Terrible secrets: Lavrenty Beria. Beria's case in the light of recently declassified documents Beria's archive
January 1955 marked the beginning of the "black" mythologization 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 in “Soviet encyclopedic dictionary”Soon they even stopped mentioning his name. Although in the famous Khrushchev report on the personality cult of STALIN it It was named 61 times together with the name of the leader. Many researchers were convinced: Nikita Sergeevich not only slandered prominent statesmen, but also contributed to their mortification. But they could not scientifically prove their versions. Recently opened archival materials allowed historian Alexander DUGIN for the first time to documentary expose Khrushchev's lies.
- Alexander Nikolaevich, what new have you found in the archive?
- I went to the Russian State Archive of Social and 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 leaders of the country from Stalin to Yeltsin. He wrote Khrushchev's foreign policy speeches. And in 2011 he risked publicly declaring that Khrushchev, wishing to seize archival documents about his participation in the repressions, ordered the creation of a group of 200 special employees not only to seize original documents, but also to make forgeries. Secondly, I discovered these fakes in the "Beria case" and realized that among the falsifiers there were also 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 Criminal Procedure Code, there should be photographs of the defendants in the case, their fingerprints, and confrontation protocols. But in the materials There is not a single photograph of him, not a single fingerprint, not a single protocol of confrontations with any of his accomplices in the Beria case.
In addition, there is not a single signature of Beria himself on the interrogation protocols, and not 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 Yuryeva, Major of the Administrative Service. And on many of the interrogation protocols of Beria, there are no obligatory clerical "marks": the initials of the typist, the number of printed copies, the recipients of the mailing list, etc. But all of the above is only outward signs fakes.
- And there were internal signs of forgery?
- Sure. One of the handwritten "originals" of Beria's letters, allegedly written when he was already under arrest, bears the date "May 28, 1953," literally screaming "don't 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 to Comrade Malenkov." In it, Beria speaks of his dedication to the cause of the party and asks his comrades-in-arms - Malenkov, Molotov, Voroshilov, Khrushchev, Kaganovich, Bulganin and Mikoyan: "Let them forgive if something went wrong during these fifteen years of great and intense joint work."
And he wishes them great success in the struggle for the cause of Lenin - Stalin. In tonality, it resembles a note to fellow colleagues written by a person who is going on vacation or who has decided 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 great criticism at the Presidium I would draw all the conclusions I needed for myself and would 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 Stalin's death Beria was 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 were suddenly voiced, as you know, took place on June 29, 1953. That is, the next day AFTER this letter from Beria from the cell.
- You are almost speechless because of the date?
- Yes. If the letter were genuine, it would sweep aside 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 it is Malaya Nikitskaya.
- Who was killed?
- A special group sent to Lavrenty Pavlovich by order of Khrushchev by the first deputy of Beria for the Ministry of State Security Sergei Kruglov. Lieutenant General Andrey Vedenin, the former commander of the rifle corps, who became commandant of the Kremlin in September 1953, told how his unit received the order to carry out Operation Mansion to eliminate Beria. And how he did it. Then the body 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 "confrontation" the Khrushchevites could, without fear, at the Central Committee Plenum on July 2-7, 1953, accuse Beria of all mortal sins. Win five months to clean up the archives to destroy the traces of your crimes.
And to 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 a court decision. And with Beria alive, Khrushchev could not hide the poisoning of Stalin and his complicity in this crime, which I have already described in detail. Let me remind you, in my opinion, that two people were most interested in this double murder - first Stalin, then Beria. 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 should have already considered 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 Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks for checking the party organs and who carried out all the repression against the leadership of the party and the state. In case of failure of his ward, Khrushchev, too, would have thundered to the fanfare. At 22.30 pm on March 1, Stalin was found unconscious on the floor. After his death, Beria analyzed Stalin's archive and, studying the history of his illness, he could have suspected the named couple.
There was a double in prison.
- 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, Dikumarin was 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 today aspirin. 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. It cost nothing for the NKVD-NKGB-MGB laboratories to make tablets with an increased dosage and put them in a regular package. After all, Ignatiev himself supervised Stalin's personal guard.
- But someone should have seen Beria alive in the cell to confirm the version that he was in prison for five months, awaiting execution?
- He had several doubles. And, mind you, the funds of Molotov, Zhdanov and a number of other addressees of Beria's "letters" are in the public domain, but there are still no funds for Khrushchev and Beria. And in the official collection "Politburo and the Beria case" there is not a single fact confirmed by documents 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 to the counterintelligence censorship department on the instructions of the Azerbaijani Communist Party. It was requested from Stalin's archives for the last time in July 1953, when the "Beria case" was fabricated. But for obvious reasons he was not involved in it.
The body was poured with concrete.
- Are you convinced that the "letters from the camera" are fake?
- Yes sir. I took them for an independent handwriting examination. The original handwriting of Beria helped me to find the chief specialist of RGASPI Mikhail Strakhov. 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 the experts, the samples I submitted 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 MGB, he was looking for an answer to the question of the true causes of Stalin's death. Had he remained alive, there would have been no talk of any revelations of the personality cult of Joseph Vissarionovich at the height of the Cold War. And in 1961, when Norwegian biochemists analyzed Napoleon's hair at the request of the French government and found out that he had been poisoned with arsenic, no one would have urgently convened an extraordinary congress of the CPSU. And he did not raise the unexpected question of removing Stalin's body from the Mausoleum and concreting it. Khrushchev covered his tracks!
- Why do you care so deeply about this whole story?
- I decided to do this, because I cannot calmly watch how the heroes of "Freakopedia" like Rezun-Suvorov and Radzinsky try to erase from human memory all the positive moments of Soviet history, painting it only in dirty tones. And a person, especially a young man, 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 exposed as cattle.
The execution of the "bloody" Stalinist People's Commissar was staged 65 years ago. Khrushchev and Malenkov hid their former comrade-in-arms in South America, researchers say.
According to the official version, Lavrenty Beria was arrested on June 26, 1953 in the Kremlin, and in the same year on December 23, by a court sentence, he was shot in an underground bunker in the courtyard of the headquarters of the Moscow Military District.
However, there is a lot of dark in this story. There is a document about Beria's death. It is signed by three officials- Colonel General Batitsky, USSR Prosecutor General Rudenko and Army General Moskalenko. The document has the title: “Act. 1953, December 23 days ".
The document does not raise doubts about its authenticity, unless, of course, it is compared with other, similar documents. Now such an opportunity has appeared. And, as the archives testify, the official data of those years too often diverge from reality. Therefore, the attention of historians is attracted by other versions of the fate of Beria, living in the form of rumors. Two of them are particularly sensational.
The first assumes that Beria somehow managed to avoid the trap prepared against him during the conspiracy of his former comrades-in-arms, or even escape from the arrest that had already happened and hide in Latin America. And in this way he was able to stay alive.
The second rumor says that when Beria was arrested, the marshal and his guards resisted and were killed. They even name the author of the fatal shot, namely Khrushchev. There are those who say that the pre-trial execution took place in the already mentioned bunker almost immediately after Beria's arrest in the Kremlin.
Which of these versions to believe? Especially in light of the fact that no one has ever seen Beria's ashes, and no one knows where he is buried. Not so long ago, two versions were confirmed at once that Beria still survived.
Marshal's Trap
As noted by the famous researcher of Soviet history Nikolai Zenkovich, Khrushchev liked to tell his foreign interlocutors how the action against Beria was carried out. The plot, with some changes, is basically the same.
According to one of Khrushchev's stories, the end of Beria was like this. Khrushchev first convinced G.M. Malenkov and N.A.Bulganin, and then the other members of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, that if Beria was not liquidated in June 1953, he would send all members of the Presidium to prison. So everyone probably thought, although everyone was afraid to say it out loud. Khrushchev was not afraid. Only the technique of carrying out the operation against Beria was difficult. The normal procedure - an open discussion of the accusation against the marshal in the Presidium of the Central Committee or at the plenum of the party - was no longer valid. There was a danger that as soon as Beria learned about the charges against him, he would immediately carry out a coup d'etat and shoot all his rival comrades-in-arms. According to one, very widespread, version, Beria intended to arrest the entire Presidium of the Central Committee at the Bolshoi Theater, at the premiere of Yuri Shaporin's opera The Decembrists.
The action was allegedly scheduled for June 27. Although, as N. Zenkovich notes, these rumors could be spread in order to convince the public that the villain Beria himself was preparing a conspiracy against the leadership of the USSR, and the "core" of the Central Committee of the party had no choice but a preemptive strike.
Thus, in the fight against Beria, the conspirators had only one way: to deceive and lure him into a trap. According to one version, the operation against Beria was timed to coincide with the beginning of the army's summer maneuvers (interestingly, there is no mention of the maneuvers in the memoirs of the military themselves). Several Siberian divisions were to participate in the exercises of the Moscow Military District (MVO) (just in case Beria's supporters appear in the Moscow divisions). At a meeting of the Council of Ministers held on June 26, the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and the chief of the General Staff reported on the progress of the maneuvers. A group of military men, led by Marshal Zhukov (he had already been transferred from Sverdlovsk to Moscow and held the post of Deputy Defense Minister) and the commander of the Moscow Military District, General K.S. Moskalenko, were also present in the hall.
Malenkov announced the joint meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee and the Council of Ministers open. And he immediately turned to Zhukov to detain Beria "on behalf of the Soviet government". Zhukov ordered Beria: "Hands up!" Moskalenko and other generals drew their weapons to prevent a provocation from Beria.
Then the generals took Beria into custody and took him to the next room, next to Malenkov's office. At the suggestion of Khrushchev, the Prosecutor General of the USSR was immediately relieved of his post, and Rudenko, Khrushchev's man, was appointed in his place.
Then the Presidium of the Central Committee discussed the issue of further destiny Beria: what to do with it next and what to do with it? There were two decisions: to keep Beria under arrest and conduct an investigation or immediately shoot him, and then retroactively formalize the death sentence in accordance with the law. It was dangerous to make the first decision: the entire state security apparatus and internal troops stood behind Beria, and he could easily be released. There was no legal basis to make the second decision - to shoot Beria immediately.
After discussing both options, they came to the conclusion: Beria still needs to be shot immediately in order to exclude the possibility of a riot. The executor of this verdict - in the same next room - in Khrushchev's stories was once General Moskalenko, another - Mikoyan, and the third - even Khrushchev himself (he added: further investigation of Beria's case, they say, fully confirmed that he was shot correctly) ...
Where is Beria buried?
Russian researchers N. Zenkovich and S. Gribanov have collected many documents about the fate of Beria after his arrest. But especially valuable evidence on this score was found in the archives by the Hero of the Soviet Union, intelligence officer and former head Writers' Union of the USSR Vladimir Karpov. Studying the life of Marshal G. Zhukov, he put an end to the dispute whether Zhukov participated in the arrest of Beria. In the secret personal memoirs of the marshal he found, it is said directly: he not only participated, but also led the capture group. So, the statement of Beria's son Sergo, they say, Zhukov had nothing to do with the arrest of his father, is not true!
In the opinion of historians, Karpov's find is also important because it refutes the rumor about the heroic shot of Nikita Khrushchev during the arrest of the all-powerful Minister of Internal Affairs.
What happened after the arrest, Zhukov did not personally see and therefore wrote what he learned from hearsay, namely: “After the trial, Beria was shot by those who guarded him. During the execution, Beria behaved very badly, like the very last coward, he cried hysterically, knelt down and, finally, was all stained. In a word, he lived disgustingly and died even more disgustingly. Note: Zhukov was told so, but he himself did not see it.
And here is what the military journalist S. Gribanov managed to learn from the “real” “author” of the bullet for Beria, the then Colonel-General PF Batitsky: “We led Beria up the stairs to the dungeon. Then I shot him. "
Everything would be fine, notes researcher Nikolai Dobryukha, if other witnesses of the execution, and General Batitsky himself, said the same thing everywhere. Although, inconsistencies could also occur due to negligence or from the literary fantasies of researchers. One of whom, for example, the son of the revolutionary Antonov-Ovseenko, wrote that they supposedly executed Beria in the bunker of the Moscow Military District headquarters, in the presence of Prosecutor General Rudenko, who read out the verdict. General Batitsky shot the marshal. After examining the body by a doctor, "Beria's body was wrapped in linen and sent to the crematorium."
All would be fine, the researchers note, but where are the documents confirming the shooting and burning of Beria? It remains a mystery, for example, that, as follows from the execution act of December 23, 1953, for some reason the obligatory doctor in such cases was not present at Beria's death. And the lists of those present at the execution, published by different authors, do not coincide. Nobody saw yet another act - cremation, as well as the body of the person who was shot. Of course, with the exception of the three who signed the act. So, the question arises: "Was it Beria who was shot?"
These discrepancies could have been ignored if Beria's son Sergo had not insisted that a member of that very court Shvernik told him personally: "I was a member of the tribunal in your father's case, but I have never seen him." Sergo had even more doubts about the confessions of a member of the court, the former secretary of the Central Committee Mikhailov, who stated more frankly: "There was a completely different person in the courtroom." But then he explained: either instead of Beria, an actor was put in the dock, or the marshal himself had changed beyond recognition during the arrest? It is possible, some researchers suggest, that Beria could have doubles. ((A man with a mustache from Argentina
And now about the South American trace of the post-shooting biography of Lavrenty Beria.
In 1958, Beria's son Sergo and wife Nina Teimurazovna lived in Sverdlovsk under the wife's maiden name - Gegechkori (immediately after her husband's arrest, Nina Teimurazovna ended up in Butyrka prison). Once, in her mailbox, Nina Teimurazovna discovered a photograph in which Lavrenty Beria was depicted with a lady on Maya Square in the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires. The photo was taken against the background of the presidential palace. As N. Zenkovich describes, when she saw the photo, Nina Teimurazovna said: "This is her husband."
In the mailbox, along with the picture, there was also a mysterious message: “In Anaklia, on the Black Sea coast, a man with a very important information about the father. " Nina Teimurazovna invented an illness for herself, received a sick leave and flew to Georgia to meet with an unknown bearer of the news. However, no one came to the meeting. Probably, the anonymous author wanted to see exactly Beria's son, Sergo.
The story of the mysterious snapshot did not end there. Many decades later, archival documentary filming of one of the squares of Buenos Aires fell into the hands of Russian documentary filmmakers. On it, against the background of the monument, surrounded by idly marching passers-by, a walking man in a light raincoat and a dark hat is clearly visible. The moment he walks directly in front of the camera operator, he momentarily turns his head towards the camera and looks directly into the lens. At the same time, his face, mustache and pince-nez on the nose are clearly visible. The first reaction of everyone who saw this footage was almost the same: "This man looks like Beria!"
To make sure that the newsreel footage is not a clever fake, filmmakers turned to specialists. After a thorough examination of the film, video editing experts stated that there were no traces of artificial editing of frames and images - the shooting was real.
Then the film was shown to specialists who compared the external data of the person filmed in Argentina with the data of Beria, so that they could give an opinion on their possible similarity, or vice versa. With the help of computer analysis, the experts studied the face of the mysterious "Argentinean" and Lavrenty Beria and, with a probability of more than 90%, concluded that this was the same person.
To avoid a possible mistake, if a man from Argentina could turn out to be a double or just a person very similar to Beria, the film was also allowed to be studied by specialists in psychodynamics. Based on a special technique that allows, on the basis of ordinary human movements, to identify his mental characteristics and, on this basis, to determine the psychotype of a person as a whole, the experts, comparing the Argentinean footage with the footage of Beria's lifetime, came to the conclusion that they depict the same person ... It is simply impossible to fake movements so skillfully, even if desired, experts say.
It turns out that the allegedly shot Beria, in fact, after his official death, remained alive for a long time and lived happily in Argentina? Who and for what purpose filmed Beria in Buenos Aires (if it really is him) remains a mystery. Although, there is by no means an accidental coincidence of the place and time of shooting and the fact that, passing by the operator, the man turned his head and "looked" directly into the camera lens. This suggests that the shooting was done on purpose.
For what purpose could this be done? Probably to remind in this way of the existence of Beria to those who continued to rule the Soviet country at that time. But why then, one wonders, did the USSR leadership need to create the greatest hoax with the execution of Beria, as well as release him alive in South America? Most likely, there is a version that many associates of Stalin and Beria, who stood at the helm of the USSR after the death of the leader, themselves were afraid that Beria, having over the years colossal opportunities to collect dirt on the entire Soviet elite, would not expose their old ones, “ bloody "sins" before the people, starting with participation in mass repressions. On the other hand, it was also impossible to leave Beria inside the country: many had too great a fear of his former power. Apparently, this is why Stalin's heirs and former comrades-in-arms of Beria agreed on a "neutral" option: to save the life of the marshal, but send him to live as a private person far from the USSR, as was done earlier with Leon Trotsky.
Is it for this reason that Malenkov was silent about the events of those years? Even his son Andrei lamented that after a third of a century his father preferred to avoid talking about what happened to Beria?
So where is the grave of the "bloody" marshal after all?
Prepared by Oleg Lobanov
based on materials from "Sovetskaya Belorussia", Zenkovich N. A. "Attempts and staging: from Lenin to Yeltsin", Sergo Beria. "Evening Moscow" "My father is Lavrenty Beria", TRK "Russia"
6 594
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 old throne - Beria made it clear that he was not going to do this. Of course, he was potentially dangerous - but they don't kill us for that. At least, they don't kill like that, openly and frankly. The normal Soviet move in the struggle for power was worked out back in 1937 - to move, remove, and then arrest and falsify the case as usual. By the way, this openness and frankness is also a mystery - after all, you could have waited and removed it quietly and unnoticed. It seems that the killers were in a great hurry ...
Khrushchev, in his revelations to foreign interlocutors, is in some way disingenuous. 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. Never in their life will these people, who have been working without a murmur 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 in deportation somewhere in Baku or Tyumen to the post of plant director - let him seize power there, if he can.
And so it was, and there is convincing evidence of that. Secretary of the Central Committee Malenkov, in the process of preparing the meeting of the Presidium, wrote a draft of his work. This draft has been published and it is very clear from it 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, possibly, if the discussion goes on the right track, to release him from the post of deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers, appointing oil industry as a last resort. And that's all. There was no question of any arrest, let alone any execution without trial. And it is difficult even to imagine, with all the tension of imagination, what could have happened for the Presidium, contrary to the prepared scenario, to make such a decision impromptu. It couldn't be. And if it could not, then it was not. And the fact that this was not the case, that this issue was not considered at all at the Presidium, is evidenced by the fact that the draft was found in Malenkov's archive - otherwise it would have been handed over to formalize 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. First, 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 commander of the air defense of the Moscow military district, Colonel-General Moskalenko and the chief of staff of the Air Force, 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 the "parts of Beria", troops were brought into the capital. And then a very important name comes up - a person who could provide contact with the military and the army's participation in the events - Defense Minister Bulganin.
It is not difficult to calculate the number one. Who poured dirt on Beria most of all, completely losing his composure and presenting him at the same time as a devil? 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 - this is the fate of his papers. Stalin's archive as such does not exist - all his documents have disappeared. On March 7, some special group, according to Svetlana, "by order of Beria" (but this is not a fact) removed all the furniture from Blizhnyaya Dacha. Later, the furniture was returned to the dacha, but without any papers. All documents disappeared from the Kremlin office and even from the leader's safe. Where they are and what happened to them is still unknown.
Naturally, it is believed that Beria took possession of the archives, as a super-powerful chief of the special services, especially since the guards were subordinate to the Ministry of State Security. Yes, but the guards obeyed the state security as long as the guarded was alive. I wonder who the Kuntsevo dacha was subordinate to after Stalin's death? Was it also the Ministry of State Security or, perhaps, some government AXO, the administrative department, was in charge of this empty shell? According to another version, the entire elite of the time took part in the seizure of the archive, concerned about the elimination of the dossiers that Stalin collected on them. Beria, naturally, was also afraid that compromising evidence on him in these archives would be made public. It is also hard to believe - with such a number of accomplices, someone in so many years would certainly let slip.
Who knew nothing about the fate of the archive was Malenkov. Why - more on that later. Two options remain: either Khrushchev or Beria. If we assume that the archive fell into the hands of Khrushchev, then his fate is most likely sad. There could be a lot of compromising evidence against Nikita Sergeevich - participation in Yezhov's repressions alone was worth it! Neither he nor his comrades-in-arms had time to search for all these "dossiers" among the mountain 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 for him, if even through the efforts of the entire jurisprudence of the USSR, despite the fact that it was very it is necessary, they could not dig up material for one more or less decent subjunctive case. But he was vitally interested in incriminating evidence against Stalin's former comrades-in-arms - both for future possible opportunities, and to ensure his own safety.
Indirectly, his son Sergo testifies that the archive most likely fell into the hands of Beria. After the murder of his father, he was arrested, and once he was summoned for interrogation, and in the investigator's office he saw Malenkov. This was not the first visit of the distinguished guest, once he had already arrived and persuaded Sergo to testify against his father, but did not persuade him. However, this time he came for something different.
“- Maybe you can help in something else? - somehow very humanly, he said it. - 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 ... Your father also had archives, eh?
“I don’t know either, I never heard of it.
- Haven't you heard ?! - here Malenkov could no longer restrain himself. - He must have archives, must!
He was clearly very upset. "
That is, not only Stalin's archives disappeared, but also Beria's archives, and Malenkov knew nothing about their fate. Of course, in theory Khrushchev could have seized and liquidated them, but had he done it so that no one saw, heard or recognized anything? Doubtful. Stalin's archives were all right, but Beria's archives could no longer be secretly destroyed. And Khrushchev was not the kind of person to perform such an operation and not blabber.
So most likely Beria took possession of Stalin's archive. Once again, I repeat that it made no sense for him to destroy him, let alone destroy his own archive, and nine out of ten chances that he hid all the papers somewhere. But where?
Chesterton, in one of his stories about Father Brown, wrote: “Where clever man hides 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 an archive, where is an intelligent person hiding it? Naturally, in the archive!
It is only in novels that our archives are ordered, systematized and cataloged. The reality looks somewhat different. Once I had to talk with a man who had been in the archives of the House of Radio. He was shocked by what he saw there, he told how he went through boxes with records that were not listed in any catalogs, but simply piled up in a pile - there were recordings of performances, next to which the vaunted Gergiev performances - like a donkey next to an Arab horse ... This is one example.
Another example can be found in newspapers, which from time to time report a sensational discovery in one of the archives, where they found something absolutely startling. How are these findings made? It's very simple: some curious trainee looks into a chest, into which no one has poked his nose before, and finds it. And what about the story of the rarest antique vases that have been standing 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 some of the pantries of another archive, where it will lie in complete secrecy and security until some curious trainee looks into it and asks: a what are these dusty bags lying in the corner. And, having opened one of the bags, he will pick up a paper with the inscription: “To my archive. I.St. "
Still, they don't kill for possession of compromising evidence either. On the contrary, it becomes especially dangerous, because it is possible that the most important papers in an envelope with the inscription: “In case of my death are in the secret safe of the faithful person. L. Beria ". No, something completely extraordinary had to happen for such cowardly enough people as Khrushchev and his company to decide on murder, and even such a hasty one. What could it be?
The answer came by accident. Having decided to cite the biography of Ignatiev in this book, I came across the following phrase there: on June 25, in a note to Malenkov, Beria offered to arrest Ignatiev, but did not have time. There may be a mistake in the date, for 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 reported to 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 blatant behavior," Ignatiev was removed from his post as secretary of the Central Committee, and on April 28, he was removed from the Central Committee. At Beria's suggestion, the CPC was instructed to consider the issue of Ignatiev's party responsibility. But all this was not right, all this is not scary. And then the information came that Beria was asking Malenkov for sanction for this arrest.
For the conspirators, this was not a danger, it was death! It’s not hard to guess that at the Lubyanka, the former chief of Stalin’s security would have been chopped 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, in the Lubyanka cellars of Beria, not giving a damn about legality for such a case, he would have personally hammered them with his boots.
So this usually happens with "ingenious 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 much more? He knew who he was dealing with. So what do you do?
And this is the motive! Because of this, Beria could really be killed, moreover, they should have been killed, and exactly as it was done. For there was nothing to arrest him for, but because of the dead Beria, as Khrushchev rightly noted, hardly anyone would have raised a fuss: what is done is done, the dead cannot be returned. Especially if you imagine everything as if he offered armed resistance during the arrest. Well, then let the propaganda work so that it presents him as a monster and a supervillain, so that grateful descendants can say: "It could have been a crime, but it was not a mistake."
The leader was given pills of highly toxic dicoumarin with a horse dosage
January 1955 marked the beginning of the "black" mythologization of Soviet history and the peak of Nikita Khrushchev's struggle for sole power.
His main competitor, Lavrenty BERIA, had already been accused of high treason, shot and became such a scapegoat that soon even his name was no longer mentioned in the “Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary”.
Although in the famous Khrushchev report on the personality cult of STALIN it was named 61 times 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 allowed the historian Alexandru DUGINU to expose Khrushchev's lies for the first time.
- Alexander Nikolaevich, what new have you found in the archive?
I went to the Russian State Archive of Social and 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 leaders of the country from Stalin to Yeltsin. He wrote Khrushchev's foreign policy speeches.
And in 2011 he risked publicly declaring that Khrushchev, wishing to seize archival documents about his participation in the repressions, ordered the creation of a group of 200 special employees not only to seize original documents, but also to make forgeries. Secondly, I discovered these fakes in the "Beria case" and realized that among the falsifiers there were also 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 Criminal Procedure Code, there should be photographs of the defendants in the case, their fingerprints, and confrontation protocols. But in the materials of the "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, and not 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 Yuryeva, Major of the Administrative Service. And on many of the interrogation protocols of Beria, there are no obligatory clerical "marks": the initials of the typist, the number of printed copies, the recipients of the mailing list, etc. But all of the above are only external signs of a fake. - And there were internal signs of a fraud?
Sure. One of the handwritten "originals" of Beria's letters, allegedly written when he was already under arrest, bears the date "May 28, 1953," literally screaming "don't 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 to Comrade Malenkov." In it, Beria speaks of his dedication to the cause of the party and asks his comrades-in-arms - Malenkov, Molotov, Voroshilov, Khrushchev, Kaganovich, Bulganin and Mikoyan: "Let them forgive if something went wrong during these fifteen years of great and intense joint work."
And he wishes them great success in the struggle for the cause of Lenin - Stalin. In tonality, it resembles a note to fellow colleagues written by a person who is going on vacation or who has decided 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 great criticism at the Presidium I would draw all the conclusions I needed for myself and would 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 Stalin's death Beria was 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 were suddenly voiced, as you know, took place on June 29, 1953. That is, the next day AFTER this letter from Beria from the cell.
- You are almost speechless because of the date?
Yes. If the letter were genuine, it would sweep aside 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 it is Malaya Nikitskaya.
- Who was killed?
A special group sent to Lavrenty Pavlovich by order of Khrushchev by the first deputy of Beria for the Ministry of State Security, Sergei Kruglov. Lieutenant General Andrei Vedenin, a former rifle corps commander who became commandant of the Kremlin in September 1953, told how his unit received an order to carry out Operation Mansion to eliminate Beria. And how he did it. Then the body 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 "confrontation" the Khrushchevites could, without fear, at the Central Committee Plenum on July 2-7, 1953, accuse Beria of all mortal sins. Win five months to clean up the archives to destroy the traces of your crimes.
And to 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 a court decision. And with Beria alive, Khrushchev could not hide the poisoning of Stalin and his complicity in this crime, which I have already described in detail.
Let me remind you, in my opinion, that two people were most interested in this double murder - first Stalin, then Beria. 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 should have already considered 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 Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks for checking the party organs and who carried out all the repression against the leadership of the party and the state. In case of failure of his ward, Khrushchev, too, would have thundered to the fanfare. At 22.30 pm on March 1, Stalin was found unconscious on the floor. After his death, Beria analyzed Stalin's archive and, studying the history of his illness, he could have suspected the named couple.
There was a double in prison
- 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, Dikumarin was 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 today aspirin. 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. It cost nothing for the NKVD-NKGB-MGB laboratories to make tablets with an increased dosage and put them in a regular package. After all, Ignatiev himself supervised Stalin's personal security. - But someone should have seen Beria alive in the cell to confirm the version that he was in prison for five months, awaiting execution?
He had several doubles. And, mind you, the funds of Molotov, Zhdanov and a number of other addressees of Beria's "letters" are in the public domain, but there are still no funds for Khrushchev and Beria. And in the official collection "Politburo and the Beria case" there is not a single fact confirmed by documents 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 to the counterintelligence censorship department on the instructions of the Azerbaijani Communist Party. It was requested from Stalin's archives for the last time in July 1953, when the "Beria case" was fabricated. But for obvious reasons he was not involved in it.
The body was poured with concrete
- Are you convinced that the "letters from the camera" are fake?
Yes sir. I took them for an independent handwriting examination. The original handwriting of Beria helped me to find the chief specialist of RGASPI Mikhail Strakhov. 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 the experts, the samples I presented were written by different people.
And this conclusion confirms that the massacre of Beria occurred due to the fact that, having taken the post of head of the united Ministry of Internal Affairs and the MGB, he was looking for an answer to the question about the true causes of Stalin's death. Had he remained alive, there would have been no talk of any revelations of the personality cult of Joseph Vissarionovich at the height of the Cold War. And in 1961, when Norwegian biochemists analyzed Napoleon's hair at the request of the French government and found out that he had been poisoned with arsenic, no one would have urgently convened an extraordinary congress of the CPSU. And he did not raise the unexpected question of removing Stalin's body from the Mausoleum and concreting it. Khrushchev covered his tracks!
- Why do you care so deeply about this whole story?
I decided to do this, because I cannot calmly watch how the heroes of "Freakopedia" like Rezun-Suvorov and Radzinsky try to erase from human memory all the positive moments of Soviet history, painting it only in dirty tones. And a person, especially a young man, 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 exposed as cattle.
____________________
when in '76 the book "The Shooting That Wasn't" was published in the United States, in which the authors convincingly argued that no one shot the royal family, all those involved in the first investigation disappeared, died and died under strange circumstances, and the secondary data the famous Sokolov, hired by Kolchak (and it is understandable why), was not accepted by Maria Fedorovna (it is also understandable why), and in general everything in the Ipatiev House was not as described by the politically engaged Sokolov, that it was necessary to conduct an examination with the latest achievements of forensic science - was hastily demolished , moreover, it was demolished by a man who did not get out of heaven very often, even at the Sverdlovsk level, and who, 20 years later, suddenly became the head of state.
