Hacker News Reader

A very different picture from memoires of people who saw his later years in power. A man totally frightened about losing power, and insecure about his unpopularity. When he finally got to the stage of "things being upon him" and virtually everybody in his immediate entourage getting hostile to him, he wept and kept sending firing squads.

Afaik, his father wanting him to be shoe cobbler is odd choice of "trying to control him out of his will" given that his father was very violently abusive too. The priest trying to control him is kind of odd framing of priest wanting him to return to school. Nor it is out of ordinary for borderline violent youngster (he fought other boys in streets while in school) with violent father to rebel against system/authorities around seeking retaliation.

He had pathological need for control and was violent. But, analysis that ignores other violent influences in his life and put all on strength of his will is kind of missing something.

Stalin had intense rages, yelling and swearing. He was insecure about host of things, sensitive to criticism or slights and seeked to punish them with vengeance. That is not exactly unemotional nor really uncaring about opinions of others. He did cared - so much that he tortured for it. You make it sound like he was logically rationally focused on primary goal of communism, but large part of it was him emotional need to be in absolute control and insecurity.

> I think the most unusual characteristics of his story was that everyone tried to control him. First, the priests at the seminary by disciplining him

Priests tried to control him ? He entered the school voluntarily. They did not lock him up. He left of his own accord and priests encouraged him to return. I don't think that was 'trying to control him'

> He seemingly did everything for the sole purpose of global Marxist revolution

Stalin's policy was 'Socialism in one country'. Apart from some modest actions like supporting the Spanish communists in the Spanish Civil War etc, he did not work that hard to advance the Marxist revolution abroad.

> Stalin's policy was 'Socialism in one country'

He started a war with Finland, signed a treaty with Germany to split Poland, helped communists in China and North Korea and set communist regimes in all countries that soviet Army freed from Germany.

Also some historians think that Stalin had plans to start a war with Germany, but Germany started the war several days sooner (For instance Mark Solonin talks about this).

Ah, I am wrong about this. Thanks for the correction

USSR was willing to go to war with Germany as early as 1938 but France didn’t want to, and Poland refused to allow Soviet movement thru their country.

> Stalin's policy was 'Socialism in one country'

Although he did annex quite a few of neighbours into that one country.

> Apart from some modest actions like [Stalin] supporting the Spanish communists in the Spanish Civil War etc, he did not work that hard to advance the Marxist revolution abroad.

Yet I recall that in ‘Homage to Catalonia’, George Orwell says that Stalin undermined the Marxist cause...

Although it could be my bad memory, or Orwell's lack of understanding...

Not that I know anything about Marxism!!!

I'm a poor historian, but my understanding was that Lenin was the Marxism-oriented one, while Stalin, who murdered Lenin, by slowly poisoning him by putting heavy metals in his hat, highjacked the revolution and went on a mass-murderous power-grabbing rampage. Reading back the end of my last sentence, I'm obviously skewing this against Stalin, reducing his legacy to murder and egomania, but my main point is that he is seen by some (many?) to have highjacked the revolution.

And many see Lenin's October revolution as hijacking the February one for his own murderous egomania. But often this just this seems like a way of pretending there was some pure utopian vision which was unfortunately corrupted, every time. In reality total power is always total power.

Independent enthusiasm was welcomed when it was minor and useful (like in western communist parties, or the recruiting of western volunteers for Spain) but crushed completely if it had any chance of getting in the way of naked power (like the pre-war Polish communists, almost all murdered).

> Independent enthusiasm was welcomed when it was minor and useful (like in western communist parties, or the recruiting of western volunteers for Spain) but crushed completely if it had any chance of getting in the way of naked power (like the pre-war Polish communists, almost all murdered).

True believers are vulnerable because they are too stupid or too delusional to realize the weakness of their cookie cutter ideology. Invariably, true believers are converted to useful idiots if there is anyone who wants them (or sometimes upgraded to cynical tyrants).

I think it's pretty disingenuous to pretend like "true believers" and "blinded by utopian visions" are legitimate talking points when you consider that at the time most countries were recovering from one or two world wars and there was a literal standing army of Nazis with known explicit goals to eradicate and/or dominate Jews and Socialists.

This isn't "you gotta crack some eggs to make an omelet", this is "everybody is cracking eggs and you're next".

If anything, you're expressing a heavily idealized version of a very complex, difficult, and dangerous time.

the bit about poisoning is speculative, nobody really knows

> "Stalin, who murdered Lenin"

This is not commonly accepted history. Speculation at best.

While Stalin certainly bis one of the greatest mass murderers in history, it should be noted that concentration camps, summary executions, mass reprisals etc. etc. where pioneered by Lenin who did not even shy away from calling them such. Whether Stalin offed him, or complications of syphilis were sufficient, had he lived longer it is unlikely that the death toll would have been significantly different.

Introduction to Wikipedia's article for "Socialism in one country" [0]:

> Socialism in one country was a theory put forth by Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin in 1924 which was eventually adopted by the Soviet Union as state policy. The theory held that given the defeat of all the communist revolutions in Europe in 1917–1923 except Russia, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally.

> This turn toward national communism was a shift from the previously held position by classical Marxism that socialism must be established globally. However, proponents of the theory argue that it contradicts neither world revolution nor world communism. The theory was in opposition to Leon Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country

This makes perfect sense: you do away with nationalism, since in their view socialism knows no boundaries and should trump all. The same they say for Islamic Caliphates, you're an Algerian or Malian, you're a Muslim, obey the word of god and that trumps all.

He seemingly did everything for the sole purpose of global Marxist revolution

How did you arrive at that conclusion from either of these books? (I'm actually asking, not trying to take you to task for it).

>>The guy, like a serial killer, was completely emotionally unmoved and undeterred by any obstacle or opinion of anyone.

Go big or go home. No doubt not-Stalins were kind and caring and preached Marxism (as they understood it) but they didn't make it that far. Stalins survived. (Survivor bias)

Radical changes can be done only via brutal force. You're talking about property confiscations, massive killings, jailing etc etc.

Now that's a shock: "I have a person here who states she's Stalin's daughter, and we believe she's genuine; unless you instruct me to the contrary, I’m putting her on the one a.m. plane for Rome where we can stop and think the thing through. I’m not giving her any commitment that she can come to the States. I’m only enabling her to leave India, and we will see her to some part of the world—the U.S. or somewhere else—where she can settle in peace. If you disagree with this, let me know before midnight." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlana_Alliluyeva#Political_...

If you want something more extensive and less dramatized, I'd recommend Kotkin's ongoing multi-volume biography starting with Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928. It's becoming (if it isn't already) the definitive work on Stalin.

Yea I’ve read it - it’s one of the best books I’ve read in my life, period.

Stalin comes across as a total sociopath - as you’d probably expect - but what struck me was how cruel he was to his close ones, whether family or political lieutenants. He had the occasional moment of softness but he was otherwise a bully who minced no words in making others feel minuscule.

Another idea that struck me is how all the Soviet top brass were absolute workhorses who squeezed every living hour out of the day, to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. Stalin himself seemed to sleep from 4am to the late morning, which I found curious. Overall there are clear insights on how they won the war and lifted the Soviet empire, other than through despicable actions.

I think the book still makes me think nowadays about the “noble communist” that claims that their version of communism would not be like that, and how they would be the first to be purged.

Overall its an excellent read. It’s exquisitely documented and Sebag Montefiore deserves mad props for developing a fine, subtle sense of humor in the narration of stories that span from the kafkaesque to the satanic - the book would’ve been very hard to digest otherwise.

The point of him only sleeping 4 hours, is surely a part of propaganda. Stalin lived slow life in opulent luxury, often sending off his generals during the war so he can finish his meal and have tea.

Not 4 hours, 4am til late morning - noon. He had his dachas and opulent dinners but he was relentless at work - no way he lived a slow life.

The book is written by a Cambridge-trained historian who did a painstaking work of documentation, including reviewing previously inaccessible Russian archives and interviewing just about every possible Stalin relative and survivor at the time of writing.

> Cambridge-trained historian

Cambridge historian will he be, but he just reverberates the commodity propaganda. Stalin was closing on the godhood in just every written source.

I'll give you an analogy: if some super secret North Korean state archives claim that Kim had no anus, would the Cambridge trained historian claim the same just because of that? Common sense would be lacking there, as it is in popular Western depictions of Stalin. I would not be surprised that people were flattering the guy even in their private notes, for the fear of them being found not doing that enough.

Any well schooled Russian person has a more or less complete idea of who he was as a person. Now, would somebody be a Cambridge-trained historian or not, would he know more of how such type of people live without "feeling and breathing" their will and presence? I'll trust the popular hearsay more than work of acclaimed historian then.

Almost every Western account of Soviet despots made me laugh, trying to find some fine, intriguing, sophisticated persona, where there were none. Why are they trying so hard at that?

To me, it feels that Western historians often pull more effort to rehabilitate the soviets than the contemporary revisionist propaganda.

No offense meant, but if you are going to dispute a book written by one of the internationally recognized experts of the subject who has access to far more archive material that you or I will ever have, something more substantial that “surely [insert opinion here]” would be most welcome.

But that does sound an awful lot like propaganda. They say the same thing about Trump actually. And basically every dictator is said to have some sort of super human abilities and determination. Not needing much sleep is a very common one.

Stalin and Trump aren't known for their good judgement and rationality.

Just because they're capable of physically staying awake without much sleep, doesn't make them so superhuman as to remain unaffected by doing so.

A general problem with ideology is that people, naturally, only view themselves as the 'winners' in a system. In socialism come communism everybody is going to be a Marx living off a metaphorical Engels writing and indulging their intellectual and philosophical curiosities with no constraints whatsoever. Of course nobody sees themselves as the ones toiling in the fields or industry giving 100% of their labor back to the state, or the 'community' should you prefer to imagine a stateless system, invariably under threat of brutal 'reeducation' to ensure everybody can be 'equal'.

The same is true of extreme laissez faire views. Everybody again sees themselves as those now freed to finally earn and achieve greatness. Nobody sees themselves as those being left trapped under oppressive and aggressively (and completely legally) entrenched forces using every single dirty trick in the book to undermine competition and coercively squeeze every penny they can out of everybody.

It seems from the way you're writing this that you view yourself as non-ideological, but I fail to see how belief in the liberal democratic capitalist state is not also ideological. You make several mistakes about the nature of labour under socialism, for instance, it entails giving labour to the community only insofar as capitalism entails giving it to your boss - and in fact less than this, since even Marx's theory of socialism posits a great reduction in working hours. You also mistake the nature of equality, one which Lenin refuted personally more than 100 years ago[0]. You must first understand what labour means to a human and indeed man's position in relation to his society not only from a capitalist standpoint but from a pre-capitalist (using the tools historical analysis gives us) and post-capitalist viewpoint. The notion of private and individual labour is very new, as is the moral and legal system constructed around it.

It's funny that your stated problem with a laissez faire view is merely the idea of competition squeezing money out of people rather than the much more fundamental one of people being unable to achieve the greatness you speak of because they are too busy working for someone else. It's not a trick to undermine competition, it's the nature of the capitalist system to be trapped so aggressively under these forces.

(Is it just me or is it curious that this post has a downvote and flag within less than one minute of me posting it, which is not enough time to read and assimilate its contents? Boring reading or not, it speaks volumes that someone with 500+ karma, someone given the power by the site to downvote, would rather click the button than make even a name-call response[1] even after spending so much time on HN that the have themselves racked up "insight points".)

[0] https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_D...

It's likely because this generic ideological tangent stuff that you post has become tedious, and is largely off topic here. I appreciate that you've been careful to remain civil, but can you please dial this (way) back? It's not what the site is for, and has acquired the quality of a droning harangue.

I was very surprised to see something else in your comment history: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348848. That's good. But the proportions are not.

who squeezed every living hour out of the day

Most of his contemporaries record night after night of hours-long boozing sessions.

Overall there are clear insights on how they won the war

They had, and wantonly threw 10x the people the Germans had into the meatgrinder. It's not like it happened through some particular efficiency.

Not only 10x people but also advanced machinery like the T34 which ended up being the best mid-sized tank of the war. Mind you, before 1930 Russia was pretty much 100% agrarian. So yes it took a lot of blood - not only on the battlefield, but also in the farms, where the lives of peasants were ruthlessly traded for machines - but also an astoundingly focused effort at the highest echelons. None of this was organized by people chilling with their feet on the table, casually dispatching orders.

More broadly, the idea that they partied a lot - which is also one of the great story arcs in the book - does not detract from this. Think Wall Street, the Valley, etc.

Not only 10x people but also advanced machinery like the T34

The egregious waste of human life was ok because of advanced machinery?

the idea that they partied a lot - which is also one of the great story arcs in the book - does not detract from this. Think Wall Street, the Valley

I dunno, I did a fair bit of partying in Silicon Valley and I think the the fact that, however ill-advised and harmful, this didn't exterminate millions of people tends to detract from whatever 'this' is supposed to be quite a bit.

The parent never said that the development and successful use of the tanks made the human losses okay, only that the Soviet victory wasn't solely due to overwhelming numbers.

I dunno, I did a fair bit of partying in Silicon Valley and I think the the fact that, however ill-advised and harmful, this didn't exterminate millions of people tends to detract from whatever 'this' is supposed to be quite a bit.

Again, the parent only explained that partying and hard work aren't mutually exclusive, not that this somehow makes Stalin's actions okay.

Another idea that struck me is how all the Soviet top brass were absolute workhorses who squeezed every living hour out of the day, to the point of mental and physical exhaustion.

The explicit idea here is that Soviet success was a function of the exceptionally hard work of leadership.

Which might very well be true, at least in part. I still don't see how this relates to my or your comments. Hard work and a disregard for human lifes can go hand in hand. Just because someone works hard for a cause that doesn't make that cause right; and acknowledging the hard work isn't the same as condoning the terrible things achieved through that work.

Hard work and a disregard for human lifes can go hand in hand.

They can, but one of these things endlessly colours the way we morally judge them. No amount of hard work makes up for a disregard for human life.

Exactly, and nobody in this thread ever claimed otherwise.

Another idea that struck me is how all the Soviet top brass were absolute workhorses who squeezed every living hour out of the day, to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. Stalin himself seemed to sleep from 4am to the late morning, which I found curious. Overall there are clear insights on how they won the war and lifted the Soviet empire, other than through despicable actions.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting it but this reads to me like 'the soviet leadership worked really hard and that won the war'.

Oh, I interpreted that as "hard work AND despicable actions won the war". I apologise for my dismissive comments in case your interpretation is correct.

I don't think you have anything to apologize for. It's just that 'Stalin worked really hard' is both ahistorical and despicable, as any sort of explanation. It's not a claim you made.

There were no 10x people. The Eastern Front statistics in wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II):

    Strength

    Year   Axis troops   Allies troops
    1941   3,767,000     2,680,000
    1943   3,933,000     6,724,000
    1945   1,960,000     6,410,000


    Casualties and losses
    5.1 million dead      8.7–10 million dead

Note, also, of the total dead numbers the prisoners died in captivity is 637,000 vs 2,250,000–3,300,000. So the battlefield losses are close for both sides.

Agreed. Not only that, military historians who don't base their knowledge of the Eastern Front solely on German sources, such as David Glantz [0] and Jonathan House [1], claim that when there was superiority of Soviet vs Germans numbers, it was because the Soviets successfully employed concentration of forces, which is a sound military tactic!

That is, to the German caught unawares, it looks as if there is an endless "Asiatic horde" (which was the fascist propaganda to explain losses), but what is actually happening is that the Soviets are successfully concentrating their forces by thinning them down where they aren't needed, and achieving greater numbers where they are needed. Good operational warfare that is, and the Soviets excelled at this. Also, a lot of the time the Germans were unaware of Soviet reserves, so that fresh forces would appear when they weren't expecting them.

The self-serving memories of Wehrmacht Generals mostly conveniently "forgot" about this, and so the myth of the endless Asiatic hordes was born.

There's a fascinating YouTube video [2] where House (Jonathan, not Hugh Laurie!) dismantles the three usual German alibis of why they were defeated:

1- Hitler interfered too much and was the cause of every blunder.

2- "General Winter".

3- "The Asiatic Horde".

----

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_House

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zinPbUZUHDE

> but also an astoundingly focused effort at the highest echelons. None of this was organized by people chilling with their feet on the table, casually dispatching orders.

Excuse me, but what you say goes 180 degrees contrary to account of every survivor, and popular public sentiment among the more erudite part of Russian society.

Just every member of political establishment at the time was portrayed as an idle hedonist of no intellectual acumen, but at the same very violent, and easy to snap. And this is the very reason why they gnawed each other to death in the thirties - no lard left, the society expired.

War confiscations, and ones in thirties were well known to end in coffers in mid-level officials, who themselves were a month away from starvation. That goes by account of every well respected person of that generation I knew in my childhood.

The myth of industrialisation is also just a myth. Russia had engineering school of its own, not much behind the German one, and a no joke industry by late ninetieth century. Just it was rather disperse, outdated, and suffering from disintegrated supply chain. Very low profile, and not earning headlines, unlike German one.

Anecdote:

When I was 7 or 6 or something, I remember my granddad, who was in the Wehrmacht back then, very often explained to me how they fought during the war.

One of the things which stuck with me was how many more people the Russians had in comparison with the Germans. He once drew on paper to explain how they did something like cross fire where they would just fire with the machine guns so the lines of fire would cross and from down the hill Russians would run up the hill, die on the way up and new Russians would come up the hill without weapons and would take the weapons of the dead Russians and keep on running until they died, then another ones would take their weapons and so on.

I remember him saying it was 2000 Russian soldiers on one German soldier, but I guess that number got mangled through war propaganda, war reality, fear, and rumors on the front.

Through, the definition of soldier on Wehrmacht part was quite loose. Oftentimes it was pretty much anyone living in the area on Easter Front. Don't forget about that when looking at 2000 soldiers vs one German stats.

Your first anecdote was also captured in the opening scene of "Enemy at the Gates", a movie about the Battle of Stalingrad that became one of the turning points of the war.

Do note that the accuracy of "Enemy at the Gates" is dubious at best. Not a good source of facts for the Battle of Stalingrad.

What you are saying is just senseless. The USSR had less population than the Axis, especially when 30% of it was under occupation.

You're just spouting bullshit written by the Germans after the war to justify their defeat.

"Вы меня сейчас повесите, но я не одна, нас двести миллионов, всех не перевешаете. Вам отомстят за меня…"

If anything, I'd be spouting Soviet propaganda!

Where do you get the "10x people"?

The ratio of dead alone is something like 5 to 1.

It isn't, neither total death nor military loses. (And how would 5 to 1 death mean 10x people is unclear).