Stalin

Stalin by Edvard Radzinsky. This is a classic book written during the golden era of Russia (i.e. 1990-1999 ha ha) when people were free to write such things and when the Soviet archives were opened up for all to see. I read it in 1999. I also read Radzinsky's other book the Last Czar. The author was a TV reporter from the new Russia and writes in a strange floral manner - at least it appears that way from the translation. The book takes us from Stalin's younger years as an idiot revolutionary to through his acquisition of power to his death. Most of the book concentrates on Stalin's power plays and how he murdered to get himself to the top. An amazing part is Stalin's total bout with fear after the invasion by Germany in 1941. It is amazing how dangerously close Stalin came to crumbling. The author believes that Stalin was assassinated and that Stalin, starting to feel the forces moving against him, was about to embark on a great purge which included nuclear war. The author describes that Stalin was found dead in a pool of his own urine.

Stalin was a total brute, who like Mao took power through total force. I would say that he wasn't a communist either, but then I would be lying about communism. He was a total communist, because despite the theory and philosophy and communism, there is no possible outcome from communism but Stalin (or Mao). As the author notes, Communism in the end requires a Boss to make decisions.

After reading this book, the conclusion is that Stalin was pretty much out for himself. He hated his own people except to the extent that they could be slaves to him. I thought Stalin was the worst of the big three totalitarians, until I read a book on Mao. Mao was far worse.

Its gross to think back that American media outlets were dazzled by Stalin and even carried his water. How fooled they were.

A Distant Mirror

I am grabbing another random book from my bookshelf....A Distant Mirror, by Barbara Tuchman is one of my favorites. I read it about 5 years ago. Many Tuchman fans pooh pooh this book. They call it long and dragged out, which it is, however I have not read an account which better relays how much things sucked in 14th century France. Between the plague and constant losses in battle ending with total defeat to the Muslims at Nicopolis, the schism, etc... nothing about the century seems worthy. Yet, at the same time, people still seem to progress. It gives one hope that we would still survive and progress even after an all out nuclear war.

The military exploits in the 14th century also reinforce the idea that strategy in war in the middle ages simply did not exist. There was no strategy. Only tactics and bad tactics at best. Its amazing that no one ever bothered to read up on their ancient texts. The Europeans had to wait until the 1600s before anyone (Gustavus) thought that strategy mattered.

1776

I grabbed a book from my library and I thought it would be worth making a comment. The book is 1776, by David McCullough, I generally like McCullough's books although this book has less detail than some of his others. I read it back in 2005 when it was released.

Reading about George Washington, one wonders how he ever was successful in the Revolution. His success was not in military tactics, but at perpetuating a grand strategy that he may not have specifically designed. Do you think GW strategized in 1776 that he was going to engage in a Fabian strategy with the British or did he think he could win major battles. It was unclear from the book. Nevertheless, the Fabian strategy worked.

Reading this book also reminded me that the American Revolution was nothing like the French Revolution. The French Revolution threw out the old order and attempted to replace it with the new. The American Revolution got rid of King George, but it didn't change much regarding anything else. We just replaced liberal Britons with liberal Americans (who were much better). Its not like the new Ameircan government went in uprooted ten centuries of tradition like the French did.

Restarting this Blog

I am going to restart this Blog. It will consists of posts on the the various books and movies I have read or seen. I should be quite boring. But fun for me.

Hail the confederates!

I am currently reading Grant's memoirs and there are a lot of great quotes. This one from his view on the Mexican war which he opposed, but thought that it should be fought to conclusion will all vigor and support once it had begun.

Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupied no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine,' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable thereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is oblivion.

He is right. Today the confederates, despite fighting for the most dismal of causes, are hailed as brave heroes fighting for their country. Take Robert E. Lee for example. He should be considered the greatest traitor in American history. He took an oath to defend the constitution! And took up arms against his oath. Instead, today he is hailed, while the war opponents in the north are now despised and disgraced.