What do you think?
Rate this book
Born to Kill in the USSR
An ex-actor poses as a gas company worker to enter homes without suspicion. When the doors are closed, he strikes with a camping ax. A love-scorned man hunts and eats women when a “magical force” tells him that drinking blood from a body cleanses the soul. Fifty-two people lie gunned down by the Ukrainian Terminator in a horrific six month tour de force that wipes out entire families. The largest park in Moscow witnesses over sixty people slaughtered in a twisted game of chess.
Born to Kill in the USSR is an unflinching portrait of the serial killer through the Soviet and Post-Soviet era. Forty-five men and women’s unconscionable devolutions are documented against the political complexities and social reality of the largest country in the world.
Born to Kill in the USSR is an unflinching portrait of the serial killer through the Soviet and Post-Soviet era. Forty-five men and women’s unconscionable devolutions are documented against the political complexities and social reality of the largest country in the world.
416 pages, Paperback
First published March 18, 2014
1 person is currently reading
14 people want to read
About the author
Robert Kalman
3 books1 followerRobert was born in Czechoslovakia but ended up living on three different continents, before he settled in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1999. Robert's first experience with authoring and publishing was when he started an information bulletin during his years as an air traffic control student. His travel article also published in the Czech magazine L+K. Even though Robert still likes aviation, he answered a different calling and became a Mountie in 2006. Since then, Robert worked on various violent crimes, one of which became national news in 2012. At that time he was already working on his first book - Born to Kill in the USSR, a portrait of the serial killer phenomenon in the Soviet and post-Soviet era.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 10, 2020
Born to kill in the USSR.
I found this book before it was even available to buy, but like a few other books I decided not to get it. Mainly because it wasn't as detailed as I wanted it to be. I knew this because I did some research on the book which I often try and do. Later on I decided to still get it. Russia as always fascinated me and before this book was ever published I did my own research into Russian serial killers and even had to translate sources. I also watched several documentaries even if they were in Russian. This was back in 2013, 2014, etc. One of the reasons I got this book is because of my fascination with Russian serial killers, and another is because of the price tag on this book. When it was first published it was relatively inexpensive. Now it can be very expensive. The book also includes Anatoly Slivko and Sergey Golovkin. Two of my favorite Russian cases, besides Chikatilo. Golovkin should absolutely be remembered as one of the cruelest and most evil serial killers ever to live. Instead he's pretty obscure, another aspect shared with serial killer Andre Rand. Andre Rand was a serial killer who spawned the American camp fire stories of Cropsey. Golovkin spawned the Russian camp fire stories of "The fisher."
The books is not just a senseless mix of Russian serial killer cases. Which really helps make this book worth reading. It gives context. It gives context to the Russian culture at the time and differences in life style. One of them is the word "toilet." This has always kind of confused me, but the author makes this more clear. The russians have two bathrooms. One for a toilet and another for a shower and sink I would guess. In other countries the word "toilet" is a term meaning bathroom/restroom. So I wasn't sure what it meant in the context of Russia. The author mentions the famine due to Joseph Stalin and how common cannibalism really was and the extent of those cases, etc. More clear then other accounts. I had no idea there were so many cases. This was not a mere 100 or so people. So the author gives us context as to what Russia was like at the time which I really appreciate. The author begins from the beginning in the 1920s and eventually to the modern day when this book was written. It's pretty detailed when it talks about Anatoly Slivko who predated Chikatilo. Would still love a full book dedicated to the case though. His murders are just as gruesome and depressing as Chikatilo and Golovkin. I personally like to use Slivko as an argument against blaming media or porn for people's actions. Since Slivko's murders were influenced by a nazi shooting a dog during WW2 and then seeing a boy being hit and killed in a bus accident by a drunk driver. I mean, how the hell can you really avoid all of that? That just goes to show how pointless and trivial the argument is. When people say "you can listen to gospel music and go on a killing spree." well, the case of Slivko certainly shows that as does Albert Fish. Not just Slivko but a lot of Soviet serial killers who admitted they experienced their first real sexual excitement from seeing gruesome scenes in war. Which came first? The sexual sadism or witnessing such gruesomeness? I would say they were born sadist and when they saw gruesome violence, it excited them. SO WHAT?! That's a war you can never ever win. If the killer wasn't a sexual sadist BEFORE they witnessed the gruesome scene, then it would of done nothing and how are you gonna avoid them being exposed to that at all cost?! It's completely irrational. I can't help but think of James Fox in response to "no notoriety" in terms of Joseph DeAngelo aka the original night stalker.
"Some who is - *snickers at the absurdity* It takes a lot! To get to the point where you desire to rape, sodomize, and murder people. Just seeing some other guy out there in the news isn't going to turn you into a sexual sadist."
It's cases like Slivko that make me go "yeah, your argument is trivial and stupid."
Slivko was clearly a sexual sadist before he ever witnessed that bus crash.
By the way, Russia during this time had a ton of serial killers, yet the news of them was suppressed. There was no "notoriety" of any of these serial killers, never made into the news papers, and yet there were so many active at the time. So here you have a society implimenting this insane "no notoriety" only it wasn't because of this smoke screen of exaggerated claims of "copycats" but because of the propraganda of "our communist soviet society is perfect and therefor doesn't produce the poisons of the west." and did that stop serial killers from being born and active? HELL NO!!!!! In fact it was just one of the reasons for them having higher body count.
After Slivko the cases start getting kind of boring, not as interesting. One of the things wrong with this book is the total lack of real descriptions. For instance it mentions several serial killers attacking their victims on the streets or near a railway station. The murders are so vague that I don't get a clear picture of where the crimes were committed and the context within that. The book started off strong but eventually begins to move like a roller coaster. Had no idea that in 1980 Russia hosted the olypics. Ironic that America boycotted it and then 4 years later Russia boycotted it being hosted in America.
Largely because the cases aren't greatly detailed this book eventually lost me. This book could of been really great, but the cases just aren't greatly detailed enough. Very dry and nondescriptive when it comes to many of these cases. Many of the murders are completely glossed over. "Another victim was found." "The murderer had killed 4 other women." No real detail into the psychology or personality of the killers. Barely goes into detail of where the crimes were actually committed. Maybe it's because of my depression or going to bed at 3 or 4 in the morning, but the book lost me around page 163 into my favorite russian serial killer case Andrei Chikatilo. This book did pique my interest a bit in Boris Gusakov aka the "student hunter." Was able to find a bit more out about the case including the fact that he hid the murder weapon [his knife] in a hidden compartment of his shotgun. I did find some new facts about Chikatilo I didn't know before in this book. So that's good. Mainly the fallout of his family. After Chikatilo it goes into multiple cases I've really wanted to know more about but of course a lot of facts are left out, aren't as descriptive as they could be. That is over all the problem with this book. Not as descriptive and detailed as it could and should of been. The case of Sergey Golovkin is horrifying, but it isn't as gruesome and disturbing as it could of been in this book. The author should pick at least 3 or 4 of these cases and write entire books on the case. I'd love full books on Golovkin, Slivko, Sukletin, Gusakov, Raevsky, and or Kulik.
Eventually the book gets to the "chess board killer" Alexander Pichushkin and comments about "no notoriety". No, Chikatilo didn't make him kill at all. Sasha [nickname] was a psychopath very early on and a sadist. He terrorized his friend by dangling him out a window. The book mentions him being knocked unconscious from a swing but doesn't mention that it caused brain damage. Two of the traits from his injury are problems with impulse control and personality problems. He killed his best friend because he "wanted to know how it felt to kill." and didn't kill for years. The book never mentions the fact that what sparked his killing spree was the death of his dog. Obviously a trigger and after that he decided to keep killing. It is blatantly obvious that he would of killed regardless of the notoriety of Chikatilo. After all Russia had a ton of serial killers with zero notoriety. It didn't stop them what so ever.
It goes on to the Sergey Tkach case. His narcissism was more so then most other psychopathic killers and he was killing with zero notoriety. He didn't care, didn't stop him from his pedophilic and sadistic urges. Didn't stop him from being an arrogant selfish murderer.
Notoriety doesn't cause narcissism, sadism, sexual fetishism, poor impulse control, or psychopathy.
The author gives a short bio of all the major players [detectives and psychologist and institutes and organizations] and some Russian cultural background in context of serial murder.
Overall, a disappointment and a clear example of why I rarely get these types of books. By "types of books" I mean books about a myriad of cases. I prefer books that focus on a single case. That dedicate the entire book on a single case. You get everything you would want usually. You get a better told narrative, far more facts, far better descriptions of what actually happened, you generally get a better description of the killer and detectives, etc.
Took a while to read since I was going to bed at 5 in the morning and it's been freezing cold even in April. So cold that it's too cold to open a book and read. Plus my bedroom light was beginning to dim because I accidentally left it on all day at least 2 or 3 times. Glad I was able to get batteries while still in quarantine during the Coronavirus pandemic. Plus it just wasn't very well written. A really good read can actually speed my reading which is why I've finished very long books in a relatively short period.
I must point out that I notice a contradiction. The author shares a comment by an author basically blaming media "entertainment" for violence and the author sort of agrees with "no notoriety" and yet earlier in the book he mentions that a lot of the soviet serial killers were greatly influenced by the absolute depressing circumstances of the Stalin's regime and WW2. Seeing women raped by soldiers, seeing their fellow soviets blown to pieces, heads being blown off, seeing animals being shot by soldiers, seeing their fellow soviets starve and die from the famine. Mass cannibalism. Living in utter poverty and fear. Yet the author says "a lot of soviets experienced this." in fact the whole country experienced this but they didn't develop into serial killers. Same with notoriety and violent media which is FAKE. So real violence "millions saw the same thing and didn't become serial killers." yet fake fantasy violence....might be something to worry about?! That's incoherent especially when reality has a far far greater impact on people then mere fantasy. Chikatilo saw his neighbors being blown apart by bombs and he felt terror, fear, and sadistic excitement. Japan has a low murder rate and plays more violent video games then anyone in the world and I am sick and tired of the "less gun deaths." implying its due to easy access to guns. YET our non gun homicide rate is far higher then any other industrial modern society. Why do you have to bring up gun statistics?! We are talking about HOMICIDE, not homicide by gun only. So to me that framing of the response shows an agenda and I say that as a gun owner but also as someone who supports gun control. When someone makes a "blame violent entertainment" your response should be
"Look at our homicide rate compared to Japan where they absolutely love violent entertainment." NOT "look at our gun homicide rate compared to Japans." In fact, that is incoherent, utterly incoherent. We could have a higher gun homicide rate but a lower non gun homicide rate then japan, right???!!! Japan could still have a higher murder rate but less deaths by guns!!!!! It isn't true at all. Japan has a very low murder rate, but that could be the case. Any idiot could say "yeah, less gun deaths, but Japan is just full of murder. Their murder rate is skyrocketing." and they would be wrong and you'd have to correct them, and actually find out if that's true or not and luckily for you they'd be wrong, but you gave them that ammo. If I was the idiot in that debate and didn't know the statistics I would say "Japan could still have a higher murder rate. Gun deaths has nothing to do with homicide over all. We could have 2,000 gun deaths in the U.S but Japan could still have 4,000 non gun deaths. You didn't refute anything!" So why in a debate about "violent entertainment causes violence" would you use ONLY gun homicide rates?! Other then complete bias?! It's just a completely incoherent response.
I found this book before it was even available to buy, but like a few other books I decided not to get it. Mainly because it wasn't as detailed as I wanted it to be. I knew this because I did some research on the book which I often try and do. Later on I decided to still get it. Russia as always fascinated me and before this book was ever published I did my own research into Russian serial killers and even had to translate sources. I also watched several documentaries even if they were in Russian. This was back in 2013, 2014, etc. One of the reasons I got this book is because of my fascination with Russian serial killers, and another is because of the price tag on this book. When it was first published it was relatively inexpensive. Now it can be very expensive. The book also includes Anatoly Slivko and Sergey Golovkin. Two of my favorite Russian cases, besides Chikatilo. Golovkin should absolutely be remembered as one of the cruelest and most evil serial killers ever to live. Instead he's pretty obscure, another aspect shared with serial killer Andre Rand. Andre Rand was a serial killer who spawned the American camp fire stories of Cropsey. Golovkin spawned the Russian camp fire stories of "The fisher."
The books is not just a senseless mix of Russian serial killer cases. Which really helps make this book worth reading. It gives context. It gives context to the Russian culture at the time and differences in life style. One of them is the word "toilet." This has always kind of confused me, but the author makes this more clear. The russians have two bathrooms. One for a toilet and another for a shower and sink I would guess. In other countries the word "toilet" is a term meaning bathroom/restroom. So I wasn't sure what it meant in the context of Russia. The author mentions the famine due to Joseph Stalin and how common cannibalism really was and the extent of those cases, etc. More clear then other accounts. I had no idea there were so many cases. This was not a mere 100 or so people. So the author gives us context as to what Russia was like at the time which I really appreciate. The author begins from the beginning in the 1920s and eventually to the modern day when this book was written. It's pretty detailed when it talks about Anatoly Slivko who predated Chikatilo. Would still love a full book dedicated to the case though. His murders are just as gruesome and depressing as Chikatilo and Golovkin. I personally like to use Slivko as an argument against blaming media or porn for people's actions. Since Slivko's murders were influenced by a nazi shooting a dog during WW2 and then seeing a boy being hit and killed in a bus accident by a drunk driver. I mean, how the hell can you really avoid all of that? That just goes to show how pointless and trivial the argument is. When people say "you can listen to gospel music and go on a killing spree." well, the case of Slivko certainly shows that as does Albert Fish. Not just Slivko but a lot of Soviet serial killers who admitted they experienced their first real sexual excitement from seeing gruesome scenes in war. Which came first? The sexual sadism or witnessing such gruesomeness? I would say they were born sadist and when they saw gruesome violence, it excited them. SO WHAT?! That's a war you can never ever win. If the killer wasn't a sexual sadist BEFORE they witnessed the gruesome scene, then it would of done nothing and how are you gonna avoid them being exposed to that at all cost?! It's completely irrational. I can't help but think of James Fox in response to "no notoriety" in terms of Joseph DeAngelo aka the original night stalker.
"Some who is - *snickers at the absurdity* It takes a lot! To get to the point where you desire to rape, sodomize, and murder people. Just seeing some other guy out there in the news isn't going to turn you into a sexual sadist."
It's cases like Slivko that make me go "yeah, your argument is trivial and stupid."
Slivko was clearly a sexual sadist before he ever witnessed that bus crash.
By the way, Russia during this time had a ton of serial killers, yet the news of them was suppressed. There was no "notoriety" of any of these serial killers, never made into the news papers, and yet there were so many active at the time. So here you have a society implimenting this insane "no notoriety" only it wasn't because of this smoke screen of exaggerated claims of "copycats" but because of the propraganda of "our communist soviet society is perfect and therefor doesn't produce the poisons of the west." and did that stop serial killers from being born and active? HELL NO!!!!! In fact it was just one of the reasons for them having higher body count.
After Slivko the cases start getting kind of boring, not as interesting. One of the things wrong with this book is the total lack of real descriptions. For instance it mentions several serial killers attacking their victims on the streets or near a railway station. The murders are so vague that I don't get a clear picture of where the crimes were committed and the context within that. The book started off strong but eventually begins to move like a roller coaster. Had no idea that in 1980 Russia hosted the olypics. Ironic that America boycotted it and then 4 years later Russia boycotted it being hosted in America.
Largely because the cases aren't greatly detailed this book eventually lost me. This book could of been really great, but the cases just aren't greatly detailed enough. Very dry and nondescriptive when it comes to many of these cases. Many of the murders are completely glossed over. "Another victim was found." "The murderer had killed 4 other women." No real detail into the psychology or personality of the killers. Barely goes into detail of where the crimes were actually committed. Maybe it's because of my depression or going to bed at 3 or 4 in the morning, but the book lost me around page 163 into my favorite russian serial killer case Andrei Chikatilo. This book did pique my interest a bit in Boris Gusakov aka the "student hunter." Was able to find a bit more out about the case including the fact that he hid the murder weapon [his knife] in a hidden compartment of his shotgun. I did find some new facts about Chikatilo I didn't know before in this book. So that's good. Mainly the fallout of his family. After Chikatilo it goes into multiple cases I've really wanted to know more about but of course a lot of facts are left out, aren't as descriptive as they could be. That is over all the problem with this book. Not as descriptive and detailed as it could and should of been. The case of Sergey Golovkin is horrifying, but it isn't as gruesome and disturbing as it could of been in this book. The author should pick at least 3 or 4 of these cases and write entire books on the case. I'd love full books on Golovkin, Slivko, Sukletin, Gusakov, Raevsky, and or Kulik.
Eventually the book gets to the "chess board killer" Alexander Pichushkin and comments about "no notoriety". No, Chikatilo didn't make him kill at all. Sasha [nickname] was a psychopath very early on and a sadist. He terrorized his friend by dangling him out a window. The book mentions him being knocked unconscious from a swing but doesn't mention that it caused brain damage. Two of the traits from his injury are problems with impulse control and personality problems. He killed his best friend because he "wanted to know how it felt to kill." and didn't kill for years. The book never mentions the fact that what sparked his killing spree was the death of his dog. Obviously a trigger and after that he decided to keep killing. It is blatantly obvious that he would of killed regardless of the notoriety of Chikatilo. After all Russia had a ton of serial killers with zero notoriety. It didn't stop them what so ever.
It goes on to the Sergey Tkach case. His narcissism was more so then most other psychopathic killers and he was killing with zero notoriety. He didn't care, didn't stop him from his pedophilic and sadistic urges. Didn't stop him from being an arrogant selfish murderer.
Notoriety doesn't cause narcissism, sadism, sexual fetishism, poor impulse control, or psychopathy.
The author gives a short bio of all the major players [detectives and psychologist and institutes and organizations] and some Russian cultural background in context of serial murder.
Overall, a disappointment and a clear example of why I rarely get these types of books. By "types of books" I mean books about a myriad of cases. I prefer books that focus on a single case. That dedicate the entire book on a single case. You get everything you would want usually. You get a better told narrative, far more facts, far better descriptions of what actually happened, you generally get a better description of the killer and detectives, etc.
Took a while to read since I was going to bed at 5 in the morning and it's been freezing cold even in April. So cold that it's too cold to open a book and read. Plus my bedroom light was beginning to dim because I accidentally left it on all day at least 2 or 3 times. Glad I was able to get batteries while still in quarantine during the Coronavirus pandemic. Plus it just wasn't very well written. A really good read can actually speed my reading which is why I've finished very long books in a relatively short period.
I must point out that I notice a contradiction. The author shares a comment by an author basically blaming media "entertainment" for violence and the author sort of agrees with "no notoriety" and yet earlier in the book he mentions that a lot of the soviet serial killers were greatly influenced by the absolute depressing circumstances of the Stalin's regime and WW2. Seeing women raped by soldiers, seeing their fellow soviets blown to pieces, heads being blown off, seeing animals being shot by soldiers, seeing their fellow soviets starve and die from the famine. Mass cannibalism. Living in utter poverty and fear. Yet the author says "a lot of soviets experienced this." in fact the whole country experienced this but they didn't develop into serial killers. Same with notoriety and violent media which is FAKE. So real violence "millions saw the same thing and didn't become serial killers." yet fake fantasy violence....might be something to worry about?! That's incoherent especially when reality has a far far greater impact on people then mere fantasy. Chikatilo saw his neighbors being blown apart by bombs and he felt terror, fear, and sadistic excitement. Japan has a low murder rate and plays more violent video games then anyone in the world and I am sick and tired of the "less gun deaths." implying its due to easy access to guns. YET our non gun homicide rate is far higher then any other industrial modern society. Why do you have to bring up gun statistics?! We are talking about HOMICIDE, not homicide by gun only. So to me that framing of the response shows an agenda and I say that as a gun owner but also as someone who supports gun control. When someone makes a "blame violent entertainment" your response should be
"Look at our homicide rate compared to Japan where they absolutely love violent entertainment." NOT "look at our gun homicide rate compared to Japans." In fact, that is incoherent, utterly incoherent. We could have a higher gun homicide rate but a lower non gun homicide rate then japan, right???!!! Japan could still have a higher murder rate but less deaths by guns!!!!! It isn't true at all. Japan has a very low murder rate, but that could be the case. Any idiot could say "yeah, less gun deaths, but Japan is just full of murder. Their murder rate is skyrocketing." and they would be wrong and you'd have to correct them, and actually find out if that's true or not and luckily for you they'd be wrong, but you gave them that ammo. If I was the idiot in that debate and didn't know the statistics I would say "Japan could still have a higher murder rate. Gun deaths has nothing to do with homicide over all. We could have 2,000 gun deaths in the U.S but Japan could still have 4,000 non gun deaths. You didn't refute anything!" So why in a debate about "violent entertainment causes violence" would you use ONLY gun homicide rates?! Other then complete bias?! It's just a completely incoherent response.
January 15, 2016
In many ways this is a good read, but in many ways it leaves me wanting more. The author thumbnails case after case after case of serial murder in the USSR, but he doesn't really have room to do much more than that. He drove me out of my skull by leaving out names and dates quite randomly -- the victims do not get the attention or respect they really deserve, in my opinion. "At 12:31 p.m. on October 10th, 1981 he killed another Olga, the third in a row" is not my idea of complete information. The book does offer a glossary, and index and a list of sources so you do have a shot at learning more.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews