A friend and I were discussing a book we are reading “Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin”, by Timothy Snyder. You really would think they’d run out of people to kill during the famines, gulags, and purges. It was brutal, and Barbarossa and the Holocaust haven’t even started yet. As my buddy put it: You have to wonder about the mindset of the Soviet people to sit on their hands and watch it happen, without uprising again. Was it really so bad under the Czar that this was a better alternative?
The Russian Revolution demonstrated they could overthrow an unpopular regime. I want to say part of the answer is that Stalin was very very efficient. They already removed potential leaders and successfully convinced/cowed the rest.
Same reason the French never overthrew Napoleon. The people still believed in the Revolution and, by default, saw their current leader as embodying it.
There’s the story (probably apocryphal) of how Khrushchev was denouncing Stalin after his death in a speech. And somebody in the crowd yelled out, “Why didn’t you speak out when he was alive?”
Khrushchev stopped his speech and yelled back, “Who said that? Step forward!” But nobody came out of the crowd.
The people were brainwashed into loving Stalin, people had no idea how evil he was when he was in charge. Also the opposition had probably mostly been purged by Stalin at this point, Stalin killed something like 1/6 of the country.
The part where the Tsarist government, absolute and authoritarian (but not quite totalitarian) as it was, failed to stop the SRs from overthrowing the Tsar.
Of course, throughout its history, the Tsarist government was a despotism tempered by incompetence. Perhaps the Soviet government was not quite so tempered.
Exactly… The Tsars still held to some of the old mythic imagery about good kings, the health of the land, the value of the nobility, etc. They still had a few lingering beliefs about chivalry. Yeah, and secret police, but, as you note, tempered by incompetence, and also tempered by a few ideals.
Stalinism, like Nazism, was a new breed of cat, a more “Orwellian” totalitarianism. (Yes, obviously, Orwell based his ideas on them and not the other way around, but the point is their absolutism went beyond anything seen to date. Well, okay, maybe ancient Sparta. And it is no coincidence: Stalin employed several ideas that were used in ancient Sparta.)
(Can anyone tell me if this was conscious and deliberate? Did Stalin know Spartan history?)
Anyway, Stalin and Hitler weren’t quite like their grand-pappy’s tyrants.
“The people” (or at least his fellow Communists) had a golden opportunity to overthrow Stalin after the German invasion in 1941 caught the Soviet Union completely off guard.
Stalin retreated to his country villa and did nothing. A delegation of party leaders came to convince him to act decisively to lead the war effort. Reportedly he was relieved, having expected they’d come to arrest him.
There was supposed to be sentiment to do just that, but some feared it was a trap set by Stalin to expose enemies. So he got off the hook.
Reminds me of North Korea, where the latest leader is beloved by all and worshiped as a god. Overthrow a god? Impossible, and you’ll get shot to suggest it.
Yeah, a lot of people may want him to be overthrown. No one knows who exactly. Some people owe their powerful position to Stalin and would lose power and perhaps their life if he was overthrown. Some people may be willing to join the overthrow if it looks like it has good odds of succeeding but realize that it’s generally safer to act to protect the current regime or stay on the sidelines.
Who wants to go first?
If you don’t want to go alone, you’ll have to conspire to make allies. Who do you talk to about it? What if they’re actually pro-Stalin and report you? What if they’re not pro-Stalin but report you to advance their careers or because they think it’s a false flag test of their loyalty to him? How big do you want your conspiracy to get? The bigger and higher-placed, the more the execution is likely to succeed. But it’s also more likely to be reported or detected.
Also, the tsars still believed in the divine right of kings, so they never really believed that they could be unseated. Stalin knew it was possible and watched for any sign of it so it could be squashed before starting.
Yes. You need to be able to trust someone in order to conspire to overthrow a government. Stalin had everyone so paranoid a person couldn’t trust that their best friend wasn’t an agent.
Some were paranoid. Some were not, and were brainwashed into loving Stalin like their father (in a lot of cases more than their fathers), and the heresy of even thinking of him as imperfect would never have entered their minds.
That’s a very patronizing thing to say.
Yes, WW2-era Russia was still quite “rustic”, but that doesn’t mean its people were morons. If the Soviet zeitgeist had a crippling defect back then it wasn’t stupidity but fatalism. The people had had great hopes w/ the Revolution, only to see them all trampled underfoot one by one by Stalin. That’d sour a dude on the whole thing alright.
Besides, for all the purges and mass murders and gulags, Stalin still did improve the life of the average Russian in many ways - improved mechanization (particularly out in the fields), heavy industry and little unemployment, railroads and power everywhere, cheap housing, decent and functional healthcare (if a bit… unaesthetic is the most charitable way to put it I think), cinema for the masses as well.
Not if you were a cousin of Napoleon’s :).
Joke aside, it got better as conquest followed conquest, pillage led to pillage. But the early post-Revolutionary days and the Terror ? Yeah, not a pic-nic.