Hot Best Seller

Stalin: A Political Biography

Availability: Ready to download

Stalin, a Political Biography


Compare

Stalin, a Political Biography

30 review for Stalin: A Political Biography

  1. 5 out of 5

    Barry

    UPDATE: finished: Stalin's career, and this biography, cover an intense perid of Russian history from the last decades of the Tsars through revolution, civil war, World War, to the first decades of the nuclear age. It's an epic, brutal, at times heroic, and almost always tragic tale. Stalin seems to have moved across -and shaped - this vast world-historical stage driven more by calculations of immediate political expediency and the whisperings of his inner demons than by any grand design. There i UPDATE: finished: Stalin's career, and this biography, cover an intense perid of Russian history from the last decades of the Tsars through revolution, civil war, World War, to the first decades of the nuclear age. It's an epic, brutal, at times heroic, and almost always tragic tale. Stalin seems to have moved across -and shaped - this vast world-historical stage driven more by calculations of immediate political expediency and the whisperings of his inner demons than by any grand design. There is a lot to reflect on in such a story, and one strength of this biography is that it leaves room for those reflections, without beating the reader over the head with an ideological (or psychological) agenda. UPDATE halfway: Stalin's political behaviour makes sense when viewed in the context of his life. An intelligent child born to an abusive drunkard Father, his earliest life lessons must have been not to trust anyone, to keep his true thoughts hidden, to observe other people keenly, to bide his time and always protect himself against danger. His experiences in the Seminary and as a revolutionary can only have reinforced and rewarded those survival instincts and skills. His early life reads like a recipe for creating a Cunning Murderous Pyschopath. The danger, from the perspective of political history, is that we tend to write-off his career with those last three words, as if they prove there is nothing more to be learned from his story. In death, as in life, Stalin continues to be underestimated as a politician. Aside from the story of the man himself, of course, his biography is also a story of the rise and development of Bolshevism, the Russian revolution, and the Soviet State. A key lesson (informed by Joanthon Schell) I'm drawing from that second story is that while at certain times non-violent revolution (regime overthrow) is easy, social change following a revolution is nearly always hard, and is very often bloody. Most of the time, then, activists might more usefully focus their energy on the slow work of social change than on hopeless charges at the overt ramparts of regime power. EARLY THOUHGTS: It's fascinating to read (from the perspective of Stalin's involvement) about the Bolshevik revolution and realise just how contingent it was, how easily history could have been very different.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Ian

    I found parts of the book somewhat challenging, especially as my knowledge of Russian history and the timeline of the revolution are rather limited. Deutscher seems to assume that his readers are relatively well-versed in the essential points, which is probably valid at the time of his authoring. I found the later parts of the book more enjoyable, as I am better acquainted with the overall context of WWII and later 20th Century history. Here, the author provides rich details about Stalin and Sov I found parts of the book somewhat challenging, especially as my knowledge of Russian history and the timeline of the revolution are rather limited. Deutscher seems to assume that his readers are relatively well-versed in the essential points, which is probably valid at the time of his authoring. I found the later parts of the book more enjoyable, as I am better acquainted with the overall context of WWII and later 20th Century history. Here, the author provides rich details about Stalin and Soviet-era psychology that filled in some of the gaps in my knowledge. We get to better understand Stalin's fears and strategy in dealing with his western allies, given the context of the fragile Soviet state, which he had stabilized (albeit with brutish force) as a major power of the 20th Century. I imagine this would have been the case too, for the earlier chapters on Stalin's youth and rapid rise through the lower ranks of the Bolsheviks up to a leadership role in the October Revolution, if I had had a more foundational knowledge of that context. All in all, this is a book where you need to take your time and carefully read the nuanced details of what Isaac Deutscher is explaining, as he has much insight to offer, having lived through those times in proximity to many of the key players. However, I would not recommend it for a novice of the history of the Russian revolution like me.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Glen

    An exhaustive look into the political biography of Stalin. obviously pre-1956, so the true horror is lacking. Still pretty good, and man other works on Stalin have used it as a source.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Jeeva

    Stalin is different from every single historical figure that preceded him. None deserves so much excoriation as he does. None deserves so much recognition as much as he does. A leader who presided over so much killings in a couple of decades was as much responsible for the advancement of a backward, Asiatic village-like country into a industrial superpower that gave the traditional superpowers a run for their money. What Russia achieved within a couple of decades industrially and economically to Stalin is different from every single historical figure that preceded him. None deserves so much excoriation as he does. None deserves so much recognition as much as he does. A leader who presided over so much killings in a couple of decades was as much responsible for the advancement of a backward, Asiatic village-like country into a industrial superpower that gave the traditional superpowers a run for their money. What Russia achieved within a couple of decades industrially and economically took close a century or more for other capitalist, advanced nations to achieve. And the challenges Russia faced were even more complex and insuperable. From 1905 till 1917, it suffered the pangs of labour of a society that was pregnant with revolution. From 1917 till 1922, Communist Russia suffered from post-natal complications in the form of civil war that tore the country across. Post 1922 till 1941 was the phase where Russia determinedly overtook the industrial West starting from nothing but desperation and fatigue. Millions of Russians built the socialist edifice from scratch sacrificing blood, sweat and tears. 1941 brought with it a marauder who was bent on destroying whatever Russia had constructed so assiduously and succeeded in doing it. When the whole world was fast writing Communist Russia's obituary, she bounced back and smothered Germany without much external help. When the Nazi marauders were eliminated in 1945, Russia was back to square one- to the level of deindustrialization and poverty that existed in the early 1920s. She collected all her broken pieces and within a decade she was back to where she belonged rightfully- among the industrial superpowers even to the extent of breathing down the neck of the United States of America. If one individual was behind all these achievements and deserved the topmost honour among many others, it was Josef Viktor Stalin and none else. But what Isaac Deutscher has written doesn't sound like a hagiography. It doesn't have the pretensions of an epic story of a nation led by an illustrious ruler who led by example and inspiration. Stalin is presented more often as a prisoner of circumstances but someone who had the guts and faculties to acquit himself admirably. He did whatever he thought was right at a particular circumstance and whatever followed only validated his judgement. His drive to industrialize USSR was scoffed at initially but he was proven right when Hitler invaded the empire. Russia's industrial capacity single-handedly came to her rescue and despite sustaining enormous losses, she managed to strangle her invader only because she had a massive industrial infrastructure to lean on. Stalin's ruthlessness on his rivals as well as his fellow travellers can also be understood only through the sweep of the circumstances of the revolution and not certainly by magnifying into the workings of an evil brain. Stalin was evil no doubt and suspicious for a good part of his rule but the force of circumstances could not leave him at peace to behave otherwise. He did what an astute ruler would do in his place not willing to consider what a man of scruple would have done. He gave 'survival' among all other priorities the foremost place and what he did then can be justified only to that extent. Does he deserve a place in hell for whatever he did to his comrades and opponents? Yes. But does he also deserve a place of respect and reverence in the minds of the subsequent generations? Yes, once again.

  5. 4 out of 5

    William West

    The author, Isaac Deutscher, was a devout Trotskyist, which makes the objectivity with which he approaches this most difficult of subjects all the more remarkable. The Stalin he paints is a frightened, self-loathing, miserable man- possessing incomprehensible capacties for ruthlessness, but also remarkable energy and an ability to devote himself entiely to the problem at hand. (He never would have gotten far without that ability to focus on immediate problems, Deutscher suggests, because he cons The author, Isaac Deutscher, was a devout Trotskyist, which makes the objectivity with which he approaches this most difficult of subjects all the more remarkable. The Stalin he paints is a frightened, self-loathing, miserable man- possessing incomprehensible capacties for ruthlessness, but also remarkable energy and an ability to devote himself entiely to the problem at hand. (He never would have gotten far without that ability to focus on immediate problems, Deutscher suggests, because he consistantly displayed a short-sightedness that created unnecessary crises.) Unlike the standard, western "he was SO evil!" acounts, Deutshcer allows that Stalin was an indespensable leader in the struggle against Hitler, and the spread of Soviet influence into easter Europe is presented by Deutscher not as the result of thirst for empire but a desperate need to buffet Russia against a West (either in the form of the Axis or the "Allies") that terrified it. None of this should obscure the fact that the chapters on the purges read like a horror novel, the realization that a seemingly humble, ideologically devoted man was in fact meglamaniacally waiting for the moment when he could deface an entire generation, an entire episode of history, with His Face. The days immediately following Stalin's death sound like they call out to be dramatized by Beckett, or filmed by Bela Tarr.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Rob

    If at any point you want to get to the why of the following topics: Communism World War Two 20th Century History Russia/Soviet Union you have to read this book. Stalin for good or for bad was a colossus of the 20th Century. Deutsher writes this essentially political biography, with what I think is the insight of a former believer but without the bitterness or rancour that is often the case. It is by far the best biography of Stalin.

  7. 4 out of 5

    Derek Bridge

    The sub-title makes it clear that this book is not about Stalin, the man. This makes it quite dry. And its vintage (the bulk of it written in 1948) means that there is much that has come to light subsequently of which it is unaware. On the other hand, Deutscher has an almost journalistic familiarity with the events that younger historians cannot tap into. I found it hard-going but worth reading.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Riley

    Isaac Deutscher is one of my favorite historians, and his trilogy on the life of Trotsky is an incredible set of books. This biography of Stalin did less for me, though it is still insightful.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Carlos Martinez

    Rounded down from 4.5. I'll need to do a proper review once I've finished making notes, but suffice to say for the moment that Deutscher's biog of Stalin really is a classic and a must-read for the student of Soviet history. Tons of formulations that I consider to be totally wrong, and Deutscher makes little effort to hide his basic eurocentric bias (and in so doing brings to light one of most important dynamics of 20th century politics: the eastward shift of Marxism and the complex reaction to Rounded down from 4.5. I'll need to do a proper review once I've finished making notes, but suffice to say for the moment that Deutscher's biog of Stalin really is a classic and a must-read for the student of Soviet history. Tons of formulations that I consider to be totally wrong, and Deutscher makes little effort to hide his basic eurocentric bias (and in so doing brings to light one of most important dynamics of 20th century politics: the eastward shift of Marxism and the complex reaction to that process in the West). Nonetheless the author brings the history to life with his detailed knowledge and insight.

  10. 4 out of 5

    Ajax Minor

    I'm on a mini roll, so as long as i've been discussing Isaac Deutscher's trilogy on Trotsky, i might as well wade in on Stalin. i read it in college, in a course about political trials, and was hooked on everything Soviet and Russian. next up was War and Peace and i never looked back. the Russian Revolution is detailed as brilliantly in this history as in any other. Stalin's life and career truly validate the phrase, 'you can't make this stuff up'. i won't repeat what other reviewers have said, b I'm on a mini roll, so as long as i've been discussing Isaac Deutscher's trilogy on Trotsky, i might as well wade in on Stalin. i read it in college, in a course about political trials, and was hooked on everything Soviet and Russian. next up was War and Peace and i never looked back. the Russian Revolution is detailed as brilliantly in this history as in any other. Stalin's life and career truly validate the phrase, 'you can't make this stuff up'. i won't repeat what other reviewers have said, but simply remark: READ IT. one question that haunted me after i finished the book was, 'what would had happened had 1) Lenin lived a great deal longer and 2) what if Trotsky had read Lenin's will at the Party Congress and denounced (and bounced) Joe? would he have matched Stalin's achievement in WWII, holding Hitler at bay, given his brilliant execution for the Reds during the Civil War?

  11. 4 out of 5

    Katie Brennan

    amazingly clear-sighted despite being written in '49. kept thinking about how hard it would be to write a biography of a man who had so much influence and impact yet didn't seem to tell a soul what he was really thinking -- so here you get his maneuverings in detail, but also a sense that he's not there at all. i won't blame deutscher for this though. SO MUCH INTRIGUE, so many tears. amazingly clear-sighted despite being written in '49. kept thinking about how hard it would be to write a biography of a man who had so much influence and impact yet didn't seem to tell a soul what he was really thinking -- so here you get his maneuverings in detail, but also a sense that he's not there at all. i won't blame deutscher for this though. SO MUCH INTRIGUE, so many tears.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Gage Hoefer

    Fairly even handed for a Trotskyist, though Deutscher sometimes embarrassingly shows his hand when describing Trotsky and his writings during the '30's. I also think he tends to read too much of the life of Bonaparte and Robespierre into the life and choices of Stalin. Overall, pretty good book Fairly even handed for a Trotskyist, though Deutscher sometimes embarrassingly shows his hand when describing Trotsky and his writings during the '30's. I also think he tends to read too much of the life of Bonaparte and Robespierre into the life and choices of Stalin. Overall, pretty good book

  13. 5 out of 5

    William Sariego

    A classic, and still one of the better biographies available, despite its age.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Jim

    This could have been a turgid mess, but Deutscher keeps it interesting and relevant. A good book for anyone interested in Russian history.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Mike Clarke

    Monster devouring its own children: political biographies are inevitably biased by the author’s own beliefs - an unavoidable truism, but Isaac Deutscher was at least fairly self-aware and had the benefit of living through the era. This is an infuriating book but equally unputdownable not because one needs to know how it ends but because of the cult surrounding Jughashvili. Written by a lifelong communist - albeit a Trotskyite rather than a Stalinist - it can claim some objectivity and is probabl Monster devouring its own children: political biographies are inevitably biased by the author’s own beliefs - an unavoidable truism, but Isaac Deutscher was at least fairly self-aware and had the benefit of living through the era. This is an infuriating book but equally unputdownable not because one needs to know how it ends but because of the cult surrounding Jughashvili. Written by a lifelong communist - albeit a Trotskyite rather than a Stalinist - it can claim some objectivity and is probably the best we are going to get given the divisive subject matter. Stalin was the least of the triumvirate that drove the Russian revolution: a poor Georgian peasant who was intelligent but uneducated, he lacked Lenin’s strategic mind and Trotsky’s intellect which left him with an entire potato harvest on his shoulder and a huge amount of “unscrupulous rancour and spite” demonstrated again and again through the purges, murder of opponents abroad (not an original idea of Putin’s, then), his treatment of Poland in the war or even the eruption of queeny fits against his rivals - Trotsky, “a poseur...with fake muscles.” Deutscher’s balanced view is that Stalin‘s remarkable will drove him to feats way beyond the capacity of most people of his intellectual abilities - when he met Russia she was turning the fields with a wooden plough; when he left her she was dipping uranium rods into cooling ponds is how he sums up the remarkable transformation in 30 years. An agrarian, illiterate and unmechanised society had become industrial, technological, educated. For a poor boy from the mountains, resentfully educated at a third rate seminary it was a remarkable transformation to lead, yet there was “a baffling disproportion between the magnitude of the second revolution and its maker.” Much as this sounds like the bitter defeat of an opponent, Deutscher nevertheless makes the case that Stalin was a lesser man than Lenin, who had created and led the revolution, or Trotsky who saw the danger from Hitler whilst Stalin enabled him. More than that, it was the terrible cost of everything he did, the thousands of opponents who died in the Gulags or by firing squad, the millions who starved in the botched bureaucracy of collectivisation, the sclerotic nightmare of a country where every thought, word and deed had to be approved by the Leader. His judgement was also far from the wise, all-seeing father of the nation despite the cult of Stalin’s projection of this as his character; see for instance the tale of the Polish American Catholic priest called Orlemanski from Springfield, Massachusetts, who tried to engage Stalin in commune with the Holy Father (as is the way of these things, the dictator went off the idea pretty quickly and the Pope defrocked the unfortunate priest). The echoes here of Rasputin make one think that poor Russia has gone from autocracy to oligarchy to kleptocracy with barely a break. The first edition was written during Stalin’s lifetime - this later version contains an additional chapter which would have brought it up to date in the early 60s when Bay of Pigs paranoia was at its height. Its age means there is the stylistic datedness (he is fond of short tabloidesque sentences à la Alan Taylor which actually slow the pace, as well as an over-burdening use of statistics) and Deutscher’s of-its-time unwillingness to consider the personal as political was very much the then academic vogue. He talks of the Stalianist era as a monster devouring its own children which is an interesting turn of phrase considering Stalin drove his second wife to suicide and his children became alcoholics or defectors, and this deserves its own treatise. Even with these considerations of hindsight, which do make it a challenge, it’s a thorough, compelling and probably as comprehensive biography as we are likely to get. The battered Pelican I have fell into my bag (oops) just as I was leaving Chatham House school in 1985. I feel as though now I’ve repaid my debt.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Lara

    Stalin, una biografía política, ha constituido desde su publicación el libro base para estudiar el periodo que va de 1924 a 1953 en la Unión Soviética. Cuatro aspectos esenciales a tener en cuenta al leer el libro: 1) El autor, Isaac Deutscher, es un de los teóricos marxistas más importantesd el siglo pasado. Por lo tanto, más que una biografía, enfocada en las vivencias del individuo en cuestión, es un estudio de carácter histórico y sociológico, que pone en primer lugar las condiciones objetiva Stalin, una biografía política, ha constituido desde su publicación el libro base para estudiar el periodo que va de 1924 a 1953 en la Unión Soviética. Cuatro aspectos esenciales a tener en cuenta al leer el libro: 1) El autor, Isaac Deutscher, es un de los teóricos marxistas más importantesd el siglo pasado. Por lo tanto, más que una biografía, enfocada en las vivencias del individuo en cuestión, es un estudio de carácter histórico y sociológico, que pone en primer lugar las condiciones objetivas con que se fueron enfrentando los diversos actores en esos turbulentos años. 2) La postura política del autor, abiertamente trotskista, no influye como se esperaría en el balance general de la obra. Al contrario, como se especifica en el prólogo, fue recibida de formas totalmente antagónicas al momento de su publicación. Por un lado, los trotskistas y la derecha lo acusaron de ser un estalinista encubierto, mientras que los comunistas cercanos al bloque soviético lo acusaron de falsificador y calumniador de Stalin. Algo sí es seguro, si el el lector espera encontrar las clásicas calumnias contra Stalin, según las cuáles es igual o peor que el mismo Hitler, entonces quedará muy decepcionado al leer esta obra. 3) Desde su publicación, pero fundamentalmente desde la caída de la Unión Soviética, han salido a la luz un conjunto de documentos y nueva evidencia que han contribuido a enriquecer y a reabrir el debate en la historiografía soviética. Por lo tanto, algunos de los puntos que menciona Deutscher en su libro, a posteriori se han demostrado exagerados o sencillamente falsos. La identificación de estos puntos requiere de la lectura de historiografía moderna acerca de la Unión Soviética (ver, por ejemplo Losurdo, Stalin, Historia y crítica de una leyenda negra). 4) Como un corolario, el capítulo final, agrado años después, que narra el periodo 45-53, se encuentra fuertemente influenciado por "el informe secreto" de Kruschov y el proceso de desestalinización que se siguió.

  17. 5 out of 5

    Kosta Barlas

    Great book for a history of the era. Deutscher goes beyond the standard, lazy, cold-war tropes that explain all the events in the USSR in this era by way of Stalin's personal megalomania and evil and looks at the material conditions underpinning every development. Outside of maybe a couple of lapses (impressively few given its 650 page length), Deutscher has given us a principled analysis that gives credit where credit's due while not sparing anyone, Stalin, Trotsky, or anybody else, from rightf Great book for a history of the era. Deutscher goes beyond the standard, lazy, cold-war tropes that explain all the events in the USSR in this era by way of Stalin's personal megalomania and evil and looks at the material conditions underpinning every development. Outside of maybe a couple of lapses (impressively few given its 650 page length), Deutscher has given us a principled analysis that gives credit where credit's due while not sparing anyone, Stalin, Trotsky, or anybody else, from rightful criticism. This lack of bias is especially impressive given that Deutscher was a Trotskyist who wrote a three-part biography of Trotsky with the hilariously hagiographic titles 'The Prophet Armed', 'The Prophet Unarmed', and 'The Prophet Outcast'. A profoundly well-researched work, I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a principled materialist history and critique of the USSR under Stalin.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Bazookayaya

    The best Stalin biography. It's a wonderful assessment as the author is a Marxist looking at the protagonist through a neutral lens from the Left. While Isaac Deutscher is known to have written the famous Prophet trilogy on Trotsky, make no mistake : the latter is criticized here for his idealist tendencies, bias in his views of Stalin as well as tendency not to anticipate Koba's next moves and potential. The work is utterly addictive and just as well written as The Prophet. One can get a clear The best Stalin biography. It's a wonderful assessment as the author is a Marxist looking at the protagonist through a neutral lens from the Left. While Isaac Deutscher is known to have written the famous Prophet trilogy on Trotsky, make no mistake : the latter is criticized here for his idealist tendencies, bias in his views of Stalin as well as tendency not to anticipate Koba's next moves and potential. The work is utterly addictive and just as well written as The Prophet. One can get a clear understanding of Joseph Djugashvili's character against the backdrop of unique historical events and their material basis. Utterly thorough, great Marxist work from one of the best political writers ever.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Brendan James

    From a biographer widely-known as an admirer of Trotsky, a bio of Stalin that's at times downright flattering. Final chapter -- added after Stalin's death -- is much more critical. Excellent detail on the political twists and turns not only of Stalin but of the Bolsheviks in general. Surprisingly breezy read. From a biographer widely-known as an admirer of Trotsky, a bio of Stalin that's at times downright flattering. Final chapter -- added after Stalin's death -- is much more critical. Excellent detail on the political twists and turns not only of Stalin but of the Bolsheviks in general. Surprisingly breezy read.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Varun Sadasivan

    As this is a propaganda biography and not an independent work , everything must be taken with a bucketful of salt and pepper. This book is a great insight into how the soviet government wanted to project Stalin as a leader , while reading the book I get a feel that the way it has been written it is intended towards people outside the USSR.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Ahmed Hassan

    رغم كل فظائعه وجرائمه سيظل هو مؤسس روسيا الحديثه يكفيه أنه حول روسيا من بلد متخلف من القرون الوسطي الي بلد صنع القنبله الهيدروجينية وكل ذلك ف عشرين عاما فقط اهم ما يميز الكتاب الموضوعية ف النقد وتناول عيوب استالين بكل حيادية

  22. 5 out of 5

    David

    I think his treatment of Trotsky is superior but this is a wonderful biography of stalin without discernable slant for or against.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Kasandra Mavrigiannaki

    Really good - one of the two books I used for my Russian history coursework that focused on Stalin's industrialisation efforts. Really good - one of the two books I used for my Russian history coursework that focused on Stalin's industrialisation efforts.

  24. 5 out of 5

    Þorvarður

    Excellent biography of Stalin, highly recommend.

  25. 5 out of 5

    John Warner

    At university I studied Quantum Chemistry but was friends with a lot of people studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) and often was mistaken for being either someone studying PPE or Theology LOL This book was part of my wider reading on history and politics that I did when I was an undergraduate and it earned me the nickname of "Stalin" amongst a few of the people in the year below me - I think it was because I read it in the Junior Common Room and in the bar at college - it was for on At university I studied Quantum Chemistry but was friends with a lot of people studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) and often was mistaken for being either someone studying PPE or Theology LOL This book was part of my wider reading on history and politics that I did when I was an undergraduate and it earned me the nickname of "Stalin" amongst a few of the people in the year below me - I think it was because I read it in the Junior Common Room and in the bar at college - it was for one term the "book in my bag". Deutscher possibly because he didn't like Stalin does a good deal of research on him and the early Soviet Union. It is not a hatchet-job in the way it could have been but it was not a hagiography. It is how I like my political biographies.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Scot McAtee

    On the advice of a good friend, I picked this book up whilst living in Inchon, Korea in 1996. I wasn't really sure it would be worth the read, but what I really wanted to know was how the man got to be so powerful. It was a good read, and fifteen years later, I still recall passages from this book. I wouldn't say that it's a thrilling read, but anyone interested in Twentieth Century history will enjoy it. I wish that American high schools did a better job covering the 20th century but since we hi On the advice of a good friend, I picked this book up whilst living in Inchon, Korea in 1996. I wasn't really sure it would be worth the read, but what I really wanted to know was how the man got to be so powerful. It was a good read, and fifteen years later, I still recall passages from this book. I wouldn't say that it's a thrilling read, but anyone interested in Twentieth Century history will enjoy it. I wish that American high schools did a better job covering the 20th century but since we hit WW2 and then cherry pick everything since, books like this have helped me to fill in the holes of why things today are the way they are.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Mark

    This is the first book I have read about the Man of Steel and I would be happy to recommend it to anyone, even though the parts that seems to argue the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union were 'progressive' are dubious to say the least. Considering this book what first written when Stalin was still alive, it is a considerable achievement. This is the first book I have read about the Man of Steel and I would be happy to recommend it to anyone, even though the parts that seems to argue the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union were 'progressive' are dubious to say the least. Considering this book what first written when Stalin was still alive, it is a considerable achievement.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Edin Selimović

    Odlična knjiga o jako slojevitoj ličnosti. Ovo je "must-read" za svakog ko želi da bude neko i nešto u diplomatiji. Odlična knjiga o jako slojevitoj ličnosti. Ovo je "must-read" za svakog ko želi da bude neko i nešto u diplomatiji.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Karl

    A bit dry in parts, but very detailed and informative.

  30. 5 out of 5

    Rodolfo Paes de Farias

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...