Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives Paperback – August 18, 1997

Written originally in Russian and apparently translated by Ivan the Terrible Translator. Either that, or the original text in Russian was equally inelegant. In any case, although this biography might benefit from having newly discovered facts available to the author, that benefit hardly outweighs the ponderous, meandering style of the prose, which is at some times agonizing. The book reads like it was written by a high school senior whose career was not going to be in literature or journalism.

Having launched out on a personal survey of Russian history from Peter the Great to the present, I can honestly say this is the worst of the many books I have read on the topic. Compared to the writing of Robert K. Massie and Richard Pipes, this volume is just awful.

I was looking for details on how Stalin molded Soviet society, not just in the systematic terror of a totalitarian state, but in the heavy industrialization of a largely peasant society. This book has plenty to offer on Stalin's brutality and even his pathological psychology as based on new documents that were coming to light, but it neglects the wider perspective, offering virtually no sociological context or comparison, even with the other great pioneer of totalitarianism, Hitler. As such, I was disappointed and must go elsewhere, but other readers might be looking for exactly what Radzinsky offers. It is much more about how he acquired power than what he did with it, beyond terror, that is.

Stalin came from a dirt-poor family in Georgia. His father was a shoemaker and violent alcoholic who was largely absent, his mother was an illiterate peasant who provided what love and support she could. Early on, he entered a seminary, one of the few gateways to education available, and wrote poetry. However, once he discovered Marxism-Leninism, he became a revolutionary operative of ruthless efficiency and great experience. This caught the attention of Lenin, who quickly promoted him to be his deputy - Radzinsky makes very clear that he recognized a similarity of method to the man, i.e. the willingness to do whatever was necessary to promote the revolution, be it massacres, imprisonment of even loyal opponents, or the waging of war. Stalin enshrined Lenin as a kind of messiah, a personality cult that he would later claim for himself.

Most crucially, Lenin appointed Stalin to the new post of general secretary, which enabled Stalin to promote the faithful to local and regional leadership roles, ensuring that they were ideological allies, hence translating into their willingness to do whatever they were told. Not only did this include the control of the secret police (the Cheka), but it allowed Stalin gain the allegiance of all those who owed their positions to him, whether by fear or loyalty. Stalin knew how to employ this monopoly of power to consolidate his position. Radzinsky argues that the enfeebled and dying Lenin began to oppose Stalin, but it was more for personal reasons than any misgivings or awareness of the excesses to which Stalin was headed.

Radzinsky does an excellent job of portraying the terror. First, in the atmosphere of civil war as exacerbated by the encouragement of the western great powers, he clamped down on domestic opponents, purging classes such as the Kulaks (rich peasants) and even entire nationalities, such as the Tatars of the Crimea or Chechans. Then, he went after the old Bolsheviks, eliminating them with his customary efficiency. Finally, he went after anyone he perceived as a threat. It makes for chilling reading, but these facts are well known. What Radzinsky adds is the argument that Stalin was doing exactly what Lenin intended for him to do and does not represent any kind of aberration; indeed, Radzinsky makes the case that all the others who lost out would have done pretty much the same.

The readers gets a good sense of Stalin the man, written in almost the tone of a folksy psycho-drama. Everyone around him suffered, including the second wife who probably committed suicide and his neglected children. He comes off as a psychopath in the mold of Ivan the Terrible, whom he admired. But then, Radzinsky was a playwright, not a historian or political scientist. I would have wanted much more on the economic and social impact of the collectivization, the concentration of the development of heavy industries like steel, the truncation of the capitalist mode of capitalist practices.

Recommended. This is a good book, but not what I was expecting.

"Stalin" is a historical biography that I admired but … did I enjoy it? Let me put it this way: Reading this 600-page beast often felt like being banished to Siberia with nothing to do but page through the telephone directory. I do respect the blood, sweat and tears that must have gone into the research and writing of this massive tome about the 20th century’s greatest villain, Joseph Stalin (yes, I’m including Hitler), but the result is mostly a plodding bore.

In addition to presenting the usual agglomeration of unpronounceable and confusing Russian names, Radzinsky’s book demands a basic knowledge of Russian history and the major political players of the time. If you are unfamiliar with the historical relationship between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, the troubled history of Ukraine and Russia, etc., well, too bad for you. Radzinsky simply offers a chronological survey of what Stalin did and to whom he did it. Stalin himself remains an enigma. So many details, so little insight.

It’s a shame, because if we know one thing, it’s that history repeats itself, and if a genocidal despot like Stalin could place an entire country under his malevolent spell, then understanding the factors that created such a monster is something we all need to know. – grouchyeditor.com

Like many books on the subject , they are never all that one would like to know. Good historical book.

I learned a great deal but felt the writing could have been tightened up a great deal. So many references to Stalin the chess master or his humor or his nickname became tedious. Also rather than leaving the sources to footnotes, they overwhelm some parts of the story. Having said all that,I learned a great deal and was glad I read it. It just could have been better.

Detailed scholarship combined with a fascination for the subject. It's little light on the final years, post war, but don't let that put you off. Now I'll have to do all those other things I was supposed to be doing before I started to read this powerful book !

This was my first book on Stalin, and it was a little disappointing. It's geared more to the in-depth history of the Bolshevik Party, I thought, than to Stalin. It started out pretty good as to his rise to power then became a multiple character episode, that bounced around in dates of time, which I found hard to follow and comprehend. Mr. Radzinsky didn't get into the true atrocities of the Stalin era and would only mention or touch on the subject as though you already new of the subject. If you have studied Russian history and want to advance or read a different prospective of newly released documents this might be your type of read, if you're new to the subject and want a comparative read about Stalin and the terror of atrocities that he put on the Russian people you might want to look elsewhere. It is not my intentions to criticizes Mr. Radzinsky and his writing, but, his book was not well constructed in taking the reader through a historic time that is important to remember and understand.