What do you think?
Rate this book
Stalin: A Biography
Reveals the complex story of the Soviet dictator, from his dysfunctional childhood in Soviet Georgia, through his education and early political activism, to his tyrannical control over the Soviet Union and the legacy of his reign.
715 pages, Paperback
First published October 15, 2004
171 people are currently reading
2971 people want to read
About the author
Robert Service
33 books272 followersThis author is the British historian of modern Russia. For the British-Canadian writer of Yukon poetry, see Robert W. Service.
Robert Service is a British academic and historian of modern Russia and the Soviet Union. He is a professor of Russian history at the University of Oxford and a Fellow at St. Antony's College, Oxford.
He is the author of the highly acclaimed Lenin: A Biography, A History of Twentieth - Century Russia, Russia: Experiment with a People and Stalin: A Biography, as well as many other books on Russia's past and present. He wrote a marvelous book on communism titled Comrades Communism A World History (International Bestseller). He is married with four children.
Robert Service is a British academic and historian of modern Russia and the Soviet Union. He is a professor of Russian history at the University of Oxford and a Fellow at St. Antony's College, Oxford.
He is the author of the highly acclaimed Lenin: A Biography, A History of Twentieth - Century Russia, Russia: Experiment with a People and Stalin: A Biography, as well as many other books on Russia's past and present. He wrote a marvelous book on communism titled Comrades Communism A World History (International Bestseller). He is married with four children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 120 reviews
September 4, 2008
Stalin as Communist Emperor
A very readable biography of Stalin that describes his entire life, from his beginnings in Georgia to the top of the Soviet Union. His relationship to Lenin and other members of the Bolshevik clique and his rise to power are all chronicled.
There is a letter from Tito to Stalin that was found in Stalin's desk drawer shortly after he died. Tito, in this letter, is out-dueling Stalin in threatening assassination attempts. It encapsulates the gangster tactics of the entire communist regime.
Service points out that there were no innocents in the rise to power after the October revolution. Stalin learnt well from his teacher Lenin; bolshevism may have been based on the books of Marx and Engels, but its practice was raw power and Stalin wielded this for over thirty years.
Sometimes in this work there seems to be too much focus around Stalin and not enough history of the outside forces - such as the effects of famine during the 1930's.
Nevertheless we are left with the portrait of a ruthless individual who amassed power for its' own sake. Stalin accrued very little personal wealth during his reign - for example he only wore good clothes during his World War II meetings when the Allied powers came to visit.
It is also interesting to note that it is only during World War II that Stalin had any prolonged and direct contact with the outside world. At the end of the war Stalin effectively shut the door on the West - he met with the leaders of China and his East European satellites, but this was more like the bully dealing with his victims in the schoolyard.
Service does give Stalin credit for pushing the Soviet Union into the twentieth century - industrially and educationally. Without this the Soviet Union would not have been able to cope with the German onslaught in 1941.
But there was a heavy price to pay for all this - the Soviet Union was cut-off culturally from the rest of mankind and its' ideological dogmatic path collapsed in the 1990's. It was Stalin that led his country into this one-way street from which it was never able to veer away from and adjust to a different lifestyle.
A very readable biography of Stalin that describes his entire life, from his beginnings in Georgia to the top of the Soviet Union. His relationship to Lenin and other members of the Bolshevik clique and his rise to power are all chronicled.
There is a letter from Tito to Stalin that was found in Stalin's desk drawer shortly after he died. Tito, in this letter, is out-dueling Stalin in threatening assassination attempts. It encapsulates the gangster tactics of the entire communist regime.
Service points out that there were no innocents in the rise to power after the October revolution. Stalin learnt well from his teacher Lenin; bolshevism may have been based on the books of Marx and Engels, but its practice was raw power and Stalin wielded this for over thirty years.
Sometimes in this work there seems to be too much focus around Stalin and not enough history of the outside forces - such as the effects of famine during the 1930's.
Nevertheless we are left with the portrait of a ruthless individual who amassed power for its' own sake. Stalin accrued very little personal wealth during his reign - for example he only wore good clothes during his World War II meetings when the Allied powers came to visit.
It is also interesting to note that it is only during World War II that Stalin had any prolonged and direct contact with the outside world. At the end of the war Stalin effectively shut the door on the West - he met with the leaders of China and his East European satellites, but this was more like the bully dealing with his victims in the schoolyard.
Service does give Stalin credit for pushing the Soviet Union into the twentieth century - industrially and educationally. Without this the Soviet Union would not have been able to cope with the German onslaught in 1941.
But there was a heavy price to pay for all this - the Soviet Union was cut-off culturally from the rest of mankind and its' ideological dogmatic path collapsed in the 1990's. It was Stalin that led his country into this one-way street from which it was never able to veer away from and adjust to a different lifestyle.
May 20, 2015
In reading this book I was undoubtedly punching above my weight. Much of it – mostly the political shiftings and chicanery described - went over my head. I also found the book fairly unstructured. This was probably because of my ignorance of the historical events of the period. No matter - time and time again I went to blesséd Wikipedia for overviews, and got a better grip on what I was reading.
For me, the more I read the book the more interesting it became. I was particularly fascinated to learn more about Communism, the industrialization that was introduced with it, and the soaring educational standards. Also the terrible stresses of the collectivisation of farms. Plus I hadn’t begun to appreciate the ubiquitous nature of the Great Terror and its horrendous persecutions – the book certainly set that straight. Service’s description of the Second World War, and the part the Soviet Union played in it was also incredibly fascinating. I also obviously learnt tons about Stalin himself – the good the bad and the ugly. He had the bad and the ugly in spadefuls, but he was also intelligent, determined, well read, brave, and a good escape-artist (he was always being taken prisoner when young and escaping.) None of that stops him from being one of history’s most vile and bloody despots. He - personally - controlled the Soviet Union to a degree that was quite unbelievable.
All in all I probably gleaned about two thirds from this book compared to someone better suited to reading it. But it was a good two thirds. I've read a couple of other books about Russia in recent months, and it was great to have so much more fall into place.
For me, the more I read the book the more interesting it became. I was particularly fascinated to learn more about Communism, the industrialization that was introduced with it, and the soaring educational standards. Also the terrible stresses of the collectivisation of farms. Plus I hadn’t begun to appreciate the ubiquitous nature of the Great Terror and its horrendous persecutions – the book certainly set that straight. Service’s description of the Second World War, and the part the Soviet Union played in it was also incredibly fascinating. I also obviously learnt tons about Stalin himself – the good the bad and the ugly. He had the bad and the ugly in spadefuls, but he was also intelligent, determined, well read, brave, and a good escape-artist (he was always being taken prisoner when young and escaping.) None of that stops him from being one of history’s most vile and bloody despots. He - personally - controlled the Soviet Union to a degree that was quite unbelievable.
All in all I probably gleaned about two thirds from this book compared to someone better suited to reading it. But it was a good two thirds. I've read a couple of other books about Russia in recent months, and it was great to have so much more fall into place.
August 30, 2014
This is a very well researched book. Robert Service makes the disconcerting decision to draw a balanced portrait of Stalin rather than simply demonizing him.
Stalin was a poet, a charmer, a politician, a bad father and a mean drunk. He proved to be a masterful negotiator with foreign powers and a highly skilled builder of political alliances. He had an intelligent view of Russia's ethnic minorities which allowed him to build a moderately successful union of communist states.
In Service's view, there was nothing strange or unusual about Stalin's paranoia. Rather the revolutionary experience itself creates paranoid leaders. All the great communist leaders (Trotsky, Tito, Lenin, Pol Pot and Stalin amongst others) spent time in jail after having been betrayed by comrades. Thus when came to power they trusted no one. If harvests or economic plans failed they attributed it to conspiracies. Hence retribution always came fast in the communist world. Executions were often chosen rather than rehabilitation. Service believes that had Lenin lived longer or had Trotsky been in power, there still would have been a Great Terror and a Holocaust in the Ukraine. All communist leaders, Service argues, are cut from the same cloth.
Despite the fact that Service presents a compelling interpretation, the great merit of this biography is the care and detail presented for every chapter of Stalin's life. Stalin may have done some horrible things but he certainly thought out every decision carefully and always waited for the opportune moment to act.
Stalin was a poet, a charmer, a politician, a bad father and a mean drunk. He proved to be a masterful negotiator with foreign powers and a highly skilled builder of political alliances. He had an intelligent view of Russia's ethnic minorities which allowed him to build a moderately successful union of communist states.
In Service's view, there was nothing strange or unusual about Stalin's paranoia. Rather the revolutionary experience itself creates paranoid leaders. All the great communist leaders (Trotsky, Tito, Lenin, Pol Pot and Stalin amongst others) spent time in jail after having been betrayed by comrades. Thus when came to power they trusted no one. If harvests or economic plans failed they attributed it to conspiracies. Hence retribution always came fast in the communist world. Executions were often chosen rather than rehabilitation. Service believes that had Lenin lived longer or had Trotsky been in power, there still would have been a Great Terror and a Holocaust in the Ukraine. All communist leaders, Service argues, are cut from the same cloth.
Despite the fact that Service presents a compelling interpretation, the great merit of this biography is the care and detail presented for every chapter of Stalin's life. Stalin may have done some horrible things but he certainly thought out every decision carefully and always waited for the opportune moment to act.
May 5, 2011
I just finished Robert Service's biographies of both Lenin and Stalin. His are probably the definitive biographies in that he is the only person to have written with access to Soviet records available since the demise of the USSR. It's interesting to compare both figures.
Both were cruel and dictatorial. While Lenin had no problem ordering people to be shot or sent to the Gulag, his demeanor was more hard hearted and apathetic to his victims. Whereas Stalin actually seemed to enjoy his persecutions.
While other members of Lenin's family helped with the relief efforts during a late 19th century famine, Lenin did not, thinking it was all sentimentality. Lenin came from a strong middle class family with liberal values. Stalin came from a lower class Georgian family and his outlook on life was first shaped by the beatings he got from his father.
While Lenin helped setup the institutions that Stalin would later exploit to create his own despotism, it is interesting to note their differences. Lenin didn't like to be contradicted and had a bombastic style, yet he did not always get his way and tolerated dissent and debate at least within the Bolshevik party. Stalin only encouraged debate so as to fish out people's true opinions, then those on the losing side of the argument were often shot, purged, or sent to a labor camp. Lenin may have been responsible for the death of thousands, Stalin was responsible for the death of millions.
Stalin's death was very revealing. His aides and cohorts were so terrified of him that when he went to bed one evening in 1953 and wasn't heard from the next morning, no one dared wake him for fear of contradicting his orders. When finally he was found suffering from what appeared to be a stroke hours before, they still debated whether they should call a doctor again in fear of taking an action not approved by Stalin (though he couldn't speak to give an order). And when finally a doctor was called, it was hard to find a good one as Stalin had just purged the best doctors earlier that year. They had to consult doctor who were sitting in prison. You have to believe too that his inner circle also stalled in getting help so as to increase the chances that Stalin would die, which he did. They lived in a fear that if could even regain his voice, he would issue an order for some or all of them to be shot. His death led to a great thaw under Khrushchev.
Both were intellectuals, but Stalin was not an original thinker. While Stalin is truly one of the most horrific figures in history, Lenin shares some of the blame for the anti-democratic, anti-humanist direction of socialism in the 20th century.
Both were cruel and dictatorial. While Lenin had no problem ordering people to be shot or sent to the Gulag, his demeanor was more hard hearted and apathetic to his victims. Whereas Stalin actually seemed to enjoy his persecutions.
While other members of Lenin's family helped with the relief efforts during a late 19th century famine, Lenin did not, thinking it was all sentimentality. Lenin came from a strong middle class family with liberal values. Stalin came from a lower class Georgian family and his outlook on life was first shaped by the beatings he got from his father.
While Lenin helped setup the institutions that Stalin would later exploit to create his own despotism, it is interesting to note their differences. Lenin didn't like to be contradicted and had a bombastic style, yet he did not always get his way and tolerated dissent and debate at least within the Bolshevik party. Stalin only encouraged debate so as to fish out people's true opinions, then those on the losing side of the argument were often shot, purged, or sent to a labor camp. Lenin may have been responsible for the death of thousands, Stalin was responsible for the death of millions.
Stalin's death was very revealing. His aides and cohorts were so terrified of him that when he went to bed one evening in 1953 and wasn't heard from the next morning, no one dared wake him for fear of contradicting his orders. When finally he was found suffering from what appeared to be a stroke hours before, they still debated whether they should call a doctor again in fear of taking an action not approved by Stalin (though he couldn't speak to give an order). And when finally a doctor was called, it was hard to find a good one as Stalin had just purged the best doctors earlier that year. They had to consult doctor who were sitting in prison. You have to believe too that his inner circle also stalled in getting help so as to increase the chances that Stalin would die, which he did. They lived in a fear that if could even regain his voice, he would issue an order for some or all of them to be shot. His death led to a great thaw under Khrushchev.
Both were intellectuals, but Stalin was not an original thinker. While Stalin is truly one of the most horrific figures in history, Lenin shares some of the blame for the anti-democratic, anti-humanist direction of socialism in the 20th century.
May 6, 2015
Probably the best of the three Service books about the Russian Communist leaders, but still very weak. Poorly written, both stylistically and logically - there are places where reference is made to something that hasn't been described yet as if it has, and occasionally where it isn't at all. Neither chronologically nor thematically coherent. And, of course, the author feels a need to remind us every seven seconds that Stalin is super-evil, presumably to counteract the weirdly fawning attitude he takes to him at points.
December 21, 2013
Rather dry assessment of the Soviet dictator. Service's research is formidable and he provides some interesting perspectives on Stalin. He shows that Stalin was less power-hungry pragmatist than ideologue with his own ideas on Marxism. Stalin's model of state socialism wasn't any less intellectually sound than Trotsky's airy proposition of "Permanent Revolution" - Stalin just lacked Trotsky's arrogance. Nonetheless, no reader will come away from this book thinking Stalin any less of a monster: his purges, monstrous personality and consolidation of absolute power dominate the narrative. The main difficulty is Service's writing style, clipped yet cluttered (no paragraph needs to take up half a page if every sentence is three words long). An aesthetic criticism sure, but some of us like to enjoy reading history along with learning from it.
March 31, 2013
Boy, am I glad this book is behind me! That comment has nothing to do with the quality of writing or the strength of the narrative. It has everything to do with the character of Joseph Stalin, a man completely devoid of any thought that human life had value. Spending much time with any truly evil person, be it Hitler, Stalin or Mao is a depressing experience.
The author opens the book strongly, going through Stalin's childhood and youth in as much detail as is available. We learn that he was already an aggressive bully in childhood with a warped sense of right and wrong (he was right, everyone else was wrong). He developed into a personality perfectly suited for the dogmatic ideology of communism, eliminating what little nuance Marx and Lenin had permitted and confirming his version of the philosophy as the only possible path for the Soviet Union. You add extreme paranoia to his complete disregard for human life and give him the power to rule on the basis of an inviolable dogma and it's not surprising that millions would die either through his direct order or through the effects of his all-or-nothing approach to policy.
Mr. Service does a yeoman's job educating us on the silly philosophical debates over Marxism that dominated Soviet thinking and the stunning lack of original thought that accompanied the debates that took place in the early years of the Soviet Union. Of course, all debate eventually ended as the result of The Great Terror, leaving a society not much different than the one described in Orwell's 1984.
If you want to know about Stalin, this is an excellent source; then again, you have to ask yourself, "Do I really want to know about Stalin?"
The author opens the book strongly, going through Stalin's childhood and youth in as much detail as is available. We learn that he was already an aggressive bully in childhood with a warped sense of right and wrong (he was right, everyone else was wrong). He developed into a personality perfectly suited for the dogmatic ideology of communism, eliminating what little nuance Marx and Lenin had permitted and confirming his version of the philosophy as the only possible path for the Soviet Union. You add extreme paranoia to his complete disregard for human life and give him the power to rule on the basis of an inviolable dogma and it's not surprising that millions would die either through his direct order or through the effects of his all-or-nothing approach to policy.
Mr. Service does a yeoman's job educating us on the silly philosophical debates over Marxism that dominated Soviet thinking and the stunning lack of original thought that accompanied the debates that took place in the early years of the Soviet Union. Of course, all debate eventually ended as the result of The Great Terror, leaving a society not much different than the one described in Orwell's 1984.
If you want to know about Stalin, this is an excellent source; then again, you have to ask yourself, "Do I really want to know about Stalin?"
November 1, 2014
Allegedly written using new and previously unused material, despite the fact that a look at the notes shows almost 80 percent secondary sources. The chapter titled "the big three" was particularly poor in this respect, as it relied almost entirely on Churchill's memoirs which if I am not mistaken were written after both Roosevelt and Stalin were dead, thus making it a suspect source of information by itself. The book is a biography NOT a general history of Soviet Russia, and must be treated as such, however I would have liked more detail regarding the second world war which seemed very briefly dealt with.
The book goes into great detail when it comes to his youth and his earlier involvement with the Lenin's ilk. Service does away with the myth that Stalin was the unremarkable dullard and bureaucrat who's ascension could not have been predicted.
Stalin was an intellectual, despite having very few original ideas of his own, and although not feared for suspicions of "Bonepartism" as Trotsky was, it would be wrong to suggest the Great Terror and other incidents of moments of brutal repression could not have been predicted in those early stages. Stalin was ruthless from the beginning. Stalin's leadership style is also put into a new perspective. Whereas Ian Kershaw characterises Hitler as a Weberian "charismatic authority" figure in contrast with Stalin's "bureaucratic authority"; Service's analysis of Stalin makes him appear far closer to Hitler as is often imagined. This characterisation is more in line with the sociologist Ivan Szelenyi.
It is the best Stalin biography I have read so far, even if it could have been a lot longer in places.
The book goes into great detail when it comes to his youth and his earlier involvement with the Lenin's ilk. Service does away with the myth that Stalin was the unremarkable dullard and bureaucrat who's ascension could not have been predicted.
Stalin was an intellectual, despite having very few original ideas of his own, and although not feared for suspicions of "Bonepartism" as Trotsky was, it would be wrong to suggest the Great Terror and other incidents of moments of brutal repression could not have been predicted in those early stages. Stalin was ruthless from the beginning. Stalin's leadership style is also put into a new perspective. Whereas Ian Kershaw characterises Hitler as a Weberian "charismatic authority" figure in contrast with Stalin's "bureaucratic authority"; Service's analysis of Stalin makes him appear far closer to Hitler as is often imagined. This characterisation is more in line with the sociologist Ivan Szelenyi.
It is the best Stalin biography I have read so far, even if it could have been a lot longer in places.
June 28, 2022
Have been reading on Russia for the past few weeks. This book on Stalin is a masterpiece.
Robert Service one of the few historians who exclusively researches on Russia has written this comprehensive biography.
Stalin was a very complex individual. He was a monster and one of the three individuals responsible for maximum number of deaths in the world. The others being Mao and Hitler.
Tour de force and a must read.
Robert Service one of the few historians who exclusively researches on Russia has written this comprehensive biography.
Stalin was a very complex individual. He was a monster and one of the three individuals responsible for maximum number of deaths in the world. The others being Mao and Hitler.
Tour de force and a must read.
January 30, 2021
Stalin: A Biography, written by Robert Service, is a book telling the story of how the uneducated political administrator transformed into a pathological killer, with few details excluded. Service did an amazing job of telling the younger life of the future leading of the USSR, from his life in Georgia, his drunk dad, to his active political service. Stalin wasn’t just a man who strove for unprecedented change, but a man who was fascinated by ideas and an extensive reader of the Marxist writings. Service shows the turmoil in Oct 1917 that led him to rule over Russia in WW2, as well as contributing to the fall of Hitler. Not overshadowing the poverty, famine, and purges Stalin created through his dictatorship, until he died of a stroke, leaving behind the nation to Khrushchev and Gorbachev, who found his evil legacy was hard to scrub off the face of Russia. I believe Service did an amazing job bringing the past of this evil man in great detail, so we are able to see the destruction of change Stalin left behind, as well as eye witness testimonies to back it up. However, sometimes the writing can be a little dull, but I think this is a great book to start out with on the life of Stalin. Overall, I would say anyone interesting in Stalin's life or Russia's history would find this book a great read, and I would give it 4/5 stars.
October 10, 2011
I struggled with the writing style in places (the writing is kind of odd, somehow choppy. It's almost like it had been translated from another language, which as far as I can tell it hasn't) and got annoyed with the author in other places ('Was Stalin an anti-Semite? Definitely no. Well, kind of. A little bit. Yes.') but I wanted to know the information in it, so I read it. If you want to know about Stalin, this is a great book to read, but the experience of reading it may not be great. I can't compare with other works on Stalin since I haven't read them yet, but I'm planning on getting to Simon Sebag Montefiore eventually.
June 30, 2020
What is it About?
Unsurprising it is about Joseph Stalin, which is probably the least helpful start to a review ever! This biography is of the whole of Stalin’s life from birth in Gori in December 1878, his real birth date, not the one he told everyone until he died in 1953. A man who makes up his own birth date is one who wants to control everything about his life irrespective of facts. Service attempts to get beneath the official Stalin and get to the real person, in this, he very much succeeds. He is helped by the newly released archive materials that reveal much of Stalin and his time from official and personal correspondence from himself and those around him.
What You Need to Know
If you have little knowledge of Stalin this is a good starting place. Those that have some knowledge be prepared to be surprised; this book will dispel many myths. Don’t get me wrong, he was a monster, however not the intellectually limited, grey, administrator that was the perceived wisdom until recently. Previous accounts were either supplied by the Soviet state or from his enemies, such as Trotsky, who were outside of the state. Neither of which are without their agendas. With the opening of the Soviet archives, Service and others, have been able to research the real Stalin from his own and contemporaries letters, memos, meeting minutes, notes in margins of reports, and personal diaries not seen before.
One other thing you need to be aware of is Russian names! They are a pain! Anyone who has touched on any Russian literature will know that an individual can have five or more legitimate different names. Add to this the habit of the revolutionaries of using nicknames and the fact that, to western ears, the names are so alien and you have a recipe for confusion. For example, Stalin is not his real name Joseph Djugashvili, his real name, was also commonly known as Koba and Soso. Each of the characters you will come across will have similar confusions. Add that to the fact I had difficulty separating names of locations and organisations from real names and you can see the problem. Be prepared to bookmark the glossary, have Wikipedia open by your side, or just go with the flow accepting that you may have to go back and re-read sections.
Is it Worth a Read?
For the reasons above this book will take some investment but, as an overview of Stalin, his life and impact it is a good read. It also pretty much fair to the Soviet regime. What I mean by that is that reading books about the Soviet Union one has to be aware of the political stance of the writer. Some of the on the left are rather forgiving and apologists for what Stalin did, some on the right are rather disparaging about the achievements of the Soviet regime and those things that Stalin achieved as well as downplaying some of the more sinister Western reactions to revolutionary Russia. Full disclosure; I am left of centre in my politics so when I say Service is fair maybe he leans slightly to the left.
In summary good book to read and well worth it as an introduction to one of the key figures in the 20th Century
Unsurprising it is about Joseph Stalin, which is probably the least helpful start to a review ever! This biography is of the whole of Stalin’s life from birth in Gori in December 1878, his real birth date, not the one he told everyone until he died in 1953. A man who makes up his own birth date is one who wants to control everything about his life irrespective of facts. Service attempts to get beneath the official Stalin and get to the real person, in this, he very much succeeds. He is helped by the newly released archive materials that reveal much of Stalin and his time from official and personal correspondence from himself and those around him.
What You Need to Know
If you have little knowledge of Stalin this is a good starting place. Those that have some knowledge be prepared to be surprised; this book will dispel many myths. Don’t get me wrong, he was a monster, however not the intellectually limited, grey, administrator that was the perceived wisdom until recently. Previous accounts were either supplied by the Soviet state or from his enemies, such as Trotsky, who were outside of the state. Neither of which are without their agendas. With the opening of the Soviet archives, Service and others, have been able to research the real Stalin from his own and contemporaries letters, memos, meeting minutes, notes in margins of reports, and personal diaries not seen before.
One other thing you need to be aware of is Russian names! They are a pain! Anyone who has touched on any Russian literature will know that an individual can have five or more legitimate different names. Add to this the habit of the revolutionaries of using nicknames and the fact that, to western ears, the names are so alien and you have a recipe for confusion. For example, Stalin is not his real name Joseph Djugashvili, his real name, was also commonly known as Koba and Soso. Each of the characters you will come across will have similar confusions. Add that to the fact I had difficulty separating names of locations and organisations from real names and you can see the problem. Be prepared to bookmark the glossary, have Wikipedia open by your side, or just go with the flow accepting that you may have to go back and re-read sections.
Is it Worth a Read?
For the reasons above this book will take some investment but, as an overview of Stalin, his life and impact it is a good read. It also pretty much fair to the Soviet regime. What I mean by that is that reading books about the Soviet Union one has to be aware of the political stance of the writer. Some of the on the left are rather forgiving and apologists for what Stalin did, some on the right are rather disparaging about the achievements of the Soviet regime and those things that Stalin achieved as well as downplaying some of the more sinister Western reactions to revolutionary Russia. Full disclosure; I am left of centre in my politics so when I say Service is fair maybe he leans slightly to the left.
In summary good book to read and well worth it as an introduction to one of the key figures in the 20th Century
January 26, 2020
For someone who needed an introduction to 20th century Russian history through one of its key figures, it was a good book. The short chapters often read more like individual articles and feature a lot of repetition, which was quite annoying, however. There’s little in record about the man himself - and for the most part a sense of who he was eludes the reader. But he writes a good unbiased account and appears to put forward some fresh historical interpretations where holes exist.
I wouldn’t recommend to someone knowledgeable about the period - but to beginners or experts probably worth a read.
I wouldn’t recommend to someone knowledgeable about the period - but to beginners or experts probably worth a read.
September 22, 2018
3 stars.
Read for my Soviet Union history class, not going to review.
Read for my Soviet Union history class, not going to review.
August 7, 2021
Firm but fair.
February 23, 2023
really interesting but so difficult to read. probably the longest it’s ever taken me to finish a book
July 23, 2025
Sadly it does not have his moustache routine.
October 5, 2022
This was my third book
January 11, 2026
There are books one reads to learn facts, and books one reads to confirm what one already fears. Robert Service’s ‘Stalin’ belongs to a third category: books that strip away even the last refuge of intellectual neutrality.
You cannot finish this biography and still pretend that Stalinism was a “distortion” of Marxism rather than its logical flowering under conditions of absolute power. Service does not write polemics; he does something far more damning. He documents.
This matters because Stalin has long enjoyed a peculiar afterlife. Unlike Hitler—who is rightly placed beyond the pale—Stalin remains, in some circles, a misunderstood “moderniser,” a ruthless but necessary helmsman.
Service’s great achievement is to make this position morally and intellectually untenable without ever raising his voice. He allows Stalin to condemn himself through action, pattern, and repetition.
What emerges is not merely a tyrant, but a ‘system given flesh’. And it is here that the book transcends biography and enters the realm of tragic literature.
One of Service’s quiet strengths is his refusal to mythologise Stalin. There is no demonic grandeur here. Stalin is not Macbeth haunted by visions, nor Richard III gleefully confessing villainy to the audience. He is worse: a functionary of resentment, a small man armed with a total theory.
Shakespeare understood tyranny as a moral collapse preceded by metaphysical rupture. Macbeth’s first crime splits the cosmos: horses eat each other; night swallows day. Stalin’s crimes, by contrast, are bureaucratic. Lists. Quotas. Arrest figures initialled in blue pencil. This is not the thunder of tragedy but the grinding of machinery.
And yet, the Shakespearean parallel remains instructive. Stalin resembles ‘Claudius’ more than Macbeth: a usurper who survives by vigilance, paranoia, and the management of appearances. Service shows how Stalin’s genius—if one must use the word—lay in reading men’s weaknesses. He did not inspire loyalty; he engineered dependency. Like Iago, he understood that power lies not in command but in the manipulation of narrative.
Service is devastating on Marxism’s role not as a cause in some abstract sense, but as a ‘moral alibi.’ Stalin believed, or persuaded himself he believed, that history absolved him in advance. The future had already acquitted him.
This is one of Marxism’s most dangerous gifts to power: the idea that present suffering is justified by historical inevitability.
Here the contrast with the ‘‘Vedas’’ is stark. The Vedic worldview, for all its ritualism and hierarchy, is deeply suspicious of ‘ends justifying means.’ Dharma is not outcome-based; it is action-based. One does not slaughter innocents because the future demands it. One acts rightly because right action is the structure of the cosmos itself.
Stalinism inverts this. It annihilates dharma. Millions are starved, shot, and exiled—not as tragedies, but as necessary steps in an equation. Service’s Stalin does not merely kill people; he kills ‘moral causality’. The Gulag is not a deviation; it is Marxism stripped of metaphysical restraint.
If there is a single ancient text that exposes Stalinism’s spiritual poverty, it is the ‘‘Mahabharata.’’ That epic is obsessed not with victory but with cost. Even a righteous war stains the victor. Yudhishthira’s triumph leaves him hollow. Ashwatthama’s punishment is eternal wandering, not execution—because some crimes cannot be balanced by death.
Stalin knows no such hesitation. Service documents how collectivisation proceeds despite famine, despite mass death, despite warnings. The Ukrainian peasantry becomes expendable not because they resist violently, but because they exist outside the ideological abstraction of “the proletariat.”
In the Mahabharata, Krishna intervenes continually to remind warriors that power without wisdom is destruction. Stalin has no Krishna. Or rather, he replaces Krishna with Marx, Lenin, and finally himself. The result is Kurukshetra without conscience.
Some admirers of Stalin speak admiringly of his strategic mind. Service does not deny Stalin’s tactical cunning, but he reveals its cost. Stalin applies something like Sun Tzu’s principles—deception, patience, control of information—but strips them of their ethical frame.
Sun Tzu warns that prolonged war exhausts the state. Stalin wages permanent war against his own people. Sun Tzu advises knowing oneself and one’s enemy. Stalin knows only enemies; eventually, the category consumes everyone.
In ‘The Art of War’, the highest victory is that which requires no battle. Stalin’s victories require endless purges. Service’s narrative makes clear that Stalin’s paranoia was not accidental; it was self-sustaining. Terror was not a tool—it was a worldview.
Perhaps the most unsettling portrait Service draws is Stalin as a man of profound intellectual insecurity. He is not a thinker; he is a compiler. He mistrusts brilliance, despises originality, and surrounds himself with lesser men who mistake obedience for virtue.
This is where Stalinism becomes truly anti-human. It does not merely suppress dissent; it exterminates excellence. Poets, engineers, generals, economists—anyone who threatens the Leader’s monopoly on interpretation is eliminated. Culture becomes embalmed.
Contrast this with Shakespeare’s tyrants, who at least fear greatness. Or with the Vedic seers, who understand that knowledge is dangerous precisely because it is transformative. Stalin fears transformation. He wants stasis disguised as progress.
Service is sometimes criticised for lacking the literary flourish of a Montefiore or the narrative drive of a Beevor. I find this criticism misguided. ‘Stalin’ is powerful precisely because it refuses seduction. The prose is controlled, methodical, and relentless. Like a prosecutor who knows theatrics would insult the dead.
What Service achieves is something rare: he restores proportion. Stalin is not a misunderstood revolutionary. He is one of history’s great moral catastrophes. And Marxism is not an innocent philosophy corrupted by circumstance; it is a doctrine uniquely vulnerable to capture by men who believe history owes them obedience.
Stalinism survives not in gulags but in excuses. In the willingness to forgive mass death if it wears the costume of justice. In the belief that cruelty becomes virtue when aligned with theory. Service’s biography is an antidote to that disease.
Reading it alongside Shakespeare reminds us that tyranny is a moral drama, not merely a political system. Reading it against the Mahabharata reminds us that power without self-knowledge is annihilation. Reading it against the Vedas reminds us that no future redeems a crime committed in the present. Reading it against Sun Tzu reminds us that strategy without restraint devours its maker.
If you share my hatred of Stalinism and Marxism not as ideology alone, but as a ‘crime against moral imagination’, Service’s ‘Stalin’ does not ask you to feel outrage; it assumes you will, once the facts are allowed to speak.
And when they finish speaking, silence feels like complicity.
If it were up to me, I would place this book in the hands of every leftist I can find.
You cannot finish this biography and still pretend that Stalinism was a “distortion” of Marxism rather than its logical flowering under conditions of absolute power. Service does not write polemics; he does something far more damning. He documents.
This matters because Stalin has long enjoyed a peculiar afterlife. Unlike Hitler—who is rightly placed beyond the pale—Stalin remains, in some circles, a misunderstood “moderniser,” a ruthless but necessary helmsman.
Service’s great achievement is to make this position morally and intellectually untenable without ever raising his voice. He allows Stalin to condemn himself through action, pattern, and repetition.
What emerges is not merely a tyrant, but a ‘system given flesh’. And it is here that the book transcends biography and enters the realm of tragic literature.
One of Service’s quiet strengths is his refusal to mythologise Stalin. There is no demonic grandeur here. Stalin is not Macbeth haunted by visions, nor Richard III gleefully confessing villainy to the audience. He is worse: a functionary of resentment, a small man armed with a total theory.
Shakespeare understood tyranny as a moral collapse preceded by metaphysical rupture. Macbeth’s first crime splits the cosmos: horses eat each other; night swallows day. Stalin’s crimes, by contrast, are bureaucratic. Lists. Quotas. Arrest figures initialled in blue pencil. This is not the thunder of tragedy but the grinding of machinery.
And yet, the Shakespearean parallel remains instructive. Stalin resembles ‘Claudius’ more than Macbeth: a usurper who survives by vigilance, paranoia, and the management of appearances. Service shows how Stalin’s genius—if one must use the word—lay in reading men’s weaknesses. He did not inspire loyalty; he engineered dependency. Like Iago, he understood that power lies not in command but in the manipulation of narrative.
Service is devastating on Marxism’s role not as a cause in some abstract sense, but as a ‘moral alibi.’ Stalin believed, or persuaded himself he believed, that history absolved him in advance. The future had already acquitted him.
This is one of Marxism’s most dangerous gifts to power: the idea that present suffering is justified by historical inevitability.
Here the contrast with the ‘‘Vedas’’ is stark. The Vedic worldview, for all its ritualism and hierarchy, is deeply suspicious of ‘ends justifying means.’ Dharma is not outcome-based; it is action-based. One does not slaughter innocents because the future demands it. One acts rightly because right action is the structure of the cosmos itself.
Stalinism inverts this. It annihilates dharma. Millions are starved, shot, and exiled—not as tragedies, but as necessary steps in an equation. Service’s Stalin does not merely kill people; he kills ‘moral causality’. The Gulag is not a deviation; it is Marxism stripped of metaphysical restraint.
If there is a single ancient text that exposes Stalinism’s spiritual poverty, it is the ‘‘Mahabharata.’’ That epic is obsessed not with victory but with cost. Even a righteous war stains the victor. Yudhishthira’s triumph leaves him hollow. Ashwatthama’s punishment is eternal wandering, not execution—because some crimes cannot be balanced by death.
Stalin knows no such hesitation. Service documents how collectivisation proceeds despite famine, despite mass death, despite warnings. The Ukrainian peasantry becomes expendable not because they resist violently, but because they exist outside the ideological abstraction of “the proletariat.”
In the Mahabharata, Krishna intervenes continually to remind warriors that power without wisdom is destruction. Stalin has no Krishna. Or rather, he replaces Krishna with Marx, Lenin, and finally himself. The result is Kurukshetra without conscience.
Some admirers of Stalin speak admiringly of his strategic mind. Service does not deny Stalin’s tactical cunning, but he reveals its cost. Stalin applies something like Sun Tzu’s principles—deception, patience, control of information—but strips them of their ethical frame.
Sun Tzu warns that prolonged war exhausts the state. Stalin wages permanent war against his own people. Sun Tzu advises knowing oneself and one’s enemy. Stalin knows only enemies; eventually, the category consumes everyone.
In ‘The Art of War’, the highest victory is that which requires no battle. Stalin’s victories require endless purges. Service’s narrative makes clear that Stalin’s paranoia was not accidental; it was self-sustaining. Terror was not a tool—it was a worldview.
Perhaps the most unsettling portrait Service draws is Stalin as a man of profound intellectual insecurity. He is not a thinker; he is a compiler. He mistrusts brilliance, despises originality, and surrounds himself with lesser men who mistake obedience for virtue.
This is where Stalinism becomes truly anti-human. It does not merely suppress dissent; it exterminates excellence. Poets, engineers, generals, economists—anyone who threatens the Leader’s monopoly on interpretation is eliminated. Culture becomes embalmed.
Contrast this with Shakespeare’s tyrants, who at least fear greatness. Or with the Vedic seers, who understand that knowledge is dangerous precisely because it is transformative. Stalin fears transformation. He wants stasis disguised as progress.
Service is sometimes criticised for lacking the literary flourish of a Montefiore or the narrative drive of a Beevor. I find this criticism misguided. ‘Stalin’ is powerful precisely because it refuses seduction. The prose is controlled, methodical, and relentless. Like a prosecutor who knows theatrics would insult the dead.
What Service achieves is something rare: he restores proportion. Stalin is not a misunderstood revolutionary. He is one of history’s great moral catastrophes. And Marxism is not an innocent philosophy corrupted by circumstance; it is a doctrine uniquely vulnerable to capture by men who believe history owes them obedience.
Stalinism survives not in gulags but in excuses. In the willingness to forgive mass death if it wears the costume of justice. In the belief that cruelty becomes virtue when aligned with theory. Service’s biography is an antidote to that disease.
Reading it alongside Shakespeare reminds us that tyranny is a moral drama, not merely a political system. Reading it against the Mahabharata reminds us that power without self-knowledge is annihilation. Reading it against the Vedas reminds us that no future redeems a crime committed in the present. Reading it against Sun Tzu reminds us that strategy without restraint devours its maker.
If you share my hatred of Stalinism and Marxism not as ideology alone, but as a ‘crime against moral imagination’, Service’s ‘Stalin’ does not ask you to feel outrage; it assumes you will, once the facts are allowed to speak.
And when they finish speaking, silence feels like complicity.
If it were up to me, I would place this book in the hands of every leftist I can find.
March 13, 2020
I had already read Service's other two books on Lenin and Trotsky. While I found the other two great reads I have to disagree when it comes to this one. Service makes it very apparent that he dislikes Stalin and like I mentioned in my review of his Trotsky book, Service cannot help himself from putting in snide remarks. With Trotsky it is bearable, but with Stalin it felt like every page Service needed to tell us how bad Stalin while.
Listen I understand that Stalin is a controversial figure, and he did a lot of bad things which are unexcuseable, but whether you want to argue about it or not there was a lot of good he did for the USSR as well. Blashemy I know, but facts are facts, and he did industrialize the nation and to this day many Russians do not view him all that bad. Service admits this even sometimes in the book, but very begrudgingly.
Service though often makes some absurd remarks which really stretch the imagination. He says that Stalin admired Hitler of all things! While Service does try to reference and show evidence of it I found it rather hilarious, and a reminder of how much Service dislikes Stalin. I am sure if I look hard enough I can find Roosevelt or any other Ally leaders give some praise to Hitler in one shape or form. Just absolutely ridiculous. There were some other odd moments as well such as when Service seemed to imply that Stalin because he was from Georgia believed in witchcraft. It was just so odd, but if you have read this book you will understand what I mean.
There are other books that look at Stalin's life in a much more neutral tone. I finished the book and did get a wealth of information, but the presentation was just a complete mess.
Listen I understand that Stalin is a controversial figure, and he did a lot of bad things which are unexcuseable, but whether you want to argue about it or not there was a lot of good he did for the USSR as well. Blashemy I know, but facts are facts, and he did industrialize the nation and to this day many Russians do not view him all that bad. Service admits this even sometimes in the book, but very begrudgingly.
Service though often makes some absurd remarks which really stretch the imagination. He says that Stalin admired Hitler of all things! While Service does try to reference and show evidence of it I found it rather hilarious, and a reminder of how much Service dislikes Stalin. I am sure if I look hard enough I can find Roosevelt or any other Ally leaders give some praise to Hitler in one shape or form. Just absolutely ridiculous. There were some other odd moments as well such as when Service seemed to imply that Stalin because he was from Georgia believed in witchcraft. It was just so odd, but if you have read this book you will understand what I mean.
There are other books that look at Stalin's life in a much more neutral tone. I finished the book and did get a wealth of information, but the presentation was just a complete mess.
June 28, 2013
Service as always does a serviceable job in detailing the main events of the life of his subjects but as a biographer he is incredibly flawed. All of his biographies of the big three revolutionary figures go heavily into Service's own opinions about their worth. 'Stalin' is an odd one as it appears that Service actually seems to admire a great deal about one of history's greatest butchers. Service appears to suggest that minute details about Stalin are applicable in dissecting the whole. Service' main argument is that Stalin is not this unintelligent bungler Trotsky and (for the most part history) has made him out to be. I don't really see a compelling case as Service uses trivial bits in his analysis.
May 4, 2014
Service, um, services us best when balancing Stalin's horrific actions with his delicate human side -- like he says, Stalin was a murderer, but he was also a poet and theorist. This bio falls short of greatness when subjects worthy of essays or new books are stuffed into tiny paragraphs: "A rapprochement took place with Tito's Yugoslavia. Overtures were made to the USA for a lessening of international tensions. The Korean War was brought to a close." Etc. Detail is the heart of literature, and the best biographies have more of it.
March 19, 2024
I abandoned this tough read after a couple of hundred pages. Not the right pick for an introduction to the topic despite some really interesting snippets.
The writing requires too much assumed knowledge, lacks focus and frustratingly is overly detailed in some areas (while assuming too much pre reading in other areas).
I wish I had stopped when ingredients in traditional dishes were explored.
The Oleg Klevniuk biography suited me much better.
The writing requires too much assumed knowledge, lacks focus and frustratingly is overly detailed in some areas (while assuming too much pre reading in other areas).
I wish I had stopped when ingredients in traditional dishes were explored.
The Oleg Klevniuk biography suited me much better.
May 7, 2020
Definitely a comprehensive biography of Stalin; however, a lot of the political parts were just too hard for me to follow. I was more interested in him as a person, his life, his relationships & the parts that pertained to World War II were also very interesting.
January 10, 2021
Psicoanálisis barato. Intenta contenerse en un principio, pero la rabia y el odio que le suscita el personaje que biografía le impide analizar los hechos como es debido. No obstante, es de agradecer que Service utilice una amplia bibliografía.
September 9, 2014
The author is bias.
September 14, 2025
Nors parašyta gal kiek nuobodokai, bet įkvepė mane... Tapti geresniu rašytoju.
Kas gana juokinga, tiesa?
Kas gana juokinga, tiesa?
November 11, 2023
For various reasons, I feel like I've been reading this book forever. Which is probably how people who lived under Stalin's rule felt for much of the time: a long-running nightmare without an end.
Robert Service has in this book given us a sweeping overview of the life and politics of one of the most influential and bloody leaders of the Twentieth Century, shooting down some myths while confirming others. It is a monumental book that covers so many great events, over an era where developments in politics and science were huge - at Stalin's birth the car and 'plane had yet to be invented, and much of Eastern Europe lived under the rule of one or other emperor. By the time of his death world influence was shared between the USSR and the USA, there were no empires left, and jet 'planes could fly halfway around the world to deliver nuclear weapons.
The most interesting part of the book for me was the description of Stalin's early years. Growing up in Georgia with a brutal father had a huge effect on the character of Stalin. He inherited the cultural tradition to hold a grudge, and to see conspiracy in everything - his reaction was in most cases to destroy those who (in reality or only in his mind) were against him. These tendencies were reinforced during his early activities as a revolutionary. While some of these characteristics were kept in check during his earlier years in Communism, as his power grew so did his paranoia, and his ability to act on it.
Service shows us that the myth that Stalin was not a major player in the Revolution or the years immediately following is incorrect. Stalin was a doer that did a lot, and was actually indispensable to Lenin as he tried to implement Bolshevik power. He was a forceful organizer, but uncaring of the casualties that he left in the wake of his activities. While the Civil War years were brutal, once Stalin took over the reigns of leadership the brutality increased. Stalin's paranoia led him to try to wipe out people, classes and nationalities that he perceived to be against his plan to bring about communism in one country.
While the Soviet Union was a country of bureaucracy, Stalin was the undisputed ruler, and whatever he thought was law. He would let his underlings debate policy, to draw out their thoughts, and then pronounce his view: this led quite often to policy paralysis, as people were afraid to state opinions when the consequences of being on the wrong side of the argument was the Gulag or a bullet in the back of the neck. The result of this sort of rule were never more evident than at the time of his death, when his underlings were too scared to check on him when he didn't appear for his usual morning cup of tea.
Stalin's cruelty and ruthlessness was appalling - he ruled more like a medieval Russian Czar than a modern socialist. As he aged, he became less and less in contact with the real world, and only understood what was happening through his bureaucrats and their reports. Knowing the consequences of displeasing the great leader, Stalin only got to hear good news. The one major exception to this was the Russian general Zhukov, who on more than one occasion clashed with Stalin. Zhukov survived, but after the War he was very much pushed into the background.
It was the War that was the making of the USSR: their victory legitimized Stalin and his government, and made the country a huge industrial power, but ossified the structure of rule as Stalin aged and became if possible even more paranoid, led to Eastern Europe becoming vassals of the USSR, and the final purges and pogroms before Stalin's death.
Service has written a good workmanlike biography. If you don't know much Russian history you are well serviced (forgive the pun), and he has covered Stalin the man, Stalin the politician, Stalin the tyrant, and Stalin the legend. Well worth reading.
Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/
Robert Service has in this book given us a sweeping overview of the life and politics of one of the most influential and bloody leaders of the Twentieth Century, shooting down some myths while confirming others. It is a monumental book that covers so many great events, over an era where developments in politics and science were huge - at Stalin's birth the car and 'plane had yet to be invented, and much of Eastern Europe lived under the rule of one or other emperor. By the time of his death world influence was shared between the USSR and the USA, there were no empires left, and jet 'planes could fly halfway around the world to deliver nuclear weapons.
The most interesting part of the book for me was the description of Stalin's early years. Growing up in Georgia with a brutal father had a huge effect on the character of Stalin. He inherited the cultural tradition to hold a grudge, and to see conspiracy in everything - his reaction was in most cases to destroy those who (in reality or only in his mind) were against him. These tendencies were reinforced during his early activities as a revolutionary. While some of these characteristics were kept in check during his earlier years in Communism, as his power grew so did his paranoia, and his ability to act on it.
Service shows us that the myth that Stalin was not a major player in the Revolution or the years immediately following is incorrect. Stalin was a doer that did a lot, and was actually indispensable to Lenin as he tried to implement Bolshevik power. He was a forceful organizer, but uncaring of the casualties that he left in the wake of his activities. While the Civil War years were brutal, once Stalin took over the reigns of leadership the brutality increased. Stalin's paranoia led him to try to wipe out people, classes and nationalities that he perceived to be against his plan to bring about communism in one country.
While the Soviet Union was a country of bureaucracy, Stalin was the undisputed ruler, and whatever he thought was law. He would let his underlings debate policy, to draw out their thoughts, and then pronounce his view: this led quite often to policy paralysis, as people were afraid to state opinions when the consequences of being on the wrong side of the argument was the Gulag or a bullet in the back of the neck. The result of this sort of rule were never more evident than at the time of his death, when his underlings were too scared to check on him when he didn't appear for his usual morning cup of tea.
Stalin's cruelty and ruthlessness was appalling - he ruled more like a medieval Russian Czar than a modern socialist. As he aged, he became less and less in contact with the real world, and only understood what was happening through his bureaucrats and their reports. Knowing the consequences of displeasing the great leader, Stalin only got to hear good news. The one major exception to this was the Russian general Zhukov, who on more than one occasion clashed with Stalin. Zhukov survived, but after the War he was very much pushed into the background.
It was the War that was the making of the USSR: their victory legitimized Stalin and his government, and made the country a huge industrial power, but ossified the structure of rule as Stalin aged and became if possible even more paranoid, led to Eastern Europe becoming vassals of the USSR, and the final purges and pogroms before Stalin's death.
Service has written a good workmanlike biography. If you don't know much Russian history you are well serviced (forgive the pun), and he has covered Stalin the man, Stalin the politician, Stalin the tyrant, and Stalin the legend. Well worth reading.
Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/
September 16, 2019
A beautiful biography of Stalin, the book delves deep into his past from his childhood onwards to uncover the man behind the myths that have sprung up around him. The general picture of Stalin is that of a murderous dictator and statesman, who had to undertake hard measures to put his country on the path of development and defeat the Nazis. The author considers this to be a far too generous treatment of Stalin as a whole.
A man renowned for his brutality, Stalin’s policies were also highly destructive towards his country, which he ruled with ferocious repression. The undesirability of such a high degree of repression was recognised by EVERY single one of his colleagues at the top level but they were too frightened of him to do anything. At the same time, he was a extremely hardworking man who hated indolence, was frugal in his personal life, was a humorous and gracious guest who gifted thousands of rubles (Russian currency) to old friends who he had not seen in years, and also had many of his family members killed.
The book argues that the direction of Bolshevik policies had been set under Lenin’s rule. Many people like to put all blame on Stalin’s door and absolve Bolshevism of blame but the difference between Stalin and Lenin’s policies was of degree, not kind. Most measures that Stalin undertook, such as, liquidating whole social classes, murdering party colleagues, widespread official insensitivity towards the plight of peasants (the main victims of communism for it was on the foundation of their corpses that the country’s industrial and military edifice was wrought), were a hallmark under Lenin as well, though Stalin took them to a whole new murderous degree. It was especially fascinating to read about the ways through which Stalin maintained his grip on authority and his underlings, a bunch of highly ambitious individuals who lived in mortal dread of losing Stalin’s favour at any time, for it meant death.
Stalin was not made in a day. The book lovingly details the processes which shaped him into the man he became. The violence he suffered from his childhood at his father’s hand, the highly aggressive Georgian culture in which he grew up, the inflexibility of his Russian priest-teachers towards his native Georgian culture, the repeated tragedies he suffered through life, his own individual foibles and last, but not least, the Bolshevik Marxist ideology that he followed, all came together to create the murderous dictator that ruled over what came to be called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). The author also systematically explores in various chapters Stalin’s relationships, friendships, intellectual developments (especially on the question of nationalism), and the complex relationship between him and the populace at large. The book manages to give a smooth narrative flow to the chief developments, economically and politically, affecting the Soviet Union and the world at large which Stalin helped shape. A book people should read to understand that monsters are not a separate breed from us but are part and parcel of being human.
A man renowned for his brutality, Stalin’s policies were also highly destructive towards his country, which he ruled with ferocious repression. The undesirability of such a high degree of repression was recognised by EVERY single one of his colleagues at the top level but they were too frightened of him to do anything. At the same time, he was a extremely hardworking man who hated indolence, was frugal in his personal life, was a humorous and gracious guest who gifted thousands of rubles (Russian currency) to old friends who he had not seen in years, and also had many of his family members killed.
The book argues that the direction of Bolshevik policies had been set under Lenin’s rule. Many people like to put all blame on Stalin’s door and absolve Bolshevism of blame but the difference between Stalin and Lenin’s policies was of degree, not kind. Most measures that Stalin undertook, such as, liquidating whole social classes, murdering party colleagues, widespread official insensitivity towards the plight of peasants (the main victims of communism for it was on the foundation of their corpses that the country’s industrial and military edifice was wrought), were a hallmark under Lenin as well, though Stalin took them to a whole new murderous degree. It was especially fascinating to read about the ways through which Stalin maintained his grip on authority and his underlings, a bunch of highly ambitious individuals who lived in mortal dread of losing Stalin’s favour at any time, for it meant death.
Stalin was not made in a day. The book lovingly details the processes which shaped him into the man he became. The violence he suffered from his childhood at his father’s hand, the highly aggressive Georgian culture in which he grew up, the inflexibility of his Russian priest-teachers towards his native Georgian culture, the repeated tragedies he suffered through life, his own individual foibles and last, but not least, the Bolshevik Marxist ideology that he followed, all came together to create the murderous dictator that ruled over what came to be called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). The author also systematically explores in various chapters Stalin’s relationships, friendships, intellectual developments (especially on the question of nationalism), and the complex relationship between him and the populace at large. The book manages to give a smooth narrative flow to the chief developments, economically and politically, affecting the Soviet Union and the world at large which Stalin helped shape. A book people should read to understand that monsters are not a separate breed from us but are part and parcel of being human.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 120 reviews