Stalin Breaker of Nations
Joseph Stalin, or Iosif Vissarionovich Dzugashvili, was one of the most influential leaders in Soviet and world history. He ruled the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1953. He succeeded another legendary Russian in Lenin, and became a legend himself. His leadership during WWII has been lauded as strong and steady. Born a Georgian, but rising to become the leader in Russia, he was a man of two worlds. Having been educated to a fair level, but not a high level he was always somewhere in between. “…a man of no nation, no class and no status-except what he created for himself” (5).
- As a teenager Stalin attended a seminary school in Georgia. This is where we first see Stalin begin to be weary or authority. As Robert Conquest describes it the “Russification” was evident at the school. There were several rectors (leaders of the school) who handed down harsh punishments for misbehavior. One student was imprisoned for three years for punching the rector in the face. It seems the school ended up closing for a year due to rioting caused by the outrages over the lack of courses in Georgian literature. Stalin also considered leaving the school in 1898 to get fully immersed into propaganda and politics. He ended up agreeing to stay another year, but was expelled from the seminary in 1899 for failing to take an exam.
After his expulsion from the seminary Stalin devoted himself to the local Marxists groups. “On 9 March 1902, a demonstration of two thousand workers, demanding release of their fellows, attacked the detention barracks” (29). 15 of the demonstrators were killed and dozens were wounded. Stalin later claimed credit for organizing this event, though as Robert Conquest points out there are many instances of Stalin rewriting history to add to his (or “Koba’s”) mystique. He was jailed in on 5 April 1902 and sent to jail in Baku. He ended up serving 18 months in 2 different jails, and then was sentenced to three years exile in Siberia. These types of punishments including exile must have made Stalin extremely distrustful of the current authority in Russia/Georgia.
Stalin’s relationship with Lenin is complicated. Stalin did not agree politically with everything Lenin envisioned for the Bolsheviks. It seems after many years of exiles and imprisonments that Stalin publicly touted support for Lenin if only to gain favor, while privately writing letters to the contrary to friends. Lenin was made aware of the letters written by Stalin and was furious. Lenin told Ordzhonikidize that “these jokes about storms in teacups “betray the maturity of Koba as a Marxist” (47). Lenin seemed to know that Stalin was at his core politically in line with himself but that it was in a “cruder level” (48) than his own. Lenin seemed to see the usefulness of the man as a blunt object of force rather than an intelligentsia.
During the revolution Stalin’s role was mostly that of agitator and robber. One of his main “accomplishments” was helping Lenin draft Marxism and the National and Colonial Question. An inflammatory piece that called socialism “above the right of nations to self-determination” (53). Stalin was involved in various bank robberies to fund Lenin, though without Lenin’s direct knowledge. Lenin’s plan was to have a soviet state run by a council of elected officials. Stalin was repeatedly rebuffed and not voted in at first to the council. Stalin’s behavior worried other members of the council. As Conquest states “…Power in Stalin’s hands, the members seemed to be saying is always misused” (59). He was eventually granted a seat on the council, only to be later outvoted by Trotsky. After the revolution Stalin was listed as the 15th (and last) member of the new soviet government as “Peoples Commissar for Nationalities” (70).
- I don’t think Stalin was a true Communist. He seemed more interested during the civil war with gaining power and slighting Trotsky at any possible opportunity. A true communist would accept the ideas of the council/commissars as a whole, rather than just doing what Stalin felt like. Some of his actions seem more in line with the previous ruling czars than of a supposed Bolshevik. At one point Stalin was finally given some military experience and started to disregard any orders from Trotsky (who was Commissar for War). Stalin who had no previous military experience was quick to write letters to Lenin exclaiming how foolish Trotsky is. “Knock it into Trotsky’s head that he must make no appointments without the knowledge of the local people, otherwise it will become a scandal for the Soviet power” (79). The military specialists with Stalin were arrested and placed on a barge. The barge later sank “under obscure circumstances” (79), while the prisoners were still aboard. Stalin was also quoted saying to one of his subordinates “death solves all problems: no man, no problem” (79). Stalin also routinely maneuvers and shifts blame to others rather than being directly responsible for anything that might go wrong. After being recalled by Lenin for his military failings, Stalin writes an article that puts sole responsibility of the military success at Trotsky’s feet. “…the party is above all, and primarily, indebted to Comrade Trotsky.
- Stalin had a troubled family life. His father beat him as a child and Stalin seemed to hate his mother. There was some dispute as to whether Stalin’s father was her husband or the employer for which he worked. Stalin kept his mother as a pseudo prisoner guarded by the secret police until her death. Instead of attending her funeral he sent members of the secret police as mourners in his stead. Although Stalin’s first wife died only 18 months into their marriage, the marriage did produce a son Yakov. Yakov served in the military during WWII and was captured by the Nazis. The Nazis offer a ransom for Stalin’s son, but Stalin refused, saying “I have no soviet prisoners of war, only traitors”. Though there is some dispute of how Yakov died, Stalin’s attitude toward his son had always been harsh and changed little from his death. Stalin’s other children Vasily and Svetlana were largely neglected by Stalin and left in the care of appointed men by Stalin. Svetlana seems to be the only of Stalin’s children to garner some affection. “He remained on affectionate terms only with Svetlana, though he occasionally lost his temper with her and used foul language (the abuse was limited essentially to his tongue)” (215). He would be angered by her wearing dresses he considered to short or “tight sweaters” (215), even at the age of ten. Later in life Svetlana changed her name and fled the Soviet Union.
- I was not surprised by Stalin’s actions during the purges. He had risen to power by underhanded dealings and outmaneuvering his enemy’s and even friends. His policy of grain confiscation only furthers my belief that he was not a true Communist. It shows as Lenin had suspected that Stalin was a useful tool for crude work but was not an intelligentsia. His whole life he had eliminated threats to his advancement, so even when he had risen to the top of the politburo there is no surprise that he would begin to execute anyone he suspected to be a threat, or even looked or spoke better than him. One of the many stories I found interesting from the purges was a short anecdote about a historian. “Stalin personally told the leading Soviet historian Tarle what to write about Talleyrand and Napoleon, threatening otherwise to have him sentenced to another term of exile. I think its especially telling for a man who has essentially won the fight for power, to then be so concerned with minutia like what gets written in a history book about Talleyrand. I suppose you could make the connection that he wanted revolutionary history of Talleyrand and France to mirror close to what had happened in the Soviet Union to soften his image.
- I think that Stalin’s rule helped the Allies win, but not through any shear military brilliance, but by fear. Stalin was basically put into a comatose shock that the Germans had attacked at all. “…psychologically, Stalin was simply unable to cope, and was in a state far beyond anything that had ever happened to him” (238). Stalin had left the country inexcusably weak based solely on the word of Hitler. Some of Stalin’s military advisors has advocated for at least some mobilization in case of a German attack, but Stalin wouldn’t hear of it. “…Stalin’s insistence on avoiding provocation, even the most elementary orders for combat readiness only reached some troops after the war had started” (237). It seems that after his initial shock Stalin reverted to what he knew best: Fear. His military commanders report him being especially rude to his military officers both in person and in written orders. Anyone who deserted or refused orders were shot. Relatives of those who had dishonorable military service were held just as accountable being labeled “relatives of an enemy of the people” (241). Stalingrad was pivotal because it marked the end of the Nazi advance and the beginning of the end for the Nazi and the war. I think part of the reason the Soviets fought so hard in this city was the commanders knew what would happen if a city named after Stalin fell. Stalin had executed men for far less crimes, and though it may not be a tasteful way to inspire victory, it is hard to dispute its effectiveness.
- I think Stalin’s legacy will be something that lives in mystique for people who don’t look deeper into Stalinism and his actions. Prior to looking at this book I really only knew that Stalin was a dictator, but one who had lead the people of the Soviet Union through WWII. I had no idea how ignorant he was to basic economic policy, or that he really wasn’t a communist. I think the reason some people would still see his rule as stable and strong after communism are living in a fantasy land. I would argue that todays Russia faces basically a carefully masked Stalin in Vladimir Putin. Where Stalin openly consolidated power and collectivization of the grain industry, Putin does the same thing through modern oligarchs. The only reason Putin receives more criticism today is through modern media and the ease of access of information. Stalin was able to fool foreign countries and visiting dignitaries that there was no terror, because unless you saw it for yourself it was something that was only a rumor. I think the author is impressed by Stalin’s ability to “dogmatically” leave destruction in his path. Stalin’s career while great in its scale, is something the author “hopes no one like him will appear again” (327).
Work Cited
Conquest, Robert. Stalin Breaker of Nations. Penguin Group, 1991.