What do you think?
Rate this book
ستالين: سيرة سياسية
Firmly established as the standard Stalin biography, Deutscher's volume clearly demonstrates the forces that shaped this leader and the political scene of his time.
656 pages, Unknown Binding
First published October 15, 2004
182 people are currently reading
3150 people want to read
About the author
Isaac Deutscher
68 books144 followersIsaac Deutscher was a Polish-born Jewish Marxist writer, journalist and political activist who moved to the United Kingdom at the outbreak of World War II. He is best known as a biographer of Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin and as a commentator on Soviet affairs. His three-volume biography of Trotsky, in particular, was highly influential among the British New Left.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews
September 4, 2008
Stalin as Communist Emperor
A very readable biography of Stalin that describes his entire life, from his beginnings in Georgia to the top of the Soviet Union. His relationship to Lenin and other members of the Bolshevik clique and his rise to power are all chronicled.
There is a letter from Tito to Stalin that was found in Stalin's desk drawer shortly after he died. Tito, in this letter, is out-dueling Stalin in threatening assassination attempts. It encapsulates the gangster tactics of the entire communist regime.
Service points out that there were no innocents in the rise to power after the October revolution. Stalin learnt well from his teacher Lenin; bolshevism may have been based on the books of Marx and Engels, but its practice was raw power and Stalin wielded this for over thirty years.
Sometimes in this work there seems to be too much focus around Stalin and not enough history of the outside forces - such as the effects of famine during the 1930's.
Nevertheless we are left with the portrait of a ruthless individual who amassed power for its' own sake. Stalin accrued very little personal wealth during his reign - for example he only wore good clothes during his World War II meetings when the Allied powers came to visit.
It is also interesting to note that it is only during World War II that Stalin had any prolonged and direct contact with the outside world. At the end of the war Stalin effectively shut the door on the West - he met with the leaders of China and his East European satellites, but this was more like the bully dealing with his victims in the schoolyard.
Service does give Stalin credit for pushing the Soviet Union into the twentieth century - industrially and educationally. Without this the Soviet Union would not have been able to cope with the German onslaught in 1941.
But there was a heavy price to pay for all this - the Soviet Union was cut-off culturally from the rest of mankind and its' ideological dogmatic path collapsed in the 1990's. It was Stalin that led his country into this one-way street from which it was never able to veer away from and adjust to a different lifestyle.
A very readable biography of Stalin that describes his entire life, from his beginnings in Georgia to the top of the Soviet Union. His relationship to Lenin and other members of the Bolshevik clique and his rise to power are all chronicled.
There is a letter from Tito to Stalin that was found in Stalin's desk drawer shortly after he died. Tito, in this letter, is out-dueling Stalin in threatening assassination attempts. It encapsulates the gangster tactics of the entire communist regime.
Service points out that there were no innocents in the rise to power after the October revolution. Stalin learnt well from his teacher Lenin; bolshevism may have been based on the books of Marx and Engels, but its practice was raw power and Stalin wielded this for over thirty years.
Sometimes in this work there seems to be too much focus around Stalin and not enough history of the outside forces - such as the effects of famine during the 1930's.
Nevertheless we are left with the portrait of a ruthless individual who amassed power for its' own sake. Stalin accrued very little personal wealth during his reign - for example he only wore good clothes during his World War II meetings when the Allied powers came to visit.
It is also interesting to note that it is only during World War II that Stalin had any prolonged and direct contact with the outside world. At the end of the war Stalin effectively shut the door on the West - he met with the leaders of China and his East European satellites, but this was more like the bully dealing with his victims in the schoolyard.
Service does give Stalin credit for pushing the Soviet Union into the twentieth century - industrially and educationally. Without this the Soviet Union would not have been able to cope with the German onslaught in 1941.
But there was a heavy price to pay for all this - the Soviet Union was cut-off culturally from the rest of mankind and its' ideological dogmatic path collapsed in the 1990's. It was Stalin that led his country into this one-way street from which it was never able to veer away from and adjust to a different lifestyle.
May 20, 2015
In reading this book I was undoubtedly punching above my weight. Much of it – mostly the political shiftings and chicanery described - went over my head. I also found the book fairly unstructured. This was probably because of my ignorance of the historical events of the period. No matter - time and time again I went to blesséd Wikipedia for overviews, and got a better grip on what I was reading.
For me, the more I read the book the more interesting it became. I was particularly fascinated to learn more about Communism, the industrialization that was introduced with it, and the soaring educational standards. Also the terrible stresses of the collectivisation of farms. Plus I hadn’t begun to appreciate the ubiquitous nature of the Great Terror and its horrendous persecutions – the book certainly set that straight. Service’s description of the Second World War, and the part the Soviet Union played in it was also incredibly fascinating. I also obviously learnt tons about Stalin himself – the good the bad and the ugly. He had the bad and the ugly in spadefuls, but he was also intelligent, determined, well read, brave, and a good escape-artist (he was always being taken prisoner when young and escaping.) None of that stops him from being one of history’s most vile and bloody despots. He - personally - controlled the Soviet Union to a degree that was quite unbelievable.
All in all I probably gleaned about two thirds from this book compared to someone better suited to reading it. But it was a good two thirds. I've read a couple of other books about Russia in recent months, and it was great to have so much more fall into place.
For me, the more I read the book the more interesting it became. I was particularly fascinated to learn more about Communism, the industrialization that was introduced with it, and the soaring educational standards. Also the terrible stresses of the collectivisation of farms. Plus I hadn’t begun to appreciate the ubiquitous nature of the Great Terror and its horrendous persecutions – the book certainly set that straight. Service’s description of the Second World War, and the part the Soviet Union played in it was also incredibly fascinating. I also obviously learnt tons about Stalin himself – the good the bad and the ugly. He had the bad and the ugly in spadefuls, but he was also intelligent, determined, well read, brave, and a good escape-artist (he was always being taken prisoner when young and escaping.) None of that stops him from being one of history’s most vile and bloody despots. He - personally - controlled the Soviet Union to a degree that was quite unbelievable.
All in all I probably gleaned about two thirds from this book compared to someone better suited to reading it. But it was a good two thirds. I've read a couple of other books about Russia in recent months, and it was great to have so much more fall into place.
August 30, 2014
This is a very well researched book. Robert Service makes the disconcerting decision to draw a balanced portrait of Stalin rather than simply demonizing him.
Stalin was a poet, a charmer, a politician, a bad father and a mean drunk. He proved to be a masterful negotiator with foreign powers and a highly skilled builder of political alliances. He had an intelligent view of Russia's ethnic minorities which allowed him to build a moderately successful union of communist states.
In Service's view, there was nothing strange or unusual about Stalin's paranoia. Rather the revolutionary experience itself creates paranoid leaders. All the great communist leaders (Trotsky, Tito, Lenin, Pol Pot and Stalin amongst others) spent time in jail after having been betrayed by comrades. Thus when came to power they trusted no one. If harvests or economic plans failed they attributed it to conspiracies. Hence retribution always came fast in the communist world. Executions were often chosen rather than rehabilitation. Service believes that had Lenin lived longer or had Trotsky been in power, there still would have been a Great Terror and a Holocaust in the Ukraine. All communist leaders, Service argues, are cut from the same cloth.
Despite the fact that Service presents a compelling interpretation, the great merit of this biography is the care and detail presented for every chapter of Stalin's life. Stalin may have done some horrible things but he certainly thought out every decision carefully and always waited for the opportune moment to act.
Stalin was a poet, a charmer, a politician, a bad father and a mean drunk. He proved to be a masterful negotiator with foreign powers and a highly skilled builder of political alliances. He had an intelligent view of Russia's ethnic minorities which allowed him to build a moderately successful union of communist states.
In Service's view, there was nothing strange or unusual about Stalin's paranoia. Rather the revolutionary experience itself creates paranoid leaders. All the great communist leaders (Trotsky, Tito, Lenin, Pol Pot and Stalin amongst others) spent time in jail after having been betrayed by comrades. Thus when came to power they trusted no one. If harvests or economic plans failed they attributed it to conspiracies. Hence retribution always came fast in the communist world. Executions were often chosen rather than rehabilitation. Service believes that had Lenin lived longer or had Trotsky been in power, there still would have been a Great Terror and a Holocaust in the Ukraine. All communist leaders, Service argues, are cut from the same cloth.
Despite the fact that Service presents a compelling interpretation, the great merit of this biography is the care and detail presented for every chapter of Stalin's life. Stalin may have done some horrible things but he certainly thought out every decision carefully and always waited for the opportune moment to act.
April 25, 2020
I found parts of the book somewhat challenging, especially as my knowledge of Russian history and the timeline of the revolution are rather limited. Deutscher seems to assume that his readers are relatively well-versed in the essential points, which is probably valid at the time of his authoring.
I found the later parts of the book more enjoyable, as I am better acquainted with the overall context of WWII and later 20th Century history. Here, the author provides rich details about Stalin and Soviet-era psychology that filled in some of the gaps in my knowledge. We get to better understand Stalin's fears and strategy in dealing with his western allies, given the context of the fragile Soviet state, which he had stabilized (albeit with brutish force) as a major power of the 20th Century. I imagine this would have been the case too, for the earlier chapters on Stalin's youth and rapid rise through the lower ranks of the Bolsheviks up to a leadership role in the October Revolution, if I had had a more foundational knowledge of that context.
All in all, this is a book where you need to take your time and carefully read the nuanced details of what Isaac Deutscher is explaining, as he has much insight to offer, having lived through those times in proximity to many of the key players. However, I would not recommend it for a novice of the history of the Russian revolution like me.
I found the later parts of the book more enjoyable, as I am better acquainted with the overall context of WWII and later 20th Century history. Here, the author provides rich details about Stalin and Soviet-era psychology that filled in some of the gaps in my knowledge. We get to better understand Stalin's fears and strategy in dealing with his western allies, given the context of the fragile Soviet state, which he had stabilized (albeit with brutish force) as a major power of the 20th Century. I imagine this would have been the case too, for the earlier chapters on Stalin's youth and rapid rise through the lower ranks of the Bolsheviks up to a leadership role in the October Revolution, if I had had a more foundational knowledge of that context.
All in all, this is a book where you need to take your time and carefully read the nuanced details of what Isaac Deutscher is explaining, as he has much insight to offer, having lived through those times in proximity to many of the key players. However, I would not recommend it for a novice of the history of the Russian revolution like me.
May 5, 2011
I just finished Robert Service's biographies of both Lenin and Stalin. His are probably the definitive biographies in that he is the only person to have written with access to Soviet records available since the demise of the USSR. It's interesting to compare both figures.
Both were cruel and dictatorial. While Lenin had no problem ordering people to be shot or sent to the Gulag, his demeanor was more hard hearted and apathetic to his victims. Whereas Stalin actually seemed to enjoy his persecutions.
While other members of Lenin's family helped with the relief efforts during a late 19th century famine, Lenin did not, thinking it was all sentimentality. Lenin came from a strong middle class family with liberal values. Stalin came from a lower class Georgian family and his outlook on life was first shaped by the beatings he got from his father.
While Lenin helped setup the institutions that Stalin would later exploit to create his own despotism, it is interesting to note their differences. Lenin didn't like to be contradicted and had a bombastic style, yet he did not always get his way and tolerated dissent and debate at least within the Bolshevik party. Stalin only encouraged debate so as to fish out people's true opinions, then those on the losing side of the argument were often shot, purged, or sent to a labor camp. Lenin may have been responsible for the death of thousands, Stalin was responsible for the death of millions.
Stalin's death was very revealing. His aides and cohorts were so terrified of him that when he went to bed one evening in 1953 and wasn't heard from the next morning, no one dared wake him for fear of contradicting his orders. When finally he was found suffering from what appeared to be a stroke hours before, they still debated whether they should call a doctor again in fear of taking an action not approved by Stalin (though he couldn't speak to give an order). And when finally a doctor was called, it was hard to find a good one as Stalin had just purged the best doctors earlier that year. They had to consult doctor who were sitting in prison. You have to believe too that his inner circle also stalled in getting help so as to increase the chances that Stalin would die, which he did. They lived in a fear that if could even regain his voice, he would issue an order for some or all of them to be shot. His death led to a great thaw under Khrushchev.
Both were intellectuals, but Stalin was not an original thinker. While Stalin is truly one of the most horrific figures in history, Lenin shares some of the blame for the anti-democratic, anti-humanist direction of socialism in the 20th century.
Both were cruel and dictatorial. While Lenin had no problem ordering people to be shot or sent to the Gulag, his demeanor was more hard hearted and apathetic to his victims. Whereas Stalin actually seemed to enjoy his persecutions.
While other members of Lenin's family helped with the relief efforts during a late 19th century famine, Lenin did not, thinking it was all sentimentality. Lenin came from a strong middle class family with liberal values. Stalin came from a lower class Georgian family and his outlook on life was first shaped by the beatings he got from his father.
While Lenin helped setup the institutions that Stalin would later exploit to create his own despotism, it is interesting to note their differences. Lenin didn't like to be contradicted and had a bombastic style, yet he did not always get his way and tolerated dissent and debate at least within the Bolshevik party. Stalin only encouraged debate so as to fish out people's true opinions, then those on the losing side of the argument were often shot, purged, or sent to a labor camp. Lenin may have been responsible for the death of thousands, Stalin was responsible for the death of millions.
Stalin's death was very revealing. His aides and cohorts were so terrified of him that when he went to bed one evening in 1953 and wasn't heard from the next morning, no one dared wake him for fear of contradicting his orders. When finally he was found suffering from what appeared to be a stroke hours before, they still debated whether they should call a doctor again in fear of taking an action not approved by Stalin (though he couldn't speak to give an order). And when finally a doctor was called, it was hard to find a good one as Stalin had just purged the best doctors earlier that year. They had to consult doctor who were sitting in prison. You have to believe too that his inner circle also stalled in getting help so as to increase the chances that Stalin would die, which he did. They lived in a fear that if could even regain his voice, he would issue an order for some or all of them to be shot. His death led to a great thaw under Khrushchev.
Both were intellectuals, but Stalin was not an original thinker. While Stalin is truly one of the most horrific figures in history, Lenin shares some of the blame for the anti-democratic, anti-humanist direction of socialism in the 20th century.
September 27, 2022
This is a masterpiece of biography. Stalin's life is laid bare in a systematic and thorough fashion, and through reading you come to a full appreciation of how he changed (and in some ways didn't change) his ways of thinking and operating over the course of his life.
Like all good biographies, the book also provides excellent coverage of the history of the Russian Empire and then the USSR during Stalin's lifetime. It covers this not only in terms of the political sphere, but also cultural, economic and diplomatic arenas.
Of particular value I found were the earliest chapters, detailing Stalin's life before 1917. The book makes clear the ways in which Stalin was a rather atypical character amongst the more well known revolutionary figures, whilst explaining where later soviet propogandists would alter the facts of Stalin's early life in order to give a rather different impression than that laid down in history.
I can see why this book generated so much controversy on initial publication. It is very much not an apology for Stalin or Stalinism, and it is clear throughout how horrific the outcomes of Stalin's policies were (we must also remember that Deutscher was part of the opposition to Stalin). But neither does it paint Stalin as a pantomime villain who is innately evil. Perfectly illustrated is that Stalin, in ruling as he did, dug the grave of the system he created.
The lasting theme I will take from reading this book is the tragedy of the fate of the October Revolution, and of those who partook in it.
Like all good biographies, the book also provides excellent coverage of the history of the Russian Empire and then the USSR during Stalin's lifetime. It covers this not only in terms of the political sphere, but also cultural, economic and diplomatic arenas.
Of particular value I found were the earliest chapters, detailing Stalin's life before 1917. The book makes clear the ways in which Stalin was a rather atypical character amongst the more well known revolutionary figures, whilst explaining where later soviet propogandists would alter the facts of Stalin's early life in order to give a rather different impression than that laid down in history.
I can see why this book generated so much controversy on initial publication. It is very much not an apology for Stalin or Stalinism, and it is clear throughout how horrific the outcomes of Stalin's policies were (we must also remember that Deutscher was part of the opposition to Stalin). But neither does it paint Stalin as a pantomime villain who is innately evil. Perfectly illustrated is that Stalin, in ruling as he did, dug the grave of the system he created.
The lasting theme I will take from reading this book is the tragedy of the fate of the October Revolution, and of those who partook in it.
May 6, 2015
Probably the best of the three Service books about the Russian Communist leaders, but still very weak. Poorly written, both stylistically and logically - there are places where reference is made to something that hasn't been described yet as if it has, and occasionally where it isn't at all. Neither chronologically nor thematically coherent. And, of course, the author feels a need to remind us every seven seconds that Stalin is super-evil, presumably to counteract the weirdly fawning attitude he takes to him at points.
December 9, 2025
I spent two months reading this book cover to cover. Isaac Deutscher first published this book in 1948, shortly after the end of the Second World War, in the middle of the Berlin Blockade, as the Soviet Union responded to the introduction of the Deutsche Mark in the western sectors of occupied Germany and Berlin. It was later revised following Stalin's death in 1953, with an additional post-script describing Stalin's political undoings in the last few years of his life, which paved the way for de-Stalinization by his successors.
This is also the second book from the series Political Leaders of the Twentieth Century that I happened to read after Ho Chi Minh. I find it interesting, seeing the perspectives of Isaac Deutscher, writing from the POV of someone who experienced the tumultuous period of the 20th century and had a chance to interview Stalin's archrival, Trotsky, himself. While this book failed to condemn Stalin's Great Purges and countless cruel treatments of his political rivals, Isaac Deutscher describes Stalin's mindset and political cunning in a detached style of a scientist describing chemical reactions.
This is also the second book from the series Political Leaders of the Twentieth Century that I happened to read after Ho Chi Minh. I find it interesting, seeing the perspectives of Isaac Deutscher, writing from the POV of someone who experienced the tumultuous period of the 20th century and had a chance to interview Stalin's archrival, Trotsky, himself. While this book failed to condemn Stalin's Great Purges and countless cruel treatments of his political rivals, Isaac Deutscher describes Stalin's mindset and political cunning in a detached style of a scientist describing chemical reactions.
May 26, 2021
Stalin is different from every single historical figure that preceded him. None deserves so much excoriation as he does. None deserves so much recognition as much as he does. A leader who presided over so much killings in a couple of decades was as much responsible for the advancement of a backward, Asiatic village-like country into a industrial superpower that gave the traditional superpowers a run for their money. What Russia achieved within a couple of decades industrially and economically took close a century or more for other capitalist, advanced nations to achieve. And the challenges Russia faced were even more complex and insuperable. From 1905 till 1917, it suffered the pangs of labour of a society that was pregnant with revolution. From 1917 till 1922, Communist Russia suffered from post-natal complications in the form of civil war that tore the country across. Post 1922 till 1941 was the phase where Russia determinedly overtook the industrial West starting from nothing but desperation and fatigue. Millions of Russians built the socialist edifice from scratch sacrificing blood, sweat and tears. 1941 brought with it a marauder who was bent on destroying whatever Russia had constructed so assiduously and succeeded in doing it. When the whole world was fast writing Communist Russia's obituary, she bounced back and smothered Germany without much external help. When the Nazi marauders were eliminated in 1945, Russia was back to square one- to the level of deindustrialization and poverty that existed in the early 1920s. She collected all her broken pieces and within a decade she was back to where she belonged rightfully- among the industrial superpowers even to the extent of breathing down the neck of the United States of America.
If one individual was behind all these achievements and deserved the topmost honour among many others, it was Josef Viktor Stalin and none else. But what Isaac Deutscher has written doesn't sound like a hagiography. It doesn't have the pretensions of an epic story of a nation led by an illustrious ruler who led by example and inspiration. Stalin is presented more often as a prisoner of circumstances but someone who had the guts and faculties to acquit himself admirably. He did whatever he thought was right at a particular circumstance and whatever followed only validated his judgement. His drive to industrialize USSR was scoffed at initially but he was proven right when Hitler invaded the empire. Russia's industrial capacity single-handedly came to her rescue and despite sustaining enormous losses, she managed to strangle her invader only because she had a massive industrial infrastructure to lean on.
Stalin's ruthlessness on his rivals as well as his fellow travellers can also be understood only through the sweep of the circumstances of the revolution and not certainly by magnifying into the workings of an evil brain. Stalin was evil no doubt and suspicious for a good part of his rule but the force of circumstances could not leave him at peace to behave otherwise. He did what an astute ruler would do in his place not willing to consider what a man of scruple would have done. He gave 'survival' among all other priorities the foremost place and what he did then can be justified only to that extent. Does he deserve a place in hell for whatever he did to his comrades and opponents? Yes. But does he also deserve a place of respect and reverence in the minds of the subsequent generations? Yes, once again.
If one individual was behind all these achievements and deserved the topmost honour among many others, it was Josef Viktor Stalin and none else. But what Isaac Deutscher has written doesn't sound like a hagiography. It doesn't have the pretensions of an epic story of a nation led by an illustrious ruler who led by example and inspiration. Stalin is presented more often as a prisoner of circumstances but someone who had the guts and faculties to acquit himself admirably. He did whatever he thought was right at a particular circumstance and whatever followed only validated his judgement. His drive to industrialize USSR was scoffed at initially but he was proven right when Hitler invaded the empire. Russia's industrial capacity single-handedly came to her rescue and despite sustaining enormous losses, she managed to strangle her invader only because she had a massive industrial infrastructure to lean on.
Stalin's ruthlessness on his rivals as well as his fellow travellers can also be understood only through the sweep of the circumstances of the revolution and not certainly by magnifying into the workings of an evil brain. Stalin was evil no doubt and suspicious for a good part of his rule but the force of circumstances could not leave him at peace to behave otherwise. He did what an astute ruler would do in his place not willing to consider what a man of scruple would have done. He gave 'survival' among all other priorities the foremost place and what he did then can be justified only to that extent. Does he deserve a place in hell for whatever he did to his comrades and opponents? Yes. But does he also deserve a place of respect and reverence in the minds of the subsequent generations? Yes, once again.
December 21, 2013
Rather dry assessment of the Soviet dictator. Service's research is formidable and he provides some interesting perspectives on Stalin. He shows that Stalin was less power-hungry pragmatist than ideologue with his own ideas on Marxism. Stalin's model of state socialism wasn't any less intellectually sound than Trotsky's airy proposition of "Permanent Revolution" - Stalin just lacked Trotsky's arrogance. Nonetheless, no reader will come away from this book thinking Stalin any less of a monster: his purges, monstrous personality and consolidation of absolute power dominate the narrative. The main difficulty is Service's writing style, clipped yet cluttered (no paragraph needs to take up half a page if every sentence is three words long). An aesthetic criticism sure, but some of us like to enjoy reading history along with learning from it.
March 31, 2013
Boy, am I glad this book is behind me! That comment has nothing to do with the quality of writing or the strength of the narrative. It has everything to do with the character of Joseph Stalin, a man completely devoid of any thought that human life had value. Spending much time with any truly evil person, be it Hitler, Stalin or Mao is a depressing experience.
The author opens the book strongly, going through Stalin's childhood and youth in as much detail as is available. We learn that he was already an aggressive bully in childhood with a warped sense of right and wrong (he was right, everyone else was wrong). He developed into a personality perfectly suited for the dogmatic ideology of communism, eliminating what little nuance Marx and Lenin had permitted and confirming his version of the philosophy as the only possible path for the Soviet Union. You add extreme paranoia to his complete disregard for human life and give him the power to rule on the basis of an inviolable dogma and it's not surprising that millions would die either through his direct order or through the effects of his all-or-nothing approach to policy.
Mr. Service does a yeoman's job educating us on the silly philosophical debates over Marxism that dominated Soviet thinking and the stunning lack of original thought that accompanied the debates that took place in the early years of the Soviet Union. Of course, all debate eventually ended as the result of The Great Terror, leaving a society not much different than the one described in Orwell's 1984.
If you want to know about Stalin, this is an excellent source; then again, you have to ask yourself, "Do I really want to know about Stalin?"
The author opens the book strongly, going through Stalin's childhood and youth in as much detail as is available. We learn that he was already an aggressive bully in childhood with a warped sense of right and wrong (he was right, everyone else was wrong). He developed into a personality perfectly suited for the dogmatic ideology of communism, eliminating what little nuance Marx and Lenin had permitted and confirming his version of the philosophy as the only possible path for the Soviet Union. You add extreme paranoia to his complete disregard for human life and give him the power to rule on the basis of an inviolable dogma and it's not surprising that millions would die either through his direct order or through the effects of his all-or-nothing approach to policy.
Mr. Service does a yeoman's job educating us on the silly philosophical debates over Marxism that dominated Soviet thinking and the stunning lack of original thought that accompanied the debates that took place in the early years of the Soviet Union. Of course, all debate eventually ended as the result of The Great Terror, leaving a society not much different than the one described in Orwell's 1984.
If you want to know about Stalin, this is an excellent source; then again, you have to ask yourself, "Do I really want to know about Stalin?"
November 1, 2014
Allegedly written using new and previously unused material, despite the fact that a look at the notes shows almost 80 percent secondary sources. The chapter titled "the big three" was particularly poor in this respect, as it relied almost entirely on Churchill's memoirs which if I am not mistaken were written after both Roosevelt and Stalin were dead, thus making it a suspect source of information by itself. The book is a biography NOT a general history of Soviet Russia, and must be treated as such, however I would have liked more detail regarding the second world war which seemed very briefly dealt with.
The book goes into great detail when it comes to his youth and his earlier involvement with the Lenin's ilk. Service does away with the myth that Stalin was the unremarkable dullard and bureaucrat who's ascension could not have been predicted.
Stalin was an intellectual, despite having very few original ideas of his own, and although not feared for suspicions of "Bonepartism" as Trotsky was, it would be wrong to suggest the Great Terror and other incidents of moments of brutal repression could not have been predicted in those early stages. Stalin was ruthless from the beginning. Stalin's leadership style is also put into a new perspective. Whereas Ian Kershaw characterises Hitler as a Weberian "charismatic authority" figure in contrast with Stalin's "bureaucratic authority"; Service's analysis of Stalin makes him appear far closer to Hitler as is often imagined. This characterisation is more in line with the sociologist Ivan Szelenyi.
It is the best Stalin biography I have read so far, even if it could have been a lot longer in places.
The book goes into great detail when it comes to his youth and his earlier involvement with the Lenin's ilk. Service does away with the myth that Stalin was the unremarkable dullard and bureaucrat who's ascension could not have been predicted.
Stalin was an intellectual, despite having very few original ideas of his own, and although not feared for suspicions of "Bonepartism" as Trotsky was, it would be wrong to suggest the Great Terror and other incidents of moments of brutal repression could not have been predicted in those early stages. Stalin was ruthless from the beginning. Stalin's leadership style is also put into a new perspective. Whereas Ian Kershaw characterises Hitler as a Weberian "charismatic authority" figure in contrast with Stalin's "bureaucratic authority"; Service's analysis of Stalin makes him appear far closer to Hitler as is often imagined. This characterisation is more in line with the sociologist Ivan Szelenyi.
It is the best Stalin biography I have read so far, even if it could have been a lot longer in places.
January 20, 2025
This Stalin biography is a book telling the story of how the uneducated political administrator transformed into a pathological killer, with few details excluded. Service did an amazing job of telling the younger life of the future leading of the USSR, from his life in Georgia, his drunk dad, to his active political service.
Stalin wasn’t just a man who strove for unprecedented change, but a man who was fascinated by ideas and an extensive reader of the Marxist writings. Service shows the turmoil in Oct 1917 that led him to rule over Russia in WW2, as well as contributing to the fall of Hitler. Not overshadowing the poverty, famine, and purges Stalin created through his dictatorship, until he died of a stroke, leaving behind the nation to Khrushchev and Gorbachev, who found his evil legacy was hard to scrub off the face of Russia.
Sometimes the writing can be a little dull, but it's a good book to start out with on the life of Stalin. Overall, anyone interested in Stalin's life or Russia's history would find this book trying to give them a paper cut.
Stalin wasn’t just a man who strove for unprecedented change, but a man who was fascinated by ideas and an extensive reader of the Marxist writings. Service shows the turmoil in Oct 1917 that led him to rule over Russia in WW2, as well as contributing to the fall of Hitler. Not overshadowing the poverty, famine, and purges Stalin created through his dictatorship, until he died of a stroke, leaving behind the nation to Khrushchev and Gorbachev, who found his evil legacy was hard to scrub off the face of Russia.
Sometimes the writing can be a little dull, but it's a good book to start out with on the life of Stalin. Overall, anyone interested in Stalin's life or Russia's history would find this book trying to give them a paper cut.
June 28, 2022
Have been reading on Russia for the past few weeks. This book on Stalin is a masterpiece.
Robert Service one of the few historians who exclusively researches on Russia has written this comprehensive biography.
Stalin was a very complex individual. He was a monster and one of the three individuals responsible for maximum number of deaths in the world. The others being Mao and Hitler.
Tour de force and a must read.
Robert Service one of the few historians who exclusively researches on Russia has written this comprehensive biography.
Stalin was a very complex individual. He was a monster and one of the three individuals responsible for maximum number of deaths in the world. The others being Mao and Hitler.
Tour de force and a must read.
January 30, 2021
Stalin: A Biography, written by Robert Service, is a book telling the story of how the uneducated political administrator transformed into a pathological killer, with few details excluded. Service did an amazing job of telling the younger life of the future leading of the USSR, from his life in Georgia, his drunk dad, to his active political service. Stalin wasn’t just a man who strove for unprecedented change, but a man who was fascinated by ideas and an extensive reader of the Marxist writings. Service shows the turmoil in Oct 1917 that led him to rule over Russia in WW2, as well as contributing to the fall of Hitler. Not overshadowing the poverty, famine, and purges Stalin created through his dictatorship, until he died of a stroke, leaving behind the nation to Khrushchev and Gorbachev, who found his evil legacy was hard to scrub off the face of Russia. I believe Service did an amazing job bringing the past of this evil man in great detail, so we are able to see the destruction of change Stalin left behind, as well as eye witness testimonies to back it up. However, sometimes the writing can be a little dull, but I think this is a great book to start out with on the life of Stalin. Overall, I would say anyone interesting in Stalin's life or Russia's history would find this book a great read, and I would give it 4/5 stars.
October 10, 2011
I struggled with the writing style in places (the writing is kind of odd, somehow choppy. It's almost like it had been translated from another language, which as far as I can tell it hasn't) and got annoyed with the author in other places ('Was Stalin an anti-Semite? Definitely no. Well, kind of. A little bit. Yes.') but I wanted to know the information in it, so I read it. If you want to know about Stalin, this is a great book to read, but the experience of reading it may not be great. I can't compare with other works on Stalin since I haven't read them yet, but I'm planning on getting to Simon Sebag Montefiore eventually.
July 5, 2011
If at any point you want to get to the why of the following topics:
Communism
World War Two
20th Century History
Russia/Soviet Union
you have to read this book.
Stalin for good or for bad was a colossus of the 20th Century. Deutsher writes this essentially political biography, with what I think is the insight of a former believer but without the bitterness or rancour that is often the case. It is by far the best biography of Stalin.
Communism
World War Two
20th Century History
Russia/Soviet Union
you have to read this book.
Stalin for good or for bad was a colossus of the 20th Century. Deutsher writes this essentially political biography, with what I think is the insight of a former believer but without the bitterness or rancour that is often the case. It is by far the best biography of Stalin.
September 13, 2019
رغم كل فظائعه وجرائمه سيظل هو مؤسس روسيا الحديثه
يكفيه أنه حول روسيا من بلد متخلف من القرون ال��سطي الي بلد صنع القنبله الهيدروجينية وكل ذلك ف عشرين عاما فقط
اهم ما يميز الكتاب الموضوعية ف النقد وتناول عيوب استالين بكل حيادية
يكفيه أنه حول روسيا من بلد متخلف من القرون ال��سطي الي بلد صنع القنبله الهيدروجينية وكل ذلك ف عشرين عاما فقط
اهم ما يميز الكتاب الموضوعية ف النقد وتناول عيوب استالين بكل حيادية
June 30, 2020
What is it About?
Unsurprising it is about Joseph Stalin, which is probably the least helpful start to a review ever! This biography is of the whole of Stalin’s life from birth in Gori in December 1878, his real birth date, not the one he told everyone until he died in 1953. A man who makes up his own birth date is one who wants to control everything about his life irrespective of facts. Service attempts to get beneath the official Stalin and get to the real person, in this, he very much succeeds. He is helped by the newly released archive materials that reveal much of Stalin and his time from official and personal correspondence from himself and those around him.
What You Need to Know
If you have little knowledge of Stalin this is a good starting place. Those that have some knowledge be prepared to be surprised; this book will dispel many myths. Don’t get me wrong, he was a monster, however not the intellectually limited, grey, administrator that was the perceived wisdom until recently. Previous accounts were either supplied by the Soviet state or from his enemies, such as Trotsky, who were outside of the state. Neither of which are without their agendas. With the opening of the Soviet archives, Service and others, have been able to research the real Stalin from his own and contemporaries letters, memos, meeting minutes, notes in margins of reports, and personal diaries not seen before.
One other thing you need to be aware of is Russian names! They are a pain! Anyone who has touched on any Russian literature will know that an individual can have five or more legitimate different names. Add to this the habit of the revolutionaries of using nicknames and the fact that, to western ears, the names are so alien and you have a recipe for confusion. For example, Stalin is not his real name Joseph Djugashvili, his real name, was also commonly known as Koba and Soso. Each of the characters you will come across will have similar confusions. Add that to the fact I had difficulty separating names of locations and organisations from real names and you can see the problem. Be prepared to bookmark the glossary, have Wikipedia open by your side, or just go with the flow accepting that you may have to go back and re-read sections.
Is it Worth a Read?
For the reasons above this book will take some investment but, as an overview of Stalin, his life and impact it is a good read. It also pretty much fair to the Soviet regime. What I mean by that is that reading books about the Soviet Union one has to be aware of the political stance of the writer. Some of the on the left are rather forgiving and apologists for what Stalin did, some on the right are rather disparaging about the achievements of the Soviet regime and those things that Stalin achieved as well as downplaying some of the more sinister Western reactions to revolutionary Russia. Full disclosure; I am left of centre in my politics so when I say Service is fair maybe he leans slightly to the left.
In summary good book to read and well worth it as an introduction to one of the key figures in the 20th Century
Unsurprising it is about Joseph Stalin, which is probably the least helpful start to a review ever! This biography is of the whole of Stalin’s life from birth in Gori in December 1878, his real birth date, not the one he told everyone until he died in 1953. A man who makes up his own birth date is one who wants to control everything about his life irrespective of facts. Service attempts to get beneath the official Stalin and get to the real person, in this, he very much succeeds. He is helped by the newly released archive materials that reveal much of Stalin and his time from official and personal correspondence from himself and those around him.
What You Need to Know
If you have little knowledge of Stalin this is a good starting place. Those that have some knowledge be prepared to be surprised; this book will dispel many myths. Don’t get me wrong, he was a monster, however not the intellectually limited, grey, administrator that was the perceived wisdom until recently. Previous accounts were either supplied by the Soviet state or from his enemies, such as Trotsky, who were outside of the state. Neither of which are without their agendas. With the opening of the Soviet archives, Service and others, have been able to research the real Stalin from his own and contemporaries letters, memos, meeting minutes, notes in margins of reports, and personal diaries not seen before.
One other thing you need to be aware of is Russian names! They are a pain! Anyone who has touched on any Russian literature will know that an individual can have five or more legitimate different names. Add to this the habit of the revolutionaries of using nicknames and the fact that, to western ears, the names are so alien and you have a recipe for confusion. For example, Stalin is not his real name Joseph Djugashvili, his real name, was also commonly known as Koba and Soso. Each of the characters you will come across will have similar confusions. Add that to the fact I had difficulty separating names of locations and organisations from real names and you can see the problem. Be prepared to bookmark the glossary, have Wikipedia open by your side, or just go with the flow accepting that you may have to go back and re-read sections.
Is it Worth a Read?
For the reasons above this book will take some investment but, as an overview of Stalin, his life and impact it is a good read. It also pretty much fair to the Soviet regime. What I mean by that is that reading books about the Soviet Union one has to be aware of the political stance of the writer. Some of the on the left are rather forgiving and apologists for what Stalin did, some on the right are rather disparaging about the achievements of the Soviet regime and those things that Stalin achieved as well as downplaying some of the more sinister Western reactions to revolutionary Russia. Full disclosure; I am left of centre in my politics so when I say Service is fair maybe he leans slightly to the left.
In summary good book to read and well worth it as an introduction to one of the key figures in the 20th Century
January 26, 2020
For someone who needed an introduction to 20th century Russian history through one of its key figures, it was a good book. The short chapters often read more like individual articles and feature a lot of repetition, which was quite annoying, however. There’s little in record about the man himself - and for the most part a sense of who he was eludes the reader. But he writes a good unbiased account and appears to put forward some fresh historical interpretations where holes exist.
I wouldn’t recommend to someone knowledgeable about the period - but to beginners or experts probably worth a read.
I wouldn’t recommend to someone knowledgeable about the period - but to beginners or experts probably worth a read.
September 22, 2018
3 stars.
Read for my Soviet Union history class, not going to review.
Read for my Soviet Union history class, not going to review.
August 7, 2021
Firm but fair.
February 23, 2023
really interesting but so difficult to read. probably the longest it’s ever taken me to finish a book
July 23, 2025
Sadly it does not have his moustache routine.
October 5, 2022
This was my third book
March 13, 2020
I had already read Service's other two books on Lenin and Trotsky. While I found the other two great reads I have to disagree when it comes to this one. Service makes it very apparent that he dislikes Stalin and like I mentioned in my review of his Trotsky book, Service cannot help himself from putting in snide remarks. With Trotsky it is bearable, but with Stalin it felt like every page Service needed to tell us how bad Stalin while.
Listen I understand that Stalin is a controversial figure, and he did a lot of bad things which are unexcuseable, but whether you want to argue about it or not there was a lot of good he did for the USSR as well. Blashemy I know, but facts are facts, and he did industrialize the nation and to this day many Russians do not view him all that bad. Service admits this even sometimes in the book, but very begrudgingly.
Service though often makes some absurd remarks which really stretch the imagination. He says that Stalin admired Hitler of all things! While Service does try to reference and show evidence of it I found it rather hilarious, and a reminder of how much Service dislikes Stalin. I am sure if I look hard enough I can find Roosevelt or any other Ally leaders give some praise to Hitler in one shape or form. Just absolutely ridiculous. There were some other odd moments as well such as when Service seemed to imply that Stalin because he was from Georgia believed in witchcraft. It was just so odd, but if you have read this book you will understand what I mean.
There are other books that look at Stalin's life in a much more neutral tone. I finished the book and did get a wealth of information, but the presentation was just a complete mess.
Listen I understand that Stalin is a controversial figure, and he did a lot of bad things which are unexcuseable, but whether you want to argue about it or not there was a lot of good he did for the USSR as well. Blashemy I know, but facts are facts, and he did industrialize the nation and to this day many Russians do not view him all that bad. Service admits this even sometimes in the book, but very begrudgingly.
Service though often makes some absurd remarks which really stretch the imagination. He says that Stalin admired Hitler of all things! While Service does try to reference and show evidence of it I found it rather hilarious, and a reminder of how much Service dislikes Stalin. I am sure if I look hard enough I can find Roosevelt or any other Ally leaders give some praise to Hitler in one shape or form. Just absolutely ridiculous. There were some other odd moments as well such as when Service seemed to imply that Stalin because he was from Georgia believed in witchcraft. It was just so odd, but if you have read this book you will understand what I mean.
There are other books that look at Stalin's life in a much more neutral tone. I finished the book and did get a wealth of information, but the presentation was just a complete mess.
October 12, 2025
Of the countless volumes written about Joseph Stalin, few manage to escape the gravitational pulls of outright condemnation or uncritical apology. Other biographies of Stalin from bourgeois historians tend to exaggerate and scaremonger about the ‘threat of socialism’ whilst some coming out of the former Soviet bloc tend to minimise the tragedies under his rule. Isaac Deutscher's work, Stalin: A Political Biography, first published in 1949, is a rare exception. It is not merely a biography of a man but a Marxist analysis of the historical phenomenon - Stalinism. Deutscher's goal is not to justify or to vilify but to explain, employing the dialectical method to unravel the contradictions of a man who was at once a revolutionary and a despot, a moderniser and a barbarian. The result is a masterful portrait of Stalin as the brutal, yet historically logical, product of a socialist revolution isolated in a backward, semi-Asiatic country.
Deutscher's narrative traces Stalin's entire political arc, beginning with his obscure origins in Georgia as the son of recently emancipated serfs. The book meticulously documents his early years as the pockmarked seminarist 'Soso', his immersion in the revolutionary socialist underground as 'Koba', and his slow, methodical rise through the Bolshevik party apparatus. Deutscher gives weight to Stalin's role as a practical organiser in the Caucasus, a point often dismissed by his rivals. The biography follows him through the "general rehearsal" of the 1905 revolution, his crucial appointment as General Secretary in 1922, his outmanoeuvring of all rivals after Lenin's death in 1924, and his implementation of the "Great Change" - the forced collectivisation and frantic industrialisation of the first Five-Year Plans. The biography culminates with his role as the victorious 'Generalissimo' of the Second World War and the master of a vast sphere of influence. Throughout this journey, Deutscher remains true to the book's subtitle; it is a political biography, focusing less on Stalin's private life and more on his ideas, his administrative methods, and his actions as they shaped the party, the Soviet state, and world history.
The main strength of Deutscher's analysis is his grasp of the central contradiction that defined both Stalin and the state he ruled: the conflict between Revolution and Tradition. As Deutscher memorably concludes, Stalin belongs to the breed of "great revolutionary despots," in the same category as Cromwell and Napoleon. He was the man who undertook "to drive barbarism out of Russia by barbarous means". This duality is the prominent theme of the book. On the one hand, Stalin was the trustee of the October Revolution. He defended its main social conquest - the nationalisation of the means of production - against all its enemies. He presided over a period of unprecedented industrial and social transformation that propelled a semi-feudal nation into the twentieth century; the foundations which led to the USSR putting a man in space before any capitalist country in 1961, less than a decade after Stalin died.
On the other hand, Stalin resurrected the political culture, the administrative brutality, and the "Great Russian chauvinism" of the very Tsarist autocracy the revolution had sought to destroy. Deutscher demonstrates how the traditions of a nation, long suppressed, reassert themselves and imprint their pattern on the revolution itself. Stalin, the Georgian who became more Russian than the Russians, became the vehicle for this process. He reintroduced the rigid hierarchy, the secrecy, and the Byzantine intrigue of the old order, eventually creating a political system that in its oppressive mechanics bore a terrifying resemblance to that of Ivan the Terrible.
Deutscher correctly identifies the doctrine of 'Socialism in One Country' as the rationalisation for this historic retreat. First formulated by Stalin almost casually in late 1924, this idea represented a fundamental break with the internationalist outlook of classical Bolshevism. It proclaimed the self-sufficiency of the Russian Revolution and, in effect, made a virtue of its isolation. As Deutscher explains, this doctrine became the ideological bedrock of the rising bureaucracy. It gave the party and the nation, weary of waiting for a world revolution that failed to materialise, a tangible, national goal. It allowed Russia to withdraw into her "national shell" and focus on her own colossal development. Deutscher's analysis of how Stalin used this doctrine to defeat his rivals is particularly brilliant. He shows how Stalin, posing as the practical "man of the golden mean," allied himself with the party's right wing (Bukharin, Rykov) to crush the internationalist Left Opposition including Trotsky and old Bolsheviks such as Zinoviev and Kamenev. Then, having consolidated his power, he turned on his right-wing allies, appropriated the Left's programme of rapid industrialisation, and carried it out with a ferocity that his former opponents hadn’t imagined. Deutscher explains the mechanics of this struggle, showing how Stalin's complete mastery of the party machine, which he controlled as General Secretary, allowed him to pack committees, isolate his rivals, and emerge as the sole victor.
While building upon the analysis of Leon Trotsky and his own biography on Stalin, he suggests that Trotsky underplayed the organisational talents his rival possessed, and the role this allowed Stalin to play during the Russian Revolution. Compared to the role of Trotsky alongside Lenin, however, Stalin’s role was indeed minuscule and Trotsky is correct to distinguish between himself and Stalin before October. The biography is not without its flaws; written before the opening of many Soviet archives, it occasionally relies on secondary sources that have since been questioned. However, these are minor blemishes. This book is essential reading not only for Marxists but for anyone seeking to understand the Soviet Union and the twentieth century. It is for those who wish to move beyond the simplistic caricatures of Stalin as either a demigod or a monster, and to grasp the complex historical forces that produced him. Deutscher's work is, ultimately, a powerful and tragic argument for revolutionary internationalism. By meticulously detailing both the progressive and horrific consequences of a revolution confined to a single, backward country, he demonstrates how isolation breeds bureaucracy, how nationalism superseded internationalism, and how the ideals of liberation can be twisted into repression. The story of Stalin is the story of the October Revolution's triumph and its degeneration - with lessons for all those who seek to build a revolutionary socialist world.
Deutscher's narrative traces Stalin's entire political arc, beginning with his obscure origins in Georgia as the son of recently emancipated serfs. The book meticulously documents his early years as the pockmarked seminarist 'Soso', his immersion in the revolutionary socialist underground as 'Koba', and his slow, methodical rise through the Bolshevik party apparatus. Deutscher gives weight to Stalin's role as a practical organiser in the Caucasus, a point often dismissed by his rivals. The biography follows him through the "general rehearsal" of the 1905 revolution, his crucial appointment as General Secretary in 1922, his outmanoeuvring of all rivals after Lenin's death in 1924, and his implementation of the "Great Change" - the forced collectivisation and frantic industrialisation of the first Five-Year Plans. The biography culminates with his role as the victorious 'Generalissimo' of the Second World War and the master of a vast sphere of influence. Throughout this journey, Deutscher remains true to the book's subtitle; it is a political biography, focusing less on Stalin's private life and more on his ideas, his administrative methods, and his actions as they shaped the party, the Soviet state, and world history.
The main strength of Deutscher's analysis is his grasp of the central contradiction that defined both Stalin and the state he ruled: the conflict between Revolution and Tradition. As Deutscher memorably concludes, Stalin belongs to the breed of "great revolutionary despots," in the same category as Cromwell and Napoleon. He was the man who undertook "to drive barbarism out of Russia by barbarous means". This duality is the prominent theme of the book. On the one hand, Stalin was the trustee of the October Revolution. He defended its main social conquest - the nationalisation of the means of production - against all its enemies. He presided over a period of unprecedented industrial and social transformation that propelled a semi-feudal nation into the twentieth century; the foundations which led to the USSR putting a man in space before any capitalist country in 1961, less than a decade after Stalin died.
On the other hand, Stalin resurrected the political culture, the administrative brutality, and the "Great Russian chauvinism" of the very Tsarist autocracy the revolution had sought to destroy. Deutscher demonstrates how the traditions of a nation, long suppressed, reassert themselves and imprint their pattern on the revolution itself. Stalin, the Georgian who became more Russian than the Russians, became the vehicle for this process. He reintroduced the rigid hierarchy, the secrecy, and the Byzantine intrigue of the old order, eventually creating a political system that in its oppressive mechanics bore a terrifying resemblance to that of Ivan the Terrible.
Deutscher correctly identifies the doctrine of 'Socialism in One Country' as the rationalisation for this historic retreat. First formulated by Stalin almost casually in late 1924, this idea represented a fundamental break with the internationalist outlook of classical Bolshevism. It proclaimed the self-sufficiency of the Russian Revolution and, in effect, made a virtue of its isolation. As Deutscher explains, this doctrine became the ideological bedrock of the rising bureaucracy. It gave the party and the nation, weary of waiting for a world revolution that failed to materialise, a tangible, national goal. It allowed Russia to withdraw into her "national shell" and focus on her own colossal development. Deutscher's analysis of how Stalin used this doctrine to defeat his rivals is particularly brilliant. He shows how Stalin, posing as the practical "man of the golden mean," allied himself with the party's right wing (Bukharin, Rykov) to crush the internationalist Left Opposition including Trotsky and old Bolsheviks such as Zinoviev and Kamenev. Then, having consolidated his power, he turned on his right-wing allies, appropriated the Left's programme of rapid industrialisation, and carried it out with a ferocity that his former opponents hadn’t imagined. Deutscher explains the mechanics of this struggle, showing how Stalin's complete mastery of the party machine, which he controlled as General Secretary, allowed him to pack committees, isolate his rivals, and emerge as the sole victor.
While building upon the analysis of Leon Trotsky and his own biography on Stalin, he suggests that Trotsky underplayed the organisational talents his rival possessed, and the role this allowed Stalin to play during the Russian Revolution. Compared to the role of Trotsky alongside Lenin, however, Stalin’s role was indeed minuscule and Trotsky is correct to distinguish between himself and Stalin before October. The biography is not without its flaws; written before the opening of many Soviet archives, it occasionally relies on secondary sources that have since been questioned. However, these are minor blemishes. This book is essential reading not only for Marxists but for anyone seeking to understand the Soviet Union and the twentieth century. It is for those who wish to move beyond the simplistic caricatures of Stalin as either a demigod or a monster, and to grasp the complex historical forces that produced him. Deutscher's work is, ultimately, a powerful and tragic argument for revolutionary internationalism. By meticulously detailing both the progressive and horrific consequences of a revolution confined to a single, backward country, he demonstrates how isolation breeds bureaucracy, how nationalism superseded internationalism, and how the ideals of liberation can be twisted into repression. The story of Stalin is the story of the October Revolution's triumph and its degeneration - with lessons for all those who seek to build a revolutionary socialist world.
February 13, 2025
سيرة الرعب!
أعتقد أن هذا العنوان هو الأنسب لسيرة شخصية كستالين، أقرأ هذه السيرة وكلما كان الحديث عن الأمور الاجتماعية والداخلية للإتحاد السوفييتي أشعر وكأني أعيد قراءة رواية جورج أورويل 1984، وتأكدت الآن أن أورويل استمد الالهام لكتابة رائعته هذه من سيرة ستالين في حكمه للاتحاد السوفييتي.
على كل المعاناة وشظف المعيشة التي عانتها الشعوب السوفييتية والتي أرى أنها كانت أدنى وأسوء مما تعيشه البهائم، إلا أنه يجب الإشارة إلى أن هذا الجزار والوحش هو من أنقذ الاتحاد السوفييتي والعالم من جنون هتلر على أنقاض ستالينغراد (التي عرفت ولأول مرة من الكتاب أن معنى اسم هذه المدينة بالروسية هو مدينة ستالين) وبدماء أكثر من 10 مليون قتيل في هذه الحرب, وأنه على حد تعبير مؤلف هذه السيرة في تأبينه لستالين: "تسلم ستالين روسيا وهي ما زالت تستخدم المحراث الخشبي، وتركها مجهزة بالمحطات الذرية!".
ومع ذلك، كل هذه الانجازات الجليلة والعظيمة لا تمحو اجرامه وساديته بحق شعبه الروسي وشعوب الاتحاد السوفييتي.
أما الكتاب، فرائع جدًا، حسن التبويب ومستفيض على نحو مذهل، واسحاق دويشتر هذا اكتشاف رائع جدًا في عالم السير الشخصية، والترجمة كانت لا تقل جمالًا عن الكتاب.
لا يفوتني أن أشكر دار ديوان على نشرها هذا الكتاب على الفور في منصة أبجد مع تزامن صدوره في معرض القاهرة للكتاب.
أعتقد أن هذا العنوان هو الأنسب لسيرة شخصية كستالين، أقرأ هذه السيرة وكلما كان الحديث عن الأمور الاجتماعية والداخلية للإتحاد السوفييتي أشعر وكأني أعيد قراءة رواية جورج أورويل 1984، وتأكدت الآن أن أورويل استمد الالهام لكتابة رائعته هذه من سيرة ستالين في حكمه للاتحاد السوفييتي.
على كل المعاناة وشظف المعيشة التي عانتها الشعوب السوفييتية والتي أرى أنها كانت أدنى وأسوء مما تعيشه البهائم، إلا أنه يجب الإشارة إلى أن هذا الجزار والوحش هو من أنقذ الاتحاد السوفييتي والعالم من جنون هتلر على أنقاض ستالينغراد (التي عرفت ولأول مرة من الكتاب أن معنى اسم هذه المدينة بالروسية هو مدينة ستالين) وبدماء أكثر من 10 مليون قتيل في هذه الحرب, وأنه على حد تعبير مؤلف هذه السيرة في تأبينه لستالين: "تسلم ستالين روسيا وهي ما زالت تستخدم المحراث الخشبي، وتركها مجهزة بالمحطات الذرية!".
ومع ذلك، كل هذه الانجازات الجليلة والعظيمة لا تمحو اجرامه وساديته بحق شعبه الروسي وشعوب الاتحاد السوفييتي.
أما الكتاب، فرائع جدًا، حسن التبويب ومستفيض على نحو مذهل، واسحاق دويشتر هذا اكتشاف رائع جدًا في عالم السير الشخصية، والترجمة كانت لا تقل جمالًا عن الكتاب.
لا يفوتني أن أشكر دار ديوان على نشرها هذا الكتاب على الفور في منصة أبجد مع تزامن صدوره في معرض القاهرة للكتاب.
June 28, 2013
Service as always does a serviceable job in detailing the main events of the life of his subjects but as a biographer he is incredibly flawed. All of his biographies of the big three revolutionary figures go heavily into Service's own opinions about their worth. 'Stalin' is an odd one as it appears that Service actually seems to admire a great deal about one of history's greatest butchers. Service appears to suggest that minute details about Stalin are applicable in dissecting the whole. Service' main argument is that Stalin is not this unintelligent bungler Trotsky and (for the most part history) has made him out to be. I don't really see a compelling case as Service uses trivial bits in his analysis.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews