I have read some of Simon’s books but I have never seen him interviewed in video. A very worthwhile 30 minutes. As a sidenote, one of my uncles was a supporter of the Mensheviks and was arrested initially to internal exile in 1929. And again in 1941 for 10 years in the Gulag. Fortunately he survived. Excellent analysis and interview.
This was excellent. I have read some of Simon‘s books but I have never seen him interviewed in a video. A very worthwhile 30 minutes. As a sidenote, one of my uncles was a supporter of the Mensheviks and was deported initially in 1929 to internal exile by Stalin and later arrested again in 1941 for 10 years in the Gulag. Fortunately he survived.
If you liked that, there’s an amazing two hour interview on C-Span about his book on Stalin. It’s a great way to spend a couple hours if you have the time to watch it.
I read Court of the Red Tsar by this author. It's about Stalin and his cronies. It's absolutely terrifying and a great read. Stalin was one of the worst humans in the history of the species, and the USSR under his rule was a nightmare.
typical western propagandist bullshiit.Stalin was a great manager, a competent one, who industrialized Russia, kill all the counter revolutionaries and won.
the big advantage of Stalin is that he was a hard worker in committees , all the middling administrators could turn to him for solutions , he was "one of the boys " while the top intellectuals made great speeches and wrote a lot but didn't attend the nitty gritty of the boring everyday business Trotsky famously would be reading French novels during those long committees discussions unworthy of his time Stalin could read the mood of the party mid range personnel , breaking the NEP was very popular with the hard Bolsheviks , irked with the wealth flaunting NEP men , with the GPU who were worried on the rise of nationalism and religion his success was that he created thousands of little Stalins at all levels and positions who would act as his hunting pack
The author made another mistake that only Stalin and Trotsky have unlimited access to Lenin. Lenin was in fact closer to Dzerzhinsky , Zinoview, Kamenev, Kalinin than Trotsky.
Stephen Kotkin's gigantic two books, soon to be three on Stalin, is fantasic, but might be harder to zoom across the pond have not read this gentleman's work.
It would be interesting to bring Kotkin and Sebag together in a public setting and listen to what they might say by way of comparing and contrasting their perspectives of Stalin and the rest of the Soviets.
I am reminded of a story about George Washington. It's said that King George III was talking with painter Benjamin West and he inquired about Washington's plans. West, having been from Pennsylvania, said that Washington intended to give up the presidency after 2 terms and return to farming. King George said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." Who knows if that was actually said, but on some level the sentiment was true. People with immense power very rarely give it up and often rule with an iron fist until their own death, often at the hands of an angry mob.
Stalin became prime Minister in May 1941. He died in March 1953. At the XIX Congress of the Communist Party in 1952, he renounced power in the party. Merkel has ruled longer in Germany.
@@michaeldeacon8155 I understand your question. You imagine Stalin as a tsar. And you imagine the Russian tsar as an absolute tyrant. But it doesn't work that way. Do you think Biden is the most important in the United States? Can he alone: - introduce a new tax; - change the interest rate; - order to build a new city in Arizona; - declare war; - order the arrest of Trump? Now I will answer your question.
@@karlwalther Of course I understand that western democracies are not dictatorships or autocratic monarchies, leaders have to work within the limits of their power. But I think your previous reply implied that Stalin "ruled" Russia only from 1941-1952 and that Angela Merkel "ruled" Germany from 2005-2021. From what I understand of Russia/Soviet history Stalin had far more personal power in 1930s than Merkel was in (for example) 2018
I think that’s a trope used by the regime. They said the same about Chinese people and Koreans but Taiwan and South Korea prove it’s not the people but the particular events of history
This is a great introduction for students of the topic. I don't think the Stalin story has been told well enough over the years. SSB is one of the best historian-storytellers. A great book.
The Bolshevik's other big influences were the failed revolutions of 1871 and 1906. They argued that the French succeeded in 1789 specifically because of the violence. Whilst what happened later on didn't, because they were not ruthless enough.
I perchance became aware of this book through RU-vid when I saw the author - the highly respected author Simon Sebag Montefiore being interviewed by an American interviewer, obviously in total awe of the author being on excellent terms with the British Royal family. Montefiore explained in beautiful terms how he was allowed access to THE most confidential information on Stalin, family data and interviews with some of the most elusive people who had known Stalin and many of his cohorts. Like every single predecessor writing about Russian history or novels, Montefiore makes the same deep mistake of referring to every single character in his/her full name, pet name, nickname, child's name, assumed name and every single other nomenclature of that particular person, in every single sentence, paragraph and chapter. This leads to gargantuan confusions and constant back referrals to previous pages as to whom the author is referring. When one character after another is presented into the story, followed by the vast assortment of names in random order, the joy of continuing the book is heavily compromised. Be like me - write that list.
08:00 ff: I don't think Stalin himself ever stopped believing in his mission and became just cynical. Even in fiction, villains tend to not just see themselves as such, they try to justify what they do, even when they know otherwise, like O'Brien from _1984_ who openly tells Winston that The Party seeks power just for its own ends. Doublethink allows him to know this and at the same time believe that The Party is benevolent. Hitler definitely did believe in his mission, there is no doubt.
My wife is Russian, born in the old soviet union. She could never understand why no one in Russia was ever brave enough to assassinate this monster Stalin. Her parents felt the same way about it. They hate the nazis but they point to the German people who tried to kill Hitler as at least having the courage to make an attempt at getting rid of him. In the end, my relatives felt that Russia in a way deserved what they got because no one had the nerve to get rid of Stalin and for that they were ashamed.
There were many attempts to assassinate Lenin. When Hitler invaded the USSR Stalin froze and did nothing. When many of his ministers came to his dacha he thought they were there to arrest him, but they begged him to save the nation from Nazism. There were rumours that Tito or Beria were behind the death of Stalin in 1953.
I've heard Marxism described as a faith-based applied philosophy (not entirely unlike many religions) where certain posits of the human society (not individual humans) prevalent during its nascence are taken to their logical conclusion, and that conclusion is a total reordering of society for the better: the "new kingdom". The faith that such a reordering is inevitable is the primary justification for the evil done by the truest believers - much like all great evil is done and justified by the pious and fervent believer.
DOCTOR Simon S. Montefiore "read history at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge where he received his Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD)." PhD from Cambridge not good enough for you then?
@Chris Burns yes, that's quite right, Montefiore's diligence and interpretation has been criticized in some depth and he writes popular history and novels rather than holding a position in academia. I would prefer a historian rather than a populariser.
Novels? Don't think so but popular historians have their own meaningful lives. It's popular historians who translate history for/to mass societies so that is is understandable so they aren't left sinking in just salacious propaganda.
By no means Stalin was a cobbler's son. Never ever the cobbler' afford to send his son to seminary:))) Just do a better research!!!! Stalin was unlawful son of a Knyaz Egnatasvhili (from a Georgian noble family) who owned lands and mansions in v. Ksovrisi, near Gori. He took care of Stalin's initial education. Stalin took half brother Alexander (Sasha) Egnatasvhili to Kremlin as Cook General. This fact is 100% true. My childhood friend's Nina Ratisvhili's grand-grand father was Sasha Egnatasvhili and my family knew this story from this family. The resemblance between two were striking. Stalin from his childhood had internal hatred over aristocracy/nobility IMHO. Btw, Stalin was very handsome, much more handsome than Trotsky. Comeon:)))) Just look at Stalin's early pics and you'll see that he was very handsome and complete hipster LOL. Btw, Stalin's real father was very talented guy and Stalin really got his genes. Unfortunately, he turned out to be "Evil Genius". Had done lot's of harm to Georgia and its aristocracy/nobility:((((
Stalin was an unmitigated mobster'n monster--possibly a psychopath--in fact. The 'Nazino affair' certainly attests to that--rather richly--many opine. . .⚡☝⚡
Dan Snow comes dangerously close to actually ruining this interview, but someone must have given a sign that meant "Shut the f*** up, you spoilt little rich boy who never needed to do anything but sit and wait for familial connections to kick in." Because he suddenly stops interrupting Simon Sebag Montefiore (the actual _expert)_ - just as the idea of stopping watching starts to seem inviting. But Snow shuts up, says the bare minimum, and it starts to be quite good - which speaks volumes concerning the strengths and weaknesses of Dan 'Lucky Sperm' Snow.
If you get your history of Russian communism from an aristocrat interviewed by a beneficary of nepotism and member of a UK state media dynasty, you may also be interested in getting advice on the stock market from a horse's rear!
@@rhondaweber5638 what sarcastic about the comment? Apparently Cronin believes that history cannot be discussed by people that he feels are unworthy of listening to about Stalin. The most murderous human that has ever lived. Period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
