Rating: 
Summary: Good, solid biography, but not a classic
Review: ... Conquest is a great Sovietologist; his works on collectivization and the terror are classics. This is a little different from his other works, however. This biography is not exhaustive; it's not long, it's not tedious, it's almost as much anecdotal as anything else. Conquest's not-too-subtle attempts at psychological history don't help; but it is quite obvious that he is repulsed by his subject, which anybody should, and would, be when studying the life of one of the worst human monsters that ever walked the face of the earth (as Alex De Jonge said, Stalin made Hitler look like an "inept bungler"). And his revulsion shows through at times. And historians do need to start pointing out, with greater regularity, the fool that Stalin made of Roosevelt, just for the sake of the hundreds of millions of people that had to live under tyrannical Soviet rule because FDR was convinced that Stalin was a great "democrat." Contrary to what one reviewer said, Conquest's "Stalin" is not a difficult book to read at all. If one is looking for a succinct, and imminently fair, biography of Stalin, it would be harder to find a better one than Conquest's. A bit a knowledge of 20th century Soviet history WOULD help the reader; and don't tackle "Harvest of Sorrow" or "The Great Terror" without some knowledge of the times. But with "Stalin", Conquest appears to be aiming more at the general reader and in this he succeeds admirably.
Rating:
Summary: Very good but only half the story
Review: After watching Stalin's remorseless decimation of the Soviet People you come to the question "How did he get away with it?" His machinations are detailed all along the way but the submission of those below the leadership is taken for granted. Near the beginning (after executions are permitted by the ruling committee(s))we see movements at or near the top resulting in the killing like sheep of those at or below, roughly, the middle. Then the terror progresses upward in the chain of command until the very elite live and die at the whim of the dictator.But by or near the end you have to ask, where is the tracing of the process by which everyone, ultimately, submitted to one paranoid maniac. It's not enough to trace the methods used by Stalin without analyzing the process in the people which so strangely permitted the terror of one man over millions. Here and there mention is made of the indoctrination process and the suspension and perversion of thought, but mainly we simply watch Stalin going ahead with his strange and deadly business, more and more apparantly aimed to perpetuate his personal power only. As time goes on and the agents of the terror are themselves terrorized, but yet the terror goes on, we are left puzzled without any analysis of how this can be so. At one moment we see Stalin approached in private by a small group of the leadership and Stalin asks "Why have you come?" It is as if Stalin himself was puzzled why they did not come for him. In the event, the moment of opportunity passes. The members of the leadership merely request further orders. Interesting as the book is, one is left regretting that the most important subject was described from a distance but left a mystery.
Rating:
Summary: Good, solid biography, but not a classic
Review: All I have to say is if you want to feel incredibly stupid, just read a chapter in this book to find out all the words Robert Conquest knows that you don't. I had to have a dictionary accompany me when I decided to pick up this book. The information is excellent, but Conquest needs to stop showing off his superior linguistic skills and concentrate on organizing his information. Another thing that displeased me was the constant sidetracking. Conquest got off topic so much that I would forget what periods of Stalins life he was discussing. Furthermore, half the book is about the intricacies of the pre and post revolutionary Russian government and backrounds of all the party members. The sidetracking was very distracting from the topic at hand. This is the only on of Conquest's books that I have read, but if the rest of them are like this then I feel comfortable in saying that Conquest may be a lot smarter than I, but I guarantee you I'm a better writer.
Rating: 
Summary: Conquest: Breaker of Dictionaries
Review: All I have to say is if you want to feel incredibly stupid, just read a chapter in this book to find out all the words Robert Conquest knows that you don't. I had to have a dictionary accompany me when I decided to pick up this book. The information is excellent, but Conquest needs to stop showing off his superior linguistic skills and concentrate on organizing his information. Another thing that displeased me was the constant sidetracking. Conquest got off topic so much that I would forget what periods of Stalins life he was discussing. Furthermore, half the book is about the intricacies of the pre and post revolutionary Russian government and backrounds of all the party members. The sidetracking was very distracting from the topic at hand. This is the only on of Conquest's books that I have read, but if the rest of them are like this then I feel comfortable in saying that Conquest may be a lot smarter than I, but I guarantee you I'm a better writer.
Rating: 
Summary: Part of the story, a little old
Review: As good as this is, it doesn't benefit from the latest documents released from the former Soviet Union (this was written during glasnost). For that reason I suggest somenoe who wants to learn about Stalin not only read this but also Stalin:In-Depth Biography Radzinsky's "Stalin:The First In-Depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives." Niether one provided me with ALL that I had hoped to learn about- Breaker of Nations provides lots of fun information and I think is better written, while Radzinsky's can provide deeper insight into the motives of Stalin's actions and his personality. Breaker of Nations has to be more simplistic in explanations of these things.
Rating:
Summary: Very scary
Review: Being born in 1959, and educated in the 60's, 70's and 80's, I did not know a lot about this extraordinary social phenomenon (the Stalinist regime) until the 90's. It has not been as publicized and theatricalized as the Nazi regime. It should be though. This book filled in all the details. It starts off depicting the political rise of a selfish, willful, self righteous, self serving backstabber who evolved into a downright insidious, despotic monster. Through manipulation and intimidation, he bested all his political collegues and opponents,inserted his own supportive people, until it was not possible to challenge, criticize or (pity da fool) confront him. It goes on to describe the "Terror" he inflicted on his country (and a whole ring of other independent nations that were unlucky enough to be adjacent to Russia) and the poor people who lived (and died) there. Several generations of normal people in half the northern hemisphere have been stigmatized and bullied into repressive submission behind Stalin's Iron Curtain. Move over Hitler. The lowest depths of hell were just given to another guest and you have been upgraded to the second lowest depth. Who can tell all the other enormous tangent effects of this one misguided life. The author has really done his homework. The reader is left with no doubt that this is a truly evil man. Excellant clarification for boomers who were educated prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, because of the subtle way in which this monster controlled history during his lifetime and after, well into the late 80's.
Rating: 
Summary: Was Stalin worse than Hitler? Probably, but that's another
Review: book. Hitler shot himself & National Socialism was pretty much expunged from the world. The effects of Stalinism are still felt today. He died a relatively natural death being old & infirm.
The first few tapes of his youth & the early years of the Bolsheviks was frankly a little boring. It picks up considerably as we find Stalin as caretaker of an ailing Lenin who died in 1924. By 1929 he had eliminated all opposition. His rule & word were absolute until his death in 1953. This was not communism. It was Stalinism. He is the standard to be measured against for all despots before & since, an amoral sociopathic paranoid. This book is an overview & doesn't dwell on the millions of peasants, military officers & party members he murdered. More detail is in other books by Mr. Conquest. There are still a great many Russians who remember & revere Stalin as a true hero. Few revere Hitler. That the Soviet empire survived until 1989 & as Russia today after 24 years of Stalin corrosive rule is a credit to the Russian people & their leaders.
Rating:
Summary: Was Stalin worse than Hitler? Probably, but that's another
Review: book. Hitler shot himself & National Socialism was pretty much expunged from the world. The effects of Stalinism are still felt today. He died a relatively natural death being old & infirm.
The first few tapes of his youth & the early years of the Bolsheviks was frankly a little boring. It picks up considerably as we find Stalin as caretaker of an ailing Lenin who died in 1924. By 1929 he had eliminated all opposition. His rule & word were absolute until his death in 1953. This was not communism. It was Stalinism. He is the standard to be measured against for all despots before & since, an amoral sociopathic paranoid. This book is an overview & doesn't dwell on the millions of peasants, military officers & party members he murdered. More detail is in other books by Mr. Conquest. There are still a great many Russians who remember & revere Stalin as a true hero. Few revere Hitler. That the Soviet empire survived until 1989 & as Russia today after 24 years of Stalin corrosive rule is a credit to the Russian people & their leaders.
Rating:
Summary: Quick, probably better for commoners, popular history
Review: Conquest has written eminent studies(the only in thier class) on the Great Famine(harvest of Sorrow) and the Great Terror. THese scholarly works have now been followed by a much lesser work. Clearly Conquest was responding from calls by his supporters to publish a book on the life of the monster, Stalin. But unfortunatly, instead of publishing a scholarly, in-depth 700 page study he has publish a rather paltry tale. Full of information it nevertheless lacks in several areas. It lacks mostly in the details of the post Great Terror. It lacks when describing the war. It lacks in describing the 'doctors plot'. it also lacks in the fact that it does not do justice to its title. Stalin: 'Breaker of Nations'. Conquest does not detail these nations. He tells nothing of the Jews, Tatars, Udmirts, Greeks, Germans, Armenians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Fins, and Estonians who were victimized by Stalin. Stalin was a breaker of nations but we dont hear about these nations.
Read this book, but then go and read Volkogonovs 'Stalin: Triumph and Tradgedy'.
Rating:
Summary: Quick, probably better for commoners, popular history
Review: Conquest has written eminent studies(the only in thier class) on the Great Famine(harvest of Sorrow) and the Great Terror. THese scholarly works have now been followed by a much lesser work. Clearly Conquest was responding from calls by his supporters to publish a book on the life of the monster, Stalin. But unfortunatly, instead of publishing a scholarly, in-depth 700 page study he has publish a rather paltry tale. Full of information it nevertheless lacks in several areas. It lacks mostly in the details of the post Great Terror. It lacks when describing the war. It lacks in describing the 'doctors plot'. it also lacks in the fact that it does not do justice to its title. Stalin: 'Breaker of Nations'. Conquest does not detail these nations. He tells nothing of the Jews, Tatars, Udmirts, Greeks, Germans, Armenians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Fins, and Estonians who were victimized by Stalin. Stalin was a breaker of nations but we dont hear about these nations.
Read this book, but then go and read Volkogonovs 'Stalin: Triumph and Tradgedy'.
|
