Most westernoids know about Beria is from the death of Stalin movie which is completely inaccurate so I’m asking is, are the rape accusations against him real, and are they even relevant?
Most westernoids know about Beria is from the death of Stalin movie which is completely inaccurate so I’m asking is, are the rape accusations against him real, and are they even relevant?
Isn’t there a third line on Beria, namely the conspiracy theory put forwards by Hoxhaists that he was part of a plot with Khrushchev to assassinate Stalin, and was disposed of by Khrushchev after the fact as a loose end/potential threat?
That’s one that I haven’t encountered but honestly I haven’t put effort towards understanding Hoxha or Hoxhaists yet.
I have definitely heard the line that Beria was intentionally undermining the CPSU by creating an extremely hostile culture that essentially strangled the USSR, though and I guess this is either an extension of this line or it’s a direct parallel to it.
The story as I’ve heard it is that Enver Hoxha became distraught on hearing of Stalin’s death and immediately jumped to the assumption that Beria and Khrushchev had assassinated him, contributing to Albania isolating from the USSR and the whole bunker thing aimed at making it impossible for either NATO or the Soviets to invade.
On Hoxhaists in general, as I understand it “Hoxhaist” as a tendency came about following Deng’s reforms in China, with some Maoist parties elsewhere redefining themselves as Hoxhaists and making denouncing revisionism their whole thing. Like if you ever run across a Hoxhaist talking about something you’ll immediately know because a third of the text will just be the word “revisionist” attached to every single noun in it. Like “revisionist China made the revisionist mistake of seeing the revisionist USSR as equally wrong to the USA, leading to their revisionist policy of cooperation and trade with the USA,” (I’m paraphrasing from memory, but that’s an actual Hoxhaist argument that I’ve read) which is on the one hand a cogent criticism of post Sino-Soviet Split Chinese geopolitics but also suffers stylistically from overusing “revisionist” like that.