The Shortest History of the Soviet Union by Sheila Fitzpatrick


The Shortest History of the Soviet Union
Title : The Shortest History of the Soviet Union
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 0231556845
ISBN-10 : 9780231556842
Format Type : ebook
Number of Pages : -
Publication : Published September 6, 2022

In 1917, Bolshevik revolutionaries came to power in the war-torn Russian Empire in a way that defied all predictions, including their own. Scarcely a lifespan later, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed as accidentally as it arose. The decades between witnessed drama on an epic scale--the chaos and hope of revolution, famines and purges, hard-won victory in history's most destructive war, and worldwide geopolitical conflict, all entwined around the dream of building a better society.

This book is a lively and authoritative distillation of this complex history, told with vivid details, a grand sweep, and wry wit. The acclaimed historian Sheila Fitzpatrick chronicles the Soviet Age--its rise, reign, and unexpected fall, as well as its afterlife in today's Russia. She underscores the many ironies of the Soviet experience: An ideology that claimed to offer humanity the reins of history wrangled with contingency. An avowedly internationalist and anti-imperialist state birthed an array of nationalisms. And a vision of transcending economic and social inequality and injustice gave rise to a country that was, in its way, surprisingly normal.

Moving seamlessly from Lenin to Stalin to Gorbachev to Putin, The Shortest History of the Soviet Union provides an indispensable guide to one of the twentieth century's great powers and the enduring fascination it still exerts.


The Shortest History of the Soviet Union Reviews


  • Eren Buğlalılar

    Written in the usual tongue in cheek style typical for the pro-US historians with every positive fact about the Union is quickly undermined with a "but" or a witty anecdote designed to shepherd the potential sympathisers away from socialism. "Open-minded and energetic, a good politician and consensus-builder, and an effective administrator" is her depiction of the man who managed to destroy the USSR and threw its remains to capitalist wolves in just 6 years.

    This is, however, quite normal. Since the end of the Cold War the US foundations, Western universities spent millions on the researchers who dove into the Soviet archives and found evidence after evidence of the virtues of capitalism. An intellectual Cold War on the Soviet history is waged after 1991 and the balance of forces favours heavily the imperialist camp this time.

    So, if you are not careful enough, Fitzpatricks will have you hating the Soviets who contributed to the global decolonization, women's emancipation, contemporary social, economic and educational rights we hold, and loving the imperialists that exploit, neocolonize, underdevelop and oppress the rest of the world.

  • Carlos Martinez

    Rounded up from 3.5 stars.

    I enjoyed this more than I was expecting to. Although her starting point is broadly anti-Soviet, Fitzpatrick is a serious historian, not simply a purveyor of nutty Cold War-era slander, and her analysis is at times surprisingly insightful. Needless to say I think she's wrong about many of her assertions, but she's done the research, listened to a variety of opinions, and put together a fairly cohesive and interesting narrative.

    Whizzed through it while down with Covid. Pretty easy reading.

  • Anastasiya

    Шейла Фицпатрик написала крошечную книжку с намеком на невозможный конечно всеохват

    автор - историк и может себе позволить оставаться бесстрастной, рассказывать историю, не скатываясь в истерики, обиды, праведный гнев. частично похоже на взгляд из далекого будущего, когда по большому счету уже все равно. вдруг такое будущее и правда наступит

    некоторые нюансы - пронзительные. о некоторых важных вещах упоминается совсем вскользь. несмотря на опыт работы с историей повседневности, здесь вместо неё зачастую выступает статистика о количестве телевизоров на душу населения. есть и анекдоты, и географические карты

    совершенно не учебник истории, но позволяет посмотреть на ХХ век одной шестой суши отстранённым взглядом. интересный опыт

  • Brona's Books

    Fitzpatrick is considered to be a social historian, writing revisionist ‘history from below’. In other words, she focused on the historical narrative as viewed by ordinary people, the marginalised, oppressed, poor, or disenfranchised, as opposed to the leaders. Soviet history and social identity under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin has been her field of expertise.

    She has had an impressive career. Born in Melbourne in 1941, she completed a BA in Soviet music (she played violin for the Australian Youth Orchestra, 1957-59) and history from the University of Melbourne in 1961 followed by a PhD from Oxford in 1969 on Soviet education. From 1969 -1972 Fitzgerald was a Research Fellow at the London School of Slavonic and East European Studies.

    Over the next 40 years, she lived, taught, lectured and carried out research in universities in Birmingham, New York, Chicago and Texas as well as spending some time in Moscow. She moved back to Australia in 2012 where her research has focused on displaced persons after WWII.

    In light of current events in the Ukraine, the arrival of this ARC at work a couple of weeks ago, was very timely. Trying to untangle the various states within Tsarist Russia and then again during the time of the revolution and into the creation of the USSR is not easy. Loyalties were divided, not necessarily along racial or ethnic grounds either. Rural peasants did not feel that the Bolsheviks understood them or their needs and during the Civil War, the Ukrainian peasant army led by Nestor Makhno, was one such group, where they fought against both the Bolsheviks and the Whites.
    Full response here -
    https://bronasbooks.com/2022/03/06/th...

  • Henri

    Meh. Sheila Fitzpatrick is a great author and I enjoy her books immensely but even she with her expertise couldn’t really accomplish this project to 5 star standard. It’s impossible really to write an 80 yr history of a 140 million country in 200 pages. Must say it’s a good attempt but if you really want a history of the Soviet Union in one book go to Volkogonov or Lewin. It’ll be slightly more involved but just higher in quality. From Sheila Fitzpatrick’s books I’d recommend ‘A spy in the archives’ and ‘Everyday stalinism’ which are both brilliant.

    Fun starter for those entirely new to this though, the ‘Shortest History’ are a great series, well done to Old St Publishing.

  • Illiterate

    Mercifully free of both military details and cliches about totalitarianism.

  • JC

    First encountered Fitzpatrick in the endnotes of Hobsbawm. If I remember correctly she was one of the most cited scholars when Hobsbawm was discussing the Soviet Union in Age of Extremes. I bookmarked Everyday Stalinism to read but have not yet gotten around to it.

    I think I’ve encountered most of this stuff in this book before, but it’s nice to work through a lot of it in this concisely formatted way. It’s basically pre-revolutionary context, revolution, Lenin, Stalin, WW2, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and collapse. I still struggle to organize this history in my head well in a way that I could hold a substantive conversation on it. But I find this history very interesting. Most of my remarks from here on will move unsystematically through the book, largely by way of excerpts.

    Fitzpatrick does unequivocally state she sees the famine in Ukraine known as ‘Holodomor’ (reinterpreted as genocide by Ukrainians according to Fitzpatrick) not as a deliberate plan by Stalin to starve Ukrainians but a failure of the way collectivisation was executed. She mainly thinks so because there were famines of equal order during this time in other parts of the Soviet Union like southern Russia and Kazakhstan. The issue for Fitzpatrick was that the state was trying to maximize grain exports from peasant producers but there was very poor quality information and local officials never trusted quantities reported by peasants. They were perpetually suspicious that peasants were hiding grain in secret reserves. Stalin eventually did come to generally believe peasant-reported numbers but by then it was too late, and many people had already died.

    Fitzpatrick also elaborates on the really horrible conditions that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, noting that: “Margaret Thatcher, scarcely a friend of socialists, declared that she liked Gorbachev and they could do business together.”

    Another illuminating comment by Fitzpatrick on this period of collapse:
    “Gorbachev thought that he had secured verbal assurances from German foreign minister Kohl and US secretary of state James Baker that US-led NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe in the wake of the unravelling of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, not even into a newly unified Germany. Perhaps he had, but Gorbachev should have remembered never to trust the capitalists – and, as a lawyer, he should have known that you get your assurances in writing. By October 1990, the former German Democratic Republic was absorbed into the Federal Republic of Germany and became, ipso facto, a part of NATO.”

    This is also an interesting overview of public perception of ‘western democracy’ in Russia in the 90s:
    “No more than a fifth of respondents to opinion polls in the 1990s thought that Russia would benefit from ‘democracy’ in its Western forms, and observation of post-Soviet political practice generated widespread negative reactions to the word itself, along with ‘freedom’ and ‘elections’. In response to a 1999 poll asking Russians which of thirteen variables were most important to them, ‘democracy’ came in second last, less popular than any of the options except ‘freedom of entrepreneurship’. Top choices were ‘stability’ and ‘social welfare’.”

    Finally I just wanted to leave this interesting comment on an interesting shift in Western academic scholarship on the Soviet Union that Fitzpatrick makes much earlier on in the book, which I think outlived the Soviet Union’s collapse in some ways:
    “The West had made a totalitarian bogeyman out of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, equating Communism with Nazism as the antithesis of Western democracy, and one of the tenets of this theory was that a totalitarian regime, once in place, was immutable and could be overthrown only by external force. But that idea seemed less plausible when, after Stalin’s death, the regime not only failed to collapse but also showed itself capable of radical change. By 1980, ‘totalitarianism’, although remaining a powerful and emotive image for the Western public, had lost its appeal for scholars, American political scientists Stephen F. Cohen and Jerry Hough being among its challengers. Even in conservative quarters, hopes that had been cherished for more than sixty years about the imminent collapse of the Soviet regime were being quietly abandoned.”

  • Victoria

    A good, succinct overview of the complex history of the Soviet Union. I wish there more explanations of some of the technical language as it pertains to USSR history and less of an assumption that the reader had preexisting knowledge.

  • June

    On February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine. Two days before, Vladimir Putin gave his version of history during a speech in which he declared Ukraine "an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space." He blamed Lenin for the establishment of modern Ukraine, with further gifts of land by Stalin and Khrushchev. But rather than believe an unhinged thug, why not read an account of history not fabricated by someone trying to justify a disgusting and doomed war?

    The book spans the years 1922 to 1991, but Fitzpatrick begins in 1980 in Brezhnev's USSR, when a conference of American Sovietologists confidently declared that the Soviet Union would not become a political democracy, nor would it collapse in the foreseeable future. They were wrong. Within ten years it was gone. The abruptness of this development reflects Fitzpatrick's view that there are few certainties throughout history (certainly in the Soviet Union, and perhaps in general):
    "Historians’ narratives tend, by their nature, to make events seem inevitable…. But this is not my intention with this Shortest History. My view is that there are as few inevitabilities in human history as there are in the individual lives that compose it. Things could always have turned out differently but for accidental encounters and global cataclysms, deaths, divorces and pandemics...."
    "The many ‘accidental’ changes of course and ‘spontaneous’ diversions along the way were simply irrelevant to this grand scheme, although they will play a large part in my Shortest History. They were not irrelevant to the life of people living in the Soviet Union, of course, and the gap between official rhetoric and lived experience was the stuff of the distinctively Soviet genre of political jokes (anekdoty) that bubbled under the surface as a constant, irreverent commentary. The contrast between ‘in principle’ (a stock Soviet phrase provoking immediate distrust, like ‘frankly’ in the West) and ‘in practice’ was one of the staples of the Soviet anekdot." (pp. 11, 13)

    There are seven chapters in the book, and then a conclusion. As the title indicates, the book is about the Soviet Union, not the Tsarist Russia that preceded it, and it goes up to the fall of the Soviet Union. The conclusion is about post-USSR events. Fitzpatrick has an eye for detail and a wry sense of humor that shines through even in politics-heavy discussions, and it makes for an enjoyable read even for those who are not Russia-specialists. Definitely worth adding to the TBR.

    Thank you to the publishers and NetGalley for the opportunity to review a temporary digital ARC in exchange for an unbiased review.

  • Bulent

    Sheila Fitzpatrick, sağlam kökleri olan bir sovyetolog. Kısa bir kitapta, SSCB'nin kuruluşu öncesinden başlayarak, yıkılışı ve Putin'i doğuran süreci özetliyor.
    Kitap bir giriş kitabı olarak önerilmesi gereken, okuyunca bazı şeyleri daha derinlemesine araştırmaya yönlendiren, üstelik bakış açısı anti-sovyetik ya da sovyetik olmadığı için bilimsel yaklaşımdan uzaklaşmamış bir eser.
    Kitabın Türkçe baskısında, çevirmenin, sol söylem ve jargona pek hakim olmaması gibi bir sorunun altı çizilebilir. Her yerde değil ama özellikle bazı slogan ve söylemlerin Türkçeleştirilirken çevirmenin bu eksikliğinin hissedildiğini söyleyebilirim. (Örneğin, Lenin'in [вся власть Советам] "Tüm iktidar sovyetlere" sloganı, "Sovyetlere tam güç" gibi mekanik bir çeviri ile karşımıza çıkıyor.)

  • Debraj Bhattacharya

    In a world where specialized research has reached absurd levels and everything has become discursive, we badly need historians who will tell us an answer to the old fashioned question - "what happened?". And we need historians who can draw the big picture, write a meaningful narrative based on secondary sources, without forgetting the most important attribute of the old-fashioned scholar - balance of judgement. I know I am sounding like a man from the modern era, which is of course now the "medieval" era ("Oh my God, look he is modern!"). Anyway, jokes apart, this is a terrific book. Go for it.

  • Courtney

    What it says on the label. Love these shortest histories from Black Inc. They provide quick, digestible context for a lot of the current conflict that is happening in the world. And some of us had half arsed educations, especially in history, that leaves us short on completely understanding the world we occupy.

    Also, I mentioned this in my reading update, but even though I watched the Death of Stalin, I was for some completely unreasonable reason, under the impression that Stalin lived and ruled for far longer than he did? Funny how our brain just makes up things.

    Informative.

  • David Steele

    I wanted a brief overview, but then I got frustrated by important events that were overlooked. You cant have it both ways, I suppose! This wasn’t particularly dry, but for a book that sells itself as being “read in a day”, it was surprisingly hard going.
    This book was rather more balanced and even-handed than many of the others that I’ve read.

  • Randal White

    A great introduction to the history of the Soviet Union. Very easy to read and understand. Peaked my interest to look into some areas further. With all that is currently going on in the world, it's vital that we understand the Russian people better.

  • Jonny Morris

    3.5⭐️

  • Greta

    I am probably not the right audience for this I don’t know why I bought a beginners book on this topic I am not a beginner. Did relearn some things I’d forgotten though

  • Eloise

    could not finish maybe will try another day but it says ‘read in a day’ and it’s taken me like 2 months to just get halfway , very text book like , cannot hack it sorry i’m ashamed

  • Celena

    i loved carrying this around in public ! (this is sarcasm)

  • Joshua

    Very good, though it did get very cursory in a few parts. Lives up to the title, of course, and worth the read for a solid overview.

  • Maxine

    If you’re reading a 230 page book called ‘The SHORTEST history of the Soviet Union’ you’re not looking for details and much analysis. Fitzpatrick does a great job of providing a summary with some expert perspective for those looking to dip a toe. Soviet history is seriously lacking from my general knowledge so this book was a great introduction. Definitely has made me want to learn more.

  • Brad Griffin

    Exactly what it says on the tin. Very concise. However, Fitzpatrick is perhaps a little too forgiving of the brutalities of Soviet rule and betrays a certain bias.

  • Aidan

    Read for my class Socialism: A History of an Idea

    This sure was a book. I enjoyed getting a short history of a state that I had some knowledge on, but I also didn't enjoy it that much. I have no opinion on if Sheila Fitzpatrick wrote a pro or anti-Soviet history. I'm not sure if I would recommend this as a book for someone that wants to start learning about the Soviet Union. I think there is honestly quite little importance placed upon the Revolution and Civil War, as well as the in between years before World War II.

    There is an attention played to the good and bad of the Soviet Union. I personally as a Marxist, Socialist, etc., believe that the Union lost some major credit during the Kronstadt Rebellion, and then again during the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Not to mention the failed forced collectivization and the purges under Stalin.

    While I personally disagree with Lenin's Vanguard idea, I think the USSR would have worked better if it had followed the Vanguard, and did not immediately fall into the leadership of one individual. I am not here to discuss my personal feelings about the USSR, but about a book I had to read for a class.

    I will mention I did get halfway through the book, got sick, and did not finish it when I was supposed to for class, but at least I finished a good two weeks before the our next paper comparing the Revolutions of Russia and Cuba.

    Anyways, the book was just okay, and read if you want to, but I'm not sure if I'd really recommend it, especially as something that would be read in a classroom setting.

  • Rehana



    This book is a wonder for nonfiction lovers who like to read about world nations and their evolution. Sheila Fitzpatrick beautifully explains the formation of one of the most powerful nations of the world, the USSR. The Soviet Union underwent a series of changes since its formation, with many countries joining and leaving Russia at different points in time.

    Russia met its peak stardom and downfall over the years under different leadership, from Lenin to Stalin to Khrushchev to Gorbachev. This book explains the changes that happened under each of its leaders with a perfect time stamp. It was fascinating to learn about the ideologies of different leaders and how the nation transitioned between communism, Marxism and socialism.

    If you are interested in learning the effects of world events like World War II, the American-Vietnam war, the Berlin Wall, and the Sputnik launch on the development and collapse of Russia, then this book perfectly summarises it all.

    I liked the author's approach to her narration of various events, where she maintained a neutral tone combined with wit and sarcasm. The soviet union's history definitely captivated me with its journey from being the first ever nation to legalise abortion to enforcing strict military regimes.

    It's a small book that is strategically divided into parts that summarises Russia in 200 pages. Definitely recommended for people who love reading world history.

  • JoAnn

    The perfect overview of a massive, tumultuous history. At 248 pages from start through to the end of the index, Patrick's book lives up to its name and delivers on accessibility and content. The chapters are chronologically organized, written in succinct prose, and free of historiographical or theoretical tangents. My galley copy did not even have footnotes! (But more on this later).

    Patrick's book is perfect for the undergraduate survey course in Soviet history (or for a Modern European history course) and for anyone who is new -- like me -- to the nuances and complications of Soviet history. The chapters are short enough to assign in lower level college courses and they lay out the chronological landscape very well; Soviet history can feel a bit overwhelming and Patrick eases the reader into it smoothly. The lack of footnotes here, normally a red flag in my view, was a positive characteristic. Undergraduate students sometimes feel overwhelmed at the footnotes, feeling unsure of where to direct their attention. The absence of citations allows readers to focus fully on the content at hand instead of worrying about tangential or other information.

    As a historian of other regions I cannot comment on Patrick's content in depth; however, I will say that I am very appreciative of the very meticulous sources, references, and bibliography Patrick provides at the end.

  • Saju Pillai

    A surprisingly good read. I was skeptical about how "the shortest history" of anything would turn out, particularly expecting such a book to take shortcuts and "dumb down" complex happenings. To my very pleasant surprise this book is anything but "dumbed down". This becomes evident right from the Introduction. Sheila Fitzpatrick is an eminent historian of the Soviet era and a great writer to boot. In these 230 pages (of my edition), she has successfully managed to get across the main (political and economic) events of the Soviet Union from it's birth to it's collapse, but instead of some dry recital of a timeline, Sheila gets across to the reader a deeper sense of the "operating principles" of the Soviet Union.

    To me the only (minor) failing of the book is it misses a deeper treatment of the transfer of power when the current leader dies or is pushed out. Exactly how did Stalin, Khrushchev & Brezhnev rise to the top of what in principle is a "Politburo of equals", especially when none of these 3 where considered top candidates for being top dog amongst their peers. Regardless, I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone wanting a succinct, but robust history of the Soviet Union.

  • JoAnn

    The perfect overview of a massive, tumultuous history. At 248 pages from start through to the end of the index, Patrick's book lives up to its name and delivers on accessibility and content. The chapters are chronologically organized, written in succinct prose, and free of historiographical or theoretical tangents. My galley copy did not even have footnotes! (But more on this later).

    Patrick's book is perfect for the undergraduate survey course in Soviet history (or for a Modern European history course) and for anyone who is new -- like me -- to the nuances and complications of Soviet history. The chapters are short enough to assign in lower level college courses and they lay out the chronological landscape very well; Soviet history can feel a bit overwhelming and Patrick eases the reader into it smoothly. The lack of footnotes here, normally a red flag in my view, was a positive characteristic. Undergraduate students sometimes feel overwhelmed at the footnotes, feeling unsure of where to direct their attention. The absence of citations allows readers to focus fully on the content at hand instead of worrying about tangential or other information.

    As a historian of other regions I cannot comment on Patrick's content in depth; however, I will say that I am very appreciative of the very meticulous sources, references, and bibliography Patrick provides at the end.