Rating: 
Summary: A Great Account of the Revolution
Review: This is about as non-partisan a history that you can find for something as ideologically charged as the Russian revolution. But of course, non-partisan is still not impartial: a truly impartial history is impossible and impossibly boring. What's really wonderful about Orlando Figes' account is the coupling of sober analysis with a more sophisticated partiality. It is also written very well, replete with zesty anecdotes. Now let me explain what I mean by non-partisan but partial.
Traditionally, a given history of the Russian revolution divides into the two obvious camps. The leftist account is especially repugnant because it extricates Lenin from the bloodbath that ensued, which is doubtless an exercise in monstrous duplicity. The rightist view is more factually sound but the incessant pounding of the ... gavel gets in the way of analysis. Their black and white view of history is only too quick to blast and their viewpoint is duplicitous in more senses than one, though to a much lesser extent than the leftist apologists. I've actually liked the rightist view more because it clearly highlights the ... fruit of Leninism called Stalinism. But I've always wondered how they seemed to think that a revolution could be imposed more or less top-down. Granted, there was the galvanizing force called Lenin, but can one man's willpower really dominate a nation of 100 million+ people speaking diverse languages, largely illiterate, and alienated from the intelligentsia? I'm neither Russian nor a historian, thus, admittedly, my opinion carries little weight. But it seems to me that a revolution of this scale requires more willful participation than willy-nilly coercion at gunpoint, that, say, Paul Johnson would have you believe. (And anyone who is content with "Oh, but after all they're Russians" is perfectly irresponsible.) Figes addresses this point exactly. The thesis of the book is that the revolution is a bottom-up event and not top-down as has been held popularly. This wonderful excerpt from his epilogue hammers the point home deliciously: "Their [the Russian people's] revolutionary tragedy lay in the legacies of their own cultural backwardness rather than the evil of some 'alien' Bolsheviks. They were not the victims of the revolution but protagonists in its tragedy ... It was the weakness of Russia's democratic culture which enabled Bolshevism to take root." (pg.808). This is Figes' partiality on which his account of the revolution is built. And build it he does in the whopping 800 oversized pages. His bias really shows in these three aspects: (1) in the barbarism of the peasants (2) in the countless descriptions of how the populace either willfully or inadvertently misconstrued Bolshevism and (3) in emphasizing the haphazardness and opportunism of Bolshevist policies. As for (1), the book aims to show that horrific barbarism was not the sole property of the Bolsheviks, but shared in common with the people. It seems to me that apologists of the peasantry take a Dostoevskian populist view that holds the peasants to be, at bottom, upright people. Figes shows that this was hardly the case: the chapter titled "Icons and Cockroaches" contains a gruesome description of peasant mores (the Jewish pogroms are mentioned later). Here, a household maxim will suffice: "'Hit your wife with the butt of the axe, get down and see if she's breathing. If she is, she's shamming and wants some more'" (pg.97). (If you hold to the view that so-called backward societies are angelic, try Robert Edgerton's "Sick Societies".) On the other hand, Figes is also quick to point out that the Red Terror "was implicit in the regime from the start" (pg. 630). Frequent anecdotes of atrocities and atrocities committed in revenge are persuasive in arguing that brutality at least was equally shared. As for (2), the rightist's argument is that Reds triumphed because they were more ruthless than the Whites in their application of [creating trouble]. But can you really control an entire regiment at gunpoint and hope to win a war? Figes offers a much more reasonable explanation: the very fact that the Reds could claim to be the champions of the revolution and use powerful symbols like the Red Flag gave it the necessary impetus (pg. 668). Afterall, how can a largely illiterate peasantry understand concepts like 'socialism' and 'communism'? The vagueness of their political position is very clearly shown, to name one example, in the existence of cults of Kerensky and Lenin. All that the peasants ultimately comprehended were land and security. In the end, the people willfully supported the Reds, because they appeared to uphold the crucial land reform, and were therefore the lesser of two evils. As for (3), a typical example is his opinion of the origin of War Communism, that "much of it was in fact improvised" (pg. 614). Indeed, it would take an almost superhuman lucidity to plan the whole evolution into a police state from the very inception of Bolshevik rule. Figes' history of the revolution will show that Leninism "progressed" by fits and starts, often accompanied by clamorous disagreement among entrenched elements within the Party. Almost always, the external impetus was none other than the momentum of the Russian people. I am not able to assess whether the numerous memoranda, documents, etc. cited are authentic enough to be called facts. But there is nothing overtly suspicious that I've found. In which case, the above three points point to Figes' conclusion that the revolution was the handiwork of the Russian population. His bias would then merely be the correct perspective. Maxim Gorky, a writer who witnessed the revolution firsthand, wrote the following heartless indictment: "I do not believe that in the twentieth century there is such a thing as a 'betrayed people'" (pg. 808). This may in fact be the chilling truth.
Rating: 
Summary: Long, detailed, and fascinating
Review: This is an excellent book. It goes into great detail, focusing on all aspects of the revolution, from the political and military to the plight of the peasants on their farms. And it is all written in well-formed prose that is easy to follow, even for someone who's previous knowledge of that period of Russian history could be called rudimentary at best. I do have one complaint about this book, and this is why I only gave it 4 stars. That is in the subject of dates. Due to the way he wrote the book, he jumps back and forth in time to follow certain specific thoughts through to their logical conclusions. This is a strength of the book, but in listing dates, he often assumed you could keep track of the years, and so he would say "come November, xxxx happened." However, to put it in the larger context required a year, and furious flipping back many pages to find the year was infuriating for this armchair historian. Other than that flaw, however, I have nothing but praise for the book. The pictures were an added bonus, and brought some of the points home vividly. Recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Not quite as good as the author suggests
Review: This is quite a good book; but much less good than reviews indicate. In its favour, it covers a substantial topic in a fairly readable manner, without assuming previous knowledge of the subject on the part of the reader; it takes due account of recent scholarship; and it emphasises individual experience in the context of dramatic events. To its disadvantage, it relies on sources in English and Russian only; this is a major weakness. It also sets out to justify its existence by seeking to rubbish Richard Pipes' trilogy on the same subject. Thus, there is the stated intention to "rescue the Revolution from the Sovietologists"; and the first section ("Russia under the old regime") has the same title as the first volume of Pipes' work. But then, academics do this kind of thing all the time. More seriously, there is a tendency to see terrible events in terms of either "these things happen", or "they were all equally guilty". A quick look at the words of praise on the back cover, including a contribution by Mr Hobsbawm, gives the flavour. In other words, this is a very "political" history book indeed. For the conspiratorial, the bibliography is fun; US sources are almost all from Cornell, while Pipes relies on Harvard. And finally: Mr Figes should read a little good literature, with a view to improving his style, which is no great pleasure to read. The book is worth reading, and possibly even worth buying, but ONLY in conjunction with other, more seriously researched, work. And Pipes, even if a bit out of date, has not been surpassed here.
Rating:
Summary: an outstanding history of the bolshevik revolution
Review: with vivid attention to the impact of the bolshevik revolution on all levels of russian society, the author provides us with a definitive picture of the individuals who determined Russia`s course for the first 70 years of this century. this is history written at its best: you`ll understand Lenin, Stalin and the rest; you`ll also realize that russia could have gone in an other direction - had only a few decisions been made differently. this book is great.
| 
