Lavrenty Beria. Probably one of the most evil men in world history. Let’s say this prick becomes the leader of the Soviet Union.
What happens?
What happens?
Both,poor girlsBased on which source you read, he’s either Stalin 2.0, or the Deng xiaoping of Russia.
Both,poor girls
Lot's of very bad things to young women and girls unfortunate enough to be in grabbing distance of the black lada prowling the countryside.Lavrenty Beria. Probably one of the most evil men in world history. Let’s say this prick becomes the leader of the Soviet Union.
What happens?
Somehow, I doubt it. Beria, from what I know, was a power-mad dog of a man. I feel like he'd actually reverse some policies and be worse than Stalin, clamping down even harder on civil liberties to tighten his grip. He was the head of the secret police.Lot's of very bad things to young women and girls unfortunate enough to be in grabbing distance of the black lada prowling the countryside.
Beyond that his USSR might not actually be that bad. He was an amoral asshole, but seems to have been administratively competent and basically sane. He was an opportunist rather than an idealist so policy blunders like the Virgin Lands Campaign, retention of Lysenkoism, active continuation of the Cold War, and Sino-Soviet Split could be avoided. Not sure he'd actually go through with marketization as some have suggested, but something as simple as extending the quality control measures of the military industries to the rest of Soviet manufacturing could be a neat way to create cushy retirement postings for his fellow butchers.
Why?Beria had as much chance becoming a Soviet leader as Harvey Weinstein becoming a US president.
Why?
He was a superb organiser and was pro detente with the West even at that early stage. The Soviet Union would have benefited from his leadership.
To become leader he would have had to develop support within the inner circle and/or eliminate his enemies ( definitely not beyond him).
His problem was timing. Stalin's death was too soon for him to do either. Stalin surviving for weeks longer, but fairly incapacitated, or just a general decline with no stroke would have provided the time for him to plot his succession to power.
Stalin planned to purge him along with doctors. He had no time left.His problem was timing. Stalin's death was too soon for him to do either. Stalin surviving for weeks longer, but fairly incapacitated, or just a general decline with no stroke would have provided the time for him to plot his succession to power.
I was unaware of that. Can you advise a reference so I can read more?Stalin planned to purge him along with doctors. He had no time left.
Presumably 1948, after the successful nuke test...the man who negated the US nuclear advantage...He was surely good organiser but probably was too detente with the West on eyes of Politbyroo.
Surely. But he just managed to get more enemies.
I think that problem was that Stalin lived too long. There was already forming anti-Beria opposition. Probably his best shot would had been between 1945 - 1948.
Beria's different. Beria's reputation was horrendous. Like, so bad even Stalin didn't want his daughter alone with the man. And Beria knew this and when he accidentally was alone with her, got as far away as possible to ensure he couldn't be accused of... well. You know.And for the record, yes he was a dreadful human being but so were Stalin, Kruschev, and many other leaders with whom the West had to deal. Geopolitics isn't a morality play, but a game where every nation seeks benefit for itself. The personal conduct of a a nation's leaders is irrelevant.
Ruling Russia. Authoritarianism from the Revolution to PutinI was unaware of that. Can you advise a reference so I can read more?
Nobody liked him. Khrushchev only allied with him out of convenience and tossed him aside when he was no longer needed; Stalin despised him and was terrified when he learned his daughter was alone with him (and wanted to remove him by 1953); so on, and so forth.Why?
He was a superb organiser and was pro detente with the West even at that early stage. The Soviet Union would have benefited from his leadership.
To become leader he would have had to develop support within the inner circle and/or eliminate his enemies ( definitely not beyond him).
His problem was timing. Stalin's death was too soon for him to do either. Stalin surviving for weeks longer, but fairly incapacitated, or just a general decline with no stroke would have provided the time for him to plot his succession to power.
And for the record, yes he was a dreadful human being but so were Stalin, Kruschev, and many other leaders with whom the West had to deal. Geopolitics isn't a morality play, but a game where every nation seeks benefit for itself. The personal conduct of a a nation's leaders is irrelevant.