Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore
Great book. Very well written. Fascinating subject. I love reading about leaders, good and bad, and one of the reasons war is so interesting to me is that it brings all types of leaders (political, martial, and social) to the fore and drops them all into the same pot of boiling water. It’s the same reason the thought of shoving a polar bear, a lion, a tiger, three wolves, and six Rottweilers into a 50x50 ft enclosure appealed to me as a kid. Sure, I don’t like to see the blood and pain, but I love to see how each leverages his and the others strengths and weaknesses, which temporary and permanent alliances will be formed, and how things will shake out. I deplore the ugly hell of war, but love the theoretical clash of great personalities and forces. And in that sense, you just can’t beat WWII. Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, FDR, Mussolini, MacArthur, Montgomery, Patton, Rommel, Guderian, Yamamoto, Eisenhower, Zhukov; the list goes on and on. Sometimes I wonder if this cast really is coincidentally full of once-in-a-century characters, or if the circumstances simply made most of them the giants they became.
A few interesting tidbits:
While many of his magnates (think “cabinet”) and their wives quietly lived lavish lives, Stalin mostly kept it real in maintaining a comparatively austere and modest lifestyle.
He could be a superbly warm and charming guy when he wanted. He was also emotionally dead to causing the deaths of tens of millions of his own people.
He was the consummate micro-manager, dictating the smallest details. For example, he personally watched and critiqued every single movie being considered for public consumption.
He loved movies, especially American westerns. Although it’s rumored he put out a hit of John Wayne for being a Western symbol of anti-communism, but this was done in his later senile years, and Khrushchev later told Wayne that he (Khrushchev) rescinded the order.
He worked and partied until 3, or 4, or 5 am, and slept late, which is interesting to me because if memory serves, this is a similar schedule to those kept by Hitler and Churchill, yet it seems so unhealthy and unproductive.
Montefoire (the author) considers him the best educated and most intellectual of all Russia’s modern leaders, from Lenin to Putin. He was a voracious reader.
Of the other heads of state, he was most comfortable around FDR, couldn’t stand Truman, and considered Churchill the best leader of the capitalist bunch.
Montefoire is pretty critical of FDR’s squishyness with Stalin. Stalin felt he could play FDR and Churchill off one another because FDR seemed more set on charming Stalin than reining him in.
His second, and last, wife committed suicide.
During his young days as a Bolshevik revolutionary during the civil war, he spent a couple periods exiled in a kulak.
He died of a stroke in his early seventies.
I thought it was interesting that 3 consecutive leaders of his secret police (the ones in charge of purging the party and country, by murdering, torturing, and exiling millions), in addition to being murderous sadists, were also sex addicts/deviants. When one would take down his predecessor and raid his apartment, he would inherit his extensive collection of “German pornography” and bloody relics (such as the bullets used to kill 2 former Politburo members), keep them as his own until he was taken down, just to have his collection commandeered by the next nutjob. Why are violent psychopaths so often sexual deviants as well? It doesn’t seem that the opposite is true a fraction as much.
Stalin despised and wanted to break the backs of the peasantry. This shocked me, as it seemed fundamentally contrary to the Communist ethic, as I understood it.
He was totally punked by Hitler, refusing to believe Germany would attack (against every shred of mounting evidence) until the last moment.
Interesting review, hon. If the book wasn't 700 pages long, I might look in to reading it. :)
ReplyDeleteI loved reading your list of interesting facts. I also loved your question about whether the cast of leaders in WWII were really unique once-in-a-lifetime people or were created into such because of their circumstances. Sounds like an interesting read.
ReplyDeleteDitto to both Rebecca and Andrea. Quote of the week, maybe month: "drops them all into the same pot of boiling water." So good!
ReplyDeleteVery interesting, Kook. I've been looking for some good reads now that my play is over. Thanks for the recommendation.
ReplyDeleteInteresting thoughts. You are correct in comparing his work schedule to Churchill, who drank incessantly, was a night owl and slept in quite late. However, I think I remember reading that Hitler was a clean living type who went to bed early (usually) arose early and eschewed alcohol and was a committed vegetarian.
Speaking of Churchill, he had much the same impression as Montefiore: that Stalin played him and Roosevelt off of each other and that Roosevelt had a sort of infatuation with Stalin. It drove him crazy and ended up seriously weakening the alliance. I think one author I read concluded that Roosevelt really could have done much to prevent the partitioning of Eastern Europe and the subsequent Cold War had he been united with Churchill earlier on.
I am intrigued that he didn't like peasants, but it doesn't surprise me. My experience has always been that those who talk the loudest about the common man seem really to like their idea of common men but don't like anything about them--their culture, their food, their choices, etc.
Did you read "The Court of the Red Tsar" by the same author? Fascinating and excellent.
ReplyDeleteBird, great comment. So true about the populists often hating their constituency.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure about Hitler's sleep schedule? I could swear I read years ago in "The Duel" (another great book, about the first however many days of battle between Hitler and Churchill) that that was the case. Maybe I'm just thinking of Churchill thought. I didn't know Hitler was a vegetarian.
Ya, I lose more respect for FDR the more I learn about him. This isn't because i think everything he did was bad, but rather because the public school system taught me he was a superman, a second Lincoln, with out mentioning one bit of his downside.
Davis: It's the same book. Sorry, I didn't include the subtitle cause I don't have the book jacket and didn't see it.
wow really interesting stuff. I love learning about stuff like that, maybe not 700 pages worth, but your review just fits the bill. ; )
ReplyDeleteCSB, interesting choice of a book to read. From what I know of Stalin, I think he's nearly as bad as the Hitler/Himmler combo. He forced tens of millions of Ukrainians to starve to death in the late 1930s. I just think that Hitler kind of forced the hand of the rest of the world moreso than Stalin.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I'm interested in reading it now. As a side note, I think you were meaning "Gulag" and not kulak. Kulak means "knuckle" and a Gulag is a work camp or prison camp. I'm surprised with your mastery of Slavic languages that you goofed on that. :) It didn't ruin the review too much and I still think you're somewhat credible.
Layne