What do you think?
Rate this book
Conversations with Stalin
Milovan Djilas was one of four senior members of Tito's government until his expulsion from the Yugoslav Communist party in '54 & eventual imprisonment on political charges. He wrote Conversations With Stalin in '61, between arrests. The book is a diary of his three voyages to Moscow in '43, '44 & '48. Djilas, memories no doubt leavened by hindsight, titles the three meetings "Raptures", "Doubts" & "Disappointments". As these names indicate, the book chronicles his growing disillusionment with Soviet-led socialism. Djilas was an educated man, a sophisticated thinker & a writer. So that when we read passages in the "Raptures" section such as, "My entire being quivered from the joyous anticipation of an imminent encounter with the Soviet Union", it seems clear he was not the naïf that he makes himself out to be. Rather, given his circumstances at the time that he was writing, he was heightening the sense of his early fascination with all things Soviet so that his later disenchantment is all the more palpable. The book fascinates with its detail. He travels to Moscow as a foreign dignitary to discuss Yugoslav-Soviet policies. He must cool his heels for days before he's finally summoned to meet Stalin. Then the meetings are typically all night dinners with copious drinking & byzantine political subtext to the conversation. Stalin dominates the discussion so thoroughly that when he insists that the Netherlands was not a member of the Benelux union, nobody dares correct him. Djilas recognizes traits of greatness in Stalin, his ruthlessness & farsightedness. He describes these not out of regard or respect, but because they are precisely the qualities which make Stalin evil. "Every crime was possible to Stalin, for there was not one he had not committed." As doubts begin to creep in, he records the development of his own cynicism. "In politics, more than in anything else, the beginning of everything lies in moral indignation & in doubt of the good intentions of others". His portraits of Krushchev, open-minded & clever; of Molotov, Stalin's taciturn lieutenant; Dimitrov, the powerful Bulgarian kept on Stalin's string; Beria, sinister & drunk; & a host of other prominent figures make this book required reading for those interested in the era. The descriptions of machinations surrounding Yugoslav-Albanian-Bulgarian politics & his unflattering characterization of Croatian hero Andrija Hebrang are of great interest to students of Balkan history.
228 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1962
45 people are currently reading
1296 people want to read
About the author
Milovan Djilas
94 books41 followersMilovan Đilas was a prolific political writer and former Yugoslav communist official remembered for his disillusionment with communism. Much of his work has been translated into English from Serbian. He was, above all, a literary artist. In several of his books, Djilas proclaimed himself a writer by vocation, and a politician only under the pressure of events.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews
April 20, 2021
Although this short book does contain the author’s recollections of a number of conversations with Stalin, in many ways it is more a description of his own gradual transformation away from being an idealistic communist. This much is evidenced by the book being divided into 3 parts, entitled “Rapture”, “Doubts”, and “Disappointments”.
The book is structured around various trips to Moscow made by Đilas between 1944 and 1948, the last being just before the diplomatic break between Stalin and Tito. The author was one of Tito’s inner circle and had been imprisoned in pre-war Yugoslavia due to his communist beliefs. His first visit to the USSR was for him a visit to the land that was leading the world towards a classless society and a new brotherhood of man. On first meeting Stalin he is impressed by the latter’s confident bearing and decisiveness, although even at this stage he notices that no-one in the Soviet government will give an opinion on anything until Stalin has pronounced on the subject. Over the next few years Đilas comes to realise that Stalin’s priority is more about promoting the interests of the Soviet Union than about international socialism. The discussions he records take place as part of huge feasting and drinking sessions, that start sometime after 9pm and go on until 4 or 5 o’clock in the morning.
The account has historical merit in that it is the only “behind the scenes” description of Stalin’s inner circle written by an insider, albeit a foreigner. It was published in 1962 and would have been more revelatory then than it is now.
I think we have to credit Đilas for being someone who was able to change his mind on the basis of what he saw, which is not the case with every ideologue. As he put it himself:
“I found myself even then in the dilemma in which every Communist who had adopted the Communist idea with good will and altruism finds himself. Sooner or later he must confront the incongruity between that idea and the practice of the Party leaders.”
This book is a lesson on why people shouldn’t hero-worship politicians.
The book is structured around various trips to Moscow made by Đilas between 1944 and 1948, the last being just before the diplomatic break between Stalin and Tito. The author was one of Tito’s inner circle and had been imprisoned in pre-war Yugoslavia due to his communist beliefs. His first visit to the USSR was for him a visit to the land that was leading the world towards a classless society and a new brotherhood of man. On first meeting Stalin he is impressed by the latter’s confident bearing and decisiveness, although even at this stage he notices that no-one in the Soviet government will give an opinion on anything until Stalin has pronounced on the subject. Over the next few years Đilas comes to realise that Stalin’s priority is more about promoting the interests of the Soviet Union than about international socialism. The discussions he records take place as part of huge feasting and drinking sessions, that start sometime after 9pm and go on until 4 or 5 o’clock in the morning.
The account has historical merit in that it is the only “behind the scenes” description of Stalin’s inner circle written by an insider, albeit a foreigner. It was published in 1962 and would have been more revelatory then than it is now.
I think we have to credit Đilas for being someone who was able to change his mind on the basis of what he saw, which is not the case with every ideologue. As he put it himself:
“I found myself even then in the dilemma in which every Communist who had adopted the Communist idea with good will and altruism finds himself. Sooner or later he must confront the incongruity between that idea and the practice of the Party leaders.”
This book is a lesson on why people shouldn’t hero-worship politicians.
June 17, 2018
Below are comments from an interview of journalist and historian, Anna Reid, about Djilas' Conversations with Stalin. These comments appear on the excellent book site "Five Books"
Check out the site.
www.fivebooks.com
Djilas was Tito’s number two, and negotiated with the Kremlin on various diplomatic missions. He’s a terrific source on the grotesque late-Stalin court – the ghastly, drunken, late-night banquets at Stalin’s dacha, the bullying, fear and paranoia; the way the whole Kremlin circle was completely cut off from reality..
Stalin had always been suspicious of Leningrad, disliking its Europhile bent and fearing it as an alternative centre of power. After the war he purged the city’s party leadership and cracked down on its intelligentsia, most famously on the poet Anna Akhmatova, whose son, having been released from the Gulag to fight for his country, was sent straight back to the camps. Stalin did not, however, engineer the siege –which is one theory that has been around.
I include this book for the benefit of those who regard Stalin and Hitler as political and military geniuses, albeit perverted ones. Together with Hitler’s Table Talk, (if I can sneak in a sixth title), it’s a reminder that both were not only psychopaths, but the most god-awful bores. Djilas describes Stalin’s senility and gluttony, crude jokes and inane drinking games. Hitler’s Table Talk is a collection of rants to cronies, taken down by secretaries during mealtimes at his various wartime headquarters
Check out the site.
www.fivebooks.com
December 30, 2014
Introduction
--Conversations with Stalin
Selected Biographical Notes
Index
--Conversations with Stalin
Selected Biographical Notes
Index
September 2, 2012
This is a fascinating memoir for anyone who has been interested in the USSR under Stalin or the Yugoslav partisans as it details their encounters in Moscow during the war from the perspective of one of the latter.
While primarily communist in orientation, the Yugoslav partisans were given little beyond verbal support by the USSR during WWII. In the beginning, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the partisans were actually at war on several fronts: against Serbian monarchists, the Germans, the Italians and the Croatian puppet state. Eventually, however, when the British saw that they, unlike the monarchists, were actually fighting the mutual enemy, the UK began offering aid and advisors, one of them being their Prime Minister's son. The Soviets followed along only so far as to recognize the partisans and invite them to meet with their leadership.
During the war the Soviet government basically began operations at about noon, the leadership being accustomed to meet for supper, drinks and discussion at Stalin's dacha outside of Moscow during the night. These were the gatherings attended and reported in this book by author Djilas.
Most personally amusing to me is his account of Stalin's interrupting the general discussion to bring in a phonograph to play a recording of "The Singing Dogs"--a group I knew from childhood for their rendition of "Jingle Bells", played seasonally by WFMT in Chicago. Stalin was much amused by this melodic arrangements of barks. Djilas, concerned about his comrades suffering back in the mountains of Bosnia, was not impressed.
While primarily communist in orientation, the Yugoslav partisans were given little beyond verbal support by the USSR during WWII. In the beginning, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the partisans were actually at war on several fronts: against Serbian monarchists, the Germans, the Italians and the Croatian puppet state. Eventually, however, when the British saw that they, unlike the monarchists, were actually fighting the mutual enemy, the UK began offering aid and advisors, one of them being their Prime Minister's son. The Soviets followed along only so far as to recognize the partisans and invite them to meet with their leadership.
During the war the Soviet government basically began operations at about noon, the leadership being accustomed to meet for supper, drinks and discussion at Stalin's dacha outside of Moscow during the night. These were the gatherings attended and reported in this book by author Djilas.
Most personally amusing to me is his account of Stalin's interrupting the general discussion to bring in a phonograph to play a recording of "The Singing Dogs"--a group I knew from childhood for their rendition of "Jingle Bells", played seasonally by WFMT in Chicago. Stalin was much amused by this melodic arrangements of barks. Djilas, concerned about his comrades suffering back in the mountains of Bosnia, was not impressed.
April 12, 2017
Great work that shows the gradual distrust of and dissillusionment with Stalin on the part of Djilas, one of Tito's best men, and a convinced communist at the beginning of his relationship with the soviets. The picture he paints of the times he went at one or another of Stalin's famous dinners, where the fate of the USSR was decided proportionally with the ammounts of vodka ingested by the Politburo, is very detailed and offers insight into Stalin's descent into paranoia and borderline insanity. Recommended to anyone with an interest in personal details on Stalin and the fate or situation of Eastern Europe during the high-Stalinism years.
April 11, 2018
I first read Djilas in grad school back in the early 1990s when I was writing my thesis on if the US could have done more to prevent communism in Yugoslavia. I had spent a summer in Bratislava not long after the Velvet Revolution. I was asked why we didn't do more to oppose Stalin after WWII. That haunted me. I chose to examine Yugoslavia. I've been meaning to read Convos with Stalin since then!
My first thought was why the hell did the Yugoslavs travel to the USSR after they started feeling like they may take the highway (as opposed to Stalin's way)?!? They even lodged complaints against the USSR and tried to correct Stalin in person! They all new about the purges. I suppose you could argue that the KGB has a long reach so why not cooperate?
In the early days Djilas loved Stalin as the embodiment of his ideals (yuck, ptooey, gross). Then he began to put things together and realized communism wasn’t all that. He got so good at putting things together that he wrote some books, ended up jailed several times by bff, Tito, eventually predicted the demise of Yugoslavia followed by that of the Soviet Union. Then he died, of, I believe, natural causes.
Unsurprisingly, Stalin comes across as a gluttonous, narcissistic sociopath who likes havin’ a laugh (at other people). Djilas comes across as erudite with some serious sang froid.
On Stalin: “An ungainly dwarf of a man passed through gilded and marbled halls, and a path opened before him, radiant, admiring glances followed him, while the ears of the courtiers strained to catch every word…. His country was in ruins, hungry exhausted. But his armies and marshals, heavy with fat and medals and drunk with vodka and victory, had already trampled half of Europe underfoot, and he was convinced they would trample the other half in the next round.” “For in him was joined the criminal senselessness of Caligula with the refinement of Borgia and the brutality of Tsar Ivan the Terrible.” “Stalin’s dark presence continues to hover and … one can fear it will hover over the Soviet Union for a relatively long time. Despite the curses against his name, Stalin still lives in the social and spiritual foundations of Soviet Society.” And Russian. Still. Somebody in the Kremlin reminds me of IVS.
On Molotov (just before one of Stalin’s typical 6-hour bacchanal dinners that lasted until dawn): “… Molotov and I went to the toilet…. Molotov began unbuttoning his pants even as walking, commenting: ‘We call this unloading before loading!” Classy guy!
On Stalin and his cronies bubble living after they had made up a silly drinking game they pressured Djilas to join: “… the confinement, the inanity and senselessness of the life of these Soviet Leaders were living gathered around their superannuated chief even as they played a role that was decisive for the human race.”
On realizing communism might not be what he thought: “At every step we discovered till then unnoticed aspects of Soviet reality: backwardness, primitivism, chauvinism, a big-power complex, although accompanied by heroic and superhuman efforts to outgrow the past and overtake the natural course of events.”
Awkward but clear translation.
My first thought was why the hell did the Yugoslavs travel to the USSR after they started feeling like they may take the highway (as opposed to Stalin's way)?!? They even lodged complaints against the USSR and tried to correct Stalin in person! They all new about the purges. I suppose you could argue that the KGB has a long reach so why not cooperate?
In the early days Djilas loved Stalin as the embodiment of his ideals (yuck, ptooey, gross). Then he began to put things together and realized communism wasn’t all that. He got so good at putting things together that he wrote some books, ended up jailed several times by bff, Tito, eventually predicted the demise of Yugoslavia followed by that of the Soviet Union. Then he died, of, I believe, natural causes.
Unsurprisingly, Stalin comes across as a gluttonous, narcissistic sociopath who likes havin’ a laugh (at other people). Djilas comes across as erudite with some serious sang froid.
On Stalin: “An ungainly dwarf of a man passed through gilded and marbled halls, and a path opened before him, radiant, admiring glances followed him, while the ears of the courtiers strained to catch every word…. His country was in ruins, hungry exhausted. But his armies and marshals, heavy with fat and medals and drunk with vodka and victory, had already trampled half of Europe underfoot, and he was convinced they would trample the other half in the next round.” “For in him was joined the criminal senselessness of Caligula with the refinement of Borgia and the brutality of Tsar Ivan the Terrible.” “Stalin’s dark presence continues to hover and … one can fear it will hover over the Soviet Union for a relatively long time. Despite the curses against his name, Stalin still lives in the social and spiritual foundations of Soviet Society.” And Russian. Still. Somebody in the Kremlin reminds me of IVS.
On Molotov (just before one of Stalin’s typical 6-hour bacchanal dinners that lasted until dawn): “… Molotov and I went to the toilet…. Molotov began unbuttoning his pants even as walking, commenting: ‘We call this unloading before loading!” Classy guy!
On Stalin and his cronies bubble living after they had made up a silly drinking game they pressured Djilas to join: “… the confinement, the inanity and senselessness of the life of these Soviet Leaders were living gathered around their superannuated chief even as they played a role that was decisive for the human race.”
On realizing communism might not be what he thought: “At every step we discovered till then unnoticed aspects of Soviet reality: backwardness, primitivism, chauvinism, a big-power complex, although accompanied by heroic and superhuman efforts to outgrow the past and overtake the natural course of events.”
Awkward but clear translation.
May 13, 2017
Zanimljivo.
December 30, 2014
Conversations with Stalin
لطالما أثار لدي اسم ستالين الرعب، بكل ما ارتبط بعهده من إرهاب وتطهير وغولاغ، وبما قادت إليه سياساته من مجاعات وتهجير لشعوب مسكينة، وكنت قد قرأت كتاب سيمون سيباغ مونتفيوري عن ستالين شاباً، وحصلت على كتابه الثاني عن ستالين بعد الثورة ولكني لم اقرأه بعد – سبعمئة صفحة بالإنجليزية -، كما شاهدت وثائقيات كثيرة عن الرجل، وكان هذا الكتاب أحد الكتب التي أردت التعرف من خلالها أكثر على شخصية ستالين، وخاصة أن مؤلفه شيوعي يوغوسلافي، فلذا سيأتي الكتاب من وجهة نظر رفاقية، كما أن الكتاب وضع بعد سنوات قليلة من وفاة ستالين، أي بعد بدء مرحلة تفكيك الستالينية والتي استهلها خروشوف سنة 1956.
يعرض المؤلف ميلوفان ديلاس لزياراته الدبلوماسية لموسكو خلال الحرب العالمية وبعدها، ولقاءاته بستالين وحواراته معه، كما يعرض لمآدبه والتي كانت تستمر لست ساعات وتحفل باللحوم والأطباق السوفيتية وأنهار الفودكا، وكيف كان مصير الاتحاد السوفييتي وشعوبه يقرر خلال هذه المآدب الطويلة.
الكتاب ليس بذي قيمة كبيرة، أعجبتني منه لمحات إنسانية هنا وهناك، وملاحظات ذكية، ما عدا ذلك كتب مونتفيوري بضخامتها ودقتها أفضل للمهتمين بستالين وعصره.
لطالما أثار لدي اسم ستالين الرعب، بكل ما ارتبط بعهده من إرهاب وتطهير وغولاغ، وبما قادت إليه سياساته من مجاعات وتهجير لشعوب مسكينة، وكنت قد قرأت كتاب سيمون سيباغ مونتفيوري عن ستالين شاباً، وحصلت على كتابه الثاني عن ستالين بعد الثورة ولكني لم اقرأه بعد – سبعمئة صفحة بالإنجليزية -، كما شاهدت وثائقيات كثيرة عن الرجل، وكان هذا الكتاب أحد الكتب التي أردت التعرف من خلالها أكثر على شخصية ستالين، وخاصة أن مؤلفه شيوعي يوغوسلافي، فلذا سيأتي الكتاب من وجهة نظر رفاقية، كما أن الكتاب وضع بعد سنوات قليلة من وفاة ستالين، أي بعد بدء مرحلة تفكيك الستالينية والتي استهلها خروشوف سنة 1956.
يعرض المؤلف ميلوفان ديلاس لزياراته الدبلوماسية لموسكو خلال الحرب العالمية وبعدها، ولقاءاته بستالين وحواراته معه، كما يعرض لمآدبه والتي كانت تستمر لست ساعات وتحفل باللحوم والأطباق السوفيتية وأنهار الفودكا، وكيف كان مصير الاتحاد السوفييتي وشعوبه يقرر خلال هذه المآدب الطويلة.
الكتاب ليس بذي قيمة كبيرة، أعجبتني منه لمحات إنسانية هنا وهناك، وملاحظات ذكية، ما عدا ذلك كتب مونتفيوري بضخامتها ودقتها أفضل للمهتمين بستالين وعصره.
April 9, 2015
One of the better in the series of "The God that failed genre. Very insightful into the reasons and causes of the 1948 Stalin-Tito split and some of the less desirable aspects of Yugoslavv. However, Djilas as a whole comes off as a 1940s Yugoslav James Bloodworth, a Communist that believes in Communism so much they end up being a terrible US backed Liberal. The edition i read has an introduction from Anne Applebaum which made me sigh. It's quite interesting that Djilas later years were lived as a Ronin, constantly bleating for acknowledge of his role in the establishment of Yugoslav socialist state
January 9, 2025
3,5
“It is indeed true that no one can take freedom from another without losing his own.”
“It is indeed true that no one can take freedom from another without losing his own.”
September 5, 2025
ميلوان ميلاس، از اعضاي كميته مركزي (پوليت بورو) حزب كمونيست يوگسلاوي و از نزديكان درجه اول مارشال تيتوست كه سال ها در جبهه هاي نبرد عليه ارتش آلمان نازي مبارزه كرده است.
هرچند آنچنان كه مي دانيم كميسرهايي كه از طرف حزب براي سازماندهي كارگران و دهقانان يوگسلاوي تعيين ميشدند وظيفه داشتند تا علاوه بر نبرد با ارتش اشغالگر، پايه گزار انقلاب كارگري بر عليه نظام پادشاهي يوگسلاوي نيز باشند. ميلوان جيلاس و رانكوويچ از سرشناس ترين و برجسته ترين اعضاي حزب بودند كه به سازماندهي ارتش چريكي يوگسلاوي مي پرداختند. هسته مركزي اين ارتش چريكي را حدوداً ده هزار عضو حزب كمونيست تشكيل مي داد.
جيلاس كتاب خود را به چهار بخش تقسيم كرده است. در فصل اول (جاذبه) او ما را با دنياي يك مؤمن متعصب به ايدئولوژي ماركسيست آشنا مي كند. جزم انديش ها، تنگ نظري ها، صداقت و سادگي چنين فردي و ايمان رسوخ ناپذيرش كه سبب مي شود تا چشم بر هر نابساماني در سرزمين مادري كمونيست هاي جهان (شوروي) ببندند، همه و همه را از ديدگاه خود و از درون خود بيرون مي كشد و به ما معرفي مي كند. او براي اين كار عواطف و احساسات دروني خودش را، جايي كه هيچكس جز خداوند به آن دسترسي ندارد مي كاود و جز به جز آن را براي ما تشريح مي كند، از آرزوهايش و آرمان هايش با ما مي گويد و از اولين كشوري كه نظام سوسياليستي در آن به وجود آمده و به همين واسطه قبله تمام ماركسيست هاي جهان است.
شوروي براي يك ماركسيست سرزمين آرزوها و رؤياها بود كه در آرزوي زيارتش صبح را به شام مي رساند، همچنان كه كعبه آمال عشق و آرزوي مسلمانان و يا واتيكان قبله هزاران هزار كاتوليك مؤمن است. بالطبع رهبر چنين كشوري نمي تواند مورد توجه و علاقه مؤمنان نباشد. آن هم رهبري با خصوصيات يوسف استالين، مردي با قاطعيت و خشونت بيش از اندازه و درعين حال حيله گر و مكار مردي كه استاد عوام فريبي و بازآفريني واقعيت است و پس از تصفيه هاي خونين دهه 1940- 1930 يگانه فرد باقي مانده از حزب انقلابي كارگر تحت رهبري ولادمير ايليچ (لنين) است. پدر زحمتكش هاي جهان كه شوروي را از كشوري عقب مانده، تبديل به يك كشور صنعتي قدرتمند كرده، حزب كمونيست يا همان سازمان پيشروي كارگري را از خطر انحراف مصون داشته و يك تنه در مقابل ارتش تا دندان مسلح آلمان فاشيست ايستاده است.
گويي كه مي دانيم دستگاه تبليغاتي عريض و طويل شوروي سوسياليستي در خلق چنين چهره اي از استالين بسيار مؤثر بوده است ولي نبايد از تفكر بسته و تك بعدي ماركسيست ها كه نمونه كاملي از دگماتيسم را به نمايش گذاشتند نيز به راحتي گذشت.
در اين بخش (جاذبه) جيلاس ضمن تشريح موارد ياد شده و تحليلي از وضعيت يوگسلاوي و در كل جبهه نبرد، ديده ها و شنيده هاي خودش را از اولين سفرش به اتحاد جماهير شوروي را براي ما بازگو مي كند كه شامل اولين ديدار با استالين نيز مي شود. همانطور كه از اسم اين فصل نيز آشكار است، همه چيز در نگاه اول مناسب و زيباست و هيچ كم و كاستي وجود ندارد و هيأت ويژه يوگسلاوي بعد از انجام مأموريت خود به كشورش باز مي گردد.
در اينجا فصل دوم سير تفكر جيلاس آغاز مي شود، فصلي كه به درستي نام آن را ترديد گذاشته است. اولين نشانه هاي شك و ابهام در ذهن او جوانه مي زند و هرچند در ابتدا قدرت چنداني ندارد ولي خواهيم ديد كه در پايان درخت تنومندي مي شود كه اساس عقايد جيلاس را دگرگون مي كند و او را وادار به افشاگري عليه تماميت خواهي و استبداد حاكم بر نظام شوروي، مي كند و البته تاوان سنگيني نيز در اين باره مي پردازد كه در پايان كتاب به آن اشاره شده است.
مطالب و شبهات ظريفي كه مانند جويبارهاي كوچك در ذهن يك مؤمن ماركسيست، لنينيست به يكديگر متصل مي شوند تا درنهايت رودي را تشكيل دهند به زيبايي به تصوير كشيده شده است. رودي كه اين مؤمنان جزم انديش را به شكستن بت خود ساخته تشويق و تحريك مي كند، بتي كه سال ها در راه آن مبارزه كرده و قرباني تقديمش كرده اند. اندك اندك با گوشت زمان اين حقيقت كه شوروي و استالين درصدد بلعيدن اروپاي شرقي هستند، بر جيلاس آشكار مي شود و همين شبهات سبب مي شود تا با ديد بازتر و چندجانبه بر شوروي سوسياليستي نگاهي مي اندازد و در اين هنگام است كه او شوروي جديدي را كشف مي كند!!!
چيزهايي مي بيند كه قبلاً نمي ديد هرچند كه در مقابل ديدگانش هر روز خودنمايي مي كرد و اين كشفيات جديد، چون نوري راه را براي درك هرچه بهتر محيط اطراف و كشف هرچه كاملتر حقيقت، هموار مي سازد و ثمره اين ديدگاه جديد در فصل سوم (يأس) خودش را نشان مي دهد.
چرا مأيوس و منفعل نباشد وقتي كه مي بيند نظام آرزوهايش شباهتي بي شمار با نظام امپراتوري تزارها دارد و چرا مغموم و دل شكسته نباشد وقتي كه مي بيند رهبران جنبش هاي كمونيستي چه در يوگسلاوي ، بلغارستان، چه در روماني و مجارستان همه و همه نوكران گوش به فرمان حزب كمونيست شوروي استالين هستند و از خود اراده و حتي هويتي ندارند.
در اين فصل با كامل شدن اطلاعات كه از شنيدن نشنيده ها و ديدن ناديده ها به دست آمده، جيلاس درك تازه اي از جهان اطراف به دست مي آورد و اين درك تازه تمام جهان بيني او و ايدئولوژي او را تحت تأثير قرار مي دهد. اتحاد جماهير شوروي، استالين، تيتو، حزب كمونيست، انقلاب سوسياليستي و جنبش ماركسيستي جهاني، هيچكدام ديگر در نظر او آن چيزي نيستند كه بودند و اين سيلان انديشه او را وا مي دارد تا از نو ساختار فكري خود را بسازد، از نو به همه چيز مي انديشد و حتي بديهي ترين نكات را دست نخورده باقي نگذارد و در پايان اين انقلاب فكري چاره اي براي يك مؤمن باقي نمي ماند كه پيش از ديگران و بيش از ديگران بر عليه سوادگران آمال و آرزوهايش طغيان كند و ماهيتشان را افشا نمايد و نداي اصلاح و احيا سر دهد، چيزي كه با سليقه هيأت حاكمه (بخوانيد طبقه جديد تازه به قدرت رسيده در نظام هاي سوسياليستي) سخت ناسازگار مي نمايد و جيلاس بر سر همين ماجرا سال هاي بسياري از دوران كهولت خود را در زندان مي گذراند.
در پايان اين سه فصل نتيجه گيري جيلاس و سپس تفسير او از استالين و روحياتش بيش از سه فصل قبلي جلب نظر مي كند. او در اين نتيجه گيري و تفسير به اين سؤال بسيار مهم پاسخ مي گويد، چگونه چنين فردي (استالين) توانست نه يكسال، نه دو سال كه بيش از سي سال بر يكي از پهناورترين و قدرتمندترين كشورهاي جهان حكوميت كند؟ دلايل بي شماري در اين باره ذكر شده كه جيلاس با دقت و ظرافت آنها را پشت سر يكديگر و به ترتيب اهميت سازماندهي مي كند و درعين حال از غربال تجربيات شخصي خود، مي گذراند.
دلايلي كه نشان از ديد وسيع و همه جانبه نگر او دارد. (چيزي كه در يك مؤمن ايدئولوگ از هر فرقه و مرامي كه باشد، كم پيدا مي شود!) خصوصيات روحي و رواني استالين و مردم روسيه، جو فكري حاكم بر محافل كمونيست و ماركسيست، شرايط حاصل از جنگ جهاني دوم و بهره برداري استالين از آن و... ازجمله دلايل مهم ذكر شده در اين بخش (بخش پاياني كتاب) مي باشد.
ولي زيباترين مطلب اين بخش در تحليل دو دليل خودش را نشان مي دهد، حمايت بوروكراسي عظيم شوروي و بوروكرات هاي قدرتمند از استالين و دلايل آن و دلايل شكست مخالفان درون حزبي استالين (كه به روايتي در جايگاه بالاتري از منظر ايدئولوژي مي نشستند).
در اين بخش آخر، جيلاس مستقيماً به وصيتنامه لنين مراجعه مي كند و ضمن برشمردن نكات قوت و برتر تروتسكي، بوخارين، كامنف، زينوويف، الكساندرف و... به خوبي نشان مي دهد كه در اين ميان تنها استالين، يك لنينيست واقعي بود و همين مطلب يكي از مهمترين دلايل هموار شدن راه رسيدن به قدرت براي استالين به شمار مي رود. از ميلوان جيلاس كتاب هاي بسيار مهم ديگري مانند «طبقه جديد» منتشر شده است.
هرچند آنچنان كه مي دانيم كميسرهايي كه از طرف حزب براي سازماندهي كارگران و دهقانان يوگسلاوي تعيين ميشدند وظيفه داشتند تا علاوه بر نبرد با ارتش اشغالگر، پايه گزار انقلاب كارگري بر عليه نظام پادشاهي يوگسلاوي نيز باشند. ميلوان جيلاس و رانكوويچ از سرشناس ترين و برجسته ترين اعضاي حزب بودند كه به سازماندهي ارتش چريكي يوگسلاوي مي پرداختند. هسته مركزي اين ارتش چريكي را حدوداً ده هزار عضو حزب كمونيست تشكيل مي داد.
جيلاس كتاب خود را به چهار بخش تقسيم كرده است. در فصل اول (جاذبه) او ما را با دنياي يك مؤمن متعصب به ايدئولوژي ماركسيست آشنا مي كند. جزم انديش ها، تنگ نظري ها، صداقت و سادگي چنين فردي و ايمان رسوخ ناپذيرش كه سبب مي شود تا چشم بر هر نابساماني در سرزمين مادري كمونيست هاي جهان (شوروي) ببندند، همه و همه را از ديدگاه خود و از درون خود بيرون مي كشد و به ما معرفي مي كند. او براي اين كار عواطف و احساسات دروني خودش را، جايي كه هيچكس جز خداوند به آن دسترسي ندارد مي كاود و جز به جز آن را براي ما تشريح مي كند، از آرزوهايش و آرمان هايش با ما مي گويد و از اولين كشوري كه نظام سوسياليستي در آن به وجود آمده و به همين واسطه قبله تمام ماركسيست هاي جهان است.
شوروي براي يك ماركسيست سرزمين آرزوها و رؤياها بود كه در آرزوي زيارتش صبح را به شام مي رساند، همچنان كه كعبه آمال عشق و آرزوي مسلمانان و يا واتيكان قبله هزاران هزار كاتوليك مؤمن است. بالطبع رهبر چنين كشوري نمي تواند مورد توجه و علاقه مؤمنان نباشد. آن هم رهبري با خصوصيات يوسف استالين، مردي با قاطعيت و خشونت بيش از اندازه و درعين حال حيله گر و مكار مردي كه استاد عوام فريبي و بازآفريني واقعيت است و پس از تصفيه هاي خونين دهه 1940- 1930 يگانه فرد باقي مانده از حزب انقلابي كارگر تحت رهبري ولادمير ايليچ (لنين) است. پدر زحمتكش هاي جهان كه شوروي را از كشوري عقب مانده، تبديل به يك كشور صنعتي قدرتمند كرده، حزب كمونيست يا همان سازمان پيشروي كارگري را از خطر انحراف مصون داشته و يك تنه در مقابل ارتش تا دندان مسلح آلمان فاشيست ايستاده است.
گويي كه مي دانيم دستگاه تبليغاتي عريض و طويل شوروي سوسياليستي در خلق چنين چهره اي از استالين بسيار مؤثر بوده است ولي نبايد از تفكر بسته و تك بعدي ماركسيست ها كه نمونه كاملي از دگماتيسم را به نمايش گذاشتند نيز به راحتي گذشت.
در اين بخش (جاذبه) جيلاس ضمن تشريح موارد ياد شده و تحليلي از وضعيت يوگسلاوي و در كل جبهه نبرد، ديده ها و شنيده هاي خودش را از اولين سفرش به اتحاد جماهير شوروي را براي ما بازگو مي كند كه شامل اولين ديدار با استالين نيز مي شود. همانطور كه از اسم اين فصل نيز آشكار است، همه چيز در نگاه اول مناسب و زيباست و هيچ كم و كاستي وجود ندارد و هيأت ويژه يوگسلاوي بعد از انجام مأموريت خود به كشورش باز مي گردد.
در اينجا فصل دوم سير تفكر جيلاس آغاز مي شود، فصلي كه به درستي نام آن را ترديد گذاشته است. اولين نشانه هاي شك و ابهام در ذهن او جوانه مي زند و هرچند در ابتدا قدرت چنداني ندارد ولي خواهيم ديد كه در پايان درخت تنومندي مي شود كه اساس عقايد جيلاس را دگرگون مي كند و او را وادار به افشاگري عليه تماميت خواهي و استبداد حاكم بر نظام شوروي، مي كند و البته تاوان سنگيني نيز در اين باره مي پردازد كه در پايان كتاب به آن اشاره شده است.
مطالب و شبهات ظريفي كه مانند جويبارهاي كوچك در ذهن يك مؤمن ماركسيست، لنينيست به يكديگر متصل مي شوند تا درنهايت رودي را تشكيل دهند به زيبايي به تصوير كشيده شده است. رودي كه اين مؤمنان جزم انديش را به شكستن بت خود ساخته تشويق و تحريك مي كند، بتي كه سال ها در راه آن مبارزه كرده و قرباني تقديمش كرده اند. اندك اندك با گوشت زمان اين حقيقت كه شوروي و استالين درصدد بلعيدن اروپاي شرقي هستند، بر جيلاس آشكار مي شود و همين شبهات سبب مي شود تا با ديد بازتر و چندجانبه بر شوروي سوسياليستي نگاهي مي اندازد و در اين هنگام است كه او شوروي جديدي را كشف مي كند!!!
چيزهايي مي بيند كه قبلاً نمي ديد هرچند كه در مقابل ديدگانش هر روز خودنمايي مي كرد و اين كشفيات جديد، چون نوري راه را براي درك هرچه بهتر محيط اطراف و كشف هرچه كاملتر حقيقت، هموار مي سازد و ثمره اين ديدگاه جديد در فصل سوم (يأس) خودش را نشان مي دهد.
چرا مأيوس و منفعل نباشد وقتي كه مي بيند نظام آرزوهايش شباهتي بي شمار با نظام امپراتوري تزارها دارد و چرا مغموم و دل شكسته نباشد وقتي كه مي بيند رهبران جنبش هاي كمونيستي چه در يوگسلاوي ، بلغارستان، چه در روماني و مجارستان همه و همه نوكران گوش به فرمان حزب كمونيست شوروي استالين هستند و از خود اراده و حتي هويتي ندارند.
در اين فصل با كامل شدن اطلاعات كه از شنيدن نشنيده ها و ديدن ناديده ها به دست آمده، جيلاس درك تازه اي از جهان اطراف به دست مي آورد و اين درك تازه تمام جهان بيني او و ايدئولوژي او را تحت تأثير قرار مي دهد. اتحاد جماهير شوروي، استالين، تيتو، حزب كمونيست، انقلاب سوسياليستي و جنبش ماركسيستي جهاني، هيچكدام ديگر در نظر او آن چيزي نيستند كه بودند و اين سيلان انديشه او را وا مي دارد تا از نو ساختار فكري خود را بسازد، از نو به همه چيز مي انديشد و حتي بديهي ترين نكات را دست نخورده باقي نگذارد و در پايان اين انقلاب فكري چاره اي براي يك مؤمن باقي نمي ماند كه پيش از ديگران و بيش از ديگران بر عليه سوادگران آمال و آرزوهايش طغيان كند و ماهيتشان را افشا نمايد و نداي اصلاح و احيا سر دهد، چيزي كه با سليقه هيأت حاكمه (بخوانيد طبقه جديد تازه به قدرت رسيده در نظام هاي سوسياليستي) سخت ناسازگار مي نمايد و جيلاس بر سر همين ماجرا سال هاي بسياري از دوران كهولت خود را در زندان مي گذراند.
در پايان اين سه فصل نتيجه گيري جيلاس و سپس تفسير او از استالين و روحياتش بيش از سه فصل قبلي جلب نظر مي كند. او در اين نتيجه گيري و تفسير به اين سؤال بسيار مهم پاسخ مي گويد، چگونه چنين فردي (استالين) توانست نه يكسال، نه دو سال كه بيش از سي سال بر يكي از پهناورترين و قدرتمندترين كشورهاي جهان حكوميت كند؟ دلايل بي شماري در اين باره ذكر شده كه جيلاس با دقت و ظرافت آنها را پشت سر يكديگر و به ترتيب اهميت سازماندهي مي كند و درعين حال از غربال تجربيات شخصي خود، مي گذراند.
دلايلي كه نشان از ديد وسيع و همه جانبه نگر او دارد. (چيزي كه در يك مؤمن ايدئولوگ از هر فرقه و مرامي كه باشد، كم پيدا مي شود!) خصوصيات روحي و رواني استالين و مردم روسيه، جو فكري حاكم بر محافل كمونيست و ماركسيست، شرايط حاصل از جنگ جهاني دوم و بهره برداري استالين از آن و... ازجمله دلايل مهم ذكر شده در اين بخش (بخش پاياني كتاب) مي باشد.
ولي زيباترين مطلب اين بخش در تحليل دو دليل خودش را نشان مي دهد، حمايت بوروكراسي عظيم شوروي و بوروكرات هاي قدرتمند از استالين و دلايل آن و دلايل شكست مخالفان درون حزبي استالين (كه به روايتي در جايگاه بالاتري از منظر ايدئولوژي مي نشستند).
در اين بخش آخر، جيلاس مستقيماً به وصيتنامه لنين مراجعه مي كند و ضمن برشمردن نكات قوت و برتر تروتسكي، بوخارين، كامنف، زينوويف، الكساندرف و... به خوبي نشان مي دهد كه در اين ميان تنها استالين، يك لنينيست واقعي بود و همين مطلب يكي از مهمترين دلايل هموار شدن راه رسيدن به قدرت براي استالين به شمار مي رود. از ميلوان جيلاس كتاب هاي بسيار مهم ديگري مانند «طبقه جديد» منتشر شده است.
November 28, 2020
O care ambigua
April 3, 2024
A great insider story from a Yugoslavian communist leader about his slow realization that the “Soviets” aren’t really socialists at all. They are simply a gang of autocratic Russians out to reestablish the Russian Empire under another name. One great story from here.
F**king Tsarist Russia. Will you never change?
F**king Tsarist Russia. Will you never change?
September 16, 2017
Ah, disillusioned communists, who rot in prisons or Gulags refusing to become cynical! Utopias and fanatics! Throughout the book I wanted to exclaim: "I knew it!" Well, I enjoyed reading the book and would recommend it to some of my past neighbors who dreamed about Russia taking over Canada, and creating social justice. If this book does not open your eyes to reality, probably nothing will.
November 2, 2017
It is not a reliable coursebook on history but has a great historical value.
August 23, 2022
This book is one of a kind. Aside from high ranking diplomats, politicians and military attaches, there are almost no personal accounts of Stalin from the Western/European point of view.
Milovan Djilas was one of the best known communist Yugoslavian politicians who during the latter years of WW2 and post-war has represented his state in Moscow. During the time he met Stalin on three trips and the book is shaped around those trips via chapter structure.
Aside from the expected passages on meeting, conversing with, and retelling anecdotes about meeting Stalin - Djilas writes a lot here about the situation in his country and the reasons for his trips, to be entirely honest this detail is sometimes a little tedious and certainly larger in proportion in comparison to what most people would pick up this book for - the actual Conversations with Stalin.
Tellingly the three chapters are named Raptures, Doubts and Disappointments and closely follow Djilas’ growing unease, confusion and fury at the Soviet regime.
I would say if you wanted to learn about Stalin you are better off trying Robert Service or Simon Sebag Montefiore. Whilst those two books are thicker, they delve right into the main man whilst this includes Djilas’ personal ruminations on Socialism, Pan-Slavic Europe, and personal interests.
If you however were interested in early years of Yugoslavia and it’s early establishment of relations with the Soviet Union, you are in the right place and in that case I would rate this 4.5*
Milovan Djilas was one of the best known communist Yugoslavian politicians who during the latter years of WW2 and post-war has represented his state in Moscow. During the time he met Stalin on three trips and the book is shaped around those trips via chapter structure.
Aside from the expected passages on meeting, conversing with, and retelling anecdotes about meeting Stalin - Djilas writes a lot here about the situation in his country and the reasons for his trips, to be entirely honest this detail is sometimes a little tedious and certainly larger in proportion in comparison to what most people would pick up this book for - the actual Conversations with Stalin.
Tellingly the three chapters are named Raptures, Doubts and Disappointments and closely follow Djilas’ growing unease, confusion and fury at the Soviet regime.
I would say if you wanted to learn about Stalin you are better off trying Robert Service or Simon Sebag Montefiore. Whilst those two books are thicker, they delve right into the main man whilst this includes Djilas’ personal ruminations on Socialism, Pan-Slavic Europe, and personal interests.
If you however were interested in early years of Yugoslavia and it’s early establishment of relations with the Soviet Union, you are in the right place and in that case I would rate this 4.5*
March 16, 2025
I read this weekend the book by Milovan Djilas – a Yugoslav communist partisan (Montenegrin by origin, but he embraced a Yugoslav identity), later a leader in the Yugoslav communist government, and eventually a dissident and essayist. He converted to anti-Stalinism (and anti-Titoism) not long after the meetings described in the book.
The book covers his encounters with Stalin, from the first one—when the war was still ongoing, and they arrived in Moscow believing they would receive support—to the last in 1948, when Stalin attempted to recruit him against Tito, on the brink of the Soviet-Yugoslav split.
It is not primarily a book on geopolitics. Rather, it feels like the confession of someone who truly believed, while also offering a keen behavioral portrait of Stalin: the aging tyrant, brilliant, cynical, ruthless, with a sense of humor and a strong desire to persuade those around him, exuding an imperial attitude. The book also paints vivid portraits of his acolytes, showing how world-changing decisions were made at nocturnal banquets filled with excessive food and drink, and how precarious everyone's position was—each of them just one step away from the Gulag in the optimistic scenario, or execution in the more likely one.
The most powerful rulers of a camp of hundreds of millions of slaves, entirely at the mercy of the irrational whims of an amoral dictator. There is a particularly striking description of Molotov, Stalin’s confidant, whose wife was arrested on Stalin’s orders in 1948—without Molotov showing the slightest sign of rebellion, remaining the same loyal dog at his master’s feet.
This is not a book that demonizes Stalin; on the contrary, there is a great deal of fascination in it, and that is precisely what makes it so terrifying. The great dictators of the last century—whether Stalin, Hitler, or Mao—were nothing like what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil" when referring to Eichmann. On the contrary, they were first-rate performers, adored by the people (that is the truth—people idolize their dictators) and obeyed by their inner circles not just out of fear, but out of conviction, with enthusiasm. Just as we see today with charismatic anti-democratic figures.
And one recurring theme, observed at every banquet: the leaders' staggering drunkenness. The enormous quantities of alcohol, which seem to be part of the nihilistic Russian curse—then and now. And the moral indifference with which Stalin viewed the crimes committed by Red Army soldiers, whether it was rapes followed by the murder of victims or looting. "A soldier has the right to a little fun after marching thousands of kilometers through the homeland devastated by the Germans." Or: "I think we’re being too rigid with them, with the soldiers. I don’t think we should tell them what to do."
I highly recommend this book. Unfortunately, as the author said some 60 years ago, we (still) live in a world shaped by Stalin, and to change it, we need to understand both the historical forces and the elements of Russian ethos that created it.
P.S. One more thing: towards the end, the book recounts the Moscow meeting in the spring of 1948, when Stalin summoned the Bulgarian and Yugoslav leaders to hold them accountable. He scolded Dimitrov for his statement in Pravda and for his talks with Dej. Stalin forcefully explained that the solution was not a customs union between Bulgaria and Romania (followed by a confederation) but rather an immediate federation of the South Slavs—Yugoslavia and Bulgaria—followed by Albania's integration. His broader plans included a Romania-Hungary federation and a Poland-Czechoslovakia federation. (Obviously, with internal national fractures to ensure control from Moscow.) And perhaps, in a second phase, Poland-Czechoslovakia would be merged with Belarus, Romania-Hungary with Ukraine, and the Balkan Federation with Russia.
The imperial plans of Peter the Great, Catherine, Stalin, and Putin are, in fact, one and the same grand design.
The book covers his encounters with Stalin, from the first one—when the war was still ongoing, and they arrived in Moscow believing they would receive support—to the last in 1948, when Stalin attempted to recruit him against Tito, on the brink of the Soviet-Yugoslav split.
It is not primarily a book on geopolitics. Rather, it feels like the confession of someone who truly believed, while also offering a keen behavioral portrait of Stalin: the aging tyrant, brilliant, cynical, ruthless, with a sense of humor and a strong desire to persuade those around him, exuding an imperial attitude. The book also paints vivid portraits of his acolytes, showing how world-changing decisions were made at nocturnal banquets filled with excessive food and drink, and how precarious everyone's position was—each of them just one step away from the Gulag in the optimistic scenario, or execution in the more likely one.
The most powerful rulers of a camp of hundreds of millions of slaves, entirely at the mercy of the irrational whims of an amoral dictator. There is a particularly striking description of Molotov, Stalin’s confidant, whose wife was arrested on Stalin’s orders in 1948—without Molotov showing the slightest sign of rebellion, remaining the same loyal dog at his master’s feet.
This is not a book that demonizes Stalin; on the contrary, there is a great deal of fascination in it, and that is precisely what makes it so terrifying. The great dictators of the last century—whether Stalin, Hitler, or Mao—were nothing like what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil" when referring to Eichmann. On the contrary, they were first-rate performers, adored by the people (that is the truth—people idolize their dictators) and obeyed by their inner circles not just out of fear, but out of conviction, with enthusiasm. Just as we see today with charismatic anti-democratic figures.
And one recurring theme, observed at every banquet: the leaders' staggering drunkenness. The enormous quantities of alcohol, which seem to be part of the nihilistic Russian curse—then and now. And the moral indifference with which Stalin viewed the crimes committed by Red Army soldiers, whether it was rapes followed by the murder of victims or looting. "A soldier has the right to a little fun after marching thousands of kilometers through the homeland devastated by the Germans." Or: "I think we’re being too rigid with them, with the soldiers. I don’t think we should tell them what to do."
I highly recommend this book. Unfortunately, as the author said some 60 years ago, we (still) live in a world shaped by Stalin, and to change it, we need to understand both the historical forces and the elements of Russian ethos that created it.
P.S. One more thing: towards the end, the book recounts the Moscow meeting in the spring of 1948, when Stalin summoned the Bulgarian and Yugoslav leaders to hold them accountable. He scolded Dimitrov for his statement in Pravda and for his talks with Dej. Stalin forcefully explained that the solution was not a customs union between Bulgaria and Romania (followed by a confederation) but rather an immediate federation of the South Slavs—Yugoslavia and Bulgaria—followed by Albania's integration. His broader plans included a Romania-Hungary federation and a Poland-Czechoslovakia federation. (Obviously, with internal national fractures to ensure control from Moscow.) And perhaps, in a second phase, Poland-Czechoslovakia would be merged with Belarus, Romania-Hungary with Ukraine, and the Balkan Federation with Russia.
The imperial plans of Peter the Great, Catherine, Stalin, and Putin are, in fact, one and the same grand design.
February 27, 2025
საყურადღებო მოგონებებია, როგორც მილოვან ჯილასის თვალით დანახული სტალინის გასაცნობად, ასევე ტიტოს იუგოსლავიისა და "ბელადის" სსრკ-ს ურთიერთობის გასაანალიზებლად (ამ კუთხით დიდი ლირატურული მასალა არ გვაქვს ხელთ და ეს განსაკუთრებულ მნიშვნელობას სძენს თვითმხილველის მონათხრობს).
January 6, 2020
Was given as a joke present, turned out to be a great read providing in-depth insight into the inner workings of the Soviets and the causes leading to the Yugo-Soviet split.
December 4, 2017
This was a memoir of the author Djilas' participation in meetings and interactions with Stalin during the War - and how Djilas became disillusioned with Stalin and the tight grip the Soviet government wished to retain on the Eastern European countries the Red Army had liberated from the Nazis, after the end of the war. The book is very well-written; it evokes the euphoria Djilas initially felt in traveling to Moscow and meeting with Soviet leadership, including Stalin. However, even in that first meeting, there are hints that Stalin and the leadership weren't exactly idealists, that there was a cynical or self-serving edge to all they were doing, and a mocking crudeness in Stalin; that spreading the revolution to Eastern Europe may not have been all that it seemed, that there may have been an element of substituting one imperial system (Austro-Hungarian Empire, in the case of Yugoslavia) for another (Soviet sphere of influence - "Eastern bloc" countries).
The book in short is an eloquent record of the author's disillusionment and a take-down of Stalin - written several years after Stalin had died, and de-Stalinization was underway in the Soviet Union. He allows that Stalin's leadership "style" may have been the only way to modernize the USSR and successfully lead it in the war, even though he denounces Stalin as a monstrous arch-criminal.
Because of his independent views, despite being a member of the communist Yugoslav government and a communist himself, Djilas was jailed in Yugoslavia under Tito. Yugoslavia did eventually take an independent position vis-a-vis the USSR - it was resisted domination by the Soviet Union even though the Yugoslav partisans received aid from the USSR during the war and the Red Army finally liberated Yugoslavia in WW2.
This book is an example of idealism - almost on the level of faith - meeting the harsh reality of grubby politics, and the resulting disillusion after the realization that the "heroes" of revolution have feet of clay, to put it mildly. This work is one perspective onto a turning point in world history, when the domination of the elites was supposed to have been shattered in E. Europe with the advent of communism, so that the ordinary people or, specifically, the working class, would benefit. The trade-off was huge, though, in that even if state subsidies meant that no-one went hungry, and many things were cheap, governments inevitably resorted to terror or the imposition of a police state in order to suppress dissent. Human rights were violated - even from the time of Lenin in the USSR, there were concentration camps where dissidents would be sent, a continuation of the forced labor camps that the Tsars had maintained. Tight government control led to a kind of political paralysis - instead of "the promised land" or "Utopia" with everyone fulfilling their potential. Where before there was income inequality, with an oligarchy, and even elements of feudalism with a nobility hoarding land and money, there was now a power inequality (although that too had existed prior to the revolution). Each was overthrown - one in a bloody revolution and the other in a bloodless revolution (in Russia and most of E. Europe). Both of these systems were unsatisfactory - and the transition to "the withering away of the state" under communism, never happened. Instead, the state apparatus seemed to metastasize and grow more complex - in fact, the communist state wasn't that different from an authoritarian capitalist state; it didn't lead to freedom at all and the repression or fear didn't end. Those that experienced the communist experiment must have figured that the trade-off wasn't worth it, that the price of the classless society was too steep in terms of the loss of life due to famine and purges, exile and imprisonment in gulags, which is why all the communist governments in E. Europe and the USSR collapsed one by one like a house of cards, or dominoes falling, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These "peoples' governments" didn't have much popular support, although they once may have been seen as "hopeful" or a step forward - a step away from monarchy, feudalism, inequality, and so forth. Joseph Stalin himself may have been a true believer in communism, at least at first, and may have felt that the repression was needed to ensure the revolution succeeded - but he never loosened his tight grip on power, and under Stalin, there wasn't any hope that the terror would lift, that dissenters would be set free, or that an independent opposition might be allowed to exist. Eerily, Putin today to some extent mirrors the repression under communism - the opposition in Russia is crushed, and he is seemingly building up a personality cult just like Stalin. The lesson must be that unless there is a way to ensure politicians step down after one or two terms of office, no matter what the current ideology or economic system may be, there will always be a tendency or temptation, that is basically irresistible, for leaders to turn into dictators, and countenance no opposition, no criticism, no dissent. We can see a similar thing happening today with Trump and his never-ending attacks on the press, minorities, opposing politicians, and so forth. Since Trump seems to disdain the American system of give and take, including a free press, I can certainly see Trump declaring a state of emergency one day as a pretext to shut down totally our way of life, and in its place to impose a "Trump-worshiping" dictatorship to his liking. He'd call it America First, in the name of American citizens, and a temporary measure to save the nation, and he'll say that after "emergency measures are taken" business will thrive and full employment will result. But it won't work, it never does; he won't be able to stem the populace's discontent - no matter how many cultural buttons he presses, or tries to rally his followers with racist or sexist exhortations, or calls for religious sectarianism or intolerance. Inevitably, dictatorial systems do not last because the trade-off (economic "reform" or cultural "renaissance") isn't enough. It isn't enough to have bread on the table, if you are not allowed to talk.
As usual, there are quite a few quotes:
"For the Yugoslavs, Moscow was not only a political and spiritual center but the realization of an abstract ideal -- the "classless society"-- something that not only made their sacrifice and suffering easy and sweet, but that justified their very existence in their own eyes."
"Political friendships are good only when each remains what he is."
"...Soviet public opinion -- that is, the opinion of the Party, since no other kind exists -- was enthusiastic about the Yugoslav struggle."
"Although the officers with whom we were in contact covered up or embellished the behavior of the Ukrainians, our Russian chauffeur cursed their mothers because the Ukrainians had not fought better and because now the Russians had to liberate them."
"The Soviet officers are not only technically very proficient, but they also compose the most talented and boldest part of the Soviet intelligentsia."
"And yet I had another feeling at the time -- horror that is should be so, that it could not be otherwise."
"[Stalin] ... was the incarnation of an idea, transfigured in Communist minds into pure idea, and thereby into something infallible and sinless."
"The chief reason for this was, no doubt, the development of operations on the Eastern Front -- the Red Army soon reached the Yugoslav border and was thus able to assist Yugoslavia by land."
"The northern lights extend to Moscow at that time of year, and everything was violet-hued and shimmering -- a world of unreality more beautiful than the one in which we had been living."
"And though, in view of his greater versatility and penetration, Stalin claims the principal role in transforming a backward Russia into a modern industrial imperial power, it wold be wrong to under-estimate Molotov's role, especially as the practical executive."
"Perhaps you think that just because we are allies of the English that we have forgotten who they are and who Churchill is."
"Such a dinner usually lasted six or more hours -- from ten at night till four or five in the morning."
"They did not arrive in their offices before noon, and usually stayed in them till late evening."
"Stalin interrupted, laughing: "One of our men was leading a large group of Germans, and on the way he killed all but one. They asked him, when he arrived at his destination: "And where are all the others?' 'I was just carrying out the orders of the Commander in Chief,' he said, 'to kill every one to the last man -- and here is the last man.'"
"These words of mine [about pillaging & rape carried out by Red Army liberators in Yugoslavia], and a few other matters, were the cause of the first friction between the Yugoslav and Soviet leaders."
"I became all the more adamant and determined as experience demonstrated to me the unjust, hegemonistic Soviet intentions, that is, as I freed myself of my sentimentality."
"I turned increasingly to my pen and to books, finding within myself an escape from the difficulties and misunderstanding that beset me."
"The relationship between myself and Andrejev, made intimate by war and suffering in prison -- for these reveal a man's character and human relations better than anything else -- was always marked by good-natured joking and frankness."
"The Soviet Intelligence Service knew that in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia views on personal morality were strict an they were setting a trap to blackmail me later."
"I was not yet able to draw the conclusion -- that it was precisely the Communists who were the butt and the means by which Soviet hegemony was to ensconce itself in the countries of Eastern Europe."
"This contrast between formality and reality was all the more drastic because relations between the Soviet and Yugoslav Communists were still cordial, unmarred by Soviet hegemonism and competition for prestige in the Communist world."
"Today I am able to conclude that the deification of Stalin, or the "cult of the personality," as it is now called, was at least as much the work of Stalin's circle and the bureaucracy, who required such a leader, as it was his own doing."
"Now he was the victor in the greatest war of his nation and in history. His power, absolute over a sixth of the globe, was spreading farther without surcease. This convinced him that his society contained no contradictions and that it exhibited superiority to other societies in every way."
"One has to understand the soldier. The Red Army is not ideal. The important thing is that it fights Germans -- and it is fighting them well, while the rest doesn't matter."
"Stalin presented his views on the distinctive nature of the war that was being waged: "This war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. It cannot be otherwise."
"Beside this external knowledge gathered from courses, much more important is the knowledge that [Khrushchev] ... gained as an autodidact, by constantly improving himself, and, even more, the experience he gained from his lively and many-sided activities."
"When I think back, it seems to me that the Soviet Government not only looked with satisfaction at this sharpening of Yugoslav-Western relations but even incited it, taking care, of course, not to go beyond the limits of its own interests and possibilities."
"Having identified domestic progress and freedom with the interests and privileges of a political party, [Stalin] ... could not act in foreign affairs other than as a hegemonist. As with everyone, handsome is as handsome does. He became himself the slave of the despotism, the bureaucracy, the narrowness, and the servility that he imposed on his country."
"...I was suitable for a straightforward discussion over a complicated and very sensitive question. However, I also believe that [Stalin]... had the intention of winning me over in order to split and to subordinate the Yugoslav Central Committee."
"...as to the relations between the Soviet Union and the other East European countries; these countries were still being held under actual occupation, and their wealth was being extracted in various ways, most frequently through joint-stock companies in which the Russians barely invested anything except German capital, which they had simply declared a prize of war."
"I suspect that not even those [Russian leaders] who made the statements [that "...all of Germany must be "ours," that is, Soviet, Communist"] actually knew how but were caught up by the flush of military victories and by their hopes for the economic and other dissolution of Western Europe."
"Every crime was possible to Stalin, for there was not one he had not committed. Whatever standards we use to take his measure, in any event -- let us hope for all time to come -- to him will fall the glory of being the greatest criminal in history. For in him was joined the criminal senselessness of a Caligula with the refinement of a Borgia and the brutality of a Tsar Ivan the Terrible."
"If we assume the viewpoint of humanity of freedom, history does not know a despot as brutal and as cynical as Stalin was. He was methodical, all-embracing, and total as a criminal. He was one of those rare terrible dogmatists capable of destroying nine tenths of the human race to "make happy" the one tenth."
"However, if we wish to determine what Stalin really meant in the history of Communism, then he must for the present be regarded as being, next to Lenin, the most grandiose figure. He did not substantially develop the ideas of Communism, but he championed them and brought them to realization in a society and a state. He did not construct an ideal society -- something of the sort is not even possible in the very nature of humans and human society, but he transformed backward Russia into an industrial power and an empire that is ever more resolutely and implacably aspiring to world mastery."
"Viewed from the standpoint of success and political adroitness, Stalin is hardly surpassed by any statesman of his time."
This is a well-written, fast-paced book that should make absorbing reading for anyone interested in the Second World War, Eastern Europe, and Russia. It is a bit slow-going insofar as the many references to Soviet and Yugoslav military/partisan and political figures, but the edition includes a helpful appended section of "Selected Biographical Notes" to which the reader will undoubtedly refer again and again. Even so, this book is still interesting to read. I managed to get through it in two days - so it was definitely a "page-turner" for me, at least, especially since ordinarily I'm a slow reader.
The book in short is an eloquent record of the author's disillusionment and a take-down of Stalin - written several years after Stalin had died, and de-Stalinization was underway in the Soviet Union. He allows that Stalin's leadership "style" may have been the only way to modernize the USSR and successfully lead it in the war, even though he denounces Stalin as a monstrous arch-criminal.
Because of his independent views, despite being a member of the communist Yugoslav government and a communist himself, Djilas was jailed in Yugoslavia under Tito. Yugoslavia did eventually take an independent position vis-a-vis the USSR - it was resisted domination by the Soviet Union even though the Yugoslav partisans received aid from the USSR during the war and the Red Army finally liberated Yugoslavia in WW2.
This book is an example of idealism - almost on the level of faith - meeting the harsh reality of grubby politics, and the resulting disillusion after the realization that the "heroes" of revolution have feet of clay, to put it mildly. This work is one perspective onto a turning point in world history, when the domination of the elites was supposed to have been shattered in E. Europe with the advent of communism, so that the ordinary people or, specifically, the working class, would benefit. The trade-off was huge, though, in that even if state subsidies meant that no-one went hungry, and many things were cheap, governments inevitably resorted to terror or the imposition of a police state in order to suppress dissent. Human rights were violated - even from the time of Lenin in the USSR, there were concentration camps where dissidents would be sent, a continuation of the forced labor camps that the Tsars had maintained. Tight government control led to a kind of political paralysis - instead of "the promised land" or "Utopia" with everyone fulfilling their potential. Where before there was income inequality, with an oligarchy, and even elements of feudalism with a nobility hoarding land and money, there was now a power inequality (although that too had existed prior to the revolution). Each was overthrown - one in a bloody revolution and the other in a bloodless revolution (in Russia and most of E. Europe). Both of these systems were unsatisfactory - and the transition to "the withering away of the state" under communism, never happened. Instead, the state apparatus seemed to metastasize and grow more complex - in fact, the communist state wasn't that different from an authoritarian capitalist state; it didn't lead to freedom at all and the repression or fear didn't end. Those that experienced the communist experiment must have figured that the trade-off wasn't worth it, that the price of the classless society was too steep in terms of the loss of life due to famine and purges, exile and imprisonment in gulags, which is why all the communist governments in E. Europe and the USSR collapsed one by one like a house of cards, or dominoes falling, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These "peoples' governments" didn't have much popular support, although they once may have been seen as "hopeful" or a step forward - a step away from monarchy, feudalism, inequality, and so forth. Joseph Stalin himself may have been a true believer in communism, at least at first, and may have felt that the repression was needed to ensure the revolution succeeded - but he never loosened his tight grip on power, and under Stalin, there wasn't any hope that the terror would lift, that dissenters would be set free, or that an independent opposition might be allowed to exist. Eerily, Putin today to some extent mirrors the repression under communism - the opposition in Russia is crushed, and he is seemingly building up a personality cult just like Stalin. The lesson must be that unless there is a way to ensure politicians step down after one or two terms of office, no matter what the current ideology or economic system may be, there will always be a tendency or temptation, that is basically irresistible, for leaders to turn into dictators, and countenance no opposition, no criticism, no dissent. We can see a similar thing happening today with Trump and his never-ending attacks on the press, minorities, opposing politicians, and so forth. Since Trump seems to disdain the American system of give and take, including a free press, I can certainly see Trump declaring a state of emergency one day as a pretext to shut down totally our way of life, and in its place to impose a "Trump-worshiping" dictatorship to his liking. He'd call it America First, in the name of American citizens, and a temporary measure to save the nation, and he'll say that after "emergency measures are taken" business will thrive and full employment will result. But it won't work, it never does; he won't be able to stem the populace's discontent - no matter how many cultural buttons he presses, or tries to rally his followers with racist or sexist exhortations, or calls for religious sectarianism or intolerance. Inevitably, dictatorial systems do not last because the trade-off (economic "reform" or cultural "renaissance") isn't enough. It isn't enough to have bread on the table, if you are not allowed to talk.
As usual, there are quite a few quotes:
"For the Yugoslavs, Moscow was not only a political and spiritual center but the realization of an abstract ideal -- the "classless society"-- something that not only made their sacrifice and suffering easy and sweet, but that justified their very existence in their own eyes."
"Political friendships are good only when each remains what he is."
"...Soviet public opinion -- that is, the opinion of the Party, since no other kind exists -- was enthusiastic about the Yugoslav struggle."
"Although the officers with whom we were in contact covered up or embellished the behavior of the Ukrainians, our Russian chauffeur cursed their mothers because the Ukrainians had not fought better and because now the Russians had to liberate them."
"The Soviet officers are not only technically very proficient, but they also compose the most talented and boldest part of the Soviet intelligentsia."
"And yet I had another feeling at the time -- horror that is should be so, that it could not be otherwise."
"[Stalin] ... was the incarnation of an idea, transfigured in Communist minds into pure idea, and thereby into something infallible and sinless."
"The chief reason for this was, no doubt, the development of operations on the Eastern Front -- the Red Army soon reached the Yugoslav border and was thus able to assist Yugoslavia by land."
"The northern lights extend to Moscow at that time of year, and everything was violet-hued and shimmering -- a world of unreality more beautiful than the one in which we had been living."
"And though, in view of his greater versatility and penetration, Stalin claims the principal role in transforming a backward Russia into a modern industrial imperial power, it wold be wrong to under-estimate Molotov's role, especially as the practical executive."
"Perhaps you think that just because we are allies of the English that we have forgotten who they are and who Churchill is."
"Such a dinner usually lasted six or more hours -- from ten at night till four or five in the morning."
"They did not arrive in their offices before noon, and usually stayed in them till late evening."
"Stalin interrupted, laughing: "One of our men was leading a large group of Germans, and on the way he killed all but one. They asked him, when he arrived at his destination: "And where are all the others?' 'I was just carrying out the orders of the Commander in Chief,' he said, 'to kill every one to the last man -- and here is the last man.'"
"These words of mine [about pillaging & rape carried out by Red Army liberators in Yugoslavia], and a few other matters, were the cause of the first friction between the Yugoslav and Soviet leaders."
"I became all the more adamant and determined as experience demonstrated to me the unjust, hegemonistic Soviet intentions, that is, as I freed myself of my sentimentality."
"I turned increasingly to my pen and to books, finding within myself an escape from the difficulties and misunderstanding that beset me."
"The relationship between myself and Andrejev, made intimate by war and suffering in prison -- for these reveal a man's character and human relations better than anything else -- was always marked by good-natured joking and frankness."
"The Soviet Intelligence Service knew that in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia views on personal morality were strict an they were setting a trap to blackmail me later."
"I was not yet able to draw the conclusion -- that it was precisely the Communists who were the butt and the means by which Soviet hegemony was to ensconce itself in the countries of Eastern Europe."
"This contrast between formality and reality was all the more drastic because relations between the Soviet and Yugoslav Communists were still cordial, unmarred by Soviet hegemonism and competition for prestige in the Communist world."
"Today I am able to conclude that the deification of Stalin, or the "cult of the personality," as it is now called, was at least as much the work of Stalin's circle and the bureaucracy, who required such a leader, as it was his own doing."
"Now he was the victor in the greatest war of his nation and in history. His power, absolute over a sixth of the globe, was spreading farther without surcease. This convinced him that his society contained no contradictions and that it exhibited superiority to other societies in every way."
"One has to understand the soldier. The Red Army is not ideal. The important thing is that it fights Germans -- and it is fighting them well, while the rest doesn't matter."
"Stalin presented his views on the distinctive nature of the war that was being waged: "This war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. It cannot be otherwise."
"Beside this external knowledge gathered from courses, much more important is the knowledge that [Khrushchev] ... gained as an autodidact, by constantly improving himself, and, even more, the experience he gained from his lively and many-sided activities."
"When I think back, it seems to me that the Soviet Government not only looked with satisfaction at this sharpening of Yugoslav-Western relations but even incited it, taking care, of course, not to go beyond the limits of its own interests and possibilities."
"Having identified domestic progress and freedom with the interests and privileges of a political party, [Stalin] ... could not act in foreign affairs other than as a hegemonist. As with everyone, handsome is as handsome does. He became himself the slave of the despotism, the bureaucracy, the narrowness, and the servility that he imposed on his country."
"...I was suitable for a straightforward discussion over a complicated and very sensitive question. However, I also believe that [Stalin]... had the intention of winning me over in order to split and to subordinate the Yugoslav Central Committee."
"...as to the relations between the Soviet Union and the other East European countries; these countries were still being held under actual occupation, and their wealth was being extracted in various ways, most frequently through joint-stock companies in which the Russians barely invested anything except German capital, which they had simply declared a prize of war."
"I suspect that not even those [Russian leaders] who made the statements [that "...all of Germany must be "ours," that is, Soviet, Communist"] actually knew how but were caught up by the flush of military victories and by their hopes for the economic and other dissolution of Western Europe."
"Every crime was possible to Stalin, for there was not one he had not committed. Whatever standards we use to take his measure, in any event -- let us hope for all time to come -- to him will fall the glory of being the greatest criminal in history. For in him was joined the criminal senselessness of a Caligula with the refinement of a Borgia and the brutality of a Tsar Ivan the Terrible."
"If we assume the viewpoint of humanity of freedom, history does not know a despot as brutal and as cynical as Stalin was. He was methodical, all-embracing, and total as a criminal. He was one of those rare terrible dogmatists capable of destroying nine tenths of the human race to "make happy" the one tenth."
"However, if we wish to determine what Stalin really meant in the history of Communism, then he must for the present be regarded as being, next to Lenin, the most grandiose figure. He did not substantially develop the ideas of Communism, but he championed them and brought them to realization in a society and a state. He did not construct an ideal society -- something of the sort is not even possible in the very nature of humans and human society, but he transformed backward Russia into an industrial power and an empire that is ever more resolutely and implacably aspiring to world mastery."
"Viewed from the standpoint of success and political adroitness, Stalin is hardly surpassed by any statesman of his time."
This is a well-written, fast-paced book that should make absorbing reading for anyone interested in the Second World War, Eastern Europe, and Russia. It is a bit slow-going insofar as the many references to Soviet and Yugoslav military/partisan and political figures, but the edition includes a helpful appended section of "Selected Biographical Notes" to which the reader will undoubtedly refer again and again. Even so, this book is still interesting to read. I managed to get through it in two days - so it was definitely a "page-turner" for me, at least, especially since ordinarily I'm a slow reader.
January 4, 2019
Puțin din spatele cortinei. Bine de știut.
January 1, 2015
Contrary to numerous reviews to this book, in fact it is not about post-war Yugoslavia, nor about USSR even nor about Stalin.
It is easy to notice that throughout the history people used to create ideals for themselves. The main subject of the book is history of disillusionment with self-created ideals. Thus, socialism and Stalin’s figure act only as the background in this story.
Djilas writes about his illusions about socialism: “…For the Yugoslavs, Moscow was not only a political and spiritual center but the realization of an abstract ideal – the 'classless society'…”
During his life author faces facts that at first make him to doubt this point of view and later to revise it completely. Nothing can be harder than crashing of own ideals!
Though Djilas keeps on trying to accuse of Stalin of this crash, may be it wouldn’t be so painful if the author didn't idolize Stalin from the beginning?.. At the same time, growth of each personality goes through such crashes and disappointments.
Summary: this book is the Bible of denial of self-created false ideals and illusions and will be interesting for everyone who is interested in Stalin’s personality, socialism, history of USSR and Yugoslavia.
It is easy to notice that throughout the history people used to create ideals for themselves. The main subject of the book is history of disillusionment with self-created ideals. Thus, socialism and Stalin’s figure act only as the background in this story.
Djilas writes about his illusions about socialism: “…For the Yugoslavs, Moscow was not only a political and spiritual center but the realization of an abstract ideal – the 'classless society'…”
During his life author faces facts that at first make him to doubt this point of view and later to revise it completely. Nothing can be harder than crashing of own ideals!
Though Djilas keeps on trying to accuse of Stalin of this crash, may be it wouldn’t be so painful if the author didn't idolize Stalin from the beginning?.. At the same time, growth of each personality goes through such crashes and disappointments.
Summary: this book is the Bible of denial of self-created false ideals and illusions and will be interesting for everyone who is interested in Stalin’s personality, socialism, history of USSR and Yugoslavia.
October 21, 2019
Great history book. It gives you that creepy feeling once you understand that the decisions that affected hundreds of millions of people were made in such a manner, during a dinner, after a glass of wine....
Stalin was a genius from a political standpoint, but a psychopath and a paranoid leader. When you read this book you get a glimpse of his character, and you come to understand how his models (Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great) shaped him.
Stalin was a genius from a political standpoint, but a psychopath and a paranoid leader. When you read this book you get a glimpse of his character, and you come to understand how his models (Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great) shaped him.
February 26, 2016
If you're interested in Soviet-Yugoslav history, or if you want an interesting insight into how Stalin conducted himself and attempted to manipulate people, then I'd definitely recommend it. It's quite dry and matter-of-fact compared to other autobiographies/memoirs I've read though, so I'd say you've gotta be enthusiastic about history to enjoy it.
March 10, 2019
A man recounts his meetings with a Russian leader.
The descriptions of the meetings were interesting, but the writing was incredibly dense - the short biographies of the people involved at the end of the book could have been put at the beginning.
Reading time around two and a half hours.
The descriptions of the meetings were interesting, but the writing was incredibly dense - the short biographies of the people involved at the end of the book could have been put at the beginning.
Reading time around two and a half hours.
June 9, 2024
Dinner with a Dictator
3 June 2024
Actually, I found this book to be rather interesting, namely because it feels like we get to witness the behind-the-scenes negotiations between the Yugoslav Republic and the Soviet Union. The book was written by one of the high-level members of Tito’s government, though of course one of the things that we do find out is that just because you are high-level in such a regime, doesn’t mean that you have a nice comfy job – a lot of the people mentioned either landed up in prison, or were executed.
Anyway, account begins in the dying days of World War II and really follows how Tito and Stalin ended up having a falling out. Mind you, it is not surprising considering that Stalin and Tito had two different ideas on how communism should operate. Well, that and the fact that I get the impression that Stalin pretty much wanted to call the shots everywhere, and Tito (and Mao for that matter), were happy to be allies, but certainly weren’t going to let him call the shots.
It was interesting to read about the claims that the Red Army was behaving really rather badly when they went into Yugoslavia, and I suspect that this was also a reason why they eventually split. The thing is that while they went to complain to Stalin, the response was along the lines that he didn’t quite believe them. Mind you, this no doubt has a lot to do with the idea of Russian superiority, even though we know that the Serbs and the Russians are fast allies, and they still are to this day.
Yeah, it is quite an interesting book, and it was actually somewhat better than I expected. I like grabbed it off my shelf on the grounds that if I didn’t read it now, I probably would never actually read it. I think I know where I got it from, namely a friend’s brother was cleaning out his books, and this was one of them I grabbed. In a way I’m glad I grabbed it because it does give us a first-hand account of the period around the end of World War II, and outlines the diplomatic negotiations and relations between the two countries.
Actually, one of the interesting things is the incredible dislike they had for Churchill, which in part I’m not surprised. Like, yeah, he is one of those characters that many of us in the West hold in high regard because of his role during World War II. However, he was still a conservative politician, and of course he acted like a conservative politician. Mind you, they didn’t think much of Roosevelt either, but they thought better of him than they did of Churchill. Then again, it really did have a lot to do that they were basically allies of convenience because, well, they had a common enemy. In a way Stalin was right when he indicated that the end of the war would result in the victor’s political systems being imposed upon the defeated. Stalin knew that if he pulled out then the west would quickly roll in and establish their systems. Then again, we must also remember that the allies did give the countries a choice as to they systems they wanted, and they eventually chose to go the democratic capitalist route. Mind you, in the end, Europe has ended up being more socialist than the Anglo sphere.
3 June 2024
Actually, I found this book to be rather interesting, namely because it feels like we get to witness the behind-the-scenes negotiations between the Yugoslav Republic and the Soviet Union. The book was written by one of the high-level members of Tito’s government, though of course one of the things that we do find out is that just because you are high-level in such a regime, doesn’t mean that you have a nice comfy job – a lot of the people mentioned either landed up in prison, or were executed.
Anyway, account begins in the dying days of World War II and really follows how Tito and Stalin ended up having a falling out. Mind you, it is not surprising considering that Stalin and Tito had two different ideas on how communism should operate. Well, that and the fact that I get the impression that Stalin pretty much wanted to call the shots everywhere, and Tito (and Mao for that matter), were happy to be allies, but certainly weren’t going to let him call the shots.
It was interesting to read about the claims that the Red Army was behaving really rather badly when they went into Yugoslavia, and I suspect that this was also a reason why they eventually split. The thing is that while they went to complain to Stalin, the response was along the lines that he didn’t quite believe them. Mind you, this no doubt has a lot to do with the idea of Russian superiority, even though we know that the Serbs and the Russians are fast allies, and they still are to this day.
Yeah, it is quite an interesting book, and it was actually somewhat better than I expected. I like grabbed it off my shelf on the grounds that if I didn’t read it now, I probably would never actually read it. I think I know where I got it from, namely a friend’s brother was cleaning out his books, and this was one of them I grabbed. In a way I’m glad I grabbed it because it does give us a first-hand account of the period around the end of World War II, and outlines the diplomatic negotiations and relations between the two countries.
Actually, one of the interesting things is the incredible dislike they had for Churchill, which in part I’m not surprised. Like, yeah, he is one of those characters that many of us in the West hold in high regard because of his role during World War II. However, he was still a conservative politician, and of course he acted like a conservative politician. Mind you, they didn’t think much of Roosevelt either, but they thought better of him than they did of Churchill. Then again, it really did have a lot to do that they were basically allies of convenience because, well, they had a common enemy. In a way Stalin was right when he indicated that the end of the war would result in the victor’s political systems being imposed upon the defeated. Stalin knew that if he pulled out then the west would quickly roll in and establish their systems. Then again, we must also remember that the allies did give the countries a choice as to they systems they wanted, and they eventually chose to go the democratic capitalist route. Mind you, in the end, Europe has ended up being more socialist than the Anglo sphere.
Read
September 3, 2023An engrossing account of the author's encounters with the Soviet dictator, though "conversations" is not quite the word for these happenings. Generally, Djilas met Stalin at these awful smorgasbord-benders lasting late into the night, in the company of an array of senile, servile, and repressed Soviet communist party functionaries. With Stalin, of course, the gravitational center of everything.
Mounting tension — internal and external, generally concealed — propels the story.
Djilas thinks of himself as an admirer of Stalin but must eventually admit to himself that he dislikes, and even despises him.
Then there's the tension between the men at these gatherings. Djilas is is a wonderful observer of character and psychology, and very effectively conjures the discomfort he feels at what (seemingly) should be intimate evenings among brother-Slavs.
There is a particularly funny scene where Djilas and others are discussing the value of customs unions. Benelux comes up; Stalin insists that it's insignificant because it only includes Belgium and Luxembourg, but not the Netherlands. Everyone else present knows better, including Djilas. "I held my tongue and Holland remained outside Benelux," Djilas writes.
Without quite saying it, Djilas comes to a view of the Soviet Union as a *Russian* imperialist project. On a stopover in Kiev, he's stunned that Russian has supplanted the Ukrainian language. Stalin, while speaking noticeably accented Russian, nevertheless manifests the attitudes of a Russian chauvinist. The USSR's representatives treat visitors from Yugoslavia and the other newly-communist nations not as friends but as people of little interest, who must be put in their place.
Mounting tension — internal and external, generally concealed — propels the story.
Djilas thinks of himself as an admirer of Stalin but must eventually admit to himself that he dislikes, and even despises him.
Then there's the tension between the men at these gatherings. Djilas is is a wonderful observer of character and psychology, and very effectively conjures the discomfort he feels at what (seemingly) should be intimate evenings among brother-Slavs.
There is a particularly funny scene where Djilas and others are discussing the value of customs unions. Benelux comes up; Stalin insists that it's insignificant because it only includes Belgium and Luxembourg, but not the Netherlands. Everyone else present knows better, including Djilas. "I held my tongue and Holland remained outside Benelux," Djilas writes.
Without quite saying it, Djilas comes to a view of the Soviet Union as a *Russian* imperialist project. On a stopover in Kiev, he's stunned that Russian has supplanted the Ukrainian language. Stalin, while speaking noticeably accented Russian, nevertheless manifests the attitudes of a Russian chauvinist. The USSR's representatives treat visitors from Yugoslavia and the other newly-communist nations not as friends but as people of little interest, who must be put in their place.
November 22, 2024
Worth a read solely as a primary source, Djilas recounts his unique interactions within the politburo and with Stalin as a member of the Yugoslavian government.
I think the blurb and the Applebaum introduction (which was completely unnecessary, may I add) overexaggerate the actual contents. Even the title and accompanying photo on the Penguin edition convey the idea that he had prolonged and much repeated contact and deep discussion with Stalin, but it is misleading. Djilas only met Stalin a couple of times, and the conversations he recalled were impersonal and hardly revolutionary. Although I do really appreciate this as a personal account and as another peek into the political climate between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union during Stalin's time, it really is not what you are set up to expect.
There are some very outdated and contradictory points made by the author himself, particularly during the conclusion. He claims that Stalin is the biggest monster and criminal of all time and such, but I think anyone could realise that that title in modern history would generally be more likely to be put to Hitler. So as I said, good and interesting as a primary source, but not great amounts of worth beyond that.
I think the blurb and the Applebaum introduction (which was completely unnecessary, may I add) overexaggerate the actual contents. Even the title and accompanying photo on the Penguin edition convey the idea that he had prolonged and much repeated contact and deep discussion with Stalin, but it is misleading. Djilas only met Stalin a couple of times, and the conversations he recalled were impersonal and hardly revolutionary. Although I do really appreciate this as a personal account and as another peek into the political climate between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union during Stalin's time, it really is not what you are set up to expect.
There are some very outdated and contradictory points made by the author himself, particularly during the conclusion. He claims that Stalin is the biggest monster and criminal of all time and such, but I think anyone could realise that that title in modern history would generally be more likely to be put to Hitler. So as I said, good and interesting as a primary source, but not great amounts of worth beyond that.
October 16, 2018
Milovan Djilas (MD) was 1 of top 4 members of communist party in Yugoslavia. Book contains his recollections of the negotiations with the Russians right after WW2 as to what relationship Yugo would have with the USSR, the former wanting greater autonomy than the latter was giving every other country it was "swallowing". MD recounts his meetings with Stalin and Molotov from both a political and personal perspective. Portrays S as brilliant, crudely humorous and even well read, sly and conniving, and remorselessly brutal in eliminating anyone who got in the way of his expansion of the USSR. Initially a "worshipper" of S, MD became disillusioned of both him and communism, scared of what S was capable of, and spent many years in jail for expressing his views and even more for publishing this book.
The book is worthwhile reading if for no other reason than the personal glimpses into Stalin's and Molotov's thinking and actions in private settings. Gives interesting insights into the "them and us" mentality of Soviet leaders.
MD has written a number of other books about the folly of communism.
The book is worthwhile reading if for no other reason than the personal glimpses into Stalin's and Molotov's thinking and actions in private settings. Gives interesting insights into the "them and us" mentality of Soviet leaders.
MD has written a number of other books about the folly of communism.
January 7, 2024
While the first half of the book was not very interesting with very little about Stalin the second half of the book picked up. I didn't know much about Milovan Đilas and though he was some Yugoslav communist who met with Stalin and perhaps interviewed him. No, he describes official meetings including being "summoned" during the period 1944- 1948. He also includes events like of the famous late night dinners including heavy drinking and bullying as well as a film watching session with Stalin and his entourage. (He was a key/top communist official in the Yugoslav governing circle, a Montenegrin with a Russian Siberian mother apparently. )
It turns out he was one key Communist official who ended up on Stalin's bad side (over criticism of the Russian Army crimes in Yugoslavia and of the Russian attitude towards Yugoslav "exceptionalism" a country that was not liberated by the Soviet and found it's own path to communism. He also became a dissident in his relations towards Tito and his country. This led to a vicious circle for him: a series of increasingly serious jail terms during which he wrote books with resulting punitive jail terms. This book got him a 7 year jail term. See Wikipedia as well.
It turns out he was one key Communist official who ended up on Stalin's bad side (over criticism of the Russian Army crimes in Yugoslavia and of the Russian attitude towards Yugoslav "exceptionalism" a country that was not liberated by the Soviet and found it's own path to communism. He also became a dissident in his relations towards Tito and his country. This led to a vicious circle for him: a series of increasingly serious jail terms during which he wrote books with resulting punitive jail terms. This book got him a 7 year jail term. See Wikipedia as well.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews