Talk:Lavrentiy Beria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article or list is a nominee for the Version 0.7 release of Wikipedia. See the nominations page for more details.

Contents

[edit] Old talk

Adam, please watch what you are doing when you are reverting one's edits. First, you rebroke the fixed links. Second, you restored the POV-ish phrasing: "it is true...". Mikkalai 16:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

After re-reading the section I see your point: "it is true" is quite logical in the context. When I saw it first, it seemed to me as an extra embellishment. Next time I'll be more carteful with context. Mikkalai 01:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, Adam is intent on adding to the intro that Beria was a notorious murderer and rapist. I have no personal opinion on whether he was really a serial rapist or murdered people with his own hands, because I have not reviewed the evidence to such an extent as would be necessary to draw a conclusion, but on the other hand, this really makes no difference, because whatever I think is not history's final judgment. It seems to me totally contrary to NPOV to unequivocally state that a controversial historical figure is guilty of such crimes. NPOV would require the evidence to be presented without simply telling the reader what he or she should believe. Adam can write 10 paragraphs worth of documentation for the charges if he wants, as long as he does not force a conclusion on the reader. He knows that the history of the Stalinist USSR and its leading personalities is controversial and needs to be treated as such. Everyking 11:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First let's get our facts right. I did not add the phrase in question, someone else did. I merely objected to its removal, or rather to its removal on the grounds that it is "POV" to state the fact that Beria was both a murderer, in a personal hands-on sense, and a serial rapist. These facts have been thoroughly documented in recent post-Soviet biographies. If Everyking is going to intervene in debates about Soviet history he needs to do some reading first. These facts were also examined by the Russian courts when an attempt was made to overturn the 1953 verdict against Beria.

Now, if the phrase was removed in order to state the matter more fully in a following paragraph (for example), I would have no objection. If I was writing an article about Beria, that is how I would handle the issue. Since this is not my article, however, what I would do with the phrase is not the point. The previous author has stated the matter in this way, and has every right to do so. The reference cannot be simply deleted because of some absurd perversion of the NPOV rule. Stating facts can never be POV, even if they are held not to be stated fully enough or in the right place.

Everyking says: "It seems to me totally contrary to NPOV to unequivocally state that a controversial historical figure is guilty of such crimes." Has he really thought through the implications of this statement? He is saying that it can never be said that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mobutu, Ceaucescu etc, were guilty of the various crimes they committed, no matter how thoroughly these crimes are documented and attested and generally accepted as proved. What kind of rule is that for an encyclopaedia?

Adam 11:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I think it's wrong to use the word "notorious" here. Notorious means generally known and talked of, especially in an unfavorable sense. He may be notorious now, to historians, but I don't think he was notorious at the time, in the sense that the citizens of Moscow, say, thought of him being primarily a murderer or rapist. They thought of him as being the dreaded head of the secret police, yes, and the most fearsome crony of Stalin, but not primarily as being a man who carried out personal murders or who abducted women on the street to be raped at his apartment. I think this lead paragraph should say that he was a state-appointed murderer of millions of people, or words to that effect. The fact that he was also, at times, a personal murder and serial rapist should, I think, be in a later paragraph.Hayford Peirce 01:06, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking's revision

  • I think it is precisely right. Someone else apparently seemed to think that the info about his personal murders and rapes belonged in the first paragraph but, compared to the millions of other deaths he was responsible for, I for one think it is of minor importance.

[edit] Silly weasel words

Oh so it is only "widely believed" that Beria was responsible for millions of deaths, is it? Why does Everyking persists in rewriting this article the conceal the historical facts? Does he do the same thing for Himmler or Pol Pot? This is the use of "NPOV" weasel words to conceal facts which have been amply documented and should be stated as facts. However I won't bother with a revert war at the moment, since this is a very poor article and I intend completely rewriting it when I get time. Adam 12:53, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To say that I am trying to conceal anything by adding objective, qualifying phrases like "widely believed" is a ridiculous assertion. I look forward to reading your rewrite, though; will it display the same rigorous neutrality as your rewrite of the article on Robert Conquest? Everyking 14:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Adam - these weasel words take the desire for NPOV into a sick joke. Qualifying proven facts is not NPOV PMA 16:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish?

Wasn't Beria Jewish?

  • I can't say for sure that he wasn't, but the only sources on the Web that suggest he was Jewish are clearly antisemitic, and the context is always either of the form "Communism was a Jewish conspiracy and Beria's another damned Jew" or "Stalin wasn't all that bad; it was the Jew Beria who did the real nasty stuff." --jpgordon 02:53, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Beria was in fact, not Jewish (unless he converted or something... hehe). He was an ethnic Georgian with an Orthodox background (see the newly added early life info). JackO'Lantern 06:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • To be more specific, he was Mingrelian, which I guess you could describe as a kind of Georgian. --LarsMarius 18:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the vandalism below, people who are reading this talk page do not need to be shouted at. If this person had written it in non caps or left a signature I might have left it, it adds nothing but that's not the point, it is a talk page. What we do not need is slurs shouted at us.Colin 8 02:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Beria is not a Russia name, it is unquestionably a jewish name, it is a name from the Talmud referring to a celestial mystical heaven. Also Lavrenty refers to the Levant in meaning.

Beria was not jewish! He, unfortunately to me and other Georgians, was Georgian, in particular Megrelian. Beria is common Megrelian name.

[edit] Soviet phraseology

The following piece replaced. Mikkalai 00:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Georgia was at this time still being contested between the Bolshevik government and armed Georgian nationalists
There was no "armed nationalists", there was Democratic Republic of Georgia at this time.

[edit] Mingrelians

Mingrelians or Megrels are 100% Georgians and they are not related to the Georgians neither strictly speaking nor softly speaking. I have deleted that incorrect phrasing.

He was still mingrelian. The info can be presented in correct way, rather than simply deleted. Mikkalai 16:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mikkakalai, Megrelians are Georgians. Please don't doubt it. I am Megrelian and therefore I am Georgian. there are some Megrelian nationalists that draw a line btwn Georgians and Megrelians but this is a stupit and false thing.

[edit] Urban legends ("Personal character")

The vigor with which npov is applied throughout this article varies considerably; but the "Personal character" section clearly stands out. It is a pure fantasy on the face of it and is not rooted in any documents. Or if such documents exist, they are not referenced.

The section is heavily relied upon the book of the Russian "historian" Anton Antonov-Ovseenko ("the first fully researched biography of Beria", cf. Лаврентий Берия). To begin with, the book is not "fully researched", not "well researched", and not at all researched in the Academic sense of the word. It is not related to the "the opening of the Soviet archives" after the end of the Soviet regime in 1991, as the section implies. This source claims that Anton Antonov-Ovseenko used as his sources "private archives and memoires of old Bolsheviks and Menshiviks" ("В качестве источников широко использовал частные архивные материалы, воспоминания старых большевиков и меньшевиков"). No specific source is cited in the book, however.

To put it another way, the book collects and inflates gossip and innuendo spread by old communist butchers not unlike Anton Antonov-Ovseenko's own father, Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko, who in 1917 organised arrest of Russia's legitimate government and looting of Winter Palace, and is well-known to Russians as "the butcher of Tambov" for organizing of mass murders of civilians in the Tambov region in 1921.

The other source for the section appears to be the following Christmas Eve horror story in London's Telegraph, which in turn relies on certain Anil, an Indian worker of the Tunisian Embassy in Moscow for the last decade or so who was showing a "plastic bag of human bones he had found in the cellars"---no matter that plastic was not even available in 1953. Complete drivel, actually.

Is this the gold standard of substantiation Wikipedia should adhere to? If so, let's go ahead and fill Wikipedia pages with sexy images of Hillary Clinton killing Vincent Foster in the midst of a hot and humid Southern night, or MI-5 doing in Princess Diana in Paris. A perceptive mind like Adam's will have no troubles finding sources for all these and zillion more "urban legends".

So, that's how I suggest we rename the section, "Urban legends". After all, it would be a pity to have to part with such picturesque material altogether.

I am putting a "disputed" tag on the article, and will give Adam time to comment.


--Alexei 02:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: Antonov-Ovseenko's book was written in 1979-88, before the opening of the "Soviet archives". --Alexei 02:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I will ignore Alexei's rather silly and inflated rhetoric, and will just make the obvious points that (a) the behaviour of Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko is irrelevant to the veracity of books written by his son, and (b) the bones found in Beria's cellar were put in the plastic bag by the people who found them and not by Beria.
  • If Alexei wishes to edit the article to reflect his view that Beria did not do the things historians say he did, he is welcome to do so, provided he provides sources, as I have done.
  • I can't find any reference to Antonov-Ovseenko's book being published before 1999. Here is the Library of Congress reference:
LC Control Number: 00306220  
Type of Material: Text (Book, Microform, Electronic, etc.) 
Brief Description: Antonov-Ovseenko, Anton, 1920-
Beriia / Anton Antonov-Ovseenko.
Moskva : Izd-vo AST, 1999.
469 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.

Possibly Alexei is confusing this book with Antonov-Ovseenko's The Time of Stalin: Portrait of a Tyranny, New York, 1981.

Adam 05:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Re the Ovseenko's book timing, cross-check the reference and see that the _last_ line says, in Russian, "Москва. 1979-1988 гг.". Agreed, the book was not _published_ then, but the point is, the author had not have access to any secret archives at the time of _writing_. And he is not even claiming this. Where did this statement come from, anyway?
I don't read Russian and I don't know what "Москва. 1979-1988 гг.". means or refers to. It is clearly not a date of publication. If the book was published in 1999 it seems reasonable to assume that the author used the archival resources available to him in the 1990s. Why would he write a book in 1979 and publish it 20 years later without revision? Adam 06:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
"Москва. 1979-1988 гг." means, written in Moscow from 1979 through 1988. 11 (not 20) years before the publication. Can you even count? Sorry, scrap it. FYI, in Soviet Union, it was not unusual---in fact, it was a norm---to not being able to publish books for decades because of censorship. Not London, OK? Not Melbourne. Not Sydney. Get it? Examples include Mikhail Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarite" published some 30 years after being written, V. Grossman's books, etc. Rings a bell? Hello?
(Free advice) As a general rule, your being a journalist, even if something seems "reasonable to assume", don't assume, research and find out what the truth is. --Alexei 08:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Adam, neither you nor I have any way of knowing who put which bones where; but do you not agree that this entire story sounds---and probably is---a myth? How about the likelyhood of a foreigner finding anything of interest in the cellars of Beria's house after (and, 30 years after, at that) KGB has thoroughly cleaned up the house being passed to an _embassy_. Come on... Or, Beria hiding remains of the people he allegedly killed under the wall of his own kitchen? In the presence of his mother, disabled sister, and wife? And what would he hide this for and from whom? Be reasonable, admit it is fairy tales... He may be responsible for millions of lives, but it is clear he did not kill people in his kitchen and hide them under his house walls.
I find it perfectly believable. Beria was clearly a criminal sadist. But if the allegation has been disproved by Russian authors or journalists, you are free to cite that fact. Adam 06:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not find it believable at all. What are we to do?
And YOU are shifting the burden of proof here. It is YOUR duty to establish the facts, not, actually, mine or anybody else's to refute. Shit, or get off the pot.
"Beria was clearly a criminal sadist" is, clearly, a POV. --Alexei 08:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The sources, yes, I have already added a couple which I will use. But Antonov-Ovseenko's book is not, imo, a reliable source, I was trying to say to you. Not Academic. Not documented. And biased, yes. Here is what Anton himself says (about the Stalin's book, but it equally applies to Beria's): "Может быть, автору не удалось сдержать чувств человека, пережившего ужасы террора" (~="Perhaps, the author did fail to restrain the emotions of the person himself subjected to the nightmares of terror"). We should base our writing on something firmer than this.
  • And, it is not that I wish to express my point of view the same way as "you have done", but, imo, we should not be in the business of expressing "points of view".

Can we agree?

If you wish to dispute that the statements made in the article are factual, you are free to edit the article accordingly, and cite your sources (in English please). Adam 06:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Sources do not have to be in English---as sources go, most of the Russian-related material will actually not be. --Alexei 08:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

--Alexei 06:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If childish abuse and tiresome heavy irony is all you are capable of I am no longer interested in this discussion. I will assess any edits you make on their merits. And yes, at an English-language encyclopaedia sources have to be in English. You are free to go and edit the Russian Wikipedia. Adam 08:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not the case. The sources do not need to be in English for the English wikipedia to use them. If you cannot speak Russian, then that means you personally may not be able to verify them, but for the many English native speakers who took the trouble to learn Russian they are verifiable. We do not need to be held back with regards to facts by the laziness of those who have not bothered to learn it, Adam. This is not about catering for the lowest common denominator. Furthermore, your suggestion that someone whose mother tongue is Russian should "go and edit the Russian Wikipedia" comes across as rather bigoted and nationalistic, if I may say so. Since his English is clearly good enough to write here, there is no reason why he should not participate. Uncle Davey (Talk) 10:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Makkalai, what was your reason to remove the reference to the book by Avtorhanov? I intend to use it as a basis for rewriting the piece on Slansky, Gomulka, etc. later on. --Alexei 04:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It was removed as unused. It cannot be "further reading" in English encyclopedia, but may be used as a reference to the source of article material when you add it. Mikkalai 00:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


Makkalai, I see that you've removed the two stories that I agree are compelete crap. My problem is though that the Antonov-Ovseenko's tales are equally unfounded, and yet you think they should be preserved. So what goes in and what stays out?

Further, there are no stories of sadistic nature left there anymore. Yet I predict they are going to resurface. It is better imo to tell what they are and then assert absence of supporting evidence (or give the evidence if such exists). For now, the phrase "no police report could be uncovered of Tunisian Embassy finding human remains on its grounds" looks out of place as the original story is removed.

Convince me we should leave it as is, then I will rename the section to "Allegations of sexual misconduct" and remove any mention of sadism altogether.

On the policy: why can't we have a newspaper article as an external source? This is where the Ovseenko's quote comes from. --Alexei 02:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

For now, I am reinserting the "bones" tales to keep the story from breaking. --Alexei 03:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persecution of Leningrad intellectuals: Zhdanov vs. Beria

What is the source for the claim made in the "Postwar history" that Beria was largely responsible for the Zvezda/Leningrad affair (Akhmatova and Zoschenko). We should consider removing the claim if no such evidence is presented. --Alexei 07:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This has been resolved by Adam's removal of the line. --Alexei 22:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexei's edit

I have considerably condensed Alexei's edit (and improved its English). I have removed:

  • the statement that the Soviet leadership made up the allegations against Beria. This is Alexei's opinion. If he has evidence for this he is free to produce it.
I did not make such a statement, here is what it if fact was: "the Communist Leadership has early on decided to spice up the charges with informal accusations ...". This is factual and supported by the cited sources. Indeed, (1) Shatalin represented the said leadership; (2) the accusations were informal in that they were made at a Party meeting rather than in the police investigation that then concurrently proceeded; and (3) the charges were made to spice up the main charges for which Beria was eventually convicted---as you are right to point out, these were not even criminal charges. --Alexei 22:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • the long quote from Shatalin, which is unnecessary - all he alleges is that Beria had sex with lots of women, which is hardly the most serious allegation made against him.
agreed, but I will restore the part about the 25+ list as it factually contradicts, and thus helps to put into the right light, the later statement by Khruschev.--Alexei 22:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • the material about Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko, which is just an attempt to smear his son by association.
  • the assertion that there is no verification of the story about the bones in the Tunisian Embassy. The story in the Telegraph is quite detailed, and if it is fabricated someone must have said so. Alexei should provide a source for this assertion.
here I foresee that we will have more of a war.
To begin with, I think the story should stay in (and I objected to Makkalai's removing it). It is not because I believe the story, but because it is a good (and rare) quotable example of such kind of stories.
However, the story of the bones found during the re-tiling of the kitchen is unattributed, and, as you probably know by now :-), any attempt to unearth the source on the internet will fail (I have researched the Russian Internet as well).
The story of the bones in the cellars is attributed (to "Anil"). Any attempt to confirm it on the internet, outside of the Telegraph's article context, will likewise fail. However, the story is a fantasy (probably by "Anil" rather them Mr. Strauss) on its face, and here is why.
If any human remains were indeed found anywhere in the embassy, the embassy would surely make a police report, police would start an investigation, and the first thing they'd do would be to take the remains into evidence and run pathology tests to ascertain the origin and age of the bones, as well as whether they were human. This would not leave "Anil" any bones to carry around in a plastic bag.
As part of my research, I have tried to uncoved any mention of the bones found there in the press releases of Moscow police, FSB, or police chronicle in Moscow papers, but did not find anything. This makes the removed statement ("...police report could not be uncovered...") factual.
Thoughts?
--Alexei 22:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Adam 09:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


The first photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.beria.jpg) appears to be a mirror image---the gold start SHOULD be on the left side---??? --Alexei 22:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Postwar politics

I am planning on expanding the section and changing the plot line wrt the Slansky etc. trials.

Here is what appears to have happened:

  • Beria staffed the secret police and leadership of East European countries (which the current article correctly states)
  • A large percentage of these leaders were Jewish. A substantial number of Beria's subordinates in all his capacities were also Jewish (Vannikov, Raikhman, etc.)
  • When Beria surrendered his state-security work and concentrated on the atomic project and other military work (1945-6?), the state security went to Abakumov (not to Merkulov as Beria wanted), and later to Ignatiev
  • Abakumov, using Stalin's growing antisemitism, started persecution of Jews (Jewish Anti-fascist Committee, then Slansky, Berman, doctor's plot, etc.), as well as mingrelians, with the aim of getting to Beria as these were "his people".

All these campaigns were put to an end, and the persecutors themselves arrested, immediately after Beria's rise to power in 3/53.

Thoughts?

That seems quite plausible, but it cannot be stated as fact here without sources. Alexei needs to realise that this is not the Journal of Speculation about Soviet History, it is an encyclopaedia, and nothing at all controversial can be presented without sources - that is, without showing that someone else has said it first, in print. Adam 01:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The original plot is published in Avtorkhanov's book. I know you can't read Russian; the original pub. was in French: "STALINE ASSASSINE: Le complot Bèria" PARIS, Èd. PRESSES DE LA RENAISSANCE, 1980. in-8é, 289 p. I can't find an English translation.
It is also discussed in Amy Knight's book.
I have been just looking to see if this plot seems completely off-the-wall to anybody---is it even controversial?
--Alexei 01:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the "postwar politics" section, based mostly on Amy Knight's book (pp. 132--175) which is supported by Avtorkhanov's account.

--Alexei 00:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


I object to the use of the term "anti-semitic campaign" in the context of this Wikipedia entry - and in post-WWII Soviet politics, generally. The purges initiated by Stalin and his epigones targeted indeed many Jews living in the USSR but there are two important differences : 1. The purges were confined almost exclusively to people in the corridors of power (and that includes the unlucky Kremlin doctors, in the Doctors' Plot). There was never the massive persecution that has characterized all anti-semitic campaigns in History. 2. Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet leadership, from the time of the 1917 Revolution onwards, thus making them also disproportionately large targets in any purge affecting the leadership in general. (The reasons for Jewish pro-Bolshevism should be traced, among other factors, to the anti-semitism of most European nationalisms, and the pogroms of the old Czarist regime in Russia.)

--The Gnome 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beria's bones

I don't object to the edits Alexei has made. But in response to his arguments above:

  • Alexei says: ""the Communist Leadership has early on decided to spice up the charges with informal accusations ...". This is factual." If it is factual there must be a source, unless Alexei was an eye-witness to the deliberations of the CPSU leaders in 1953. At the moment it is just Alexei's opinion.
"decided" was a questionable wording, I have changed it to "sought". Sergo Beria says that, rephrasing a bit, it's a complete fantasy that Khrushchev et al. decided to use to smear his father. If I follow you, you only dispute that they "decided" to do it, not that they have done it? It is becoming hair-splitting... --Alexei 01:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The bones story is not unattributed. It is attributed to the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph is a reputable newspaper and Alexei can't just assert it is untrue without a source. He needs to come up with a source asserting that the story is false. Presumably when the Telegraph story appeared in 2003 there was some comment on it in the Russian media. If Alexei can come up with a quote from the Russian media saying "this story is untrue," that will be sufficient to have the story presented here as disputed rather than established. Adam 00:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Russian newsgroups ridiculed this at the time. I have't seen an actual article. --Alexei 01:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither Sergo Beria nor newsgroups are acceptable sources. Adam 02:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on the groups.
If "the behaviour of Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko is irrelevant to the veracity of books written by his son", by the same token, Sergo Beria's book should be given a benefit of a doubt. Was his account disputed? Let's be consistent. Reminds me of an old joke:
A naked old Jew with a cross hanging on his neck is walking on the beach. Somebody addresses him: "Ivan Solomonovich, be consistent: either wear the trunks, or take off the cross..."
--Alexei 04:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no inconsistency in saying that Valdimir's Antonov-Ovseenko's career is irrelvant to the merits of Anton Antonov-Ovseenko's book, and saying that Sergo Beria is a worthless source on the crimes of his father. First because Beria's motive is obviously filial loyalty (just as Yevgeny Djugashvili maintains that dear old Grandad never hurt anyone), and secondly because he is too young have any firsthand knowledge of the events under discussion. Anton Antonov-Ovseenko is not writing about his father so there is no analogy.
  • I don't dispute that you know a lot about the period but I am beginning to find the preoccupation with Jews in your recent edits a bit worrying. My experience at Wikipedia is that a proccupation with Jews is a sure of sign of a crank. Adam 05:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

worries me too, after re-reading this. Surely the post-war history wasn't all anti-semitism; but this has played a big part. Can you help diversifying the section? What else of interest was going on in 46-53?

On Beria-jr., he actually was a PhD and Dr. of Sci. by the time and a Stalin's Prize winner. About 30 in 53??

--05:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

According to this he was 74 in 1999 so he was born in 1925 so he was 28 when his father was executed. Adam 06:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And I don't get the joke.


so, is he still "too young [to] have any firsthand knowledge of the events under discussion" at 28 yo iyo? On the joke: most Jews are circumcised which is apparent when they are naked; most others (in the USSR) were not. So it is a juxtaposition of a cross (a symbol of a Christial affiliation) against a circumcised penis that was a basis for the (admittedly Russian) joke. --Alexei 07:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image flipped

Again, the the main (1st) image is mirror-flipped left-to-right; who is gonna take care of it; Adam?--Alexei 06:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I no longer touch images except those I have taken myself. I am sick of being pestered by the copyright police. Adam 06:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


You've posted this image anyway; flipping it does not call the f-g polive in (by itself). Want me to do it?? --06:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Mihnea Tudoreanu's revisions

There were 3 revision:

  • removal of a claim that USSR remained under the shadow of communism until 1991,
  • replacing of "Communist leadership" with certain "authorities within the soviet government", and
  • removal of the reference of Khrushchev antisemitism

Of them, only the last one may be discussed if Mihnea insists it should.

Let's discuss the issues here before making any unfounded revisions. --Alexei 22:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Amy Knight's biography of Beria discusses Kruschev's anti-semitism, so as that is a credible source, it should be fair to at least say that "some scholars think that Kruschev was anti-semitic" Dhilbert83 (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam's edit

Adam, we have discussed this subject of allegations before. If you have reason to go into this again, please outline it here. Since you know your viewpoint has been and is disputed, your tactics border unethical. I have reverted your edit for now.

On another subject (and I am not reverting for now): can you explain your systematic removal of Jewish names from this article? In Postwar Politics? --Alexei 02:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Since this article has become infested with cranks and anti-semites, I am taking it off my watchlist and it can go to the dogs. I have better things to do. Adam 10:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV/Khrushchev

While I believe Khrushchev was an anti-semite, there's no citation for it here, nor any comment referring to it on other places on wikipedia. I'm not dealing the information at this point, but I would like this matter addressed here. I'm for deletion as unsupported, but this is definitely an opinion above anything else. J. M. 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Khrushchev was any more anti-Semitic than any other Eastern European, or European, for that matter. A given level of anti-Semitism seems to be related to the historical presence of Jews in a given location. For example, the Jews had major presences in Germany and Poland and suffered some of the most virulent anti-Semitism there. Conversely, England, thanks to ethnic cleansing from the 12th to 17th centuries, had relatively few Jews and thus a relatively more "enlightened" behavior in the modern era. Diaspora Jews reached their height, civilly speaking, in the Khazar Khaganate, which dominated Eastern Europe in the 9th and 10th centuries and where Judaism was the state religion. The Khazars were overthrown and absorbed by Kievan Rus towards the end of the 10th century. Thus, by inheritance, the Jews became the wealthiest and most influential population in the Ukraine, far out of proportion to their numbers. And, predictably, this generated the malignant envy which is at the root of anti-Semitism. The values of Krushchev, a Ukrainian, were informed by this "folk" mindset. So, I don't think his anti-Semitism was any more than second nature to him (like it is, to different degrees, to most Gentiles), and though Khrushchev may have been complicit for careerist reasons, under Stalin, I can't recall any example of his initiating a persecution. If you want to make Krushchev's anti-Semitism noteworthy here, then you'd have to do likewise for most of the historical figures of Eastern Europe. — J M Rice 21:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words and POV

The Neutrality Disputed tag is well-founded. There are so many weasel words here.... This is supposed to be an article, not a polemic! This is not a place for people to display their brilliant insights. Someone even inserted "Indeed. Indeed" (which I deleted).

I've placed citation tags on weasel words and other places that need sources. Editors should stay invisible. Of course, inserting citation tags isn't invisible (like Iraq, the sooner they're out of there the better), so please, either source the tagged text or remove it. — J M Rice 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beria and the bomb

The article mentions that Beria was in charge of the Soviet A-bomb program, but goes on to imply that this was because he could provide slave labor. Surprisingly, the best book on the subject, Stalin and the Bomb, indicates that Beria was quite competent at running the program. He wasn't that heavy-handed about it. Although the classic story was that, after the bomb went off, the scientists who would have been executed if it failed got Hero of the Soviet Union medals. The ones who would have been sent to prison got the next medal down, and so on. --John Nagle 05:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • "Quite competent": what would this mean? Did he actually run R&D? Of course not. A clever bureaucrat can run any project without knowing nothing technical. Beria was well-placed for four crucial components: workforce, security, espionage, and liaison to Stalin, so it was a natural choice for this most critical military project of the time. `'mikka (t) 06:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Beria and Abakumov

There is an awful contradiction between this article and the one about Viktor Abakumov in the way Stalin was weakining Beria's power. This one states that Abakumov was trying to supersede Beria with the support of Stalin, that one states that Abakumov was arrested in '51 because Stalin was trying to remove Beria's supporters from power. If Abakumov wanted Beria down then why did Beria bring him back to power after Stalin's death?

All of this needs to be resolved

Seektrue 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beria and his (alleged) sexual perversities

Removed the details of "The Flower Game". They are not relevant and due to their hard-core pornographic nature shock and offend readers. The link to the source is of course still included so those who want to find out how the "Flower Game" can be played still have the option to do so. Anonimous User: Nomad 14:36, 27 August 2006 (GMT+1)

You know, it's interesting: on wiki, we demand that articles have references. And yet that newspaper article doesn't give a single reference for anything its saying. They could be making it up. How would we know?

WikiReaderer 02:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What camp? What exile?

"Beria's wife and son were sent to a labour camp, but survived and were later released: his wife Nina died in 1991 in exile in Ukraine;"

What's this rubbish about Beria's wife and son being sent to a labor camp? His son was kept in jail (not even in prison) for a short period and then released, given a new name and a research position - it's all in his memoirs. And I have never heard about his wife being tried or sentenced.

As for his wife dying "in exile" - are you nuts? In Ukraine in 1991 - in exile? Come on, even Sakharov came back to Moscow - when, in 1986? What exile in 1991? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.176.245.169 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Backwards pic

Does anyone have a "correct" version of the main pic of Beria? This one is reversed (left-right). --SigPig |SEND - OVER 13:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genrikh Yagoda?

In the photograph of Beria with Stalin and Svetlana in the Postwar Politics section the figure in the background is described as Genrikh Yagoda. It is, I admit, difficult to make out; but on the basis of the hairline-and colour-I would say this was not Yagoda. Clio the Muse 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This was a recent adition by an anonymous know-it-all. The Library of Congress, from where the image was taken, notes that "the man at right, rear, is unidentified".[1] Thanks for spotting this! --Ghirla-трёп- 10:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V ersion 0.7 nomination

There are many horrific acts described here, and I think these need good documentation and referencing because of their controversial nature. I'm hesitant to include this article in Version 0.7 until we see some more inline citations. Will check back later to see if anyone can include these. Thanks, Walkerma 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait is Flopped

Hello,

It appears to me that the portrait of Beria haas been flopped. The normal position for a ribbon bar and medal would be on the left breast of the uniform.

[edit] Death

The version that Beria was killed on the spot has only passing mention in the article. But as I remember (unfortunately from private sources) it was quite common knowledge in higher Soviet eschelons. The official version went of course into the books with some convincing myths, like Beria kneeling and begging for his life etc. I cannot give any RS now, but just wanted to point out that this version is worth digging. --Magabund 09:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin Poisoned

The claim that "it is widely beleived that Beria killed Stalin" should have a CREDIBLE source (citing Molotov is certainly not enough.) This is because I have never once read that Beria killed him. Certainly Beria probably wanted him dead (since he was being implicated along with the anti-semitic campaign going on) and it's claimed that Beria told other upper eschelon Stalinists (like Malenkov, Zhdanov, and Molotov) at the time that it was in their interests for Stalin to die (since otherwise he might have unleashed a new purge against those currently in power). Also it's claimed that Beria and others might have let him die when he was sick, by withholding medical attention.

But as I said, I've never read that he poisoned him. Perhaps it's true, but if so, do cite a credible source that says this Dhilbert83 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm 99,99% sure there are no reliable sources (in WP meaning) that state unequivocally that Stalin was killed. However, number of authors play with this possibility, and Edvard Radzinsky sure as hell suggests that in his book "Stalin". Its mentioned even here on article about him, but Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. --Magabund (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)