Started Stalin's Guerillas. The first chapter was a letdown: a
repetitive rambling about searching for partisan soul with periodic
anit-stalinist incantations, hats all around, bloody foreigner accent,
apparently narrow focus of the study (the identify of Partisans and
their relationship to the Soviet state). Also, this is the author's
overgrown PhD thesis. *gack*. In contrast, I remember how Lou manages
to write about Turks and Turkish politics with warmth and
understanding.

Just as my hopes for the book flagged, the second chapter turned out
to be decent - he somewhat proficiently describes the composition of
the guerrilla units (which he endearingly calls "bands") and their
progression through the war. He started meaning archival research and
real data.  BTW, the book is not "popular" - there is little
background on the Soviet state, WWII, etc.

An interesting thought: the partisan activity and the strength of the
movement correlated with the Red Army success on the actual
front. Apparently, just the mere presence of the red army and the idea
that it is fighting gave meaning to the partisan movement. This is
parallel to your point that Washington's army was in part a catalyst
of guerrilla activity in the south during the american revolution.

----------------

Stalin's guerrillas is an effing student paper. I am on page 132 or
so. The specific topic - partisans' search for identity with respect
to the relationship with the Soviet state is banal compared to the
drama that was unfolding. So the second (after the introduction)
chapter where Slepyan covers the background is far more
engaging. Also, as Slepyan tries to do original scholarship, he skirts
extensively using other sources. Thus, the narrative weaves around the
interesting facts and events covered by others. The book solely misses
on war anecdotes, personal stories and descriptions of live and death
of the partisans while being heavy on bureaucratic infighting away from
the action.

-----------------

I am on page 200+ in Guerrillas. I think I'll upgrade my evaluation of
Slepyan. I guess the title of the book has to be taken seriously: the
book is about the "partisan" identity not about Soviet partisan
movement in general.  My recent thought is that it's the book of the
tail end of the cold war scholarship. And it is Slepyan's advisor's
fault for picking such a mundane subject out of such a dramatic event
as people's movement to defend their motherland against overwhelming
odds.

And for his part Slepyan does a fairly decent job with the cards he is
dealt. He does not slide towards idealism which is an easy pitfall
with the subject like that. He manages to tease as much substance out
of it as possible. And, surprisingly, there are interesting questions
about guerrilla strategy and organization: should they accept civilians
or professionals? Should they accept non-combatants, women?  Should
they defend the population or expose it to German reprisals hoping to
speed up requirements. Should they accept former collaborators? Should
they organize along party or military guidelines?  Should they help the
peasants raise the crops or destroy it so that it does not fall into
occupier's hands? Should they attack collaborators? And so on.

The rivalry between military-formed and party-formed partisan
detachments is interesting. Also interesting is a fact that
"ocruzhentsy" (the soldiers that were left behind the enemy lines
after German blitzkrieg of '41) frequently chose to collaborate with
the Germans to get out of POW camps and then switched sides and
jointed the partisans. Interesting how in '43-44 the ranks of
partisans swell with the people who set out the war and now wanted to
get on the good side of advancing Soviets. The sections on
relationship between minorities and Slavic partisans and the treatment
of women are well done. Interesting how in the masculine culture of
the partisan detachment women were treated as "camp followers" and to
be considered equals they went on military missions; and then, after
returning, had to pull a double duty of cooking and laundering because
men refused to do "woman's work". Nice to see Slepyan acknowledging
that Soviet ideology required egalitarian treatment of women and
achieved (limited) gains against the macho partisan culture. One might
also mention that US military of that war was fighting in segregated
units and even medics were male.

The gripes are that Slepyan adopts a dispassionate academic cold warrior
tone in his writing. It would not hurt to show compassion for people
starving, freezing, fighting and dying for their country. All attempts
at centralized control and coordination are labeled Stalinist. Slepyan
could not seem to decide how to call partisan formations: units,
detachments, brigades, bands, occasionally even Russian "otriad"s.
Overall, Russian words are overused. Occasionally they are not even
italicized. I think the word "partizanschina" that Slepyan is
particularly fond of, was coined after WWII and means actions outside
the approved channels, without authorization or circumventing official
rules or regulations. In WWII "partizanschina" just meant acting as
partisans. That is all partisans did partizanchina.

--------------

I am a few pages away from finishing the guerillas. Surprisingly,
Slepyan gets better when he is off the subject. The last chapter
discisses Soviet historiography on partisans and WWII. How a "master
narrative" was constructed to shoehorn history into propping the
Soviet state: the Party and Stalin personally led the partisans into
fight against the German agressors and how people's avengers rose as
one to the party's call. How nuances and stories that contradicted
this narrative were expunged or ignored.  How this master narrative
mutated after Stalin's death. Rings so effing true.