What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rise and Fall of Stalin
This is the story of modern history’s most treacherous and terrifying dictator.
Stalin was a man of many facets: he studied for the priesthood, he was a romantic poet, a bank-robber, an assassin, a revolutionary, a ruthless leader, and, for a time, one of the two most powerful men in the world.
But after he took power he was also one of the bloodiest and cruellest leaders in all history.
He cracked an iron whip over Russia and Eastern Europe as millions fell to his purges.
His bizarre, sinister life was matched only by his strange death in 1953 and his subsequent fall and condemnation by his successors.
‘a whale of a book … extremely readable, the verve and gusto of the writing are unflagging to the end’ - The Spectator
‘A prodigious biography… Fascinating. Valuable.’ - New York Herald Tribune
‘a triumph of biography … a clear and fluent style, a powerful picture of one of the most influential men in European History.’ - Will Durant
‘few writers have come closer to capturing the spiritual essence of their subject’ - Harrison Salisbury
‘A gripping wide-read chronicle, narrated with a wealth of detail, colour and documentation. Once you become enmeshed in the book’s tentacles of intrigue, it takes you by the throat’ - Saturday Review Syndicate
Robert Payne (1911-1983) had over a hundred books published on a wide range of subjects during his lifetime. Critics raved about ‘his vast erudition,’ ‘his magic power over words,’ and that rare ability ‘to capture the spiritual essence of his subject.’ The Russian series, in particular ‘The Life and Death of Lenin’ and ‘The Rise and Fall of Stalin’, raised his reputation as biographer to enormous stature.
Endeavour Press is the UK’s leading independent publisher of digital books.
Stalin was a man of many facets: he studied for the priesthood, he was a romantic poet, a bank-robber, an assassin, a revolutionary, a ruthless leader, and, for a time, one of the two most powerful men in the world.
But after he took power he was also one of the bloodiest and cruellest leaders in all history.
He cracked an iron whip over Russia and Eastern Europe as millions fell to his purges.
His bizarre, sinister life was matched only by his strange death in 1953 and his subsequent fall and condemnation by his successors.
‘a whale of a book … extremely readable, the verve and gusto of the writing are unflagging to the end’ - The Spectator
‘A prodigious biography… Fascinating. Valuable.’ - New York Herald Tribune
‘a triumph of biography … a clear and fluent style, a powerful picture of one of the most influential men in European History.’ - Will Durant
‘few writers have come closer to capturing the spiritual essence of their subject’ - Harrison Salisbury
‘A gripping wide-read chronicle, narrated with a wealth of detail, colour and documentation. Once you become enmeshed in the book’s tentacles of intrigue, it takes you by the throat’ - Saturday Review Syndicate
Robert Payne (1911-1983) had over a hundred books published on a wide range of subjects during his lifetime. Critics raved about ‘his vast erudition,’ ‘his magic power over words,’ and that rare ability ‘to capture the spiritual essence of his subject.’ The Russian series, in particular ‘The Life and Death of Lenin’ and ‘The Rise and Fall of Stalin’, raised his reputation as biographer to enormous stature.
Endeavour Press is the UK’s leading independent publisher of digital books.
800 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 1, 1968
293 people are currently reading
182 people want to read
About the author
Robert Payne
339 books35 followersPierre Stephen Robert Payne was born December 4, 1911, in Saltash, County of Cornwall, England, the son of Stephen Payne, a naval architect, and Mireille Louise Antonia (Dorey) Payne, a native of France. Payne was the eldest of three brothers. His middle brother was Alan (Marcel Alan), and his youngest brother was Tony, who died at the age of seven.
Payne went to St. Paul's School, London. He attended the Diocesan College, Rondebosch, South Africa, 1929-30; the University of Capetown, 1928-1930; Liverpool University, 1933-35; the University of Munich, summer, 1937, and the Sorbonne, in Paris, 1938.
Payne first followed his father into shipbuilding, working as a shipwright's apprentice at Cammell, Laird's Shipbuilding Company, Birkendhead, 1931-33. He also worked for the Inland Revenue as an Assistant Inspector of Taxes in Guilford in 1936. In 1937-38 he traveled in Europe and, while in Munich, met Adolf Hitler through Rudolf Hess, an incident which Payne vividly describes in his book Eyewitness. In 1938 Payne covered the Civil War in Spain for the London News Chronicle, an experience that resulted in two books, A Young Man Looks at Europe and The Song of the Peasant.
From 1939 to 1941 Payne worked as a shipwright at the Singapore Naval Base and in 1941 he became an armament officer and chief camouflage officer for British Army Intelligence there. In December, 1941, he was sent to Chungking, China, to serve as Cultural Attaché at the British Embassy.
In January, 1942, he covered the battle of Changsha for the London Times, and from 1942 to 1943 he taught English literature at Fuhtan University, near Chungking. Then, persuaded by Joseph Needham, he went to Kunming and taught poetry and naval architecture at Lienta University from 1943 to 1946. The universities of Peking, Tsinghua, and Nankai had converged in Kunming to form the University at Lienta. It was there that Payne, together with Chinese scholars and poets, compiled and co-translated The White Pony.
In China Payne met General George C. Marshall, Chiang Kai-shek, and Mao Tse-tung, who was elusive and living in the caves of Yenan, all of whom later became subjects for his biographies. From his time in China also came the autobiographical volumes Forever China and China Awake, and the historical novels Love and Peace and The Lovers.
From China, Payne briefly visited India in the summer, 1946, which resulted in a love for Indian art. Throughout his life, Payne retained a love for all forms of oriental art.
He came to the United States in the winter of 1946 and lived in Los Angeles, California, until he became Professor of English and Author-in-Residence at Alabama College, Montevallo, 1949-54. He was the founding editor of Montevallo Review, whose contributors included poets Charles Olson and Muriel Rukeyser. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1953.
In Spring, 1949, Payne visited Persia with the Asia Institute Expedition. He received an M.A. degree from the Asia Institute in 1951.
In 1954 Payne moved to New York City, where he lived the rest of his life, interrupted once or twice a year by travel to the Middle East, the Far East, and Europe, mostly to gather material for his books, but also to visit his mother and father in England. His very close literary relationship with his father is documented in the hundreds of highly personal and informative letters which they exchanged.
In 1942, Payne married Rose Hsiung, daughter of Hsiung Hse-ling, a former prime minister of China. They divorced in 1952. In 1981, he married Sheila Lalwani, originally from India.
Over a period of forty-seven years Payne had more than 110 books published. He wrote his first novella, Adventures of Sylvia, Queen of Denmark and China, when he was seven years old. Payne's first publication was a translation of Iiuri Olesha's Envy, published by Virginia and Leonard Woolf's Hogarth Press in 1936. A year later, T.S. Eliot published his novel The War in the Marshes under
Payne went to St. Paul's School, London. He attended the Diocesan College, Rondebosch, South Africa, 1929-30; the University of Capetown, 1928-1930; Liverpool University, 1933-35; the University of Munich, summer, 1937, and the Sorbonne, in Paris, 1938.
Payne first followed his father into shipbuilding, working as a shipwright's apprentice at Cammell, Laird's Shipbuilding Company, Birkendhead, 1931-33. He also worked for the Inland Revenue as an Assistant Inspector of Taxes in Guilford in 1936. In 1937-38 he traveled in Europe and, while in Munich, met Adolf Hitler through Rudolf Hess, an incident which Payne vividly describes in his book Eyewitness. In 1938 Payne covered the Civil War in Spain for the London News Chronicle, an experience that resulted in two books, A Young Man Looks at Europe and The Song of the Peasant.
From 1939 to 1941 Payne worked as a shipwright at the Singapore Naval Base and in 1941 he became an armament officer and chief camouflage officer for British Army Intelligence there. In December, 1941, he was sent to Chungking, China, to serve as Cultural Attaché at the British Embassy.
In January, 1942, he covered the battle of Changsha for the London Times, and from 1942 to 1943 he taught English literature at Fuhtan University, near Chungking. Then, persuaded by Joseph Needham, he went to Kunming and taught poetry and naval architecture at Lienta University from 1943 to 1946. The universities of Peking, Tsinghua, and Nankai had converged in Kunming to form the University at Lienta. It was there that Payne, together with Chinese scholars and poets, compiled and co-translated The White Pony.
In China Payne met General George C. Marshall, Chiang Kai-shek, and Mao Tse-tung, who was elusive and living in the caves of Yenan, all of whom later became subjects for his biographies. From his time in China also came the autobiographical volumes Forever China and China Awake, and the historical novels Love and Peace and The Lovers.
From China, Payne briefly visited India in the summer, 1946, which resulted in a love for Indian art. Throughout his life, Payne retained a love for all forms of oriental art.
He came to the United States in the winter of 1946 and lived in Los Angeles, California, until he became Professor of English and Author-in-Residence at Alabama College, Montevallo, 1949-54. He was the founding editor of Montevallo Review, whose contributors included poets Charles Olson and Muriel Rukeyser. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1953.
In Spring, 1949, Payne visited Persia with the Asia Institute Expedition. He received an M.A. degree from the Asia Institute in 1951.
In 1954 Payne moved to New York City, where he lived the rest of his life, interrupted once or twice a year by travel to the Middle East, the Far East, and Europe, mostly to gather material for his books, but also to visit his mother and father in England. His very close literary relationship with his father is documented in the hundreds of highly personal and informative letters which they exchanged.
In 1942, Payne married Rose Hsiung, daughter of Hsiung Hse-ling, a former prime minister of China. They divorced in 1952. In 1981, he married Sheila Lalwani, originally from India.
Over a period of forty-seven years Payne had more than 110 books published. He wrote his first novella, Adventures of Sylvia, Queen of Denmark and China, when he was seven years old. Payne's first publication was a translation of Iiuri Olesha's Envy, published by Virginia and Leonard Woolf's Hogarth Press in 1936. A year later, T.S. Eliot published his novel The War in the Marshes under
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
October 8, 2022
One of my all-time favorite biographies. Thorough, detailed; gripping. Unforgettable.
Why did I seek it out for reading? I'm a student of history; history is one of the degrees I took in university and history remains an abiding interest of mine.
I'm always interested in the 'great men' popular theory of European history (as espoused by Leo Tolstoy, for instance) vs other more scholarly interpretations.
Stalin of course was not a great man at all; merely a powerful one as was Hitler. But there is much in the personal lives of both men to excite curiousity and imagination.
After all --as the rubric goes --"at least their mothers must have loved them once". Stalin and Hitler were both born of women; they were both good little boys once; they were both once as human as we are. They each had wives; Stalin even sired children.
So, how did evil come to them? Between the two of them, probably responsible for the death of forty millions of their fellow men. How did they devolve into the monstrous fiends we recognize today?
For the life of Hitler, one would read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich" . For the life of Stalin, you would read the current title I am reviewing here.
In my view, Stalin is more interesting a figure than Hitler. This is not to say I admire anything about him. Not only do I rank him no less despicable than Hitler; actually I rate him even worse.
Hitler was a sociopath, he seemed always to have something wrong with him. Sickly, frail, impotent. Whereas Stalin --as a young man --seemed bound for monastic life; was hardy and strong; and had the face of an angel.
What's more --in the case of both dictators, I feel evidence clearly refutes the 'great man theory'. For either figure (choose any biography you wish) what is apparent is this: it was not 'one man' who carried out the "Final Solution"; it was not 'one man' who developed the Gulag Archipelago.
Both megalomaniacs were assisted in their gruesome aims by their countrymen; by the society and culture surrounding each of them; by their fellows in droves. Their brothers and fathers and sons, all fairly leapt to serve them. Each leader implemented a system which was effected not merely by their respective governments but by all the citizens living and working under those governments. It takes a lot of "good, honest, hard-working, decent citizens" to run a concentration camp, or a gulag, or a railroad.
It took millions of German to slay 5-6 million Jews. All of Russia participated in the starvation, imprisonment, and execution of 20 million of their own camrades. It was never the work of just one man; the sin dribbled down from Stalin to stain every citizen he ruled over.
This is something I bear in mind when I read the biography of these 'monsters'. Sick and twisted individuals, certainly. We're all glad to be rid of them.
The broader problem is: who helped them carry out their insanity? Who enabled their reign? And, how do we prevent such beasts from appearing among us ever again?
Why did I seek it out for reading? I'm a student of history; history is one of the degrees I took in university and history remains an abiding interest of mine.
I'm always interested in the 'great men' popular theory of European history (as espoused by Leo Tolstoy, for instance) vs other more scholarly interpretations.
Stalin of course was not a great man at all; merely a powerful one as was Hitler. But there is much in the personal lives of both men to excite curiousity and imagination.
After all --as the rubric goes --"at least their mothers must have loved them once". Stalin and Hitler were both born of women; they were both good little boys once; they were both once as human as we are. They each had wives; Stalin even sired children.
So, how did evil come to them? Between the two of them, probably responsible for the death of forty millions of their fellow men. How did they devolve into the monstrous fiends we recognize today?
For the life of Hitler, one would read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich" . For the life of Stalin, you would read the current title I am reviewing here.
In my view, Stalin is more interesting a figure than Hitler. This is not to say I admire anything about him. Not only do I rank him no less despicable than Hitler; actually I rate him even worse.
Hitler was a sociopath, he seemed always to have something wrong with him. Sickly, frail, impotent. Whereas Stalin --as a young man --seemed bound for monastic life; was hardy and strong; and had the face of an angel.
What's more --in the case of both dictators, I feel evidence clearly refutes the 'great man theory'. For either figure (choose any biography you wish) what is apparent is this: it was not 'one man' who carried out the "Final Solution"; it was not 'one man' who developed the Gulag Archipelago.
Both megalomaniacs were assisted in their gruesome aims by their countrymen; by the society and culture surrounding each of them; by their fellows in droves. Their brothers and fathers and sons, all fairly leapt to serve them. Each leader implemented a system which was effected not merely by their respective governments but by all the citizens living and working under those governments. It takes a lot of "good, honest, hard-working, decent citizens" to run a concentration camp, or a gulag, or a railroad.
It took millions of German to slay 5-6 million Jews. All of Russia participated in the starvation, imprisonment, and execution of 20 million of their own camrades. It was never the work of just one man; the sin dribbled down from Stalin to stain every citizen he ruled over.
This is something I bear in mind when I read the biography of these 'monsters'. Sick and twisted individuals, certainly. We're all glad to be rid of them.
The broader problem is: who helped them carry out their insanity? Who enabled their reign? And, how do we prevent such beasts from appearing among us ever again?
April 13, 2025
⭐️⭐️.5
Russian history always fascinates me and when this book became available on Kindle Unlimited a couple years ago I snatched it up. Never mind that it took me this long to finally tackle it. At 910 pages it took me two months to get through it all. Now I know a lot more about the most famous Russian tyrant of them all. Although I do think Putin is vying to take Stalin’s place!
This book was published in 1966 and the author is now deceased. I only learned at the end of the book that this is Book 3 of a group entitled The Russian Revolutionaries. The other two are about Lenin and Trotsky.
It was a lot to slog through and this kindle edition had quite a number of editing errors. Lots of periods and commas where they don’t belong.
The book got more interesting for me as the WWII began. Probably because it was history with which I am more familiar.
Here is what disappointed me. No pictures! Also the title - The Rise and Fall of Stalin? He never fell - he died still holding on to all his power. I guess the author was talking about how he was treated by Russian history writers after his death. The author stated that he has been erased from all their history books that are used in their schools. He was originally buried in the same mausoleum as Lenin, but was removed by Khrushchev in 1961. (I think that was the year.). They reburied him in a graveyard (inside the Kremlin?) and he is next to some other Russian guy who Stalin couldn’t stand. Also, there were two other Russian guys who were Stalin’s preferred successors. They only managed to stay in power for three weeks after his death. There was no clear explanation how Khrushchev became the next dictator.
All in all, I did learn things I never knew before.
2025 Thoughtful Reading Challenge - March - a book about or set in the former USSR
December 8, 2018
I read this book directly after my first Robert Payne biography - his biography of Lenin. The similarities between the two books, obviously, are striking. Good and Bad. Good – this is a very thorough biography of Joseph Stalin, the man. Or as thorough as it can be. The life of Joseph Stalin is fascinating. Frightening, but fascinating. The man was nothing short of a psychopathic bully.
When one tries to construct a narrative about an individual in a place like early twentieth century Russia, there are a lot of gaps to fill. Many of these gaps are filled by Stalin himself. He either a) lies about his accomplishments b) over exaggerates his importance and c) thinks of himself as one with flawless character. When he becomes dictator in 1924 – his evilness cultivates to unprecedented levels. I cannot think of any time nor any place in modern history that I would rather not be.
Critics state that this book isn’t a linear account of his life. That’s only partly true. When we arrive at the decade of the 1930's, for example, we read the account of his infamous purges. We read about several key people (including his wife, allegedly) that Stalin has put to death for some obscene reason. Do we read about these accounts chronologically? Not necessarily. In my judgement, though, this doesn’t affect the impact of such travails. Instead of a strict timeline, there are many chapters detailed to a key figure that suffered death at the hands of this tyrant during this period.
There are times, though, when one wishes the author would devote a bit more attention to the events of the time and not assume the reader is completely familiar with history. Example: We read about the alliance between Hitler and Stalin during the early stages of World War II. Most know that Hitler did a double-cross and sent his armies deep into Russia in the hope of conquering the country (he wanted the oil). So the author begins to tell of this event and then….well….stops. History tells us Germany failed in its advance because of the long, cruel Russian winter that they had to crawl through (like Napoleon). The German military just couldn’t handle the brutal cold. If you weren’t knowledgeable of this, you wouldn’t have any inkling of it if you had only read this book. I remember the author made this mistake as well in his biography of Lenin. Some more background would have definitely been helpful in many instances.
Now, the above mentioned faux pas is somewhat forgivable. The biggest Achilles Heel of this book is that the author isn’t content with simply referring to his sources when bringing up key events. Rather, he feels the need to quote his sources verbatim – sometimes lasting pages within the book. It’s quite the distraction. I almost think that had he not felt the need to quote pages and pages of material, he could have easily cut the length of this book by about 20%. (I remember reading about one of the summits that Stalin attended with Roosevelt and Churchill. The author feels obliged to spend about a page describing the menu that was offered at the dinner! Unbelievable.) I soon learned that it was unnecessary to pour through these long recollections. Most of the time when I arrived at one of these quotes (provided in italics), I simply skipped it. It didn’t hurt my enjoyment of the book. In fact, it helped. I suggest you do the same.
Overall, though, I enjoyed the book. I enjoyed it as much as one could about such a tyrant. Not only is it difficult reading about the every day life of such a monster, but when his behavior inflects paranoia of every single person that he comes in contact with, it makes the enjoyment rather limited in that aspect as well. Much of what is on these pages is devoted to only what Stalin though or only what Stalin did. After all, nobody else was allowed any sort of say about anything. A very sad time in history.
When one tries to construct a narrative about an individual in a place like early twentieth century Russia, there are a lot of gaps to fill. Many of these gaps are filled by Stalin himself. He either a) lies about his accomplishments b) over exaggerates his importance and c) thinks of himself as one with flawless character. When he becomes dictator in 1924 – his evilness cultivates to unprecedented levels. I cannot think of any time nor any place in modern history that I would rather not be.
Critics state that this book isn’t a linear account of his life. That’s only partly true. When we arrive at the decade of the 1930's, for example, we read the account of his infamous purges. We read about several key people (including his wife, allegedly) that Stalin has put to death for some obscene reason. Do we read about these accounts chronologically? Not necessarily. In my judgement, though, this doesn’t affect the impact of such travails. Instead of a strict timeline, there are many chapters detailed to a key figure that suffered death at the hands of this tyrant during this period.
There are times, though, when one wishes the author would devote a bit more attention to the events of the time and not assume the reader is completely familiar with history. Example: We read about the alliance between Hitler and Stalin during the early stages of World War II. Most know that Hitler did a double-cross and sent his armies deep into Russia in the hope of conquering the country (he wanted the oil). So the author begins to tell of this event and then….well….stops. History tells us Germany failed in its advance because of the long, cruel Russian winter that they had to crawl through (like Napoleon). The German military just couldn’t handle the brutal cold. If you weren’t knowledgeable of this, you wouldn’t have any inkling of it if you had only read this book. I remember the author made this mistake as well in his biography of Lenin. Some more background would have definitely been helpful in many instances.
Now, the above mentioned faux pas is somewhat forgivable. The biggest Achilles Heel of this book is that the author isn’t content with simply referring to his sources when bringing up key events. Rather, he feels the need to quote his sources verbatim – sometimes lasting pages within the book. It’s quite the distraction. I almost think that had he not felt the need to quote pages and pages of material, he could have easily cut the length of this book by about 20%. (I remember reading about one of the summits that Stalin attended with Roosevelt and Churchill. The author feels obliged to spend about a page describing the menu that was offered at the dinner! Unbelievable.) I soon learned that it was unnecessary to pour through these long recollections. Most of the time when I arrived at one of these quotes (provided in italics), I simply skipped it. It didn’t hurt my enjoyment of the book. In fact, it helped. I suggest you do the same.
Overall, though, I enjoyed the book. I enjoyed it as much as one could about such a tyrant. Not only is it difficult reading about the every day life of such a monster, but when his behavior inflects paranoia of every single person that he comes in contact with, it makes the enjoyment rather limited in that aspect as well. Much of what is on these pages is devoted to only what Stalin though or only what Stalin did. After all, nobody else was allowed any sort of say about anything. A very sad time in history.
October 27, 2023
For me, Stalin has always been an enigma. Unlike the other tyrants and giants of his era, from Lenin to Hitler, Stalin always struck me as a kind of black hole, a void of personality, a man whose actual beliefs, goals and personality were indistinct, or hidden from view. He had no personal charisma, lacked physical courage, was a dull speech-maker, disliked writing, created no new systems of thought and did not entirely understand the ones he was supposedly upholding. His contributions to the Russian Revolution were meager, he proved an incompetent soldier, and he showed every evidence of pathological jealousy, paranoia, and vindictiveness. Those who met him noted that he was vulgar, insulting and rude at almost all times, and when drunk could be especially vicious. Just how did this terrible mediocrity, this deformed misanthrope, this lump of unpleasant qualities, rise to such titanic heights of power? How did he outmaneuver cleverer, braver, more appealing men within his own party? How did he find so many willing tools to serve his morbid ambitions?
Robert Payne answers a number of these lingering questions in THE RISE AND FALL OF STALIN. He describes a man who grew up in an atmosphere of abuse and cruelty, and whose black views about humanity were initially formed between beatings and privations during his miserable childhood in Georgia. Later, as a minor revolutionary figure in Siberian exile, they hardened further, as Stalin absorbed the bleak, harsh, pitiless attitudes of the people and the environment. Payne shows Stalin from later childhood as being drawn to the aggrandizing heroic fantasies of Georgian folk tales, which he coupled later to Communist ideology to produce his cult of personality; but even as a young, burgeoning Socialist revolutionary it was clear he intended on nothing less than supreme power. The powerlessness of his youth manifested in adulthood as an insatiable appetite for domination. He managed for a time to convince Lenin he was a sincere communist and a valuable asset to the Party, but he came to view Lenin as an impediment upon his boundless ambitions, and privately marked for death all Lenin's friends and loyalists, long before he was in a position to harm any of them. Stalin was a man with both eyes on the main chance. His devotion to Communism seems to have been limited to the fact it, being amoral and authoritarian, was an effective means to an end: unlike Lenin and Trotsky, he probably would have embraced any extreme ideology if he thought it would allow him to satisfy his lust for dominance.
What distinguished Stalin firstly was his cunning. While still a relative nobody in the Party, he managed to get appointed "general secretary," which gave him the power of filling positions within the sprawling communist organization, including the secret police. In this way he quietly managed to isolate Lenin and neutralize Trotsky and the other Old Bolsheviks: and later, to exterminate his opponents via huge purges carried out by hand-picked men who were later themselves murdered, on and on, ad nauseum. This brings us to his second quality, his absolute rejection of all ethics, morals, and scruples. Stalin was a man capable of friendship, but incapable of loyalty. He once remarked that "gratitude is a disease of dogs" and he endeavored to prove this true by killing most of the men who got him into power, and many who helped keep him there. His paranoia and jealousy doomed those he professed to love as certainly as his bottomless fund of hatred doomed his many enemies. He murdered relatives, in-laws, close friends, old comrades. He murdered complete strangers. He arbitrarily ordered mass executions, and relished playing cat-and-mouse with his victims, often for many months, before he finally had them executed. He framed people for crimes he himself had committed, supervised their interrogation and torture, and then had them shot or hanged, believing in their guilt even when he consciously knew them to be innocent. He then just as often murdered his own executioners. Orwell's "doublethink" seems to have originated not merely within the Stalinite state but in Stalin's own personality. When he rewrote history to make himself appear infallible, he did so knowing everything he wrote was a lie; but he believed the lies and forced the world to repeat them on pain of death. Death, Payne tells us, Stalin was determined to keep so busy it would have no time to come for him.
Stalin's appetite for murder proved to be boundless: he was having men shot long before he was in power, and seemed incapable of, or unwilling to, impose any other penalty. In his mind, a man or woman who failed to complete a task was a traitor: mere incompetence was no shield from a firing squad. This applied even to those given tasks Stalin himself knew to be impossible. He created a vast murder apparatus which he then obligingly fed at first thousands, and later tens of millions, human beings. By the time Hitler had killed his first hundred thousand, Stalin had killed ten million, and he seldom slackened the pace of his atrocities, committing some out of sheer boredom. In a position of unchallengable power, ruling much of the earth's surface, he was gearing up for a fresh series of terrors and purges among his own people when he finally died. Payne tells us "Stalin ruled Russia as if he bore it a personal grudge" and he was right. And the depictions of endless frame-ups, show trials, engineered famines, mass shootings, midnight disappearances, and nonexistent plots punished as if they were quite real, become numbing after a time. Hitler had great charisma and a sense of aesthetic grandeur; Mussolini was a mere would-be conquerer in the 19th century style; Lenin, Trotsky and Mao had the single saving grace of sincerity of aim, even if their methods were drenched in blood. But Stalin was a nullity. He stood for nothing. He had no redeeming qualities. He lacked even the superifical charms of the other tyrants. His craving for adoration -- constant and shameless adoration -- seems to have come from the knowledge that without it, he would cease to exist. His entire career is a warning to the rest of us, but at the center of the warning remains a mystery: how did so many smarter, fitter, abler men end up as his victims? And how did such a fundamentally unlikeable and treacherous person find so many who were willing, when he was still essentially a nobody, to carry out his aims?
Robert Payne answers a number of these lingering questions in THE RISE AND FALL OF STALIN. He describes a man who grew up in an atmosphere of abuse and cruelty, and whose black views about humanity were initially formed between beatings and privations during his miserable childhood in Georgia. Later, as a minor revolutionary figure in Siberian exile, they hardened further, as Stalin absorbed the bleak, harsh, pitiless attitudes of the people and the environment. Payne shows Stalin from later childhood as being drawn to the aggrandizing heroic fantasies of Georgian folk tales, which he coupled later to Communist ideology to produce his cult of personality; but even as a young, burgeoning Socialist revolutionary it was clear he intended on nothing less than supreme power. The powerlessness of his youth manifested in adulthood as an insatiable appetite for domination. He managed for a time to convince Lenin he was a sincere communist and a valuable asset to the Party, but he came to view Lenin as an impediment upon his boundless ambitions, and privately marked for death all Lenin's friends and loyalists, long before he was in a position to harm any of them. Stalin was a man with both eyes on the main chance. His devotion to Communism seems to have been limited to the fact it, being amoral and authoritarian, was an effective means to an end: unlike Lenin and Trotsky, he probably would have embraced any extreme ideology if he thought it would allow him to satisfy his lust for dominance.
What distinguished Stalin firstly was his cunning. While still a relative nobody in the Party, he managed to get appointed "general secretary," which gave him the power of filling positions within the sprawling communist organization, including the secret police. In this way he quietly managed to isolate Lenin and neutralize Trotsky and the other Old Bolsheviks: and later, to exterminate his opponents via huge purges carried out by hand-picked men who were later themselves murdered, on and on, ad nauseum. This brings us to his second quality, his absolute rejection of all ethics, morals, and scruples. Stalin was a man capable of friendship, but incapable of loyalty. He once remarked that "gratitude is a disease of dogs" and he endeavored to prove this true by killing most of the men who got him into power, and many who helped keep him there. His paranoia and jealousy doomed those he professed to love as certainly as his bottomless fund of hatred doomed his many enemies. He murdered relatives, in-laws, close friends, old comrades. He murdered complete strangers. He arbitrarily ordered mass executions, and relished playing cat-and-mouse with his victims, often for many months, before he finally had them executed. He framed people for crimes he himself had committed, supervised their interrogation and torture, and then had them shot or hanged, believing in their guilt even when he consciously knew them to be innocent. He then just as often murdered his own executioners. Orwell's "doublethink" seems to have originated not merely within the Stalinite state but in Stalin's own personality. When he rewrote history to make himself appear infallible, he did so knowing everything he wrote was a lie; but he believed the lies and forced the world to repeat them on pain of death. Death, Payne tells us, Stalin was determined to keep so busy it would have no time to come for him.
Stalin's appetite for murder proved to be boundless: he was having men shot long before he was in power, and seemed incapable of, or unwilling to, impose any other penalty. In his mind, a man or woman who failed to complete a task was a traitor: mere incompetence was no shield from a firing squad. This applied even to those given tasks Stalin himself knew to be impossible. He created a vast murder apparatus which he then obligingly fed at first thousands, and later tens of millions, human beings. By the time Hitler had killed his first hundred thousand, Stalin had killed ten million, and he seldom slackened the pace of his atrocities, committing some out of sheer boredom. In a position of unchallengable power, ruling much of the earth's surface, he was gearing up for a fresh series of terrors and purges among his own people when he finally died. Payne tells us "Stalin ruled Russia as if he bore it a personal grudge" and he was right. And the depictions of endless frame-ups, show trials, engineered famines, mass shootings, midnight disappearances, and nonexistent plots punished as if they were quite real, become numbing after a time. Hitler had great charisma and a sense of aesthetic grandeur; Mussolini was a mere would-be conquerer in the 19th century style; Lenin, Trotsky and Mao had the single saving grace of sincerity of aim, even if their methods were drenched in blood. But Stalin was a nullity. He stood for nothing. He had no redeeming qualities. He lacked even the superifical charms of the other tyrants. His craving for adoration -- constant and shameless adoration -- seems to have come from the knowledge that without it, he would cease to exist. His entire career is a warning to the rest of us, but at the center of the warning remains a mystery: how did so many smarter, fitter, abler men end up as his victims? And how did such a fundamentally unlikeable and treacherous person find so many who were willing, when he was still essentially a nobody, to carry out his aims?
August 16, 2016
A very thorough look into the life and times of Stalin, really gets into the small details of where he came from and gives a great chronology of his life and movements on the way up the Soviet power chain.
I will say the first 2/3 of the book are a slog before you reach the period of more recognizable history, but then that part of the book flies past at perfectly weighted pace. Well worth persevering through.
I will say the first 2/3 of the book are a slog before you reach the period of more recognizable history, but then that part of the book flies past at perfectly weighted pace. Well worth persevering through.
August 13, 2023
Payne captures a good bit of Stalin’s thinking, of his lack of character, of his fears and mistrust of nearly everyone.
He plumbs the depth of Stalin’s mind, and finds the void.
Not Marx or Lenin, or anyone else takes up much space in Stalin's barren, depraved mind.
“There were no dimensions in Stalin’s mind,” Payne wrote in this 1965 biography. “There was only the bottomless desire to dominate.”
We learn about young Stalin, a boy from Georgia who went to theology school intending to be an orthodox priest or teacher. He was a voracious reader, an idealist. Not overly bright but not stupid either. Not a gifted speaker, or a brave soldier.
He became a revolutionary follower of Lenin, a toddy who used his friendship with Lenin to gain power then turned on the master.
With power finally his, Stalin created a whole new definition of evil - many believe he outdid Hitler as the Most Evil Man in the World. Someone once observed Hitler killed because of a perverse ideology, but Stalin killed for no good reason.
The number of deaths attributed to him are unimaginable - perhaps as high as 20,000,000 or as low as 6,000,000. Nearly all of them were citizens of Russia.
His impact on the soul of Russia remains, even today, as we hear of people disappearing or dying after expressing disapproval of the current leader.
The author describes the lists of people to be executed, how casually Stalin adds people - even friends and supporters - to the death lists. Stalin assigns quotas.
A few big omissions that Payne downplays or ignores or fails to assign blame to Stalin:
UKRAINIAN HOLODOMOR: The genocidal famine ordered by Stalin that caused the death of 4 million men, women and children. That may be a conservative estimate but just imagine what a stupid, short-sighted and cruel policy imposed on the people of Ukraine.
Perhaps it was because Ukraine farmers resisted collectives, or failed to meet quotas for producing wheat on collectives. Perhaps Stalin just wanted to squash nationalism.
Payne does discuss the policy but sketches poorly its impact on Ukraine.
In the end, it defined the attitude of Ukrainians toward Russia as one of permanent hatred, residues of passion evident even now.
CRIMEAN TARTARS: In May 1944, Stalin ordered the deportation of nearly 200,000 Tartars from Crimea.
Ostensibly, Stalin accused the Tatars of treason during World War II. Over a few days, the entire region was cleansed of Tatars. They were sent by cattle cars to Siberia, and many died on route.
Finally, the author goes into the plans Stalin had before his death of a final purge - aimed at Jews and the bogus “Jewish doctor plot.” Many people believe it was a more wide-ranging plan to purge nearly the entire leadership of the country.
Was Stalin poisoned because of those fears of his planned purge? Or did Stalin die from a brain hemorrhage as his autopsy reported?
All in all, I recommend this book for anyone interested in Stalin and what it was like to govern by fear. It’s interesting and well-written, but way too long.
He plumbs the depth of Stalin’s mind, and finds the void.
Not Marx or Lenin, or anyone else takes up much space in Stalin's barren, depraved mind.
“There were no dimensions in Stalin’s mind,” Payne wrote in this 1965 biography. “There was only the bottomless desire to dominate.”
We learn about young Stalin, a boy from Georgia who went to theology school intending to be an orthodox priest or teacher. He was a voracious reader, an idealist. Not overly bright but not stupid either. Not a gifted speaker, or a brave soldier.
He became a revolutionary follower of Lenin, a toddy who used his friendship with Lenin to gain power then turned on the master.
With power finally his, Stalin created a whole new definition of evil - many believe he outdid Hitler as the Most Evil Man in the World. Someone once observed Hitler killed because of a perverse ideology, but Stalin killed for no good reason.
The number of deaths attributed to him are unimaginable - perhaps as high as 20,000,000 or as low as 6,000,000. Nearly all of them were citizens of Russia.
His impact on the soul of Russia remains, even today, as we hear of people disappearing or dying after expressing disapproval of the current leader.
The author describes the lists of people to be executed, how casually Stalin adds people - even friends and supporters - to the death lists. Stalin assigns quotas.
A few big omissions that Payne downplays or ignores or fails to assign blame to Stalin:
UKRAINIAN HOLODOMOR: The genocidal famine ordered by Stalin that caused the death of 4 million men, women and children. That may be a conservative estimate but just imagine what a stupid, short-sighted and cruel policy imposed on the people of Ukraine.
Perhaps it was because Ukraine farmers resisted collectives, or failed to meet quotas for producing wheat on collectives. Perhaps Stalin just wanted to squash nationalism.
Payne does discuss the policy but sketches poorly its impact on Ukraine.
In the end, it defined the attitude of Ukrainians toward Russia as one of permanent hatred, residues of passion evident even now.
CRIMEAN TARTARS: In May 1944, Stalin ordered the deportation of nearly 200,000 Tartars from Crimea.
Ostensibly, Stalin accused the Tatars of treason during World War II. Over a few days, the entire region was cleansed of Tatars. They were sent by cattle cars to Siberia, and many died on route.
Finally, the author goes into the plans Stalin had before his death of a final purge - aimed at Jews and the bogus “Jewish doctor plot.” Many people believe it was a more wide-ranging plan to purge nearly the entire leadership of the country.
Was Stalin poisoned because of those fears of his planned purge? Or did Stalin die from a brain hemorrhage as his autopsy reported?
All in all, I recommend this book for anyone interested in Stalin and what it was like to govern by fear. It’s interesting and well-written, but way too long.
July 24, 2023
I liked this book. I recommend reading it.
The Good.
Lots of detail in some areas where you don't always get the details. E.g. Kirov's murder and the Doctor's Plot.
Well written. Though it's a big book, it's easy to follow along and despite the details, doesn't seem to get bogged down in them.
Background. I think that there's a good level of Stalin's background that, to some extent, helps explain whether he was a sociopath or a psychopath (probably both).
Revolution. Though it's not so much Stalin at the forefront during the revolutionary months, I liked that Payne was able to show, through letters, etc. how the Bolsheviks were revolutionaries, not govern-ors. That they systematized protection of the system and themselves ad hoc, because of their fear of being overthrown. None of them, including Stalin, had the skills to normalize a system of governing. (Possibly Trotsky could have).
Bad.
Payne puts his thumb on the scale. There are several instances where he speaks as if he knows what Stalin is thinking, what his motivations are. That's all speculation. We can think we know, but, not really.
The War. There is some handling of wartime, but, I would like more detail around Stalin's actions during the war. I realize that the book would probably be unmanageable with that addition, but, still something I'd like to have Payne illuminate with his detail oriented authoring.
The Good.
Lots of detail in some areas where you don't always get the details. E.g. Kirov's murder and the Doctor's Plot.
Well written. Though it's a big book, it's easy to follow along and despite the details, doesn't seem to get bogged down in them.
Background. I think that there's a good level of Stalin's background that, to some extent, helps explain whether he was a sociopath or a psychopath (probably both).
Revolution. Though it's not so much Stalin at the forefront during the revolutionary months, I liked that Payne was able to show, through letters, etc. how the Bolsheviks were revolutionaries, not govern-ors. That they systematized protection of the system and themselves ad hoc, because of their fear of being overthrown. None of them, including Stalin, had the skills to normalize a system of governing. (Possibly Trotsky could have).
Bad.
Payne puts his thumb on the scale. There are several instances where he speaks as if he knows what Stalin is thinking, what his motivations are. That's all speculation. We can think we know, but, not really.
The War. There is some handling of wartime, but, I would like more detail around Stalin's actions during the war. I realize that the book would probably be unmanageable with that addition, but, still something I'd like to have Payne illuminate with his detail oriented authoring.
January 12, 2025
Anatomy of a Tyrant
An excellent biography of a ruthless, ambitious, amoral man whose rise from a Georgian peasant to the Supreme leader of the Soviet Union, is meticulously detailed. His cruelty, duplicity, and utter lack of concern for human life depicts a tyrant, who nevertheless, at great cost in lives, transformed a backward, rural Russia into a formidable industrial power. He navigated the course of the Red Army, who defeated the Nazis.
Most of all he murdered his own people in incredible numbers, leaving a legacy of nothing more or less than that of a tyrannical dictator.
An excellent biography of a ruthless, ambitious, amoral man whose rise from a Georgian peasant to the Supreme leader of the Soviet Union, is meticulously detailed. His cruelty, duplicity, and utter lack of concern for human life depicts a tyrant, who nevertheless, at great cost in lives, transformed a backward, rural Russia into a formidable industrial power. He navigated the course of the Red Army, who defeated the Nazis.
Most of all he murdered his own people in incredible numbers, leaving a legacy of nothing more or less than that of a tyrannical dictator.
December 1, 2022
Wow, there was a lot of detail in this immense tome. I think much of it could have been eliminated without losing the portrait of the tyrant, maybe shortening the book by a third. One does, however, get the idea of the man and his chimaeric qualities. With there was a little more on the war years.
February 17, 2024
Story of one of the most prominent dictators of all time
Well written Chronicle of a terrible dictator showing how he developed his world view defined by the lust for power and extreme paranoia which caused him to kill not only millions of people he didn't know but even the people he knew the most. It is a good analogy to what is happening in our world today.
Well written Chronicle of a terrible dictator showing how he developed his world view defined by the lust for power and extreme paranoia which caused him to kill not only millions of people he didn't know but even the people he knew the most. It is a good analogy to what is happening in our world today.
October 23, 2022
Most informative biography
Enjoyed reading the book. Learnt quite a bit of history of the previous century. I read earlier one other version of Stalin’s biography, by a Russian author. Most of Stalin’s atrocities as described here , were missing .
Enjoyed reading the book. Learnt quite a bit of history of the previous century. I read earlier one other version of Stalin’s biography, by a Russian author. Most of Stalin’s atrocities as described here , were missing .
January 5, 2023
Very well written and researched !!!
The author did a fantastic job researching this history of Stalin, from being to end. Even covered the war years were if it hadn't been for Great Britain and the United states, they would be speaking German today.
The author did a fantastic job researching this history of Stalin, from being to end. Even covered the war years were if it hadn't been for Great Britain and the United states, they would be speaking German today.
March 29, 2023
Jaw dropping!
Riveting! It is not just the story of Stalin but the answer to so many questions I have had about Marxism and the the Soviet people in the early part of the 20th century who allowed this monster Stalin to come to power. Great research. A must-read!!!
Riveting! It is not just the story of Stalin but the answer to so many questions I have had about Marxism and the the Soviet people in the early part of the 20th century who allowed this monster Stalin to come to power. Great research. A must-read!!!
March 31, 2025
Excellent
Well-written, thorough discussion of the subject and his times. The author is well-versed, in his subject, having also written biographies of Lenin and Trotsky, which I intend, to read very soon.
Well-written, thorough discussion of the subject and his times. The author is well-versed, in his subject, having also written biographies of Lenin and Trotsky, which I intend, to read very soon.
August 4, 2025
Swagalicious but got DAMN this man gotta calm down, 800 pages is crazy work.
November 17, 2015
The irse anda fallando of stalin
Libro interesante que muestra la deshumanización de STALIN para masacrar a su propia población, que necesariamente contó con la colaboración de otros jerarcas rusos por mantenerse en el poder. El acompañamiento de la narración de los diferentes eventos con diálogos y discursos nos permite ubicarnos dentro de la historia no contada de ese periodo do lo moroso y vergonzante del comunismo.
Libro interesante que muestra la deshumanización de STALIN para masacrar a su propia población, que necesariamente contó con la colaboración de otros jerarcas rusos por mantenerse en el poder. El acompañamiento de la narración de los diferentes eventos con diálogos y discursos nos permite ubicarnos dentro de la historia no contada de ese periodo do lo moroso y vergonzante del comunismo.
November 7, 2013
This book took a week to finish first 500 pages, just too much information, but the last 300 pages were great, made the suffering thu the first part worth it. I had never studied Stalin in depth before this work. \I had thought he was just like Lenin but they were so different in so many ways.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews