How would a Berianist soviet union looks like?

Ok, here a dystopic question: Considering that against all odds, Beria becomes the leader of the Soviet Union, how would such state look like, and how it would develop different from the Kruschevist Soviet Union?

First of all, one condition I want to stabilish is that Beria is prepared for Stalin's death, let's not go for the conspiracy theories that he killed stalin or anything, but on this scenario he knows for a while that Stalin might be dead soon, and this allows him to pull enought resources, man and planning in taking over the State, and so at the death of Stalin he manages to use his huge wibe to overmanouver his enemies and take over the government, also purging Kruschev, Malenkov and others.

Another point is that this Beria holds the power until the end of his "sane" life, or to put more simple, he was born in 1899, let's say that he can commands the government before his capacity to lead gets seriously crippled on the mid-late 1970s, that means that we have a NKVD state that will last from 1953 until somewhere on the 70s. What are the butterflies on the cold war, and does this Soviet Union endures longer or less time than the OTL soviet union?

Strictly speaking, it would not be "NKVD state" because NKVD ceased to exist in 1946 (and Beria lost his position) being replaced by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) which Beria (when reappointed as head of the MVD) merged with the Ministry of State Security (MGB). The merge continued from mid-March 1953 until mid-March 1954 after which these agencies were separated and MGB "demoted" to a committee status (KGB). So how about the "MVD state"? ;)


As for the rest, it is a wild guess but it probably make sense to consider the following factors:

1st, the people who did end on the top in OTL also had been heavily involved in the atrocities of Stalin's regime, GULAG was not abolished until 1955 and KGB remained a powerful organization almost until the very end of the SU even if the methods changed (Andropov used involuntary commitments to psychiatric hospitals, deportations and arrests of the activists to achieve "the destruction of dissent in all its forms") . We can only guess how things would develop under your scenario.

2nd, during his life time Beria was regularly in charge of the areas related to the technological development (nuclear program being one of them) and at least had some idea about the Soviet economy while Khruschev was a pure "apparatchik" with no clue. As a result, when in power Nikita was steadily marching from one disastrous decision to another. It is possible to assume that some of these disasters could be avoided by someone more experienced (an argument seemingly popular among Beria's apologists) but OTOH it is rather hard to tell which methods Beria in power would be using.

3rd, it seems that Beria was willing to at least consider unification of Germany on conditions of getting a big Western help (which would be definitely good for the Soviet economy), which could result in an early end of the Cold War and numerous butterflies in more than one area.
 
Yeah Beria was actually kinda liberal in his policy views, he abolished torture in the NKVD after stalin died for example which is why he wasn't tortured after Khrushchev and Zhukov arrested him

I can guarantee that he did not abolish "torture in the NKVD after stalin died" by a simple reason of NKVD being replaced by MVD since 1946. :winkytongue: However, in 1953 he proposed a comprehensive amnesty for the GULAG prisoners (1.032M people had been released)
 

Anchises

Banned
So I am a think tankie now?

And general secretary of what?

Not sure I am flattered. ;-)

Beria is an interesting case. I'm really not sure what happens if he wins power. However, some observations:

1) He seems to have pushed the roll-back of the Gulag system after Stalin's death.

2) He seems to have genuinely held "pragmatist" views - insisting that the Soviet nuclear program must have the best people regardless of their politics and that they be given freedom to work without ideological supervision for example.

3) He seems to have been a genuinely good organizer.

4) He absolutely murdered and raped for fun. In a regime chock full of murdering fanatics, Beria still manages to stand out for his evil.

Also, I doubt Beria could have ended the Cold War, or even made it much less intense. At this point, the US is committed to opposing the Soviets.

fasquardon

Beria as the leader of the Soviet Union would be a genuine head-scratcher to historians.

On the one hand he obviously is a raping and murdering evil psychopath.

On the other hand he might have been competent enough to enjoy a more successful leadership period than Khrushchev.

Strictly speaking, it would not be "NKVD state" because NKVD ceased to exist in 1946 (and Beria lost his position) being replaced by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) which Beria (when reappointed as head of the MVD) merged with the Ministry of State Security (MGB). The merge continued from mid-March 1953 until mid-March 1954 after which these agencies were separated and MGB "demoted" to a committee status (KGB). So how about the "MVD state"? ;)


As for the rest, it is a wild guess but it probably make sense to consider the following factors:

1st, the people who did end on the top in OTL also had been heavily involved in the atrocities of Stalin's regime, GULAG was not abolished until 1955 and KGB remained a powerful organization almost until the very end of the SU even if the methods changed (Andropov used involuntary commitments to psychiatric hospitals, deportations and arrests of the activists to achieve "the destruction of dissent in all its forms") . We can only guess how things would develop under your scenario.

2nd, during his life time Beria was regularly in charge of the areas related to the technological development (nuclear program being one of them) and at least had some idea about the Soviet economy while Khruschev was a pure "apparatchik" with no clue. As a result, when in power Nikita was steadily marching from one disastrous decision to another. It is possible to assume that some of these disasters could be avoided by someone more experienced (an argument seemingly popular among Beria's apologists) but OTOH it is rather hard to tell which methods Beria in power would be using.

3rd, it seems that Beria was willing to at least consider unification of Germany on conditions of getting a big Western help (which would be definitely good for the Soviet economy), which could result in an early end of the Cold War and numerous butterflies in more than one area.

1) I could imagine that Beria would use Andropovian methods earlier than OTL. A seemingly "kinder" MVD to improve relations with the west. At least IOTL he quickly stopped some Stalinist excesses. I don't know if he had a genuine interest in

2) Interesting. Beria as "father" of the soviet atom bomb had some insights sure but would that really translate into a better economic policy ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_industry_in_East_Germany Maybe we would see some expensive high-technology disasters instead of the virgin lands campaign?

3) Earlier reunification would be big butterflies indeed. I don't see the FRG going for it though, if a condition is not joining NATO. If we have an early reunited Germany, integrated into the Western Block, changes would be huge.

Without the GDR the Eastern Block economy would be worse off in the long run imho. The special relation with the FRG offered some valuable access to western markets and the GDR economy itself was a high-achiever inside the Eastern Block.
 

Anchises

Banned
Robotron was a joke IRL.

"Robotron: We have the biggest microelectronics of the world!"

"Why does Brezhnev have such a wide chest? - His pacemaker was made by Robotron."

"How do you know the Stasi has bugged your apartment? - There's a new cabinet inside it."

That's why I wrote: high-tech disaster

Orthodox Marxism-Leninism isn't really suitable for a high tech RnD sector, for a number of structural reasons.
 
Also, I doubt Beria could have ended the Cold War, or even made it much less intense. At this point, the US is committed to opposing the Soviets.

If Beria wouldn't have been *that* bad for the Soviets, were there any realistic possible successors who would have been really bad, whether they would have been tyrants like Stalin or war mongers who would have been looking to send the 3rd Shock Army west?
 

Anchises

Banned
You weren't clear: "High tech disaster" in the sense of "billions of money and thousands of man-years wasted", or "Grey Goo"?

Well "Grey Goo" certainly is optimistic....

Primarily I meant a giant waste of money but depending on what pet project Beria and his cronies would choose, there is certainly potential for giant environmental damage.
 
Beria might have actually ended the Cold War early, or at least greatly reduced it. IIRC he was in favor of allowing Germany to reunify, supported granting greater freedoms to the East Bloc states and the Baltics, and wanted better trade and diplomatic relations with the West.

That still leaves the USSR as a despotic police state headed by a serial killer and rapist, though
Whilst Beria may have wanted that, I think whoever would be in charge of the USSR was inevitably going to be thrust into a cold war. Too many of the USSR's political obligations were already in conflict with the US (or it's allies) sphere of interest.
 
Now, based on what you said, this Soviet Union is going to be way more prosperous than the OTL soviet union, isn't? While the USA is going to try to supress it, as OTL, these soviets won't have to deal with the burden of occupying eastern europe and a civilian nuclear energy program can improve the standart of living. But what happens after Beria dies? Who could take power?

I'm not sure it would have been more prosperous.

One of the big failings of the USSR is that it didn't have an effective market system. Now, there are more ways to have an effective market system than only capitalism, but the soft-Stalinism of the Eastern European satellites and toyed with by Soviet reformers didn't address this key failing of the Soviet system either. And often the good reforms the did have either didn't have time to bed in, would get watered down in order to buy off other interest groups, lacked the necessary ingredients to make them effective (such as the lack of an effective market or a lack of communication or a lack of worker education) or were just too complicated. The Kosygin reforms would result in Soviet enterprises having to meet something like 21 or 22 different targets - it was just too many, so people just continued using the old Stalinist criteria for enterprise success. Beria seems to have been a good organizer, a smart man and of course ruthless, but he's got a Sisyphean struggle. So while he could make progress to a better system, I really don't see him making much more progress that Khrushchev did. Especially seeing as how Beria isn't just a better Khrushchev - the wily Ukrainian had advantages that Beria wouldn't have.

Another big issue is how Beria handles the Party. The USSR was an ideological state. Belief in Marxist-Leninism is a vital source of energy for the state and the Party was the glue and the brain of the whole structure. If Beria tries to run the USSR as a secret police state and sucks the energy out of the ideology with non-ideological pragmatism, I could see it causing rot in the most vital organs of the USSR. I'm really not sure how much of a believer Beria was - that's an area of ignorance I need to work on - so Beria may not actually be at risk of "pragmatizing" the USSR to death. I'm just pointing out an area of weakness.

And then there's the really big issue - can Beria find enough subordinates who truly believe in him? Stalin was a monster, but he was able to be an effective monster because he had many capable underlings who admired him and believed in him. If Beria is surrounded by people who think he's disgusting, or a moral stain on Socialism, it doesn't matter how able he is, he won't be able to rule well.

If Beria wouldn't have been *that* bad for the Soviets, were there any realistic possible successors who would have been really bad, whether they would have been tyrants like Stalin or war mongers who would have been looking to send the 3rd Shock Army west?

I don't think there were any contenders who were willing to risk WW3.

3) Earlier reunification would be big butterflies indeed. I don't see the FRG going for it though, if a condition is not joining NATO. If we have an early reunited Germany, integrated into the Western Block, changes would be huge.

Yeah. The West didn't accept any of OTL's (genuine) offers to let Germany re-unite if it were neutral. I don't see this changing if Beria is boss.

fasquardon
 
On the one hand he obviously is a raping and murdering evil psychopath.

On the other hand he might have been competent enough to enjoy a more successful leadership period than Khrushchev.

I don't see the contradiction? Perhaps you've idealised the Westphalian state? Government isn't nice, and the people who accumulate power in governments tend to be conditioned by the performance criteria.

So while he could make progress to a better system, I really don't see him making much more progress that Khrushchev did.

Nagy wasn't only ousted because Rakosi was a dick. Rakosi represented the other major ideological tendency in the Hungarian party. Mikoyan didn't get off nicely after 1956 because he was a nice chap—seems to have been no worse than En Lai—but because Mikoyan represented a major ideological tendency within the Soviet party. Beria will face threats to his power around 1957 and 1963 for party line reasons.
 
Nagy wasn't only ousted because Rakosi was a dick. Rakosi represented the other major ideological tendency in the Hungarian party. Mikoyan didn't get off nicely after 1956 because he was a nice chap—seems to have been no worse than En Lai—but because Mikoyan represented a major ideological tendency within the Soviet party. Beria will face threats to his power around 1957 and 1963 for party line reasons.

You're right. But just because the rest of the top people in the Soviet Union had the blood of (at best) thousands on their hands doesn't mean they didn't have scruples.

Of course, I'm not saying that their scruples would mean Beria might not find enough good subordinates, only that it MIGHT mean he'd not find enough people. Or the people he did find would be less motivated by what they knew about their boss.

From what we know about Beria, he had the potential to be a disaster as a leader or actually decent (if you ignore his crimes). From what we know about the Soviet Union, I don't expect him to be a great success though.

fasquardon
 

Anchises

Banned
I don't see the contradiction? Perhaps you've idealised the Westphalian state? Government isn't nice, and the people who accumulate power in governments tend to be conditioned by the performance criteria.

And you would argue that hunting and raping women is a byproduct of Soviet performance criteria? That is simply not true, even the other power brokers in the Soviet Union were disgusted and terrified by his behaviour.

Ted Bundy as POTUS would have been weird in the same way as Beria as GenSec. Sexual predators are violent in a way that is unnacceptable to most societies.
 
Top