A little too soft and apologetic IMO...Zampolit are real, people disappeared, people were tortured, people were shot, people went to gulag...nowhere a discussion on the undeniable Russian psyche predisposed to obedience to strong rulers and how it was expertly exploited by leading communists...and nowhere a moral judgement on what number is deemed "acceptable" to commit crimes against?
All the bad stuff did happen and the book did not deny this but quantified it based on records opened up after 1991.
The book addressed a few questions.
1. Was the terror intentional with the purpose being to control people through terror?
2. Did people live in terror? Was everyone in terror or mostly certain groups?
#1. It was too erratic and too many counter examples to be intentional in that way.Stalin was acting to uncover plots, real and imagined.
#2. The higher ups and party members were at much greater risk. Workers were at much less risk. Workers viewed this as palace intrigue with the top commies cutting each other's throats which suited them just fine.
Elsewhere I learned that Solzhenitsyn was kinda a fraud. His wife said he just made things up. After records opened he was asked if he wanted to revise his books. He said no bc they were fiction and pointed to the subtitle.
Here is a review.
Everything bad that I thought happened did happen (show trials, gulags, executions) but the numbers were lower. Also, there were lots of counter examples of good things.
This era, maybe 1931 then peaking in 1937 or 38, was not a systematic attempt to control people by keeping them in terror. In a later chapter it seemed more like the Salem witch trials. People went crazy.
People were mostly not in terror, and fewer were than should have been.
If a person was in prison they believed the system had made a mistake in their case but everyone else there was guilty. So they did not live in fear because the imprisoned, other than themself, were guilty they thought. Workers believed higher party members were cutting each others throats in palace intrigue which was fine with them.
The words "erratic" and "inconsistent" come up often.
There were good parts inconsistent with systematic terror. Appeals sometimes worked and the accusers were convicted. People were freed early.
There were plots uncovered, real and imagined.
People higher up and party members were at higher risk. People turned down promotions near the end to reduce risk. Also self demoted.
Workers often had more input than in the US and were mostly not afraid to complain to management and even writing complaints to the party which were acted on. There were limits e.g. you could not complain about socialism or Stalin.
People who caused production harm (made mistakes? or sabotage?) were accused of sabotage and called "wreckers." Some times found innocent.
USSR had a fetish for "workers" so their managers were at greater risk. Managers could be convicted of wrecking for failing to listen to or implement workers' suggestions to increase production.
Workers felt free to complain about managers and even the party. There were lots of rules and laws and managers and workers ignored them or conspired together to work around them to meet goals.
There was 1 NKVD officer per every 500 to 1000 population and they did other jobs like surveying and maybe RR.
The book gives too many examples and often for famous people in the country. On one hand (insert bad thing that shows systematic terror) on the other hand (insert good thing example inconsistent with that).
Joke:
Late at night came a knock at the door.
"Who is there?"
"NKVD, open up!"
"You have the wrong apartment. The communist party members live upstairs."
