Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941

Very well researched and written. Much detail with names, places and events. The author did a good job. Bill Lapitsky

One myth which seems to have influenced quite a number of comments here is the claim that "millions were executed during the purges." This is demographically false, as all available data since 1991 has shown. peace-time executions within the Soviet Union were on the order of the high hundreds of thousands, but no "20 million" as Robert Conquest used to manufacture it. Anyone who has actually read with an intellegent critical eye the writings of Alexander Solzhenitysn will be aware of a huge logical disparity in some of Solzhenitsyn's comments. When describing in GULAG ARCHIPELAGOI his own personal experiences of living through the 1930s Solzhenitsyn recalls an atmosphere of bouyant optimism where "the brightest of futures lay ahead." Yet in the LETTER to Soviet leaders Solzhenitsyn throws out the wild assertion that up to "66 million" deaths occurred in "excess" during peace-time in the Soviet Union. This is obviously inconsistent with Solzhenitsyn's ability to recall such an exhilirating atmosphere from the 1930s as he does in GULAG ARCHIPELAGO. Furthermore, no demographic studies of Russia, whether produced before or after 1991, have ever supported such an absurd charge as the "66 million" or even Robert Conquest's "20 million." Every study has had to conclude that Russian peace-time mortality declined steadily from what had existed in 1913. One could just as easily accuse the Czarist government of murdering hundreds of millions of Russians and it would make more sense, though Solzhenitsyn doesn't do this because he idealizes the old monarchy. Not surprisingly, Solzhenitsyn's LETTER to the Soviet leaders turns to citations of Dostoyevsky, whose novel THE POSSESSED first carried the story of "a hundred million heads chopped off." Adopting lines from novels to Cold War propaganda is an old game so it's not surprising that the Cold War rumor mill churned out stories of this type. Many people whom I've encountered are simply so overly awestruck with Solzhenitsyn the political dissident that they seem mentally incapable of subjecting Solzhenitsyn's works to any serious criticism. I definitely recommend that anyone who is going to read Thurston's book should first clear their brain of these old Cold War cobwebs. Once you've swept the dust away and are prepared to look with a fresh mind at historical facts, Thurston's book is an excellent place to start.

I read this book a few years ago and was extremely happy with what I came away with. Some errors were made when it came to the purges of the Red Army, and at some points there were simply assertions that I did not agree with, but that should not take away from the excellent discourse this work goes into in regards to Stalin and the system that he was a part of. To us common sense has to dictate that killing millions of people is simply out of this world, even more so for one man to accomplish and do on his own. This book is a framework that shows how in fact Stalin and the NKVD worked and what happened behind the scenes. It is my belief that in fact many of the deaths that occurred, happened indirectly from what Stalin had ordered done. The usual procedure was as follows, it is known as the 'snowball affect': When some of those arrested were interrogated they would give up names, those names would then be researched and found and brought in and interrogated, etc etc etc. This is how when Stalin signed away for the arrests of the top Marshals and Generals in the Red Army, those who suffered during the purge were also colonels, majors, captains, etc. Stalin most likely had no clue that they were involved in anything, but when torture is applied anything and everything will be reveiled. This also explains that when Stalin realized where this was going he had to put a stop to it, he stopped it by blaming Yezhov, who was then in turn arrested, tortured, tried, and executed. One man most certainly was not responsible for what transpired throughout Stalin's reign. I am not an apologist, far form it, I hold him accountable for much of the suffering the Soviet Union and my great-grand parents had to go through. But more so I believe in knowing and understanding the truth, while much can be blamed on him it should be understood that this was a time of many crimes being committed by many people, this book goes far in showing that to be the truth.

This book suggests that Stalin indeed did not plan the so called Terror, and the nation was not in fear, that is supposably the purpose of the Terror. The Author provides overwealming support for his theses, with evidence from Russian archives and current statistics. It would be irrogant not to consider his point of view seriously. Exellent book that deserves attention.

What generally has dominated the conversation about Stalin's regime has been recognized as a "Totalitarian Paradigm" by Philip Marsh, outstanding non-Marxist scientist in his essay "Stalin And Yezhov- An Extra-Paradigmatic View". His definition of this paradigm is that when researching this historical period, Western historician always proceeds from the assumption that Stalin was a dictator and his rule was monolithic and tyrannic, thus always negating new evidence that would suggest otherwise. A good example of this is Robert Conquest and the case of Kovalev. Conquest's standard accusations against Stalinist regime have traditionally been that it was elitist, bureucratic and priviledged, suppressed workers and peasants with ruthless force, was only interested with fabricated harvest records etc. When Conquest then found that these people who practiced this were the main targets of the purges and were considered as unbearable burdons for Leninist party (demonstrated in the case Kovalev who was purged for exploiting toilers) he simply whitewashed these people as "victims of lynching mood" while not grasping that he was himself protecting tyrannical strata which was the remnant of Czarist rule. He was later espoused for this- but still remains among the most respected scholars on Stalin, while more responsible research- based on archival data rather than rumors and gossip, basic sources for information respected in mainstream - has been simply downplayed as an attempt to "absolve Stalin from his crimes" while these critics themselves suffer from all-too-typical paradigm blindness. They don't understand that this new research questions whether we can even talk about "crimes", which is useless term and out of historical context. This work contains good deal of original material and is thus very respectable and reliable- but still, those who simply consider "Stalin The Tyrant" as absolute dogma won't accept new evidence that conradicts their beliefs- not because this evidence would be invalid- but because it CONTRADICTS this almost religious belief. I, personally, have a story to tell: One of my friends- Russian emigre whose parents had to flee so that Khrusthev would not execute them- as he did to all those who he considered "Stalinists"- had a relative who is actually here in (United States of America) right now, who was unemployeed in the Soviet Union in the 40's. He found that there was a building work going on in Vorkutta, Siberia, examined and found it was GULAG. The only way to get there was to get arrested by NKVD. So, he went to NKVD and ASKED them to sent him there. They asked, "did you do a crime?", he replied "no, I'm looking for a work". In the camp, there were hundreds like him. You wouldn't even know who was a prisoner and who was a guard, and ordinary workers would form relations with prisoners and have children with them. They even had strike -guards, prisoners and everyone- when Khrustchev pull