Why the summer of 1953 went down in history as "cold"

2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55

Lavrenty Beria in March 1953 significantly changed the lives of not only a million people who were suddenly released from the prison backyards, but also those who were now forced to coexist with them. Moreover, this decision had a significant impact on the cultural and social life of the entire USSR, and the echoes of this amnesty are still heard today. Why was Beria so humane to criminals and so cruel to ordinary citizens, for whom the summer of 53 was really cold.

However, the amnesty, despite the fact that it was a very controversial decision, had well-grounded arguments. The fact that the prison system needs reforming became clear back in the 50s, but no one even tried to express this opinion openly. Under Stalin, the GULAG grew to incredible proportions, it contained everyone who turned out to be objectionable to the current government, and this is in addition to real criminals, who were there and there. Meanwhile, the criminal system was only getting tougher, you could get a real prison sentence in the country of advice for anything.

However, under Stalin, this problem was "mummified", but less than two weeks from the day of his death, as the Gulag was transferred to the Ministry of Justice, preparations were underway for an amnesty. On March 28, an article was published in the Pravda newspaper, where it was said that an amnesty had been announced. The country froze in anticipation of major changes.

Liberal-minded Beria

Did Beria himself expect that this decision would make him the first liberal politician in the USSR, especially in the eyes of the West? Be that as it may, but this became his trump move in the struggle for power. Although any historian will say that Beria was one of the main organizers of the repressions, which for some reason are usually called only Stalinist ones. Stalin's daughter Svetlana called Beria a bastard and saw in him the cause of the death of her family, the Katyn tragedy followed after Beria, in a note to the secretary general, argued the need for capital punishment.

All this did not prevent Beria from declaring an amnesty, because according to him, out of 2.5 million prisoners, only 200 thousand are real criminals. All the others ended up there almost because “Stalin wanted it that way”. But Stalin is no longer there and there is no one else to be afraid of. Such a step made him not involved in repression, leaving only the secretary general guilty.

Some of the nuances associated with the 53 year amnesty are not always interpreted correctly, moreover, a turning point for the country, when everyone tried to use what was happening and what happened in their favor, so many facts were not just distorted, but frankly misinterpreted.

Despite the fact that the amnesty was initiated by Beria, initially it was called "Voroshilov", since it was Voroshilov who wrote the decree on its implementation, he at that time held the post of Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Beria believed that it was necessary not only to hold an amnesty, but also to revise the current legislation so as not to condemn for real terms persons who do not pose a danger to society. These and other arguments were very convincing, because the Decree on amnesty appeared so soon.

Who fell under the amnesty and is it true that criminals were released?

Do not think that Beria decided to release all those who were convicted on political charges and served time for high treason. All those whose sentences were less than five years, and therefore the offense was not too serious, were to be released.

Individuals were released (and regardless of the term for which they were sentenced) who were imprisoned under articles for military, economic and official crimes. That is, too, nothing that would connect the amnesty with loose criminals. The amnesty included pregnant women, mothers whose children are under ten years old, minors, men over 55 and women over 50, prisoners who had incurable diseases - but anyone could fall into this category, including those who are usually called a malicious recidivist. … Many, having managed to negotiate with the prison leadership, became terminally ill and received a ticket to a free life. The rest of the terms were reduced by half.

As a result, 1.2 million people are at large. However, it was not enough to set people free, they needed jobs, housing, a social adaptation program, in the end. Nothing of the kind was developed or envisaged. Probably, it was the number of former prisoners who were still superfluous at large that gave such a frightening effect, preserved in history as "cold summer 53".

Together with those who were imprisoned for injustice, those who, by the will of fate, received a short sentence for theft, robbery, and violence, were also released. All these burners of life, drunk with freedom, and hence permissiveness, poured into Moscow and other cities. Yes, the crime rate throughout the country has jumped at times, but none of the criminal authorities, bandits or murderers has been released.

However, the state cannot be relieved of responsibility for the failure to develop a program of rehabilitation and mass employment. Unable to get a job in life, many again began to steal, rob and hooligan. Yes, it was these crimes that made up the backbone of crime reports, and not particularly serious crimes.

Thug terror

The fact that many cities, and especially Ulan-Ude, Perm, Cherepovets, were overwhelmed by a wave of crime, which the police could not cope with on their own, is stated not only by criminal reports, but also by the memories of residents. Why, when it comes to the 53-year amnesty, only the bad is remembered? After all, did not fathers return to families, and mothers to children? For example, those convicted of economic crimes are not at all necessarily guilty; almost any director of an enterprise, chairman of a collective farm, and in general anyone who did something and had responsibility could be brought under such an article.

But, despite the fact that the decree only stipulated those who were convicted of minor crimes, and the elderly, women and children, the citizens of the country were still anxiously waiting for those who were to return, realizing that the time for change was coming. And they are always frightening in Russia. There was even a rumor that Beria deliberately released the criminals in order to provoke high criminality.

However, if we talk about the facts, then a gap in the work of the police and the NKVD suddenly opened up. Many criminals, who had serious criminal inclinations and needs, were sentenced to short sentences due to lack of evidence, and therefore received short sentences, and later came under amnesty. After all, those who were imprisoned for murders or banditry did not fall under the amnesty, since the murderers and bandits were at large, it means that they were imprisoned under other, undeservedly softer articles.

The organizers of a large-scale amnesty should study the experience of previous years, because in the history of Russia there have already been examples of the destructive impact of such decisions. For example, Kerensky's amnesty in 1917 affected only 90 thousand prisoners, an incomparable number with those who were amnestied by Beria, but even this was enough for what began in the country to begin.

Among those who were released in 1917 were those who came to be called "Kerensky's chicks." Seeing the cause of crime in tsarism, the elite believed that there is no king - there is no crime. Kerensky spoke from the high rostrum that the new political system opens the way for renewal for those who have fallen into the criminal world. Only now Kerensky's chicks were in no hurry to fly to a brighter future, and even more so to build it with their own hands. Already in the first month, the number of thefts increased significantly. Beria should pay attention to this important historical detail.

But Beria did not release dangerous criminals, why was the country overwhelmed with crime? The devil is in the details, and here, the film about "Cold Summer 53" perfectly demonstrates this circumstance. What was smooth on paper can actually turn into something completely different. Even if we analyze the heroes of the above film, then the Baron - a thief in law under the amnesty could not get out, but he could well walk on the sly to his health, it is not for nothing that he does not eat fried food, perhaps something with his stomach. Others: this one, as if from a street punks, I suppose, sat down for a fight or robbery in a stall, but his character is hysterical, received a short sentence, served a couple of years. This time was enough to end up getting sick and seeing my own romance and charm in prison life. Will he continue to break the law in the future? Necessarily. How could such people be foreseen in the amnesty decree?

The other, Mukha, looks like small Banderites, they could give him quite a bit, only such people are attached to prison and crime. Mikhalych, obviously sitting for a long time, a simple peasant. Who is waiting for him? And will he be able to return to his former life? Therefore, papers are papers, and each amnestied has his own fate and his own path, which led him to prison. Someone was quite happy with their life and they never dreamed of freedom, but since the chance presented itself …

Culture shock

The amnesty led to the fact that in society two worlds were forced to coexist, which until they existed in parallel. Now they needed to learn to coexist. Moreover, if those who built socialism were determined to reduce communication with the second world to a minimum, then the other side planned at their expense, if not to profit, then it is good to get a job, to get some benefits from them.

In the cultural life of the country, this immediately found its response, many habits changed, even fashion and language. The Gulag camps had their own life, their own culture, traditions and customs, which the liberated now carried to the masses. Considering that the assertiveness and arrogance of those amnestied often had no boundaries, “life according to concepts” became very widely used in the USSR. The attitude towards the police changed, they became hostile elements, moreover, ordinary citizens had something to dislike them for, because according to their feelings, they clearly did not cope with their duties.

The country, which for a long time did nothing but taste the aesthetics of socialism with full spoons, suddenly received an alternative culture. It doesn't matter what she was, the main thing is that she was different, not that disgusted, but simply different. It is no wonder that she became more popular day by day.

Swollen GULAG

Could Beria have acted differently then? Undoubtedly. The amnesty could have been less rash and hasty. The state could develop a program for the rehabilitation of yesterday's prisoners, besides, where, if not in the land of the Soviets, they knew how to bail and re-educate those who took the wrong path? Everything could be different, but there are explanations for this decision.

In the post-war years, they were sent to camps for almost any offense. Have the penalties for theft and embezzlement been toughened, remember only the orders on responsibility for absenteeism, lateness or abortion? Early release was not applied then, but the system worked the other way around, once having got behind the wall of the Gulag, you could only increase your term for any careless word. The GULAG did not just swell, but turned into something huge and difficult to manage.

This was understood not only by the authorities, but also by the prisoners themselves, who felt that they were a real army. It was not for nothing that revolts broke out everywhere in the camps - Norilsk, Vorkuta, Kengirsk. In addition, the post-war prisoners were people of a completely different kind, yesterday's warriors they were extremely confident in their strength, had combat experience and could well have organized a successful uprising. Among them were Bandera, forest brothers, Vlasov - they all had combat experience.

What would happen if the uprising was successful in at least one camp? One after another, the authorities would begin to change in other camps of the GULAG system, it is likely that then everyone would be released. How could you reduce the pressure in this boiler, let off steam, except not to amnesty a huge part of the inmates?

Why did the summer become "cold"

The amnesty was in the spring, but it was the summer that became cold. By the way, even in terms of temperature, the summer of 1953 cannot be called too warm. Although, undoubtedly, it became cold due to the fact that from the one who was released from the Soviet citizens there was a "chill on the back."

The opinion that Beria deliberately released criminals and worsened the criminal situation in the country is widespread. Allegedly, this would have helped him get to power on the sly, but the fact that his decision was a simple mistake cannot be ruled out. He had no experience in making such decisions, because such a large-scale practice had not yet been applied in the country. The situation was tense in the camps themselves, it was still necessary to purge there, perhaps not so quickly and on such a large scale, but still.

Many contemporaries believe that the amnesty was timed to coincide with Stalin's death, this is not so, there is not a word about Stalin in the decree. However, Beria did not witness his mistakes and shortcomings, because summer 53 was his last one.

The amnesty of 1953 is usually called the reason for the onset of a new period in the history of the USSR, but it was based on political prisoners, whom no one was in a hurry to release. Most of them received freedom only by the middle, or even by the end of the 50s.

For the actor Papanov, the role in the film "Cold Summer of 53" was very important and last. And why Anatoly Papanov was ashamed of his famous comedy roles, he shared in one of his interviews.