Charmer 
Sheila Fitzpatrick
Stalin was a ‘grey blur’ in the opinion of Nikolai Sukhanov, the Menshevik-Internationalist chronicler of the Russian Revolution. Trotsky thought him a faceless ‘creature of the bureaucracy’, even in power. These must be among the most misleading descriptions ever to capture the fancy of generations of historians. There was one notable exception among the scholars: Robert Tucker put a dashing young revolutionary – someone who might have stepped out of the Baader-Meinhof Group or the Weathermen – on the cover of Stalin as Revolutionary (1973). But the ‘grey blur’ remained, no doubt partly in reaction against devotional Soviet characterisations of the Great Leader, Teacher and Father of Peoples. Scholars who had to wade through the turgid prose of his theoretical writings concluded that Stalin was poorly educated and probably not too bright, except as a backroom organiser. As for physical attributes, his short stature, pockmarked face and damaged arm were frequently noted. The consensus was that in the line-up of totalitarian dictators, Hitler was the one with charisma.
Subscribers to the print edition can log in to view the entire article. For information about subscribing to the London Review of Books click here. This article is available for purchase online. Buy this article.
Sheila Fitzpatrick teaches at the University of Chicago. She is the editor (with Stuart Macintyre) of Against the Grain: Brian Fitzpatrick and Manning Clark in Australian History and Politics.
Other articles by this contributor:
Like a Thunderbolt · Solzhenitsyn’s Mission
Pessimism and Boys · Sheila Fitzpatrick reads the diary of a Soviet schoolgirl
A Little Swine · Snitching
The Good Old Days · The Dacha-Owning Classes
print layout
tell a friend