Talk:Lavrentiy Beria

Excessive emphasis on 'Anti-Semitism'

There are as of now several paragraphs devoted to 'anti-Semitism' that seem quite misguided and if anything, deliberately false. "Anti-Semitism" is generally understood to mean "being against Jewish people due to their Jewishness." The activities described in the article are clearly political - the Czech leaders who were liquidated were clearly liquidated because of their politics, not because they were Jewish. This is easily evidenced by the fact that other, non-Jewish Czechs were equivalently murdered. The same holds true of the "Doctor's Plot." It is particularly interesting / wrong how this article spends a good two paragraphs on the "anti-Semitism" of Beria, which lead to the death (per the article) of perhaps two dozen individuals, but virtually no time at all is spent on equivalent characterizations on his far, far, far, far more widespread anti-other-religionist and anti-nationalist activities (even if ultimately those activities too, may have been entirely "political" in nature - a matter of some debate amongst historians). The lack of balance is very bad. The article should be reconsidered and the overblown claims of "anti-Semitism" from Beria and the NKVD in general, a man who worked alongside and with senior persons of Jewish ancestry and an organization in which Jews were statistically well over-represented thrown out entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.176.123 (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Everyking's revision

• I think it is precisely right. Someone else apparently seemed to think that the info about his personal murders and rapes belonged in the first paragraph but, compared to the millions of other deaths he was responsible for, I for one think it is of minor importance.

Portrait is Flopped

Hello,

It appears to me that the portrait of Beria haas been flopped. The normal position for a ribbon bar and medal would be on the left breast of the uniform.

No, according to post-war rules of wearing medals it looks correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VVPushkin (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of sexual assault charges section

Editors on this page been going back and forth on the size, wording, and detail of this section, and I would not be averse to a smaller, more concise description of the essential fact that the sexual assault crimes Beria was convicted of were in fact substantiated by the documents released after the fall of the Soviet Union, including his official testimony (as well as that of "dozens" of women who accused him of raping them) and other forms of physical evidence that composed the case against him.

Nobody's arguing the section should be huge or give undue weight in comparison to his career as a Bolshevik secret policeman, but it is highly relevant because at one point the charges were simply written off as standard Stalinist-era frame up charges typically used to discredit someone so they could be discredited and then executed. The Iron Curtain simply denied researchers access to any kind of real evidence. The fact that the sexual assault charges were later substantiated by researchers analyzing several kinds of evidence after the Soviet archives were opened is pretty definitive.

Sq178pv recently blanked the entire section (and all the inline references) and replaced it with four lines completely denying Beria had done anything and was a victim of a conspiracy to steal his records from the Moscow Archives and doctor them to show him in a bad light. His single source for this was a Russian nationalist TV program (in Russian). I've promptly reverted it and will do so again if he returns (although I suspect he is a "drive-by" Russian nationalist, of which there are many on Wikipedia). If anybody wants to discuss any value in the Russian language media source, despite it's non-scholarly and non-neutral status, we can do so here, as this page is now on my watch list and I will revert any further blanket removals of cited content or addition of non-neutral source material. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I support this, but why did you also blank other material related to postwar politics? - BorisG (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It was mistakenly deleted during the restoration, I apologize wholeheartedly. I would be glad to re-add the material unless you've already done so. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasn't actually MY content. It was someone else's. But I thought is was relevant, though lacked sources. - BorisG (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Content deleted again

23:51, 13 February 2012‎ Greyhood (talk contribs)‎ (44,210 bytes) (rv per WP:NPOV, the language in the previous version is more neutral and encyclopedic; the sexual assaults section is about the likely made-up accusations and if re-added should be more nautral and short) (undo) Yet again, no talk page comment, no communication. I don't know how many times I have to say that you can't just delete reliable, sourced claims that you don't like and leave the ONE source that you approve of. It's disruptive editing. I realize you think the sources are "likely made up", and while I strongly disagree, it frankly doesn't matter what either of us thinks. They all comply with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, are properly formatted and provide relevant scholarly content to the article. I would be thrilled to see MORE and alternate reliable sources in the sexual assault section. The more the merrier so long as they pass WP:RS. Currently, the only source you approve of is Beria's wife; could possibly you consider finding other reliable sources you think add to the discussion?

I would also love to see more consensus on how big it should be, and how it should be worded, etc. Regardless, there are MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES that attest specifically to Beria's acts, reported acts, and convicted acts of sexual assault. These include Soviet archival documents as well as multiple scholarly works. You're not going to whitewash valuable material because it makes you uncomfortable and you don't trust Western media.

All of that happens right here as a result of discussion. The drive-by reversions of cited material needs to stop. If it happens again I'm going to ask for a block or a topic ban. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Strong support for Bravo Foxtrot. It's an excellently written section and adequately referenced. Of course Beria was a nauseating sexual predator. I don't do page watching but if this user continues to make a nuisance of himself and you take him to a resolution process, let me know on my Talk page and I'll support you. LHirsig (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This resolution-supporting comment looks strange for a new user. Also, makes sense to be more WP:NPOV in your assertions, it is encyclopedia afterall. GreyHood ^Talk 14:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's been a misunderstanding here. :/ According to the list of contributors, as of this writing Greyhood has edited the article only four times:

• the edit in question,
• reverting clear vandalism,
• removal of different content that was unsourced
• adding list of Russians

Greyhood's behavior seems so far well within keeping with WP:BOLD, although it might have been a good idea to leave a note of explanation for the removal at this talk page or to discuss the change first, as Wikipedia:Editing policy suggests under "Talking and editing".

I've changed the section header, but am concerned that the conversation here not portray Greyhood in a negative light. :/ He has not made "a nuisance of himself" and should feel welcome to express and expand on any concerns with the material here to help reach informed consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Moonriddengirl, I was just going to fix the section title myself per WP:TALKNEW. GreyHood ^Talk 14:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He is making a nuisance of himself and his nuby bite at me above is yet another example. He should mind himself so. LHirsig (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bravo Foxtrot, I fully understand your concern regarding deletion of the information based on allegedly reliable sources, but please do not ignore the concerns of other editors with neutral and accurate representation of facts/theories. And please don't make your edits to the talk pages to look like an attempt to drive away the users, who want to this article to be more neutral, out of editing and discussing the page. I mean WP:TALKNEW as well as the incorrect assumption that it was me who removed the section previous time, and subsequent talk about blocks or topic bans. GreyHood ^Talk 14:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to my actions, I apologize for not noticing this discussion before. I just had reverted to the version with obviously more neutral and encyclopedic wording, and suggested to re-add the sexual assaults material in shorter and more neutral form. And I do not see why you reverted the rest of the edit to the version which uses POVish language.

As for the section discussed here, the mention of the issue should be in the article, but not in such an expanded form and presented in more neutral way. Likely that is the reason why various users find the section inappropriate. We should not present the accusations of Beria in the poisoning of Stalin and and the sexual charges as facts - they should be presented as theories, reported acts or convicted acts yes, and in very clear way.

I've made a partial revert to more neutral language version and removed the first para related to the Beria's involvement in Stalin's death - Edvard Radzinsky is not a reliable source and has a reptation of pseudohistorian, he is more belletrist rather than scientist. The overall theory of Beria's involvement is no more than a theory, and there are various facts contradicting it. As for the assault charges section, I've put the relevant tags on it. GreyHood ^Talk 14:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, please do not delete sourced information. It is not ip to you to decide who is and is not a reliable source. radzinsky is an established historian. But even if he was a journalist, he is still a reliable source. Books published by established publishers are reliable sources. There is no mention in the policy that only 'scientists' are reliable. Even newspapers are. Please read policy on wp:rs. If there are counter-claims by reliable sources, you are welcome to present them in the article. Please restore sourced content and seek consensus before removing. - BorisG (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you misunderstand the situation. Radzinsky is not even a journalist (just a TV host), he is a dramatist by profession and not a historian in academic sense. He is characterized as "folk-historian" (i.e. pseudohistorian), see the sources at Edvard Radzinsky, and he is set in a row with such fringe "historians" as Anatoly Fomenko. GreyHood ^Talk 19:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the same true of Simon Sebag Montefiore, though, another source provided? Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

---

First, thank you Greyhood for the new picture of Beria. I agree it is better as you can see his whole profile rather than a crop from a photo.

I'm going to break down the particulars on this issue, since I think the important details are getting muddied:

1) The two best and most frequently cited sources for this article are Simon Sebag-Montefiore's Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar, and Amy Knight's Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant. They constitute the bulk of the valuable material in the article:

• Simon Sebag-Montefiore is a Cambridge grad, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Buckingham's School of Humanities Research. Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar won the "History Book of the Year" award at the 2003 British Book Awards as well as being declared "book of the year" by over a dozen separate British historians, journalists and politicians. His follow-up biography of Stalin's early years, Young Stalin, won "Best Biography of 2007" at the Costa Book Awards. Court of the Red Tsar is currently the best, newest and most up-to-date scholarly work available on the subject of Lavrentiy Beria; its been extensively peer reviewed and fact checked, there's no credible argument to be made that it is "non-neutral" or features "made-up accusations" and there's absolutely no reason it shouldn't be extensively used in the article. Furthermore, it takes advantage of brand new Soviet archival material on Beria not yet available in any other publication. A large amount of the previously deleted text from the article (including Beria's role in Stalin's death, as well as the new evidence on Beria's sexual assault history) is directly cited to (and supported by) Court of the Red Tsar. It is worth noting that the entire 45th chapter is titled "Beria: Potentate, Father, Husband, Lover, Killer, Rapist". Hardly a passing or insubstantial point.

• Amy Knight's Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant, until the publishing of Court in 2003, was the best available scholarly work on Lavrenti Beria. Although it's an excellent all-around Beria resource, Knight's book was published in 1995, prior to the full release of Beria's records, so Knight (called "the world's foremost scholar on the KGB" by the New York Times in the review for Beria) did not benefit from Sebag-Montefiore's data and thus wisely did not make any new conclusions about Beria's sexual history. Instead, she collected and presented the available public evidence (including testimony from Beria's boyguards and quotes from a US official) along with contesting quotes from one of Beria's colleagues, as well as his wife and son. (97) It was not groundbreaking, but it did firmly establish that a dispute existed over the veracity, but that Beria had an existing reputation as a sexual predator before he fell from power, not as a result of it. It also strongly corroborates Sebag-Montefiore's later description of the events of Stalin's death and Beria's involvement, both during and after.

2) A great deal (but not all) of the deleted material is directly cited to these two sources, and since they represent the largest and best available body of work on Beria, they are of major importance to the article. Thus I have gone through and restored the material that's directly cited to these two sources. I did not do a blanket revert, and I did not restore any contentious uncited claims I saw. The mission is for everything to be cited and reliable, just like these two sources are, so please feel free to help out with tagging if you see anything contentious that needs an in-line citation.

3) Please feel free to add to the work that is there, but please do not simply delete this sourced material. If you wish to dispute the data presented by Sebag-Montefiore and Knight, please do so by following the standard Wikipedia procedure and presenting alternate scholarly/peer-reviewed sources so they can be integrated into the article as opposing viewpoints. The article can always use a panoply of sources, but just because the article doesn't have a lot of sources saying "Lavrenti Beria wasn't a rapist" vs. ones that state "Evidence shows Lavrenti Beria was, in fact, a rapist" does not mean that the section should be deleted and it doesn't mean the article is POV or unbalanced. That is not the way undue weight works. We're here to inform, not whitewash. I look forward to discussing this further. Thanks. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your description of Sebag-Montefiore and Knight. They might very well be established historians, even though the titles of some of their works are suspiciously belletrist-looking, and the language they use and some assertions of them are often too far from neutral. Is it true, however, that Sebag-Montefiore cites Radzinsky as it appears from the way Radzinsky was mentioned in the text? Citing a pseudohistory does not add credibility to a histotical work. Certain highly POVish points which you referenced to them (such as Gulag "slave labor" camps, which looks more like a figure of speech or a propaganda label - the incarcerated people were not anyone's slaves nor de jure slaves and sometimes they even get some payments as far as I know) also raises doubts about the credibility and neutrality of those works.
• The way the sexual assaults story is currently cited makes it look just like Montefiore simply accepts all the allegations made against Beria during his trial, which is not a wise thing to do, given the facts 1) that only one case of rape was eventually explicitly mentioned the verdict, and the evidence behind the case was very poor 2) that there were multiple legal mistakes, inconsistencies, strange hurry in proceedings., which all indicates that allegations of Beria in various crimes were fully or partially made-up. There is a book called "Кто вы, Лаврентий Берия", written a Honored Jurist of Russia Andrey Sukhomlinov, who examines the case of Beria from the legal point of view, and there are various other Russian publications which dismiss many allegations made on Beria. I could examine and bring some of these works as well. But it seems that a work by professional jurist (who by the way holds a certain noticeable degree of neutrality recognising both Beria's wrongdoings as NKVD chief but also recognising some of his positive achievements, and focusing on a purely legal side of the story rather than on historical assessments or describing the history in fiction style) is more credible than a work of belletrist historians who are ready to believe in every alleged Beria's crime. And anyway the existence of reliable sources with a different point of view render the present version of the sexual assaults story in the article highly inappropriate. Also, the more scrutiny the source shows in relation to some particular issue, the more reliable it is in relation to that issue.
• And sorry, but the phrases like "sexually predatory nature" don't look like a neutral encyclopedic language for me. Sexual triller maybe, but not an encyclopedia.
• I have read various Russian accounts of Beria biography and alleged crimes, but nowhere the sexual allegations story was given so much attention. Even if we suppose that there was something beyond the allegations, we should not give this dubious story so much place in the article, and the section on it should not be written like a triller, it is encyclopedia not a fiction work or a publicist article.
• Overall negative slant is too obvious in this article - it fails to properly notice the fact that Beria was actually the person who stopped the Great Purge by purging many of the Communist leaders and NKVD workers who had started it and carried it out. The article fails to properly explain the role of Beria in World War II and the Soviet nuclear program. Overall, Beria was not a nice guy and there is no point in whitewashing him, but it is wrong also to make him look like a fiction monster fixing the attention on dubious and POVishly represented parts of his life while overlooking more factual and encyclopedically important parts of his biography. That's why I insist that the overall attention given to the sexual allegation story is WP:UNDUE, that more hard-fact parts of Beria's biography are underrepresented. GreyHood ^Talk 01:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've got Sukhomlinov book and later will add some of his citations to the article in the next few days or weeks. Until then I restore the appropriate tags. The section needs to be cut, since it takes too large space while being just a description for dubious allegations mostly not mentioned in the verdict and doubted by specialists and various authors. I also intend to make few more improvements to the article to make it less POV-laden. There are also non-neutral language issues, of course. GreyHood ^Talk 01:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"In record time"?

The lede of the article says:

…the Soviet atomic bomb project, which was… completed in record time…

The phrasing here seems very strange to me. What does "in record time" mean? Was it actually a record, and if so, compared to what? Or was the intent only to communicate that it was completed with great speed? Neither this article nor Soviet atomic bomb project makes any other mention of a record. If this isn't really what was meant, I would like to replace this cliché with something like "completed with great speed" or "completed in under five years". Thanks for any assistance you can offer. —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point, Mark. I agree, go right ahead and make the change if you haven't already done so. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, anyway what was the comparative? Ceoil 21:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. The whole Soviet A-bomb project and Beria's role in it really deserves it's own section. In terms of notable achievement, Beria does deserve an unusually large amount of credit for the building of a successful bomb in under 5 years. He was responsible for converting and handling mole Klaus Fuchs, who gave them the edge they needed to quickly and identically replicate Fat Man within 5 years, which was Stalin's demand. He also "drafted" and sequestered every single semi-useful Russian scientist for the project, massively increased the slave labor population at the uranium mines of the Gulag, and basically ensured that Stalin's "meet your superior's work standards or be executed" was the Golden Rule for the whole project. He even was nice enough to build special Gulag camps where imprisoned scientists could do research and regular Gulag prisoners could screw together A-bomb components for 18 hours a day. He truly spared no expense, because he knew his life was forfeit to Stalin if he failed. Like any good Bolshevik, Beria despised and distrusted all "bourgeois intellectuals" and thus every scientist knew he would live or die based solely on Beria's grossly uninformed opinion of his work. For example, when invited to observe a cyclotron in operation for the first time (making the first Soviet plutonium from uranium), Beria reportedly became agitated when he couldn't actually SEE the plutonium accumulating ("What? Is that it?!" is his recorded opinion), accused the "eggheads" of trying to trick him, and demanded to go into the cyclotron chamber (while it was running) to verify they weren't perpetuating a fraud against the Soviet state. Luckily for his sake, they managed to somehow talk him out of it. Later, at the Joe-1 test, a junior officer made the mistake of being the first person to call the Kremlin to report that the test was successful; when Beria found out, he punched the officer in the head, accused him of trying to steal his glory and told him he was going to "grind him to powder". Doesn't say how things turned out for that poor guy, but Beria was never one to make idle threats. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this Bravo Foxtrot, very strong insight. I agree a section is called for, and I dont think anybody doubts the the ruteless efficiency of Beria's achievement, or the human cost. Ceoil 07:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on it in userspace and post a link when I'm done. I think a lot of info from the Soviet A-bomb article is applicable. I'll see what I can do. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you do it in record time?:) - BorisG (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

He had better, or its off to the dungeon. Ceoil 13:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Football Career

According to

Edelman, Robert (2002), "A Small Way of Saying "No": Moscow Working Men, Spartak Soccer, and the Communist Party, 1900-1945", The American Historical Review, 107 (5): 1441-1474, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/532853  Beria was not only a passionate fan of FC Dynamo Moscow, but also a former player (presumably of an associate team). Does anyone have more information about this?Leutha (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)