Stalinism Triumphant: Famine, Terror, And Hitler's Shadow, 1929-1941

[@ekajgaint5663]

I have read both of Kotkin's Stalin books and I was amazed. I wrote a piece on history that I was extremely proud of and all my lecturers gave me praise for, however, after reading Stalin: Paradoxes of Power and Waiting for Hitler. I realized there is another level way above me and I have to work ten times as harder to even get near what Kotkin has accomplished and I thank him for that.

[@Ken-er9ec]

any chance I could read your "piece"? I was a poli-Sci/History Undergrad at UCLA

[@erichaynes5826]

I love Stephen Kotkin. Purely and simply. I could listen to him all day. I’ve never read an history book faster.

[@pauljnolan1000]

Stephen Kotkin. One of the most interesting men I've ever encountered.

[@briteness]

Thank you for posting this here. This is history people need to know in these challenging, perilous days.

[@Laurencemardon]

Brilliant talk! Informative & fun!

[@garbonomics]

Another great talk. Love the professors lectures.

[@NeilFLiversidge]

I've thought long and hard about the Stalin v Hitler scenario, about how Stalin convinced USSR citizens to massacre each other and also falsely confess themselves, whereas that could never have happened in Germany. I believe it's down to the fact that Soviet Communism was in effect a 'year zero' regime that declared all that preceded it to be invalid; the monarchy, religion, property, class structures etc., Once you accept that all previous norms of conduct, morality and humanity are no longer valid, there are no longer any cultural restraints on what people will do to each other, or on what their government can do to them. The French Revolution foreshadowed this and initially was literally a year-zero revolution, with a new calendar. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was another year-zero regime. By contrast, relatively little changed in German society. Even the judiciary retained a large measure of independence and was a nuisance to Hitler pretty much up to the July bomb plot. German remained a strongly religious country. Property rights were largely uninfringed. It retained its class structure. The Soviet Communists, French Jacobins and Khmer rouge basically tore up all the rule books, whereas Hitler kept most of them largely intact, and that, I believe, is why Stalin was able to get away with doing things to his own people that Hitler never could have gotten away with. I'd appreciate the thoughts of others on this.

[@davidperi2646]

What I have read that more younger people and adults want to know of this Soviet history. Under the age of 40.

[@johnismynameful]

I found his argument about the succession interesting. I'd never heard it so strongly presented. I question, however, that he controlled the army. Perhaps trosky could have rallied the army when he was losing influence in the party. Hindsight often misleads, considering we know he got stabbed to death with an ice pick, but maybe he had real influence in the army. He had done a good deal creating and leading the army during the revolution. This may have been why stalin focused so heavily on the army during the purges.

[@ChrisMartin-tk4dh]

Has anyone here read Anne Applebaum' book Red Famine? That book is said to argue that the starvation of Ukrainians was purposeful. I am wondering how that was presented given that Kotkin says there is no documented evidence.

[@692ALBANNACH]

Just bought it will find out!

[@maxthepilgrim6978]

Applebaum's book struggles in the fact that it does not take into account the greater Soviet Famine. She focuses almost solely on the Ukrainian Famine and some readers may perceive from her text that the famine was deliberately created to annihilate Ukraine. I will be honest that a lot of Applebaum's sources seem to revolve around emotional appeal. She presents very little evidence that actually shows any real intention within the Kremlin to create a famine solely for the purpose of destroying Ukraine.

[@saalikhushi]

what a guy

[@carlosgomes2783]

What wouldn't you give to have those powers of analysis and lucidity in explanation? Kotkin must have a brain the size of a planet.

[@ChristopherSaindon]

27:20 They aren't for one second suggesting Sergei was killed without the knowledge of Stalin. They aren't doing that are they?

[@lexbor3511]

They are)))))))))) This is the real fact-history you are dealing with here, not some convenient myths.

[@toobalkain]

Chris Saindon They are, the implication is clear, Kirov’s murder is one of those pivotal moments that turned him into a monster.

[@leeweisbecker6048]

interviewer should have stuck more on the subject of collectivization, too bad

[@npmnpm5501]

HI, I do not mean to be polite and my question may seem rather ignorant but recently I was trying to debate against communism and in particular its inception via Bolshevik revolution. I was then confronted by a statement that US banks, financial institutions and other wealthy and powerful business people have actively endorsed and financed the communism agenda. How do you respond / fight back against this point?? Thanks.!

[@twidilidee8303]

1. Concerning communism: this illustrates the cynicism of the communist. His goal is power and he will do whatever it takes to get it and to keep it. Middle class intellectuals like Marx exploited the working class to gain power, not to help the workers, as became quickly evident under the dictatorship of Lenin. Marx was the first Marxist to accept capitalist financing-from his friend the wealthy factory owner Engels. 2.Concerning business: the entrepreneur adapts to market conditions, including govt. intervention. The free mkt is the best means for making sure that satisfying the consumer-not the politicians-is the paramount condition.

[@paulk.dicostanzo2279]

The truth is yes, wealthy figures have served as benefactors to socialist/communist revolutionaries. Though just because certain wealthy individuals decided to support a movement of that nature it does not reflect validating socialism on the whole. Whether it be Marx or Lenin in particular, each did have the support of wealthy figures that allowed them to do their work. Sometimes with more, and sometimes with less (and in Lenin’s case, his own mother as well!). They couldn’t have done what they did without said support, even though they did have skills that could have supported themselves. Though politics, specifically revolutionary politics, subsumed their every effort. In Lenin’s case, he was a so-called professional revolutionary. All told, revolution or political theory are not among life’s more profitable endeavors. The argument is a red herring, and not a substantive debating point either for or against socialism. People do with their money as they please, and not always wisely.

[@broquestwarsneeder7617]

Nikolay, remember that the US supports a wide ideological range of actors. Saudi Arabia is the largest customer of US-weapons. The Allies supported the Soviet Union at certain stages in WW2 and the US also had friendly talks with the Chinese Communists during the Chinese civil war (known as the "dixie-mission"), because US wanted them to fight the Japanese. This never materialized due to the surrender of Japan. In short, US and communists have had common goals from time to time.

[@broquestwarsneeder7617]

twidili dee, Just shut up if you're not actually going to provide something useful or educational.

[@larshofler8298]

dee, I dont think you know anything about Marxism. Marxism is not being poor. Marxists in capitalist societies live capitalist life, no problemo.

[@josefadams647]

Kotkin. Living Legend.

[@jamesmurphy9105]

A Machiavellst Monster

[@blueseav]

i read this book

[@dantebenedetti2889]

no, kirov was not stalin's "best friend." no, trotsky was not incompetent & was not "detested by everybody." trotsky was very intelligent, charismatic, self-confident, ambitious, dynamic; he was also arrogant; bc of his outstanding qualities & bc, as a bolshevik-leninst, he could be ruthless in combat w enemies or perceived enemies of bolshevism, he was both envied & seen as a threat by his colleagues. stalin was jealous of trotsky; stalin felt out-matched by him, inferior to him; he seethed w a pathological resentment that could only be calmed by trotsky's destruction.

[@19overlookR]

Was Stalin a manlet just over 5ft tall and was there over-compensation?

[@junkscience6397]

Lots of over-compensation. He wore high heeled boots, he had a webbed foot and near-lame arm from an earlier accident, he had a pock-marked, scar-ridden face, he was not Russian but Georgian and spoke Russian with a heavy, often impersonated, accent, and he was severely criticized by Lenin in the leader's Last Testament, and treated with contempt by both Lenin's wife and other Old Bolsheviks. He was an awful, pathetic man, Stalin.

[@Charles-Anthony]

I doubt it. People say the same thing about Napoleon, but Napoleon was of perfectly average height for the men at that time. (Because of improved nutrition, the average height of men and women is higher now than in earlier generations.)

[@huayucachi1]

It's incredible the amount of verbal abuse and hefty amount of money spent trying to defile the memory of Stalin that has been going on for more than 60 years. thanks to Stalin, Mao Tse-tung transformed China into a decent country and the Soviet Union became a space pioneer and nuclear power able to resist the imperialist mood. Still, Stalin went through a very crude ordeal as most Bolsheviks and spent real harsh times as prisoner of the Czar in Siberia. in 1914 he almost perish in one of those camps surviving 50 degrees Farenheit below zero temperatures. Of course after Stalin took power The Gulag was the natural retribution awarded to the enemies of the revolutionary state. But the world wide well-financed campaing to demonize the most loved leader of the Soviet Union keeps going on endlessly. It reminds me of a huge number of people who regard Robespierre, Marat, Danton and most representatives of the French Bourgeoisie like monsters. The bourgeoisie made France what it is today and were as ruthless as the Bolsheviks, so what's the big deal? That's the way reality evolves and is met by human beings. Reactionaries like Hitler and Mussolini want to turn back the clock of time while revolutionaries want humanity to go forward, to advance but encounters strong opposition that has to be dealt with. Moreover the final occidental narrative is what has taken over many deluded brains; thanks to that narrative Truman is a great dude. He's not the genocidal type of monster who dropped 2 nuclear bombs over defenseless japanese communities. no. he's cool. Churchill, personal hero for many individuals had a long history of crimes against Africans , Arabs and Indians as representative of the bloody british empire which forced millions of chinese to become opium freaks. No wonder the degrading political campaign against the most honest leader of the world gains steam. It is a fact that Stalin never kept a penny for himself being the greatest economic support of Lenin during his younger years of Robin Hood life directly participating in all kind of confiscations and bank assaults to finance the revolution. After the successful October Revolution 16 foreign imperialistic armies invaded the Soviet Union to put back the bloody Czar in power. These invading armies helped by the rich peasants starved the population to blame Lenin. Stalin helped Lenin in the ensuing Civil War and Stalingrad was named after him because he defeated the Czarist Army there ending the foreign intervention. Then Stalin took over after Lenin death and this time he defeated the russian royalty, big slave owners and big landowners. Stalin knew he had to industrialize the Soviet Union to save it from the threatening Nazi leadership. But the rich and powerful hated evolution and attacked the revolution. Stalin had no other way to deal with arsonists, murderers and agents of foreign empires. Nobody can deny Stalin saved the world from the Nazi-Fascist hordes but the western aristocratic world leaders and mouthpieces of hatred for the defenseless and poor will never forget and will never forgive that the son of a servant rose up so high in history that he is still remembered as the one who turned backward Russia into an industrial power, stronger enough to save civilization from the Nazi Beast. These well-paid " intellectuals" of British and American imperialism aim to make Stalin look like Hitler. But they have failed. Even Thomas Mann, a german writer with no left leanings and persecuted by Hitler stated the difference."Nazi ideology is quite different from socialism." Hitler and Stalin are quite opposite. Hitler and Nazism is an animalistic bestiality of the german aristocracy while Stalin and socialism is an idealistic movement of the working class for equality among humans. An experiment for equality is very difficult to achieve due to our own greediness and selfishness and as such is subject to mistakes and infights that affect the course of the dream of humanity: World Brotherhood. Stalin made mistakes. Mao pointed out that Stalin didn't quite understand dialectics main and secondary contradictions. Stalin worst mistake was that he didn't believe that deep inside the party were the main enemies of socialism. Nikita Khrushchev being the main one whom in 1956 at the xx party congress denounced Stalin crimes and cowardly took his remains out of red square. of course Kruschev stabbed his former leader in the back after Great Stalin died, paving the way for what we see today: THE OLIGARCHIC RUSSIAN MAFIA KLEPTOCRACY LED BY PUTIN. That's a reality of human life. Either the reactionaries stab you in the back or you stab them first. Now tell me what would have become of China without the leadership of Mao? it would be a multicolonial entity belonging to the great powers, not the china that we know today. Japan wouldn't have declared war on USA if USA had allowed them to take over China. things happened because there was a chinese red army led by Mao that changed the course of history. If that's not greatness i don't know what it is. Now Katyn forest massacre, well the polish were the most arch reactionary anti semitic savages on those days ready to slaughter any semblance of human rights as they do today jailing anybody that acknowledge that the polish did the Nazis dirty work in the concentration camps. Well Stalin took advantage and hit first. The same happened when the red army stopped near Warsaw. Stalin was not stupid to spend soviet lives to save the bloody polish royalty. pretty simple. in the end what makes Stalin and Mao so important in history is that they changed the world for good. Thanks to them the owners of the world learned that you can not abuse a people forever and made reforms: social security, 8-hours shift, paid vacations and lots of benefits for the working class. so if millions died by any reason or another, today there are millions like you who enjoy the good life thanks to the blood spilled by the martyrs of the working class and their main heroic leaders: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. In the end, thanks to Stalin and Roosevelt people still breathes on this planet.

[@718junius]

it never ceases to amaze me at how delusional people can be.

[@andrek.1399]

I would not be surprised if this guy is like a teacher or even a professor in California. Brainwashing our children & we pay them through the nose.

[@andrek.1399]

Carlos, what are the numbers of killed by these "great leaders of humanity". JUST THE NUMBERS PLEASE.

[@henrikg1388]

I don't know. Maybe I am too sensitive. But hearing someone kinda apologizing the worst mass murderer of all times, makes me sick. Would you have treated Adolf Hitler the same way?

[@junkscience6397]

I don't know what you were listening to. Try reading his books? He certainly does no such thing! Stalin was a monster, pure and simple.

[@santibanks]

He is not apologizing Stalin at all but what he does do is making the point that it's easy to laugh about Stalin (or Hitler) and ridicule them, be it at that time or today, but they have real track records (for the worst), suggesting that this ridicule is kind of misplaced and inconsistent with what the evidence suggests.

[@RogerFusselman]

The claim that he's apologizing for a mass murderer needs to be proved. You can't just assert it. Your comment was not honest.

[@nicholashomyak2473]

Stalin like Lincoln..you must gain the space to change the time..Stalin is not evil he is determined to make humanity despite the sin...

[@DipakBose-bq1vv]

These are only propaganda to discredit the Soviet planning, which was highly successful in transforming Russia from backward agricultural economy to an industrial giant when the capitalist world was under depression in which not only millions of people became destitute but millions died in hunger. Stalin did a lot of killing, most of these are undesirable, but even then it cannot reach even one million. Churchill killed at least 5 million in Bengal famine, in India in 1943. one wrong cannot justify another. But if you put the crimes of the Western countries against the crimes of Stalin, the scale will go against the Western countries.

[@barahng]

Dipak Basu Industrialization is easier when your entire population is slaves and you're playing catch up from the point of barely being industrial. And yet it still failed spectacularly in the end. Any system that yields the deaths of tens of millions by its functioning is not a good one.

[@chibuzornwogu770]

Dipak Basu man you're gonna have a hard time explaining how one of the most murderous, authoritarian, bloodthirsty, inefficient, and brutal regimes in the history of the world was in fact very beneficial and helplful towards its people. Socialist ideology is fatally flawed and it will be counterproductive and eventually fail each and every time it is applied in the real world.