In Stalin: Breaker of Nations, Robert Conquest has done what should never be done in historical works. He starts out with a point to prove, then chooses stories which support that point. This is a ridiculously skewed view of a terribly complex human being. Conquest compounds the problem by not footnoting the work at all, so that 90% of his material cannot even be found by anyone wishing to follow his research. He also, in the bibliographical notes, relates how other authors on Stalin have been "taken in" by various accounts, which are more neutral in their portrayal of Stalin... yet fails to expound on what other, more negative, sources have taken him in. For a simple work of character assasination (of a figure for whom this has been done MANY times), this work is acceptable. As a historical work, it is essentially useless