Stalin and Our Times

Abstract The paper analyses Stalin's choices over military power and political repression as instruments for holding political power in the face of foreign and domestic threats. Since the threats were interactive, the policy combination had to be determined simultaneously. One problem was that, while military power was the more efficient instrument for countering a foreign threat, it could be adjusted less rapidly than repression.

2005

Europe-asia Studies, 2004

2017

Despite the fact that more than 60 years have passed since the death of Joseph Stalin, the leader of the USSR from 1922 to 1953, the memory of him remains alive. For several years running Stalin has topped the ranking of the most remarkable figures in Russia's history. Portraits of him appear at political demonstrations and religious events; new monuments to the dictator are erected. The Kremlin's official rhetoric increasingly refers to the positive aspects of the Soviet era, in particular to the victory in World War II. Representatives of the state's administration and the Orthodox Church have been making favourable comments about Stalin. However, Stalin's popularity among society in today's Russia is rather superficial-Russians know little about the dictator and his life; they are rather nostalgic about the period of his rule and the achievements of his era. The image of the Soviet dictator as an outstanding

H-Net Reviews in the Humanities & Social Sciences, 2021

How does one make sense of Stalin and Stalinism? This question has been at the heart of heated debates for decades, not only within Western scholarship of Soviet history, but more importantly, within contemporary historiographical debates in Russia and other post-Soviet countries (in particular, Georgia). As editors James Ryan and Susan Grant note in the introduction of this volume, quoting from no less a figure than Nikita Khrushchev, the legacy of Stalin is "complicated" (p. 3). Moreover, as historian David Hoffmann wrote, "for students of Soviet history, no problem looms larger than that of Stalinism" (quoted, p. 7). The current volume seeks to further unpack this "Stalin enigma," challenging the commonly held assumptions and narratives about the Soviet dictator and his regime through new archival re

Journal of Cold War Studies, 2000

Wrestling with Aspects of Interwar Stalinism, 2024

This essay addresses several issues regarding interwar Soviet history, including how western researchers label mass repression. It also discusses the fact that Leon Trotsky and Lev Sedov lied about their relations to several defendants in the August 1936 trial and how their lies challenge us to re-think certain assumptions about the trial and onset of mass repression.

Europe-Asia Studies

Despite the fact that more than 60 years have passed since the death of Joseph Stalin, the leader of the USSR from 1922 to 1953, the memory of him remains alive. For several years running Stalin has topped the ranking of the most remarkable figures in Russia's history. Portraits of him appear at political demonstrations and religious events; new monuments to the dictator are erected. The Kremlin's official rhetoric increasingly refers to the positive aspects of the Soviet era, in particular to the victory in World War II. Representatives of the state's administration and the Orthodox Church have been making favourable comments about Stalin. However, Stalin's popularity among society in today's Russia is rather superficial – Russians know little about the dictator and his life; they are rather nostalgic about the period of his rule and the achievements of his era. The image of the Soviet dictator as an outstanding leader is blended with Russians' individual memories of repression and terror which affected almost every Russian family. These reminiscences however do not penetrate the public sphere at the mass level, which makes it possible for the state's narrative to dominate it. The Krem-lin has exploited the ambivalent and superficial attitude which Russians have to Stalin. Even though it does not glorify him, it allows for his social cult to develop, and contributes to it by selectively emphasising the positive aspects of the leader's actions and by mythologising his image. The Kremlin has been legitimising its power based on politics of memory, generating controlled divisions in society and mobilising its proponents. On the other hand, the government has made it more difficult to draw attention to the murderous nature of Stalin's actions. Any criticism of him (from Russian citizens and civil society organisations as well as the international community) is seen as an attack on contemporary Russia and its present government which presents itself as the heir to the USSR's and Stalin's accomplishments and victories.