CBC Special: Must See applies to all countries! DONALD TRUMP WHAT IS THE REAL SECURITY THREAT? Identity theft: How criminals use a low-interest credit card scam
TO HELL WITH THE CAPITALIST CORPORATE STATE!
ARREST CRIMINAL BANKERS!
https://youtu.be/2xBddrmbG7w via @YouTube
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Monday, March 4, 2019
What would happen to the USSR if Beria came to power
What would happen to the USSR if Beria came to power
translated from the Russian by Google and A.S.
In 1953, Beria was the 54th year. After becoming head of state, he could still be at the top of power for a long time, but his execution excluded such prospects. What could the USSR expect in the event of the victory of one of the Stalinist comrades?
Stalin did not leave behind a successor, after the death of the leader, four immediately claimed the main post of the country: Beria, Khrushchev, Malenkov and Bulganin. As a result, the power was divided between the two - Grigory Malenkov took the post of chairman of the Council of Ministers, and Lavrenti Beria, became his deputy and minister of internal affairs. However, Beria was, of course, the real head of the country.
Relying on the power structures, Beria in a short time changed the heads of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in all the Union republics and in most regions of the RSFSR, and the new appointees had themselves replaced the middle-level cadres on people who were loyal to Beria.
For several months of being at the very top of power, Beria was able to establish himself as an ambitious politician: on his initiative, a large-scale amnesty was held, the proceedings against political prisoners were stopped. Lavrenty Pavlovich intended to liquidate the collective farm system and expand the rights of all republics within the USSR. He was also a supporter of the rapprochement of the USSR with the West.
Did Beria have the opportunity to prevent his overthrow and take power by force? In May 1953, he was at the peak of his power and, with the help of an administrative resource, could easily have cracked down on any of his opponents. Journalist Alexei Durnovo believes that it was not enough to arrest Khrushchev and Malenkov, it was necessary to detain several dozen of their supporters.
The next step is to explain to the country that enemies sabotaging the construction of socialism sneaked into the party and behead the opposition. Then, according to Durnovo, for a long time, Beria could “enjoy power without a huge Union”.
Lavrenty Pavlovich would have peacefully grown old, awarding himself with orders and titles, would have enjoyed esteem in the politburo and respect among the people. The journalist believes that the "Beriev USSR" would be in many ways similar to the country that we later saw under Brezhnev.
Many modern historians believe that with the death of Beria, we lost a talented and active person. They are confident that under Lavrenti Pavlovich socialism would continue to develop "successfully and harmoniously" and the task of building a communist society in the USSR would become quite real.
The author of the work on Beria, the writer Sergey Kremlev, notes that the 1950s USSR had very impressive prospects. In his opinion, for their realization the ideal combination of leaders would be the Malenkov-Beria tandem, “where Beria would sit behind Malenkov, but he would pedal with might and main”.
In this political context, Khrushchev probably would have remained in the politburo, but would have lost the post of first secretary of the Moscow Party Committee. Experts believe that the failures of Khrushchev in the field of agriculture, where he was considered a specialist, would lead to the end of his career.
The Kremlin believes that if Beria remained at the helm of power, then the entire history of the planet could have developed according to a completely different scenario: to go not through militarization and capitalization, but as a way to build a decent and fair community of working people. In this sense, the Kremlin talks about Beria as a missed chance not only for Russia, but for all of humanity.
It is believed that the cult of Stalin Khrushchev debunked. However, as early as the spring of 1953, while he was in charge of the MGB, Beria became the author of a number of legislative and political acts that indirectly exposed the Stalinist regime and the repressions of the 1930s and 50s.
Some historians have perceived this as the first trend of democratic change. Moreover, Beria stopped the so-called "doctors' case" initiated by Stalin, in which, under the pretext of a plot against Soviet leaders, a number of talented specialists were persecuted. All of them were rehabilitated in two weeks.
Many believe that, if the government was kept, Beria would continue to review the cases of the repressed. Human rights activist Valery Borschev , on the contrary, calls Beria’s struggle against Stalinism a myth. Beria, in his words, would continue to implement the Stalinist methods of repression and the Stalinist method of suppression; The gulag would not disappear anywhere, and we would get a version of the dictatorship that is close to Chilean.
Many experts do not agree that under Beria we would have a totalitarian future. Blogger Anna Freese believes that Lawrence Pavlovich did everything to democratize society. Take, for example, his note to the presidium of the Central Committee on the abolition of passport restrictions from the peasants. The idea of Beria was implemented only in the 1970s.
Also noteworthy is Beria’s attempt to divide the powers of the authorities, limit the influence of ideology on the economic life of the country, and return to the real power of the Soviets. The chief researcher at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Georgy Mirsky, believes that even striving for democracy would not deprive Beria of his desire to take Stalin's place. However, he would not have succeeded. On his way there would be many obstacles, for example Marshal Zhukov.
Towards the West
Beria was a supporter of establishing relations with the West. He intended to restore relations with Yugoslavia, and also proposed to abandon the construction of socialism in East Germany, allowing the merger of the GDR with Germany. According to Mirsky, the Soviet Union under Beria would have refused the path of militarization, would not have gone on the escalation of the Cold War and would not plunge Cuba into his adventure. And relations with the United States, according to the expert, would have been much more “easy”.
Liquidation of the USSR
One of the motives for the overthrow of Beria was Khrushchev's confidence that his opponent intends to destroy the USSR. This is what Nikita Sergeevich said at the XX Congress of the CPSU : “Beria had a developed plan for the liquidation of the Soviet system. What he did not dare to do during the life of Comrade Stalin, he began to carry out after his death, began to discredit the policy of the greatest Lenin, preparing the seizure of power and the establishment of a counter-revolutionary dictatorship. He began to strenuously promote the members of the conspiratorial group to leading positions. In their anti-Soviet treasonous goals, Beria and his accomplices undertook a series of criminal measures in order to intensify the remnants of bourgeois-nationalist elements. ”
Stalinist
Andrei Sakharov, a doctor of historical sciences, does not believe that Beria, as a man who went through Stalin’s school of terror, would begin to change the system. After all, it was with him that the deployment of the GULAG structure was connected, his name was tarnished by repressions of the 1930s. However, Beria Sakharov called the projects more liberal and pragmatic than the Stalin projects.
Nikita Petrov , deputy chairman of the board of the Memorial Information and Educational Center , believes that Lavrenty Beria had very little chance of clinging to power. Even if he managed to win a place in the sun, not for long.
In the 1950s, the spirit of Stalin’s spirit was still alive, Nazarov notes, and therefore they dealt with “absolutely Stalinist” with Beria. Об этом сообщает Рамблер. Далее:
https://weekend.rambler.ru/people/41814392/?utm_content=rweekend&utm_medium=read_more&utm_source=copylink
translated from the Russian by Google and A.S.
In 1953, Beria was the 54th year. After becoming head of state, he could still be at the top of power for a long time, but his execution excluded such prospects. What could the USSR expect in the event of the victory of one of the Stalinist comrades?
Stalin did not leave behind a successor, after the death of the leader, four immediately claimed the main post of the country: Beria, Khrushchev, Malenkov and Bulganin. As a result, the power was divided between the two - Grigory Malenkov took the post of chairman of the Council of Ministers, and Lavrenti Beria, became his deputy and minister of internal affairs. However, Beria was, of course, the real head of the country.
Relying on the power structures, Beria in a short time changed the heads of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in all the Union republics and in most regions of the RSFSR, and the new appointees had themselves replaced the middle-level cadres on people who were loyal to Beria.
For several months of being at the very top of power, Beria was able to establish himself as an ambitious politician: on his initiative, a large-scale amnesty was held, the proceedings against political prisoners were stopped. Lavrenty Pavlovich intended to liquidate the collective farm system and expand the rights of all republics within the USSR. He was also a supporter of the rapprochement of the USSR with the West.
Did Beria have the opportunity to prevent his overthrow and take power by force? In May 1953, he was at the peak of his power and, with the help of an administrative resource, could easily have cracked down on any of his opponents. Journalist Alexei Durnovo believes that it was not enough to arrest Khrushchev and Malenkov, it was necessary to detain several dozen of their supporters.
The next step is to explain to the country that enemies sabotaging the construction of socialism sneaked into the party and behead the opposition. Then, according to Durnovo, for a long time, Beria could “enjoy power without a huge Union”.
Lavrenty Pavlovich would have peacefully grown old, awarding himself with orders and titles, would have enjoyed esteem in the politburo and respect among the people. The journalist believes that the "Beriev USSR" would be in many ways similar to the country that we later saw under Brezhnev.
Many modern historians believe that with the death of Beria, we lost a talented and active person. They are confident that under Lavrenti Pavlovich socialism would continue to develop "successfully and harmoniously" and the task of building a communist society in the USSR would become quite real.
The author of the work on Beria, the writer Sergey Kremlev, notes that the 1950s USSR had very impressive prospects. In his opinion, for their realization the ideal combination of leaders would be the Malenkov-Beria tandem, “where Beria would sit behind Malenkov, but he would pedal with might and main”.
In this political context, Khrushchev probably would have remained in the politburo, but would have lost the post of first secretary of the Moscow Party Committee. Experts believe that the failures of Khrushchev in the field of agriculture, where he was considered a specialist, would lead to the end of his career.
The Kremlin believes that if Beria remained at the helm of power, then the entire history of the planet could have developed according to a completely different scenario: to go not through militarization and capitalization, but as a way to build a decent and fair community of working people. In this sense, the Kremlin talks about Beria as a missed chance not only for Russia, but for all of humanity.
It is believed that the cult of Stalin Khrushchev debunked. However, as early as the spring of 1953, while he was in charge of the MGB, Beria became the author of a number of legislative and political acts that indirectly exposed the Stalinist regime and the repressions of the 1930s and 50s.
Some historians have perceived this as the first trend of democratic change. Moreover, Beria stopped the so-called "doctors' case" initiated by Stalin, in which, under the pretext of a plot against Soviet leaders, a number of talented specialists were persecuted. All of them were rehabilitated in two weeks.
Many believe that, if the government was kept, Beria would continue to review the cases of the repressed. Human rights activist Valery Borschev , on the contrary, calls Beria’s struggle against Stalinism a myth. Beria, in his words, would continue to implement the Stalinist methods of repression and the Stalinist method of suppression; The gulag would not disappear anywhere, and we would get a version of the dictatorship that is close to Chilean.
Many experts do not agree that under Beria we would have a totalitarian future. Blogger Anna Freese believes that Lawrence Pavlovich did everything to democratize society. Take, for example, his note to the presidium of the Central Committee on the abolition of passport restrictions from the peasants. The idea of Beria was implemented only in the 1970s.
Also noteworthy is Beria’s attempt to divide the powers of the authorities, limit the influence of ideology on the economic life of the country, and return to the real power of the Soviets. The chief researcher at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Georgy Mirsky, believes that even striving for democracy would not deprive Beria of his desire to take Stalin's place. However, he would not have succeeded. On his way there would be many obstacles, for example Marshal Zhukov.
Towards the West
Beria was a supporter of establishing relations with the West. He intended to restore relations with Yugoslavia, and also proposed to abandon the construction of socialism in East Germany, allowing the merger of the GDR with Germany. According to Mirsky, the Soviet Union under Beria would have refused the path of militarization, would not have gone on the escalation of the Cold War and would not plunge Cuba into his adventure. And relations with the United States, according to the expert, would have been much more “easy”.
Liquidation of the USSR
One of the motives for the overthrow of Beria was Khrushchev's confidence that his opponent intends to destroy the USSR. This is what Nikita Sergeevich said at the XX Congress of the CPSU : “Beria had a developed plan for the liquidation of the Soviet system. What he did not dare to do during the life of Comrade Stalin, he began to carry out after his death, began to discredit the policy of the greatest Lenin, preparing the seizure of power and the establishment of a counter-revolutionary dictatorship. He began to strenuously promote the members of the conspiratorial group to leading positions. In their anti-Soviet treasonous goals, Beria and his accomplices undertook a series of criminal measures in order to intensify the remnants of bourgeois-nationalist elements. ”
Stalinist
Andrei Sakharov, a doctor of historical sciences, does not believe that Beria, as a man who went through Stalin’s school of terror, would begin to change the system. After all, it was with him that the deployment of the GULAG structure was connected, his name was tarnished by repressions of the 1930s. However, Beria Sakharov called the projects more liberal and pragmatic than the Stalin projects.
Nikita Petrov , deputy chairman of the board of the Memorial Information and Educational Center , believes that Lavrenty Beria had very little chance of clinging to power. Even if he managed to win a place in the sun, not for long.
In the 1950s, the spirit of Stalin’s spirit was still alive, Nazarov notes, and therefore they dealt with “absolutely Stalinist” with Beria. Об этом сообщает Рамблер. Далее:
https://weekend.rambler.ru/people/41814392/?utm_content=rweekend&utm_medium=read_more&utm_source=copylink
Sunday, March 3, 2019
Jason Unruhe with his usual shortcomings on Socialists groups
Jason Unruhe with his usual shortcomings in an excellent yet not a very original article on libcom.org the psuedo left & revolution in America and the shady nature of the left in America https://youtu.be/8PF9BpWPecc via @YouTube
Where I think he should of been an anarchist because he seemingly never works with others except he is not an anarchist??? Maybe he is a crypto anarchist infiltrating Maoists?
Where I think he should of been an anarchist because he seemingly never works with others except he is not an anarchist??? Maybe he is a crypto anarchist infiltrating Maoists?
-
Trump culo flaco mata America, Buen Elvis, Buen America, con un faceo bonito, nunca sucio o pobre, ven a America Trump simplista c...
