Yezhov: The Rise of Stalin’s “Iron Fist.” (review)

This book is about the making of Nikolai Ivanovich Yezhov (1895–1940) and his generation of Bolsheviks. The narrative stops short of the height of his career during the “Great Terror” (1936–1938), when he was head of the secret police (NKVD) and second only to Iosif Stalin himself.

The authors warn us that their book is not only about the main protagonist but also, through him, about two decades of Soviet history and especially the origins of Stalinism. The book thus deals not so much with individual actors as with structures. The authors stress their revisionist line by speaking against the “traditional” view, which in their somewhat simplistic interpretation claims that “Stalin ruled everything” As they see it, Yezhov was neither a blank page nor a robot but an acting subject who was “intelligent, hardworking, committed and able to manipulate even his master.” Along with all other loyal servants of the Soviet regime, he did carry out Stalin’s policies, but he also pursued his own interests “as far it was possible within the limits of Stalin’s general line.” The implementation of policies, the authors say, is just as important as the formulation. This is one of many statements of general truths that at first glance look acceptable but that in a Stalinist context are not: No one would have dared to put to death anyone without Stalin’s general consent.

A second theme concerns the “traditional perception” that Yezhov was nothing but an invention of Stalin. According to the authors, their main character made his way through the system and to the very top on his own by learning the rules of the game; that is, by learning how to maneuver in the matrix of personal relationships or in a personalized system.

The third theme running through the book touches on the complicated problem of whether Stalin and his entourage actually believed what they said and did. Were they in other words true Communists rather than brutal cynics pursuing personal power for the sake of power only? The authors are not in doubt: Stalin and the others were all strong believers. This perspective yields little space for dissent and opposition and thereby for the role and understanding of the terror. To the authors the Soviet system was first of all self-sustained.

According to the authors, the Bolsheviks’ character was formed by a mixture of the late Tsarist state’s brutal oppression of the working class and the Manichaean tradition of Russian orthodoxy. This cocktail of class warfare and cultural history downplays the element of brutal force carried out by the Soviet leadership.

Getty and Naumov argue that Yezhov was a self-made man and a radical Bolshevik from the very start. In that respect they oppose other biographers who deny Yezhov’s radicalism and active participation in the October Revolution. The authors here rely too heavily on Yezhov’s autobiography for this reviewer’s taste.

Getty and Naumov believe that the Russian civil war was a very important factor in the genesis of the political outlook and mentalities that would support Stalinism. Everything during the civil war was interpreted in terms of a binary conception of class opposition: friend versus enemy, us versus them, worker versus saboteur. Seen from this perspective, all problems were caused by people with bad intentions—that is, by enemies of the people—and formal rights, procedures, and laws had no place in a world in which what was good and right was already known. Without doubt, the crimes committed by the Bolsheviks during the civil war created a dependency that later made it impossible for them to leave the bloody journey they had commenced, but one should not forget that other mentalities were at play also; for example, the moderate socialists, who had a genuine backing in the masses but who were ruthlessly fought by the Bolsheviks.

Getty and Naumov reinvent Moshe Lewin’s old idea about the “rural nexus.” That...