What do you think?
Rate this book
Loyal Comrades, Ruthless Killers : The Secret Services of the USSR 1920's to the Present
This is the illustrated story of the secret services of the Soviet Union which were intimately involved in many of the great conflicts of the twentieth century between 1917 and 1991, including the assassination of Leon Trotsky in 1940 and the crushing of the Hungarian and Czechs in the 1950s.
- GenresHistoryRussiaNonfiction
Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
May 24, 2018
Tales from the cloack-and-dagger universe are never crystal, so this history still contains many lacunes & assumptions. It makes for a slightly confusing read, albeit beautifully illustrated.
How many novelties do I take away from this ? As per usual, the 1938-45 period has my undivided attention. Perhaps the suggestion that the Great Terror claimed more real anti-communists and reinstated more Red Army officers than commonly assumed. The role of double agents in the confusion that plagued Stavka as to the exact date of invasion, as well as the number of German divisions involved and their roads of advance. Most reports got one out of three right and the rest wrong (even Richard Sorge couldn't pump the ambassador's wife for all info), which goes a way to explains Stalin's angry confusion when he notes in the margins "tell this agent to go f*** his mother !"
The fact that the NKVD deployed entire divisions' worth of troops in the catastrophic first days of Barbarossa and beyond. In such numbers, their task encompassed a lot more than just forming 'blocking detachments' who post machine-guns (and mortars!) at the backs of their own Ivans. They prepared final stands on the avenues leading to the Kremlin. They took part in combat and suffered heavy casualties... does this sound like the Waffen-SS ? The scale of the secret service's guidance of partisan activity behind German lines is staggering: Katamidze claims a number of 700.000 agents of whom many were trained in a manner reminiscent of the SOE and the commandos.
The meat on the post-war period lies with the development of the Soviet nuclear program, which owes to many more individuals than just the Cambridge Five and Klaus Fuchs. What do I refuse to hear ? I'm loathe to accept a good word on Beria. The characterisation of Crustchev as an incompetent schemer - by the proverb "those who can, lead ; those who can't, conspire" - is brutal for a non-biography. Finally, the bibliography is very meager, at least in this edition. Where are the dozens of pages filled with archive references in inpronouncable Latinized Russian ?
How many novelties do I take away from this ? As per usual, the 1938-45 period has my undivided attention. Perhaps the suggestion that the Great Terror claimed more real anti-communists and reinstated more Red Army officers than commonly assumed. The role of double agents in the confusion that plagued Stavka as to the exact date of invasion, as well as the number of German divisions involved and their roads of advance. Most reports got one out of three right and the rest wrong (even Richard Sorge couldn't pump the ambassador's wife for all info), which goes a way to explains Stalin's angry confusion when he notes in the margins "tell this agent to go f*** his mother !"
The fact that the NKVD deployed entire divisions' worth of troops in the catastrophic first days of Barbarossa and beyond. In such numbers, their task encompassed a lot more than just forming 'blocking detachments' who post machine-guns (and mortars!) at the backs of their own Ivans. They prepared final stands on the avenues leading to the Kremlin. They took part in combat and suffered heavy casualties... does this sound like the Waffen-SS ? The scale of the secret service's guidance of partisan activity behind German lines is staggering: Katamidze claims a number of 700.000 agents of whom many were trained in a manner reminiscent of the SOE and the commandos.
The meat on the post-war period lies with the development of the Soviet nuclear program, which owes to many more individuals than just the Cambridge Five and Klaus Fuchs. What do I refuse to hear ? I'm loathe to accept a good word on Beria. The characterisation of Crustchev as an incompetent schemer - by the proverb "those who can, lead ; those who can't, conspire" - is brutal for a non-biography. Finally, the bibliography is very meager, at least in this edition. Where are the dozens of pages filled with archive references in inpronouncable Latinized Russian ?
September 7, 2017
This book has some fascinating photos from the author’s extensive personal collection, but I suspect Mr. Katamidze is a former Soviet chekist or has close ties to them. He is a barefaced apologist for the loathsome Beria and a denier of Soviet guilt for the Katyn murders – despite revelations from the so-called Stalin Archives which include memoranda ordering the executions signed by Beria.
March 18, 2020
This is a rather informative book that paints a very interesting picture as to the internal workings of the intelligence agencies of the former Soviet Union. The narrative ends at roughly the year 2000, and it speaks rather optimistically about Vladimir Putin coming to power as the fresh, young, new President - which is rather ironic 20 years later...
I also tend to think it glosses a bit too quickly over the events of the coup in 1991, but perhaps that is subject matter best left to other books.
It's a shame to learn that a process started by Lenin and continued by Stalin was derailed so thoroughly be Khrushchev and Brezhnev; the true enemies of the socialist cause. It was also a bit refreshing to learn about how much inaccurate picture of Stalin has been painted by the West and reformist Russian historians. I'm not trying to say Stalin was a "good guy" or anything, more that we have completely exaggerated the worst of his atrocities to make him far more than what he actually was.
And, it's not like he was wrong, for as this book clearly shows, there was indeed a pro-German plot (if not several) against Stalin at the time of the purges, and had they not been conducted, it is entirely possible that we would have seen a Second World War in which the Soviet Union and the German Reich were on the same side.
Ah, well...history, as always is written by the victors and its books like these which help us to capture a more accurate view of actual history rather than the narrative we are fed.
I also tend to think it glosses a bit too quickly over the events of the coup in 1991, but perhaps that is subject matter best left to other books.
It's a shame to learn that a process started by Lenin and continued by Stalin was derailed so thoroughly be Khrushchev and Brezhnev; the true enemies of the socialist cause. It was also a bit refreshing to learn about how much inaccurate picture of Stalin has been painted by the West and reformist Russian historians. I'm not trying to say Stalin was a "good guy" or anything, more that we have completely exaggerated the worst of his atrocities to make him far more than what he actually was.
And, it's not like he was wrong, for as this book clearly shows, there was indeed a pro-German plot (if not several) against Stalin at the time of the purges, and had they not been conducted, it is entirely possible that we would have seen a Second World War in which the Soviet Union and the German Reich were on the same side.
Ah, well...history, as always is written by the victors and its books like these which help us to capture a more accurate view of actual history rather than the narrative we are fed.
February 9, 2017
An excellent warning for letting an extreme left go unchecked.
Read
June 27, 2020I own a Lithuanian translation of this book and I do enjoy rereading it from time to time.
The author is a former/ex- soviet agent. He uses 42 bibliographic sources, out of which 21 is Russian. The author also used many memoirs of former KGB as well as other USSR organization agents (their memoirs are quoted in almost every chapter. They provide unique insight, useful information and a better understandment) and a huge amount of internet files, that aren't specifically listed(or even mentioned).
The book is well illustrated with 167 pictures from 9 collections, one of which is the author's personal collection.
There are 10 main chapters in this book. Each dedicated to the development of the Soviet Secret police and its contribution to the history and politics of the USSR. From Cheka during the Russian Civil War and famine of 1921-1922, their war with actual criminals, political opposition and the people of Soviet Union; then the actions and work of the OGPU during the NEP period, the development of GULAG, the periods of Collectivization and Industrialization of the country. The role of NKVD in the Great Purges of 1930s, elimination of Trotsky, operations during the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War as well as their effort in getting the secret of nuclear weapons for the Soviet Union. How It developed into the KGB. The role of KGB in serving Khrushchev, making Brezhnev the leader of USSR, spying on the West and the Soviet government's struggle against its people until the collapse of Soviet Union.
Plenty of stories about mostly Soviet spies in almost every chapter(especially the KGB chapters), the author has also written some brief biographies for mostly lesser known people at play of the events.
The introduction is short and simple, with an explanation of how & why this book was written + some excuses. Two names were changed at the request of their family members as they were still living in Russia when this book was published.
In addition to the main chapters, at the end of the book there is a short text about how the government of Soviet Union used to function. Then there is also a short dictionary(two pages).
In this book the author doesn't use the traditional form of citation. In the sense that there aren't any lists of notes to specific sources for certain statements, numbers or quotes at the end of each chapter nor is there one big list of notes for every chapter at the end of the book.
The one way some people and their works are cited is by direct quotes and statements from which book or even person they are from, without specific pages.
During the first three made chapters the author provides a history of social-democratic opposition to Soviet government, from their equivalents being betrayed by the Bolsheviks after outliving their usefulness, to people desiring actual democracy and freedoms in the Soviet Union as well as them being one of the actual forces Stalin needed Purges for.
Provides an actual pro-Stalin perspective, from agents that served back then, so not a modern armchair-Stalinists, but actual Stalinist defense of Stalin. In the process of doing this he tries to remove Stalin's responsibility.
If you have ever noticed some people state that Beria was possibly one of the most besmirched people in history, in this book it is explained why as that is the author's conclusion which he does provide some supporting statements for.(For this I believe it should be noted that one of his Russian sources is Beria's own son's book on Lavrentiy Beria.) Some of the author's statements defending Beria have been confirmed by historians and supported by some evidence that is available to me, while other claims are just misinformation. Since the author would agree that Beria was one of the most slandered people in history, it would have been interesting to read him tackle the accusations against Beria being responsible for Stalin's death.
The author does provide some reasonable cristicism of post-Stalin era.
While listing the crimes and terrible things done by Khrushchev the author remembers and recognises that Soviet deportations were a bad thing (When describing them under Stalin the author is justifying, overlooking or minimizing them). The author states that more than 70 people were killed during the Novocherkassk massacre, one of the most well known incidents of workers who decided to riot as well as other nearby people being massively shot while other sources state about 26 dead. There are two main options, either he includes victims that are not in the smaller number or the author is trying to exaggerate Khrushchev's crime(yes, there are other possible explanations). Another thing he failed to mention is how many people he gave rights to. Even the encyclopedia of Marxism that kolkhozes gained the ability to somewhat control over how to use their things as well as in general. He doesn't mention how much most of people's lives improved.
In his criticism of Brezhnev the author does not mention the good part of that person's leadership in the USSR. It is possible that the author forgot to mention that under him the living standards in the Soviet Union improved significantly, that work week was shortened to a five work day week.
One of the things that I am most grateful to the author is that
This book is a good add for the people who got to rule Russia in 1999. It does state the history of some of their families that was part of the stories covered in the book, especially World War 2. Furthermore, did you know that Putin's grandfather ? At the end of the book the author expresses his hopes for a bright future for the democratic and capitalist Russia and that the West together with Putin will make sure that the bad old days won't happen again.(Some researchers state that capitalism and democracy aren't really that compatable, due to one focusing on equality and common good while the other…)
SOME COMMENTARY ON CERTAIN NUMBERS MENTIONED OR USED BY THE AUTHOR:
-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-
The Red Terror :
-------------
Soviet Famine of the years 1921 – 1922:
(CONTINUES IN THE COMMENTS!)
The author is a former/ex- soviet agent. He uses 42 bibliographic sources, out of which 21 is Russian. The author also used many memoirs of former KGB as well as other USSR organization agents (their memoirs are quoted in almost every chapter. They provide unique insight, useful information and a better understandment) and a huge amount of internet files, that aren't specifically listed(or even mentioned).
The book is well illustrated with 167 pictures from 9 collections, one of which is the author's personal collection.
There are 10 main chapters in this book. Each dedicated to the development of the Soviet Secret police and its contribution to the history and politics of the USSR. From Cheka during the Russian Civil War and famine of 1921-1922, their war with actual criminals, political opposition and the people of Soviet Union; then the actions and work of the OGPU during the NEP period, the development of GULAG, the periods of Collectivization and Industrialization of the country. The role of NKVD in the Great Purges of 1930s, elimination of Trotsky, operations during the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War as well as their effort in getting the secret of nuclear weapons for the Soviet Union. How It developed into the KGB. The role of KGB in serving Khrushchev, making Brezhnev the leader of USSR, spying on the West and the Soviet government's struggle against its people until the collapse of Soviet Union.
Plenty of stories about mostly Soviet spies in almost every chapter(especially the KGB chapters), the author has also written some brief biographies for mostly lesser known people at play of the events.
The introduction is short and simple, with an explanation of how & why this book was written + some excuses. Two names were changed at the request of their family members as they were still living in Russia when this book was published.
In addition to the main chapters, at the end of the book there is a short text about how the government of Soviet Union used to function. Then there is also a short dictionary(two pages).
In this book the author doesn't use the traditional form of citation. In the sense that there aren't any lists of notes to specific sources for certain statements, numbers or quotes at the end of each chapter nor is there one big list of notes for every chapter at the end of the book.
The one way some people and their works are cited is by direct quotes and statements from which book or even person they are from, without specific pages.
During the first three made chapters the author provides a history of social-democratic opposition to Soviet government, from their equivalents being betrayed by the Bolsheviks after outliving their usefulness, to people desiring actual democracy and freedoms in the Soviet Union as well as them being one of the actual forces Stalin needed Purges for.
Provides an actual pro-Stalin perspective, from agents that served back then, so not a modern armchair-Stalinists, but actual Stalinist defense of Stalin. In the process of doing this he tries to remove Stalin's responsibility.
If you have ever noticed some people state that Beria was possibly one of the most besmirched people in history, in this book it is explained why as that is the author's conclusion which he does provide some supporting statements for.(For this I believe it should be noted that one of his Russian sources is Beria's own son's book on Lavrentiy Beria.) Some of the author's statements defending Beria have been confirmed by historians and supported by some evidence that is available to me, while other claims are just misinformation. Since the author would agree that Beria was one of the most slandered people in history, it would have been interesting to read him tackle the accusations against Beria being responsible for Stalin's death.
The author does provide some reasonable cristicism of post-Stalin era.
While listing the crimes and terrible things done by Khrushchev the author remembers and recognises that Soviet deportations were a bad thing (When describing them under Stalin the author is justifying, overlooking or minimizing them). The author states that more than 70 people were killed during the Novocherkassk massacre, one of the most well known incidents of workers who decided to riot as well as other nearby people being massively shot while other sources state about 26 dead. There are two main options, either he includes victims that are not in the smaller number or the author is trying to exaggerate Khrushchev's crime(yes, there are other possible explanations). Another thing he failed to mention is how many people he gave rights to. Even the encyclopedia of Marxism that kolkhozes gained the ability to somewhat control over how to use their things as well as in general. He doesn't mention how much most of people's lives improved.
In his criticism of Brezhnev the author does not mention the good part of that person's leadership in the USSR. It is possible that the author forgot to mention that under him the living standards in the Soviet Union improved significantly, that work week was shortened to a five work day week.
One of the things that I am most grateful to the author is that
This book is a good add for the people who got to rule Russia in 1999. It does state the history of some of their families that was part of the stories covered in the book, especially World War 2. Furthermore, did you know that Putin's grandfather ? At the end of the book the author expresses his hopes for a bright future for the democratic and capitalist Russia and that the West together with Putin will make sure that the bad old days won't happen again.(Some researchers state that capitalism and democracy aren't really that compatable, due to one focusing on equality and common good while the other…)
SOME COMMENTARY ON CERTAIN NUMBERS MENTIONED OR USED BY THE AUTHOR:
-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-
The Red Terror :
-------------
Soviet Famine of the years 1921 – 1922:
(CONTINUES IN THE COMMENTS!)
January 5, 2025
Er zit een zekere bias in het boek maar ik heb er echt veel van opgestoken. Aanrader
March 15, 2009
Interesting and well-written, with a nice layout and good photos. The author did a fine job of spending more time than most authors do on Lenin and Trotsky's time.
However, my major complaint is that at times I felt like I was reading propaganda, especially when it came to Stalin. On every historical question or issues, the author comes down firmly on Stalin's side, to the point that I thought he was minimizing Stalin's responsibility for the actions of the Soviet Union's secret services. That disturbed me and made me question the author's judgment and impartiality.
Interestingly enough, the author is unflinching with the other Soviet dictators. This just occurs with Stalin. Maybe because Stalin, like the author, was born in Georgia. Maybe because Stalin happened to be in power during WW2 and thus earned credit for repulsing the Nazis. Whatever the reason, it tarnished the book to an alarming degree.
However, my major complaint is that at times I felt like I was reading propaganda, especially when it came to Stalin. On every historical question or issues, the author comes down firmly on Stalin's side, to the point that I thought he was minimizing Stalin's responsibility for the actions of the Soviet Union's secret services. That disturbed me and made me question the author's judgment and impartiality.
Interestingly enough, the author is unflinching with the other Soviet dictators. This just occurs with Stalin. Maybe because Stalin, like the author, was born in Georgia. Maybe because Stalin happened to be in power during WW2 and thus earned credit for repulsing the Nazis. Whatever the reason, it tarnished the book to an alarming degree.
March 11, 2024
The Gulag Archipelago is a sad but beautiful 2000-page cry of pain. It's a work of genius, but is flawed as history, in part because it had to be constructed largely on the basis of unreliable personal memories and in part because Solzhenitsyn's personal point of view is so deeply embedded that it makes it hard to see objective facts beneath the horror of the personal experience. It would be nice to have a history of the Soviet secret police and the camps from a different perspective. No vindication of the horrors is possible, but I'd like to read something written with honesty that is based more on the surviving written records and more from the perspective of the perpetrators. Sadly, this is not the book for that.
I was never able to understand Mr. Katamidze's point of view. On the one hand, he has no sympathy for the ruthless violence of the early Cheka and the failings of Khruschchev. Iron Felix Dzerzhinsky and his henchmen come off as sadists, whose violence was unforgiveable and unnecessary, but there is next to nothing here about Lenin. Stalin, the greatest criminal, gets a pass. According to Mr. Katamidze, Stalin could not possibly have killed millions. The suffering of collectivization and the Holodomor are brushed off. The 90,000 who died building the White Sea Canal are acknowledged in a sentence. Mr. Katamidze would have us believe that the Industrial Plot was real, that Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Radek and the rest of the victims of the show trials were really guilty. We are told that Trotsky was the devil. Maybe so, but the idea that there was an organized Trotskyite opposition in the Soviet Union after Trotsky was sent into exile is fantasy. But that's not the end of it. The deportation of the nationalities is minimized as a necessary security measure; the massacre in the Katyn Forest is put on the Nazis. The OGPU troops stationed behind the frontline troops in the war with Germany with orders to shoot anyone deserting or retreating are praised as a measure of strength. And Beria was practically a saint, a brilliant and efficient administrator who freed the people unjustly imprisoned by Yezhov. Beria's role as the ruler of a slave labor empire of millions of unjustly imprisoned people is ignored. Wow. I could barely keep reading. And then we get to Khrushchev and Brezhnev who are roundly condemned as scheming plotters and incompetent rulers who only reached for power to cover up their own crimes. There's some truth in that, but the suggestion that Beria's hands were cleaner made my head spin.
The book ends in 1991. I'm not sure when it was written, but it was first published in English in 2003. When I try to cast my mind back to that era to understand the basis for Mr. Katamidze's odd perspective, I'm baffled. I guess he is a Great Russian nationalist who was politically aligned with the then up and coming Vladimir Putin. I think that he was trying to write a revisionist history that would seem factual in condemning some of the undeniable evils while still whitewashing the worst of it. Ugh. The result is a pack of lies that has far less truth in it than the "Short Course" history of the CPSU that was endorsed and partly authored by Stalin himself.
I was never able to understand Mr. Katamidze's point of view. On the one hand, he has no sympathy for the ruthless violence of the early Cheka and the failings of Khruschchev. Iron Felix Dzerzhinsky and his henchmen come off as sadists, whose violence was unforgiveable and unnecessary, but there is next to nothing here about Lenin. Stalin, the greatest criminal, gets a pass. According to Mr. Katamidze, Stalin could not possibly have killed millions. The suffering of collectivization and the Holodomor are brushed off. The 90,000 who died building the White Sea Canal are acknowledged in a sentence. Mr. Katamidze would have us believe that the Industrial Plot was real, that Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Radek and the rest of the victims of the show trials were really guilty. We are told that Trotsky was the devil. Maybe so, but the idea that there was an organized Trotskyite opposition in the Soviet Union after Trotsky was sent into exile is fantasy. But that's not the end of it. The deportation of the nationalities is minimized as a necessary security measure; the massacre in the Katyn Forest is put on the Nazis. The OGPU troops stationed behind the frontline troops in the war with Germany with orders to shoot anyone deserting or retreating are praised as a measure of strength. And Beria was practically a saint, a brilliant and efficient administrator who freed the people unjustly imprisoned by Yezhov. Beria's role as the ruler of a slave labor empire of millions of unjustly imprisoned people is ignored. Wow. I could barely keep reading. And then we get to Khrushchev and Brezhnev who are roundly condemned as scheming plotters and incompetent rulers who only reached for power to cover up their own crimes. There's some truth in that, but the suggestion that Beria's hands were cleaner made my head spin.
The book ends in 1991. I'm not sure when it was written, but it was first published in English in 2003. When I try to cast my mind back to that era to understand the basis for Mr. Katamidze's odd perspective, I'm baffled. I guess he is a Great Russian nationalist who was politically aligned with the then up and coming Vladimir Putin. I think that he was trying to write a revisionist history that would seem factual in condemning some of the undeniable evils while still whitewashing the worst of it. Ugh. The result is a pack of lies that has far less truth in it than the "Short Course" history of the CPSU that was endorsed and partly authored by Stalin himself.
March 12, 2009
I gave it three stars- not because it is the most amazing or telling book regrading intelligence agencies in the old USSR, but because it was very interesting to hear the perspective of a Georgian (a country that has large issues with Russia and is not an ally of the nation).
Of course it is bias- but sometimes reading a bias account of another countries intelligence agencies is more informative, and definitely amusing.
Of course it is bias- but sometimes reading a bias account of another countries intelligence agencies is more informative, and definitely amusing.
August 27, 2007
The first half is really good and goes into details about Russian intelligence that is never even mentioned in history classes. The second half doesn't go into the same details that it should with Russian history and the KGB. Still it discusses stuff one never really knew.
October 4, 2010
othlichna!
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews