What if Beria stopped Khruschev's coup?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria#Head_of_the_NKVD
After Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary. Voroshilov became Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (i.e., the head of state).


Given his record, it is not surprising that the other Party leaders were suspicious of Beria's motives. Khrushchev opposed the alliance between Beria and Malenkov, but he was initially unable to challenge them. His opportunity came in June 1953 when a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin.


Based on Beria's own statements, other leaders suspected that in the wake of the uprising, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. For example, Beria gave Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania serious prospects of national autonomy, possibly similarly to other Soviet satellite states in Europe.[31][32][33]


The East German uprising convinced Molotov, Malenkov, and Nikolai Bulganin that Beria's policies were dangerous and destabilizing to Soviet power. Within days of the events in Germany, Khrushchev persuaded the other leaders to support a Party coup against Beria; Beria's principal ally Malenkov abandoned him.

Beria was poised to head off the Cold War by working with the West and given autonomy to various parts of the Soviet empire. What if he caught scent of the coup, purged his rivals, and enacted his plan to get US aid?
 

RousseauX

Donor
How?

Stalin had already moved Beria away from the levers of the security services, on top of that security chiefs in the USSR was never very independently powerful. The previous two NKVD chiefs were removed without issue. On top of that, he was hated by literally everyone else in the party and the army. Make a move and Zhukov moves in a motor rifle division and shoots him.
 
Stalin had already moved Beria away from the levers of the security services, on top of that security chiefs in the USSR was never very independently powerful. The previous two NKVD chiefs were removed without issue. On top of that, he was hated by literally everyone else in the party and the army. Make a move and Zhukov moves in a motor rifle division and shoots him.

Beria would need several lucky breaks and a political ally, which would be very hard for him to gain at this point. Maybe if Khrushchev's coup ends up targeting someone else important as well as Beria? If the plot is then sniffed out before Khrushchev can make military preparations, Beria might have a chance.
 
I don't think his position could be maintained long term. If he thwarts this one there would be next one forming. Only way for him to prevent that is to purge (potential) conspirators and once that starts being planned would-be purgees move in since they have nothng to lose.
 
I've always wondered why people think Beria would be better than Stalin. We should remember that he is the man that micromanaged Stalin's gulags. Why would he suddenly become a liberal reformist?

One should also remember that many analysts viewed Andropov as a closet liberal reformist. However, he ultimately showed during his brief reign that he had no intention to initiate political reform. Why wouldn't Beria turn out any different than Andropov?:confused:
 

Deleted member 1487

I've always wondered why people think Beria would be better than Stalin. We should remember that he is the man that micromanaged Stalin's gulags. Why would he suddenly become a liberal reformist?
Who is saying he would? His 'reforms' are gambits to get the US to pay for reconstruction of the USSR. Which would mean playing nicer in central Europe.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria#Head_of_the_NKVD


Beria was poised to head off the Cold War by working with the West and given autonomy to various parts of the Soviet empire. What if he caught scent of the coup, purged his rivals, and enacted his plan to get US aid?

It took two countries to fight the Cold War. Just because the Soviets want peace doesn't mean the Americans are going to stand down. And what do they do when America starts toppling Communist governments and putting (more) client states on their borders? The Soviets weren't the ones surrounding their enemy with military bases.

And even if Beria chooses to ignore all that, someone in the Kremlin power structure is going to call bullshit and make quite the political profit out of taking a hard line towards the Americans.
 
Who is saying he would? His 'reforms' are gambits to get the US to pay for reconstruction of the USSR. Which would mean playing nicer in central Europe.

Ahh, so you're saying he would be like Khruchev, "no persecution for certain communists" but still maintaining a one-party dictatorship?
 
That section also said Congress would have likely refused in any event. Anti-communism is a growing force in America at this point. Unfortunately for this early ATL detente (and indeed the later OTL one), too many people, on both sides, are invested in a conflict between the USA and the USSR.
 
That section also said Congress would have likely refused in any event. Anti-communism is a growing force in America at this point. Unfortunately for this early ATL detente (and indeed the later OTL one), too many people, on both sides, are invested in a conflict between the USA and the USSR.

As Ike said beware the military industrial complex...

More money in conflict that these people missed from wars .. No money in peace ... Also it helps justify employment numbers that also looks good for the politicians popularity if the population has a job putting screws in a t72 or a Boeing plant
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Beria was a sociopath AND a serial rapist and, in all likelihood, mass murderer entirely separate from his NKVD responsibilities. He made Stalin look like the Priest that Iosif Vissarionovich's mother had hoped he would become.

There is NO ONE in the 1930s-40s Soviet leadership who would be a WORSE General Secretary during the 1950s-60s. He wanted to tap the bank account of the U.S., and was willing to take certain steps to gain access, but he was vicious to a point that is simply mind-numbing.

The best bet for detente was actual Nikita Sergeyevich, which was why he was overthrown in 1964 by the hard liners who controlled the USSR for the next two decades
 
Beria was a sociopath AND a serial rapist and, in all likelihood, mass murderer entirely separate from his NKVD responsibilities. He made Stalin look like the Priest that Iosif Vissarionovich's mother had hoped he would become.

There is NO ONE in the 1930s-40s Soviet leadership who would be a WORSE General Secretary during the 1950s-60s. He wanted to tap the bank account of the U.S., and was willing to take certain steps to gain access, but he was vicious to a point that is simply mind-numbing.

The best bet for detente was actual Nikita Sergeyevich, which was why he was overthrown in 1964 by the hard liners who controlled the USSR for the next two decades


Agreed, Beria was a Himmler level monster...
 
Agreed, Beria was a Himmler level monster...

I also agree kruschev was th best bet .. While many think negative of him and a bafoon .. (And that is a consensus in these parts). I personally don't think so. He knew what had to be done, unfortunately the damage from the cult of Stalin and the way the soviet system had been run since its inception hindered his ideas. Kruschev was by no means a western styled savior .. However he knew the system needed change, and also recognized confrontation with the west was a not so smart idea.. Especially after Cuba ..

The Soviet Union was going not see an economic boom no matter what post war, with money flowing into reconstruction projects, universities, this educated class I turn innovati and producing new things, add on competition with the west in things like space and technology and manufacturing, research.. And othe thugs had th soviets set up good, the thaw allowed people to be some what creative and open.

Many idolize Brezhnev for the stability of the late 60's and early 70's ... U the was working of the post war boom coat tails of a natural economic boom. He took this momentum and mismanaged and caused stagnation and ultimately the collapse of the Soviet Union as by the time you got someone in power again who had the balls to do reform it was to late ..( compound that with the issues of the day in the 80's of Afghanistan and finally Chernobyl and th arms race redux ..

Beria while quite ruthless learned this for survival in a time where you were either ruthless and alive or in a gulag or Siberia .. The system under Stalin was just completely adverse to functional government and civil law.

Maybe in a different universe Beria wouldn't be so encouraged to be such a sob .. But the times bread people like these as it was a much different world by standards then today's mindset. Beria at least had the ability to see the picture and knew adaption was needed .. Not that I would want him as general secretary ..
 
Same with Gorbachev .. Vast majority blame him and hate him..

Wasn't his fault he was handed a runaway train with no breaks and an overloaded steam engine with a stuck intake valve.. You can only put so much lipstick on a pig.

He realized the arms race was a no win.. He tried to adapt in frantic fashion that didn't help all to well ( no real plan and having your hands tied by a military industrial state exacerbated the problems and micro management and corruption sealed the deal) Like being on the titanic .. You see the iceberg but the damn ship won't turn..

Post Stalin , kruschev and early Brezhnev where the time when the soviets had a chance to create a real Soviet Union .. The ghosts of Stalin and Lenin and the PTSD effects of their rule coupled with the massive social and mental damage caused by the war totally handicapped them ...

I liken it to Putin, who if he served only his initial terms and left office gracefully and went off to his bear and shark riding hobbies would be remembered as Russias George Washington .. The man who built the modern state .. Who restored Russia. Pride .. Brought Russia from the dark to the light ..
Instead I don't think history will be as kind for obvious reasons ... Baba in the ghosts of the past and the old ways of doing things have handicapped all regional governments in the former russian empire/Soviet Union since time immortal ... They just haven't had the good leaders walk away and turn over the reins to the next.. Ever...
 
Last edited:
Top