Stalin, man of history

by Ian Grey

Joseph Stalin was one of the most frightening figures of the twentieth century. His name brings to mind brutal terrorism and ruthless oppression. Yet, as New York Times bestselling author Ian Grey shows, at the core of the Man of Steel was a humble, puritanical Georgian peasant. What set him above others was his intelligence, discipline, perception, indomitable will, and above all, a messianic determination to lead Russia to a grand destiny.

Grey's comprehensive biography portrays Stalin as a complex, paradoxical figure - a leader whose power was rooted in the tsarist traditions he abhorred and whose tyranny was based on an ambition to ensure the strength of his party. In his single-minded dedication to the growth of Russia under communism, Stalin was able to disregard all sense of morality. Yet, through his magnetism, he commanded the respect of his colleagues and the adulation of his people. Even Winston Churchill held him in awe.

Stalin is a powerful history of Russia's evolution from backward nation to world power, as well as a dramatic portrait of a man who was called both "The Implacable" and "Beloved Father."

Genres: History, Biography, Russia, Nonfiction, Soviet Union, Russian History, Politics

547 pages, Hardcover

First published February 16, 1979

About the author

Ian Grey (5 May 1918 – 5 June 1996) was a New Zealand-born historian of Russian history.

He began his career as a lawyer, a member of the New South Wales Bar. In 1941 he joined the Australian navy and was posted at Naval Intelligence of the Admiralty in London, then serving in the Soviet Union as an officer. He served for two and a half years in the Russian north, acting as a liaison for British Destroyers of the Soviet Navy in the Arctic. He also served as Deputy Secretary-General and the editor of publications of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Headquarters Secretariat from 1966 until his retirement. In 1971 he established the Parliamentary Information and Reference Centre.

Reviews

[Dee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ian Grey's book is invaluable for its factual and objective thoroughness of one of history's most compelling subjects--Joseph Stalin. Many Western historians have branded this important figure as a cold and hollow character, even sadistic and antisocial. Grey brilliantly sweeps these blatantly biased remarks aside with thorough historiographical commentary throughout the text. Grey also achieves a remarkable understanding of the Soviet perspective during the Stalin era by dispelling Western-conceived notions of 'humanism' that many historians forcibly consign on Russian history. One only need to read the preface for his perspective on how one should approach such a controversial figure. Here is a selection from the preface, where Grey briefly comments on the origins of anti-Stalin histories.

"The distorted portrayal of Stalin has been in part the work of Trotsky and those who sympathize with him. Other factors have contributed also, such as the idolatry of Lenin, the bitterness of émigré social democrats, and the moral judgments of Western historians. Khrushchev's speech to the Twentieth Party Congress in 1956 and the partial rejection of Stalin by the party and the Soviet government, as well as the confused de-Stalinization policy, have added to the obfuscation" (Grey, xi).

While maintaining an academic objectivity, Grey also remains critical of Stalin. Again, though, his criticism stems from a knowledge of Stalin as "not a cruel man--he did not derive pleasure from inflicting suffering upon others..." (xiv). Whereas hack writers such as Robert Conquest love to rumor about Stalin the sadist.

One of his overarching theories of the Russian-brand 'authoritarian' leadership is that it follows coherently through Russia's early history of strong authorities--notably, Ivan the Dread and Peter the Great. Instead of Russia's 'Third Rome' of Orthodox Christianity and the veneration of Tsardom, Grey argues that this was replaced in the USSR by the 'messianic' theory of Marxism and the public veneration of Lenin and of Stalin. While I do not agree with this, this psycho-historical theory is interesting from an academic perspective.

Grey is certainly not a Marxist, which he finds the
"dogma totally unacceptable" and "abhorrent." But, in his analysis he has "tried to understand and portray Stalin in his own Russian context" (xvi).

Overall, I consider this a must-read if one really wants to know a more accurate portrayal of Stalin and his importance in history.

[Isidore · Rating 2 out of 5]

Always curious about books that contradict received wisdom, I picked this up because I had read that it is probably the only laudatory biography of Stalin written by a non-Communist. But there is only so much lipstick that will go on this particular pig.

Grey concedes that Stalin was "an inhuman tyrant", but mostly insists that he "meant well". He goes to extraordinary lengths to find excuses for Stalin's failures and tries to get him off the hook for Katyn Forest and other crimes.

His basic argument is this: Stalin was not a brute, but a stern ideologue who loved Russia.

Stalin firmly believed the Bolshevik dogma that the Party was the sole means by which History was going to bring about the inevitable Communist utopia. He started out fairly tolerant, but came by experience to realize that any rifts in the Party weakened it; and therefore those responsible, willy-nilly, were enemies of mankind (and History) and had to be murdered. Since Fate had chosen him to rule, he had to suppress his humanity and purge his colleagues and starve peasants, but he didn't do it because he liked it.

He sadly recognized that for the most part the Russian people were hostile to the Party, and therefore to their own best interests. Incessant fear-mongering and propaganda helped encourage obedience, but a great deal of brute force, deportations and death were also helpful. Stalin was comfortable with the idea of waging war on his own population, since it was ultimately for their own good, and had not his illustrious predecessors, Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great, done likewise?

So all the famines and purges and decades of general misery were unpleasant, but necessary to ensure the survival of the Soviet Union. Grey knows that other scholars disagree with him on this point, but he argues that Stalin was just doing what seemed best to him at the time.

Grey challenges standard interpretations of events that have come to us filtered through the hostile writings of Trotsky and admirers of Lenin, and, generally speaking, tries to make Stalin look less monstrous by vilifying many of his colleagues and adversaries. I am willing to agree that much of this vilification is justified, but the stubborn fact remains that Stalin was responsible for millions of deaths and they weren't.

Given that the book was written more than forty years ago, it offers none of the revelations that emerged when Soviet archives were opened after the Cold War. Notwithstanding the occasional interesting observation and interpretation, Grey's book is not just morally questionable but very out of date. And compared with Simon Montefiore and Robert Conquest, Grey is a competent but dull writer. So, unless you are driven by my idiotic level of curiosity, it can be safely ignored.

[Logan Young · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an incredibly researched, beautifully written and unbiased account of one of the most important figures in the 20th century. Grey is not a communist, and in the preface he made clear his disdain of Marxism, but Grey sets aside his own opinions and gives an excellent account of the Russian historical perspective. Stalin is a complex figure, and Grey gives us a cut-and-dry account abundant with facts laying out Stalin's achievements, policies, and personal qualities. I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to learn more about Russia in the first half of the 20th century.

[Richard C. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book provides descriptions in great detail about the life and times of Stalin. Exceptional information about his philosophies, thought process, mannerisms, wartime decision-making. A wonderful, in depth, and factual presentation about the life and times of this great Russian patriot and leader

[Guðmundur Arnlaugsson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Þetta var bæði nokkuð skemmtileg og áhugaverð bók, en mér fannst hann sleppa frekar billega kallinn. Hér er Stalín lýst sem enn einum keisaranum, skautað frekar hratt yfir sum mykraverkin en áherslan frekar á hann sem skilvirkan og vinnusaman leiðtoga. Bókin líður vitaskuld fyrir það að vera skrifuð fyrir fall Sovétríkjanna og allt það en mér finnst þetta varla mega. Holodomor kemur nær hvergi fyrir í þessum texta, útþenslan eftir 1945 er fullkomlega eðlileg og tilgangurinn virðist oftast mega helga meðalið. Á einstaka stöðum er hann gagnrýnni, t.d. þegar kemur að samskiptum við Georgíumenn upp úr 1920, eða nána samstarfsmenn eftir 1949. En það er lítið í hinu stærra samhengi. Það sem er aftur á móti nokkuð sannfærandi og glöggvandi er lýsingin á Stalín sem byltingarmanni og valdabröltinu í kringum dauða Leníns. Myndin af Stalín sem skiptir um skoðun á efnahagsmálum og Stalín sem treystir ekki samstarfsmönnum í Politburo er ekki ósannfærandi, en líður kannski helst fyrir takmarkaða sýn á keppinautana. - Fínt til hlíðsjónar, en látið ekki þessa bók duga eina og sér.

[Victor Lopez · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was taking a break from reading Marx's Capital and didn't expect much from this biography. In spite of some pretty obvious thematic flaws and plodding prose, I was pleasantly surprised by its approach.

While it is quite dated (it's from 1979, if I'm not mistaken) and it doesn't quite stack up to more in depth biographies like that of Stephen Kotkin (though it also has issues), it does a good job at humanizing Stalin and trying to understand the complex role he played in shaping world events. Stalin, the peasant's son who went toe to toe against the powerful, won stunning political victories against all odds through sheer tenacity and led an entire people to victory against one of the darkest enemies of mankind personified in Hitler truly is an inspiring tale. It is thematically complex and tidy narratively speaking.

That being said, and my appreciation for the text, I should point out some weaknesses. One thing that really made the book not as enjoyable as it could have been was Gray's often plodding style when discussing military conflicts. Certainly, the Russian Civil War and World War Too were defining moments in Stalin's life but discussion of this detracts from deeper analysis of Stalin's flaws, policy mistakes and political beliefs, which were absolutely crucial to his outlook. As a direct corollary of this author's diminished importance of Stalin's views is a tendency to psychologize him without giving importance to his interpretation of Marxism (which other biographies emphasize) and instead substituting it for Russian nationalism as his guiding principle. This incipient "Great Russian" chauvinism became more pronounced during the second world war, but it existed in an uneasy balance and struggle with Marxism.

Overall, though, a light breezy read that does a decent job at giving the reader the main beats of Stalin's life. It serves as an entry point to getting a deeper understanding of one of the past century's 'protagonists', for lack of a better term.

[Iván Mejía · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a long and well-written biography of Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, a Georgian born on December 18, 1878, known in history as Joseph Stalin, who died in Moscow on March 5, 1953.
Is the result of an extensive and valuable research that describes the efforts of a born Georgian of humble background with a cunning patience, profound sense of mistrust and extraordinary political and military abilities, that dedicated his life (Since he was 20,5 years old) to a fixed idea of transforming an undeveloped association of republics into a united and powerful country.
Mr. Grey exposes the struggle of Stalin since May 27, 1899, when the council of the Tiflis Theological Seminary expelled him, until 30 years later became Russia’s dictator thanks to his astuteness and stubborn dedication to organize a socialist party, escalate to its highest ranks and impose himself as the frightening and ruthless leader of this party and Russia.
Describes how he began fomenting the disorder and terror in his homeland Georgia. How through the Bolshevik party extended the revolution to every Russia corner –including its associated countries- generated a civil war, famine, millions of dead, a ruined economy and a ravaged country, to finally, servicing himself of the Party, the CHEKA and the Red Army, dominated the people and took control of the whole Russian empire.
The book divulges a person with exceptional commitment to his ideas, a hard and intolerant individual with such a cruelty and insensibleness that it´s said caused more than fifty millions dead. A man without any sense of morality whom some knew as "The Implacable" and other as "Beloved Father". Nevertheless, Mr. Joseph E. Davies, appointed U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union Toward the end of 1936, after an interview with Stalin, said about him: “... he is exceedingly kind and gentle. A child would like to sit on his lap and a dog would sidle up to him”.
Mr. Grey enforces himself on presenting a guy with a high working capacity, that although had to do some unpleasant jobs serving his adopted country, was really a good fellow. Even more, at the end of chapters 18 and 28, makes an extensive apology of Stalin.

[Jack Getz · Rating 4 out of 5]

A worthwhile read. You don’t understand the 20th century if you don’t understand Stalin. He is usually portrayed sympathetically, almost as a victim of the West’s duplicity and paranoia abouthis designs for the world.

Without Joe, there would be no Soviet Union, and despite the fact that he was directly, or indirectly, responsible for more human deaths than anyone in history, he is still highly revered as the Father of The USSR. His force of will and unfailing vision regarding the viability of communism carried Russia from a third-rate nation to a world power.

A remarkable man by any standard, and not all evil if this record is correct.

His fingerprints are still all over our world today, especially when one considers that Mao modeleded his own governance on his hero and mentor, Joseph Stalin.

If we are to trust the author's take on post WW 2 reconstruction, the leaders of the West drove JS to his extreme positions on European reconstruction by shifting from seeing him as an untrusted ally to the source of all evil.

We started the arms race. He just had to keep up. At one point the author quotes Western leaders as saying the use of the two Atom bombs on Japan was not necessary to defeat them, but was done to scare Stalin and keep him in check. He was shook by the presence of these weapons and immediately ordered his top scientists to learn how to make one...fast. The infamous and intriguing Russian espionage tales that marked the early Cold War era revealed how Western secrets were passed to Russian agents for bomb implementation plans. The US followed with an even mightier Hydrogen Bomb which was replaced later by ballistic missiles. Thus, the Arms Race began.

A very interesting read, despite the mountains of Russian names that made reading difficult much of the time.

[Kayes Ahmed · Rating 5 out of 5]

An even handed treatment of a man of his time

Stalin was undoubtedly the man made for the emergence of Soviet Union and he was uniquely suited for the war effort. The West has vilified this guy out of paranoia and imperial ambition. Ian Grey presented a unvarnished account of the man, Stalin. Bravo.

[Severi Saaristo · Rating 4 out of 5]

According to Ian Grey, World War II was in a real sense Stalin's victory.

"It could not have been won without his industrialization campaign and especially the intensive development of industry beyond the Volga. Collectivization had contributed to the victory by enabling the government to stockpile food and raw materials and to prevent paralysis in industry and famine in the towns. But also collectivization, with its machine-tractor stations, had given the peasants their first training in the use of tractors and other machines. Collectivized farming had been the peasants 'preparatory school for mechanized war-fare.' The raising of the general standard of education had also contributed by providing a vast reserve of educated men who could readily be trained.
It was his victory, too, because he had directed and controlled every branch of Russian operations throughout the war. The range and burden of his responsibilities were extraordinary, but day by day without a break for the four years of the war he exercised direct command of the Russian forces and control over supplies, war industries, and government policy, including foreign policy.
As he himself acknowledged, he had made mistakes and miscalculations, some with tragic consequences and heavy casualties. The first and perhaps the greatest of his mistakes was his political misjudgment of German plans to invade Russia. -- Acutely aware of the inadequacies of the Russian defenses and the weakness of the Red Army in 1941, Stalin knew that they could not withstand a German attack. He gambled for time so that his urgent mechanization and training programs could build up the Red Army's strength. He lost the gamble.
Stalin knew the military history of his country and well understood the strategy of falling back and using its great spaces. By temperament, however, he was positive and aggressive, eager to attack rather than defend, and this was characteristic of his conduct of Russian strategy throughout the war. He was at the same time capable of tremendous self-control, as he demonstrated in waiting for the Germans to attack in the battle for Kursk, and in general during 1943-45 he was constantly on guard against premature and ill-prepared offensives. --
It was indeed his implacable will which more than any other factor held the nation from collapse in the tragic days of 1941-42. -- It was his victory, above all, because it had been won by his genius and labors, heroic in scale. The Russian people had looked to him for leadership, and he had not failed them."


When Stalin died he "was placed in the Hall of Columns. It lay on a raised bier, surrounded by banks of flowers, and it was uncovered. The crowd had greatly increased, and by the late afternoon the line of mourners was reported to stretch for ten miles. In their thousands Russians from Moscow and distant regions filed past the bier in a slow, unending procession, taking leave of their father. In every part of the country from Vladivostok in the east to Leningrad in the west, from Archangel in the north to Astrakhan in the south, houses and windows were draped in red flags, hung with black crepe. Even in the numerous labor camps, crowded with men and women who had suffered from the savage repression of his rule, there were displays of grief. A nation of over 200 million people was united in the solemn quiet of mourning for their leader who had guided and driven them through harsh trials and a savage war and who, they knew instinctively, had sought to serve them and Russia."

Ian Grey's book on Stalin is definitely a great one. He's an anti-communist and in his own words finds Marxism to be an "abhorrent ideology", however overall he tries to be objective and largely succeeds. There are things to criticize, like Grey's treatment of the "testament of Lenin". He considers it real and not a fraud, and in his view Stalin also gave a lot of weight to it and was deeply hurt by it. However, today a lot of historians, like Hiroaki Kuromiya, Stephen Kotkin, Grover Furr etc. consider it to be a fraud. Here's a good article on the "Testament":
https://stalinistcivilization.substac...

Grey brings forth Stalin the person well in his work. Grey portrays him as man who is extremely intelligent, strong willed, has a great sense of humour (apparently Churchill had a hard time knowing when Stalin was being serious and when he was joking) and who could be gentle and caring, however he was also ruthless, paranoid and often cold. He was deeply affected by the suicide of his wife, Nadezhda Alliluyeva in 1932. Memory of her haunted him for the rest of his life.
Despite Grey portraying Stalin the person, his psychology and family life in detail, his book is not psychological history. He does look at structural and objective conditions behind historical events. His main argument is that Stalin's Soviet Union was a continuation of the tsarist legacy of Russia and he considers Soviet Communism a political religion that replaced the traditional Orthodox religion. There's some truth to this kind of thinking and interpretation, although the connection between Soviet Communism and religion has been explored with a greater understanding elsewhere. I'd recommend reading the academic Roland Boer to explore more the connections of religion and communism in Stalin and Soviet Communism, like his article 'Sergei and the “Divinely Appointed” Stalin: Theology and Ecclesiology in Church-State Relations in the Soviet Union in the Lead-up to the Cold War'.

Other books on Stalin I'd recommend:

Stalin and the History and Critique of a Black Legend, Domenico Losurdo

Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War 1939-1953, Geoffrey Roberts

Stalin's Library: A Dictator and His Books, Geoffrey Roberts

[Frederic · Rating 1 out of 5]

Imagine reading a biography of Hitler that focused mainly on his love of his adopted Germany, his oratory skills and his fondness for dogs.

You'd come away with a nagging sense that story was somehow incomplete. Hadn't you read somewhere that Hitler started a brouhaha, which inconvenienced several people? Wasn't Hitler, in addition to being a gifted public speaker, one of the worst mass murderers in history? Ian Grey's book on Stalin feels like that imaginary, overly selective Hitler bio.

Grey clearly admires Stalin, whom he describes as a super-patriot for his adopted Russia, a tireless leader who singlehandedly micromanaged the USSR into becoming an industrial and military superpower that defeated Hitler, saving Europe from German domination.

This Stalin sounds impressive, Ian. Anything else we should know about him?

Well, Stalin was also modest, treasured economy of words, shunned luxury, stayed up late (like Hitler) and had an impish sense of humour to match his impish stature. Many Russians wept when he died in 1953, because he had made them proud of their country. The great man had a remarkable ability to avoid remorse by staying laser focused on being the only guy in any room who knew what had to be done and was willing to do it.

Did this super leader have any flaws at all?

Grey admits that in his later years, Stalin became a little paranoid, seeing enemies everywhere. At five foot six, with a withered left arm, Stalin may have had a touch of the Napoleon complex. Stalin worked so darn hard making every decision in the USSR for decades that his first wife killed herself. His kids were estranged from him. His son was an alcoholic wastrel, while daughter Svetlana kept disappointing her dad by getting involved with Jewish men.

Unlike Hitler, Stalin was no speechmaker, but both were micromanagers who overruled their trained military men and had zero grasp of economics. Although Stalin killed even more innocent people than Hitler, the word genocide doesn't appear in Grey's book. Like Stalin, Grey has an impressive ability to compartmentalize topics.

Take mass murder. To make an omelette, Grey tacitly suggests Stalin had to break a few million eggs. He knew he had to drive Russians to sacrifice to meet his goals, so what's a little deliberate mass starvation, torture and constant political executions?

In a thoughtful introduction, Grey points out that Russia has no history of democracy and has always been ruled by dictators. He suggests that Russia's vast, hard to defend geography makes autocracy a natural response to the exigencies of Russian national defence.

OK, but what about Stalin's ruthless implementation of Lenin's Communism, which not only enslaved and killed tens of millions of people in the USSR, but ruined the lives of millions of other people in Stalin's satellite state buffer zone in Eastern Europe and is still a cancer in China, Viet Nam, North Korea and Cuba, among others?

Not really a focus for Grey. Stalin wanted no repeat of the WWII slaughter Russians endured, with over 15 million Russians killed. He sought a buffer between Russia and the capitalist Western Europe, especially Germany, who he feared would invade the USSR again, given the chance. Stalin had the power to enslave Eastern Europe to create that buffer, so he did. The omelette analogy fits, again.

Sure, thanks to Communism, a huge part of humanity has been deprived of political freedom and lives in fear, misery and poverty, but what you gonna do? To read about what Communism actually did to people, you need to read Satter's "It was a long time ago and it never happened anyway" or Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago".

Grey's breathtaking selectiveness and failure to offer any moral or economic context for Stalin's monstrous actions might have been tolerable if he were a better writer. Instead, he annoyingly calls Stalin by an earlier nickname, Koba, for a chapter and spells Tehran two different ways. Grey is not really a detail guy, often throwing around numbers for things like industrial output, without explaining their time frame or why they matter.

Grey never asks himself what life was like for the average Russian under Stalin. She worked in The People's Glorious Tractor Factory 257 and was bludgeoned into ever higher output targets, with no ability to share of the fruits of her own labours, no freedom to criticize his government and no consumer goods, other than vodka, to dull the pain of missing family members killed by Uncle Joe.

[Andrew Scholes · Rating 4 out of 5]

I haven't read that much about Russia so the book was informative. I believe that it was accurate after having read other reviews. I didn't know that at the end of Lenin's life, he was not enamored with Stalin. I am going nuts over the use 0f He, Himself again. I don't understand the use of that. Of course, if it is he, it has got to be himself. Who else would it be?
"In the first months of 1935, several thousand Leningrad citizens were arrested on suspicion of holding opposition sympathies and were deported to Siberia." I'm glad we can oppose the government without fear of those kind of reprisals.
I would like to read a biography of Trotsky. He had some higher up positions but no one seemed to like him or trust him.
The Kindle version of the book has no footnotes, bibliography or index.

[Gmaharriet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-written. I found myself surprised that there was so little mention of the United States. When the US entered WWII, there was no mention of it until the first conference between Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt. Other countries were mentioned only as they directly affected Russia, which was as it should be, but surprised me nevertheless.

Stalin seems more human than anything I'd previously read about him, and I found myself almost liking him, in spite of all the millions he killed during his purges. This was also an unusual take on the causes of the cold war. Perhaps I'm too democracy-centric? :)

[David Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very interesting book. It covers the beginnings of communism in Soviet Russia through to the death of Stalin. The first half is really about Lenin. At Lenin's death it then becomes more biographical of Stalin. To me the author is too much in Stalin's thrall. He glosses over the atrocities, barely mentioning Katyn, and the treatment of the satellites. You could almost form the opinion that Stalin was really a good bloke who just had to do a few unpleasant jobs in service of the State.

[Christian Tvede Steffensen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Udmærket biografi om Josef Stalin.
Dog lidt for langtrukken angående alle de politiske møder som manden deltog i 1920`erne og 30`erne.
Ian Grey skulle have brugt mere tid på at fortælle om Stalins privat liv istedet, det vil have været mere spændende.

[Sekhar N Banerjee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very informative

It was a good read. Assuming that the accounting of events in the book is accurate, I learnt a lot and much of my misconception about the man is removed.

[Tilus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too much material

The material in the book was repeated too many times. The general information was informative but only needed to be said once.

[Mark O'Hagan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve always wanted to learn more about such a pivotal figure in history. This book gave a good account which I found useful but I felt I had to ‘plough’ through parts of it.

[Robert2481 · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book because I wanted to learn what I didn't know about Stalin. It turns out to be a lot, & this book filled in a lot of blanks.

[S.Brouwer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Real good read

I felt that this book showed the human side of a man that changed the course of history.It tells a lot about the people of Russia.Itrea




N

[Carol · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little long winded for an ordinary reader but lots of interesting facts about Stalin.

[Brent Darling · Rating 4 out of 5]

An extremely thorough, detailed look at the life of Joseph Stalin, one of history’s most infamous rulers.

[Diego Palomino · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enlightening

Great read, well laid out. I new very little about Stalin and this book covers many of the aspects of his life, politics, the beginnings of the Bolshevik revolution and of course WW II. It gave me an insight into the perspective from the Soviet side which we don't here much here in the U.S.A. it was enlightening how US, politics did much to cause the chasm between the great powers and the cause of the cold war.

[Vicente Núñez · Rating 4 out of 5]

No sin dejar de lado la dureza y crueldad del mandato de Stalin, Ian Grey muestra de manera muy amena la faceta no tan conocida del famoso líder soviético. Muy recomendable.

[Juan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Es un libro interesante sobre Stalin pero sigue con prejuicios poco serios y teorias extrañas. Lo bueno es que se aleja de lo obvio anti stalin para dar una vision mas humana y real aun repitiendo los mitos pero interesante porque pone fuentes.