I once saw a visual rendering that put it this way: imagine a graph depicting human suffering in the west during the industrial revolution, with the horizontal axis representing a century-and-a-half of time, and the vertical the degree of suffering, rendered as a rising and then as a descending curve. A second graph depicts the industrialization of the USSR under Stalin, with the horizontal axis much shorter—twenty-five years—and the vertical axis much higher, since even capital’s direst Gilded Age counteroffensives did not involve shooting fifteen hundred people a day. The point being made (with what validity I am not prepared to speculate) was that the areas enclosed by the two curves were roughly equivalent.
Stalin seems to me, on the basis of Kotkin’s account, to have been the indispensable man when it came to Stalinism: an able, energetic, superhumanly determined character absolutely and sincerely a believer in Marxist-Leninist theory, who willed into being the USSR as a major industrial power. We may question whether absent its transformation in that harrowing crucible (if you will pardon the blending of an agricultural and an industrial metaphor, which seems not inapropos here in this context), a Soviet Union capable of turning back the German onslaught would have emerged from a kinder, gentler alternative Bolshevik leadership. If, as I believe, the answer is “probably not,” it may be argued that, given the character of Hitler’s regime and of what it might have achieved with a defeated, supine Russia as its granary, the cost, while steep, was not “too high.” I admit that if one happened to have starved to death during collectivization, this does not make for a particularly persuasive case.
I hope I do not appear to be defending the dreadful man, but for better or for worse, we have all of us been born into the world he had a major part in creating. Kotkin limns a character impossible to admire, but who compels our appalled respect. And I speak here as a US citizen of Truman Administration vintage, and accordingly marinated in Cold War mythos (North American edition). I can imagine how the despot’s accomplishments resonate today in the minds of Russian nationals of my age, who remember when their country made its enemies tremble.
cordially,
Stalin seems to me, on the basis of Kotkin’s account, to have been the indispensable man when it came to Stalinism: an able, energetic, superhumanly determined character absolutely and sincerely a believer in Marxist-Leninist theory, who willed into being the USSR as a major industrial power. We may question whether absent its transformation in that harrowing crucible (if you will pardon the blending of an agricultural and an industrial metaphor, which seems not inapropos here in this context), a Soviet Union capable of turning back the German onslaught would have emerged from a kinder, gentler alternative Bolshevik leadership. If, as I believe, the answer is “probably not,” it may be argued that, given the character of Hitler’s regime and of what it might have achieved with a defeated, supine Russia as its granary, the cost, while steep, was not “too high.” I admit that if one happened to have starved to death during collectivization, this does not make for a particularly persuasive case.
I hope I do not appear to be defending the dreadful man, but for better or for worse, we have all of us been born into the world he had a major part in creating. Kotkin limns a character impossible to admire, but who compels our appalled respect. And I speak here as a US citizen of Truman Administration vintage, and accordingly marinated in Cold War mythos (North American edition). I can imagine how the despot’s accomplishments resonate today in the minds of Russian nationals of my age, who remember when their country made its enemies tremble.
cordially,