Customer Reviews

Who Killed Kirov?: The Kremlin's Greatest Mystery

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

 

 

It should be clear from the sensational title that Knight's book is aimed at those with but a casual interest in Russian history. A scan of the reviews submitted bears that out; it appears that those with great familiarity with Russian history pan the book, while those with passing knowledge rave about it.

I agree with all those who take exception to the title; this is more a biography of Kirov than it is a "whodunnit?" Knight's treatment of Kirov's life and times is dry at times but adequate. When she turns her attention to the murder itself, the book begins to take hold. Knight lays out a great many facts, and shows what inferences can be drawn from those facts, and yet her leap from those inferences to her conclusion remains unsatisfying. For example, she quotes Trotsky's initial reaction to the murder; Trotsky was of the view that Stalin did not order the killing, but would sure as heck take advantage of it. Knight says Trotsky was wrong, but her arguments as to why are unconvincing.

Despite a slow start, and having to get used to the author's somewhat patronizing writing style, I enjoyed the book and found myself thinking about it for days after I finished reading it. I had known that Kirov was something of a maverick in the context of a Soviet leader, however I had no idea he was so outspoken in his speeches, letters, etc. towards Stalin. Granted his hands were by no means clean, however he appears to have had more of a " human face " and connection with the poeple than most of his contemporaries. Asking the question " Who benefited from his Death ? ", there is only one answer: Stalin. Not only was a potential ( and very popular ) opponent eliminated, it also gave Stalin the opporuntity to decimate the Lenningrad party officialdom, and also to do away with Zinoviev, Kamenev et al.

I was surprised Ms Knight made no real reference to the fact that Nikolaev, with neither emotional nor physical training in assasination, was able to not only calmly shoot a man to death accurately, but do it close enough to more than liklely have his brains splattered across his ( Nikolaev's ) face. The manner in which Kirov was murdered, a single bullet in the back of the head / neck is almost exactly the method used by the NKVD during their executions.

If this book carried a proper title, like "A Stalinist Life," or something like that, it would probably be read only by a handful of people. That would be a shame, because the book is valuable as a rich biography of a Stalinist cadre and as a readable and informative entry into a difficult period of modern history. But as a key to the mystery of Kirov's assassination, or even as a contribution to the literature on that murder, the book is a huge disappointment. It does not merit the great trumpeting about that it has received. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence, Knight has to fall back on a "solution" that is actually pretty standard fare: if Stalin did not inspire the murder, he fully took advantage of it. Amen and thank you very much. Even the reconstruction of the murder itself is thin and shoddy, and for that, if perhaps not for the clear political design imputed to Stalin, one still cannot do much better than Conquest's older book on the subject.

A very interesting biography of the Bolshevik leader Kirov, in counterpoint to Stalin. The author's research into formerly secret Soviet archival material shows that Kirov opposed Stalin in certain respects, which may have provided a motive for Stalin to have initiated a plot to assasinate Kirov. The book is more a political biography of Kirov than a whodunit, however. There are some bizarre circumstances to the Kirov murder, which this book details, such as the "accidental" death of Kirov's bodyguard while en route to be interrogated by the KGB. In sum, a very interesting book about a sinister and fascinating era in modern history.

Who Killed Kirov? Even a the conclusion of this fine book the question remains, as Knight informs us in the subtitle, the Kremlin's greatest mystery. Rather than providing a definitive answer to a question that has burned in the minds of Russians, historians, and conspiracy theorists alike since Sergei Kirov's murder in 1934, Knight presents a fascinating and thorough account of the circumstances surrounding his death. Again proving herself the one of the foremost scholars in her field, Knight scrupulously traces the path of evidence leading up to the crime, unfolding clues at every turn. From this book we learn about Kirov, the man and politician, his relationship with Stalin (who used Kirov's murder as a catalyst to launch the bloody purges of his regime), and most importantly, why a study of this event is so crucial to understanding Russian history. Sifting through previously undisclosed archival material, Knight has provided us with the most comprehensive study to date of the murder of Sergei Kirov. Russia has buried much of its fascinating yet grim history. With this book, however, Knight uncovers an important part of it with clarity and insight. Who Killed Kirov? is a page-turner, not only for those interested in Russian history, but also for anyone who enjoys a real-life murder mystery full of intrigue!

Unless as one writer suggests, new documentation with the credibility to give the information credence is introduced, this book offers very little in any event. There were some photographs that I had not seen in other books, and the floor plan and the alleged positioning of security was interesting. For this book to suggest this killing has the same mystery surrounding the Kennedy assassination is absurd.

There are many who believe that Kennedy was not solely the victim of Oswald, and while one can speculate who actually pulled the trigger in the case of the murder of Kirov, it is the less important part of the incident, what Soviet History might have been under Kirov is the story.

Kirov embodied many things that Stalin did not and could not emulate; he was charismatic, "The People" truly liked the man, and he was not the disfigured paranoid maniac that was Stalin. When the fateful vote took place and Kirov had clearly become a rival to Stalin's power, it was only a question of how soon he would die, and how large the purge that followed his death would be. It would indeed be massive, for how else was Stalin to show how devastated and full of revenge he was, for the death of his "friend" Kirov? Stalin had no friends.

Stalin wanted Kirov dead, he ordered the killing, and whether the NKVD, or as is likely the poor guy they picked up and pinned it on actually did the killing, the killer is secondary. The story here is that Stalin could carry out the hit on Kirov, knowing he would be suspect number one, and further being 100% confident that no individual or group would accuse him, that is part of the interesting History here. The bloodbath that followed was just Stalin getting rid of more of his "enemies" real or mostly imagined.

If there were a book written for the purpose of identifying every killer Stalin employed, the number of books would run into the tens of millions. The fact that he could kill on such an unprecedented scale, that he could remain in control, that he managed to always have enough believers/supporters/future victims to back him is what fascinates. Kirov may have been the marquee kill of Stalin's reign, but he was just that, one more body

I would like to read a well written historically based work of fiction that posits what would have happened had Kirov not been killed, what if Stalin was blamed, what if Kirov took control of the former USSR. That is where the interest lies.

The title of this book is bordering on misleading. Nothing inside the book is as intriguing as the question asked on the cover wishes you to believe.

Amy Knight has written a workmanlike description of Kirov's 1934 murder. Its main interest lies in its depiction of Kirov, who was a mercenary careerist of a type which will be quite familiar to anyone who has spent much time working in a bureaucracy. The significance of Kirov's murder is the use that Stalin subsequently made of it as a pretext for the purges of the late '30s. In rendering this aspect, I prefer Robert Conquest's earlier book on the topic, but Knight has made important archival discoveries that deserve reporting. As a Louisianian, I am especially intrigued by the close parallels between Kirov's murder and that of Huey Long, who was assassinated a few months later. But anyone with an interest in the turbulent politics of the '30s will enjoy Knight's book.

Amy Knight has produced an even better book than her recent biography of Lavrenty Beria. This is a superb in-depth investigation of how Kirov was killed and who was responsible. To say more would be to give the ending away, so go out and buy it now. This is an excellent read

Well if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then lets state the obvious. Who killed Kirov? Well, it could only have been one man, and Ms. Knight shows that Stalin had the motive and desire. In this book, we are given a short biography of this popular Leningrad city leader, who was more famed as an orator than Stalin. We also find out that even though he had blood on his hands, he was more willing to compromise with adversaries. He even formed a working government with the Mensheviks during the Civil War. Stalin hated his popularity and used his murder to persecute his enemies. Millions died as a result of Stalin's paranoid personality.

This is an interesting read on one of history's mysteries. Ultimately, we don't know what happened and why Kirov was murdered. However, all the fingers point to Stalin.

"Who Killed Kirov" by Amy Knight is a superbly researched biography and study of the 1934 murder of Leningrad's Party Leader and Stalin's "right-hand" man , Sergei Kirov.
The author's premise is focused on the fact that Stalin himself plotted the murder of his upcoming rival but did so specifically to justify the onslaught of his infamous purges of the 1930's.

Although this theory is well known with Russian historians, Ms. Knight brings it up on the stage of reality and deeper understanding. The book also has a superb spread of apparently rare photographs that help to enhance the research and interest in the subject matter.

Sometimes, the story line seems to "bog down" due to the extensive web of historical facts and uncovered records but none the less...it is a fine piece of historical intrigue and research. Ms. Knight's contribution to Russian history is but one more addition to the great puzzle of the former Soviet Union and its people who were trapped inside..."THE BELLY OF THE BEAR."