chad_vinny's review against another edition
informative
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
3.75
A well constructed biography of one of the 20th century most violent and destructive tyrant. Instead of presenting Stalin as one-dimensional, a thin-skinned bully obsessed with power, Kotkin demonstrates Stalin's Marxist/Leninist zealotry and his strong belief as world defining leader. The biography reads as much as a general history book of early twentieth century Russia which help frame much of the book.
My only qualm is that some historians are critical of Kotkin's analysis of Lenin's Testament possibly being a forgery. Something I don't know enough about to comment on but should be noted.
My only qualm is that some historians are critical of Kotkin's analysis of Lenin's Testament possibly being a forgery. Something I don't know enough about to comment on but should be noted.
lukebaldwin's review against another edition
5.0
A thorough and clear account of a confusing place and time in history. The first 400 pages are a masterful telling of the last years of the tzar, the subsequent revolution and the inevitable civil war. After that it’s all about Stalin’s rise to and consolidation of power amidst a new and struggling nation(s).
Great read. Definitely five stars.
Great read. Definitely five stars.
abeanbg's review against another edition
5.0
A staggeringly huge and successful work that is somehow only volume 1 of 3. Kotkin's approach, a history of the world from Stalin's office, is fascinating and illuminating. It draws us away from Freudian psychoanalysis and instead focuses upon the ideas, situations, and challenges that lead Stalin to the be master of 1/6th the planet by 1928.
The rise is stupefying in its improbability, of course. The fact that the Tsarsist regime never saw the strategic usefulness of fascism, which Russia was primed for, or that the Bolsheviks held onto power after 1917 despite, um, literally everything they touched turning to shit are both sort of unreal. It's also astounding how Stalin then leaned into his Marxist-Leninist ideology as a bulwark against all opponents despite the fact that the vast majority of Soviet citizens already hated the regime by 1927. Stalin, to put it simply, should have failed. That he didn't is a global tragedy and one that Kotkin has helped me understand and contextualize much more clearly.
The rise is stupefying in its improbability, of course. The fact that the Tsarsist regime never saw the strategic usefulness of fascism, which Russia was primed for, or that the Bolsheviks held onto power after 1917 despite, um, literally everything they touched turning to shit are both sort of unreal. It's also astounding how Stalin then leaned into his Marxist-Leninist ideology as a bulwark against all opponents despite the fact that the vast majority of Soviet citizens already hated the regime by 1927. Stalin, to put it simply, should have failed. That he didn't is a global tragedy and one that Kotkin has helped me understand and contextualize much more clearly.
bhautikg's review
5.0
One of my favourite biographical series, especially if you want to know more about turn of the century, Tzarist Russia, and the Russian Revolution, one of the most important events in history of our time.
Stalin himself, remains elusive, but you get to see the world that created him more thoroughly. The stark realities of capitalism for workers, and how a small group of nobodies could come to rule the largest nation in the world.
He remains a human character, even one that you can empathize with for a large part of the book. Which I think adds to the authors assertion that in the large part, two things made Stalin the historial giant and the monster we know him to be. One, Lenin himself, without Lenin, Stalin would be nothing, and it is only through his understanding of Lenin that Stalin came to create the dictatorship within the dictatorship (Also that Lenin's premature death created a dramatic uncertainty).
But also that the dictatorship itself created Stalin, behind the monstrous outcomes of his policies was a fanatic belief in Leninism, and the idea that the ends justified the means. (I will have to add more thoughts after re-reading it).
Stalin himself, remains elusive, but you get to see the world that created him more thoroughly. The stark realities of capitalism for workers, and how a small group of nobodies could come to rule the largest nation in the world.
He remains a human character, even one that you can empathize with for a large part of the book. Which I think adds to the authors assertion that in the large part, two things made Stalin the historial giant and the monster we know him to be. One, Lenin himself, without Lenin, Stalin would be nothing, and it is only through his understanding of Lenin that Stalin came to create the dictatorship within the dictatorship (Also that Lenin's premature death created a dramatic uncertainty).
But also that the dictatorship itself created Stalin, behind the monstrous outcomes of his policies was a fanatic belief in Leninism, and the idea that the ends justified the means. (I will have to add more thoughts after re-reading it).
mburnamfink's review
4.0
Kotkin is a leading Russian historian and author of a well-received book about everyday life under Stalin, so his biography of the man himself can be expected to be deeply researched, comprehensive, and groundbreaking. And all of those expectations are well-met.
More than a biography of Stalin, this is a book about the fall of the Tsars and the rise of Communism, a sprawling journey across two continents and decades. A biography of a figure like Stalin is innately challenging; how do you balance the man, the leader, and the mass murderer? Kotkin avoids a straightjacket theoretical paradigm, showing Stalin as a canny tactician and theorist, who turned the chaos of the Russian revolution into a personal dictatorship, using the Communist Party as an instrument to extend his power down to the lowest levels.
Vol. 1 of the three volume series covers Stalin's childhood, rise to power, and the decision to 'de-Kulakize' farming in 1928, forced collectivization which sent millions into the nightmare of the gulag system, and killed millions more through famine. Kotkin argues that the collectivization was a distinctly Stalinist move, based on his understanding of the nature of class warfare, and the availability of secret police power against 'internal enemies'. A second major innovation in scholarship is Kotkin's evaluation of Lenin's Testament. This short document, produced at the end of 1922 when Lenin was crippled by strokes, provided negative evaluation of top communists, including Stalin. Kotkin argues the document was written by personal secretaries around Lenin, not the man itself, but it was treated as credible by the Communist Party, and hung like a sword of Damocles over Stalin's power.
So this book is deeply researched, and as good as scholarship gets. It's also a slog, 740 pages of text and another 200 or so of footnotes. And while individual anecdotes sparkle, there's a layer of distance from the times and the man himself.
I guess I'm up for the next two books, but I'm not exactly looking forward to it.
More than a biography of Stalin, this is a book about the fall of the Tsars and the rise of Communism, a sprawling journey across two continents and decades. A biography of a figure like Stalin is innately challenging; how do you balance the man, the leader, and the mass murderer? Kotkin avoids a straightjacket theoretical paradigm, showing Stalin as a canny tactician and theorist, who turned the chaos of the Russian revolution into a personal dictatorship, using the Communist Party as an instrument to extend his power down to the lowest levels.
Vol. 1 of the three volume series covers Stalin's childhood, rise to power, and the decision to 'de-Kulakize' farming in 1928, forced collectivization which sent millions into the nightmare of the gulag system, and killed millions more through famine. Kotkin argues that the collectivization was a distinctly Stalinist move, based on his understanding of the nature of class warfare, and the availability of secret police power against 'internal enemies'. A second major innovation in scholarship is Kotkin's evaluation of Lenin's Testament. This short document, produced at the end of 1922 when Lenin was crippled by strokes, provided negative evaluation of top communists, including Stalin. Kotkin argues the document was written by personal secretaries around Lenin, not the man itself, but it was treated as credible by the Communist Party, and hung like a sword of Damocles over Stalin's power.
So this book is deeply researched, and as good as scholarship gets. It's also a slog, 740 pages of text and another 200 or so of footnotes. And while individual anecdotes sparkle, there's a layer of distance from the times and the man himself.
I guess I'm up for the next two books, but I'm not exactly looking forward to it.
libraryneenja's review
4.0
Stalin was intense. Russia during this time period was intense. This book could just as easily been a history of Russia rather than Volume 1 of a biography on Stalin. I learned an absurd amount about the man, the era that made him, and how he made the era. He made a lot of mistakes and was somehow able to keep control and continue on. It is pretty impressive, really. I've got Volume 2 sitting in my to-read pile already. Should be interesting to get to that next time period. Volume 1 requires some commitment, it isn't light reading, but it is worth it.
shoaibmnagi's review
5.0
In order to judge a biography of Jugash-villain, one must ask the perennial question: 'What would Comrade Stalin do with this book?'
If the answer is 'Comrade Stalin would love this book', then you can be sure that the biography is hagiographic fan-fiction written by an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist loon.
If the answer is 'Comrade Stalin will burn this book immediately', then you can be sure that the biography is just like any other American-written Cold War era biography of Stalin that basically reads like an extended indictment.
If the answer is 'Comrade Stalin will burn this book but only after reading it', then you can be sure that the biography is a nuanced narrative that fully encapsulates the destructive aura of Stalin and the reasons behind it.
This biography falls in the third category and hence, is highly recommended to everyone. Can't wait to read the second part.
If the answer is 'Comrade Stalin would love this book', then you can be sure that the biography is hagiographic fan-fiction written by an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist loon.
If the answer is 'Comrade Stalin will burn this book immediately', then you can be sure that the biography is just like any other American-written Cold War era biography of Stalin that basically reads like an extended indictment.
If the answer is 'Comrade Stalin will burn this book but only after reading it', then you can be sure that the biography is a nuanced narrative that fully encapsulates the destructive aura of Stalin and the reasons behind it.
This biography falls in the third category and hence, is highly recommended to everyone. Can't wait to read the second part.
brontes's review
4.0
In a word: thorough. Kotkin skips over, skims over, and abbreviates nothing about either Stalin's life or the rise of the Bolshevik regime in Russia. It was fascinating, if dense. It was really something to read the quotes to the regime insiders, to see how their debates were framed in by communism and Leninism. It was also interesting, if hard, to see how the culture inside the regime functioned. How the bad ideas of Leninism, class warfare, and the revolution seeped into people's minds and created a society of backstabbing, power-grabbing, and ideological intolerance that would not only allow but encourage the imprisonment, execution, and exile or innocent "class enemies" and political "oppositionists" alike.
As an aside, the thing hardest for me to understand in this first volume is how a party based in class warfare and supposedly directed at uplifting the oppressed laborer could harbor so much resentment for peasants.
As an aside, the thing hardest for me to understand in this first volume is how a party based in class warfare and supposedly directed at uplifting the oppressed laborer could harbor so much resentment for peasants.
More...