Simon Sebag Montefiore On Stalin's Bloody Rise to Power
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2024
- 'Simon Sebag Montefiore On Stalin's Bloody Rise to Power'
How did a young trainee priest from Georgia become a merciless dictator who shaped the Soviet Empire in his own brutal image?
Historian and bestselling author, Simon Sebag Montifiore, talks to Dan Snow about the rise of Joseph Stalin, a man whose regime of terror witnessed the death and suffering of tens of millions of people.
Find out how Stalin climbed to the top of Soviet politics to emerge as Lenin’s heir, and hear how his extreme insecurity and paranoia shaped the way he ruled.
#SimonSebagMontefiore #Stalin #HistoryHit
Sign up to History Hit TV now and get 7 days free: access.historyhit.com/checkout
Beware the quiet man. For while others speak, he watches. And while others act, he plans. And when they finally rest … he strikes.
Not quiet enough, if they're quoting lines from Christian Bale.
aka Richard Bruce Cheney
This was excellent. I have read some of Simon‘s books but I have never seen him interviewed in a video. A very worthwhile 30 minutes. As a sidenote, one of my uncles was a supporter of the Mensheviks and was deported initially in 1929 to internal exile by Stalin and later arrested again in 1941 for 10 years in the Gulag. Fortunately he survived.
If you liked that, there’s an amazing two hour interview on C-Span about his book on Stalin. It’s a great way to spend a couple hours if you have the time to watch it.
G.U.L.A.G is an acronym… Did your Uncles make mention of that to you?…. I’d love to hear more about him 🥶
@@matthewshaw8122 Could you link it please? Would be much appreciated
@@HueyPPLong Here’s the link: ruclips.net/video/f8KXnpxb3mA/видео.html
@@HueyPPLong ruclips.net/video/f8KXnpxb3mA/видео.html
I have read some of Simon’s books but I have never seen him interviewed in video. A very worthwhile 30 minutes. As a sidenote, one of my uncles was a supporter of the Mensheviks and was arrested initially to internal exile in 1929. And again in 1941 for 10 years in the Gulag. Fortunately he survived. Excellent analysis and interview.
I read Court of the Red Tsar by this author. It's about Stalin and his cronies. It's absolutely terrifying and a great read. Stalin was one of the worst humans in the history of the species, and the USSR under his rule was a nightmare.
Propaganda book. Propaganda history.
@@chepushila1 do you know if any book on stalin which is not propaganda then?
Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens is a good text without the propaganda 👍
typical western propagandist bullshiit.Stalin was a great manager, a competent one, who industrialized Russia, kill all the counter revolutionaries and won.
Сталин и СССР до сих пор являются ужасом для врагов, доказательством является эта писанина
“Stalin, the Court of the Red Tsar” was excellent!
You beat me to it...a must read indeed
Overblown….
@@varovaro1967 troll
@@spm36 i am not. Its a fantastic book, i agree, but he gets carried away a bit… The final image is distorted..
I absolutely love these interviews and am always eagerly awaiting the next.
You guys are killing it I love it everyday I get back from work and there is new content I love you xx
One of my fave interviews so far on this channel. Great stuff
That was the quickest 30 minutes of my life. Excellent video! Well done!
This guy and Kotkin are the two Stalin experts. Always enjoy his interviews…. Bonus that he sounds EXACTLY alike Stewie from Family Guy
Not exactly like, but I can definitely hear it.
My new favorite channel. Thanks for the great information.
This is a great introduction for students of the topic. I don't think the Stalin story has been told well enough over the years. SSB is one of the best historian-storytellers. A great book.
This is fascinating, and chilling!
I have to say that I've enjoyed all of Simon's books. I can't wait to read what he writes next.
Fantastic video
Cool. I just put his book on my wishlist.
the big advantage of Stalin is that he was a hard worker in committees ,
all the middling administrators could turn to him for solutions , he was "one of the boys "
while the top intellectuals made great speeches and wrote a lot but didn't attend the nitty gritty of the boring everyday business
Trotsky famously would be reading French novels during those long committees discussions unworthy of his time
Stalin could read the mood of the party mid range personnel ,
breaking the NEP was very popular with the hard Bolsheviks , irked with the wealth flaunting NEP men , with the GPU who were worried on the rise of nationalism and religion
his success was that he created thousands of little Stalins at all levels and positions who would act as his hunting pack
Much like Klaus Shauwb has done !
Dr Simon can talk about ice melting and I'll listen to him all day
Stephen Kotkin's gigantic two books, soon to be three on Stalin, is fantasic, but might be harder to zoom across the pond
have not read this gentleman's work.
It would be interesting to bring Kotkin and Sebag together in a public setting and listen to what they might say by way of comparing and contrasting their perspectives of Stalin and the rest of the Soviets.
Is there a sense that Russia is only rulable by this sort of 'strongman', that it could never, because of its history, be for instance a democracy?
I am reminded of a story about George Washington. It's said that King George III was talking with painter Benjamin West and he inquired about Washington's plans. West, having been from Pennsylvania, said that Washington intended to give up the presidency after 2 terms and return to farming. King George said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
Who knows if that was actually said, but on some level the sentiment was true. People with immense power very rarely give it up and often rule with an iron fist until their own death, often at the hands of an angry mob.
Stalin became prime Minister in May 1941. He died in March 1953. At the XIX Congress of the Communist Party in 1952, he renounced power in the party. Merkel has ruled longer in Germany.
@@karlwalther I must have misunderstood something; who was in charge of the Soviet Union in (for example) 1938?
@@michaeldeacon8155 I understand your question. You imagine Stalin as a tsar. And you imagine the Russian tsar as an absolute tyrant. But it doesn't work that way. Do you think Biden is the most important in the United States? Can he alone:
- introduce a new tax;
- change the interest rate;
- order to build a new city in Arizona;
- declare war;
- order the arrest of Trump?
Now I will answer your question.
@@karlwalther Of course I understand that western democracies are not dictatorships or autocratic monarchies, leaders have to work within the limits of their power.
But I think your previous reply implied that Stalin "ruled" Russia only from 1941-1952 and that Angela Merkel "ruled" Germany from 2005-2021. From what I understand of Russia/Soviet history Stalin had far more personal power in 1930s than Merkel was in (for example) 2018
More interviews please
Magnificent
I perchance became aware of this book through RUclips when I saw the author - the highly respected author Simon Sebag Montefiore being interviewed by an American interviewer, obviously in total awe of the author being on excellent terms with the British Royal family.
Montefiore explained in beautiful terms how he was allowed access to THE most confidential information on Stalin, family data and interviews with some of the most elusive people who had known Stalin and many of his cohorts.
Like every single predecessor writing about Russian history or novels, Montefiore makes the same deep mistake of referring to every single character in his/her full name, pet name, nickname, child's name, assumed name and every single other nomenclature of that particular person, in every single sentence, paragraph and chapter.
This leads to gargantuan confusions and constant back referrals to previous pages as to whom the author is referring.
When one character after another is presented into the story, followed by the vast assortment of names in random order, the joy of continuing the book is heavily compromised.
Be like me - write that list.
When I read Russian novels I make a list of all the different names so I can keep track.
The author made another mistake that only Stalin and Trotsky have unlimited access to Lenin. Lenin was in fact closer to Dzerzhinsky , Zinoview, Kamenev, Kalinin than Trotsky.
The Bolshevik's other big influences were the failed revolutions of 1871 and 1906. They argued that the French succeeded in 1789 specifically because of the violence. Whilst what happened later on didn't, because they were not ruthless enough.
1905.
you are absolutely right. Even LENIN wrote about the Paris Communes how they were crushed by the bourgeoisie.
The stuff they've given me before wasnt any good , it hurt way too much
Lenin, and his friend Stalin, man of steel, were a couple of real characters.
"Cometh the moment, cometh the man."
08:00 ff: I don't think Stalin himself ever stopped believing in his mission and became just cynical. Even in fiction, villains tend to not just see themselves as such, they try to justify what they do, even when they know otherwise, like O'Brien from _1984_ who openly tells Winston that The Party seeks power just for its own ends. Doublethink allows him to know this and at the same time believe that The Party is benevolent.
Hitler definitely did believe in his mission, there is no doubt.
@20:30 I tried to fact-check that Stalin only joined the Bolsheviks in 1917, but I can't find this.
He was talking about Trotsky
Could use a part 2 on this topic more about the end of statins days post war
I hope that the book is more articulate.
It could be interesting to read SSB book about Hitler
My wife is Russian, born in the old soviet union. She could never understand why no one in Russia was ever brave enough to assassinate this monster Stalin. Her parents felt the same way about it. They hate the nazis but they point to the German people who tried to kill Hitler as at least having the courage to make an attempt at getting rid of him. In the end, my relatives felt that Russia in a way deserved what they got because no one had the nerve to get rid of Stalin and for that they were ashamed.
Well nobody dares to assassinate Putin either... you are killed before you can kill him.
There were many attempts to assassinate Lenin.
When Hitler invaded the USSR Stalin froze and did nothing. When many of his ministers came to his dacha he thought they were there to arrest him, but they begged him to save the nation from Nazism.
There were rumours that Tito or Beria were behind the death of Stalin in 1953.
Your wife sounds like a traitor, Stalin was soviet power and he saved the world from Hitler.
I've heard Marxism described as a faith-based applied philosophy (not entirely unlike many religions) where certain posits of the human society (not individual humans) prevalent during its nascence are taken to their logical conclusion, and that conclusion is a total reordering of society for the better: the "new kingdom". The faith that such a reordering is inevitable is the primary justification for the evil done by the truest believers - much like all great evil is done and justified by the pious and fervent believer.
00:19 reincarnated as sergio ramos from real madrid
Château d’Yquem.
👍🏻
'Semi-islamist fanaticism'? Hmm.. fanaticism can come from all religions can't it?
Simon seems to fancy Uncle Joe. Stalin sounds like Castro and his son Justin.
Is that a moronic attempt on your part to besmirch Justin Trudeau? Pathetic!
The biggest Stalin mistake was, that he didn't read Mein Kampf properly.
More on this topic, from an academic next please.
DOCTOR Simon S. Montefiore "read history at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge where he received his Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD)." PhD from Cambridge not good enough for you then?
@Chris Burns yes, that's quite right, Montefiore's diligence and interpretation has been criticized in some depth and he writes popular history and novels rather than holding a position in academia. I would prefer a historian rather than a populariser.
Novels? Don't think so but popular historians have their own meaningful lives. It's popular historians who translate history for/to mass societies so that is is understandable so they aren't left sinking in just salacious propaganda.
Stalin was actually good looking as a young lad.
🖖🖖🖖
Looked healthy as a young man😅😊
Simon has done his research on Stalin by watching history channel. Complete non sense.
So you haven't read his award winning book then....try reading a book instead of thickepedia
@@spm36 no, there are serious critiques of the accuracy of his histories. If I remember there’s an excellent review of one of his books in the LRB.
By no means Stalin was a cobbler's son. Never ever the cobbler' afford to send his son to seminary:))) Just do a better research!!!! Stalin was unlawful son of a Knyaz Egnatasvhili (from a Georgian noble family) who owned lands and mansions in v. Ksovrisi, near Gori. He took care of Stalin's initial education. Stalin took half brother Alexander (Sasha) Egnatasvhili to Kremlin as Cook General. This fact is 100% true. My childhood friend's Nina Ratisvhili's grand-grand father was Sasha Egnatasvhili and my family knew this story from this family. The resemblance between two were striking. Stalin from his childhood had internal hatred over aristocracy/nobility IMHO.
Btw, Stalin was very handsome, much more handsome than Trotsky. Comeon:)))) Just look at Stalin's early pics and you'll see that he was very handsome and complete hipster LOL. Btw, Stalin's real father was very talented guy and Stalin really got his genes. Unfortunately, he turned out to be "Evil Genius". Had done lot's of harm to Georgia and its aristocracy/nobility:((((
Stalin socialist hero of the elite urban champagne socialites.
You're a div
I guess no one truly thinks and acts without any biases and misconceptions on a subject.
p͎r͎o͎m͎o͎s͎m͎ ?
Dan Snow comes dangerously close to actually ruining this interview,
but someone must have given a sign that meant "Shut the f*** up, you spoilt little rich boy who never needed to do anything but sit and wait for familial connections to kick in."
Because he suddenly stops interrupting Simon Sebag Montefiore (the actual _expert)_ - just as the idea of stopping watching starts to seem inviting.
But Snow shuts up, says the bare minimum, and it starts to be quite good - which speaks volumes concerning the strengths and weaknesses of Dan 'Lucky Sperm' Snow.
Hmmmmm that's cool but I wouldn't take a word from someone in Epstein's black list very seriously though
Stalin was an unmitigated mobster'n monster--possibly a psychopath--in fact. The 'Nazino affair' certainly attests to that--rather richly--many opine. . .⚡☝⚡
If you get your history of Russian communism from an aristocrat interviewed by a beneficary of nepotism and member of a UK state media dynasty, you may also be interested in getting advice on the stock market from a horse's rear!
And your point is?
@@marknovak9310 You're being sarcastic, right?
@@rhondaweber5638 what sarcastic about the comment? Apparently Cronin believes that history cannot be discussed by people that he feels are unworthy of listening to about Stalin. The most murderous human that has ever lived. Period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!