Book Review: Autopsy for an Empire: The Seven Leaders Who Built the Soviet Regime

Autopsy for an Empire: The Seven Leaders Who Built the Soviet Regime, by Dmitri Volkogonov

Source: Amazon.com

 
From the book’s cover:
 
A revered scholar and tireless chronicler of his times, Dmitri Volkogonov raced against time to finish his final book before his death from cancer in 1995. The result is a brilliant magnus opus -- a complete portrait of the U.S.S.R. from the bloody 1917 Russian Revolution to the political coup of 1991.

Synopsis:
 
Author Dimitri Volkogonov covers the spectrum of Soviet leadership from before the founding of the Soviet Union itself until the collapse in 1991. Each leader is given a fairly thorough biographical sketch, using Volkogonov's personal access to Soviet archives. The material on the leaders who were in power prior to the author's own period of involvement in the Soviet leadership hierarchy are referenced in an almost purely scholarly manner (bias noted in the "what I didn't like" section), whereas those leaders whom Volkogonov had some personal experience living under or working under the disparate direction of are mentioned with personal notes (also part of the bias I have mentioned).

What I liked about it:
 
Volkogonov's personal access is amazing, and I am grateful he was around long enough to write what he did on the topics covered. Autopsy for an Empire is especially useful as it gives a broad base for further study of each of the Soviet Union's leaders. Plus, as I have noted below in "What I learned," I gained a lot of insight into some of the particulars of the latter Soviet leadership.

The only photo I could find which is reported to be the author, Dmitri Volkogonov. / Source: CrimeLibrary.com

What I didn’t like about it:
 
I had no specific complaints about Autopsy For An Empire. I skimmed a review on Amazon.com that mentioned the book being ideologically unbalanced, and if I gather the person's meaning correctly, they are criticizing Volkogonov's obvious bias against the Soviet system. This is true, Volkogonov is clearly not an advocate of Soviet policy. However, I find the fact that the author actually lived through much of the later events he chronicles to be acceptable reason for his observational bias. Furthermore, Volkogonov was in the process of dieing when he wrote the book, and that sort of situation could touch off some soul-searching and reflection that might have shadowed the book's objectivity. This is not a bad thing in my opinion, if taken into consideration when reading the book. Here is a man who was part of the system, and he is dealing with that on his deathbed. He points out his own flaws in some passages in the text, which tells me that, though he is less objective than a dry textbook on the subject might strive to be, he is at least honest.
 
Another review mentioned the disjointed nature of the book, but again, I account that to the author's condition. Further, I didn't find the work to be too bad off. And the material is for those interested in Soviet history, and therefore cognizant of some of the background. If you don't have a good understanding of the topics, use Google while you read. It could help.
 
The only real positional gripe I could offer, and it is understandable in my opinion, is the fact that Volkogonov is clearly not in Gorbachev's camp. He appears, through his statements, to be a Yeltsin supporter. The fact that the book was written during the heated period in which Gorbachev and Yeltsin had done their political battling is a main reason for the lack of clear objectivity here. And I believe Volkogonov does a good job remaining as objective as he can. But again, his statements betray him to be clearly pro-Yeltsin, which is easy enough to sympathize with, but is a mark against Autopsy for the long run.

Painting entitled "October Revolution," by Georgy Konstantinovich Savitsky (1887–1949).  According to Volkogonov, the actual revolution in Leningrad was something of a rushed affair, with little of the patriotic glory that the image above (and many others like it, distributed by the Soviet propaganda machine during its long tenure) would have people believe. / Source: Britannica.com

What I learned, if anything:
 
The material in Autopsy for an Empire on Lenin and Stalin was mostly old news to me, especially the parts on Lenin who I had read about in Volkogonov's biography of the same name. The material on Khrushchev was familiar, though it was put together fairly cogently and did contain some things I hadn't heard (or remembered), such as the writing of Khrushchev's memoirs and how that all worked out.
 
For me personally, the material on Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko was fascinating. For instance, I knew Brezhnev was into fast cars and fast women, and that he was barely a puppet in his later years - practically a shambling zombie kept alive by the best efforts of the Kremlin medical staff and what could pass for Communist "prayers." On the other hand, I hadn't heard the extent of his banality in his documents, which contain numerous notes on his hunting trips and his weight (he became obsessed with recording fluctuations in his weight, especially in his older years). The man was a simpleton in many ways, but he knew how to keep the system going. His leading of the "palace coup" against Khrushchev seems, to one who looks at the Soviet Union through the lens of Stalin, as a power grab, but really he just took the reins of a state that was running on autopilot by that time. And further, Brezhnev never exercised the same degree of power in office that any of his predecessors had. He had to "work the system" in order to get things done, whereas Lenin and Stalin - and to a certain extent, Khrushchev - had just decreed and it was done. The set up for the ossification of the Soviet state under Brezhnev's rule is clearly described here.
 
I also didn't know that Brezhnev was involved in an accident in which a factory walkway platform he was walking under during a factory inspection gave way while he was under it, and Leonid was injured by falling debris. I had not heard that before. There is some fascinating stuff in here.
 
Further, the description of the administration of Yuri Andropov, though it fits the info I was given by my Russian history professor in school, is fascinating too. We feared Andropov due to his background, but he was a more level-headed version of Khrushchev in many respects. Had Andropov's health been better, he might have instituted reforms that could have kept the Soviet state in power for longer. Though it must be known, he would have retained it as a socialist state. And the info on his dealing with the disaster of the KAL shootdown is also eye-opening. Pragmatic as Andropov might have been, he was still a cold-blooded Soviet believer to his dying moment.
 
The material on Chernenko is also great, as it describes his background, and his complete mediocrity as a leader of the Soviet system. Chernenko is clearly the apex of the gerontocracy of the Soviet state, and Volkogonov's own personal observations on his own life during Chernenko's administration tells a lot about how things were during this early 1980s period of stagnation.
 
The material on Gorbachev is also revealing, though not to the degree that the previous three leaders were. And as mentioned in this review, Volkogonov is clearly not in Gorbachev's court, so his viewpoint seems a bit skewed. Nonetheless, the material on the rule of Gorbachev is good, and Volkogonov managed to finally explain the dynamic of Gorbachev's period in command in such a way that I now have a better understanding of what was really going on; ergo: Gorbachev was and is the last true communist leader of the Soviet Union. He wanted reform, but he was not capable of handling the beast he unleashed, and it destroyed his regime from under him. I've had this explained to me before, but being a westerner, it is difficult to fully appreciate that Gorbahcev was just as bad - in many ways - as his forebearers. He didn't want western-style liberalists, but only the benefits of a revitalized system. He could not see that the system itself was truly broken, and therefore meddled to his own detriment.

Soviet Leader Konstantin Chernenko, sixth in the line of power, who served from February of 1984 until his death in March of 1985.  Chernenko's time in office is so brief that most texts on the subject of the Soviet period give it little attention, seeing as Gorbachev's sweeping reforms are such a monumental affair in comparison.  However, Volkogonov does give pause to address Chernenko's term of office, and for me, this is another of the book's strong points. / Source: Wikipedia.com

Recommendation:

The material in Autopsy for an Empire on the upbringing of each Soviet leader is also good, though I'll save any further ruminations on it for those who are willing to pick the book up for themselves. Needless to say, this one is highly recommended by me. If you want to understand the Soviet Union - especially as it went from being a mighty totalitarian empire to being a failed state and a "wild west" capitalist economy, and then to what it is today, this book will give you a good window into the subject. Seeing all the leaders in their places, it is easy to see how Lenin made the state, Stalin solidified it, and yet he also destroyed it too by crushing any who might have been powerful in successor-type roles. His descendants, as it were, were weaker men than he, and this led to a system that couldn't get away from its own bureaucratic double-speak and hidebound views. Stalin crushed the Soviet state by making it strong and then purging anything that might have threatened his part in it, and Stalin should be as equally blamed for the end of the Soviet Union as he is for the glory of it.

Learn more about Autopsy for an Empire: The Seven Leaders Who Built the Soviet Regime, on Amazon.com


The parting comment:


Some good jokes about the former Soviet Union, as delivered by Ronald Reagan.  It's not a wonder that presidents since that era have had generally lower approval ratings.  They don't tell as many jokes.  Well I recall Clinton did now and then, but hey - he had plenty to smile about.  No 9/11 (yet), no wars, pretty good economy, and something on the side.