cover "Leonid Breschnew Staatsmann und Schauspieler im Schatten Stalins. Eine Biographie"

Leonid Brezhnev was Chairman of the CPSU from 1964 to 1982 and shaped the development of the Soviet Union for almost two decades. Contrary to what had long been claimed in the West, Brezhnev was not a hardliner or restalinizer, but had himself suffered under Stalin and seen so much suffering that he declared prosperity for all to be the general line of the party. The horrors he had experienced in the Second World War led him to seek a balance with the West. Brezhnev mimicked the Western statesman and was accepted by his partners as one of their own. But when Georges Pompidou died in 1974 and Willy Brandt and Richard Nixon resigned, Brezhnev found himself faced with the ruins of his policy of détente. For, as no one in the West suspected, there was no change of policy in the Kremlin. Stress and insomnia led Brezhnev into a pill addiction that further ruined his peace efforts: the invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet troops in 1979 was decided by a Politburo troika without him.
A man in his time: Based on numerous previously inaccessible sources, Eastern European historian Susanne Schattenberg presents the first academic biography of Leonid Brezhnev on the 35th anniversary of his death in November 2017.


ISBN: 978-3412502096

Back to overview
prison of difference

“‘Contradiction is the prison of difference‘ writes the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. Worlds of Contradiction asks: how can we explain and describe the world without making it more coherent and systematic than it is?”

Michi Knecht
driver

“Contradictions are an important driver of scientific practice and knowledge.”

Norman Sieroka
name contradiction

“Contradiction becomes real where someone names contradiction.”

Ingo H. Warnke
relational

“At first I thought contradiction was always a relational thing; but the more I ponder it, the more I think contradiction creates relation.”

Ingo H. Warnke
Afterlife of colonialism

“Contradiction comes in many different forms. None is so debilitating than when the coloniser transitions, textually not politically, to decoloniality without taking the responsibility for the afterlife of colonialism, which they continue to benefit from. Self-examination and self-interrogation of the relations of coloniality, a necessity, seem nearly impossible for the coloniser who continues to act as beneficiary, masked in the new-found language of White fragility, devoid of an ethical responsibility of the very system of White domination they claim to be against.” (Black Consciousness and the Politics of the Flesh)

Rozena Maart