What do you think?
Rate this book
Lenin: A Biography
Lenin is a colossal figure whose influence on twentieth-century history cannot be underestimated. Robert Service has written a calmly authoritative biography on this seemingly unknowable figure. Making use of recently opened archives, he has been able to piece together the private as well as the public life, giving the first complete picture of Lenin. This biography simultaneously provides an account of one of the greatest turning points in modern history. Through the prism of Lenin`s career, Service examines events such as the October Revolution and the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, the one-party state, economic modernisation, dictatorship, and the politics of inter-war Europe. In discovering the origins of the USSR, he casts light on the nature of the state and society which Lenin left behind and which have not entirely disappeared after the collapse of the Soviet regime in 1991. `Immensely scholarly but also vivid and readable. This is a splendid book, much the best that I have ever read about Lenin...I was overwhelmed by the power and vividness of this portrait.` Dominic Lieven, Sunday Telegraph `He has managed skilfully to depict the surreal life of an obsessive, brilliant and stubborn individual` Guardian `Lenin`s life was politics, but Service has succeeded in keeping Lenin the man in focus throughout... This book deserves a place among the best studies of one of the most fascinating figures in modern history` Harold Shukman, The Times
592 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
212 people are currently reading
2,836 people want to read
About the author
Robert Service
49books262followersThis author is the British historian of modern Russia. For the British-Canadian writer of Yukon poetry, see Robert W. Service.
Robert Service is a British academic and historian of modern Russia and the Soviet Union. He is a professor of Russian history at the University of Oxford and a Fellow at St. Antony's College, Oxford.
He is the author of the highly acclaimed Lenin: A Biography, A History of Twentieth - Century Russia, Russia: Experiment with a People and Stalin: A Biography, as well as many other books on Russia's past and present. He wrote a marvelous book on communism titled Comrades Communism A World History (International Bestseller). He is married with four children.
Robert Service is a British academic and historian of modern Russia and the Soviet Union. He is a professor of Russian history at the University of Oxford and a Fellow at St. Antony's College, Oxford.
He is the author of the highly acclaimed Lenin: A Biography, A History of Twentieth - Century Russia, Russia: Experiment with a People and Stalin: A Biography, as well as many other books on Russia's past and present. He wrote a marvelous book on communism titled Comrades Communism A World History (International Bestseller). He is married with four children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 180 reviews
October 20, 2020
ولادمیر ایلیچ اولیانوف ، معروف به لنین انقلابی معروف و پایه گذار کشور اتحاد جماهیر شوروی سوسیالیستی ، یکی از معروفترین مردان قرن بیستم و به مانند پیامبر مارکسیست ها و نظریه پرداز دیکتاتوری پرولتاریا و پایه گذار رژیمی شد که 70 سال حکومت کرد و اثرات بسیار بزرگی بر زندگی مردم در همه نقاط جهان گذاشت .
رابرت سرویس در کتاب لنین زندگی انقلابی سرخ به زندگی لنین ونظرات و عقاید پیچیده او پرداخته ، سرویس سعی کرده از جاده عدالت خارج نشود و تصویری نه سیاه ونه سفید از لنین ارائه دهد . کتاب با دوران کودکی ولادمیر شروع می شود ، نکته ای که نویسنده به آن تاکید دارد علاقه بیش از اندازه لنین به مطالعه است . در دوران جوانی لنین است که او با گئورگی پلخانف یکی از رهبران مارکسیست روسیه و اندیشه های او آشنا می شود و البته کم کم به انتقاد از پلخانف و انشعاب و جدایی از جریان او می پردازد . نکته ای که نویسنده آقای سرویس به آن کم پرداخته بررسی اندیشه های پلخانف است تا جایی که خواننده کم اطلاعی مانند من متوجه نمی شود پلخانوف در چه نکاتی با لنین اشتراک داشته و در کجا با او هم نظر نبوده است .
به تدریج و با نزدیک شدن به اکتبر 1917 با شخصیت های دیگر انقلاب روسیه هم آشنا می شویم ، ابتدا تروتسکی ، سپس استالین ، زینیووف ، کامینوف و بوخارین . واضح است که در این کتاب لنین در مرکز توجه قرار دارد و این موضوع باعث شده است که خواننده توالی و زمان رخ دادن حوادث انقلاب اکتبر را به صورت کامل متوجه نشود ، روشی که آقای سرویس برای توضیح این حادثه عظیم انتخاب کرده وقایع انقلاب را به شکل ناپیوسته و نامرتبط نشان داده است .
سپس جنگ داخلی روسیه ، جنگ بین سرخها و سفیدها و اهمیت نقش فرماندهی تروتسکی در اتحاد ارتش سرخ و پیروز شدن در جنگ ها . این قسمت بسیار مهم در کتاب به شکلی کم رنگ به آن پرداخته شده ، خواننده نه جنایات سرخها و سفیدها را می فهمد و نه صحبتی از قحطی عظیم در کتاب شده است ، هیچ اشاره ای هم به تلفات این جنگ و رقم شگفت انگیز تقریبا 10 میلیون نفر نشده است .
سپس پس از استقرار و تثبیت حکومت کمونیستی در روسیه ، نویسنده به سیر اندیشه های لنین در تصرف جهان پرداخته ، در حقیقت لنین مانند هر رهبر انقلابی دیگر به صدور انقلاب خود و خیزش و قیام تمامی کارگران در لهستان ، آلمان ، ایتالیا و سپس تمامی اروپا فکر می کرده . این اندیشه باعث جنگ روسیه و لهستان در سال 1920 شد و البته با شکست ارتش سرخ ، لنین هم از افکار خود برای اشغال اروپا دست کشید .
نکته ای دیگر که از اوایل کتاب تا انتها نویسنده به آن پرداخته بیماری لنین است ، بیماری که تا آخرین لحظه زندگی او نه برای پزشکان لنین معلوم می شود نه برای خواننده . نکته ای که آشکار است قدرت تفکر فوق العاده لنین بوده ، او همواره در حال تفکر و مطالعه کتاب بوده و احتمالا همین عامل باعث ضعف قوای مغزی او و مستعد شدن بدنش برای بیماری های روحی و جسمی شده .
لنین در اواخر عمر از استالین و تمرکز قدرت در دستان او به شدت هراسان شده بود و شاید اگر بیشتر عمر می کرد میتوانست رژیم متعادل تری از رژیم استالین برپا کند که اینگونه نشد ، استالین قدرت را در دست گرفت و مخوفترین دیکتاتوری تاریخ بشر را به وجود آورد ، رژیمی که هر چیزی بود به غیر از مارکسیستی یا لنینیستی .
در پایان کتاب تصویر کاملی از لنین ارائه نداده است ، ملاک نویسنده به وضوح کارنامه رژیم کمونیستیی بوده که مشخص نیست چقدر مطابق با آراء لنین بوده است . البته رهبران شوروی مانند استالین و خروشچف هر کدام به میل خود در زندگی و آثار و اندیشه های او دست بردند ونظر لنین را به نظر خود نزدیکتر کردند . از همین رو شاید شناخت کامل لنین امر محال و بسیار مشکلی باشد اما نمیتوان انکار کرد که لنین با تمام عیب های شخصی یک انقلابی به تمام معنی بود ، او در راه از بین بردن مالکیت شخصی و برقراری حکومت مطلوب خود دیکتاتوری پرولتاریا ، سختی ، زندان و تبعید ، انواع بیماری ها ، مرگ زودرس ، اعدام نزدیکان و مصیبت هایی دیگر را متحمل شد و رژیمی که در ابتدا چشم امید و آرزو کارگران و در پایان یک حکومت مخوف دیکتاتوری خالص با دست آوردهایی اندک بود را پایه گذاری نمود .
رابرت سرویس در کتاب لنین زندگی انقلابی سرخ به زندگی لنین ونظرات و عقاید پیچیده او پرداخته ، سرویس سعی کرده از جاده عدالت خارج نشود و تصویری نه سیاه ونه سفید از لنین ارائه دهد . کتاب با دوران کودکی ولادمیر شروع می شود ، نکته ای که نویسنده به آن تاکید دارد علاقه بیش از اندازه لنین به مطالعه است . در دوران جوانی لنین است که او با گئورگی پلخانف یکی از رهبران مارکسیست روسیه و اندیشه های او آشنا می شود و البته کم کم به انتقاد از پلخانف و انشعاب و جدایی از جریان او می پردازد . نکته ای که نویسنده آقای سرویس به آن کم پرداخته بررسی اندیشه های پلخانف است تا جایی که خواننده کم اطلاعی مانند من متوجه نمی شود پلخانوف در چه نکاتی با لنین اشتراک داشته و در کجا با او هم نظر نبوده است .
به تدریج و با نزدیک شدن به اکتبر 1917 با شخصیت های دیگر انقلاب روسیه هم آشنا می شویم ، ابتدا تروتسکی ، سپس استالین ، زینیووف ، کامینوف و بوخارین . واضح است که در این کتاب لنین در مرکز توجه قرار دارد و این موضوع باعث شده است که خواننده توالی و زمان رخ دادن حوادث انقلاب اکتبر را به صورت کامل متوجه نشود ، روشی که آقای سرویس برای توضیح این حادثه عظیم انتخاب کرده وقایع انقلاب را به شکل ناپیوسته و نامرتبط نشان داده است .
سپس جنگ داخلی روسیه ، جنگ بین سرخها و سفیدها و اهمیت نقش فرماندهی تروتسکی در اتحاد ارتش سرخ و پیروز شدن در جنگ ها . این قسمت بسیار مهم در کتاب به شکلی کم رنگ به آن پرداخته شده ، خواننده نه جنایات سرخها و سفیدها را می فهمد و نه صحبتی از قحطی عظیم در کتاب شده است ، هیچ اشاره ای هم به تلفات این جنگ و رقم شگفت انگیز تقریبا 10 میلیون نفر نشده است .
سپس پس از استقرار و تثبیت حکومت کمونیستی در روسیه ، نویسنده به سیر اندیشه های لنین در تصرف جهان پرداخته ، در حقیقت لنین مانند هر رهبر انقلابی دیگر به صدور انقلاب خود و خیزش و قیام تمامی کارگران در لهستان ، آلمان ، ایتالیا و سپس تمامی اروپا فکر می کرده . این اندیشه باعث جنگ روسیه و لهستان در سال 1920 شد و البته با شکست ارتش سرخ ، لنین هم از افکار خود برای اشغال اروپا دست کشید .
نکته ای دیگر که از اوایل کتاب تا انتها نویسنده به آن پرداخته بیماری لنین است ، بیماری که تا آخرین لحظه زندگی او نه برای پزشکان لنین معلوم می شود نه برای خواننده . نکته ای که آشکار است قدرت تفکر فوق العاده لنین بوده ، او همواره در حال تفکر و مطالعه کتاب بوده و احتمالا همین عامل باعث ضعف قوای مغزی او و مستعد شدن بدنش برای بیماری های روحی و جسمی شده .
لنین در اواخر عمر از استالین و تمرکز قدرت در دستان او به شدت هراسان شده بود و شاید اگر بیشتر عمر می کرد میتوانست رژیم متعادل تری از رژیم استالین برپا کند که اینگونه نشد ، استالین قدرت را در دست گرفت و مخوفترین دیکتاتوری تاریخ بشر را به وجود آورد ، رژیمی که هر چیزی بود به غیر از مارکسیستی یا لنینیستی .
در پایان کتاب تصویر کاملی از لنین ارائه نداده است ، ملاک نویسنده به وضوح کارنامه رژیم کمونیستیی بوده که مشخص نیست چقدر مطابق با آراء لنین بوده است . البته رهبران شوروی مانند استالین و خروشچف هر کدام به میل خود در زندگی و آثار و اندیشه های او دست بردند ونظر لنین را به نظر خود نزدیکتر کردند . از همین رو شاید شناخت کامل لنین امر محال و بسیار مشکلی باشد اما نمیتوان انکار کرد که لنین با تمام عیب های شخصی یک انقلابی به تمام معنی بود ، او در راه از بین بردن مالکیت شخصی و برقراری حکومت مطلوب خود دیکتاتوری پرولتاریا ، سختی ، زندان و تبعید ، انواع بیماری ها ، مرگ زودرس ، اعدام نزدیکان و مصیبت هایی دیگر را متحمل شد و رژیمی که در ابتدا چشم امید و آرزو کارگران و در پایان یک حکومت مخوف دیکتاتوری خالص با دست آوردهایی اندک بود را پایه گذاری نمود .
September 26, 2013
Robert Service's Lenin is another effort at presenting the life and figure of the world's greatest revolutionary. Lenin's colossus has been written about before, both by sympathizers and detractors, who arrived at two totally different - and extreme - conclusions. This biography aims to present Lenin without making him a saint or a demon - which is an admirable and immensely difficult effort, if not downright impossible: Service himself isn't able to entirely extricate his own personal views on Lenin from the book, and has been both praised by the mainstream press and critiqued by left-leaning and Marxist organizations.
Until recently biographers of Lenin suffered from severe limitations - much of the necessary information was classified and kept in the secret archives of the USSR. Soviet historians have produced a picture of Lenin as according to state ideology: Lenin was a selfless man, who restlessly worked for the Cause, the Great October Socialist Revolution, and the establishment of the people's utopia; In the Soviet Union Lenin has been immortalized in the national anthem and state anthems of all Soviet republics. Statues of Lenin stood in many Soviet cities, his portrait was printed on posters, banners and decorated the Soviet currency. Statues of Lenin still stand inside Russia and in some post-soviet countries and abroad (there's also one in Seattle and one on the roof of a building in New York). This Lenin has been taught across the communist block, with all the necessary panache - my mom was genuinely moved to tears. The lack of information didn't bother Lenin's critics, who had only the story propagated by the state supplemented by unproven rumors and hearsay, but were dedicated to opposing communism and saw discrediting of Lenin, the first Soviet leader, as an important another step on the road to victory. With the Mikhail Gorbachev's policy of glasnost (openness) implemented in the late 80's, a portion of the secret Soviet archive has been declassified for the first time in history - and for a short time opened for the inquiring scholars, among whom Robert Service was apparently among the first admitted.
The result is a thick book - running up to almost 600 pages in paperback - which focuses on Lenin almost entirely. This is both a good and bad thing. The good things is that Service spends a significant amount of space recounting Lenin's early childhood and upbringing. Most of biographers focused on Lenin's later years - his exile in Siberia, life in exile in Switzerland, Germany and the UK. Service quotes from Lenin's private correspondence and the memoirs of those close to him - information I take was previously restricted to create an image of Lenin as seen from different perspectives and illustrate the nature of his relationship with those who observed him. At the same time, Service observes Lenin with a degree of speculation that has little - if any - evidence to back it up: he writes that when presented with a papier mâché horse at the age of three his instinct was to tear it apart: he cites his sister's memoir as a source of young Lenin's boisterousness, stating that there was a degree of malice to his character which his family didn't like. This paragraph is immediately followed by one describing his as being very charismatic and well-liked (and owning up quickly to his misbehaving). All this is coupled with Service's speculations that Lenin's intense hatred for the imperial family could have be a result of the execution of his older brother, Aleksandr, as a result of him being involved in a plot to assassinate the emperor Alexander III. Service actually writes that Lenin enjoyed letting himself loose against the Romanovs and other figure from the old regime as a form of revenge for killing his brother, and the subsequent ostracism that his family faced after Alexandr's execution. These kind of speculations are not backed by evidence and sound very sensationalistic in tone - as if aiming to present Lenin as a child with malevolent tendencies, who was pushed to become a evil figure by a single devastating event which involved a loss of a close relative, as if wanting to simplify this complex man for his audience.
And where is great Russia in all this? Service covers Lenin's life year by year, providing the dates and places and describing the events, but the broader historical context is just skimmed upon. The Russian Civil War barely features, and the removal of the Romanov Dynasty and their subsequent execution get little more than a side mention. The Russo-Japanese war and the First World War also should have received more space than they did. While much space is devoted to Lenin's letters and relationships with women important to him - his mother and sisters, Nadezhda Krupskaya - his wife, Inessa Armand - his supposed mistress. Service devotes a significant amount of space to presenting and analyzing the rumored affair between Lenin and Armand, space which I think would be far better used to present the social and political conditions and simple life in revolutionary Russia.
Lenin's relationship with people of crucial political importance are barely mentioned. Figures come and go without being properly introduced and established; it's as if Service presupposed that his readers have a certain amount of knowledge about the period that he is describing, which defeats the purpose of writing a biography for the lay reader largely unfamiliar with the subject. Important figures such as Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev are only minor characters, with few details about them presented to the reader; the role of Leon Trotksy, the founded and first leader of the Red Army who organized a partisan force to defend the revolution from internal and external threats - the Red Guard - is barely mentioned; Joseph Stalin's career and rise to power is basically ignored. Stalin gets only a few mentions late in Lenin's life, when the two men began disagreeing about the political structure of the USSR: Lenin wanted to construct a union of autonomous republics on equal terms, advocating the right of the nations to self-determination, while Stalin wanted to simply incorporate the new Soviet republics back into Soviet Russia, fearing that attempts at allowing them even a pretense of autonomy (Lenin admitted that all republics would have only one local communist party, which would still be subservient to the Kremlin) could result in a dangerous resurgence of nationalism, as it happened in the civil war (his words proved true 70 years later). Service notes how Lenin realized that he has underestimated Stalin's intelligence and cunning, and wanted to remove him from power in his political testament - turning away from a man he once called "the marvelous Georgian" - but the beginning and middle of their relationship are simply not mentioned, and from the book we only get a part of the picture of how it degraded to the point of actual hostility between the two.
While Service chronicles Lenin's life abroad in many western countries, he never makes clear how exactly he achieved such important and powerful position - and all the prestige - while living in exile. While Lenin is presented as a person willing to take the most extreme position to achieve his goal, it is never made clear how he has managed to win a series of debates with his various opponents to achieve that goal - how did Lenin became the leader of the October Revolution and managed to convince a movement dedicated to overthrowing an autocracy of the necessity of using dictatorship and terror? Why was there a universal agreement about Lenin and why did people follow him? This is a fascinating question which is simply not answered.
Service is not the most engaging of writers but is saved by one of the most engaging of subjects, Lenin himself. Still, the book would have benefited greatly by a firmer editorial hand - and possibly even a co-author, who would help to set up the historical context and gave the book a more narrative tone, which would make it much more readable, interesting and informative. The book would also have to be much longer, perhaps split into several volumes to accommodate all the important events and discuss the relevant philosophies and political fractions. Such an essential and definitive work on Lenin still needs to be written, and I will be awaiting its publication.
Until recently biographers of Lenin suffered from severe limitations - much of the necessary information was classified and kept in the secret archives of the USSR. Soviet historians have produced a picture of Lenin as according to state ideology: Lenin was a selfless man, who restlessly worked for the Cause, the Great October Socialist Revolution, and the establishment of the people's utopia; In the Soviet Union Lenin has been immortalized in the national anthem and state anthems of all Soviet republics. Statues of Lenin stood in many Soviet cities, his portrait was printed on posters, banners and decorated the Soviet currency. Statues of Lenin still stand inside Russia and in some post-soviet countries and abroad (there's also one in Seattle and one on the roof of a building in New York). This Lenin has been taught across the communist block, with all the necessary panache - my mom was genuinely moved to tears. The lack of information didn't bother Lenin's critics, who had only the story propagated by the state supplemented by unproven rumors and hearsay, but were dedicated to opposing communism and saw discrediting of Lenin, the first Soviet leader, as an important another step on the road to victory. With the Mikhail Gorbachev's policy of glasnost (openness) implemented in the late 80's, a portion of the secret Soviet archive has been declassified for the first time in history - and for a short time opened for the inquiring scholars, among whom Robert Service was apparently among the first admitted.
The result is a thick book - running up to almost 600 pages in paperback - which focuses on Lenin almost entirely. This is both a good and bad thing. The good things is that Service spends a significant amount of space recounting Lenin's early childhood and upbringing. Most of biographers focused on Lenin's later years - his exile in Siberia, life in exile in Switzerland, Germany and the UK. Service quotes from Lenin's private correspondence and the memoirs of those close to him - information I take was previously restricted to create an image of Lenin as seen from different perspectives and illustrate the nature of his relationship with those who observed him. At the same time, Service observes Lenin with a degree of speculation that has little - if any - evidence to back it up: he writes that when presented with a papier mâché horse at the age of three his instinct was to tear it apart: he cites his sister's memoir as a source of young Lenin's boisterousness, stating that there was a degree of malice to his character which his family didn't like. This paragraph is immediately followed by one describing his as being very charismatic and well-liked (and owning up quickly to his misbehaving). All this is coupled with Service's speculations that Lenin's intense hatred for the imperial family could have be a result of the execution of his older brother, Aleksandr, as a result of him being involved in a plot to assassinate the emperor Alexander III. Service actually writes that Lenin enjoyed letting himself loose against the Romanovs and other figure from the old regime as a form of revenge for killing his brother, and the subsequent ostracism that his family faced after Alexandr's execution. These kind of speculations are not backed by evidence and sound very sensationalistic in tone - as if aiming to present Lenin as a child with malevolent tendencies, who was pushed to become a evil figure by a single devastating event which involved a loss of a close relative, as if wanting to simplify this complex man for his audience.
And where is great Russia in all this? Service covers Lenin's life year by year, providing the dates and places and describing the events, but the broader historical context is just skimmed upon. The Russian Civil War barely features, and the removal of the Romanov Dynasty and their subsequent execution get little more than a side mention. The Russo-Japanese war and the First World War also should have received more space than they did. While much space is devoted to Lenin's letters and relationships with women important to him - his mother and sisters, Nadezhda Krupskaya - his wife, Inessa Armand - his supposed mistress. Service devotes a significant amount of space to presenting and analyzing the rumored affair between Lenin and Armand, space which I think would be far better used to present the social and political conditions and simple life in revolutionary Russia.
Lenin's relationship with people of crucial political importance are barely mentioned. Figures come and go without being properly introduced and established; it's as if Service presupposed that his readers have a certain amount of knowledge about the period that he is describing, which defeats the purpose of writing a biography for the lay reader largely unfamiliar with the subject. Important figures such as Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev are only minor characters, with few details about them presented to the reader; the role of Leon Trotksy, the founded and first leader of the Red Army who organized a partisan force to defend the revolution from internal and external threats - the Red Guard - is barely mentioned; Joseph Stalin's career and rise to power is basically ignored. Stalin gets only a few mentions late in Lenin's life, when the two men began disagreeing about the political structure of the USSR: Lenin wanted to construct a union of autonomous republics on equal terms, advocating the right of the nations to self-determination, while Stalin wanted to simply incorporate the new Soviet republics back into Soviet Russia, fearing that attempts at allowing them even a pretense of autonomy (Lenin admitted that all republics would have only one local communist party, which would still be subservient to the Kremlin) could result in a dangerous resurgence of nationalism, as it happened in the civil war (his words proved true 70 years later). Service notes how Lenin realized that he has underestimated Stalin's intelligence and cunning, and wanted to remove him from power in his political testament - turning away from a man he once called "the marvelous Georgian" - but the beginning and middle of their relationship are simply not mentioned, and from the book we only get a part of the picture of how it degraded to the point of actual hostility between the two.
While Service chronicles Lenin's life abroad in many western countries, he never makes clear how exactly he achieved such important and powerful position - and all the prestige - while living in exile. While Lenin is presented as a person willing to take the most extreme position to achieve his goal, it is never made clear how he has managed to win a series of debates with his various opponents to achieve that goal - how did Lenin became the leader of the October Revolution and managed to convince a movement dedicated to overthrowing an autocracy of the necessity of using dictatorship and terror? Why was there a universal agreement about Lenin and why did people follow him? This is a fascinating question which is simply not answered.
Service is not the most engaging of writers but is saved by one of the most engaging of subjects, Lenin himself. Still, the book would have benefited greatly by a firmer editorial hand - and possibly even a co-author, who would help to set up the historical context and gave the book a more narrative tone, which would make it much more readable, interesting and informative. The book would also have to be much longer, perhaps split into several volumes to accommodate all the important events and discuss the relevant philosophies and political fractions. Such an essential and definitive work on Lenin still needs to be written, and I will be awaiting its publication.
February 28, 2008
When I first read this book for A-Level History I thought it quite good. Coming back at it with more knowledge, I find Service's political and personal bias seeping through at every turn. The research is also not of the highest quality or depth, despite the advantages of historical perspective and access to the Russian archives. Better than Pipes, certainly, but to be taken with copious pinches of salt.
May 12, 2022
١)نويسنده از كودكى تا مرگ لنين را در كتاب به تصوير كشيده و حتى از ريز ترين جزئيات كه ذكر واشاره به آن در كتاب هم لازم نبود اشاره داشته كه شايد حتى براى خوانندگان كتب تاريخى وافرادى كه عاشق جزئيات تاريخى هستند خسته وكسل كننده باشه.
٢)قسمت هايي از كتاب بارها در بخش ها وفصل هاى ديگر مكرراً تكرار شده در حالى كه نويسنده از بخش ها وقسمت هايي بدون بررسى وعلل وقوع آن عبور مى كنه.
٣)از آغاز تا پايان كتاب پر از واژه گان و اصلاحات سياسى وحكومتى همچون سوسياليست،ماركسيست و كمونيست و... هست وبه نقد وبررسى اثرات آن برجامعه وحكومت پرداخته كه در صورت عدم آشنايي وشناخت نسبى،خواندن كتاب حوصله سربر خواهد شد(در صورتى كه صرفاً بعنوان زندگى نامه لنين خوانده شود)
٤)لنين يكى از افراد تاثير گذار قرن بيست كه بدون شك بدون تاثيرگذارى و وجود او روسيه و جهان شكل بهترى به خود مى ديد
نه از كمونيست و استبداد شوروى خبرى بود وشايد حتى بعدها از فاشيشم ونازيسم وهيتلر هم خبرى نميشد .
٥)لنين بر خلاف ديگر افراد و رجل سياسى مشهور از بخت واقبال وبسيارى چيزها برخوردار شد واز اين ويژگى ها به بهترين نحو در جهت ايدئولوژى و سياست استفاده كرد.سياست و انقلاب وآرمانى كه براى لنين از خانواده وعشق وزندگى مهم تر بود.
٢)قسمت هايي از كتاب بارها در بخش ها وفصل هاى ديگر مكرراً تكرار شده در حالى كه نويسنده از بخش ها وقسمت هايي بدون بررسى وعلل وقوع آن عبور مى كنه.
٣)از آغاز تا پايان كتاب پر از واژه گان و اصلاحات سياسى وحكومتى همچون سوسياليست،ماركسيست و كمونيست و... هست وبه نقد وبررسى اثرات آن برجامعه وحكومت پرداخته كه در صورت عدم آشنايي وشناخت نسبى،خواندن كتاب حوصله سربر خواهد شد(در صورتى كه صرفاً بعنوان زندگى نامه لنين خوانده شود)
٤)لنين يكى از افراد تاثير گذار قرن بيست كه بدون شك بدون تاثيرگذارى و وجود او روسيه و جهان شكل بهترى به خود مى ديد
نه از كمونيست و استبداد شوروى خبرى بود وشايد حتى بعدها از فاشيشم ونازيسم وهيتلر هم خبرى نميشد .
٥)لنين بر خلاف ديگر افراد و رجل سياسى مشهور از بخت واقبال وبسيارى چيزها برخوردار شد واز اين ويژگى ها به بهترين نحو در جهت ايدئولوژى و سياست استفاده كرد.سياست و انقلاب وآرمانى كه براى لنين از خانواده وعشق وزندگى مهم تر بود.
November 9, 2022
The Odd Man who Changed History.
There is no doubt that Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov aka Lenin changed history. What is in doubt is what course of history would have been taken without him. The Russian Revolution would have happened, a socialist government in Russia would likely have taken over. But would it have been Communist? Would the USSR have formed? Would it have survived for seven decades? These are interesting questions with varying degrees of answers.
Lenin was odd, no doubt. He had to obsessively clean his bike after riding it, clean his desk before using it. Had to line up his sharpened pencils before and after use. He had to work in complete silence and shut out distractions to work on the revolution. He banned himself from playing chess, listening to classical music and even his lover Inessa Armand. A man who once sickened himself by the warm and happy feelings music gave him.
Influenced by the execution of his revolutionary older brother Alexander and the dry novel What is to be Done? By Nioklay Chernyshevsky. He dedicated his life to the cause of Marxism. However, when it came. He widely didn’t know what to do with it. The Bolsheviks seized power, they had no right to retain it, obtaining only 40% of the vote, which of course they banned immediately. The country hung on a knife edge. Famine and workers strikes raged. Mutinies continued. The red army limped on and managed to defeat the whites, but then was humiliated in its invasion of Poland in 1920. This saved the world from Lenin’s vision of a world wide revolution and an east and west Soviet socialist Republic. Instead the USSR was born.
Lenin was however, extraordinary in a number of ways. He was extremely intelligence, his unusually huge head contained a large brain. He worked extremely hard, long and continuously, never straying from his cause. This in fact contributed to his death in 1924, as taken office and ruling was too much. He was able to see the problems, introducing the New Economic Policy (NEP) and opening up trade with capitalist powers went against his Marxist doctrine. But it was necessary to keep the regime going. Without him this wouldn’t have happened. He was brutal in his policies and thought only in terms of how to bring about the revolution (for example war with Germany was good as even though millions would die, the revolution might come). Although a coward for most of his life, he had no problem with directing others, whether innocent children or peasants to be brutally executed. In his great paradox his however, showed a middle class respect to his guests (even a priest on one occasion) and deplored physical violence in politics. Preferring the debate.
This book is masterful scholarship by one of the greats in Russian History. As Robert Service says, most of the previous biographies have been hagiographies, born to project the myth of the atheist prophet. A pure and two dimensional character of Marxist doctrine. A character needed to keep the rhetoric going. Lenin of course was much more than this. He cheated on his wife, probably suffered from syphilis, lived in relatively luxury, had servants and ensured the woman in his life, lived only to serve him. None of this could have been revealed without the collapse of the USSR, a system he built.
But the monster has to be addressed, it has to be faced to understand the history of the world and of Russia. This is why I read this, from an author I trust.
There is no doubt that Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov aka Lenin changed history. What is in doubt is what course of history would have been taken without him. The Russian Revolution would have happened, a socialist government in Russia would likely have taken over. But would it have been Communist? Would the USSR have formed? Would it have survived for seven decades? These are interesting questions with varying degrees of answers.
Lenin was odd, no doubt. He had to obsessively clean his bike after riding it, clean his desk before using it. Had to line up his sharpened pencils before and after use. He had to work in complete silence and shut out distractions to work on the revolution. He banned himself from playing chess, listening to classical music and even his lover Inessa Armand. A man who once sickened himself by the warm and happy feelings music gave him.
Influenced by the execution of his revolutionary older brother Alexander and the dry novel What is to be Done? By Nioklay Chernyshevsky. He dedicated his life to the cause of Marxism. However, when it came. He widely didn’t know what to do with it. The Bolsheviks seized power, they had no right to retain it, obtaining only 40% of the vote, which of course they banned immediately. The country hung on a knife edge. Famine and workers strikes raged. Mutinies continued. The red army limped on and managed to defeat the whites, but then was humiliated in its invasion of Poland in 1920. This saved the world from Lenin’s vision of a world wide revolution and an east and west Soviet socialist Republic. Instead the USSR was born.
Lenin was however, extraordinary in a number of ways. He was extremely intelligence, his unusually huge head contained a large brain. He worked extremely hard, long and continuously, never straying from his cause. This in fact contributed to his death in 1924, as taken office and ruling was too much. He was able to see the problems, introducing the New Economic Policy (NEP) and opening up trade with capitalist powers went against his Marxist doctrine. But it was necessary to keep the regime going. Without him this wouldn’t have happened. He was brutal in his policies and thought only in terms of how to bring about the revolution (for example war with Germany was good as even though millions would die, the revolution might come). Although a coward for most of his life, he had no problem with directing others, whether innocent children or peasants to be brutally executed. In his great paradox his however, showed a middle class respect to his guests (even a priest on one occasion) and deplored physical violence in politics. Preferring the debate.
This book is masterful scholarship by one of the greats in Russian History. As Robert Service says, most of the previous biographies have been hagiographies, born to project the myth of the atheist prophet. A pure and two dimensional character of Marxist doctrine. A character needed to keep the rhetoric going. Lenin of course was much more than this. He cheated on his wife, probably suffered from syphilis, lived in relatively luxury, had servants and ensured the woman in his life, lived only to serve him. None of this could have been revealed without the collapse of the USSR, a system he built.
But the monster has to be addressed, it has to be faced to understand the history of the world and of Russia. This is why I read this, from an author I trust.
April 7, 2023
Had to cite sections for a history final, the anticommunist slant makes it almost unreadable. Robert Service's Hitler particles are absolutely overwhelming.
February 16, 2020
اندک پرسوناژ های تاریخی ای وجود دارند که به چنین دستاوردی نائل شده باشند.بخاطر ارائه چنین الگویی هم که شده باید سپاسگزارم باشیم(هرکسی در زندگی اش باید هشیار و گوش به زنگ باشد و از فرصت ها نهایت استفاده را بکند).
پ.ن:ترجیحا دوستانی که با وارانه لنین را می‌ستاین� خود را از خوانش این کتاب بدور نگه دارند!
پ.ن:ترجیحا دوستانی که با وارانه لنین را می‌ستاین� خود را از خوانش این کتاب بدور نگه دارند!
May 17, 2022
Winston Churchill's famous quote on Russia that "Russia is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" certainly also applies to Lenin. Born to nobility with servants and peasants who paid his family rent, his brother was hanged for an assassination attempt on the Emperor. An avowed Marxist who fled from the police most of his early life, he abandoned his wife once to escape. Having ulcers that had no treatment caused him constant pain and insomnia. He also had several heart attacks and a stroke that was the cause of his death. He survived 2 assassination attempts and one that left a bullet in his neck.
Quite comically the author badly attempts to explain Marxism and Lenin's view of Marxism until on page 140, the author gives up and writes "Marxism does not have definable orthodoxy. Marx was too elusive a writer to leave a clear-cut legacy behind him." Lenin has his followers rob banks to help the cause and when he assumes power, makes several huge mistakes. He is not a military man as has never fought in a war and invades Poland which his army is horribly defeated in one day. He realizes his utopian view of socialism is quite wrong and he needs capitalist money and offers the Noble Oil Company the right to have Russian oil. He is in power for less than 5 years and demands that Stalin will not succeed him.
Quite comically the author badly attempts to explain Marxism and Lenin's view of Marxism until on page 140, the author gives up and writes "Marxism does not have definable orthodoxy. Marx was too elusive a writer to leave a clear-cut legacy behind him." Lenin has his followers rob banks to help the cause and when he assumes power, makes several huge mistakes. He is not a military man as has never fought in a war and invades Poland which his army is horribly defeated in one day. He realizes his utopian view of socialism is quite wrong and he needs capitalist money and offers the Noble Oil Company the right to have Russian oil. He is in power for less than 5 years and demands that Stalin will not succeed him.
March 24, 2025
Lenin. O biografie de Robert Service (2000)
În anii '90, arhivele Moscovei au fost deschise, iar printre puținii cercetători care au avut acces la documentele de acolo a fost și faimosul istoric britanic Robert Service. A putut, astfel, citi multe documente personale legate de Lenin, scrise de membrii familiei acestuia sau de apropiați, dar a găsit și multe dintre caietele acestuia. Așa că a reușit să scrie o biografie a lui Vladimir Ilici Ulianov, cel care își va alege numele de scriitor- Lenin, dintr-o perspectivă mult mai umană și mai puțin mitologizantă.
Fascinant în această carte pentru mine nu a fost șirul evenimentelor, ci portretul psihologic pe care Service îl recompune: Lenin este extrem de inteligent, atras de studiu și de lumea ideilor, capabil să captiveze audiența prin discursurile sale, motivat și extraordinar de perseverent, chiar și în situații care par fără ieșire. Are caracteristicile unui lider. Pe de altă parte, îl vedem pe micul Vladimir complet distrus în copilărie când fratele său este executat pentru implicarea într-un complot de asasinare a țarului; îl descoperim drept un copil egocentric și dominator, folosindu-se de membrii familiei sale care îi sunt datori (mai ales mama și surorile) să îl îngrijească. Mai târziu, când devine ideologul și liderul bolșevicilor, trăiește mai degrabă în izolare și în lumea ideilor, decât în contact cu proletariatul și cu realitatea, este un adept al violenței și al totalitarismului, dar nu se implică în mod real în aceste demersuri represive, nu vede pe nimeni executat și nu percepe consecințele crimelor pe care le dictează.
� Lenin nu s-a întrebat niciodată ce fel de revoluție benefică este aceea care acceptă anihilarea fizică a unor oameni bine inteționați, competenți și onești cum era vărul său. El rămânea în afara razei de acțiune a carnagiului revoluției. Era comportamentul unui fanatic pedant care nu simțea nevoia să fie martor la realitatea revoluției sale. Lenin știa ce dorea în termeni politici abstracți și trata moartea persoanelor nevinovate ca pe o parte a dezordinii inevitabile a progresului istoric.�
Lenin este un tactician rece care condamnă fără milă dușmanii de clasă, cere folosirea terorii ca instrument de guvernare și folosește ideologia ca pe un scut, evitând astfel să ajungă în situații de dileme etice, de empatie sau de dezechilibru. Iată ce ordine le dădea bolșevicilor in 1918:
� Tovarăși! Răzmerița culacilor în cele cinci raioane ale voastre trebuie strivită fără milă. ...
1. Spânzurați (și spun spânzurați astfel încât oamenii să vadă) nu mai puțin de 100 de culaci, bogătani, băutori de sânge cunoscuți.
2. Publicați-le numele.
3. Confiscați-le toate grânele.
4. Identificați ostatici așa cum v-am indicat în telegrama noastră de ieri.
Faceți aceasta în așa fel încât în sute de locuri, unul după altul, oamenii să vadă, să tremure și să spună: îi omoară și vor continua să-i omoare pe culacii însetați de sînge. Telegrafiați-mi că ați primit și executat aceste instrucțiuni.
Al vostru, Lenin
Găsiți oameni mai duri.�
Până la sfârșitul vieții, Lenin a fost convins că ceea ce făcea era necesar și că va schimba lumea în bine.
Fără să vreau m-am tot gândit la decriptarea personalității lui Lenin prin teoriile lui Jung sau Adler. După Jung, ”umbra� s-a proiectat în exterior prin reprimarea empatiei, prin ura față de dușmanii de clasă care trebuiau exterminați cu orice preț, prin neacceptarea altor opinii în afară ideologiei și propagandei bolșevice. După Adler, putem să ne gândim la mecanisme de supracompensare, trauma executării fratelui ducând la autoritarism, cruzime logică și voința de a controla și de a schimba lumea până la rădăcini.
Pe mine cartea lui Robert Service m-a făcut să mă gândesc că bolșevismul a fost mai mult decât o doctrină politică: s-a transformat într-o psihodramă colectivă, o proiecție la nivelul unei societăți a unei umbre personale a unui lider cu o mare influență. Și o societate întreagă a fost prinsă în logica lui interioară: fără empatie, fără îndoieli, fără spațiu pentru celălalt.
Poate că pare un exercițiu pur teoretic, dar nu e. Suntem într-un an cu alegeri importante în România, și merită să ne uităm la felul în care ne alegem liderii. Istoria e plină de oameni care au promis „ordine�, „schimbare totală�, „curățenie�, dar care n-au fost dispuși să-și confrunte propriile umbre. Oamenii care promit totul, dar nu pot accepta niciun semn de slăbiciune sau critică, devin foarte repede periculoși. Cei care vorbesc mereu despre „dușmani� și „trădători� s-ar putea să-și proiecteze propriile frici și tensiuni interioare asupra societății. Și apoi să construiască un sistem care funcționează după aceste tensiuni.
Avem nevoie de lideri maturi, capabili să recunoască complexitatea lumii, să își pună întrebări, să accepte criticile și să nu transforme politica într-o luptă perpetuă cu inamici imaginari. Avem nevoie de oameni care știu să intre în contact cu realitatea, nu doar cu propria ideologie.
Așadar, înainte să votăm, poate merită să ne întrebăm nu doar ce promite candidatul, ci și cum gândește, cum reacționează la opinii și oameni care nu îi semană, la critică, la limite.
În anii '90, arhivele Moscovei au fost deschise, iar printre puținii cercetători care au avut acces la documentele de acolo a fost și faimosul istoric britanic Robert Service. A putut, astfel, citi multe documente personale legate de Lenin, scrise de membrii familiei acestuia sau de apropiați, dar a găsit și multe dintre caietele acestuia. Așa că a reușit să scrie o biografie a lui Vladimir Ilici Ulianov, cel care își va alege numele de scriitor- Lenin, dintr-o perspectivă mult mai umană și mai puțin mitologizantă.
Fascinant în această carte pentru mine nu a fost șirul evenimentelor, ci portretul psihologic pe care Service îl recompune: Lenin este extrem de inteligent, atras de studiu și de lumea ideilor, capabil să captiveze audiența prin discursurile sale, motivat și extraordinar de perseverent, chiar și în situații care par fără ieșire. Are caracteristicile unui lider. Pe de altă parte, îl vedem pe micul Vladimir complet distrus în copilărie când fratele său este executat pentru implicarea într-un complot de asasinare a țarului; îl descoperim drept un copil egocentric și dominator, folosindu-se de membrii familiei sale care îi sunt datori (mai ales mama și surorile) să îl îngrijească. Mai târziu, când devine ideologul și liderul bolșevicilor, trăiește mai degrabă în izolare și în lumea ideilor, decât în contact cu proletariatul și cu realitatea, este un adept al violenței și al totalitarismului, dar nu se implică în mod real în aceste demersuri represive, nu vede pe nimeni executat și nu percepe consecințele crimelor pe care le dictează.
� Lenin nu s-a întrebat niciodată ce fel de revoluție benefică este aceea care acceptă anihilarea fizică a unor oameni bine inteționați, competenți și onești cum era vărul său. El rămânea în afara razei de acțiune a carnagiului revoluției. Era comportamentul unui fanatic pedant care nu simțea nevoia să fie martor la realitatea revoluției sale. Lenin știa ce dorea în termeni politici abstracți și trata moartea persoanelor nevinovate ca pe o parte a dezordinii inevitabile a progresului istoric.�
Lenin este un tactician rece care condamnă fără milă dușmanii de clasă, cere folosirea terorii ca instrument de guvernare și folosește ideologia ca pe un scut, evitând astfel să ajungă în situații de dileme etice, de empatie sau de dezechilibru. Iată ce ordine le dădea bolșevicilor in 1918:
� Tovarăși! Răzmerița culacilor în cele cinci raioane ale voastre trebuie strivită fără milă. ...
1. Spânzurați (și spun spânzurați astfel încât oamenii să vadă) nu mai puțin de 100 de culaci, bogătani, băutori de sânge cunoscuți.
2. Publicați-le numele.
3. Confiscați-le toate grânele.
4. Identificați ostatici așa cum v-am indicat în telegrama noastră de ieri.
Faceți aceasta în așa fel încât în sute de locuri, unul după altul, oamenii să vadă, să tremure și să spună: îi omoară și vor continua să-i omoare pe culacii însetați de sînge. Telegrafiați-mi că ați primit și executat aceste instrucțiuni.
Al vostru, Lenin
Găsiți oameni mai duri.�
Până la sfârșitul vieții, Lenin a fost convins că ceea ce făcea era necesar și că va schimba lumea în bine.
Fără să vreau m-am tot gândit la decriptarea personalității lui Lenin prin teoriile lui Jung sau Adler. După Jung, ”umbra� s-a proiectat în exterior prin reprimarea empatiei, prin ura față de dușmanii de clasă care trebuiau exterminați cu orice preț, prin neacceptarea altor opinii în afară ideologiei și propagandei bolșevice. După Adler, putem să ne gândim la mecanisme de supracompensare, trauma executării fratelui ducând la autoritarism, cruzime logică și voința de a controla și de a schimba lumea până la rădăcini.
Pe mine cartea lui Robert Service m-a făcut să mă gândesc că bolșevismul a fost mai mult decât o doctrină politică: s-a transformat într-o psihodramă colectivă, o proiecție la nivelul unei societăți a unei umbre personale a unui lider cu o mare influență. Și o societate întreagă a fost prinsă în logica lui interioară: fără empatie, fără îndoieli, fără spațiu pentru celălalt.
Poate că pare un exercițiu pur teoretic, dar nu e. Suntem într-un an cu alegeri importante în România, și merită să ne uităm la felul în care ne alegem liderii. Istoria e plină de oameni care au promis „ordine�, „schimbare totală�, „curățenie�, dar care n-au fost dispuși să-și confrunte propriile umbre. Oamenii care promit totul, dar nu pot accepta niciun semn de slăbiciune sau critică, devin foarte repede periculoși. Cei care vorbesc mereu despre „dușmani� și „trădători� s-ar putea să-și proiecteze propriile frici și tensiuni interioare asupra societății. Și apoi să construiască un sistem care funcționează după aceste tensiuni.
Avem nevoie de lideri maturi, capabili să recunoască complexitatea lumii, să își pună întrebări, să accepte criticile și să nu transforme politica într-o luptă perpetuă cu inamici imaginari. Avem nevoie de oameni care știu să intre în contact cu realitatea, nu doar cu propria ideologie.
Așadar, înainte să votăm, poate merită să ne întrebăm nu doar ce promite candidatul, ci și cum gândește, cum reacționează la opinii și oameni care nu îi semană, la critică, la limite.
May 27, 2019
Well-paced, well-balanced, fair, judicious. Unlike the man himself. One of the most significant figures of the 20th century (and beyond?). A very worthwhile read.
September 13, 2022
از متن کتاب: لنین برای رسیدن به قدرت، امتیازاتی مثل حمایت خانواده، تحصیلات عالیه، ایدئولوژی انقلابی، شرایط در حال تحول کشور و کاراکتر انقلابی داشت و از همه اینها به خوبی استفاده کرد، او معتقد بود، انقلاب به سادگی رخ نمی‌دهد� بلکه انقلاب را باید انجام داد. این آدم قدکوتاه، ناشکیبا، کرم کتاب، وسواسی، دقیق، بااعتماد به نفس و باهوش از آنچه که تاریخ بر سر راهش گذاشته بود، به خوبی بهره برد، شاید دوران کاری لنین به همگان ثابت کرد که باید در زندگی هوشیار و گوش به زنگ بود و از فرصت‌ه� استفاده کرد.
مقدار جزییات مطرح شده بسیار زیاد و بعضا تکراری و خسته کننده است ولی بیان مطالب، داستانی و جذابه، در مورد کتاب های تاریخی و بیوگرافی همیشه یکی از مهمترین نکات، سوابق نویسنده و دیدگاه های شخصیشه که خواه ناخواه رو مطالبی که می‌نویس� تاثیر میذاره و اتکا به یک منبع برای شناخت یک شخصیت یا دوره تاریخی کار درستی نیست. نویسنده از� لنین خیلی خوشش نمیاد و تقریبا با یه دیدگاه ضدلنین کتاب رو نوشته اما اینکه آیا این دیدگاه منصفانه است یا نه، من هنوز اونقدر اطلاعات ندارم که به این سوال جواب بدم. قبل از شروع کتاب، خوبه که یه سری کلیات در مورد امپراتوری روسیه،انقلاب اکتبر و مارکسیسم، بدونید. مطالب کتاب از شروع جنگ جهانی اول یعنی فصل سیزده، جذاب‌ت� میشه.
لنین(بزرگترین انقلابی جهان)، خواهان روسیه ای نوین و غربی‌شد� بود(شاید با الهام از افکار والدینش) اما بدون سیاست های نظام سرمایه داری، چرا که او به دنبال یه انقلاب سوسیالیستی در کل اروپا بود که به هر حال همه انقلابیون علاقه به صدور انقلابشان دارند. لنین نام مستعاری بود که ولادیمیر ایلیچ اولیانف در جنبش انقلابی روسیه از اون استفاده می‌کر�.
لنین، ماکیاولی را به عنوان نویسنده خردمند در حوزه حکومت ستایش می‌کرد� و مانند او معتقد بود اگر برای رسیدن به هدف سیاسی خاصی، مقدار خاصی از خشونت و بی رحمی نیاز باشد این خشونت را باید به پر‌انرژی‌تری� شکل ممکن و در کوتاه‌تری� زمان ممکن اعمال کرد زیرا توده ها به کارگیری بلند مدت خشونت را تاب نخواهند آورد، برای همین لنین خواهان این بود که خشونت به همان اندازه شدید باشد که از حیث زمانی کوتاه.
لنین خودش را از صحنه جنایت های انقلاب دور نگه میداشت او به اندیشه های سیاسی‌ا� وفادار بود و میدانست چه میخواهد و در این راه اگر انسان های بی گناهی هم کشته میشدند از نظر او جزو بی نظمی های اجتناب ناپذیر یک پیشرفت تاریخی بود.
اگر گاهی اشتباه بودن تصمیمات لنین مشخص میشد او آن را نمی‌پذیرف�. او می کوشید همه مسائل و مشکلات را اغلب به گردن رفقای حزبی یا منتقدانش که از نظرش جاهل بودند بیاندازد، از نظر او دلیل مشکلات یا این بود که منتقدان وی سیاست هایش را درک نکرده بودند یا مجریان این سیاست ها، آنها را به درستی اجرا نکرده بودند.
نظرسنجی های تازه در روسیه نشان میدهد که لنین همچنان یکی از محبوب‌تری� شخصیت‌ها� سیاسی تاریخ است و یلتسین هم شاید به همین خاطر جرئت نکرد که جنازه مومیایی لنین را دفن کند. لنین به میان آوازها و قصه های مردم کوچه و بازار وارد شد و به نوعی بعضاً از او به عنوان حاکمی یاد می شود که برخلاف جانشینانش قصدی برای سوءاستفاده از قدرت نداشت.
مقدار جزییات مطرح شده بسیار زیاد و بعضا تکراری و خسته کننده است ولی بیان مطالب، داستانی و جذابه، در مورد کتاب های تاریخی و بیوگرافی همیشه یکی از مهمترین نکات، سوابق نویسنده و دیدگاه های شخصیشه که خواه ناخواه رو مطالبی که می‌نویس� تاثیر میذاره و اتکا به یک منبع برای شناخت یک شخصیت یا دوره تاریخی کار درستی نیست. نویسنده از� لنین خیلی خوشش نمیاد و تقریبا با یه دیدگاه ضدلنین کتاب رو نوشته اما اینکه آیا این دیدگاه منصفانه است یا نه، من هنوز اونقدر اطلاعات ندارم که به این سوال جواب بدم. قبل از شروع کتاب، خوبه که یه سری کلیات در مورد امپراتوری روسیه،انقلاب اکتبر و مارکسیسم، بدونید. مطالب کتاب از شروع جنگ جهانی اول یعنی فصل سیزده، جذاب‌ت� میشه.
لنین(بزرگترین انقلابی جهان)، خواهان روسیه ای نوین و غربی‌شد� بود(شاید با الهام از افکار والدینش) اما بدون سیاست های نظام سرمایه داری، چرا که او به دنبال یه انقلاب سوسیالیستی در کل اروپا بود که به هر حال همه انقلابیون علاقه به صدور انقلابشان دارند. لنین نام مستعاری بود که ولادیمیر ایلیچ اولیانف در جنبش انقلابی روسیه از اون استفاده می‌کر�.
لنین، ماکیاولی را به عنوان نویسنده خردمند در حوزه حکومت ستایش می‌کرد� و مانند او معتقد بود اگر برای رسیدن به هدف سیاسی خاصی، مقدار خاصی از خشونت و بی رحمی نیاز باشد این خشونت را باید به پر‌انرژی‌تری� شکل ممکن و در کوتاه‌تری� زمان ممکن اعمال کرد زیرا توده ها به کارگیری بلند مدت خشونت را تاب نخواهند آورد، برای همین لنین خواهان این بود که خشونت به همان اندازه شدید باشد که از حیث زمانی کوتاه.
لنین خودش را از صحنه جنایت های انقلاب دور نگه میداشت او به اندیشه های سیاسی‌ا� وفادار بود و میدانست چه میخواهد و در این راه اگر انسان های بی گناهی هم کشته میشدند از نظر او جزو بی نظمی های اجتناب ناپذیر یک پیشرفت تاریخی بود.
اگر گاهی اشتباه بودن تصمیمات لنین مشخص میشد او آن را نمی‌پذیرف�. او می کوشید همه مسائل و مشکلات را اغلب به گردن رفقای حزبی یا منتقدانش که از نظرش جاهل بودند بیاندازد، از نظر او دلیل مشکلات یا این بود که منتقدان وی سیاست هایش را درک نکرده بودند یا مجریان این سیاست ها، آنها را به درستی اجرا نکرده بودند.
نظرسنجی های تازه در روسیه نشان میدهد که لنین همچنان یکی از محبوب‌تری� شخصیت‌ها� سیاسی تاریخ است و یلتسین هم شاید به همین خاطر جرئت نکرد که جنازه مومیایی لنین را دفن کند. لنین به میان آوازها و قصه های مردم کوچه و بازار وارد شد و به نوعی بعضاً از او به عنوان حاکمی یاد می شود که برخلاف جانشینانش قصدی برای سوءاستفاده از قدرت نداشت.
November 1, 2013
Lenin, from distance, is assumed to be a great humanist crusader of communasim - a champion of workers and peasents. He is considered to be the founder of a socialist state which Stalin led astray. On the contrary, he was a well to do upper middle class intellectual who spent most of his life away from Russia writing and debating and was never a famous personality till 1917 revolution. Besides being a boastful theorist who thought that only his interpretation of Marx was right, he was no friend of peasents and considered them an obstruction to his vision. Finally and most importantly, Lenin was the founder of the ideology of terror and dictatorship in strengthening communism. Stalin just followed the path shown by lenin, albeit, with greater brutality.
Notwithstanding all his flaws, he was a brilliant intellectual and a forceful politician who knew how to get his way and there is no doubt that USSR wouldn't have survived without his unflinching leadership.
This book, relying on newly accessable archives on Lenin, is brilliant as instead of being a hagiography it gives a holistic view of Lenin's personality, highlighting all his flaws and strengths thus presenting as another although influential human being (which all great men are). It will disappoint hero worshippers but delight curious students. This book sets the history right and thus has to be read.
Notwithstanding all his flaws, he was a brilliant intellectual and a forceful politician who knew how to get his way and there is no doubt that USSR wouldn't have survived without his unflinching leadership.
This book, relying on newly accessable archives on Lenin, is brilliant as instead of being a hagiography it gives a holistic view of Lenin's personality, highlighting all his flaws and strengths thus presenting as another although influential human being (which all great men are). It will disappoint hero worshippers but delight curious students. This book sets the history right and thus has to be read.
February 12, 2020
For the most part, I found this book readable and interesting. Thankfully, the publisher provided some nice maps showing Lenin's travels, and I truly wish maps like these were included in all history books.
I will admit to feeling lost sometimes when the author described Lenin's theories and philosophies, mostly because Lenin was -- as the author advises -- inconsistent. I also found it hard to understand why the different socialist factions were at odds about what seemed to me to be small details. But it is clear that Lenin could not stand the smallest disagreement with him, and, if you did disagree with him, to him it was a character flaw.
Much of what many of us have come to believe about Lenin is not accurate. This book helped me understand better how he came to power in the second Russian Revolution, and that he was a virtual unknown in his country when he returned as an opportunist from abroad after the first Russian Revolution. The legend about him is that he wanted to create a Utopian society, that he saw what Stalin was, and that he tried to warn the other leaders not to put Stalin in power but was unable because he was debilitated by a stroke. What is more clear from this book is that Lenin was in favor of dictatorship and terror to create a communist country with international goals.
Lenin was a horrible man, and this world would have been better if he had never been born or died before he came to power. Nonetheless, he is interesting and important, and it is worth learning about him, and, for that, I recommend this book.
I will admit to feeling lost sometimes when the author described Lenin's theories and philosophies, mostly because Lenin was -- as the author advises -- inconsistent. I also found it hard to understand why the different socialist factions were at odds about what seemed to me to be small details. But it is clear that Lenin could not stand the smallest disagreement with him, and, if you did disagree with him, to him it was a character flaw.
Much of what many of us have come to believe about Lenin is not accurate. This book helped me understand better how he came to power in the second Russian Revolution, and that he was a virtual unknown in his country when he returned as an opportunist from abroad after the first Russian Revolution. The legend about him is that he wanted to create a Utopian society, that he saw what Stalin was, and that he tried to warn the other leaders not to put Stalin in power but was unable because he was debilitated by a stroke. What is more clear from this book is that Lenin was in favor of dictatorship and terror to create a communist country with international goals.
Lenin was a horrible man, and this world would have been better if he had never been born or died before he came to power. Nonetheless, he is interesting and important, and it is worth learning about him, and, for that, I recommend this book.
March 5, 2023
زندگینامه یکی از مهم‌تری� شخصیت‌ها� تاریخ روسیه و یکی از تاثیرگذاران تاریخ معاصر دنیا (بعد از رونمایی اسناد تازه‌ا� از اون دوران) قطعا میتونه کتاب جالبی باشه
نویسنده کتاب تلاش خیلی زیادی داشته که به صورت صفر و یک به این شخصیت نگاه نکنه(البته نمیشه گفت کاملا بی‌طر� بوده ولی نسبت به خیلی از منابع دیگه بی‌طرفان� به تصویر کشیده)
تو این کتاب از پیشنیه نژادی، پدر و مادر و نوزادی لنین تا آخرین لحظات قبل از مرگ به خوبی صحبت شده
نکته جالب اینکه بعد از تلاش‌ها� زیادی که در جهت کیش پرستش لنین در منابع دیگه صورت گرفته، در این کتاب می‌بینی� لنین هم مثل بقیه آدم‌ه� نقاط قوت و نقاط ضعفی رو داشته و شاید موفقیتش در اون زمان به خاطر سخت‌کوشی� کله‌شقی� مطالعه زیاد و ممارستش در انجام کارها بوده
حتما پیشنهاد می‌کن� قبل از خوندن این کتاب به صورت حداقلی با تاریخ روسیه آشنایی داشته باشید چون این کتاب بیشتر با دیدگاه زندگی‌نامه‌ا� جلو میره و شاید از بعضی اتفاقات خیلی مهم در چند خط عبور میکنه که اگه اونا رو ندونید یه ذره گیج‌کنند� میشه (مثل بیست و چهار ساعت نهایی انقلاب اکتبر، شرایط جنگ داخلی، کمونیسم جنگی، شورش کرونشتات و ...)
در نهایت به نظرم کتاب روان و خوش‌خوان� هست و کار مترجم هم خوب بوده ولی نباید به عنوان تنها مرجع مطالعاتی تاریخ معاصر روسیه بهش اکتفا بشه
نویسنده کتاب تلاش خیلی زیادی داشته که به صورت صفر و یک به این شخصیت نگاه نکنه(البته نمیشه گفت کاملا بی‌طر� بوده ولی نسبت به خیلی از منابع دیگه بی‌طرفان� به تصویر کشیده)
تو این کتاب از پیشنیه نژادی، پدر و مادر و نوزادی لنین تا آخرین لحظات قبل از مرگ به خوبی صحبت شده
نکته جالب اینکه بعد از تلاش‌ها� زیادی که در جهت کیش پرستش لنین در منابع دیگه صورت گرفته، در این کتاب می‌بینی� لنین هم مثل بقیه آدم‌ه� نقاط قوت و نقاط ضعفی رو داشته و شاید موفقیتش در اون زمان به خاطر سخت‌کوشی� کله‌شقی� مطالعه زیاد و ممارستش در انجام کارها بوده
حتما پیشنهاد می‌کن� قبل از خوندن این کتاب به صورت حداقلی با تاریخ روسیه آشنایی داشته باشید چون این کتاب بیشتر با دیدگاه زندگی‌نامه‌ا� جلو میره و شاید از بعضی اتفاقات خیلی مهم در چند خط عبور میکنه که اگه اونا رو ندونید یه ذره گیج‌کنند� میشه (مثل بیست و چهار ساعت نهایی انقلاب اکتبر، شرایط جنگ داخلی، کمونیسم جنگی، شورش کرونشتات و ...)
در نهایت به نظرم کتاب روان و خوش‌خوان� هست و کار مترجم هم خوب بوده ولی نباید به عنوان تنها مرجع مطالعاتی تاریخ معاصر روسیه بهش اکتفا بشه
May 31, 2022
I finished this nearly a week ago. Why didn't I review immediately as is the usual?
Difficult. That's why. This is a personal life biography rather than the insight to his ultimate role in determinations within his society and government that I thought it would be.
So complicated that I am way, way over my skis to try to explain differences. A person this sanctified and held as icon? What were the intersects? This book gives every minutia detail of his placements but hardly anything of the essential crossovers and contexts to the other individuals of forceful powers. Other than his screaming, when and what were the prime status developments?
So I'm doing the lazy thing. Read Maciek's review. It is spot on. Forgive me for the boomerang sourcing. His thorough explanations are critical to why this book was so flawed, yet also an attempt to grasp the man. Notwithstanding the bias of the author which was absolutely present and considerable at all junctures.
Other prime movers are coming in and out of this life like running winter jack rabbits. But you never get the sense of real, critical showdowns or changes to base power structures of ruling much of the details for all that head to head. Not at all. IMHO, you also don't get the extent of the gruesome annihilations and destruction much either. Not to the viscous and lethal death sentences handed out. Far beyond just the Romanov's or nobles straight out executed. Cruelty beyond imaging as givens too.
Photos were excellent. To me, the man nearly almost always appears very sick. His older brother Alexander did not. The family dynamic to me was super, super strange too. And having Alexander get hanged? Probably just about buried any sense of empathetic fairness or individuality justice Lenin ever did have. More than just my own opinion.
Obsessed with politico from childhood, that's for sure. Sick with multiple conditions from young manhood at the very least, he used himself up rather heedlessly. His last years, not in any age either, spent in horrific physical condition.
This biography is long and with not enough crux material for the posits during and after the Russian Revolution.
Difficult. That's why. This is a personal life biography rather than the insight to his ultimate role in determinations within his society and government that I thought it would be.
So complicated that I am way, way over my skis to try to explain differences. A person this sanctified and held as icon? What were the intersects? This book gives every minutia detail of his placements but hardly anything of the essential crossovers and contexts to the other individuals of forceful powers. Other than his screaming, when and what were the prime status developments?
So I'm doing the lazy thing. Read Maciek's review. It is spot on. Forgive me for the boomerang sourcing. His thorough explanations are critical to why this book was so flawed, yet also an attempt to grasp the man. Notwithstanding the bias of the author which was absolutely present and considerable at all junctures.
Other prime movers are coming in and out of this life like running winter jack rabbits. But you never get the sense of real, critical showdowns or changes to base power structures of ruling much of the details for all that head to head. Not at all. IMHO, you also don't get the extent of the gruesome annihilations and destruction much either. Not to the viscous and lethal death sentences handed out. Far beyond just the Romanov's or nobles straight out executed. Cruelty beyond imaging as givens too.
Photos were excellent. To me, the man nearly almost always appears very sick. His older brother Alexander did not. The family dynamic to me was super, super strange too. And having Alexander get hanged? Probably just about buried any sense of empathetic fairness or individuality justice Lenin ever did have. More than just my own opinion.
Obsessed with politico from childhood, that's for sure. Sick with multiple conditions from young manhood at the very least, he used himself up rather heedlessly. His last years, not in any age either, spent in horrific physical condition.
This biography is long and with not enough crux material for the posits during and after the Russian Revolution.
July 28, 2017
Robert Service is both a dull writer and certifiable jackass.
January 5, 2025
There are few individuals who have left as profound a mark on human history as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The revolution he led at the dawn of the 20th century set the world on a radically different trajectory, with its effects still felt today. Opinions on Lenin remain sharply divided. Among those with left-wing inclinations, a common belief—one I once shared out of ignorance before reading this book—is that Lenin was a visionary idealist whose dream of a communist utopia was corrupted only after his death by Joseph Stalin. However, Robert Service, the Oxford scholar behind this biography, persuasively argues that this view is far from accurate. At the same time, he avoids depicting Lenin as the ruthless power-hungry sociopath others claim him to have been.
Service introduces us to Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, later to adopt the name “Lenin�, a brilliant young polymath whose life was profoundly shaped by the execution of his elder brother by the tsarist monarchy. Deeply scarred by this event, Lenin channelled his prodigious intellect into seeking vengeance against the monarchy and continuing his brother’s revolutionary vision. Service paints a complex portrait of Lenin: a man deeply reliant on the love and support of his mother and the women in his life; a lover of life and a devoted son and husband; but also a paranoid obsessive who showed little regard for human suffering. Lenin is presented as a leader who preferred to orchestrate revolution from the safety of his armchair, yet sanctioned atrocities that reveal a deeply disturbed mind.
While Robert Service’s account is not flattering, it seems balanced and well-researched. The author has faced accusations of bias, particularly regarding his biography of Trotsky, but this work appears to provide an honest and thorough examination of Lenin’s life.
This biography offers an engaging and insightful look at a pivotal figure and a transformative period in world history. It is essential reading for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of Lenin’s life and the enduring impact of his actions on the modern world.
Service introduces us to Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, later to adopt the name “Lenin�, a brilliant young polymath whose life was profoundly shaped by the execution of his elder brother by the tsarist monarchy. Deeply scarred by this event, Lenin channelled his prodigious intellect into seeking vengeance against the monarchy and continuing his brother’s revolutionary vision. Service paints a complex portrait of Lenin: a man deeply reliant on the love and support of his mother and the women in his life; a lover of life and a devoted son and husband; but also a paranoid obsessive who showed little regard for human suffering. Lenin is presented as a leader who preferred to orchestrate revolution from the safety of his armchair, yet sanctioned atrocities that reveal a deeply disturbed mind.
While Robert Service’s account is not flattering, it seems balanced and well-researched. The author has faced accusations of bias, particularly regarding his biography of Trotsky, but this work appears to provide an honest and thorough examination of Lenin’s life.
This biography offers an engaging and insightful look at a pivotal figure and a transformative period in world history. It is essential reading for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of Lenin’s life and the enduring impact of his actions on the modern world.
February 25, 2020
Az alcím világosan fogalmaz: ez egy életrajz. Csak annyit közöl Lenin ideológiai építményéből, ami az életút megértéséhez feltétlenül szükséges, inkább a befutott pályával, mint annak filozófiai hordalékával foglalkozik. Csak említés szintjén jelennek meg benne olyan dolgok, amelyeket én talán fontosabbnak gondolnék (elsősorban az orosz polgárháború), de mivel a főhős életéhez nem szorosan kapcsolódnak, félhomályban maradnak. Ugyanakkor ad valamit, amire csak titkon számítottam, amiben csak csendben reménykedtem: megélhetően felvázolja azt a szellemi forrongást, ami a Romanovok utolsó évtizedeit jellemezte. Ebben az időszakban ugyanis a szinte agyalágyulásig merev cárizmus mint fedő kísérelte meg a lábosban tartani a számos nyugatról beszivárgott gondolatot � köztük a marxizmus eszméjét. De ezek a gondolatok annyira izgalmasak voltak, és olyan evidens gyógyírt kínáltak az orosz valóság véres sebeire, hogy teljesen érthetően ragadták meg minden valamirevaló értelmiségi fantáziáját � akik aztán a maguk módján értelmezve a tanokat, a terroristától a mérsékelt demokratáig szóródtak szét a spektrumon. (Izgalmas lehetett akkoriban az orosz illegalitás.) És messze nem a radikális Lenin és a bolsevikok voltak e szekták közül a legszámottevőbbek � ami azt illeti, ha nem jön közbe a háború, meglehet, a kommunista panteon csillagai egy békés, eseménytelen öregkor végén hunytak volna el ágyban, párnák közt az emigrációban (esetleg Szibériában), helyettük pedig talán valami puhább reformmozgalom alakította volna át Oroszországot lassan, fokozatosan. (Vagy nem.)
De a háború kitört, és hozta magával a kis tatyójában azt, amit szokott: a néptömegek radikalizálódását, meg a társadalmi rend felbomlását, amit aztán a Romanovok nem is éltek túl. És ez volt az a történelmi pillanat, amiben Lenin megtalálta a maga küldetését. Némi német segédlettel egyszer csak ott termett Péterváron, kihasználta a tömeges elégedetlenséget, és megalkotta azt a Szovjetuniót, ami aztán jó 70 évig mumusa lett a világ összes demokráciájának. De ha ez így leírva egyszerűnek is tűnik, valójában minden esetleges és kaotikus volt, amit Service szintén remekül ábrázol: az átalakulás káoszában ugyanis gyakran csak hajszálon múlt, hogy Lenin nem tűnik el a süllyesztőben*, és helyette nem valaki más (jobb? rosszabb? ugyanolyan?) ragadja meg a kormánykereket.
De hát miért pont Lenin? Mit tudott ez a kopasz csávó a fura sapkájával, amit más nem tudott? Az biztos, hogy óriási hibákat vétett, és finoman szólva sem volt tévedhetetlen � sem a világháborút, sem a polgárháborút nem látta előre. Az is valószínű, hogy ha nem segítették volna időnként ellenfelei**, el sem jutott volna a hatalom megragadásának lehetőségéig. Beteges volt. Ronda egy vitapartner, és a ronda vitapartnerek közül is a legrosszabb fajta: az, aki addig képes vitatkozni veled, amíg kínodban már inkább egyetértesz vele. Igaz, sokat olvasott, de megdöbbentően szelektíven értelmezte olvasmányait, valahogy mindig azt találta meg a szövegekben, ami őt támasztotta alá. Súlyozni sem tudta a problémákat � a polgárháború csúcspontján például, amikor Trockij a Vörös Hadsereggel bíbelődött, ő azzal foglalta el magát, hogy vitairatot szerkesszen a német szocialista, Kautsky ellen. De mégis, csak tudott valamit. Munkabírása egyszerűen páratlan volt: csak a politika foglalkoztatta, és hát baromi nehéz ám olyasvalakivel harcolni ezen a páston, aki a politikával kel és fekszik, másra gondolni sem tud. Vérbeli pragmatikusként arra is képes volt, hogy bármikor felfüggessze az erkölcsöt és az elveket, ha ettől sikert remélhetett***, és nyoma sem volt benne a részvétnek, ami szintén nem árt, ha valaki a hatalom csúcsán akar berendezkedni. Ez utóbbi talán nem független attól, hogy azok közé az értelmiségiek közé tartozott, akik egyszerűen semmiféle ismerettel nem rendelkeztek azzal a néppel kapcsolatban, amiért elméletileg küzdeni akartak � számukra az olyan szavak, mint „paraszt�, „munkás�, „polgár� csak absztrakciók voltak, amelyeknek ugyan van értelme, ha matematikai egyenletbe helyezzük őket, de ha arcot rendelnénk hozzájuk, az csak összezavarná a kristálytiszta logikát. Mert így működik a diktátorok algebrája: ha egy paraszti közösség áll 90% szegényparasztból és 10% kulákból, akkor elég kivonni a 10% kulákot, és kapunk 100% vegytiszta hasznos parasztot. Csak hát az emberek nem olyan egzakt elemek, mint a nátrium vagy a stroncium, úgyhogy a valóságban ez az algebra nem működik � de ez a diktátort nem akadályozza meg abban, hogy addig-addig ismételgesse a fenti matematikai műveletet, amíg senki sem marad. Vagy amíg el nem viszi az ördög.
* Megesett például, hogy egyetlen moszkvai kocsikázás alkalmával Leninre kétszer is rálőttek, egyszer pedig fegyveres suhancok tartóztatták fel, akik nem hitték el neki, hogy ő a Szovjetunió első embere, és a legközelebbi rendőrőrsre szállították. És mindez egy diktátorral esett meg. El lehet képzelni, mennyire lehetett biztonságban egy átlagos mezei állampolgár.
** És nem csak a németek, akik aktívan segítettek neki abban, hogy Pétervárra jusson, és valószínűleg komoly összegekkel is támogatták a bolsevik célokat. A háború előtt Lenin � bár nem tudott róla � sokat köszönhetett a cári titkosrendőröknek is, akik a háttérben megtisztították neki a terepet, bebörtönözték riválisait, míg közvetlen munkatársait békén hagyták, mert benne látták azt a figurát, aki szét fogja zülleszteni a szocialista mozgalmat. Kicsit túlkombinálták az urak a konspirációt, azt hiszem.
*** Se szeri, se száma azoknak a helyzeteknek, amikor Lenin egyszerűen figyelmen kívül hagyta saját elveit egy nagyobb cél érdekében, de a legkülönösebb talán az volt, amikor a német kommunistákat arra utasította, hogy szövetkezzenek a szélsőjobboldali Freikorps egységeivel a német kormány megdöntése érdekében.
De a háború kitört, és hozta magával a kis tatyójában azt, amit szokott: a néptömegek radikalizálódását, meg a társadalmi rend felbomlását, amit aztán a Romanovok nem is éltek túl. És ez volt az a történelmi pillanat, amiben Lenin megtalálta a maga küldetését. Némi német segédlettel egyszer csak ott termett Péterváron, kihasználta a tömeges elégedetlenséget, és megalkotta azt a Szovjetuniót, ami aztán jó 70 évig mumusa lett a világ összes demokráciájának. De ha ez így leírva egyszerűnek is tűnik, valójában minden esetleges és kaotikus volt, amit Service szintén remekül ábrázol: az átalakulás káoszában ugyanis gyakran csak hajszálon múlt, hogy Lenin nem tűnik el a süllyesztőben*, és helyette nem valaki más (jobb? rosszabb? ugyanolyan?) ragadja meg a kormánykereket.
De hát miért pont Lenin? Mit tudott ez a kopasz csávó a fura sapkájával, amit más nem tudott? Az biztos, hogy óriási hibákat vétett, és finoman szólva sem volt tévedhetetlen � sem a világháborút, sem a polgárháborút nem látta előre. Az is valószínű, hogy ha nem segítették volna időnként ellenfelei**, el sem jutott volna a hatalom megragadásának lehetőségéig. Beteges volt. Ronda egy vitapartner, és a ronda vitapartnerek közül is a legrosszabb fajta: az, aki addig képes vitatkozni veled, amíg kínodban már inkább egyetértesz vele. Igaz, sokat olvasott, de megdöbbentően szelektíven értelmezte olvasmányait, valahogy mindig azt találta meg a szövegekben, ami őt támasztotta alá. Súlyozni sem tudta a problémákat � a polgárháború csúcspontján például, amikor Trockij a Vörös Hadsereggel bíbelődött, ő azzal foglalta el magát, hogy vitairatot szerkesszen a német szocialista, Kautsky ellen. De mégis, csak tudott valamit. Munkabírása egyszerűen páratlan volt: csak a politika foglalkoztatta, és hát baromi nehéz ám olyasvalakivel harcolni ezen a páston, aki a politikával kel és fekszik, másra gondolni sem tud. Vérbeli pragmatikusként arra is képes volt, hogy bármikor felfüggessze az erkölcsöt és az elveket, ha ettől sikert remélhetett***, és nyoma sem volt benne a részvétnek, ami szintén nem árt, ha valaki a hatalom csúcsán akar berendezkedni. Ez utóbbi talán nem független attól, hogy azok közé az értelmiségiek közé tartozott, akik egyszerűen semmiféle ismerettel nem rendelkeztek azzal a néppel kapcsolatban, amiért elméletileg küzdeni akartak � számukra az olyan szavak, mint „paraszt�, „munkás�, „polgár� csak absztrakciók voltak, amelyeknek ugyan van értelme, ha matematikai egyenletbe helyezzük őket, de ha arcot rendelnénk hozzájuk, az csak összezavarná a kristálytiszta logikát. Mert így működik a diktátorok algebrája: ha egy paraszti közösség áll 90% szegényparasztból és 10% kulákból, akkor elég kivonni a 10% kulákot, és kapunk 100% vegytiszta hasznos parasztot. Csak hát az emberek nem olyan egzakt elemek, mint a nátrium vagy a stroncium, úgyhogy a valóságban ez az algebra nem működik � de ez a diktátort nem akadályozza meg abban, hogy addig-addig ismételgesse a fenti matematikai műveletet, amíg senki sem marad. Vagy amíg el nem viszi az ördög.
* Megesett például, hogy egyetlen moszkvai kocsikázás alkalmával Leninre kétszer is rálőttek, egyszer pedig fegyveres suhancok tartóztatták fel, akik nem hitték el neki, hogy ő a Szovjetunió első embere, és a legközelebbi rendőrőrsre szállították. És mindez egy diktátorral esett meg. El lehet képzelni, mennyire lehetett biztonságban egy átlagos mezei állampolgár.
** És nem csak a németek, akik aktívan segítettek neki abban, hogy Pétervárra jusson, és valószínűleg komoly összegekkel is támogatták a bolsevik célokat. A háború előtt Lenin � bár nem tudott róla � sokat köszönhetett a cári titkosrendőröknek is, akik a háttérben megtisztították neki a terepet, bebörtönözték riválisait, míg közvetlen munkatársait békén hagyták, mert benne látták azt a figurát, aki szét fogja zülleszteni a szocialista mozgalmat. Kicsit túlkombinálták az urak a konspirációt, azt hiszem.
*** Se szeri, se száma azoknak a helyzeteknek, amikor Lenin egyszerűen figyelmen kívül hagyta saját elveit egy nagyobb cél érdekében, de a legkülönösebb talán az volt, amikor a német kommunistákat arra utasította, hogy szövetkezzenek a szélsőjobboldali Freikorps egységeivel a német kormány megdöntése érdekében.
December 3, 2012
I haven't read anything by Robert Service before this biography, and I must say that I will devour his other books. His biography of Lenin did what so many others failed to do. It took a polarizing, political, ideologue and made him a man. A man, with hopes, and dreams, and failures and feelings. I am a Marxist myself, and I found Lenin's conception of the vanguard convincing even before this book. If you're at all interested in the life of V. I. Lenin, please read!
July 27, 2012
One cannot understate the scholarly nature of Robert Service's Lenin. Here we have one of the most mythologized characters of the 20th century presented to us in entirely human form.
Service traces every aspect of Lenin's life, including some interesting background information on his father and grandfather, which can seem like a digression at times.
However, what we have is a complete portrait, including events that shaped his early life such as the execution of his elder brother Alexander and the early death of his father.
Around two thirds of the book takes place prior to the October Revolution, and Lenin's travels and correspondences shape who he was considerably.
There are no attempts by Service to airbrush out any of Lenin's faults. We learn that he believed zealously in the use of state terror on Bourgeoisie, Kulaks and other reactionaries, he sought Europe wide revolution, and believed wholeheartedly in the violent seizure of power. Lenin was very principled, but also very rigid and zealous in the prosecution of his ideology.
Service not only tracks the intimate details of Lenin's life, but he also chronicles Lenin's intellectual development. Therefore this book serves as more than just a biography, but an aide to anyone studying Marxism-Leninism.
In short a scholarly, and very compelling biography.
Service traces every aspect of Lenin's life, including some interesting background information on his father and grandfather, which can seem like a digression at times.
However, what we have is a complete portrait, including events that shaped his early life such as the execution of his elder brother Alexander and the early death of his father.
Around two thirds of the book takes place prior to the October Revolution, and Lenin's travels and correspondences shape who he was considerably.
There are no attempts by Service to airbrush out any of Lenin's faults. We learn that he believed zealously in the use of state terror on Bourgeoisie, Kulaks and other reactionaries, he sought Europe wide revolution, and believed wholeheartedly in the violent seizure of power. Lenin was very principled, but also very rigid and zealous in the prosecution of his ideology.
Service not only tracks the intimate details of Lenin's life, but he also chronicles Lenin's intellectual development. Therefore this book serves as more than just a biography, but an aide to anyone studying Marxism-Leninism.
In short a scholarly, and very compelling biography.
March 31, 2020
شاید این بازی تاریخ باشد که زمانی افراد انقلابی را خداگونه ستایش می‌کنن� و زندگی‌نامه‌ها� انقلابیون در ردیف کتب مقدس قرار می‌گیر�.
و آن زمان که سوت پایان انقلاب به گوش می‌رسد� همراه با پوست انداختن از تقدس شخصیت‌ه� ما فرصتی دوباره داریم به مرور اندیشه و زندگی آن‌ه�.
.
ولادیمیر ایلیچ اولیانوف معروف به لنین انقلاب اکتبر ١٩١٧ را رهبری و فرقه� کمونیست را بنیان گذاشت.
با تعیین اصول مارکسیسم - لنینیسم ، به زیر و رو کردن جهان یاری رساند.
لنین زمانی که می‌بین� به پایان خط رسیده با نوشتن وصیت نامه سیاسی خود، از اختلافاتش با استالین پرده برداشت اما این وصیت‌نام� تا سال‌ه� ''غیر قابل انتشار'' بود.
نکته جالب آخرین نوشته‌ها� لنین این است که او حتی به طور ضمنی و سرپوشیده از خودش انتقاد نکرد، کوچکترین ندامتی در مورد دوران حرفه‌ا� خود نداشت، نکته این بود که هر رهبری تصور می‌کر� از تاثیر چنین ویژگی منفی‌ا� مصون و مبراست، او تنها رفقای حزب را پر از ویژگی منفی می‌دانس� و به آنها هشدار داد.
رهبری کمونیست به استالین رسید و به این ترتیب حکومت مخلوق لنین هفت دهه پابرجا ماند.
.
کتاب لنین ... به سوالات بسیاری می‌پرداز� . از چگونه بوجود آمدن انقلاب اکتبر، و زندگی پر فراز و نشیب لنین تا اصول رهبری‌ا�.
.
لنین از فرصت‌ها� پیش رو نهایت بهره را برد و در کنار هیتلر ، استالین، چرچیل، روزولت، خروشچف، گورپاچف و عده‌ا� دیگر بازیگران اصلی قرن بیستم بودند.
.
از خواندن کتاب لذت بردم، خسته شدم و گاهی با خود گفتم چنین شخصی دیگر در سراسر قرن ٢١ نخواهیم دید، زود حرفم را قورت دادم؛ خیلی زود .
و آن زمان که سوت پایان انقلاب به گوش می‌رسد� همراه با پوست انداختن از تقدس شخصیت‌ه� ما فرصتی دوباره داریم به مرور اندیشه و زندگی آن‌ه�.
.
ولادیمیر ایلیچ اولیانوف معروف به لنین انقلاب اکتبر ١٩١٧ را رهبری و فرقه� کمونیست را بنیان گذاشت.
با تعیین اصول مارکسیسم - لنینیسم ، به زیر و رو کردن جهان یاری رساند.
لنین زمانی که می‌بین� به پایان خط رسیده با نوشتن وصیت نامه سیاسی خود، از اختلافاتش با استالین پرده برداشت اما این وصیت‌نام� تا سال‌ه� ''غیر قابل انتشار'' بود.
نکته جالب آخرین نوشته‌ها� لنین این است که او حتی به طور ضمنی و سرپوشیده از خودش انتقاد نکرد، کوچکترین ندامتی در مورد دوران حرفه‌ا� خود نداشت، نکته این بود که هر رهبری تصور می‌کر� از تاثیر چنین ویژگی منفی‌ا� مصون و مبراست، او تنها رفقای حزب را پر از ویژگی منفی می‌دانس� و به آنها هشدار داد.
رهبری کمونیست به استالین رسید و به این ترتیب حکومت مخلوق لنین هفت دهه پابرجا ماند.
.
کتاب لنین ... به سوالات بسیاری می‌پرداز� . از چگونه بوجود آمدن انقلاب اکتبر، و زندگی پر فراز و نشیب لنین تا اصول رهبری‌ا�.
.
لنین از فرصت‌ها� پیش رو نهایت بهره را برد و در کنار هیتلر ، استالین، چرچیل، روزولت، خروشچف، گورپاچف و عده‌ا� دیگر بازیگران اصلی قرن بیستم بودند.
.
از خواندن کتاب لذت بردم، خسته شدم و گاهی با خود گفتم چنین شخصی دیگر در سراسر قرن ٢١ نخواهیم دید، زود حرفم را قورت دادم؛ خیلی زود .
July 13, 2015
After reading this biography by Robert Service, I would read anything he wrote. He is currently a professor of Russian history at the University of Oxford, a Fellow of St Antony's College, Oxford, and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. As an author Service is known for his 2000, 2004, and 2009 biographies of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Leon Trotsky, respectively.
A real awakening, going way beyond the news media propaganda of my youth in the 1950-1960's. The book covers the wonderful family stories of his youth and siblings, his education and desire to create a better Russia, to his manipulation of those around him, sacrificing a "better" Russia, toward his quest for power. It was a great starting point for me, before going on the read about Stalin and then The Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin by Timothy Snyder.
I must say that after reading these three books, I was left wondering where God was in all of this.
(Not up for idle discussion, with the exception of Episcopal Priests).
A real awakening, going way beyond the news media propaganda of my youth in the 1950-1960's. The book covers the wonderful family stories of his youth and siblings, his education and desire to create a better Russia, to his manipulation of those around him, sacrificing a "better" Russia, toward his quest for power. It was a great starting point for me, before going on the read about Stalin and then The Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin by Timothy Snyder.
I must say that after reading these three books, I was left wondering where God was in all of this.
(Not up for idle discussion, with the exception of Episcopal Priests).
June 27, 2022
I knew little about Lenin and the internal affairs of soviet Russia in the early stages. Felt this was a good portrayal from a standpoint of limited knowledge, but no doubt gave much less weight to things like the civil war, first world war and events of revolution that should’ve been given a little more focus. No doubt was an extremely interesting and enlightening book. Exams kicked all desire to read for 2 months so that’s why it took a while x
April 30, 2021
What apter way to spend quarantine than reading about the man who did more than any other to lay the path for a third of the world going into communist quarantine.
Robert Service took on an extremely difficult task in writing another biography of the "legend" Lenin yet he managed to give us a portrayal of the man, the political figure, the politics and the historical events which led to the 1917 October revolution and beyond without demonising or showing overt ideological or political bias although of course this cannot be avoided and let's be honest if it did sway to the other side, I would probably not have read it, let alone finish it in 2 days.
I found the account riveting and the interplay between Lenin and his family background, his relationships with the other political figures yet what emerges stronger than anything else is the self-focused, undeterred, committed revolutionary and the sheer willpower which brought about the Revolution and the incarnation of Marx's ideology into the world's first communist nation.
That the socialist revolution was not born in Germany, England, France or any other of the advanced capitalist countries (as Marxists were convinced it would) but in pre-capitalist Russia is in large part due to the determination of Lenin as an individual (if we ignore the political and historical context that allowed this). And Robert Service's thesis in this historical biography is very much that. That despite the propitious historical and circumstances of early 20th century history and the fall-out from the first world war, without a man such as Lenin we might not have had the birth of communism as a state doctrine and the birth of the first communist state.
There are far too many avenues one could go down on and explore and I am not the expert but I am glad to have read this account and at such a timely moment.
Robert Service took on an extremely difficult task in writing another biography of the "legend" Lenin yet he managed to give us a portrayal of the man, the political figure, the politics and the historical events which led to the 1917 October revolution and beyond without demonising or showing overt ideological or political bias although of course this cannot be avoided and let's be honest if it did sway to the other side, I would probably not have read it, let alone finish it in 2 days.
I found the account riveting and the interplay between Lenin and his family background, his relationships with the other political figures yet what emerges stronger than anything else is the self-focused, undeterred, committed revolutionary and the sheer willpower which brought about the Revolution and the incarnation of Marx's ideology into the world's first communist nation.
That the socialist revolution was not born in Germany, England, France or any other of the advanced capitalist countries (as Marxists were convinced it would) but in pre-capitalist Russia is in large part due to the determination of Lenin as an individual (if we ignore the political and historical context that allowed this). And Robert Service's thesis in this historical biography is very much that. That despite the propitious historical and circumstances of early 20th century history and the fall-out from the first world war, without a man such as Lenin we might not have had the birth of communism as a state doctrine and the birth of the first communist state.
There are far too many avenues one could go down on and explore and I am not the expert but I am glad to have read this account and at such a timely moment.
January 8, 2016
Vladimir Ulyanov was born in 1870 in Simbirsk, a town in the Volga valley, to Ilya Ulyanov, a school inspector who had possibly Russian, possibly ethnic minority roots, and his wife Maria, who had Jewish and Swedish roots (her grandfather converted from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity with his two sons, and became an anti-Semite). Almost nothing was known about his early life until recently; for the fact that the young Vladimir liked Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin to be uncovered, the Soviet Union had to fall. The school inspector was a very intelligent, hard-working and ambitious man, who opened Russian-language schools for Russian children and Chuvash-language schools for Chuvash children and earned a rank of hereditary nobility, and he passed these qualities to his six children. Soon after the school inspector's death in 1886, his oldest son Alexander, a biology student at the University of St. Petersburg, became involved in a plot to assassinate Tsar Alexander III, and was tried and hanged. Despite his father's death and his brother's execution, Vladimir graduated from a gymnasium with a gold medal (the gymnasium's principal Fedor Kerensky was the father of another famous Russian revolutionary politician) and went on to study at the University of Kazan, one of only eight universities in the Russian Empire. However, he also became involved with radical-minded students, being a famous terrorist's younger brother, and was expelled from the university after taking part in student protests. Although he took the bar examination and became a licensed lawyer, Vladimir did not care to have a career: after the expulsion from the university and before he came to rule Russia, Lenin lived as a rentier and a professional revolutionary activist. Vladimir loved humanity in the abstract: during the famine of 1891-1892, he insisted that the peasants pay his agent as much as they did in non-famine years, and even argued that the famine was "progressive" and that famine relief effors slowed the development of capitalism and its eventual destruction. After meeting more radicals in St. Petersburg, Vladimir was exiled to the "Siberian Italy", where he married Nadezhda Krupskaya. Afterwards Vladimir emigrated and lived in England, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Switzerland, where he organized exiled Russian revolutionaries into a party, read hundreds of books and wrote a few; he seems to have had an affair with Inessa Armand; in 1916 he was in Zurich at the same time as Tristan Tzara and James Joyce, but probably never met them. Only once was Vladimir's life in danger: in 1908 he escaped from Tsarist police by walking on ice from mainland Finland to an island, in the company of two less-than-sober Finnish peasants, leaping from floe to floe, and at one point almost fell into icy water.
I didn't feel like reading the second part of the book, which talks about how Lenin seized power and what he did once in power, since I already know the story. Something like a revolution had to happen in Russia; two pieces of the Russian Empire that broke off, Latvia and Estonia, were fiercely anti-Communist, yet they carried out land reforms that were unthinkable in Imperial Russia. Yet I don't believe that the revolution had to be headed by a lover of superhuman music. Perhaps I should re-read Suetonius's The Twelve Caesars.
I didn't feel like reading the second part of the book, which talks about how Lenin seized power and what he did once in power, since I already know the story. Something like a revolution had to happen in Russia; two pieces of the Russian Empire that broke off, Latvia and Estonia, were fiercely anti-Communist, yet they carried out land reforms that were unthinkable in Imperial Russia. Yet I don't believe that the revolution had to be headed by a lover of superhuman music. Perhaps I should re-read Suetonius's The Twelve Caesars.
May 5, 2011
I just finished Robert Service's biographies of both Lenin and Stalin. His are probably the definitive biographies in that he is the only person to have written with access to Soviet records available since the demise of the USSR. It's interesting to compare both figures.
Both were cruel and dictatorial. While Lenin had no problem ordering people to be shot or sent to the Gulag, his demeanor was more hard hearted and apathetic to his victims. Whereas Stalin actually seemed to enjoy his persecutions.
While other members of Lenin's family helped with the relief efforts during a late 19th century famine, Lenin did not, thinking it was all sentimentality. Lenin came from a strong middle class family with liberal values. Stalin came from a lower class Georgian family and his outlook on life was first shaped by the beatings he got from his father.
While Lenin helped setup the institutions that Stalin would later exploit to create his own despotism, it is interesting to note their differences. Lenin didn't like to be contradicted and had a bombastic style, yet he did not always get his way and tolerated dissent and debate at least within the Bolshevik party. Stalin only encouraged debate so as to fish out people's true opinions, then those on the losing side of the argument were often shot, purged, or sent to a labor camp. Lenin may have been responsible for the death of thousands, Stalin was responsible for the death of millions.
Both were intellectuals, but Stalin was not an original thinker. While Stalin is truly one of the most horrific figures in history, Lenin shares some of the blame for the anti-democratic, anti-humanist direction of socialism in the 20th century.
Both were cruel and dictatorial. While Lenin had no problem ordering people to be shot or sent to the Gulag, his demeanor was more hard hearted and apathetic to his victims. Whereas Stalin actually seemed to enjoy his persecutions.
While other members of Lenin's family helped with the relief efforts during a late 19th century famine, Lenin did not, thinking it was all sentimentality. Lenin came from a strong middle class family with liberal values. Stalin came from a lower class Georgian family and his outlook on life was first shaped by the beatings he got from his father.
While Lenin helped setup the institutions that Stalin would later exploit to create his own despotism, it is interesting to note their differences. Lenin didn't like to be contradicted and had a bombastic style, yet he did not always get his way and tolerated dissent and debate at least within the Bolshevik party. Stalin only encouraged debate so as to fish out people's true opinions, then those on the losing side of the argument were often shot, purged, or sent to a labor camp. Lenin may have been responsible for the death of thousands, Stalin was responsible for the death of millions.
Both were intellectuals, but Stalin was not an original thinker. While Stalin is truly one of the most horrific figures in history, Lenin shares some of the blame for the anti-democratic, anti-humanist direction of socialism in the 20th century.
August 30, 2014
This book is a must read for anyone wishing to learn how the Communists came to power in Russia, consolidated their position and then successfully promoted Soviet Communism through-out the world.
Service presents a compelling picture of Lenin during his childhood and adolescent years. Lenin was born into the lower aristocracy. His father was an estate manager. Lenin's experiences from his youth left him with a lasting dislike and distrust of Russia's agricultural classes. Lenin's views in this area lead to huge tragedies. Lenin believed that peasants hid crops in order to obtain higher prices. Thus whenever harvests failed the Soviet response was to seize crops resulting in great rural famines. Millions subsequently died in the Ukraine, Russia, China and North Korea because of Lenin's nasty misconceptions about peasants.
Another key incident in Lenin's life was the Tsar's execution of his older brother for revolutionary activity. For Lenin this converted the Tsar from being the leader of an enemy class to be being a personal enemy. Service feels that this one reason why the Tsar, his wife and children were executed when initial attempts to obtain ransoms for them failed.
In other words Lenin was a brutal and vindictive man. Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung never deviated from the path he laid out but followed it religiously.
Service presents a compelling picture of Lenin during his childhood and adolescent years. Lenin was born into the lower aristocracy. His father was an estate manager. Lenin's experiences from his youth left him with a lasting dislike and distrust of Russia's agricultural classes. Lenin's views in this area lead to huge tragedies. Lenin believed that peasants hid crops in order to obtain higher prices. Thus whenever harvests failed the Soviet response was to seize crops resulting in great rural famines. Millions subsequently died in the Ukraine, Russia, China and North Korea because of Lenin's nasty misconceptions about peasants.
Another key incident in Lenin's life was the Tsar's execution of his older brother for revolutionary activity. For Lenin this converted the Tsar from being the leader of an enemy class to be being a personal enemy. Service feels that this one reason why the Tsar, his wife and children were executed when initial attempts to obtain ransoms for them failed.
In other words Lenin was a brutal and vindictive man. Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung never deviated from the path he laid out but followed it religiously.
December 27, 2011
Service's biography of Lenin is excellent. It gives a clear picture of Lenin's personality as well as his political thought and machinations over time. The book is, however, narrowly concerned with Lenin; do not expect a history of Russia in the first quarter of the 20th century. The context provided by Service is thin. For example, in one chapter he emphasizes Lenin's marginal status, even among emigre revolutionaries; in subsequent chapters, we learn of Bolshevik activism in Russia and the emergence of the Red Army. It is never made clear how Lenin's faction went from one with dozens of supporters to thousands. Service would probably defend the scope of his book by noting that Lenin was always concerned with grand strategy and mobilizing the Bolshevik party leadership, not with grassroots recruitment. For readers with a background understanding of the Russian Revolution, the biography superbly completes the portrait of its most central participant.
May 17, 2013
More scholarly and not as readable as Service's Trotski, this book is still very much worth the time. Written after the Kremlin archives opened up on the more salient points of Lenin's life, the more interesting parts of the book are on Lenin's early life and his last years.
Specifically, Service pulls the saint Lenin from his pedestal, showing that Lenin, like Stalin, or Trotski for that matter, had no qualms about terrorizing millions, if needed.
If anything, what differed between Stalin on one side and Trotski and Lenin on the other was that the latter believed in the necessity of terror to achieve an ideal, even if this meant large scale murder of many, whereas Stalin was primarily an opportune dictator, using terror as a tool to keep himself in power.
Specifically, Service pulls the saint Lenin from his pedestal, showing that Lenin, like Stalin, or Trotski for that matter, had no qualms about terrorizing millions, if needed.
If anything, what differed between Stalin on one side and Trotski and Lenin on the other was that the latter believed in the necessity of terror to achieve an ideal, even if this meant large scale murder of many, whereas Stalin was primarily an opportune dictator, using terror as a tool to keep himself in power.
November 29, 2017
با خوندن اين كتاب اين احساس بهم دست داد كه لنين بدون شك ناشايست ترين شخص براي به دست گرفتن قدرت در بعد از پايان امپراتوريه رومانف ها بوده. رويكرد رواشناسانه به شخصيت لنين و موشكافي در مسائل شخصي و خصوصي موثر بر تصميمات لنين، يكي از نقاط قوت اين كتابه. ترجمه روون و پاورقيهاي بجا و مخصوصا توضيحات مترجم(كه به نظرم خواننده نوازانه بود) ذكر روابط سببي شخصيت هاي كتاب با لنين كه در براكت مياورد، با توجه به ثقيل بودن و ناآشنا بودن و مصغر شدن نامهاي روسي در مكالمات و نامه هاي شخصيت ها به هم، بسيار به خوندن كتاب و گيج نشدن كمك كرد(حداقل به من!).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 180 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.