HISTORY OF INTERNAL BORDERS IN FORMER SOVIET UNION--HELP!
Dennis Cervantes
Hi, I'm doing research on the formation of the internal geopolitical
borders of the former Soviet Union. I've come up with little information
on this touchy subject. If anyone has any leads or information please
E-Mail me directly. Specifically I'am interested in the following
questions:
Why were the internal borders created as they were in Central Asia and
Caucasia?
Why was the trans-Caucasian Federation dissolved?
thanks in advance for your help in this matter!
John McCarthy
You could read _The History of the Bolshevik Organizations in
Trans-Caucasia_ by Lavrenti Beria for one view of the matter.
Try the Britannica 15th edition or earlier. The 16th edition
will have articles on Georgia, etc. written by Soviet authors
and will omit anything embarrassing.
My guess is that the Trans-Caucasian Federation was abolished
to consolidate Bolshevik control. In Georgia, the immediate
post-revolutionary communists were Menshevik. Don't take
seriously the alleged policy differences. It was strictly a
matter of which gang would get and keep power.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Javier Garcia-Torres
>You could read _The History of the Bolshevik Organizations in
>Trans-Caucasia_ by Lavrenti Beria for one view of the matter.
Bear in mind that L. Beria was chief of the NKVD/OGPU/KGB(read:
secret police) for Stalin, so the book may be somewhat biased, to say the
least. If Stalin is portrayed as being the founder and leading member of
all Communist movements in the trans-Caucasus, it's probably just that ol'
"Stalin cult of personality." To Beria's credit, he was the first to
suggest de-Stalinization after 1953.
Just my $0.02.
--
Javier B. Garcia-Torres |"The Revolution will be impeccably dressed"
gar...@husc.harvard.edu |AFARM--Association For the Absence of Religion and
AFARM Propagandadirektor | and Morality
Mikhail S. Verbitsky
>In article <JMC.93Au...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> j...@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>>You could read _The History of the Bolshevik Organizations in
>>Trans-Caucasia_ by Lavrenti Beria for one view of the matter.
>
> Bear in mind that L. Beria was chief of the NKVD/OGPU/KGB(read:
>secret police) for Stalin, so the book may be somewhat biased, to say the
>least. If Stalin is portrayed as being the founder and leading member of
>all Communist movements in the trans-Caucasus, it's probably just that ol'
>"Stalin cult of personality." To Beria's credit, he was the first to
>suggest de-Stalinization after 1953.
In fact, Stalin was a member of RSDRP (Communist party)
from 1898 - practically from when it was first formed,
and much earlier than 99.99% of active Communists circa
1917. I guess that among members of Bolshevic goverment
he was a second after Lenin by how long he was a RSDRP
member. Moreso, he was a leading Caucaus Bol'shevic
(member of RSDRP(b)) just because overwhelming majority
of Caucasus Socialists were Men'shevics - members of RSDRP(m).
Well, there are many reasons to believe that his
major occupation was not a Socialism but a robbery,
but the same could be said of majority of Caucausian
Socialists who were extremely nasty even by the
RSDRP standards.
Even now several key figures of Georgian politics
(eg, Dzhvaba Ioseliani) are profeccional criminals -
ie, Ioseliani spent at least decade in the jail
and lived most of his life under forged identity
because he was sought for commiting robberies.
Misha.
Igor Belchinskiy
: >You could read _The History of the Bolshevik Organizations in
: >Trans-Caucasia_ by Lavrenti Beria for one view of the matter.
: Bear in mind that L. Beria was chief of the NKVD/OGPU/KGB(read:
: secret police) for Stalin, so the book may be somewhat biased, to say the
: least. If Stalin is portrayed as being the founder and leading member of
: all Communist movements in the trans-Caucasus, it's probably just that ol'
: "Stalin cult of personality."
He is. Moreover, it was the first book of that kind, where Stalin was
credited was everything possible and impossible, foundation of
Beria career later.
: To Beria's credit, he was the first to suggest de-Stalinization after 1953.
When? Wasn't he arrested right after Stalin's death? Popular explanation
was that other Politburo members were afraid of him too much to keep
him.
: Just my $0.02.
: --
: Javier B. Garcia-Torres |"The Revolution will be impeccably dressed"
: gar...@husc.harvard.edu |AFARM--Association For the Absence of Religion and
: AFARM Propagandadirektor | and Morality
--
Igor Belchinskiy bil.w...@xerox.com Disclaimer: opinions are mine.
John McCarthy
References: <1993Aug1....@Princeton.EDU> <JMC.93Au...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1993Aug1.2...@husc14.harvard.edu>
Stalin died in March 1953.
Within a week Beria announced that the Kremlin doctors who had been
arrested on charges of plotting to poison Politburo members were
innocent and released them. I don't know whether releasing them was
his idea or whether Malenkov, the new General Secretary, ordered him
to do it. The doctors were Jewish, but apparently cases were being
worked up accusing various high-ranking people of protecting them, and
there was great fear even among the Politburo members.
Beria was arrested in June. Khrushchev's memoirs are vague on what
he had done but are dramatic about his arrest at a Politburo meeting
in the Kremlin. It was feared that the Kremlin guards were under his
control. Khrushchev had sounded out other Politburo members and
thought all or enough had agreed to arrest Beria but he feared
treachery. There was an agenda item "The Situation in the Party."
When it came up someone said something mildly critical of Beria.
The next person said something stronger. It went around until
Beria was being accused of crimes. At this point Beria reached
into his briefcase, and Khrushchev feared it was for a weapon.
At a signal the marshals of the Soviet Union rushed in with
drawn pistols and arrested Beria. The plot had been arranged this
way, because it was correctly believed that the Kremlin guards
would not insist on searching the marshals for weapons.
Beria was shot in December. There was something about his having
been a British agent. About 6 of his deputies were also shot
according to announcements at the time.
According to a different source than Khrushchev (the son of a
KGB official) about 200 people were also shot with Beria.
These were the torturers who had forced the Politburo members
to confess to crimes in the late 1930s. These were the famous
trials that the U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph Davies,
said convinced him that the men, Bukharin, Rykov, etc., were
guilty.
Aleksey Y. Romanov
>
>: To Beria's credit, he was the first to suggest de-Stalinization after 1953.
>
>When? Wasn't he arrested right after Stalin's death? Popular explanation
>was that other Politburo members were afraid of him too much to keep
>him.
No. It took them from March until July to arrest him. Read Avtorchanov
and you will find an interesting analysis of Pravda's arcticles for this
period.
>
>: Just my $0.02.
>: --
>: Javier B. Garcia-Torres |"The Revolution will be impeccably dressed"
>: gar...@husc.harvard.edu |AFARM--Association For the Absence of Religion and
>: AFARM Propagandadirektor | and Morality
>
>--
>Igor Belchinskiy bil.w...@xerox.com Disclaimer: opinions are mine.
Aleksey
--
Aleksey Y. Romanov
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are entirely my own and do not
necessary reflect those of my employer or anyone else
eugene veklerov
>
>Stalin died in March 1953.
>
>Within a week Beria announced that the Kremlin doctors who had been
>arrested on charges of plotting to poison Politburo members were
>innocent and released them. I don't know whether releasing them was
>his idea or whether Malenkov, the new General Secretary, ordered him
>to do it.
It is always tempting to speculate on possible paths that history
could have taken. And it is safe too, until we learn to simulate
historical events, that is.
I think the situation in the USSR immediately after Stalin's death
was a cliff-hanger. Malenkov was percieved as Stalin's heir, because
he was the one, rather than Stalin, who gave the main speech at the 19th
Party Congress. And he was popular because he called for more
consumer goods.
Beria was strong because he controlled the MGB (it was so feared that
it was renamed KGB for p.r. reasons). There was a major amnesty
announced at that time and millions of people were let go. That also
increased Beria's popularity, because he took the credit for that
and almost every family had someone in a labor camp.
The major protagonist in that fight was Marshall Zhukov who controlled
the Army. He moved tanks to Moscow during that Politburo meeting when
Beria was arrested. Those tanks were moved from a base called "Vystrel"
on Rublevskoe Shosse in Kuntsevo and they sealed Beria's fate.
Coming back to speculating on possible paths that history could have
taken, I submit that the actual path was the best under the circumstances.
Khruschov who prevailed seems to represent the healthy part of the
political scenery. He started the long way towards de-Stalinization
which is not over yet.
Ironically, Khruschev did not show his gratitude toward Zhukov, who was
later dismissed and spent the rest of his days fishing. But as another
politician said -- if you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Eugene Veklerov
Eugene Tyurin
IB> Moreover, it was the first book of that kind, where Stalin was
IB> credited was everything possible and impossible, foundation of
IB> Beria career later.
Hmmm... I thought that foundation was a little bit different: Beria
organised an assasination attempt and then heroically prevented it.
I can be wrong.
--
-- MIME mail is welcome.
Eugene N. Tyurin (ITP SUSB ; HOST = insti.physics.sunysb.edu)
Internet: gene@HOST ; NCSA Mosaic: http://HOST:80/hyplans/gene.html
**> What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.
**> -- T. H. Key
Mikhail S. Verbitsky
>In article <1993Aug2.1...@spectrum.xerox.com> bil@burka (Igor Belchinskiy) writes:
> When? Wasn't he arrested right after Stalin's death? Popular explanation
> was that other Politburo members were afraid of him too much to keep
> him.
>Stalin died in March 1953.
>
>Within a week Beria announced that the Kremlin doctors who had been
>arrested on charges of plotting to poison Politburo members were
>innocent and released them. I don't know whether releasing them was
>his idea or whether Malenkov, the new General Secretary, ordered him
>to do it. The doctors were Jewish, but apparently cases were being
>worked up accusing various high-ranking people of protecting them, and
>there was great fear even among the Politburo members.
Though I rarely agree with John's opinions, his
knowledge of post-Stalinist politic is very good.
In fact, the "Doctors' affair" (Delo Vrachei)
was a part of intrigues against Beria. Before
Stalin's death, he made steps which meant
the stripping of power of both Beria and
Kaganovich-Malenkov-Khrushchiov-Bulganin-Mikoyan
clique (which were the chief warring parties at
the time). Politbyuro was diluted by adopting
>20 new members with little or no nomenklatura
stage, and Malenkov-Kaganovich were publicly accused
in gross mistakes (in February of 1953). Beria
was stripped of control over KGB, so he
controlled only MVD (Internal Affairs Ministry)
as early as in 1952. Abbakumov, the new chief
of KGB, forged the Doctors' Affair to
compromize Beria, who was accused in a direct
responsibility for Zhdanov's death and for
attempts at Stalin. This is what arrested
physicians were saying to their torturers,
presumably by the torturers' intent.
By the irony of history, Beria *was*
responsible for Zhdanov's death and
most probably for Stalin's death too,
though the doctors were innocent.
It is proven at least that Beria's arrest
no later than 1953 was preordained by
Stalin, and Beria most probably knew this
too.
First actions by Beria after Stalin died
were execution of Abbakumov, reabilitation
of accused (all Jewish) doctors, stopping of ongoing
antisemitic campaign and amnesty for
>500,000 non-political prisoners.
This last action created anarchy which
Beria needed to overthrow Malenkov
clique. Malenkov was faster, and he
accused Beria in trying to denounce
Stalin's cult (which was certainly true).
>Beria was shot in December. There was something about his having
>been a British agent. About 6 of his deputies were also shot
>according to announcements at the time.
Beria was accused of being a British agent from
1916, but also Japanese and German and some others
from a later date.
Igor Belchinskiy
: In article <1993Aug2.1...@spectrum.xerox.com> bil@burka (Igor Belchinskiy) writes:
: >In <1993Aug1.2...@husc14.harvard.edu> Javier Garcia-Torres (gar...@husc8.harvard.edu) wrote:
: >
: >: To Beria's credit, he was the first to suggest de-Stalinization after 1953.
: >
: >When? Wasn't he arrested right after Stalin's death? Popular explanation
: >was that other Politburo members were afraid of him too much to keep
: >him.
: No. It took them from March until July to arrest him. Read Avtorchanov
: and you will find an interesting analysis of Pravda's arcticles for this
: period.
sorry. 'right' was supposed to mean 'in a couple of month', long before
1956.
Gregory Zevin
JM>Stalin died in March 1953.
JM>Within a week Beria announced that the Kremlin doctors who had been
JM>arrested on charges of plotting to poison Politburo members were
JM>innocent and released them. I don't know whether releasing them was
JM>his idea or whether Malenkov, the new General Secretary, ordered him
JM>to do it. The doctors were Jewish, but apparently cases were being
JM>worked up accusing various high-ranking people of protecting them, and
JM>there was great fear even among the Politburo members.
JM>Beria was arrested in June. Khrushchev's memoirs are vague on what
JM>he had done but are dramatic about his arrest at a Politburo meeting
JM>in the Kremlin. It was feared that the Kremlin guards were under his
JM>control. Khrushchev had sounded out other Politburo members and
JM>thought all or enough had agreed to arrest Beria but he feared
JM>treachery. There was an agenda item "The Situation in the Party."
JM>When it came up someone said something mildly critical of Beria.
JM>The next person said something stronger. It went around until
JM>Beria was being accused of crimes. At this point Beria reached
JM>into his briefcase, and Khrushchev feared it was for a weapon.
JM>At a signal the marshals of the Soviet Union rushed in with
JM>drawn pistols and arrested Beria. The plot had been arranged this
JM>way, because it was correctly believed that the Kremlin guards
JM>would not insist on searching the marshals for weapons.
JM>Beria was shot in December. There was something about his having
JM>been a British agent. About 6 of his deputies were also shot
JM>according to announcements at the time.
JM>According to a different source than Khrushchev (the son of a
JM>KGB official) about 200 people were also shot with Beria.
JM>These were the torturers who had forced the Politburo members
JM>to confess to crimes in the late 1930s. These were the famous
JM>trials that the U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph Davies,
JM>said convinced him that the men, Bukharin, Rykov, etc., were
JM>guilty.
JM>--
JM>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
I've heard another rumours (however, never read them) that
Beria was shot in airport in June as Krushev and others were
so affraid of him. And another person (with make-up a la Beiria)
has taken part in the trial.
The rumours were based on the fact that one mingrelian man addressed Beria
in Mingrelian language (it belongs to the Kartvelian group of
languages) during the trial but Beria failed to answer...,
Greg
Yuri Salkinder
> Bear in mind that L. Beria was chief of the NKVD/OGPU/KGB(read:
>secret police) for Stalin, so the book may be somewhat biased, to say the
>least. If Stalin is portrayed as being the founder and leading member of
>all Communist movements in the trans-Caucasus, it's probably just that ol'
>"Stalin cult of personality." To Beria's credit, he was the first to
>suggest de-Stalinization after 1953.
>
I strongly believe that AFTER 1953 Beria was already in a coffin in white slippers.
> Just my $0.02.
>--
>Javier B. Garcia-Torres |"The Revolution will be impeccably dressed"
>gar...@husc.harvard.edu |AFARM--Association For the Absence of Religion and
>AFARM Propagandadirektor | and Morality
Just my 2 kopecks (or 2 roubles - I can't see much difference now).
Yuri Salkinder
inferno!yu...@uunet.uu.net
JARI SEDERGREN (COMM)
I always thought Beria was shot by every and each member of executive of
central committee. I remember Hrutsev complaining Beria using underage girls
in a very brutal way. But I don't really know.
Jari.
Chris Crowley
Steppes_ (or _L'Empire des Steppes_, I believe in the original French) covers
much of the central asian territory of the Soviet Union. Peter Hopkirk's
_The Great Game_ also discusses many of these territories as they existed when
taken by the Soviets.
Chris Crowley
cro...@maven.dnet.teradyne.com (note address is usually mangled above)
Peter Reiher
>I have lost the original article you posted, but Grousett's _The Empire of the
>Steppes_ (or _L'Empire des Steppes_, I believe in the original French) covers
>much of the central asian territory of the Soviet Union. Peter Hopkirk's
>_The Great Game_ also discusses many of these territories as they existed when
>taken by the Soviets.
Perhaps I'm merely being pedantic, but Hopkirk's book really only discusses
how the Russian Empire that preceded the Soviet Union acquired these
territories. It doesn't discuss how the Soviet Union dealt with them in any
detail. It doesn't even have much information on how the Russian Empire drew
up whatever provincial boundaries it used to chop these territories up.
On the other hand, it's a well written, well organized, highly entertaining
account of the carving up of Central Asia. Many of us are only vaguely
aware that the bulk of the Soviet Union's possessions in Asia were not
part of Russia until the 19th century, and were, in fact, grabbed about
the same time the rest of Europe was divvying up Africa and southern Asia.
Hopkirk makes the Central Asian portion of Russia's expansion much clearer.
(The other major caveat about the book is that it has a strongly British
tilt, and contains relatively little material about how the native peoples
of this area themselves felt about Russian and British expansionism.)
I highly recommend this book to anyone at all interested in that part of
the world. For the purpose of the original question, its major value is
perhaps in making clear how vague and amorphous the concept of boundaries
was in this part of the world before the British and Russians made detailed
maps for the purpose of dividing the spoils.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
Javier Garcia-Torres
>: To Beria's credit, he was the first to suggest de-Stalinization after 1953.
>
>When? Wasn't he arrested right after Stalin's death? Popular explanation
>was that other Politburo members were afraid of him too much to keep
>him.
According to my Stalinism professor(Tim Colton), the reason he was arrested
and shot was that he suggested de-Stalinization after Iosif's death. I
would imagine that his staying power as head of the secret police was also
a cause of concern among the survivors. I recall reading in Kruschev's
memoirs that Stalin had Beria scheduled for removal, and attempted to use the
Mingrelian Affair to this effect, but Beria was a little too wiley for
Stalin, whose mind was going really quickly in the last days.
Javier Garcia-Torres
> By the irony of history, Beria *was*
> responsible for Zhdanov's death and
> most probably for Stalin's death too,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> though the doctors were innocent.
Are there any sources for this? I was given to understand that
Stalin, who was an old man at the time, died of natural causes.
Misha Verbitsky
>In article <1993Aug3.1...@husc14.harvard.edu> ver...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:
>
>> By the irony of history, Beria *was*
>> responsible for Zhdanov's death and
>> most probably for Stalin's death too,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> though the doctors were innocent.
>
> Are there any sources for this? I was given to understand that
>Stalin, who was an old man at the time, died of natural causes.
There are no reliable sources, only the persistent rumours.
Anyway, Beria was "sceduled to removal" very soon (this is pretty
well documented) and he most probably knew this, too,
having a lot of secret channels of information. He
was (probably) able to kill Stalin, having an excellent agenture.
He was completely ruthless (a typical pastime of Beria was
to ride in a car around Moscow, spot a pretty girl
(usually younger than 17-16) and take her to his apartment
for a session in bed. The girls were sometimes daughters
of party officials of highest positions. After
Beria was executed, there was commission
which was literally flooded with mail from
unfortunate women - it seems that Beria raped about
300 new women yearly despite of his age. The funniest detail
is that Beria was extremely gallant with women even as he
raped them, so some came to adore and even love him.)
It would be weird if he would not attempt to kill Stalin.
Moreover, the death of Stalin was not too ordinary:
his symptomatic was quite exotic, and there were
several fishy details around his death.
Misha.
Chris Crowley
>>I have lost the original article you posted, but Grousett's _The Empire of the
>>Steppes_ (or _L'Empire des Steppes_, I believe in the original French) covers
>>much of the central asian territory of the Soviet Union. Peter Hopkirk's
>>_The Great Game_ also discusses many of these territories as they existed when
>>taken by the Soviets.
>
>Perhaps I'm merely being pedantic, but Hopkirk's book really only discusses
>how the Russian Empire that preceded the Soviet Union acquired these
>territories. It doesn't discuss how the Soviet Union dealt with them in any
>detail.
Thanks for correcting me on that. Does anyone know of any other good histories
of the central asian or eastern european territories? There was some overlap
with the territory of the Ottoman's. I'm currently reading Kinross's _The
Ottoman Centuries_. This is a fairly good read, but completely unfootnoted.
I have been struck at how the first chapters are lifted entirely from
Gibbon's _The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire_, with entire sentences and
quoted primary sources nearly identical. Does anyone have further
recommendations in this area?
Hopkirk also wrote _Setting the East Ablaze_, about Lenin's efforts to spread
communism in Asia. I believe this dealt with central asia as well as China,
and might be a good follow up to his other work. I believe this was written
earlier, and I don't think it reads quite as well.
- Chris Crowley
cro...@maven.dnet.teradyne.com
< note my address is usually mangled in header>
Christian T.S. Crumlish
and constituted borders within the (Former) Soviet Union:
_Nations and Politics in the Soviet Successor States_, Cambridge
University Press, 1993. Editors Ian Bremmer and Raymond Taras.
_Nationalism and Policy Towards Nations in the Soviet Union from
Totalitatarian State to ..._, by Gerhart Simon, first published
in 1986, republished in 1991.
Hope that helps.
--xian
Alex Zatsman
> To Beria's credit, he was the first to
> suggest de-Stalinization after 1953.
There is not much to his credit there -- it was purely the question of
survival for him. While the whole gang, including Khruschev, was
covered with blood, Beria was the most hated and the least trusted
among them.
Also, was not Beria executed within a month of Stalin death (3/5/53).
If that's the case it would be difficult for him to suggest anything
"after 1953".
Alex Zatsman, Analog Devices, Inc.,
alex.z...@analog.com
--
Alex Zatsman, Analog Devices, Inc., (617) 461-3729
alex.z...@analog.com
Boris A. Veytsman
Zatsman) says:
>
>In article <1993Aug1.2...@husc14.harvard.edu> gar...@husc8.harvard.edu
>(Javier Garcia-Torres) writes:
>
>> To Beria's credit, he was the first to
>> suggest de-Stalinization after 1953.
>
>There is not much to his credit there -- it was purely the question of
>survival for him. While the whole gang, including Khruschev, was
>covered with blood, Beria was the most hated and the least trusted
>among them.
>
I have no sympathy to Beria, but let us be fair. All the info
about him relies on the facts edited by his enemies. We just
know Khruschev version of history, but not Beria's.
Stalin, to prevent mutiny, held balance of 3 forces that
hated each others guts: Party, Army, Cheka (the latter
often changed names, so le us use Cheka as generic).
Maybe Cheka was the most revolting, but there is a number of
crimes connected with the first two. Don't forget that the local
Party boss was a member of the infamous 'troykas'. After Stalin's
death Khruschev made alliance with army leadersip and overthrew
Cheka. You should read the newspaper articles of that time. They
explicitly stated the aim of the coup: "never again honest Party
workers will be harassed by Security... We established firm Party
control over 'organs'". After that if local KGB officer found
compromising data on Party bosses he was instructed to send them
to Party Control Comission, destruct all copies and cancel
investigation.
It is natural that the winners pinned all possible sins on the
enemy - from child molesting to espionage.
Then Party won against Army (Zhukov case). After that energic
Khruschev was not more needed - winners wanted long happy
and carefree life. That is the secret of Brezhnev's victory.
In Brezhnev era Party was omnipotent and completely corrupt.
Good luck
-Boris
vad...@vms.huji.ac.il
> In article <AZ.93Aug...@saturn.analog.com>, a...@saturn.analog.com (Alex
> Zatsman) says:
>>
>>In article <1993Aug1.2...@husc14.harvard.edu> gar...@husc8.harvard.edu>
> enemy - from child molesting to espionage.
>
> Then Party won against Army (Zhukov case). After that energic
> Khruschev was not more needed - winners wanted long happy
> and carefree life. That is the secret of Brezhnev's victory.
> In Brezhnev era Party was omnipotent and completely corrupt.
>
I don't remember that child molestation was a case with him. On the opposite,
I was stroken that majority of his victims were grown up women, though young,
rather wifes than daughters of some of his colleagues in CC.
I guess he was not the only of the kind. Fortunately, there were no gays in
that Politbureau, otherwise in 70-80 we could have had much more pretty looking
PB, who were just young instructors in 40-ies, and therefore natural victims
for there older Parteigenossen.
Best wishes,
Vadim