I was torn on which biography of Stalin to read. Most tempting was Stephen Kotkin's three-volume masterpiece, which is still awaiting its last volume. I was reluctant to start it without at least having a publication date for the third volume.

Also in the running was Simon Sebag Montefiore's two-volume set which focuses more on Stalin's personal life and suggests viewing him as being more like a mafia don than a standard, if autocratic, political leader. (And having read the present work, I can see where Montefiore is coming from, although my experience with mafia dons is, shall we say, limited.)

Then there this book, Khlevniuk's single-volume bio. Given that I'm unlikely to read two multi-volume Stalin biographies and that Kotkin volume three is only allegedly on the horizon, this seemed like a decent stop-gap. Plus, it has the perk of being by a Russian historian.

Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator didn't disappoint. To my eyes, it's objective, neither castigating (though still assigning blame where the evidence supports it) nor lionizing Stalin. Obviously, if Kotkin is writing three books each of which is longer than this one, then Khlevniuk had to leave a lot out, but I didn't feel like there was anything too jarring missing. He seems to have abridged the dictator's life story judiciously.

I'd definitely recommend this to anyone looking for a bio of Stalin that is recent and written by a respected historian with access to the Soviet archives, but who doesn't want to take on one of the multivolume affairs that otherwise meet those requirements.
( )

A satisfying sketch of the man behind the 'vozhd' while also serving as a concise, effective introduction to Soviet history up to the end of the Stalinist system. The duel narrative format, alternating between the chronological history of Bolshevik/Stalinist USSR and the life of Stalin himself, was refreshing and imbued the book with a fast tempo.

However, I was unimpressed with Khlevniuk's weak dismissal of the claims made by newer generations of Soviet historians who assert that Stalin had developed an offensive grand-strategy centered around invading Europe after Hitler and the western powers had exhausted themselves, but that this plan was interrupted by a pre-emptive German offensive in the summer of '41.

Khlevniuk simply states that, "Convincing evidence that Stalin planned to go on the offensive has yet to surface. There is no serious basis for revising the traditional view that Stalin was fatally indecisive and even befuddled in the face of the growing threat." Khlevniuk's wholesale refusal to at least describe the other side of the debate was disappointing.

From the point that I realized Khlevniuk wouldn't discuss this alternative hypothesis, even if only to disprove it, my interest in the book declined. There IS evidence for this alternative theory of Stalin's grand-strategic intentions, and if there is a reason to disbelief this thesis, Khlevniuk should have given it to us, rather than just hand-waving away even the possibility of a discussion.

A solid, even very good biography of Stalin and introduction to early Soviet history, but for readers familiar with current historiographical debates within the field of Soviet history, the book feels unsatisfying -- even unfair. ( )