Beria Retains Power

[Paradox_Fanatic]

I'm fairly interested in the Soviet Union, the Lenin-Khrushchev period in particular, and so I found it interesting that in the time immediately after Stalin's death, L.P. Beria briefly held power. During that period, he actually did some completely unprecedented liberalizing of the Soviet system. This was reversed when he was removed from power and executed. However, there don't seem to be any reliable sources on his future plans at the time or if he was simply doing it to increase his support base. So I thought I'd see what the people here thought.

If L.P. Beria had retained power, would he have continued to reform the Soviet system? And what would be the ramifications of him successfully holding onto power?

[K. A. Pital]

1) Yes, he most likely would. The liberalization that came in the 1950s was a necessity far greater than the single person in power in the USSR. Even Stalin himself realized the need for some sort of reform. Regardless of who stood in power after the 1950s, he would have to do some reformation, especially regarding the enormous size of the Soviet post-war Army. The necessary cutbacks were supported by some in the Soviet generalitee, but not by others who still thought conventional fighting could erupt in Europe any day and the larger the army is, the better. Especially staunch were those who had military-industrial complex ties, since the cutbacks would result in massive conversion of enterprises and the end of large tank production runs... not what they wanted.

2) Beria was a Security Chief, and thus was equipped with all the resources this position entails. He did not take any significant part in the Great Purge, instead his rise to power was coupled with mass amnesties that he ran, and mass judicial verdict revisions - but he had the huge Stalin era apparatus to maintain a good grip on everything in the nation. His position in power, if he managed to solidify it, would've been far more sound than Khrushevs.

3) In foreign policy, Beria would've probably followed some sort of detente. He ended the Korean War after all, and it seems he wasn't too trusting of the Soviet Union's foreign "friends" in Asia.

4) In military technology, Beria would've pushed for more advanced missile defense and offense systems. Little is it known that Beria was the proponent and overseers of the Moscow ABM system plans.

5) In Soviet satellite policy, Beria would pursue re-integration with Tito and other European allies. He was willing to let go of the GDR to allow a unified Germany, even if it was "bourgeois, but peaceful". He was also an opponent of Stalin's "russification" policy towards lesser Republics.

[Paradox_Fanatic]

Wow. Thanks Stas. It sounds as if Beria was perfect for the Soviet Union.

But if he had liberalized that much, wouldn't the rest of the Eastern Satellites have demanded similar reforms, essentially dissolving Soviet control over the bloc?

[K. A. Pital]

It sounds as if Beria was perfect for the Soviet Union.

Why? He might have been a more competent leader than Khrushev. He might not. The course for peace could have yielded good results - or it could have yielded the result of the USSR and the Soviet bloc dissolving... not a good outcome for a leader.

But if he had liberalized that much, wouldn't the rest of the Eastern Satellites have demanded similar reforms, essentially dissolving Soviet control over the bloc?

Yeah, some of his moves were rather controversial. And whatever one may think of "russification" and "sovietization" as policies, they to a degree helped to keep the Soviet bloc monolithic. So between installing some liberal reforms and holding to power, one must find a balance.

Actually Beria failed to do it. He thought he had support from Malenkov, Khrushev and the Army top, where they in fact plotted to kill him since neither was happy with the MVD and Security becoming the top power. Khrushev represented the Party, and vowed to "never put the Party under the control of the MVD" (Beria saw the Party as little more than an instrument of the Government), while the Army with Konev and Zhukov behind Khrushev long sought to liberate itself from the eyes of MVD/MGB/NKGB - and also stop the planned cutdown.

Just after the Army helped Khrushev to power and became instrumental in ousting Beria, Khrushev quickly realized that it must be controlled, and removed the Army from vital decisions, enacting the rapid cutdown of the USSR's enormous post-war ground military and moving all demobilized persons to work for the Second Wave of Soviet Industrialization.

[Paradox_Fanatic]

It sounds as if Beria was perfect for the Soviet Union.

Why? He might have been a more competent leader than Khrushev. He might not. The course for peace could have yielded good results - or it could have yielded the result of the USSR and the Soviet bloc dissolving... not a good outcome for a leader.

Well, he presumably wouldn't follow Khrushchev's agricultural path, which would be a plus (correct me if I'm wrong, but the initial success of Krushchev's agriculture plan was one time thing and resulted in a depletion of soil nutrients in the newly developed areas). And a more rapid demobilization coupled with a presumably less aggressive arms race would seem to be very beneficial to the USSR.

Actually Beria failed to do it. He thought he had support from Malenkov, Khrushev and the Army top, where they in fact plotted to kill him since neither was happy with the MVD and Security becoming the top power. Khrushev represented the Party, and vowed to "never put the Party under the control of the MVD" (Beria saw the Party as little more than an instrument of the Government), while the Army with Konev and Zhukov behind Khrushev long sought to liberate itself from the eyes of MVD/MGB/NKGB - and also stop the planned cutdown.

Was there anything Beria Could have done to avoid that, or was the Army and Party taking him down pretty much inevitable?