Absolutely nothing personal taken. Beria’s a difficult subject to find trustworthy resources on and it’s kind of become like a “dinner-table conversation” with how ubiquitous the idea is. I feel like Beria used to be more of someone who was whispered about in hushed tones by communists and people who spend their time reading about the USSR in a similar vein as to how communists talk about Pol Pot. Seems like now everyone and their mother gives a shit about what Beria was up to lol. Mostly just an internet thing I’m sure.
From the Editor’s Preface to “Beria, my father”
“The testimonies also confirm the kidnapping of women and what people in
Tbilisi called Beria’s ‘Sultan’s habits’.” The only source they refer to with this line is “testimonies”. Those testimonies appear nowhere in the rest of the book. It’s incredible, the words “kidnap”, “r***”, “torture”, “sadist”, “sex”, “SA”, in this proper context, don’t exist in the work. They imply a sort of tautological truthiness to the idea. His son never mentions it, regardless of being very critical of Stalin and his father throughout the book. So this wasn’t exactly a good source for disproving the argument, just another example of complete lack of evidence or sourcing presented as if there were.
edit: “The Chekist M. Shreider reports the evidence of this given by the former
head of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, Mirzoyan. ‘He spoke of Beria with
hatred. He told me that when Beria was proposed for secretary of the Party in
Transcaucasia, Sergo Ordzhonikidze and a group of Caucasian Bolsheviks showed
strong opposition. They claimed to have information proving that Beria was a traitor,
about his links with the Musavatists and the role he played in the Menshevik revolt
… They also referred to his debauchery. In Caucasia Beria was nicknamed the
Turkish Sultan, and it was almost as though he kept a harem … Stalin knew all
about that, but insisted on Beria being nominated.’ Shreider, op. cit. 175” Can’t find the OG source. This is the only source that makes a claim about his supposed debauchery, and the claim it’s being used as a source for is entirely unrelated.
Absolutely nothing personal taken. Beria’s a difficult subject to find trustworthy resources on and it’s kind of become like a “dinner-table conversation” with how ubiquitous the idea is. I feel like Beria used to be more of someone who was whispered about in hushed tones by communists and people who spend their time reading about the USSR in a similar vein as to how communists talk about Pol Pot. Seems like now everyone and their mother gives a shit about what Beria was up to lol. Mostly just an internet thing I’m sure.
From the Editor’s Preface to “Beria, my father” “The testimonies also confirm the kidnapping of women and what people in Tbilisi called Beria’s ‘Sultan’s habits’.” The only source they refer to with this line is “testimonies”. Those testimonies appear nowhere in the rest of the book. It’s incredible, the words “kidnap”, “r***”, “torture”, “sadist”, “sex”, “SA”, in this proper context, don’t exist in the work. They imply a sort of tautological truthiness to the idea. His son never mentions it, regardless of being very critical of Stalin and his father throughout the book. So this wasn’t exactly a good source for disproving the argument, just another example of complete lack of evidence or sourcing presented as if there were.
edit: “The Chekist M. Shreider reports the evidence of this given by the former head of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, Mirzoyan. ‘He spoke of Beria with hatred. He told me that when Beria was proposed for secretary of the Party in Transcaucasia, Sergo Ordzhonikidze and a group of Caucasian Bolsheviks showed strong opposition. They claimed to have information proving that Beria was a traitor, about his links with the Musavatists and the role he played in the Menshevik revolt … They also referred to his debauchery. In Caucasia Beria was nicknamed the Turkish Sultan, and it was almost as though he kept a harem … Stalin knew all about that, but insisted on Beria being nominated.’ Shreider, op. cit. 175” Can’t find the OG source. This is the only source that makes a claim about his supposed debauchery, and the claim it’s being used as a source for is entirely unrelated.