in waiting”.

We know that happened from there. “Boris” won that election, and has been pretty disastrous. Meanwhile, Labour was retaken by the Israel lobby under puppet Labour leader Keir Starmer.

Final note: those proposed boundary changes have been scrapped.