8 ms·

Has anyone read Montefiore's Young Stalin and Court of the Red Tzar? Those books were an absolutely wild ride. Stalin really comes across as one of the more u

Has anyone read Montefiore's Young Stalin and Court of the Red Tzar? Those books were an absolutely wild ride. Stalin really comes across as one of the more unusual characters of history. No one in his native Georgia liked him, so they were happy to dish dirt on his youth and give the full story free of obvious glorification. I think the most unusual characteristics of his story was that everyone tried to control him. First, the priests at the seminary by disciplining him, then his father, who wanted him to be a shoe cobbler, then the czars by putting him in prison and exiling him, then his fellow party members by trying to out politic him, and absolutely nothing worked on him. The guy did not budge an inch from his mission or ever got discouraged no matter what happened. The guy, like a serial killer, was completely emotionally unmoved and undeterred by any obstacle or opinion of anyone. They put him in prison, he started taking control of the prison. They sent him to Siberia he came back and dove right back into revolution after always seeming to father an illegitimate child while in exile. He remembered everyone who he ever met and punished them or rewarded them later accordingly. He seemingly did everything for the sole purpose of global Marxist revolution and he got rid of anyone, or group of people or thing that got in his way. He wasn't even vulnerable to flattery. He was just dead set and committed to his goal of global marxist revolution and brutal vengeance against all his enemies who tried to keep him from achieving that.

simula67 8y ago
> I think the most unusual characteristics of his story was that everyone tried to control him. First, the priests at the seminary by disciplining him Priests tried to control him ? He entered the school voluntarily. They did not lock him up. He left of his own accord and priests encouraged him to return. I don't think that was 'trying to control him' > He seemingly did everything for the sole purpose of global Marxist revolution Stalin's policy was 'Socialism in one country'. Apart from some modest actions like supporting the Spanish communists in the Spanish Civil War etc, he did not work that hard to advance the Marxist revolution abroad.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chr1 8y ago
  > Stalin's policy was 'Socialism in one country' He started a war with Finland, signed a treaty with Germany to split Poland, helped communists in China and North Korea and set communist regimes in all countries that soviet Army freed from Germany. Also some historians think that Stalin had plans to start a war with Germany, but Germany started the war several days sooner (For instance Mark Solonin talks about this).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - simula67 8y ago
    Ah, I am wrong about this. Thanks for the correction
  - rangibaby 8y ago
    USSR was willing to go to war with Germany as early as 1938 but France didn’t want to, and Poland refused to allow Soviet movement thru their country.
- iguy 8y ago
  > Stalin's policy was 'Socialism in one country' Although he did annex quite a few of neighbours into that one country.
- robocat 8y ago
  > Apart from some modest actions like [Stalin] supporting the Spanish communists in the Spanish Civil War etc, he did not work that hard to advance the Marxist revolution abroad. Yet I recall that in ‘Homage to Catalonia’, George Orwell says that Stalin undermined the Marxist cause... Although it could be my bad memory, or Orwell's lack of understanding... Not that I know anything about Marxism!!!
  - dmos62 8y ago
    I'm a poor historian, but my understanding was that Lenin was the Marxism-oriented one, while Stalin, who murdered Lenin, by slowly poisoning him by putting heavy metals in his hat, highjacked the revolution and went on a mass-murderous power-grabbing rampage. Reading back the end of my last sentence, I'm obviously skewing this against Stalin, reducing his legacy to murder and egomania, but my main point is that he is seen by some (many?) to have highjacked the revolution.
    - iguy 8y ago
      And many see Lenin's October revolution as hijacking the February one for his own murderous egomania. But often this just this seems like a way of pretending there was some pure utopian vision which was unfortunately corrupted, every time. In reality total power is always total power. Independent enthusiasm was welcomed when it was minor and useful (like in western communist parties, or the recruiting of western volunteers for Spain) but crushed completely if it had any chance of getting in the way of naked power (like the pre-war Polish communists, almost all murdered).
      - microcolonel 8y ago
        > Independent enthusiasm was welcomed when it was minor and useful (like in western communist parties, or the recruiting of western volunteers for Spain) but crushed completely if it had any chance of getting in the way of naked power (like the pre-war Polish communists, almost all murdered). True believers are vulnerable because they are too stupid or too delusional to realize the weakness of their cookie cutter ideology. Invariably, true believers are converted to useful idiots if there is anyone who wants them (or sometimes upgraded to cynical tyrants).
- dmos62 8y ago
  Introduction to Wikipedia's article for "Socialism in one country" [0]: > Socialism in one country was a theory put forth by Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin in 1924 which was eventually adopted by the Soviet Union as state policy. The theory held that given the defeat of all the communist revolutions in Europe in 1917–1923 except Russia, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally. > This turn toward national communism was a shift from the previously held position by classical Marxism that socialism must be established globally. However, proponents of the theory argue that it contradicts neither world revolution nor world communism. The theory was in opposition to Leon Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    This makes perfect sense: you do away with nationalism, since in their view socialism knows no boundaries and should trump all. The same they say for Islamic Caliphates, you're an Algerian or Malian, you're a Muslim, obey the word of god and that trumps all.
pvg 8y ago
He seemingly did everything for the sole purpose of global Marxist revolution How did you arrive at that conclusion from either of these books? (I'm actually asking, not trying to take you to task for it).
arcturus17 8y ago
Yea I’ve read it - it’s one of the best books I’ve read in my life, period. Stalin comes across as a total sociopath - as you’d probably expect - but what struck me was how cruel he was to his close ones, whether family or political lieutenants. He had the occasional moment of softness but he was otherwise a bully who minced no words in making others feel minuscule. Another idea that struck me is how all the Soviet top brass were absolute workhorses who squeezed every living hour out of the day, to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. Stalin himself seemed to sleep from 4am to the late morning, which I found curious. Overall there are clear insights on how they won the war and lifted the Soviet empire, other than through despicable actions. I think the book still makes me think nowadays about the “noble communist” that claims that their version of communism would not be like that, and how they would be the first to be purged. Overall its an excellent read. It’s exquisitely documented and Sebag Montefiore deserves mad props for developing a fine, subtle sense of humor in the narration of stories that span from the kafkaesque to the satanic - the book would’ve been very hard to digest otherwise.
- baybal2 8y ago
  The point of him only sleeping 4 hours, is surely a part of propaganda. Stalin lived slow life in opulent luxury, often sending off his generals during the war so he can finish his meal and have tea.
  - arcturus17 8y ago
    Not 4 hours, 4am til late morning - noon. He had his dachas and opulent dinners but he was relentless at work - no way he lived a slow life. The book is written by a Cambridge-trained historian who did a painstaking work of documentation, including reviewing previously inaccessible Russian archives and interviewing just about every possible Stalin relative and survivor at the time of writing.
    - baybal2 8y ago
      > Cambridge-trained historian Cambridge historian will he be, but he just reverberates the commodity propaganda. Stalin was closing on the godhood in just every written source. I'll give you an analogy: if some super secret North Korean state archives claim that Kim had no anus, would the Cambridge trained historian claim the same just because of that? Common sense would be lacking there, as it is in popular Western depictions of Stalin. I would not be surprised that people were flattering the guy even in their private notes, for the fear of them being found not doing that enough. Any well schooled Russian person has a more or less complete idea of who he was as a person. Now, would somebody be a Cambridge-trained historian or not, would he know more of how such type of people live without "feeling and breathing" their will and presence? I'll trust the popular hearsay more than work of acclaimed historian then. Almost every Western account of Soviet despots made me laugh, trying to find some fine, intriguing, sophisticated persona, where there were none. Why are they trying so hard at that? To me, it feels that Western historians often pull more effort to rehabilitate the soviets than the contemporary revisionist propaganda.
baybal2 8y ago
A very different picture from memoires of people who saw his later years in power. A man totally frightened about losing power, and insecure about his unpopularity. When he finally got to the stage of "things being upon him" and virtually everybody in his immediate entourage getting hostile to him, he wept and kept sending firing squads.
psykotic 8y ago
If you want something more extensive and less dramatized, I'd recommend Kotkin's ongoing multi-volume biography starting with Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928. It's becoming (if it isn't already) the definitive work on Stalin.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
watwut 8y ago
Afaik, his father wanting him to be shoe cobbler is odd choice of "trying to control him out of his will" given that his father was very violently abusive too. The priest trying to control him is kind of odd framing of priest wanting him to return to school. Nor it is out of ordinary for borderline violent youngster (he fought other boys in streets while in school) with violent father to rebel against system/authorities around seeking retaliation. He had pathological need for control and was violent. But, analysis that ignores other violent influences in his life and put all on strength of his will is kind of missing something. Stalin had intense rages, yelling and swearing. He was insecure about host of things, sensitive to criticism or slights and seeked to punish them with vengeance. That is not exactly unemotional nor really uncaring about opinions of others. He did cared - so much that he tortured for it. You make it sound like he was logically rationally focused on primary goal of communism, but large part of it was him emotional need to be in absolute control and insecurity.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>The guy, like a serial killer, was completely emotionally unmoved and undeterred by any obstacle or opinion of anyone. Go big or go home. No doubt not-Stalins were kind and caring and preached Marxism (as they understood it) but they didn't make it that far. Stalins survived. (Survivor bias) Radical changes can be done only via brutal force. You're talking about property confiscations, massive killings, jailing etc etc. Now that's a shock: "I have a person here who states she's Stalin's daughter, and we believe she's genuine; unless you instruct me to the contrary, I’m putting her on the one a.m. plane for Rome where we can stop and think the thing through. I’m not giving her any commitment that she can come to the States. I’m only enabling her to leave India, and we will see her to some part of the world—the U.S. or somewhere else—where she can settle in peace. If you disagree with this, let me know before midnight." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlana_Alliluyeva#Political_asylum_and_later_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlana_Alliluyeva#Political_...
420codebro 8y ago
Yeah, the TLDR is he was a fuckhead.

simula67 8y ago

> I think the most unusual characteristics of his story was that everyone tried to control him. First, the priests at the seminary by disciplining him Priests tried to control him ? He entered the school voluntarily. They did not lock him up. He left of his own accord and priests encouraged him to return. I don't think that was 'trying to control him' > He seemingly did everything for the sole purpose of global Marxist revolution Stalin's policy was 'Socialism in one country'. Apart from some modest actions like supporting the Spanish communists in the Spanish Civil War etc, he did not work that hard to advance the Marxist revolution abroad.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
chr1 8y ago
> Stalin's policy was 'Socialism in one country' He started a war with Finland, signed a treaty with Germany to split Poland, helped communists in China and North Korea and set communist regimes in all countries that soviet Army freed from Germany. Also some historians think that Stalin had plans to start a war with Germany, but Germany started the war several days sooner (For instance Mark Solonin talks about this).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- simula67 8y ago
  Ah, I am wrong about this. Thanks for the correction
- rangibaby 8y ago
  USSR was willing to go to war with Germany as early as 1938 but France didn’t want to, and Poland refused to allow Soviet movement thru their country.
iguy 8y ago
> Stalin's policy was 'Socialism in one country' Although he did annex quite a few of neighbours into that one country.
robocat 8y ago
> Apart from some modest actions like [Stalin] supporting the Spanish communists in the Spanish Civil War etc, he did not work that hard to advance the Marxist revolution abroad. Yet I recall that in ‘Homage to Catalonia’, George Orwell says that Stalin undermined the Marxist cause... Although it could be my bad memory, or Orwell's lack of understanding... Not that I know anything about Marxism!!!
- dmos62 8y ago
  I'm a poor historian, but my understanding was that Lenin was the Marxism-oriented one, while Stalin, who murdered Lenin, by slowly poisoning him by putting heavy metals in his hat, highjacked the revolution and went on a mass-murderous power-grabbing rampage. Reading back the end of my last sentence, I'm obviously skewing this against Stalin, reducing his legacy to murder and egomania, but my main point is that he is seen by some (many?) to have highjacked the revolution.
  - iguy 8y ago
    And many see Lenin's October revolution as hijacking the February one for his own murderous egomania. But often this just this seems like a way of pretending there was some pure utopian vision which was unfortunately corrupted, every time. In reality total power is always total power. Independent enthusiasm was welcomed when it was minor and useful (like in western communist parties, or the recruiting of western volunteers for Spain) but crushed completely if it had any chance of getting in the way of naked power (like the pre-war Polish communists, almost all murdered).
    - microcolonel 8y ago
      > Independent enthusiasm was welcomed when it was minor and useful (like in western communist parties, or the recruiting of western volunteers for Spain) but crushed completely if it had any chance of getting in the way of naked power (like the pre-war Polish communists, almost all murdered). True believers are vulnerable because they are too stupid or too delusional to realize the weakness of their cookie cutter ideology. Invariably, true believers are converted to useful idiots if there is anyone who wants them (or sometimes upgraded to cynical tyrants).
dmos62 8y ago
Introduction to Wikipedia's article for "Socialism in one country" [0]: > Socialism in one country was a theory put forth by Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin in 1924 which was eventually adopted by the Soviet Union as state policy. The theory held that given the defeat of all the communist revolutions in Europe in 1917–1923 except Russia, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally. > This turn toward national communism was a shift from the previously held position by classical Marxism that socialism must be established globally. However, proponents of the theory argue that it contradicts neither world revolution nor world communism. The theory was in opposition to Leon Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  This makes perfect sense: you do away with nationalism, since in their view socialism knows no boundaries and should trump all. The same they say for Islamic Caliphates, you're an Algerian or Malian, you're a Muslim, obey the word of god and that trumps all.

pvg 8y ago

He seemingly did everything for the sole purpose of global Marxist revolution How did you arrive at that conclusion from either of these books? (I'm actually asking, not trying to take you to task for it).

arcturus17 8y ago

Yea I’ve read it - it’s one of the best books I’ve read in my life, period. Stalin comes across as a total sociopath - as you’d probably expect - but what struck me was how cruel he was to his close ones, whether family or political lieutenants. He had the occasional moment of softness but he was otherwise a bully who minced no words in making others feel minuscule. Another idea that struck me is how all the Soviet top brass were absolute workhorses who squeezed every living hour out of the day, to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. Stalin himself seemed to sleep from 4am to the late morning, which I found curious. Overall there are clear insights on how they won the war and lifted the Soviet empire, other than through despicable actions. I think the book still makes me think nowadays about the “noble communist” that claims that their version of communism would not be like that, and how they would be the first to be purged. Overall its an excellent read. It’s exquisitely documented and Sebag Montefiore deserves mad props for developing a fine, subtle sense of humor in the narration of stories that span from the kafkaesque to the satanic - the book would’ve been very hard to digest otherwise.

baybal2 8y ago
The point of him only sleeping 4 hours, is surely a part of propaganda. Stalin lived slow life in opulent luxury, often sending off his generals during the war so he can finish his meal and have tea.
- arcturus17 8y ago
  Not 4 hours, 4am til late morning - noon. He had his dachas and opulent dinners but he was relentless at work - no way he lived a slow life. The book is written by a Cambridge-trained historian who did a painstaking work of documentation, including reviewing previously inaccessible Russian archives and interviewing just about every possible Stalin relative and survivor at the time of writing.
  - baybal2 8y ago
    > Cambridge-trained historian Cambridge historian will he be, but he just reverberates the commodity propaganda. Stalin was closing on the godhood in just every written source. I'll give you an analogy: if some super secret North Korean state archives claim that Kim had no anus, would the Cambridge trained historian claim the same just because of that? Common sense would be lacking there, as it is in popular Western depictions of Stalin. I would not be surprised that people were flattering the guy even in their private notes, for the fear of them being found not doing that enough. Any well schooled Russian person has a more or less complete idea of who he was as a person. Now, would somebody be a Cambridge-trained historian or not, would he know more of how such type of people live without "feeling and breathing" their will and presence? I'll trust the popular hearsay more than work of acclaimed historian then. Almost every Western account of Soviet despots made me laugh, trying to find some fine, intriguing, sophisticated persona, where there were none. Why are they trying so hard at that? To me, it feels that Western historians often pull more effort to rehabilitate the soviets than the contemporary revisionist propaganda.

baybal2 8y ago

A very different picture from memoires of people who saw his later years in power. A man totally frightened about losing power, and insecure about his unpopularity. When he finally got to the stage of "things being upon him" and virtually everybody in his immediate entourage getting hostile to him, he wept and kept sending firing squads.

psykotic 8y ago

If you want something more extensive and less dramatized, I'd recommend Kotkin's ongoing multi-volume biography starting with Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928. It's becoming (if it isn't already) the definitive work on Stalin.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

watwut 8y ago

Afaik, his father wanting him to be shoe cobbler is odd choice of "trying to control him out of his will" given that his father was very violently abusive too. The priest trying to control him is kind of odd framing of priest wanting him to return to school. Nor it is out of ordinary for borderline violent youngster (he fought other boys in streets while in school) with violent father to rebel against system/authorities around seeking retaliation. He had pathological need for control and was violent. But, analysis that ignores other violent influences in his life and put all on strength of his will is kind of missing something. Stalin had intense rages, yelling and swearing. He was insecure about host of things, sensitive to criticism or slights and seeked to punish them with vengeance. That is not exactly unemotional nor really uncaring about opinions of others. He did cared - so much that he tortured for it. You make it sound like he was logically rationally focused on primary goal of communism, but large part of it was him emotional need to be in absolute control and insecurity.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

>>The guy, like a serial killer, was completely emotionally unmoved and undeterred by any obstacle or opinion of anyone. Go big or go home. No doubt not-Stalins were kind and caring and preached Marxism (as they understood it) but they didn't make it that far. Stalins survived. (Survivor bias) Radical changes can be done only via brutal force. You're talking about property confiscations, massive killings, jailing etc etc. Now that's a shock: "I have a person here who states she's Stalin's daughter, and we believe she's genuine; unless you instruct me to the contrary, I’m putting her on the one a.m. plane for Rome where we can stop and think the thing through. I’m not giving her any commitment that she can come to the States. I’m only enabling her to leave India, and we will see her to some part of the world—the U.S. or somewhere else—where she can settle in peace. If you disagree with this, let me know before midnight." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlana_Alliluyeva#Political_asylum_and_later_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlana_Alliluyeva#Political_...

420codebro 8y ago

Yeah, the TLDR is he was a fuckhead.