Khrushchev: The Man and His Era by W.W. Norton & Co.

	Title: Khrushchev: The Man and His Era Purchase Item Manufacturer: W.W. Norton & Co. List Price: $17.95 Our Price: $7.98
Customer Reviews:
Khrushchev: The Man and His Era by W.W. Norton & Co. Kruschev: the almost forgotten man is remembered
Nikita Khrushchev was the bogeyman of my later childhood. First it was Stalin who was going to roust me and my family from bed and send us all to Siberia if we weren't good Americans. Then it was Khrushchev. By the time Stalin died and Khrushchev prevailed in the Kremlin's deadly game of musical chairs, I was old enough to understand that Khrushchev and the Communists he led represented a real threat to me and everyone else. Not unsurprisingly as other threats emerged and other leaders trod the stage for their appointed time, Khrushchev was essentially forgotten, though he shouldn't have been since he was a pivotal figure in world history. William Taubman retrieves Khrushchev from his undeserved place on the ash heap of history and details his life. Excruciatingly details Kruschchev's life. At nearly 700 pages, the biography runs a bit long. However, Taubman does keep it interesting as he details the rise of the peasant boy to the first Soviet leader to peacefully deposed. An intimate of Stalin - and a hardworking socialist - Khrushchev was no slacker when it came to having "enemies of the people" murdered, imprisoned, exiled or enslaved. Life in the Soviet Union, the socialist paradise so many American academics yearn for, was harsh. Khrushchev's daughter-in-law spent years in prison, a slave labor camp and then Siberian exile because of her friendship with a French military aide during the war. The woman's husband had disappeared in the war and Khrushchev unable or perhaps unwilling to rescue her, adopted his own granddaughter. That was life in the good old USSR. Taubman follows Krushchev's extraordinary career as he becomes an intimate of Stalin, avoids the Great Terror and then, after a Kremlin intrigue, emerges as the leader of the Soviet Union. It was Krushchev who denounced Stalin and his crimes in the famous Secret Speech. It was Krushchev who was instrumental in releasing hundreds of thousands from the slave labor camps - though not so rapidly as to allow them to foment revolution. It was Krushchev who embarrassed Eisenhower with the shooting down of the U-2 and subsequently rode roughshod over the weak and inexperienced John F. Kennedy. Krushchev was a man of the people in the sense that he came from peasant stock and lacked formal education. But he was a dedicated socialist and believed the one day the entire world would be enslaved by socialism, while he and his elite cronies would enjoy lives of relative luxury, a contradiction that never seemed to bother him. Krushchev in truth was a transitional leader. He protected his corrupt socialist system and oppressed his people while freeing the from the greater oppression of the Stalinists. In the end, Krushchev lost power to those who wanted the people to have nothing except the glory of working and dying for the socialist cause which allowed the leaders to live in relative wealth. This is a long biography about an important man, but one who has been largely forgotten. Even with Taubman's book, it is unlikely that large numbers will come to recognize Krushchev and his contribution to contemporary world history. If nothing else, this book is a reminder of how ephemeral fame and standing are. Jerry
Khrushchev: The Man and His Era by W.W. Norton & Co. Fascinating Biography
This is a very interesting history af Nikita Krushchev, who was a flawed leader and yet a person who truly seemed to be trying to make the world a better place. It is in parts laugh-out-loud funny, and at others horrifying. Definitely worth the effort if you are interested in 20th-Century history.
Khrushchev: The Man and His Era by W.W. Norton & Co. Mediocre biography of Khrushchev
William Taubman's biography of N.S. Khrushchev won the American prestigious Pulitzer Prize in 2004 for best biography. Although the book is very in-depth and extensive, it is not clear why, since the overall result is far less than outstanding. The main flaws of the book are its overuse of pop psychology, which seems to come from the interpretation of the writer himself rather than from any established source (although he claims to have consulted with "experts" in this field), which does nothing to enhance our understanding of Khrushchev and his motives, and most of which are arbitrary and subjective opinions of the author. This applies especially to the parts which cover Khrushchev's period in power. The second, and biggest, flaw is the insipid and annoying editorial line employed by Taubman, one of the most vulgar anti-socialist sort and not in the slightest informative or interesting. I do not see the point of writing a book about a leader and major figure in the Soviet Union, a bulwark of Communism, when you are so anti-communist you feel compelled to tell the reader this every other sentence or so. This goes all the more since Taubman's interrupting objections consist of useless comments along the lines of "we all know that human nature is against socialism though" or "he ought to have finally recognized his system was a failure" etc. These are not interpretations or context-giving statements that help one understand Khrushchev, but are only political opinions inserted by Taubman, and silly ones at that. If Taubman wants to expatiate on his political views, he should write an essay book on the topic or somesuch. The obvious merits of this biography, on the other hand, are its scope (with some 650 pages plus over 100 pages of notes), and the structure of the biography. Taubman uses, apart from the introductory chapter, the chronological method, but is very systematic and leaves nothing out, while at the same time keeping a good grasp on all the material. This allows the reader to get a large amount of information on Khrushchev, both in his political and his personal life, at any stage of the proceedings. Despite the pop psychology interruptions and politicking by Taubman, the descriptions of Khrushchev's decision-making in power are fairly thorough and shed a clear light on how many famous Cold War events looked from the Soviet side. It is also pleasant that Taubman does not, as some authors have done, focus excessively on the foreign policy side, but instead pays all the necessary attention to his reforms (and wavering in them). Although Taubman has a strong tendency to want to discredit Khrushchev and underestimate his competence, partly because Khrushchev himself was rather insecure about himself, he does manage (perhaps against his intent) to make Khrushchev sympathetic and understandable to the reader. Taubman also involves the various other leaders of the USSR, the intelligentsia, officials etc. with whom Khrushchev interacted often into the story, which gives a bare amount of context for his decisions and policies and how they were received, although there could have been much more on this. Because of this, and the large amount of useful information contained in this vast biography, "Khrushchev: The Man and His Era" cannot be considered a failure. But Taubman's editorializing plus his psychologizing, individualist interpretation of historical events make it certainly not worth awarding prizes to either.
Khrushchev: The Man and His Era by W.W. Norton & Co. REVIEW OF WILLIAM TAUBMAN'S KHRUSCHEV BY JOHN CHUCKMAN
It's about time we had a decent biography of Nikita Khruschev. Khruschev is a more important historical figure than seems generally appreciated today. He was something of a refreshing presence on the dreary world scene of the late 1950s and early 1960s. I remember his American tour, and you couldn't help but find a kind of pleasant and infectious quality in some of his observations and activities. I believe he sincerely wanted to slow or halt the Cold War the same way he diminished the horrors of Stalinism, an historic achievement. Taubman doesn't capture the more idealistic sense of Khruschev, which I believe was genuine, because I was a young man through his time and took an interest in events. Taubman's Khruschev is a bright (Khruschev had considerable analytical ability and a remarkable memory) peasant risen to the top, an extremely crude man, always regretful about his lack of formal education, who never ceases to behave as something of a Father Karamazov. I have no doubt there is truth here, but it provides an incomplete picture. Was Khruschev any cruder than what we now know of the private life of John Kennedy, who had prostitutes swimming in the White House pool while Jackie was away, or of the public Lyndon Johnson, who used to conduct interviews and bark orders while relieving himself? I ask this because Taubman repeats the word crude or offers anecdotes about crude behavior many, many times. Even as a young man I thought many of Khruschev's crudities were not so great as they were treated by America's press. The banging of his shoe at the U.N. is a favorite example. Crude? Yes. But significant beyond style? I think not much. I enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in biography, the period, world affairs, or Soviet history, but I do have reservations about it, and it should be read with some caution. Taubman weaves into the text too great a sense of the correctness of America's position and policies of the time, giving a sense of Khruschev largely representing an irritating and sometimes dangerous opponent to them. America often behaved in provocative and dangerous ways through the Cold War. Taubman mentions some matters, as Eisenhower's saying that if the Soviets over-flew the United States the way the United States regularly invaded Soviet airspace there would be war, but the week-to-week reality of this is not stressed enough here to appreciate the intensity of the Soviet point of view. There were many such matters, including American submarines actually colliding with Soviet boats. Taubman gives a lot of attention to Khruschev's well-known habit of rattling his rockets in speeches, but we are not given enough background for why he might do this. The Pentagon actually had plans in the mid-1950s for an atomic pre-emptive attack on the Soviets. Generals like Curtis LeMay, the man who bombed Japan to the point of gratuitous horror, openly advocated nuclear hostilities. And, of course, America had used the atomic bomb, twice. Taubman's treatment of matters like the Cuban Missile Crisis suffers from this. The U.S. had a huge, generously-finaced terrorist operation going against Cuba at the time, including along more than one track, and that is an important part of the background that Taubman treats with what I believe is neglect. Taubman's words on the ghastly Bay of Pigs does reveal hints of American jingo attitudes. They are not offered loudly, but they are there, and I think they should not be if we want to understand what motivated Khruschev. One of the great missing chapters in the book is any detail around the Kennedy assassination. The assassination is there but not treated adequately. It was, after all, an epic event which had great consequences on both the Soviets and America. Of course, to treat the assassination adequately involves going into issues that remain murky and controversial. Despite my reservations, the book is an interesting and worthwhile read, however, I certainly do not agree with the New York Times review which said "Succeeds in every sense...unlikely to be surpassed any time soon...."
Khrushchev: The Man and His Era by W.W. Norton & Co. Good, not great...Slow for first half
This biography is the kind that I like. It's about an intermediate figure and uses that individual's life to frame up the times (ref: my review of Paul Preston's Franco biography). Taubman does an excellent job of research and a good job at having a view about Krushchev's character and motives. However, the book is just not executed that well. The early years are presented fairly slowly and don't seem as tightly focused given that Taubman does have a thesis about Krushchev the man. This may just be that there are gaps in what he could learn about earlier years. The second half when Krushchev is in charge picks up a great deal. Some of this is just that the stakes are higher plus he has better sources since there are/were people alive to interview. However, even here there is some sloppiness in presentation. The book is an excellent confirmation that much of what occurs in history is because of the idiosyncracies of individuals. Anyone who has worked in a large corporation would be familiar with unusual decision-making processes based on the personalities of people. That reality is presented clearly here even including how Eisenhower and Kennedy are presented in their dealings with Krushchev. On the one hand, it's almost amazing that war was avoided, But on the other hand, all of these individuals understood the amount of death that would have occurred and worked hard to avoid it. It speaks well that all understood that losing face was just fine compared to killing millions of people. However, it is repeatedly presented that Krushchev was certain that nuclear weapons could not and would not be used so the irony is that it made it easier to threaten with resulting in the view that he was kind of a mad man. It's similar to two bullies ready to fight as long as someone is restraining both of them. The good news is that Krushchev was not fundamentally evil like a Hitler who probably would have used the weapons. But, this leads to the most interesting question about Krushchev. Taubman clearly speaks to the contradiction of Krushchev participating in Stalin's purges but then subsequently denouncing these crimes. While not overtly stating it, Taubman presents Krushchev as a true believer in communism who is willing to kill to achieve it for the "greater good." I think the book should have more clearly discussed the probability that Krushchev also accepted that killing was necessary for his own personal power. And, if so, could everything have not just been the pursuit of personal advancement/power with communism as a convenient support for that? Did any of these communist leaders (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) actually believe what they were saying? Taubman does not address this. The other gap I think the book has is that it doesn't really speak much about Brezhnev. Given that Brezhnev maintains power till death, was there a contrast in his approach that would have shed light on Krushchev. My guess is that there probably is and I think it also might have helped answer the question of whether Krushchev ever believed in communism or was just out for himself. As it is, it is easy to say that Krushchev was not evil in the way that Stalin was. Once he was in charge, it became possible to be retired from the government rather than always branded a traitor and executed. Even to the point, that Krushchev could be forced to retire. So, this is a worthy read but expect to work a bit to get through it.
Khrushchev: The Man and His Era by W.W. Norton & Co. Product Description
Shortlisted for the National Books Critics Circle Award: "The book is a gift, as fascinating as it is important."—Robert Legvold, Foreign Affairs The definitive biography of the mercurial Soviet leader who succeeded and denounced Stalin. Nikita Khrushchev was one of the most complex and important political figures of the twentieth century. Ruler of the Soviet Union during the first decade after Stalin's death, Khrushchev left a contradictory stamp on his country and on the world. His life and career mirror the Soviet experience: revolution, civil war, famine, collectivization, industrialization, terror, world war, cold war, Stalinism, post-Stalinism. Complicit in terrible Stalinist crimes, Khrushchev nevertheless retained his humanity: his daring attempt to reform communism prepared the ground for its eventual collapse; and his awkward efforts to ease the cold war triggered its most dangerous crises. This is the first comprehensive biography of Khrushchev and the first of any Soviet leader to reflect the full range of sources that have become available since the USSR collapsed. Combining a page-turning historical narrative with penetrating political and psychological analysis, this book brims with the life and excitement of a man whose story personified his era.