[Wolfman]

[1] That the Soviets were gearing up to invade Europe.

Wasn't the Red Army fighting the White Army pretty much throughout the whole of WWII? Kind of hard (and stupid) to initiate a war of aggression against (what was at the time) pretty much the whole world while you're trying to control one country.

The Soviet Union was the world's first and so far only workers' state

FRS Yugoslavia?

And while the specifics are untrue, the broad concept of Stalin letting the war go further then it needed to for his own means is at the least an interesting idea.

[Smilin' Dave]

Wasn't the Red Army fighting the White Army pretty much throughout the whole of WWII?

While there was some partisan activity resulting from the occupation of the Baltic States, Poland etc. I don't think it was comperable to the earlier Russian Civil War in terms of scale etc.

[Andropov]

It seems that Stalin was more a Russian prince than a Secretary of the Communist Party with regard to the political manoeuvres in the international arena during the interbellum and WWII period. By this I mean that in those years his foreign policy was mostly shaped by the geopolitical realities of Russia than by communist ideology.

Indeed. It's interesting seeing his personal and idealogical growth over the years, starting out as a rabid internationalist Marxist and ending up as a realpolitik left-wing nationalist.

[Wolfman]

While there was some partisan activity resulting from the occupation of the Baltic States, Poland etc. I don't think it was comperable to the earlier Russian Civil War in terms of scale etc.

Ah. I asked because I remembered reading somewhere that the Red Army always had the weapons and ammunition for its own troops, and that the 'unarmed waves of hungry kids' were mostly captured White Army troops.

[Potemkin]

Wasn't the Red Army fighting the White Army pretty much throughout the whole of WWII? Kind of hard (and stupid) to initiate a war of aggression against (what was at the time) pretty much the whole world while you're trying to control one country.

The White Armies (there was more than one of them, and they never successfully co-ordinated their campaigns) were utterly crushed by 1921. There was no 'White Army' during WWII.

The Soviet Union was the world's first and so far only workers' state


FRS Yugoslavia?

FRS Yugoslavia was founded after 1945. You would have been on stronger ground if you had referred to the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919, but that lasted only a few months before the Romanian army invaded and crushed it. From 1919 to 1948, the Soviet Union was the world's only workers' state. If it fell, then the Communist cause might well have collapsed worldwide.

[Wolfman]

The White Armies (there was more than one of them, and they never successfully co-ordinated their campaigns) were utterly crushed by 1921. There was no 'White Army' during WWII.

I was under the impression that when the Nazis invaded Poland the Red Army realistically only controlled a few cities in European Russia, and that by the midpoint of the war they still didn't really control anything on the far side of the Urals.

FRS Yugoslavia was founded after 1945

Misunderstood what you were saying.

[Potemkin]

I was under the impression that when the Nazis invaded Poland the Red Army realistically only controlled a few cities in European Russia, and that by the midpoint of the war they still didn't really control anything on the far side of the Urals.

Lolwut? That's just wrong.

[Wolfman]

I don't remember where I read that. But, it would really make the massive victory of the Red Army against the Nazi's all the more impressive.

[Potemkin]

Actually, it would have made it impossible. You've really got to stop learning about the history of the Soviet Union from articles published by the Mises Institute.

[Wolfman]

It's more likely from Wikipedia, as I've never read anything from VMI except to make fun of it.

[Potemkin]

When trying to learn anything about the Soviet Union, I always try to find more than one source, and I never take anyone's word for anything, even if they were, or claim they were, an 'eyewitness'. So many lies have been written and published about the Soviet Unon, both for and against, that trying to discover what really happened is an almost impossible task. Soviet history is an Augean stable full of bullshit, and so far no Hercules has turned up to clear it out.

[Cookie Monster]

When trying to learn anything about the Soviet Union, I always try to find more than one source, and I never take anyone's word for anything, even if they were, or claim they were, an 'eyewitness'. So many lies have been written and published about the Soviet Unon, both for and against, that trying to discover what really happened is an almost impossible task. Soviet history is an Augean stable full of bullshit, and so far no Hercules has turned up to clear it out.

Nevertheless Potemky, which books would you recommend on the subject of the history of the Soviet Union?

[Andropov]

What is the best introductory Soviet history texts, Potemkin, in your eyes?

[Potemkin]

Nevertheless Potemky, which books would you recommend on the subject of the history of the Soviet Union?

There's no single canonical book on the subject, but an unusual and interesting starting point might be Iron Maze by Gordon Brook-Shepherd, which is the best single book dealing with the espionage intrigues going on in the years immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution until the end of the Civil War. Jack Reed's Ten Days That Shook the World is a famous pro-Communist account of the Revolution by an American eyewitness and participant. I can also recommend Black Night, White Snow by Harrison Salisbury, an American diplomat stationed in Russia during the period.

[Cookie Monster]

There's no single canonical book on the subject, but an unusual and interesting starting point might be Iron Maze by Gordon Brook-Shepherd, which is the best single book dealing with the espionage intrigues going on in the years immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution until the end of the Civil War. Jack Reed's Ten Days That Shook the World is a famous pro-Communist account of the Revolution by an American eyewitness and participant. I can also recommend Black Night, White Snow by Harrison Salisbury, an American diplomat stationed in Russia during the period.

Thanks Potemky, will look into it.

But I am wondering whether there is also a good book or collection which examines the Soviet Union over much of its timespan similar to Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

[Potemkin]

Russia and the USSR, 1905-1991 by Philip Ingram provides a reasonably good comprehensive overview, in my opinion.

[fuser]

Potemkin, have you read "history of Soviet Russia by EH Carr??

[Potemkin]

Yes. It was good in its time, but is now rather dated.

[Rich]

From 1919 to 1948, the Soviet Union was the world's only workers' state.

What about Tannu Tuva?

I highly recommend A peoples tragedy: the Russian revolution 1917 -1924 by Orlando Figes. its absolutely awesome, streets ahead in depth of knowledge and analysis to anything else I've read. Despite the title it really starts in 1890. I just wish he'd write some histories of the later periods.

[pugsville]

Read it over the Christmas hols. Good sociological analysis for understanding the social forces at work. The Military side is a bit haphazard with out much real analysis . Good one in the mix.