There were only THEORIES or ACCUSATIONS against Beria to that effect, primarily based on his desire to return to a NEP-type system for awhile after WWII.

It was enemies that considered Beria an enemy, enemies that were in fact capitalists, never communists, and who proved this of themselves later on by wrecking collectives that worked well!. Anyone investigating a crime would have problems with the way the entire affair was handled. I can’t agree with Martens’ arguments against Beria at all. Therefore, one must also wonder IF THERE WERE ANY rumors or suspicions immediately after Stalin’s death! Surely, if there were, they’d have made their way to the NKVD and the NKVD would have acted on it at least they’d have arrested the people who found Stalin on the floor.īut WAS Stalin found laying on the floor? Or is that more “after the fact” rumor? And why didn’t Beria do away with his rivals even 4 months after Stalin’s death? Apparently they were NOT his rivals, as the totalitarian paradigmists suggest. With all the rumors and suspicions about Stalin’s death, he could easily have gotten his “rivals” arrested and shot. Nonsense! This only makes sense if you abide by the totalitarian paradigm of Soviet society, which is blatantly false.Ī more logical deduction would be that Beria never considered there to be ANY power grab and was not at odds with his Comrades, at least not at odds in such a big way that he’d grab power and use it against them.Ĭonsider it: Beria had BOTH the NKGB and NKVD under him. So then, they conclude that Beria didn’t make a grab because he was arrogant. So the Western anti-Soviet writers are left to invent a “reason” that this was so. Yes, Beria did NOT make any such grab and it is evident that had he wanted to make that grab for power, he could have easily done it. This is like the Forward to “The Beria Affair,” where the author goes into all the things THE WEST “knew” about what “power” Beria had – and then states that even 4 months after Stalin died, Beria did not make a grab for ultimate power. Martins has only theories and/or rumor or gossip, which is what Kremlinologists used to create the totalitarian paradigm against all of Soviet society! Why would he believe this or believe Khrushchev? However oddly, in stark contrast to the rest of the book, the analysis of Lavrenty Beria does NOT show facts at all. The rest of the Martens’ book relies on facts. This (ON BERIA) is related to Ludo Martens’ book “Another View of Stalin.” It is a critique of his assessment of Beria.

Another view of stalin ludo martens