2 comments about Lenin's Brother: The Origins of the October Revolution.

1. In "Lenin's Brother: The Origins of the October Revolution," historian Philip Pomper has found himself a footnote to Russian revolutionary history on which to expand. For Lenin, you see, had an older brother, Alexander Ulanov, a brilliant young biology student in St. Petersburg. And Alexander suddenly joined a small group of students - and malcontents, principally Cossacks - to create an organization called the "Terrorist Faction of the People's Will." And they plotted to kill Russian Tsar Alexander III on March 1, 1887, the sixth anniversary of his father's assassination by the "People's Will," so that the Ulanov group is known to historians as the "Second First March." And, but for the fact that the group was inexplicably reckless in their security, they might have succeeded. As was, they failed disastrously, and five of them, including Alexander Ulanov, were hanged. He was but 21 years old.
   
   Alexander's life - and death--had a great influence on his younger brother Vladimir, who was but seventeen at the time. And Vladimir was to lead the October Revolution of 1917 under the assumed name of "Lenin." Funny, I am what's known around New York as a "red diaper baby," that is, my parents, as was not unusual around that time and place, were Reds. I probably knew who Lenin was before I knew who Bing Crosby was; but I surely had never heard of Lenin's brother, and was very interested in this book.
   
   Author Pomper is the William F. Armstrong Professor of History at Wesleyan University, Middleton, Connecticut. He has written and edited nine books, including The Russian Revolutionary Intelligentsia (European History Series). In writing "Lenin's Brother," he has explored recently opened archives of post-Soviet Russia, and the large array of published documents on the period. He gives us a great deal of background on Ulanov family history, the social mores of Russia, the university outlook, and Alexander's tragic little group of would-be terrorists. The writer really paints a very complete and interesting picture - and the book's illustrations are helpful, too. Mind you, I did sometimes find the Russian names heavy going, particularly those of some of the influential writers of the period, and the schools of thought they fathered, but this difficulty did not impede my understanding of the material.
   
   The author mentions Oblomov, a book written in 1859 by Ivan Goncharov. Turns out Goncharov was from the Ulanovs' hometown, and they were much aware of his work. But,beyond that, "Oblomov" was apparently greatly influential at the time and "Oblomovism" was used as a term by those on the left to describe the paralysis of the Russian middle class intelligentsia. "Oblomov" was assigned reading in a European literature course at Cornell University, and I loved it - it's one funny book. For our term paper, we were required to write an essay on one of the assigned books: I chose "Oblomov." I was upbraided by the teacher for my choice;the book wasn't "important" enough. So there, Herr Grossvogel.
   
   "Lenin's Brother," however, is a definitive book for those interested in Russian, or revolutionary, history. Strongly recommended.



2. "Lenin's Brother" is on the ROROTOKO list of cutting-edge intellectual nonfiction. Professor Pomper's book interview ran here as the cover feature on January 22, 2010.

5 comments about A Concise History of the Russian Revolution.

1. I am not an expert but have read a fair amount about the Russian Revolution and Stalinism. This history by Pipes lays responsibility exactly where I think it belongs. There were many issues in this complex mix of cultures, motives, challenges and histories. I do believe that the root cause of the horrendous cruelty Russians inflicted on themselves was hatred and power and I think this one the ideas in this book. Mayber this is simplistic of me but there is no evidence in the history of the period and its people that love of Russia or the well-being of its people was ever considered by Lenin or Trotsky. I think that it's great that Pipes lays this bare using historical facts. Even if Pipes is biased against them, the results of the Russian revolution speak for themselves --- a destroyed economy built on a holocaust of slave labor and the psychic destruction of a people, especially the Russian man.
   
   The last chapter is an absolutely superb summary, especially the point that the main challenge of serfs was not their oppression but it was their isolation. It's a very very interesting and sublte interpretation of different driving causes in Russian revolution far beyond what I could describe.
   
   Well worth the time to read.



2. This book is Richard Pipes own consolidation and abridgement of his two masterworks, "Russian Revolution" (1990) and "Russia under the Bolshevik Regime" (1994). The two volumes total 1,300 pages supported by 4,500 references.
   
   The "Concise History" redaction is 406 pages and includes a glossary, chronology, one page of references, and a very good index. It also has 76 photos and five maps. Although it is a work of impeccable scholarship, it is also highly readable and accessible to the average reader.
   
   Pipes is a virtuoso historian and perhaps the greatest chronicler of Russian history of all time. If you decide to read this history, you will learn a great deal about the most important event of the 20th Century (which spanned the two World Wars), and certainly the greatest experiment in utopian social engineering ever. In the process you will gain an extensive knowledge about the greatest foe the United States faced in the last Century, and how that foe came to its defeat.
   
   Pipes concludes that "the Russian Revolution appears as the unfolding of a tragedy in which events follow with inexorable force from the mentality and character of the protagonists." And his lifetime of study of these events has left him "...less sanguine about humanity's capacity to change itself."
   
   Recommended companion read: Aleksander Zolzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956," HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2002. This is a one volume abridgement by Zolzhenitsyn from the original seven volumes, which have now been remaindered.



3. There are boring books about history, but there is no boring history, according to Richard Pipes. I understand him to believe that what happens matters; that life is significant. (Something many modern historians seem none too sure about.) History carries meaning and its dynamism affects us in the present and on the other side of the world. With this level of respect and sensitivity he approaches his subject. And so this book--albeit of a difficult subject matter--is a pleasure to read.
   
   Pipe's approach helps the reader to stay open to discoveries and insights about what may be considered the "Red Elephant" in the room. The "Red Elephant" is a topic we can no longer avoid and yet still hope to progress in the worldview often simply called "modernity." Even though the proper care and role of capitalism is highly contested in our day, denial of the deeper realizations to be gleaned from this socialist experiment is not an option.
   
   Pipes emphasizes the uniqueness of Russia throughout his study. Only by deeply and thoroughly understanding Russia can we truly weigh the behavior of the Revolution's actors, or should I say bullies and beasts. That this history is ugly and deeply disturbing is an understatement.
   
   To understand the uniqueness of the Russian monarch, the Tsar, necessitates understanding the uniqueness of the Russian peasants. This is the central duality that the Bolsheviks had to contend with. Neither fit into Marx's Hegelian critique, the central player of which was supposed to be the proletariat--only 1% of the population, and only a tiny percentage of this 1% were ever central players.
   
   Pipes challenges the conventional view adopted uncritically from the Enlightenment of the "oppressed" peasants who simply need to be freed from monarch, church, and all other authorities, and modernism will triumph. Actually the main problem for the peasants was they were in their own world, isolated from education and technology and were a law and society onto themselves, with no real political or national awareness.
   
   Surprisingly, peasants "owned" 9/10 of the arable land--but communally, not individually. They believed that all the rest of the land was their due from God, and, through the Tsar, soon to be totally theirs--revolution or not. A humorous note: the peasants looked down on city dwellers and men without beards.
   
   Everyone seemed to be terrified of the peasants partly because they were 80 percent of the population and were taxed but barely communicated with or even acknowledged. They often rebelled, and are described as Hobbesian anarchist--without respect for law; yet they often responded with an attitude of fatalism--understandably so since edicts would drop down on them out of nowhere. (This did not change with the Revolution.)
   
   The peasants were the wild card for the Revolutionaries. Everyone wished they would just go away; they didn't fit the formula. Whether they were destined for the Gulag or not very much depended on where they lived. Those in the wealthier bread-basket areas could and would be considered by the Bolsheviks petty bourgeoisie or kulaks, peasants with some ownership interests, capitalists, hence "enemies of the people"--believe it or not. Their socialistic traditions of always breaking up the land and sharing equally in everything kept anyone from really developing a strong system of agriculture for even one generation. (Orlando Figes' book, "A People's Tragedy," fleshes out peasant life with numerous fascinating examples, and I highly recommend it.)
   
   The Bolsheviks would not be stopped merely by reality, but rather forced reality into their Marxist critique or changed the critique as they took control. Pipes seems to give Marx more of a pass than I would, in terms of responsibility for crazy thinking masquerading as scientific reason.
   
   A belief in history as inexorable was at the heart of the Marxist-Leninism ideology. In his chapter "Spiritual Life," Pipes describes this belief as a primitive faith rooted in much deeper layers of human psychology than the relatively recent traditions and beliefs the Bolsheviks sought, in the name of modernity, to utterly eradicate. In seeking to deny and escape faith, the Revolutionaries became a fanatical example of what they hated.
   
   Though I cannot agree with the author's conservation politics and economics--conclusions he may have drawn from his studies--nevertheless, his writing should be challenged only on its truth and rigor: He leaves you plenty of room to draw your own conclusions.
   
   Dr. Pipes seems to apologize for his emotional responses and judgments--highly educated as they obviously are. But I think he simply is not willing to check his humanity at the door when seeking to understand and interpret a subject that is central to the health and development of modern thought. He is leading the way not just to an educated scientific understanding of the events of the Russian Revolution, but to a wise and deeply human one.



4. To read this book you have to understand what was happening around the world at that time and if you did not, well this book will put you in the right state of mind. The Russian Revolution, the single event that changed world history is well chronicled here by the excellent author Richard Pipes. The author is inspired and writes the great history of the events, that lead to this event.
   
   This book is not hard to read as it fallows a good order and explains all of the people involved in the events. A pitful Bolshevik party, who no one took seriously even as they took over the goverment. People thought they would also be expedited soon by another goverment but it was not so. As Lenin, who is described well in this book put to work his new system of taking over, treating politics as War. Using that doctrine he cunningly destroyed the opposition and won Russia for himself and the party.
   
   For those of us who do not understand what the "paradise on Earth" really was, Pipes explains it all to us and how it failed. The people who this system wanted to represent did not even want the system, in fact no one really wanted it they just wanted an end to the Tsar and the war which Lenin gave but no one thought ahead. Witness the tragedy that was the revolution and how intellectuals given the drive and power can turn a society into terror. If you are interested on reading more on Comminism, also read by the author his review on that subject on the World Chronicles books.



5. This work thoroughly documents the Russian Revolutions, which serve as a crucial case study on the importance of ideas in shaping history. Why did the Russian history descend into so much chaos?
   
   The author is a professor at Harvard, an eminent historian and a noted conservative who has written extensively on Communism in history. There is no better author for a book of this importance.
   
   The historical content of this book is fantastic. It is greatly detailed but appropriate for an armchair intellectual who is picking up his first book on the Russian Revolution. In this book, you will learn about Russia under Tsar Alexander II, the February Revolution of 1917, which replaced Alexander with a provisional government and the October Revolution later that year, which is more commonly known as the Bolshevik Revolution. Although there is plenty of material on the former two periods, this last revolution is the main focus of the book. Here, you will learn about many of the grim realities of what transpired during this time, including roaming gangs of state-appointed foragers who were ordered to secure "surpluses" but in reality just plunder property. In addition to Lenin's efforts to eradicate the concept of private property, You will also learn about Lenin's futile attempt to eliminate money as a medium of exchange, which actually just lead to an enormous black market for underground commerce. Finally, you will learn about all of the various opposing political factions, including the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks, the White Russians, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the other independent groups who were of lesser importance.
   
   Amongst many other key points, Richard Pipes will argue the following:
   * Lenin, in terms of essentials, was just as tyrannical as Stalin.
   * Although Alexander was despotic, Lenin and Trotsky were clearly worse than Alexander in terms of brutally oppressing the general public and suppressing political opposition.
   * The Bolsheviks not only destroyed the lives of many aristocrats but also ultimately made everyone (including workers) worse off as well.
   * The White Russians, irrationally blaming Jews for Bolshevism, were heavily responsible for the devastating pogroms that took place during this tumultuous time.
   
   The author's bias against Marxist-Leninism is quite clear throughout the book. However, Pipes is not a fan of their opposition either. Nevertheless, I think this bias enhances the book because these groups, in reality, did not fight for admirable ideals and should be judged accordingly.
   
   This is an excellent book overall. If I were to offer criticism, it would be that the author could have further explored the influence of Chernyshevsky's work "What is to be done?" on Lenin, which seems key to understanding Lenin's philosophy.

5 comments about Essential Works of Lenin: "What Is to Be Done?" and Other Writings.

1. And way back in the bad old days before the Bolshevik Revolution, you couldn't even get what you needed. Or more to the point: if you weren't the Czar or Czarina, or any of his or her umpteen-bazillion inbred buck-toothed relatives, and weren't hooked up with royal favorites (did someone say Rasputin?)---well, just put to bed any thoughts of getting shoelaces for your galoshes.
   
   Or for that matter, galoshes. Or anything, really. I mean, let's think of it this way: around 1916, there were *bread* shortages in Moscow. Think about that for a minute: bread shortages. People were rioting for a loaf of crummy, dimply, worm-eaten Russian bread.
   
   There were long lines for everything; total tyranny and oppression; you couldn't say anything against the Czar, or you would get exiled to Siberia.
   
   So along came Lenin, who broke a few eggs and made an omelette, and---voila!---Russia went all revolutionary. End result:
   
   1) There were long lines, and shortages. No shoelaces, no galoshes.
   
   2) Total friggin' tyranny, *again*. You couldn't say anything against the Secretary General of the Glorious Politburo, or you would get exiled to Russia.
   
   3) At least somebody had the decency to do away with Rasputin.
   
   Any way you stack it, though, Comrade Vladimir was onto something big: at the very least, he was way ahead of his time with the shaved head and goatee thing, you gotta admit it. If Lenin were alive today, he would give Moby a run for his money. And then, at the least, he would take the money and re-distribute it to the People.
   
   The real genius of Lenin is that he was the ultimate in niche marketing. Go figure: around about the 19th century, a bunch of smelly, constantly drunk, terminally unemployed guys, headed up by Hegel, Marx, and Engels, wrote reams---huge filing cabinets full of stuff---on how nasty and horrible society was. How unfair, how inhumane, how increasingly terrible and blood-hungry the Cavern-Mawed Beast of the Industrial Revolution had become.
   
   And back then, they really did have a point: 'strikes' broken up by firebombs and gunfire, a 'living wage' paid out in company scrip, which you could spend in the company store for a book of matches, and of course, no dimply, lumpy, worm-eaten bread. Oh, and children getting snatched into the grinding gears of stinking, dirty, smoke-belching factories.
   
   Problem was, nobody cared what these guys thought. They were smelly, and hairy, and had bad teeth, and were probably crazy.
   
   And that might have been the end of that, had it not been for the spike-helmeted Prussian militarists to the west in Germany. Germany was, at the time, in really deep sh*t: enmired in a two-front war of sheer, bloody attrition, the Kaiser needed something that would take the Czar out of the war.
   
   So the German invented Lenin! And because every shiny new product needs a major rollout, they booked him on a train and sent him East!
   
   So drink deeply of our buddy Vladimir Ilyitch, and see what he had that you don't---and frankly, what Karl Marx, with his bushy ugly beard and nasty temper, did not: he was a marketer, baby! He was in SALES! Lenin's chief accomplishment is not his writing (Lenin's writing make cereal box contents read like Hemingway) it was the way he hooked it all up, got the message to the masses, spread the virus!
   
   Let's face it: without "What is to be Done", a night-train to Moscow set up by German agents, and cuddly-bald Lenin, the Czar and his fat, pampered descendants would still be kicking it large in St. Petersburg and yachting off Yalta.
   
   Lenin proved that you don't have to have David Hasselhoff hair to rock the world! And best of all the story of Lenin---never mind "What is to be Done", which talks a good game about the Labor Theory of Value and a Classless Society in which everybody goes in at 10, leaves at 12 for 'noonsies', and takes the rest of the week off---is pure crapola---best of all, Lenin was a custom-designed Capitalist roll-out, a total marketing triumph! Hundreds of millions of Soviet Comrades can't be wrong!
   
   Workers of the World, unite! And grow a goatee, too: you never know, you might get to run a glorious Peoples' Republic too, someday---and get some bread, shoelaces, and galoshes.
   
   JSG



2. This book, along with "The Revolution Betrayed" by Trotsky is the best repudiation yet of the Big Lie of the 20th Century that Stalinism equals Socialism. Stalin was one of socialism's great ENEMIES of the 20th century and proved it time and time again (first with the liquidation of 90% of all the original Bolshevik revolutionaries -- Imagine someone claming to uphold the ideas of the American Revolution and killing off Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, etc. Then with opposing the revolution in country after country, Spain, China, Indonesia, Italy, Greece, etc. Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is another good testament to this)
   
   Anyway back to Lenin: His writings helped transformed Marxism into a truly international philosophy, one that urged the liberation of ALL people all over the world, not just the ones in the 'advanced' capitalist nation. Lenin brought political involvement into the mix as being MANDATORY for any revolutionary; previously many socialists had been content with simply 'waiting' for the right moment to make a revolution. Lenin made it clear that this was unacceptable and direct, constant political involvement and education was essential for any legitimate social revolution.
   
   As to the last reviewer: I am sorry, but your attempt at "humor" (or more precisely, lack thereof) did not impress me. It was moronic to say the least and if I wanted a bunch of lame "one-liners" by a wannabe cyber-comedian I merely have to type in the words: "conservative intelligence.
   
   In any event, it is very telling that pitiful attempts at humor are the only "response" the reactionaries can give to this giant of a revolutionary figure. Lenin is well worth your time.



3. Beware! This is not a Lenin quote book, which is what I was hoping to get. Nor is it a comprehensive selection of selected and essential passages, which would have been better. It is, however, a small book containing four of Lenin's key essays. So although you get the complete essays, the overall selection is too small. His views on life, duty, religion being a drug addiction, the vanguard, and so forth are not here. Lenin, who was prodigiously prolific on the level of Voltaire, deserves better. Consequently, this small sample does not do him justice.
   
   The four essays are "Development of Capitalism in Russia" "What is to be done?" "The State and Revolution," and "Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism." I found this last one fascinating, considering the critique by Thomas Sowell in "The Quest for Cosmic Justice," page 121ff.
   
   The essays are both technical and polemic, and therefore boring. So if you are neither economist nor historian, much less a wannabe Che Guevara, then you may want to pass on this book. This is not casual armchair reading.



4. This is probably the best book on the personal writings and political blueprints of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.The main problem that Leninism ran into, was that an oligarchy of the communists can became as insenitive and remote from the laboring masses, as a czarist monarchy had been before. Lenin felt the peasants did not have the savvy intellectual prowess to keep the socialist-labour movement going forward.And also that the peasants would be prone towards nostalgia for the czar and his church beliefs.Regicide did little to stop the peasants human need for a spiritual superman figure and Joesf Stalin fit the bill.Many remaining WW2 Soviet veterans carry a picture of 'Uncle Joe' with them.The world war and later the cold war,gave stalwart leaders a reason to justify a 'closed-market system'. Yet this lead to another problem with Leninism.The idea of laboring for the sake of labor,regardless of real economic-market/social value.In America,Richard Nixon tried 'fixed-prices and price-caps' on some large domestic products,which only lead to a worsening of the economy with even higher inflation rates. Ronald Reagan also had the strange idea of 'Supply-side economics',which was correctly lampooned by George Bush Sr. as 'VooDoo Economics'.The faulty idea that a large supply produced would induce a large demand for the product.For example, if the government produced a hefty supply of 'reusable solar-powered flashlights(with modest capacitance)',would there then be a hefty demand for them in the dark fall-winter months and also in the light spring-summer months?If disposable batteries became scarce,because of strict local/state/federal environmental laws imposed,then demand for 'solar-powered flashlights'would increase to meet market-demand. The need and value of the product is driven by market-demand.-Lenin ,who was an admirer and distorter of the scientific ideas of Charles Darwin,did not understand that people are fickle humans .Whose tastes and values are subject to ready change.Regardless,of what laws and penalities the bureaucrats impose upon them.-Interesting book concerning socialist economic theory.



5. The Essential Works of Lenin does provide a remarkably concise introduction to Lenin's thought. It will not be easy for the novice reader, so a perusal of The Communist Manifesto, or other introductory writings will be important to get a firm grasp on Lenin's Marxist views. The final 90 page chapter "The State and Revolution" may be the most accessible and intelligible of Lenin's views; much of the earlier portions of this 364 page book deal with Lenin's critique of other socialists who have deviated from true Marxism (this is the most difficult part to read, because it assumes a knowledge of his historical context). The book then, is a good one, but introductory exposure to Marxist thought will help. It does provide a valuable, concise biography of Lenin in the introduction.
   That aside, let us turn to a critique of Lenin's thought. Lenin was a very intelligent critic of capitalism, with many penetrating insights into the function and abuses of a capitalist economy. It is not that Marxism was based on a complete illusion, but that it was based on a partially-true, compelling illusion that perhaps makes it so seductive, and so dangerous. I dissent, for example, in thinking that only the "dictatorship of the proletariat" can supplant the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and that somehow a freer, fuller democracy will result from a worker-managed society in which the state will subsequently "wither away." History demonstrated that instead of withering away, the Communists party only solidified its tyranny over the masses, and substituted one dictatorship for another. That Lenin or Marx possessed a real historical "science" of political-economy I think has been disproved. While claiming not to be a utopian, it is difficult to see how some of Lenin's claims are anything but - in terms of the transformation of human beings by the abolition of class antagonisms. People remain people, inherently biased, often selfish, not concurring, and striving to realize two very difficult things: a society with the greatest possible freedom and equality for all.
   Do not be mistaken, however. Just because Lenin (as Marx) made serious errors in their theory, does not excuse the student of ethics, politics, or religion from treating these writings of Lenin with the serious academic study they deserve. Lenin may have been wrong about much, but right about a great deal too. Understanding his thought will be important for any student of history and politics.
   That said, this book does very little to comment on religion. Famous for their antipathy towards religion, choose another book if you are interested in their ideas about religion. This book does do very well on Lenin's political-economic theory. Lenin also draws quite considerably on Engels, considering him and Marx to be the only true interpreters (beside himself) of the doctrine.
   A final note - the book also does not mention Adam Smith - it is just assumed that capitalist theory is wrong, and Lenin spends much of its time battling the "false" or "opportunist" Marxists (Bernstein, Kautsky, the anarchists). See Marx or perhaps another volume on Lenin for a more direct confrontation of Smith and classical economists.

5 comments about The Bloody White Baron: The Extraordinary Story of the Russian Nobleman Who Became the Last Khan of Mongolia.

1. I first encountered this book in the British edition, and its good to see that it can reach an American audience now. I've been fascinated by this period of Mongolian history ever since I found a musty old copy of Ossendowski's Beasts, Men and Gods in a used bookstore years ago, so I was very happy to find a new look at those times in this book. Finding sources or historical writing on this period is difficult, at least here in the US, since Outer Mongolia almost seems to be a fictitious country in itself. Fortunately, James Palmer has travelled the East and waded through the various scraps and pieces of its history and pulled together a picture of a fascinating, if horrendous, figure who stamped his mark upon the era. Ossendowski's book, while purportedly true, reads like a pulp adventure novel, and his account of Baron Ungern certainly makes a modern reader believe that he must have been made up. Not so, of course, even though the picture that Palmer is able to put together of the man in some ways seems even more extreme. The Baron, or Bloody Baron, or Bloody Mad Baron, as he has variously been called, was all too real a person, and his insane, murderous actions were all too common during this period.
   
   There is a perception in the modern West that Buddhism is perhaps unique amongst the world's major faiths in not lending itself to the kinds of wars and conflicts that, for example, Christianity and Islam have been such prominent players in. And while its certainly true that Buddhism has been a relatively peaceful religion, history, and certainly this history, shows how even the dharma can be turned towards violence, and how ethnic divisions, superstitions and unjust conditions can be exploited by cunning leaders to turn even the most peaceful doctrine into a permission for bloody conflict. Ungern was a curious mix of Christian, occultist and mystical Buddhist wannabe, driven by a belief in prophecy and armoring himself with magical charms (who can say they didn't work? He certainly never took a bullet on the battlefield with those charms hanging from his neck). In some ways the template for the kind of Aristocratic European Occultist that would later become such a stock character by way of the Nazis, his life and exploits make for fascinating reading, even if only as a cautionary tale about the kind of beast that wars and prejudice can create out of man.
   
   My only complaint about this book is the lack of photographs. The author describes a number of photos of the Baron at various points in his story, but none of them are included outside of the dust jacket. I hope the publisher can add these in future editions.



2. I guess that's what I ended up thinking at the end of this book, as well. I feel like the book did a better job of telling the story of the early days of the Soviet Empire than telling the story of Baron Ungern. There would be a little on Ungern's life, followed by long passages on what the area was experiencing, then a little bit of information on Ungern, etc. By the end, I had a solid grasp on what the area was experiencing, but Ungern remained somewhat mysterious. Perhaps this was intentional because of his mystique, but probably not.
   
   With that said, it was still an interesting read. I found the flow to be a little uneven and unfocused at parts, but Mr. Palmer did a pretty good job at being comprehensive. I look forward to his next work.
   
   Beautiful hardcover jacket, by the way.



3. This is a fascinating book about a character I had never heard of. The story itself is so odd the while reading this book I felt like I was actually reading some strange fantasy novel instead of history. What made me realize that it was history was the fact that there were only villans in this story, there are no heroes here.
   
   Baron Ungern was a Russian officer in the last days of the Tsarist empire. He was a interested mystical philosophies. After the fall of the Tsar and the Red coup he joined the forces fighting the communist forces in Russia. As the communist forces began to succeed he left Russia and went to Mongolia. There he threw out the Chinese occupiers. He then tried to lay the groundwork for a renewed Mongolian empire. His plans were eventually thwarted and he was captured and executed by the communist forces.
   
   While the previous paragraph gives a brief outline it does little to convey the strange and fascinating story that unfolds in the pages of the book. For those of us in the west who are taught nothing about this part of the world and little at all about this period of history it is truly eye opening. Palmer lays out a great deal of information to bring the background of this story to life. His own knowledge of the area helps to illuminate many parts of the book. His wit is the typically dry British style. He paints a vivid picture of Tibetan/Mongolian buddhism. His portrait is honest, painfully so with those of us only familiar with the Hollywood version.
   
   The stories of brutality by all sides in this story is enough to make one's hair stand on end. With the fall and the discrediting of communism it is now possible to air the truth about what happened in much of the world that suffered under its tyranny. The epilogue of the book, which covers the period of Mongolia after the communist takeover, shows the extreme brutality and cultural rape that accompanied that system.
   The book is well written and the topic is fascinating. As a historian I regret that there is not more source material on this subject. This is not the fault of the author, rather it is the simple absence of much reliable original material on this subject. The only warning that I will give is that many types of brutality were committed by all sides and you will here about it.



4. The book was interesting to read however, I thought the book was going to more about the Baron. It was about 10% of the content. I did enjoy reading about the Buddist practices and politics, I was very unaware of what Buddism was then compared to today.



5. I liked the last chapter; but most of the book was sort of Hollywood ala Mel Gibson.
   
   I wanted to know more about Mongolia and less about the White Russians.
   
   The White Russians behaved very badly even given the excuse of fleeing the revolution.
   Eventually the weary Mongolians handed the Baron back to the Soviets.He was found guilty and he died in front of a firing squad.
   
   
   I was surprised to read that Taiwan does not have diplomatic relations with Mongolia. As late as 2002 Taiwan still claimed Mongolia!
   
   

2 comments about Hidden Treasures of the Romanovs.

1. This book is a biography of Albert Stopford, the man who rescued the jewels of Grand Duchess Marie Palvona during the Russian revolution. The title is somewhat misleading in that you might expect a book on the Russian royal jewels and treasures, but in fact what you are getting is the full story of a figure that often appears on the fringes of many Romanov stories during the revolution.
   
   Stopford was a man who led a very varied life. His father was a vicker in an English village but his family had connections to Queen Victoria and he was able to use these connections to eventually become a high class antique dealer and confidential courier to royalty. Stopford was also gay in era when that was enough in itself to land you in jail and it was a fact that was to have unfortunate consequences later in his life.
   
   I found this an interesting book that filled in some gaps found in other books. It also had some interesting information on Marie Pavlovna (who deserves a book of her own), but at the same time I found it slightly disappointing from the image section as it doesn't actually provide a lot of pictures of the jewels Stopford when through so much stress saving. This is a fill-in-the-blanks book for people interested in the Romanov's but not really a must have volume.



2. This book is a terrific story about a little-known but very important person who was friends with all the top Romanovs & helped many of them retrieve their possessions during the Russian Revolution.

5 comments about Red Star Over Russia: A Visual History of the Soviet Union from the Revolution to the Death of Stalin.

1. An amazing pictorial companion to all of the verbal histories you've ever read about Russia between the end of the Czars and the end of Stalin. Endless pain and suffering throughout, but underneath it all, the incredible creative energy of the artists and designers and indomitable spirit of the ordinary people.



2. A compehensive compilation of colorful propaganda posters, classic photographs and rare snapshots beginning with the Russian Revolution and moving forward. The only downside is the size and placement of the descriptive notes, which are printed in very small type and seem to be laid out in a crammed and somewhat jumbled order. As a result, they are quite tedious and difficult for the eye to follow.



3. This book takes the often-bizarre inter-personal struggles that plagued Soviet politics and narrates the story using an array of propaganda art and photos of key players in the early years of the USSR. You can tell it was painstakingly put together, with attention to the overall flow from each image to the next a paramount concern.
   
   Excellent visual history, with concise information relating to each topic. The concise, almost cold nature of the narrative is truly affective, especially as it relates to those pages dealing with the purges, and subsequent executions of countless communists. On many pages, each photo is captioned with nearly identical text - "Was shot on 'insert date'" - a cold reminder of the impersonal and often trivial issues that led to mass murder in this failed state.



4. A necessary purchase for anyone with a speck of interest in the Soviet era, at least as it was from inception through to the death of Stalin. The historical photographs and poster artwork amassed by David King and presented here are often stunning.
   
   I especially valued the text and pictures of those defendants in the infamous show trials and the ones of the famous theater director, Meyerhold.
   
   Readers should know that the author, David King, writes out of understandable hatred of Stalin and with less understandable acceptance, if not admiration, of Lenin and Trotsky.



5. There are very few countries that have faced the severe traumas the Soviet Union experienced from 1917-1953. Although it may have been a hellish place to live, the Soviet Union nevertheless experienced a period of intense artisitc achievement. The art of this time was original, energetic and fueled by a manic need to educate.
   
   David King is a well known historian of the Soviet Union with a special interest in the use of photography in Soviet propaganda. King is also a serious collector of early Soviet art. His collection encompasses posters, photographs and other paper ephemera. "Red Star Over Russia" is a catalogue of his remarkable collection. Along with his many startling images, King also provides a well written descriptions which place the images in their proper context.
   
   "Red Star Over Russia" is a beautiful book with powerful images printed on high quality paper. This is a highly collectable book that will hold its value over time. In the coming years, "Red Star" will repeatedly provide me with great reading company. Highly recommended.

5 comments about The Russian Revolution.

1. Fitzpatrick's short book about the Russian Revolution is so concise one has to wonder if she skimped on the facts. This is not the case. Anybody reading the book can only remark that thickness is not indicative of weight. All one needs to know about the Russian Revolution is in this slim volume.
   Fitzpatrick's main contention is that the Russian Revolution did not end in 1920, but rather in the 1930s when Stalin consolidated his power and put in place a new system which suceeded the Tsarist regime. Stalin did this by educating a new elite from the working class and placing them in the Party and Government. Future leaders came from this group. The two five year plans stabilized the revolution and placed a new order on the country.
   I also found the characterization of Lenin good. Lenin put in place a situation which led to the rise of the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. Lenin is seen as both good and bad.
   There are more meaty books about the Russian Revolution. There is not one which is more concise and explains all the facts.



2. This book receives lots of kudos from other reviewers for being so concise. That it is, but I didn't experience that attribute as being as positive as the others. If the topic of the Russian Revolution is assigned reading for you and you want to get it out of the way as quickly as possible, get this book. On the other hand, if the topic fascinates you and you're looking to explore it, I expect you may find this book unsatisfying. Consider skipping this "appetizer" and going right for the main course somewhere else (not sure where that is yet, but I'll be looking for it).



3. There are numerous books out debunking Fitzpatrick. Yale University's "Annals of Communism" series is a good place to start.
   
   "In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage" by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr is an excellent read on how Fitzpatrick and other academics distort facts and lie through omission to minimize the atrocities of Lenin, Zinoviev, Radek, Trotsky, Stalin et al.
   
   Read "A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia"
   by Alexander N. Yakovlev. Yakovlev was the architect of perestroika. He was a communist. He had access to documents western researchers have not yet seen. Yakovlev details how the regime was a criminal organization from its founding, how mass executions began only months after Lenin seized power. The regime never had the support Fitzpatrick claims it did.
   



4. I am enjoying this book immensely. I was looking for a good intermediate source to transition me from a Wiki-level knowledge of the RR (which I already had) to the point where I felt capable of tackling a professional academic tome on the RR (which I would like to someday do). Fitzpatrick's book fits this bill nicely. Each chapter covers a certain time period and starts out with a short intro (just a few pages) that mentions the major controversies among historians about how to view the events of this period. The author occasionally takes a side in these debates, but usually just presents them so that the reader is aware of their existence. Then she launches into the chapter, which pretty much just consists of a summary of events. The book is dense with facts but is also a very quick and easy read. In other words, the perfect thing for someone who is interested in this topic but not used to reading huge academic history books, or for someone who just wants the facts without any thesis that the author is trying to prove.



5. Sheila Fitzpatrick's "The Russian Revolution" is concise and well-written, making sense out of a very confusing and confused time. She sees the events generally referred to as The Russian Revolution as a series of revolutions, each with its distinct character and players, beginning with the uprisings in 1905, and culminating in Stalin's consolidation of his power with the Great Purges of the 1930's. Professor Fitzpatrick writes clearly and economically, with a dry wit which animates each page. An interesting and lively analysis.

5 comments about A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924.

1. A People's Tragedy is an extraordinary book, and I highly recommend it. Nevertheless, I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 simply because my eyes glazed over some of the political text. I'm more keen on knowing about the personal and social history than the political narrative. I, particularly liked reading the revolutionary's romance with the common Russian peasant and their illusions, there of. The passion lasted until they come face to face with these harden and suspicious people. I've read a lot of Russian history concerning the surfs of the earlier years, but not a whole lot about the peasants during the late 19th and early 20th century. There are plenty of interesting facts that I wasn't previously aware of, plus a lot about Lenin too. If you want a precise, definitive, blow by blow perspective, with all the players on the stage, I couldn't endorse a better book.



2. This book has amalgamated data from many sources and provides many quoted sources that illustrate aspects of the Revolution. But so much of it is utter nonsense.
   
   1. It constantly describes isolated events during February snd October Revolution to make both events sound like wild iresponsible riots by the rabble. Figes goes so far to even suggest that the Bolsheviks had no worker support in the streets: only hooligans. Clearly figes looks down on commoners with contempt by degrading a popular uprisibg like February into a series of lootibgs and riots
   2. Figes pummels you with this notion of Lenin ad a totalitarian dictator. But then he shows how lenin manipulated politics to get his way, and his views were not popular even among the bolsheviks. Well which is it? Did he have absolutebpower or not? Clearly, this whole notion is not rooted on historical reality. Lenin lost msny critical votes in the party and was voted down. Brest Litovsk for one.
   3 He totally fails to correctly distinguish between the various marxistbyheories at the time. He completely miststesbthe views of trotsky and lenin on russia and fails to correcyly desribe how lenin's views on the needs of a bourgeoisbphase in russia and how this opinion changed to become more like trotsky's theory of permsnent revolution.
   
   If you want true history, do not look for it here. He merrly pulls together a complete listnof sourcs anf distilld nothing.
   
   Very disappointing work.



3. I have lived in the Soviet Union for 33 years. I have studied the History of USSR, the History of the Communist Party, the Dialectical Materialism, the Historical Materialism, the Scientific Communism, the Scientific Atheism and other subjects of the typical Soviet college. Additionally, I studied all kinds of subjects associated with every Party congress. Also, works by Lenin were the mandatory reading. I'm more than qualified to say that Olrando Figes has written an excellent account on the subject of the tragic even - the Russian revolution.



4. I bought this book for a college history course and thoroughly enjoy it. It is interesting and reads more like a novel that a list of dates and names like traditional history books often do.



5. I happended to be at a college library when I opened the pages to 'A Peoples Tragedy ' and I could hardly put it down for the next few hours. I confess I did not read the whole book and I am not going to pretend that I did or that I am ready to write the serious review I would like to.
   
   I very much enjoy the spirit of a peoples revolution. It is a tremendous hope, of oppressed people around the World. It could be a great change that would benefit everyone, eventually. It is not about murdering all the other classes. The Bolsheviks did not do that, and Trotsky did not raise his successful armuy that way. This is according to Figes as well as other objective historians. Judging from the past the great proletarian revolution has been very precarious, like riding a hurricane. but maybe the Russian Revoloution as well as other revolutions still may have something to teach us. As for What I read from Figes book my perception may be altered a little, reinoforced in others, but not at all reversed. Stalin is the tyrant, the mass merderer and the Totalitarian. He had many followers and supporters, but they were not the majority of the Bolsheviks. It seems so simple, and maybe it is not the whole story but Stalin knew more about what brings power than leaders who were seemingly more brilliant than he was. )
   
   (Having said this, there are always important things to learn from other human movements that have great value. We have our own bill of rights; non violent movements associated with such people as Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr, many of the teachings of Jesus and he Buddha. lesson from labor union movements, and may more. Also peolle should be able to read what they want.)
   
   Figes is not the only historian to recognize Lenin's growing recognition, before his final stroke, of Stalins threat as a tyrant who would destroy the revolution, or at least destroy the Revolution that Lenin, Trotsky and and so many others made their life's work. Isaac Deutsher certainly told a similar story, but Figes tells this story extremely well, and lays out Lenin's plan for his war to oust Stalin from power. At the vital center of his plan is restoring peoples democracy, the rights and participation of ordinary working people. Trotsky played a big role in a similar plan, and took it to ther streets to win popular support (a little like Iran's current opposition). Since this did not begin until around August 1923, it is mainly beuyound the scope of Figes book. What Trotsky did is well documented by Trotky's writings and by the left Opposition. A good source is 'The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25)', by Trotsky. Trotsky was also against a ruling bureaucracy, and for ordinary working people to have some control over governance. He argued that people could only learn if they can make decisions, and make mistakes they learn from. Trotsky never abandoned his fight for a workers democracy, and much of it continued into his exile and appears in 'The Revolution Betrayed', 1936. Stalin created a bureaucracy that was independent, or as Trotsky put it at the time, independent of the party rank and file as well ordinary workers. (Some independence that was!) To me, Stalin was the Totalitarian, and Lenin, Trotsky and so many others were not. There may be many things you do not like about them, and that is your right, but please argue about those things for what they are instead of falsely linking other Bolshevik leaders to Stalin and his followings terrible works. do not paint them all with the same broad brush. When you do so, you are doing as the many Stalins in the Right dc.

3 comments about Conspirator: Lenin in Exile.

1. The period of Lenin's life when he wandered Europe, impoverished and isolated, prior to the 1917 revolution is recounted in fascinating detail in this new book by the author of The Last Days of the Romanovs.
   
   One might think it tells us little to learn how Lenin disliked British food (but loved the buttered muffins), how he and Trotsky attended and participated in public debates in London, or how Lenin bullied fellow expat revolutionaries, but personalities drive history and Lenin had a monstrously huge one. This volume contributes immensely to our understanding of how Lenin forged his cadre, his leadership style and the worldview that all came to be so brutally reflected in the oppressive state he founded.
   
   As reviewed in Russian Life magazine



2. Helen Rappaport has taken out the hagiographers of Saint Lenin and put them in front of a firing squad. Conspirator is a refreshingly balanced, "warts and all", look at Lenin's life in exile before the Russian Revolution. The author deftly juxtaposes Lenin's intense and passionate disciples with those who knew him best - his family. One minute we have the Lenin of the fiery three-hour political speech that cast a spell on his "groupies", as his eyes gleamed with a fanatic, almost religious fervor - and the next we have the Lenin of cheap lodgings living on tea and sausage, a workaholic with poor health, exploiting his wife, his mother-in-law and his mistress. No fun for those who lived with him, great for those who were willing to die for his ideas in the coming revolution. I could not put this book down. It combines scholarship with good writing (often, in books like this, you get either one or the other ) but here you get both. Helen Rappaport engages the reader on several levels and the knowledge that all the speeches and suffering will culminate in a successful revolution keeps up the pace. Every so often she fast forwards - like when Lenin pawns a friend's watch because he has no money (again) and years later sends him. a new watch courtesy of the Soviet government. Above all Rappaport does an amazing job in making Lenin human - the reader is both sympathetic toward him and irritated by him by turns - yes, he's a man with a mission that overrides everything else, but he also hikes in the mountains, swims in the river and breathes the same kind of air as you and me. This is a Lenin who puts his pants on one leg at a time whatever is on his mind.



3. I really wanted to like this book.As I started to digest this reading,it became clear it was about his wanderings and not his political beliefs and revolutionary speeches.The book maps out well were Lenin and his wife,Nadya,traveled around.Yet,where are his speeches and conversations among his fellow commarades.This is not a pro-Lenin book,nor does it give the man a fair investigative look.The book also fails to present the platform of what Lenin and his friends were trying to accomplish.Lenin's writings and books are barely mentioned.Trotsky and Stalin are scarcely introduced.What is well documented is Lenin's poor health.Some may wonder if Trotsky and/or Stalin helped poison Lenin ,after the bloody revolution abated.It seems Nature took its course,and Lenin expired by natural causes.Stalin ordered the glorification of Lenin in stone and parades alike.One has to wonder if Lenin would have had his people silence Stalin,by medically inducing a heart attack.Lenin wanted to up-grade the culture of the peasant narod and therefore happier workers producing better goods and services.Stalin by force up-graded the peasant narod,and executed the middle-class farmers,much loathed by Stalin's henchmen.This book also does not mention many of the authors widely read by Lenin.Some of the Russian authors Lenin read are mention.Nor the writings of Charles Darwin ,that greatly influenced both Lenin and Stalin alike.This book does not give a fair picture of what Lenin was trying to do.I think the greatest failure of 'Leninism' is that the core belief is that the centralist government can completely care for the well-being of every citizen,without some sacrifice of basic freedoms.And the question is ,'Are citizens willing to sacrifice their time,in order to provide for the general good of society?'.Lenin felt that once the peasant was up-lifted into a stable working class,they in turn would sacrifice to keep stablity of the working class going forward.So,why the break-up of the Soviet Union? The working class were sacrificing everything for the state,a state government that had grown corrupt and stagnate.The authoress down plays socialism and Lenin's achievements.I would not write Lenin's ideas off as nonsense and lofty dreams.If Lenin leaves any legacy behind,he was the man who helped abolish the Russian caste system,yet also helped pave the way of an equally oppressive new dictatorship .

5 comments about Doctor Zhivago.

1. I read this book many years ago when I was 13 or 14 so my memory is a little fuzzy on the details, but I remember it made a huge impression on me at the time. I saw the movie and that is what originally inspired me to read the book, but there is a lot more to the book than just the love story that was portrayed in the movie. There is a lot of political and social history presented in the novel, but not so much that it overwhelms the reader. The story and the history are balanced very well. The main character strives to do well and survive against the odds, which was inspirational despite the fact that so many unfortunate incidents happened to him.



2. The seller went out of his way to ensure delivery of the book, sending it a second time without additional charge when I provided an incorrect address the first time.



3. Great book. I like Tolstoy but like Pasternak much better. The movie and TV series didn't do Lara justice.



4. My favorite book of all time!!! I just LOVE it... I read it almost six times!



5. My rating of Doctor Zhivago is average (2.5 stars is more accurate) because that is what its extreme highs and very low lows average out to. This book is strange in that there was a great deal to like about it and just as much (if not a bit more) to dislike.
   
   Doctor Zhivago is the sweeping story of a network of people living through revolutionary-era Russia. The main characters, Yurii Andreievich Zhivago and Lara Fedoronova, go in and out of each other's lives throughout the tale. Actually, all the characters go in and out of all the other characters' lives throughout the novel; that everyone is connected and meaningful to each other is a chief theme of the book. We follow Yurii and Lara through the turn of the 20th century and the Revolution of 1905, World War One, through both Revolutions of 1917 (February and October), and The Russian Civil War. They suffer horrible misfortunes like so many in the hectic period and search for some remnant of the beauty and simplicity they expected from life.
   
   The best thing Doctor Zhivago has going for it is its epic plot. Pasternak expertly weaves together the lives of about a dozen important characters and many more less important ones. Their interactions and the situations in which they run into each other during the turmoil of early 20th century Russia can be very moving at times. The array of lifelike characters Pasternak populates his novel with are also expertly created and fleshed out. Lastly, the theme of inter-connectivity is a thoughtful one, and is perhaps a clever comment on collectivism itself.
   
   Now the bad news: almost as tragic as the story itself is the wretched translation to English by Hayward and Harari that makes several parts of the book almost unreadable. It's shocking to me that a novel that is so loved the world over a.) has any English-speaking fans at all, and b.) has never been translated into English by anyone else. The dialogue in particular is cringe-worthy at times; many of the conversations between Zhivago and Lara (the great lovers of the story) manage to be melodramatic and robotically stiff at the same time. Since I can't read Russian and therefore can't compare the English version to the original, I supposed it's entirely possible that Pasternak is just THAT bad of a writer and the translation is not at fault, but I find it hard to believe it would have won a Nobel Peace Prize if that were the case. As good of a tragic love story as Pasternak has to tell, it is almost completely obscured by the writing.
   
   Just as its very good and very bad qualities pull the unsuspecting reader of Pasternak's opus in two directions, I'm equally torn as to whether I can say that I recommend this novel. If you can totally overlook the writing in general and come up with better words to put into Yurii and Lara's mouths as you read, go for it. If you're not looking for that much work in a novel, skip it. Better yet, find someone who speaks Russian and English who can actually write and pay him or her handsomely to come up with a better translation for you.