Stalin - classic or dud

more so than a reactionary cunt like Martin A. because you believe Camus is still a leftist at heart

ooh also, jumping way ahead, william taubman's khrushchev bio is as fun as you'd think a khrushchev bio would be. in one scene he gets drunk w hubert humphrey and says WHERE ARE YOU FROM? and hubert humphrey says oh i'm from minneapolis, it's in the state of minnesota, and khrushchev stands up and looks at the map on his wall and draws a big circle around minneapolis in marker and says

I WILL ORDER THEM TO SPARE IT WHEN THE ROCKETS FLY!

humphrey says "i'm sorry i can't reciprocate."

iirc kerensky's defense was that the allies had kind of blackmailed him into staying in the war and he -- foolishly -- thought that a fast victory (the US having just joined the war) would be useful for shoring up the legitimacy of his gov't. then he convinced himself he could somehow inspire the soldiers to fight harder by going to the front dressed up like napoleon (hand tucked in shirt and all) and making speeches -- which, oddly, was exactly what tsar nick had done.

i have a total uncritical teenager's crush on camus which i will never relinquish, haven't read that book though.

what's scary about khrushchev is that he totally seems like the level-headed one whenever you read about the cuban missile crisis.

xp

i think he deserves the crush but he's better as a critic of the failures of left politics than as an advocate for a way forward

ha see now nicky i feel very sorry for. (because i didn't have to live in his country, of course.) that's the problem w monarchy i guess: there are any number of quiet little jobs he would have been perfectly happy in and competent at. and instead.

khrushchev <3s HSTNGS

re nicky, there's a totally overwhelming-for-me part in trotsky's diaries, where he talks about returning to st petersburg after time on the front of the civil war, and being brought up to speed on what he's missed, and he asks if any decision has been made re: the tsar, and the guy he's talking to says yes, he was shot, and trotsky's like oh! okay, well, that was probably necessary. what was done with the family; were they sent to england? and the guy says, they were shot too. and trotsky says, what, all of them?

and there's this little moment where it's menacingly apparent that trotsky's devotion to the revolution is being tested, that trotsky is now required to express remorseless satisfaction at the annihilation of the royal family, kids and all -- and even at the time of writing, 18 years later, after he's been declared an enemy of the state and is in exile in switzerland or wherever he happens to be for this particular entry, he still feels compelled to demonstrate devotion, since he follows it with a paragraph or so of rather dry "this is why it was the only thing to do and it just goes to show you what a genius lenin was and how he always knew what was necessary" stuff. and i'm sure he genuinely believed that. but there's still that flash -- what, all of them? -- where for a second he's horrified, before he stuffs it back inside like a good revolutionary. and he doesn't draw any explicit connection himself and doesn't deviate at all from soviet orthodoxy on the question but i don't think it is irrelevant that this particular anecdote is recorded in a diary largely given over to sad/furious denunciations of stalin.

khrushchev (i am told) decided early on that there was no way a nuclear war would happen, that it would clearly be the end of civilization and human beings weren't crazy enough to do it, and that therefore he could rattle as many rockets as he wanted and it wouldn't matter. which is... an interesting way to look at it. especially when so many human beings on both sides seem to have been plenty crazy enough.

that does seem ill-informed

proved right so far

yeah exactly i dunno!

Dr Strangelove didn't get a release in 60s USSR i guess

but i mean he really committed himself to that particular game of chicken. we could all probably have done without it. xp

i feel like his realpolitik, if true, didn't get how other politicians in the US and at home were prepared to go to the mat in the name of ideology?

the famous story -- and here we overlap w alfred and other american history people -- w the two v divergent telegrams that khrushchev sends to kennedy in quick succession at the height of the missile crisis, one all blustering and soviet and we-will-bury-you and the other all lachrymose and what-have-we-done and WE HAVE BOTH SEEN WAR. WE KNOW THAT WAR DOES NOT STOP UNTIL IT HAS ROLLED THROUGH CITIES AND VILLAGES AND DESTROYED ALL IN ITS PATH, is i feel prob p revealing of khrushchev's attitude towards this? as in, it was not consistent. which is an improvement of course on the consistency of a lemay. i should reread the relevant chapters tho. in this and many other books.

(kennedy/mcnamera's much and probably justly praised stroke of diplomatic ingenuity being to go, how about we just ignore that first one.)

xp...
I'd expect Trotsky to be well aware of the mess that followed the last Russian dynastic change and would pretty readily accept the wisdom of publically announcing the elimination of all Romanov heirs. It was the only way to ensure no False Dmitris could arise to rally the Whites.

^that preceded the last Russian dynastic change...

I mean, the founder of the Romanov dynasty "ordered the 3-year-old son of the False Dymitri II to be hanged, and had Dimitri's wife Maryna strangled". A thorough housecleaning was not unprecedented.

of course. (although dmitri, the real dmitri, was almost certainly killed, and it didn't stop the imposters. one of whom i actually used to have this totally awesome conspiracy theory about that i have forgotten all the details of, but it involved him being brought up to believe he actually was dmitri by a consortium of restorationists etc etc etc., and was p convincing if i do say so myself). hence, yeah, i think he thought it was the right thing to do. maybe it was! but his kneejerk is what it is.

one of the false dmitrys was a stooge for the Poles, who (hard though it may be for us to believe nowadays) once were a serious threat to Moscow. of course, the Russians avenged Polish perfidy many times over ... but that's another story.

Which one was supposedly stuffed into a cannon and fired back in the direction of Poland?

well here's something I'd never heard of before, Russia's Bitch Wars

Prisons were hellish. The suka wars were only part of it - aside from the vor-on-vor fighting, both sets of criminals were effectively free to exploit the regular citizens who were dumped in there. It served Stalin's purposes to make jail as terrifying as possible.

The vor culture is still pretty strong. Quite a few made it into government after the fall of communism or became super-rich businessmen. The archives of jail tattoos that were published a couple of years ago are interesting.

yeah I have Volume II of those. it's a deeply disturbing book.

Really like to read more by Sheila Fitzpatrick too -- her articles in the LRB are really good and this is a review by her of Serge's Memoirs of a Revolutionary, which I must track.

Would never get within a mile of Montefiore, its a British thing. He is the enemy. Get bad vibes from Conquest too, so even though I love 2666 I couldn't read him.

re: gulags. I would read Shamalov's Kolyma Tales over anything by Solzhenitsyn, and Nadezhda Mandelstam's memoirs of that time are truly affecting too.

And of course Serge's The Case of Comrade Tulayev. We can't ignore the 'fiction', this one has a portrait of Stalin (as "The Chief").

Fitzroy Maclean's Eastern Approaches, while mostly a memoir of his adventures, has a fantastic account of his observations of the Trial of the Twenty-One.

why is Montefiore the enemy exactly? is he a tory or something?

oh I see he's buddies with Prince Charles and Cameron. eh whatever.

"country house" partisan

lol @ wiki:

Miramax Films and Ruby Films have bought the rights and are currently developing a movie of Young Stalin.[8]

West End music next, I'm sure.

musical I mean.

gonna wash that menshevik right outta my hair

many of the good writers on stalin are righter than me, unsurprisingly; the western left (w exceptions of course, including camus and the godhead orwell) honestly did not acquit itself terribly well on this front. but the conquest book grinds no axes (outside of the reissue's forward) and is not wrong. mandelstam memoirs are v good tho yeah.

i basically want to write the stalin movie; no shame. (the robert duvall one was nothing special, altho shout-out to the bizarrely cast michael caine in the otherwise p fun lithgow/hoskins/caine Big Three movie when lions roared.)

foreword i mean. also referring there obv to a different big three than the last one i referred to itt.

we watched this in high school -- pretty good, or at least i thought so then:

http://www.impawards.com/1991/posters/inner_circle.jpg

I thought Lithgow did a fine goon show imitation and Hoskins slightly less impressive.

Wait, what's wrong with Conquest -- his rightwards tilt or something?

Not saying the Western Left have done a good job on Stalin at all, but Montefiore comes across like an idiot whenever he's appeared on Television. Can't stomach him.

Ok, i shd give Robert Conquest a go. Perhaps hasty in lumping him w/Montefiore.

Watched Eisenstein's October at the weekend which reminded me I never finished T's History.... The two vols were really great, need to get back on that.

The Ukranian famine -- another Stalin job -- was also written about in Forever Flowing by Vasily Grossman. Also has a portrait of a man coming back from a long sentence served in a gulag. xp

Montefiore comes across like an idiot whenever he's appeared on Television. Can't stomach him.

I'm only reading his books, could care less how authors come across on TV

I have this vague memory that the documentary Seeing Red addressed the American Communist Party's problematic attraction to Stalin, but it's been a long time since I saw it. Very interesting film and recommended as a side note.

Stalin owned

He had his faults, but who doesn't? Overall a cool bro

the American Communist Party's problematic attraction to Stalin

actual pathology imo

Robert Conquest is a failtarded western 'sovietologist' and shit from hacky western anti-communists like him is what makes it hard to actually figure out what happened. Read this, peace http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm

i only just thought to recheck this thread so ugh here are some MORE PARAGRAPHS

i don't know that the idea that the ukrainian famine was a deliberate genocide is all that uncritically accepted. i mean i've heard it a lot sure. i think the weird bolshevik relationship w the peasantry (combination of the mystical idealization of The Commune held over from 19c populism + furious disappointment and resentment at their perceived petty covetous superstitious backwardness -- it's almost a spurned relationship) went a long way towards stalin/the party's willingness to pursue policies that killed so many in the name of organizing the countryside and "liquidating" the "kulaks". but yeah, i dunno that stalin had some particular antipathy towards ukrainians; and i'd have to read more about the ukraine in particular to have any real idea of how legitimate is the notion that the famine was calculated to crush local nationalist movements. whatever the motives tho, forced collectivization was executed ruthlessly and destructively and killed way more people than would have died without it even though it wasn't raining much. i tend to think lenin would have been a little more adaptable/pragmatic/successful on this front, but then, that's what all the sentimentalists say.

anyway, the conquest book i recommended (the most famous conquest book) is about 1935-38, not about the famine, and glasnost produced nothing to discredit it. internal battles amongst the western left aside, the line i always think of re: stalin-scholarship (much quoted in solzhenitsyn obits) is brodsky's, talking to (waitforit) susan sontag, sometime in the 70s, and laughing together like good leftists over some ranting condemnation that's just issued from solzhenitsyn's vermont compound. yes, brodsky acknowledges, solzhenitsyn's a crank, a religious reactionary (and a few decades later a putin man), "but everything he says about the soviet union is true. all those numbers. it's all true." i mean, one would like it not to be. but.

More PARAGRAPHS:
A thing about Serge, Shamalov, maybe even Grossman for a time and from what I can see (and other writers who fictionalised these massacres like Platonov) was that they all believed in it. Disgusted as they were by the direction their country was taking you sense a critical -- half despairing yet also half engaged stance but its hard to substantiate without more reading. The discussions of Grossman centre on his role as a "Tolstoy of the Soviet Union" but I think there is more to him. So wrt Montefiore and their ilk their work is marketed as good, honest history to dig out the archives and to properly document the crimes to the fullest and get the numbers to the nearest decimal point...underneath it all though what you have is a "never try anything but the market and neo-liberalism because look at what can happen". Not a message I'm prepared to listen to given what governments in Europe are doing to the poor via the destruction of the welfare state. It may sound insensitive but a lot of this seems like body count history whereas I'm in need of a wider, open discussion of the positives and negatives of the Soviet Union, a fuller account something that was tried and failed, but what can be learned. Even if the Western left lied and wouldn't acknowledge the crimes then I'm not sure I could stomach a right-winger writing about this given what is happening now.

This article details a book on the Chinese famine.

imo the anti-communist hack to avoid is richard pipes, not robert conquest.