{"title":"Pillars of the Soviet Dictatorship at the Local Level","authors":"Donald J. Raleigh","doi":"10.1353/kri.2022.0030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The comparative and theoretical literature on dictatorships shows that deeply ideological one-party states such as the Soviet Union—especially if forged in civil war—not only tend to survive longer but also show more resiliency than other types of authoritarian rule.1 Despite the recent publication of archivalbased biographies of I. V. Stalin, N. S. Khrushchev, L. I. Brezhnev, and M. S. Gorbachev that throw light on politics at the top, remarkably little research has been conducted on how local leaders governed under these rulers. Making substantial contributions to our understanding of how the USSR functioned at the regional level, the two complementary books under review draw on strategic archive-based research, memoirs, and the secondary literature (and, in Grybkauskas’s case, on oral interviews) to reveal how local leaders—first secretaries of oblasts (and of Soviet republics) and second secretaries in republic party committees—functioned after World War II and how their modus operandi changed as the USSR became less oppressive.","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2022.0030","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The comparative and theoretical literature on dictatorships shows that deeply ideological one-party states such as the Soviet Union—especially if forged in civil war—not only tend to survive longer but also show more resiliency than other types of authoritarian rule.1 Despite the recent publication of archivalbased biographies of I. V. Stalin, N. S. Khrushchev, L. I. Brezhnev, and M. S. Gorbachev that throw light on politics at the top, remarkably little research has been conducted on how local leaders governed under these rulers. Making substantial contributions to our understanding of how the USSR functioned at the regional level, the two complementary books under review draw on strategic archive-based research, memoirs, and the secondary literature (and, in Grybkauskas’s case, on oral interviews) to reveal how local leaders—first secretaries of oblasts (and of Soviet republics) and second secretaries in republic party committees—functioned after World War II and how their modus operandi changed as the USSR became less oppressive.
期刊介绍:
A leading journal of Russian and Eurasian history and culture, Kritika is dedicated to internationalizing the field and making it relevant to a broad interdisciplinary audience. The journal regularly publishes forums, discussions, and special issues; it regularly translates important works by Russian and European scholars into English; and it publishes in every issue in-depth, lengthy review articles, review essays, and reviews of Russian, Eurasian, and European works that are rarely, if ever, reviewed in North American Russian studies journals.