Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

drb.ie

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 110 posts

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#31

Post by panick21_ »

VictorPath wrote: post #10
panick21_ wrote: post #2

A lot of that rings pretty true. Stephen Kotkin's own biography that I have been reading his some of the same points. Because of the new archives you can really get an insight into the day to day operation of an empire that combined the power and function of New York, Washington, LA, Detroit and SF into one centrally run from an office. Its a a baffling process where Stalin moves between editing movies, deciding how…

> Stalin foreign policy (not unlike Chamberlains) was to pull Germany to his side Sort of. Prior to 1933 was the Third Period where the Comintern was antagonistic in Germany even to socialists ("social fascists"). From 1934 to the end of 1938 the USSR was looking for a self-defense pact with France, or the UK, neither country of which was interested (Blum in France was not for complex reasons). In 1939 the USSR and G…

Starting from the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922 there was cooperation between Germany and Soviets. Recent archival research has reviled that this cooperation was far deep then initially assumed. Until a short while ago we mostly looked at diplomatic treaties. However the reality is, German Army was basically operating as a shadow government in Germany and they very intensively interact with Russia on a massive scale.

There certainty were rough patches in the relationship and the didn't like each other, but strategically from 1922 on Russia was mostly supportive of Germany.

And of course Stalin hated the SPD and he thought they were more dangerous then the Rightists. But that doesn't mean that the core relationship was always that Germany had to be support as long as they were aggressive towards the other 'capitalist powers'.

> France, or the UK, neither country of which was interested

They were interested. But the cost of such an agreement was basically to give Stalin power over pretty much all of Eastern and Southern Europe.

And such an agreement would only have been a tool in Stalin attempt to create war between France and Germany that he could stay out off.

The French were very suspicious of Soviet intentions (far more so then they used to be of Imperial Russia) and that is why the French never came even close to such an agreement.

> In 1939 the USSR and Germany signed a peace treaty, which Germany would break within two years, but it gave the Soviet Union enough time to prepare for invasion. Also Germany having a western front helped the Soviet Union.

Yeah sure it helped that Germany spent resources fighting Britain. But not getting invaded by 1.5 million Germans at all would have helped far more.

The reality is, Germany can't invaded Soviet Union without Soviet Union or Britain support. They likely couldn't even have invaded France without Soviet Support. So had Stalin adopted a different strategy, Germany would have never seriously invaded the Soviet Union.

> Lenin did not have global goals with himself at the center

Sure. Until the moment he has the option to be.

> Stalin's goals were even more modest

No they weren't. Both of their goals was global revolution and Soviet Leadership of global communism.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#32

Post by panick21_ »

pasabagi wrote: post #3

I'm reminded a bit of Marx's Eighteenth Bruminaire of Louis Bonaparte, where the line 'once as grand tragedy, and the second time as rotten farce' was coined, because just like Napoleon III to Napoleon I, compared to Stalin, Putin is a dwarf. Sadly, I don't find the comparison particularly reassuring. Hilter, another 'moon-calf', with his 'first available dozen debt-encumbered lieutenants', did far more damage than S…

Bismark is a far more reasoned and careful strategist with incredibly different goals compared to Hitler. He wanted short wars for limited strategic gains and Prussia to be dominate within the German Empire.

That is totally different then believing in a global race war.

Its not at all like Napoleon and Napoleon III. They hoped for the same thing, but were just differently capable.

> did far more damage than Stalin ever did

That's debatable.

> fairly sane if shaky revolutionary party

That is a delusional take on the Bolsheviks. Their state was fundamentally evil from the beginning. The literal first act of the Bolshviks was to do a coup against NOT THE DUMA but rather the Soviet. They first purged the other Socialist parties.

And then engaged in some of the worst economic policies in the history of humanity that lead to a mass starvation unbelievable proportions and only report that if they didn't change their policies they would soon be ruling a graveyard finally changed their minds about that.

It was Lenin who created the General Secretary. It was Lenin who gave the General Secretary an absurd amount of Power.

The constant claim by Communist that if not for Stalin the Bolsheviks would have produced some great government is so much historical revisionism.

Trosky with his amazing writing and speaking was the darling of the Western Left but he proclaimed proudly that he was pro-Finish Winter War and that killed his movement to a significant degree. The secrete is that all those guys were more the same then they were different.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#33

Post by recuter »

hutzlibu wrote: post #25
recuter wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it is. He can't climb down from the military debacle without getting overthrown. Similarly, the politicians in countries that so publicly imposed sanctions on him won't be able to backpedal either. Short of a coup d'etat, a new iron curtain, a fire sale on Russian raw materials and companies. Ultimately, economic subjection to China and atrocities in Ukraine.

"He can't climb down from the military debacle without getting overthrown" You name it: this is a very possible outcome. Putin is only the tsar, as long he is succesful. The russian oligarchy is likely not happy about the state of things. And it would be hard to unwind things, but without Putin new diplomatic solutions might be possible.

The Russian oligarchy is of no consequence these days, he has spent 25 years consolidating power. A popular uprising is the only chance of Putin not dying on the throne and that doesn't appear to be happening.

The protests now are a fraction of what they were last year for Navalny. In retrospect that was probably his dry run. Weeks into this the majority of the Russian population either supports this "special operation" or is too scared to say anything. Same difference, this is the new normal for them just like the good old days.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#34

Post by maybelsyrup »

ortusdux wrote: post #6

You can download 121 episodes of Tom and Jerry from the CIA's public release of Osama Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound computer files. As far as I can tell, it is the most complete collection available online for free or though paid services. The runner up is HBO max with a paltry 77 episodes. https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/index_video.... https://medium.com/fan-fare/hbo-max-is-failing-the-classic-t..…

I know we're just supposed to upvote you if all we need to say is "this is amazing, thanks for sharing", but this is amazing, thanks for sharing.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#35

Post by panick21_ »

jackallis wrote: post #26

everbody seem to fascinated by Stalin, but only mention Trotsky in passing. It should have been Trotsky at the center stage as secretrait, even Lenin wanted him but alas the man died. I dont think there would have been Stalin if it was not for Lenin and Trotsky. Zinoview and Kaminev were .......

This is wrong. Lenin never wanted Trotsky, in fact he used Stalin deliberately to block Trotsky. And he empowered many of Trotsky enemies. Trotsky was a late comer to the Bolsheviks and because of his popularity in the civil war he was a danger to Lenin.

Lenin create the General Secretary position as a position of huge amount of power, 2nd only to himself as Council of People's Commissars of the Russian SFSR. And Lenin gave this position to Stalin explicitly.

The authorship of Lenin "Testimony" (only called that later by Trosky supporters) has been put into question to a significant degree by recent scholarship. I suspect Lenin would be spinning in his grave when people suggest he would have wanted Trosky to be his successor.

Lenin is the reason Stalin reached the positions of power he did. Trotsky had little to do with it.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#36

Post by andrepd »

zabzonk wrote: post #17

IMHO the best view of Stalin and Stalinism, and certainly the funniest if your taste is for black humor is the film "The Death Of Stalin" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Stalin often available on streaming services. A new version with s/Stalin/Putin/ would be good, and perhaps given oligarchs etc. even funnier.

It's a nice black comedy but of course, completely historically inaccurate.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#37

Post by pizza »

zabzonk wrote: post #17

IMHO the best view of Stalin and Stalinism, and certainly the funniest if your taste is for black humor is the film "The Death Of Stalin" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Stalin often available on streaming services. A new version with s/Stalin/Putin/ would be good, and perhaps given oligarchs etc. even funnier.

If you liked that, watch The Thick of It, also by Iannucci, a dark comedy (tv series) about modern British government. Both funny and ugly.. the character Malcolm Tucker still strikes fear into my heart.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#38

Post by hutzlibu »

recuter wrote: post #33
hutzlibu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"He can't climb down from the military debacle without getting overthrown" You name it: this is a very possible outcome. Putin is only the tsar, as long he is succesful. The russian oligarchy is likely not happy about the state of things. And it would be hard to unwind things, but without Putin new diplomatic solutions might be possible.

The Russian oligarchy is of no consequence these days, he has spent 25 years consolidating power. A popular uprising is the only chance of Putin not dying on the throne and that doesn't appear to be happening. The protests now are a fraction of what they were last year for Navalny. In retrospect that was probably his dry run. Weeks into this the majority of the Russian population either supports this "special operati…

"The Russian oligarchy is of no consequence these days, he has spent 25 years consolidating power."

Hm, in my perspection he consolidated his power with the oligarchy.

And a popular uprising I do not see coming in the near future, but once all those disillusioned soldiers come home and share their stories of the real war, while they discover how screwed up everything has become at home - then things might change.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#39

Post by user_7832 »

While searching about Stalin on Google I came across an interesting article (1) that provides some more perspective on his life (particularly his early years). He did seem mostly sound of mind especially in his earlier years (and the script was quite similar to any revolutionary), but somewhere it turned violent. Though in his later years - he believed his son surrendered to the Germans (!?) rather than getting captured - he clearly was delusional or had some elements of grandiosity. I wonder how things would have tuned out if he was a pacifist. (I should add that I'm not well aware of the details of European/Soviet history beyond very basics and I'm comparing "revolutionaries" to freedom fighters in colonized countries which likely isn't a great comparison.)

1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/joseph-stalin-national-hero-or-c...

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#40

Post by sn41 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #18
narrator wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often times there's a lot of controversy about if a leader is really in charge, or if they are merely a figurehead for some group of masterminds behind the scenes. The thing I like about studying Russia under Stalin is that Stalin was the one actually in charge. More than any other leader of the 19th or 20th century, he held the whole thing together almost singlehandedly. He had to because he got rid of people so reg…

"The other interesting thing about studying Stalin is that very few people liked him enough to hide his dirty laundry after he died." I think that comes naturally, if everyone important around him, had to fear for their life for years. One wrong look, or just one bad mood of the great leader - and someone gone again. They never knew what to expect, when being summoned, praise or prison - and that was intentional. Abs…

"The First Circle" by Solzhenitzyn is a great read. The caricature of Stalin in that book is absurd, I am not talking about that.

There is a historical character Abakumov [1], and in one of his reflections, (from my memory) he rues the fact that he was inducted into the inner circle of Stalin. One moment of displeasure, and he could be gone. And there is no way out of the inner circle other than perhaps, death.

A truly frightening, strangling, situation.

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

Post reply on HN