Humanising Stalin?
By Simon Montefiore – BBC.com
Read the article and answer the questions
Received ideas
People will usually agree that Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung were among the greatest monsters of human history. All
are considered such peerless villains that they have become brand names of demonology, cited glibly by politicians and serving as
raw material for that most futile of parlour-games - the sweepstakes of demonology - who killed the most people? But is this a
productive way to examine historic figures of this magnitude? Or is it time to look again at some of the received ideas of the past 50
years?
Shock factor
The recent German movie on Hitler, The Downfall (2004), raised many of the ghosts that will forever haunt Germans - and many of
the memories that still stalk the world about Germany. It was acclaimed by many critics, although denounced by others as
subversive and unsettling, and certainly it shocked a number of its viewers.
It did not, however, shock with its depiction of the Führer's brutality, his unleashing of a war of extermination, his industrial
slaughter of millions of Jews and Slavs. Nor did it reveal the usual shocking figure of Hitler - ranting, screaming, foaming at the
mouth like a rabid dog in his bunker - as the Russians closed in on Berlin. Far from it.
The film shocked Germans because it depicted a 'new' Hitler - a tired, gentle, ailing warlord, listening to music, taking tea with his
devoted secretaries (on whose memoirs the film is based), being caring and sensitive to his mistress (later-wife) Eva Braun, talking
about art and architecture.
In Germany, this was denounced as a dangerous, ominous sign of Nazi revanchism, while in the British media it was held up as a
warning that the Germans, 50 years after post-war reconstruction and re-education of Germany, and the obsessive rejection of
every part of Nazism, were now starting to see acceptable sides to Hitler.
Getting past the myth
We should, however, remember that there is nothing new, really, about this supposedly humanised portrait of Hitler. It has always
been well known that after ordering more slaughter on the Eastern Front, or exploding in paroxysms of saliva-flecked rage at his
generals, Hitler sometimes took well-mannered tea and cakes with his assistants, and would also take the opportunity to bore on
about his taste in painting (though the dragon-breath of his acrid halitosis must have somewhat diminished the charm).
It is perhaps worth recognising, instead, that the movie in fact marks a radically positive change in our understanding and collective
memory of the great monsters of past eras, as well as of the present time. Not just of Hitler, but of other grotesques as well - men
such as Genghis Khan, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein. And of course, Stalin.
In writing about men such as Stalin, the challenge for historians is to explain the rise, fanaticism and maintenance of power of these
leaders, but the task is made difficult by the many clichéd myths that surround them. The truth is also often obscured by those who
insist that these diabolical revolutionaries can be portrayed only as inhuman devils, and not as wicked but practical politicians, or as
degenerate but subtly rounded humans.
Often when a new book or film on Hitler appears, for example - such as the one described above - if any hint is shown of any positive
side to him, there is uproar that he is being humanised. And a recent BBC documentary that showed interviews with Osama bin
Laden's school pals, shocked many as it revealed their memories of his charm, elegance, intelligence.
What the archive reveals
Until now Stalin has been the most elusively shadowy of these dark legends. But newly-opened archives suddenly allow us to paint a
more human picture of him than ever before. They expose depravity, perversion, luxury and sadism, in a self-righteous world of
murder by quota and by personal vendetta - all symptoms of a rotten creed imposed by violence.
We learn that Stalin studied history carefully and voraciously. He read not only about Russian Tsars but also Persian Shahs. At
various times he compared himself to Peter the Great. Ivan the Terrible was his true 'teacher' - his own word - and there were many
parallels between them. At the height of the Terror, he said Ivan's mistake had been to kill too few of the boyars.
We see how he worked. He was not the bureaucrat that Trotsky told us about, but immensely industrious nonetheless, and he
interfered in everything from the number of cars the family of Vyacheslav Molotov (a trusted political ally) had to the number of
urinals on the streets of Moscow.
And what is made very clear is that killing and repression were utterly essential to the Soviet system - all the leaders were perfectly
aware of this. Indeed they believed in it, and their personal letters and Stalin's private notes are filled with lists of deportees and
executions. The archives show how the Great Terror was directly initiated and run by Stalin and an inner core of grandees, and that
it was utterly random in its killing.
The intimate world
The archives, however, also reveal more human aspects of Stalin. He was ashamed of his eldest son, irritated by his fragile son
Vasily, and absolutely devoted to his daughter Svetlana, whose homework he checked nightly - although things changed radically
when she grew up. The archives are full of letters from her when she was a child, in which she pretends she is dictator of Russia. It
appears that Stalin and the whole Politburo pretended to obey her orders.
There were other human aspects of the man - his womanising (never without a mistress even as a penniless exile), his intellectualism
(he loved Goethe, Balzac, Hugo, Last of the Mohicans), his warmth towards his subordinates (he chose the house of the chief of the
security service, Levranti Beria, personally, and used to tuck his children into bed), his fine singing voice.
Among all this a note of warning should be sounded, though, and we of course also need to question our fascination with the
intimate world of monsters.
To inform and warn
So should we know about the human side of Stalin? It is an important question - but for years, popular history has coasted along on
the myth that the Nazi, Soviet and Maoist regimes were murder-sprees by lone madmen. And this is nonsense. Historians have two
missions. The first is to inform readers how and why these men ruled and killed. The second is to deliver warnings from the past.
If we simply present Hitler or Stalin as satanic psychopaths, there is no warning. We learn nothing about them, or their cultures, or
why those nightmares happened. Instead it is the intimate approach to Stalin that is key to creating a new paradigm of that regime and it is this personal approach that is in fact the correct way to understand Leninism-Stalinism.
The new archives show that even though the men who surrounded Stalin were fanatical Marxists and enthusiastic killers, his own
power was personal and informal. The old picture of Stalin is absurd. If he had been merely a charmless psychopath, he would never
have even risen to power, yet alone maintained himself at the top of the tree. He was a grotesque alright, but also a complex and
subtle bundle of contradictions. The devil is in the detail.
It is patronising to censor personal, possibly agreeable, details of these monsters, as if readers are not qualified to decide for
themselves what to make of them. In this way history becomes at best cliché, at worst propaganda.
Most readers can make the necessary judgements for themselves about what a man is like, based on the available information.
Certainly, a writer or historian must be meticulous in scholarship - a book that concentrated on Hitler's sketches or Stalin's poetry,
while ignoring their brutality, would be iniquitous. But we owe the reader a complete picture.
Responsibility matters
Furthermore, the closer one comes to Stalin - as man, father, lover - the more disgusting he appears to become. Far from
humanising a monster, the 'intimate picture' revealed by the newly opened archives, as the New Yorker says, 'actually throws the
cold-hearted murderousness with which Stalin pursued power into sharper relief'
Character is not just about readable fascination. Character matters because responsibility matters. Germany redeemed itself
because it faced the truth of Hitler's charm, popularity - and criminality. Stalinism, by contrast, overshadows Russia still, because
Russians have never faced any guilt wider than that of Stalin - no truth, therefore no redemption.
Plutarch, the master of personal history, explained in his 'Life of Nicias' that 'detail' is never 'unnecessary', because it contains
fundamental truths: '… passing on the essence that promotes the appreciation of character and temperament.'
Yes, the inconvenient facts about the intimate humanity of Joseph Stalin are indeed shocking. And they are meant to be.
1. What does the author mean when he calls Hitler, Stalin and Mao “brand names of demonology”?
2. How did the movie “Downfall” depict Hitler?
3. Why was this portrayal shocking to the German people?
4. What was the challenge to historians when explaining the rise, fanaticism and maintenance of power of leaders like Hitler?
5. What do the newly opened archives reveal about Stalin?
6. What were some “human aspects” of Stalin revealed in the archives?
7. Should people today know the human side of terrible rulers like Stalin? Why/not?
8. What does the author mean when he says, “Character matters because responsibility matters?
9. How can “Humanising Stalin” help prevent a similar leader from coming to power?
10. What is the overall theme of this article?