Customer Reviews

Inside the Stalin Archives: Discovering the New Russia

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

"Every student can recite Pushkin by heart in this shitty country but there are no jobs, there is no future here."

That's the bitter reaction of Olga, a young Russian woman after discovering that a neighbor - a classically-trained ballet dancer - is performing in a cabaret that is really a strip club. It is against that kind of backdrop that Jonathan Brent is trying to obtain access to Russia's Soviet-era archives (assisted by Olga, a translator). Russians like Olga, hungry for stability and prosperity and nostalgic for past glories, are finding a new allure in the idea of a totalitarian state; communism, Brent writes, may be dead, but not the idea of an all-powerful state unconstrained by the rule of law. Will publishing crucial records of Stalin's days, when state oppression reached surreal levels, make Olga and her peers aware of the dangers of that kind of nostalgia?

The title of this fascinating book is actually somewhat misleading. Rather than a straightforward recitation of of what Brent, the editorial director of the Yale University Press, unearths within the archives, it sets some such revelations in the much broader and fascinating chronicle of his experiences trying to win and maintain access to those records, of his relationships and discussions with Russian archivists. Brent also incorporates his personal observations of the changes that take place within Russia over the 15 years that he spends shuttling back and forth between New England and Moscow as he battles to publish a series of scholarly books based on the Soviet archives addressing questions such as who orchestrated and controlled the Great Terror of the 1930s; whether the US Communist Party engaged in espionage; the real role of the Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War and the truth about the Katyn massacre of Polish officers during World War II.

Brent's first trip to Russia takes place in the winter of 1992, when he arrives hoping to persuade the archivists to strike a publishing deal with the Yale press rather than a British or German Rival. Once that is finally accomplished (with a lot of negotiating and a lot of vodka) some former Soviet policymakers urge him to shed light on Stalin's era, in particular. "Without the information provided in the documents, knowledge of the past is impossible, and without this knowledge, the Russian people will not be able to understand the effects of unconstrained state power. They will not understand why they need a country ruled by law - that economic prosperity and stability is not enough," they tell Brent, repeatedly.

Ultimately, Brent's narrative is more a scholar's memoir than a scholarly history -- and that's just fine. Like any good observer, he spots the little signs of change: On his first visits, he sees that bowls of fresh violets are left as a tribute at the feet of a painting of Lenin at the archives; these are eventually replaced by plastic flowers - and then the flowers disappear altogether, although the painting remains. Although he devotes a lot of attention to the evolution of Russia's consumer culture, it never feels like overkill and Brent manages to combine that part of his narrative seamlessly with his adventures within the archives themselves. The result? The reader emerges with fresh insight into the way scholarly histories are written - and the reasons why some remain unwritten. He discusses his meetings with former generals whose memoirs Yale may publish (including an encounter with a rare Amazon Blue parrot presented to one of the generals by Fidel Castro), and his meetings with the surviving relatives of literary figures who were purged and executed by Stalin (or who, like Georgi Dimitrov, died mysteriously while in Stalin's control). He repeatedly tries to gain access to something called "the Kutuzov file", which would reveal the fate of Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, who disappeared from Budapest into the Lubyanka during the final days of World War II, only to be told, ominously that no one will ever know the truth of Wallenberg's fate. He even gets to study Stalin's personal library - a vast array of books of political philosophy of all kinds, heavily read, annotated, underlined; all offering clues to the way this "small pockmarked son of an illiterate shoemaker" who became the Soviet "vozhd" or supreme leader, formulated his own political thoughts and actions.

However intriguing Brent's narrative is - and for any history buff with an interest in Russia, it's pretty much impossible to put down - there are several flaws. Some are quite basic; Brent's purpose is to compile and commission works for Yale's "Annals of Communism" series. But we hear few details of what is eventually published and few details of how they may have changed historians' views of the Soviet Union. (Indeed, there isn't even a bibliography detailing those works; that and an index would be immensely helpful to readers.) While his Russian archivists make the impossibility of publishing any kind of authoritative history of the period - "to offer a unified interpretation of the Soviet period meant, first, that you wished to know the truth, and second, that you wished to tell it" - I, for one, lamented the lack of anything more than a passing reflection by Brent on what was published (not just his thoughts on documents he encounters.)

Brent is alert to the parallels between the totalitarianism of Stalin and the less oppressive authoritarian regime in Russia today. (He notes, for instance, that just as Stalin once wanted to be informed of his Politburo's preference in toothbrush brands and whether they selected red or white telephones in their offices, commenting that "all these nothings became something over time", so the former Soviet officials he encounters are aware of the oddest details of his life, from the hotel he is staying at and the date of his arrival, to the birth of his infant daughter.) At the same time, he doesn't address whether or not publication of the archive's contents within Russia did, as he and some of his Russian colleagues hoped, transform the public debate about the nature of the state and its relationship to the people it governs. In light of the frequency and urgency with which the question is raised, that lack is particularly apparent.

Still, the glimpses into the world that Stalin inhabited (he had, for instance, an unexpected affinity for Ivan the Terrible) are fascinating, as are those into the worlds of those Stalin persecuted. For that, and for the rare look at what is involved in producing scholarly historical work, I rate this four stars. For more insight into the Stalinist era itself, one of the newest books out on the lives of ordinary Russians is The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia, while Simon Sebag Montefiore has published two authoritative volumes on Stalin himself, including Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. One definitive work on the Great Terror is by Robert ConquestThe Great Terror: A Reassessment. For those who are curious about the evolution of today's Russia, I'd recommend Sale of the Century: The Inside Story of the Second Russian Revolution for insight into the havoc wreaked by the oligarchs and Putin's Russia: Life in a Failing Democracy for a polemical but riveting view of what has happened since 1998.

This book became a disappointment within the first 10 pages, when I realized the author wasn't about to share any material FROM the archives, but rather his own rather uninteresting travels to / from Moscow, discussions with his proud landlady on Kutuzovski Prospect, drinking tea from cracked cups, etc.

His personal experiences were shared by hundreds, thousands of foreigners who flocked in the early 1990s to a very exciting new Russia -- emerging from stagnation while nearly falling into anarchy. I was one of those foreigners, and found Mr. Brent's limited journey to be unremarkable.

In fairness to the author, and after re-reading the editorial review, I see that my expectations on this book's content were indeed raised too high by its title. I should have read this with the understanding that this is Mr. Brent's personal journey, rather than a scholarly work. In fact, I shouldn't have read this book at all.

As a student of history, and coincidentally a reader of the Annals of Communism series, I found this half history half "memoir" a very provocative read. At the end of the Soviet Union Russia was in the midst of chaos and turmoil. Yet, into this mix comes Jonathan Brent with no idea of what he's about to face. Meeting the various actors he interacts with, and learning about some of their tragic situations and demises, keeps the narrative going pretty quickly. Many of the the Russians he meets I have encountered as authors/editions in various books I've read, and with the details found in this book I can put something of a character/personality to the name. A few complaints: I do think the author is at times a bit too literary and long-winded, specifically when he begins to dissect Babel and Stalin, also, even with over a decade of traveling back and forth between Russia and the US and reading through archives in their original, he still makes at least one mistake in his translation from Russian to English. Lastly, the political atmosphere in Russia, both in the 90s and in this decade, is something I don't think he can comment on with as much insight as some would like. While he did have access to the likes of Yakovlev, I don't think such connections are enough to make some of the claims that he takes the liberty of making. While not anti-Russian, although some nationalists would undoubtedly think that, I believe some are naive. That being said, the overall narrative is quite interesting, insightful and candid.

Jonathan Brant arrived in Moscow in January 1992 to negotiate with Russian officials for Yale University Press for access to Soviet historical archives previously unavailable to outsiders. Many trips followed over the next fifteen years. They provide a loose connective thread for this memoir. They also allowed the personal contacts and observations that anchor the book. Brant raises complex questions including why many Russians still esteem both Stalin, a paranoid tyrant, and the oppressive regime he created; and why Russians have acquiesced to Putin's regime as it persistently curtailed democracy and freedom.

This book is very much a personal memoir, not a scholarly analysis. Brant offers no formal analysis or final answers. He speaks of the disruption and near chaos in Russian society in January 1992, of the perceived incompetence of the Yeltsin government, of the dissolution of what had been a Russian empire built over almost 400 years and of Russia's loss of international position and prestige. All this was a huge blow to the Russian people who were proud of the old society's accomplishments, achieved at enormous cost in blood and suffering. In the popular view, as well as in the view of some of the elite, Stalin was the architect of all this civil and military success.

By comparison, the new regime presided over a breakdown of public order, the collapse of the economy, an end to empire and a much diminished role in the world. No wonder, the book implies, that many in this proud nation are nostalgic for the Soviet regime and are willing to forgive much to the "great leader" who supposedly brought all this success about. Nor is it surprising that the people support Putin, whose regime has (in the popular view) done much to restore public order, international prestige and economic prosperity.

I was particularly struck by two features of the book. One was the vignettes offered of life in Russia in the early years of Brant's trips there. Society was almost literally turned upside down and it seemed to many that the worst elements had taken over and reduced everything to chaos. Brant's personal observations and contacts with Russians from this period are enlightening and sometimes quite moving.

The second feature was even more eye-opening for me. Before reading this book I thought of Stalin as a typical murderous and paranoid tyrant, a megalomaniac essentially ruling by terror alone while claiming a nonexistent deep understanding of the revolutionary theories of which he proclaimed himself the champion. My view was wrong.

Brant got access to Stalin's personal working library. Historical and theoretical works were heavily and insightfully annotated in Stalin's own hand. Stalin also personally oversaw work on official publications expressing Communist theory and doctrine in various formats. He very frequently rewrote them heavily, invariably making the publications better: shorter, tighter, more accurately stated and more vividly phrased. Paranoid, murderous and megalomaniacal he was, but he was far from an intellectual lightweight. Even his most infamous policies were the product of deep (if wrongheaded) thought and study.

As noted, this book is a personal memoir and not a formal study. It is anecdotal and suggestive rather than analytical in approach. And occasionally it is a bit digressive. Yet its anecdotes are revealing and its suggestions largely convincing.

As an amateur Russian history buff, I enjoyed his journey through his negotiations with the Russians on publishing the archives. I agree with the previous rater (4*) who indicated that it was unclear what was ultimately published. That being said, one can go to YUP under Annals of Communism series to find out. However, this is not spelled out (so as not to "advertise" his press?) so it's not immediately obvious. After reading this book, I have at least a year of reading ahead of me which I very much look forward to.
Also, it appeared that he wrote about two thirds of the book, then later added the final third which makes it somewhat disjointed. Minor criticism given my overall fascination with hearing the story.

Brent was one of the people who really helped open up some of the secret Soviet archives, an act which produced plenty of fascinating books. It's a shame therefore that so much of this tome consists of his (frankly uninteresting) observations about who he met and what he saw in Moscow in the early 1990s. He almost completely ignores the books his work helped produce, which is mystifying. This work really needs a lot more about the archives and what they contained to live up to its title.

This is a nice narrative about the steps required to obtain, for the world to see, what went on behind the scenes, both in the Archives themselves, and in negotiations to reveal them. One realizes that there was a brief interval during which this was possible, and that, had it been missed, we would once again be returned to the obscurity, so characteristic of Russia, of the present. That would have been the loss of a unique opportunity, to see and understand a uniquely evil period in mankind's history.

This book, despite its intriguing title, will prove to any Russian scholar to be dull, poorly written, and badly constructed. Furthermore, shoddy writing and mindless repetition drive the reader to absolute distraction. Any number of books on Stalin (For example, by Montefiore -- among others) offer the reader vast amounts of information far and above what is presented here. If you have never read ANY study of Stalin or 20th Century Russian history, then yes, I suppose the book would be interesting and thought provoking. But the literature is vast and deep, and the only value I found in Brent's work is.....the front jacket photo showing a group of modern-day Russians gathered around a portrait of their long-departed leader. I am rarely this critical of any book, really, but this tome possesses no redeeming value: I threw my own copy in the trash....

Length:: 6:23 Mins

And one well worth reading at that.

Brent may be a scholar of the Soviet era but you would never know it from this poorly written memoir about his efforts on behalf of Yale to secure rights to publish heretofore immensely important but hidden historical documents in the massive archives maintained in dilapidated buildings by equally dilapitated bureaucrats
left over from the that era who still ahd trouble smelling good old American dough.
The book is dicursive, dull and frustrating because of what it mighr have been had Brent not been so self regarding and undisciplined. A reader