Russia in Revolution: An Empire in Crisis, 1890 to 1928 by S.A. Smith

Russia in Revolution: An Empire in Crisis, 1890 to 1928 Reviews

• 
  Justin Evans

  Very informative. Also as dry as chalk that has been put in a dehumidifier, in a room that is being heated by electrical coils, in a house in the dryest, saltiest desert on the planet.
  
  But very informative, and also, frankly, refreshing in its willingness to see that Lenin et al., weren't, you know, EVIL SATANIC MONSTERS COMING TO EAT YOUR CHILDREN, but might actually have been formed by the historical moment they lived in, as well as being moderately evil monsters, but no more or less evil than those they were fighting against in the first world war, or the civil war, and so on. For that alone, Smith's book can be recommended.
  
  But dear god is this dry.
• 
  Bevan Lewis

  The Russian Revolution is an essential and seminal historical event that is crucial to understand in thinking about the twentieth century. A great historian (and admirer of the revolution) Eric Hobsbawm wrote that “if the ideas of the French revolution have, as is now evident, outlasted Bolshevism, the practical consequences of 1917 were far greater and more lasting than those of 1789”. Certainly the events in Russia were an important component in the massive disruption of the nineteenth century world during the years of the Great War. On a narrower scope than world history, they at least form the end of the Romanov dynasty, although it is possible to argue that Eric Hobsbawm’s proclamation of a massive change is overstated, and that Lenin became a “Red Tsar” with much continuity from the Russian Empire.
  It has been surprising thus far in 2017 how little popular commemoration of the revolution has been seen in the form of documentaries and public discourse. Perhaps this will come later in the year, as of course the Russian Revolution had two phases, that in February (on the old Russian calendar) which saw the abdication of the Tsar, and that in October which brought the Bolsheviks to power. There has at least been a tide of history books on aspects of the period -
  The Romanovs: 1613-1918 by Simon Sebag Montefiore (the full back story of the Russian autocratic dynasty),
  Rasputin: Faith, Power, and the Twilight of the Romanovs by Douglas Smith (a biography of the legendary figure who lay behind much discontent with the old regime),
  The Last of the Tsars: Nicholas II and the Russian Revolution by Robert Service (an examination of Nicholas in the last year of his life) and the reissue of Orlando Figes famous
  A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924. S A Smith is an Oxford University Professor with an interest in modern Russian and Chinese history, and in comparative Communist history.
  Russia in Revolution: An Empire in Crisis, 1890 to 1928 is his contribution to the examination of the revolution. Smith has chosen to take a broader, contextual view of 1917. Instead of focussing chronologically on the events of 1917 his periodisation stretches from the late nineteenth century through to the eve of Stalin’s collectivisation. His brush is broad in other respects as well. Rather than focussing on the political elite, he has chosen an analytical approach looking at society, culture and economics as a whole. The benefits of this approach are a broad understanding of the enormous changes in Russia, the causes and immediate results of the Revolution and its effect on society. Smith provides a steady balanced tone which assesses the various historiographical interpretations and attempts to steer a moderate course. While the book may not provide the rich prose and deep examination of the events of the Revolution itself found in some books, it does provide the serious reader with a solid broad understanding of this pivotal period.
  Some key questions are addressed - was the Revolution inevitable? What caused the Revolution? Was Bolshevism inevitable or could Russia have given birth to a liberal democracy? How did the Bolsheviks manage to maintain power against such significant opposition? Was it a real revolution, or was there more continuity?
  In his conclusion, Smith assesses that he “has tried to offer an analysis that links human agency and the power of ideas to the deeper structuring forces of geopolitics, empire, economy, and culture.” This is an analysis that looks more to statistics, large societal changes and forces than to the personalities and decisions of individuals, and the power of events. This balance is difficult to achieve. It is important to look at society as a whole, and this book probably serves as a corrective to some of my biographical reading (such as
  Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives) which might overinflate the importance of the machinations of the Comintern, and the politicking of the Bolshevik elite. Smith de-emphasizes events as well. The course of the events of the Revolution only occupy one out of seven chapters. There can be no doubt however that personalities were still critical. Lenin’s insight of the importance of stopping the war, and his confidence to throw out the Provisional Government in a coup were absolutely central. Smith could have spent a bit more time on Lenin, but as with most things he steers a careful course, and does pay some heed to his importance.
  His view of the Revolution is summarised as that “the collapse of the tsarist regime in February 1917 was ultimately rooted in a systemic crisis brought about by economic and social modernization, a crisis that was massively exacerbated by the First World War”. The October coup didn’t overturn a budding liberal democracy - “the Provisional Government had expired even before the Bolsheviks finished it off.” It had failed to recognise the key causes of the Revolution in the first place, leaving much of the old elite in place and more importantly failing to appreciate how crucial “peace and bread” were, a mistake the Bolsheviks did not make thanks to Lenin.
  The brutality of the Civil War is astonishing, and the antisemitism vicious. Smith describes how “the civil war inspired a massacre of Jews on a ghastly, historically unprecedented scale, with the loss of between 50,000 and 200,000 lives. Another 200,000 Jews were injured and thousands of women were raped.” Already in this period it was the army, rather than the proletariat which was pushing forward the revolution. Although the hated Tsarist secret police were abolished, the Bolshevik’s quickly instituted the brutal Cheka. Smith analyses the way that to ensure the survival of the regime Lenin from the beginning used authoritarian techniques. “By March 1919, Lenin could declare that soviet rule was rule for the proletariat rather than by it.”
  The years of NEP (New Economic Policy) following the Civil War are dealt with extensively, especially the economics and social impact. This is a fascinating period, one with constant conflict between the reintroduction of market mechanisms and the desire to intervene. Smith assesses that “NEP society can by no stretch of the imagination be described as ‘liberal’ yet it was more pluralistic than the brutally conformist society that was to be inaugurated in 1928 with Stalin’s ‘Great Break’.”
  This book may disappoint those who wish to read a narrative history, especially one focusing on the revolutionary events of 1917 itself. However as a well written, balanced and up to date interpretation of the changes which transformed Russia from an agrarian autocracy to a Utopian dictatorship on the verge of shock modernisation Steve Smith does an excellent job.
• 
  Eren Buğlalılar

  Sovyet tarihine dair bir başka liberal çalışma. Yazarın arzusu, devrime "hakkaniyetli" bir bakış sunma görüntüsü altında, bizlere "bu hata bir daha tekrarlanmamalı" düşüncesini aşılamak.
  
  Satırlarına iyice sinmiş bakışından anlaşıldığı üzere, yazar Sovyet devrimini insanlık tarihinin gelişme çizgisinden bir sapma olarak görüyor. Tabii bu ekolün sloganı hiç değişmez: Çok iyi, çok insani niyetlerle başladı ama sonuç felaket oldu (s. 556). Totaliter, otoriter, artık buraya liberalizmin bütün anahtar kavramlarını yapıştırın. Araya da Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti övgüsünü yapıştırdık mı tamamdır:
  
  "Bu bakımdan Çin komünistlerinin kendi ülkelerini öncü bir ekonomik ve siyasi dünya gücü haline getirme sicili, büyük ölçüde model aldıkları (Sovyet) rejimden daha etkileyicidir... Nihayetinde Çin komünistleri kapitalizmi taklit ederek, yatırım ve ihracata dayalı bir sistem benimseyerek ve kamu mülklerini özelleştirip, özel sektörü destekleyerek tarihsel olarak eşi görülmemiş bir ekonomik büyümeye ulaştılar."
  
  Bu kadar. Yazarın 40 yılı kapsayan Rusya/Sovyetler Birliği tarihinden çıkarabildiği ders bu.
  
  Yazarın benimsediği anlatım taktiği de buna paralel. Kautsky'den Trotsky'ye, Bukharin'den Deng Xiaoping'e kadar herkes aslında iyi niyetli, doğru düşünen insanlar. Bir tek yanlış yapanlar, totaliter yumruklarıyla demokrasiyi ezen, tek parti diktatörlüğünün yolunu açan Lenin ve Stalin. Öf.
  
  Bu yazarlar kendilerinden sıkılmıyor mu yahu?
• 
  Alexandra

  I recently watched a documentary, and part of it explained the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. This books is not for beginners or people who want a light read. There is a lot of information and the format of the text is not the easiest to follow, especially when the reader has to refer back to a fact or date.
• 
  Pauly

  Professor Smith's book on the Russian revolution, released to coincide with the hundredth anniversary of the events of 1917 covers the years 1890 until 1928, but its main focus is the years 1917 to 1924, with Lenin's death. His main reasoning for including the earlier years is to argue that the revolution happened due to the rottenness of the Tsarist state, despite some improvements in the area of agrarian reform prior to the Great War. The inclusion of the years after 1924 are to show a link between Lenin and Stalin in policy (except views on the world revolution), but a speeding up of modernisation under Stalin.
  
  The book itself is packed with facts about life and society in the immediate post-revolutionary period, which having heard the author give a lecture at the British Library yesterday I can attest Professor Smith can quote from memory, that make it interesting to read, although at times heavy going.
• 
  Greg

  S.A. Smith helpfully treats “the Russian Revolution” in the larger context of growing unrest within imperial Russia from the late 19th century through the upheavals of 1905, the First World War, the abolition of the monarchy and the coming to power of the Soviets in 1917, and the tremendous, horrific, and exciting experiments and hopes of the Soviets until the time that Stalin consolidated power in 1928.
  
  This book does two things that may help contemporary readers better understand the Soviet Revolution:
  
  1) It was an outcome — and by no means the only possible outcome — of a process that reflected rising unrest among intellectuals, progressives, international socialists, workers, peasants, and Marxists that flowed steadily from events of the late 19th century.
  
  In other words, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and the others did not suddenly appear from an otherwise placid society. The problems facing the Russian empire were no sudden developments, either. For over a century, Czars alternated between being relatively moderate and progressive men, often even reformers, and those who were repressive and fearful of change.
  
  Russia’s greatest dilemma was a result of its entrenched and intertwined backward agriculture, its almost insignificant manufacturing and industrial capacity, its relatively small numbers of restive intellectuals and urban dwellers, and an inability to solve the problem of growing hunger for more freedom and reform when trying to control the reform process and limit it to an orderly process.
  
  Even the most progressive Czars and their ministers were caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place: without attempting reforms they knew to be necessary — such as liberating the peasants from serfdom and encouraging more freedom of expression and experimentation — no real progress could be made, and yet, when attempting to initiate these very needed reforms they faced immediate and substantial resistance from those who had the most to lose: powerful landlords and those dependent upon the Czarist system. Compounding their difficulties, modest reforms unleashed uncontrollable expectations for even greater reforms among some elements of the populace.
  
  Tragically, among the reactions to the reforming Czars of the last half of the 19th century were a number of anarchist groups who believed that only by destroying much of the existing system could any genuine reforms have a chance to succeed. In those grim years these various groups pulled off a number of assassinations of key government figures, sadly including the last reforming Czar. That assassination created the almost inevitable snap-back to increased authoritarianism, and led to the last Czar of the Empire who was both committed to the monarchic system and sadly intellectually and emotionally unequipped to handle the challenges the first decades of the 20th century would present him.
  
  2) Americans, in particular, I suspect, if they think of the Soviet Revolution of 1917 at all, are likely to think that it was doomed from the first to produce the kind of strong-man rule Stalin initiated. Thanks to Smith’s book, however, which spends a great deal of space exploring the post 1917 years, we learn anew that a) this was truly a revolutionary moment in which many things were possible, and b) that many of the Soviets were the kind of reformers who wanted to create conditions of greater equality, dignity, respect, and without warfare and violence.
  
  We read, with horror, of the terrible irony that after several years of enduring the brutal warfare of World War I — and all of its human and other costs to Russian soldiers and the Russian people — very soon after the Soviets were successful in gaining power they now found themselves engaged in a long and brutal civil war, in which conservative elements within Russia — including many of her generals and soldiers — joined with foreign troops (including Americans) in attempts to end Soviet rule and restore a more conservative order to Russia.
  
  Smith makes it very clear that it was this costly period of time that a) caused many progressive efforts of the revolutionaries to fall by the wayside in order to deal with the necessity of winning the civil war, and b) prepared the groundwork — in society as a whole and within the Bolshevik party — for Stalin to slowly build the kind of personal loyalty that he skillfully used over time to isolate and pick off his primary rivals.
  
  Stalin was NOT inevitable! Moreover, had the Soviets been granted a few years of peace following the end of World War II it is likely that more moderate elements may have succeeded in establishing a truly more egalitarian and peaceful state.
  
  I highly recommend this well-written and thoroughly engaging book!
  
  
• 
  Elgin

  A mile wide and an inch deep. Its been a long long time since I had so much trouble getting through a book. I am very interested in the Russian Revolution and have read several related histories, so was very excited to see this new study. However for a good part of the book I felt like I was wading through a data dump. It seems that with several new sources available in the former Soviet Union, the author now had detailed enrollment numbers for several parties, soviets, and other organization in several districts and towns. And we got it ALL. There was very little time spent an analysis, background, and interactions between the people who were the main vehicles of the revolutionary movement.
  
  I would much rather have seen a one or two page data table giving the membership numbers, production numbers, etc. for various entities and then an in-depth, lengthy analysis of a few of them. As it was, most of the text seemed to be superficial quoting of statistics with very little documentation of reasons behind the numbers and forces that led to changes in the numbers.
• 
  Jeff Lacy

  Whether it is my inability to catch onto the author’s style, I could not, for the life of me, comprehend this book. Information went in, nothing was retained. It was an endless barrage of information that marched before my eyes without a glimmer of recognition. It became endlessly monotonous. I would go back and read sections, whole chapters again and again. Even this did not help. it just built a ten foot wall of frustration. The book is very scientific in its approach laying out all the facts, numbers, statistics. His analytics were dry and circumspect. And this is where I believe he may lose us. It’s one big telephone book he has provided. For me it read like a telephone book. Sure you want facts—a chronicle and comment on causation—of a history book, but also want some story telling and that requires art and this is what this book lacks—some basic campfire storytelling.
• 
  Daniel

  As a somewhat-new labour organizer I felt that it was pretty important to dig into the Russian Revolution, an inspiring moment in the history of pro-labour, anti-capitalist work, and where so much of the language of organizing comes from. More than that, I needed to understand why it failed. Smith lays it out non-linearly, which admittedly was confusing for me at times, but acknowledges that history is an interconnected web of events and ideologies, not a straight line. In the process he does a very good job of exploring all the different elements that lead to the Bolsheviks' rise and fall, and how various parts of Russian society felt about what went down. I don't know if I left the book with any real conclusions other than "damn, with hindsight it would've been hard for the revolution to succeed even if the Bolsheviks made every correct choice", but I can also see why some historians specialize in this specific period - the author of this book included. It's a dense moment in history whose events can have a lot of interpretations. Smith tends to take a somewhat "objective" stance, which basically means that I wouldn't give this book to a centrist, but I'm leaving it with a much better understanding of this moment in history, even if my own feelings on it aren't fully worked out yet. I will probably read another book about this at some point.
• 
  Cool_guy

  Steps beyond the Petrograd Soviet to show how the revolution was shaped and limited by the structuring forces of Russian history. Important to note that the Bolsheviks won because they briefly transformed into a mass movement, albeit one channeled by the tight discipline of the party, and that that movement had broad and expansive ideas of the potential of the revolution to democratize every aspect of regular people's lives. The failure of the revolution to spread to Germany and beyond, followed by the morass of the civil war, destroyed those possibilities. While the Bolsheviks prosecuted the war with brutal violence, and Lenin crafted a political structure which was vulnerable to dictatorship, Smith argues that this was not a decisive break with Tsarist rule. By 1928, the year the book ends, some form of "socialism in one country" was inevitable, although it is unlikely that Bukharin or Trotsky would've pursued state building with the same bloodlust as Stalin.
• 
  Mark Reynolds

  Intervention: considering the social dimensions of the revolution across a broad swath of the former tsarist empire. Smith attempts to understand the long revolutionary story, from the revolution of 1905 through the early Leninist period, through the lenses of not just class struggle but also of nationalism. Setting aside the Marxist idealism, Smith demonstrates that revolutions are made by ordinary people, rather than revolutionaries themselves. He holds that peasants were the central players in this story, that they were both the primary agents and victims of the revolutionary process. (5) Despite doing a bit of groundwork laying out his argument and intervention, Smith is primarily focused on reaching popular audiences with this book, and the prose is largely accessible and descriptive. Consider this among the most useful entry points into the field of twentieth-century Russian social history.
  
  Would be interested to read more about the role of the Allied powers in supporting the White forces during the Civil War, as that was treated by Smith as a point of some interest but little consequence.
• 
  Fernando Pestana da Costa

  This is one of a number of excellent books on the Russian Revolution that saw the light in 2017, in the Centenary year of that momentous event. Covering in slightly less than 400 pages (excluding notes and index) the period from the 1890s until the onset of the first quinquennial plan in 1928, this book is a very readable panoramic of the events, describing not only the political, economic, and military ones, but also dealing with the artistic, cultural, an societal issues. It seems to me as a perfect introduction to a broad overview of the Russian Revolution, with just the right balance between the detailing of events and the interpretative bent necessary for the reader to understand the big picture.
• 
  Henry

  This is a comprehensive history of one of the more tumultuous periods in any country's history. Sometimes it reads like a college text, and there's a lot head-spinning with respect to dates, flitting back to ten years prior, then bouncing to two years ahead. The book does often get bogged down in minutiae of production goals, demography and the like, but it's worth being patient with it all. In the end, you're left with the feeling that the Russian Revolution was --and had to be-- uniquely "Russian" as much as it was an event in Communist history.
• 
  Matt

  Incredibly dense. If you'd like to know all of the socio-economic and political details that led up to Russian Revolution, study this book. "Study" because it's textbook you should learn and review, rather than read. It does a very good job at that and if you learned the whole thing, you'd know more about the Russian Revolution than just about anybody. Just don't expect a light-reading story.
• 
  Kate

  I wanted to like a lot about this book, like its focus on minority and non-European groups in revolutionary Russia, an often overlooked area of study. However...the writing is extremely dry, making the book itself dense and hard to get through. I struggled staying focused on it, and the Russian Revolution(s) is one of my niche interest areas. Unfortunate.
• 
  Scott Hudson

  A fantastic history of the Russian Revolution. Incredibly dense and very nuanced, but structured well and fully comprehensible. Explores so many facets of how life changed all across the former empire in all walks of life - expands well beyond a Moscow/St. Petersburg exclusive narrative, which is really nice to see.
• 
  randy

  i found this somewhat boring. he gives out a lot of statistics and names a lot of different groups of people and there leaders. trying to keep track of all this can be confusing. you could just read the first chapter and the last two.
• 
  Andrew Steimer

  Covering the Russian Revolution in under 500 pages is no mean feat. This book provides a great overview of the highlights, many of the underlying causes, and the effects of the revolution on Russian society and politics. This is a great introductory text.
• 
  Ethan Parkin

  Really expansive and tells the story from as many perspectives as it can but it felt like it was missing something and it’s nonlinear moments can get confusing and for someone who struggles to read any number higher than 9999, some sections were a chore. Otherwise a good overview.
• 
  Lewis

  The revolutionary era has been covered in more depth elsewhere, but the two long chapters on the NEP period are very informative.
• 
  Russell Johnson

  Just be warned there’s a lot of technical data in here.