Stalin: red tsar red monster, young tsar young monster?
A British historian and writer (b. 1965), specialized in Russian history. Educated in history at Cambridge University (Harrow School), has worked also as an investment banker in New York and war correspondent in Caucasus.
For the last decade Simon has been an independent historian and writer, author of many bestselling and award-winning books, which are translated into more than thirty languages. A Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, he lives in London with his wife, the novelist Santa Montefiore, and their two children.
Among his most important works in history are Prince of the Princes: The Life of Potemkin (2000), Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar (2003), Young Stalin (2007). He is also author of three novels, most recently of a historical novel Sashenka (2008).
Red Tsar is Simon Sebag Montefiore’s (SSM) most known book so far. His Stalin books have made an impact that continues. At the same time, those are not his favorites. Putin has said that Stalin’s terror was necessary and efficient, comparing it with Bismarck, another statesman. That discussion makes the book’s topic important for today as well not only read as a book of history. It is a symbol of thought and its accomplishment of superpower. Stalin, according to SSM, will be gradually rehabilitated in Russia, like Peter the Great or Ivan. SSM doesn’t believe that Stalinism will return in this form as it was before. Nevertheless, Stalin is a certain attitude to civil society and human rights, to freedom.
There are still people alive who have known Stalin. SSM has met them in Tbilisi, Georgia in early 90s and at the same time has been amazed how little knowledge about the character is developed in some other parts of the world.
Working in archives could bring up very interesting subjects. Many western historians have relied on sayings of Trotsky about Stalin. Stalin needs no official blackening as the reality is black enough. Lots of these opinions bring us back to 1917, when Trotsky already had an important part in Revolution; Stalin’s responsibility was to get newspaper out. His part was not shameful, but it wasn’t glorious either. He invented his glorious past himself later. The lack of clarity in his personal biography is understandable. One of the big lies is about funding of the Communist Party that relied on bank robberies in large.
Most of Stalin’s past is still untouched in archives of Soviets and open for researchers, like e.g about Catherine the Great and other great characters of the Russian past. In Stalin’s personal archive are kept even letters from people who begged for their captured relatives. In 1932 his wife committed suicide and her love letters are still kept (the ones that are not so happy are edited at the same time). In our times of internet we will never have this wonderful source of written letters any longer.
Stalin was part of the robbery of the Imperial Bank in Tbilisi, which collected most of the money of whole Caucasus. The whole Russia is looking for this money (at this time about 50 million $). Some of this money went to Lenin, some is still a mystery.
Stalin actually wanted to become a poet. His poems, as the ones who can read them, say, were very good being published in most notable magazines of the time. Most politics have been good writers or speech gives or bank robbers. The latter is not good foe democracy, at the same time, for a revolution they are perfect. Trotsky was also one of those men who could do both. Lenin knew that. If Soviet Union was not attacked in 1918 from every angle, perhaps other types of leaders have been ruling and the whole history of Soviet Union have been different. But as it happened, there was a need for this kind f person. Stalin was also a good article writer. His articles were always filled with biblical references to communist literature. When Lenin wrote his Testament, he identified a Jew and a Georgian as his most reliable successors as he realized that Soviet Union has gone the hard way where someone like Bukharin could never rule.
Interestingly, in Tbilisi archives is still a story about the above-mentioned bank robbery that was made possible by Stalin's poetry. Find out more by readying the book...
Stalin didn’t gain power by terrorizing people. He gained it by taking amazing detailed care of people who were with him and if needed, begging them in long emotional letters. In 1950s he considered it important to have breakfast with people (Zhdanov), had repeated letters sent to Central Asian leaders etc. SSM explains cultural and historic logic behind Stalin’s character and some happenings. In most dramatic occasions there was care of casualties and for ordinary people.
Stalin actually wanted to become a poet. His poems, as the ones who can read them, say, were very good being published in most notable magazines of the time. Most politics have been good writers or speech gives or bank robbers. The latter is not good foe democracy, at the same time, for a revolution they are perfect. Trotsky was also one of those men who could do both. Lenin knew that. If Soviet Union was not attacked in 1918 from every angle, perhaps other types of leaders have been ruling and the whole history of Soviet Union have been different. But as it happened, there was a need for this kind f person. Stalin was also a good article writer. His articles were always filled with biblical references to communist literature. When Lenin wrote his Testament, he identified a Jew and a Georgian as his most reliable successors as he realized that Soviet Union has gone the hard way where someone like Bukharin could never rule.
Interestingly, in Tbilisi archives is still a story about the above-mentioned bank robbery that was made possible by Stalin's poetry. Find out more by readying the book...
See in addition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Sebag_Montefiore
http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/author.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment