東欧革命1989:ソ連帝国の崩壊 by Victor Sebestyen

東欧革命1989:ソ連帝国の崩壊 Reviews

• 
  Paul Bryant

  The new leader of the USSR was late for a meeting with some Western diplomats in 1985. He apologised – “I’m sorry, I had to deal with some urgent agricultural problems.” “Oh,” said one diplomat, “when did they begin?” “1917” said Gorbachev. He had a sense of humour and a nice smile. He was…unusual.
  
  When did Soviet Communism begin to disintegrate?
  
  Answer 1 : When Karol Wojtyla got the big promotion and became Pope John Paul II in October 1978. A Polish Pope! An Anti-communist Polish Pope! Who immediately set up a visit to Poland (June 1979) and one way or another helped inspire Polish workers in Gdansk & elsewhere to form a free trade union called Solidarity.
  
  Answer 2 : When the USSR was dragged unwillingly into an invasion of Afghanistan (December 1979) . They knew their imperial history and were aware that nobody wins a war with the Afghans, but they felt the fear and did it anyway. So that was the first time it was demonstrated that Soviet military might had its limits.
  
  Answer 3 : It was when Gorby got the job. They picked him because they were sick of burying decrepit old men – Brezhnev (died 1982), Andropov (died 1984) and Chernenko (died 1985) – it was too much. They needed a younger man. Gorby was 54 when he got the job, which for the Kremlin was reckless vibrant youth.
  
  Gorbachev was a dyed-in-the-wool Communist and he killed Communism by wanting it to actually work, as opposed to pretending it worked. He had no idea it was beyond fixing. (Whether it could ever have worked is a discussion for a different review.) Gorbachev never stopped being a Communist, even as the palaces tumbled. Although he did star in a Pizza Hut commercial.
  
  
  
  Answer 4: It was when Communists gradually lost the stomach for shooting people to encourage the others. In the 1956 Hungarian revolt 3000 died; in the crushing of the Prague Spring in 1968 108 were killed; and when communism fizzled out in 1991 how many were killed by the diehards? 13 (in Lithuania). With the single awful exception of Romania where 1104 people were killed. (The Yugoslavian wars were not about communism).
  
  I previously read Down with Big Brother by Michael Dobbs which covers the same territory but takes it all the way to 1991, when the USSR was formally abolished. Mr Sebestyen’s immensely detailed book ends in December 1989 with the execution of the Ceausescus and the fall of the Berlin Wall (a wonderful example of bureaucratic cock-up – they hadn’t meant to open the gates but the guy who announced the revised travel rules on TV just misunderstood), and so we do not get his version of the dramatic events of the next two years - the attempted Moscow coup, the Yeltsin take-over, the Yugoslavian eruption). His 400 page book would have had to be a whole lot longer.
  
  Because of that I’m going to recommend Michael Dobbs’ book over this one, even though this one is excellent too.
  
  Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev went to England and appeared on tv and told the following joke :
  
  A man is queuing for food in Moscow. Finally he's had enough. He turns round to his friend and says "That's it. I'm going to kill that Gorbachev," and marches off. Two hours later he comes back. "Well," says the friend, "did you do it?" "No," replies the other, "there was an even longer queue over there."
  
  
  
• 
  Maziyar Yf

  ویکتور شبشتین در کتاب انقلاب های 1989 به یکی از مهمترین موضوعات و بحران های قرن گذشته پرداخته ، مجموعه انقلاب هایی که عموما بدون خونریزی در اروپای شرقی ، پیاپی و سریع چنان اتفاق افتاد که موجب بهت و شگفتی جهانیان شد و پایان دوره ای طولانی و سخت را برای ملتها رقم زد .
  پیروزی این انقلابها چنان سریع و قاطع و غیر قابل پیش بینی بوده است که بیشتر به معجزه ای می ماند ، اینکه مردمانی با دستان خالی در برابر رژیم هایی بسیار قدرتمند و توتالیتر نه تنها برخیزند بلکه به راحتی ابهت پوشالی حاکمان خود را هم در هم شکنند و سپس به سوی آزادی و دموکراسی حرکت کنند .
  شبشتین به چنین موضوع مهم و بااهمیتی پرداخته ، اوابتدا مجموعه ای از دلایل برای نارضایتی توده های مردم در کشورهای مختلف را بیان کرده و سپس با رسیدن به سالهای پایانی آن دهه و رخ دادن انقلاب ها ، تصویری منظم و منطقی از چگونگی آن ها به خواننده نشان داده است .
  جرقه ناآرامی ها از لهستان شروع شد ، ملتی سخت کوش که سابقه طولانی مقاومت در برابر نیروهایی بسیار قویتر از خود دارد ، کشوری که بارها توسط آلمان و روسیه بلعیده شده ولی هر با تلاشی بسیاراستقلال و هویت خود را بدست آورده . یک اعتصاب کوچک در کارخانه کشتی سازی در گدانسک ابعادی باورنکردنی گرفت و از دل آن لخ والسا به عنوان رهبر و اتحادیه همبستگی همانند تشکیلاتی بسیار قوی سر بر آوردند و در مدت یک دهه قدرت را بدون خونریزی و مسالمت آمیز ، با تکیه بر اعتصاب های گسترده در پایان دولتی دموکرات و مردمی تشکیل دادند .
  فردی دیگر که در کتاب حضوری بسیار پررنگ دارد میخاییل گورباچف ، آخرین دبیرکل حزب کمونیست است که نقشی بسیار مهم در تمامی وقایع آن دوران داشت وشاید اگر وجود گوربی نبود شاید دموکراسی برای کشورهای اروپای شرقی به راحتی به دست نمی آمد . گورباچف با شعار گلاسنوست ( شفافیت ) و پروسترویکا (باز سازی ) و هدف انجام اصلاحات اساسی در نظامی که به رخوت و کرختی مرگ آور دچار شده بود دوران خود را شروع کرد اما ساختار فرسوده و فساد سیستماتیک و همچنین اشتباهات شخصی به او فرصت و اجازه اصلاحات نداد ، او در مواجهه با اولین فاجعه زمامداری خود ، چرنوبیل در شفاف سازی و همچنین انجام اقدامی قاطع شکست خورد . نویسنده به درستی
  گورباچف را کسی می داند که برای نجات کمونیسم آمده بود اما بیشترین ضربه را به آن زد و باعث سقوط آن شد .
  مجارستان ، چک اسلاواکی ، آلمان شرقی ، بلغارستان و رومانی کشورهای دیگر امپراطوری شوروی بودند که در این میان به جز مجارستان مابقی کشورها توسط دایناسورهایی باقی مانده از دوران جنگ سرد اداره می شدند و با هر گونه اصلاحاتی مخالف بودند اما در پایان دهه توسط خود حزب و البته زیر فشار مردم از قدرت خلع شدند و افراد جدید هم چاره ای جز مذاکره با اپوزیسیون و برقراری انتخابات آزاد نداشتند . اما انقلاب رومانی تنها انقلابی بود که به خشونت کشیده شد و در جریان این انقلاب که توسط تلویزیون به طور مستقیم پخش می شد ، شماری از مردم و چائوشسکو و النا همسر او کشته شدند ، در حقیقت صحنه شروع اعتراضات به چائوشسکو یکی از برترین و تکان دهنده ترین نمادهای قرن گذشته است ، او ناگهان هنگام سخنرانی در میان طرفداران خود که توسط سازمان امنیت رومانی به دقت انتخاب شده بودند هو شد ، حیرت کردن دیکتاتور ، دهان باز و فک آویزان او و دیدن این تصاویر توسط میلونها شهروند رومانی پیامی به مردمی خسته و به جان آمده بود که دوران چائوشسکو تمام شده است ، او چند روز بعد به همراه همسر منفورش اعدام شد .
  افزون بر نارضایتی شدید مردم ، رفتار ملایم و شاید پشتیبانی گورباچف از انقلابهای مردمی ، تلویزیون عامل مهم دیگری در برافروختن آتش انقلاب بود ، رقص و شادمانی مردم در اطراف دیوار برلین ، بالا رفتن از آن و تلاش برای تخریب دیوار ، حمله مردم به محل زندگی چائو شسکو و انقلاب مخملی در چک اسلاواکی و انبوه حوادث دیگر ، همگی توسط تلویزیون مستقیم پخش شدند و به این ترتیب عزم مردمی که قصد و اراده ای برای شرکت در اعتراضات نداشتند جزم شد و میلیونها نفر دیگر به تظاهرات ضد کمونیستی پیوستند .
  نویسنده تنها به قدرت سخت و تظاهرات در خیابانها نپرداخته ، انتشار کتاب های مخالف با نظام حاکم و شکوفایی جریان روشنفکری بخشی دیگر از مبارزات در اوپای شرقی بوده که می توان آنرا به عنوان قدرت نرم در نظر گرفت . شاید مهمترین روشنفکر را واتسلاف هاول
  فقید و قدرت بی قدرتان را برجسته ترین کتاب در این راستا دانست . نوشته هاول به سرعت بردی بسیار پیدا کرد و اثر و نفوذ فراوانی بر جوامع کشورهای چک ��سلاواکی ؛ لهستان و مجارستان گذاشت . همراه با هاول ، روشنفکرانی همچون لخ والسا و آدام میخنیک در لهستان و افرادی دیگر در مجارستان پایه گذار نهضتی قوی و زیر زمینی شدند که تاثیرو کارایی بسیاری بر جوامع آنها گذاشت .
  حوادث کتاب با رسیدن به سال 1989 ، سال سرنوشت سرعت می گیرند ، شبشتین پیشتر فصلهای مختلف کتاب را به کشورهای لهستان ، مجارستان ، چک اسلاواکی ، رومانی و بلغارستان و تاثیر سیاستهای گورباچف بر این کشورها پرداخته بود و به این ترتیب زمانی که در لهستان انتخابات آزاد برگزار و به گونه ای اولین و مهمترین کشور از دایره نفوذ شوروی خارج شد تا زمانی که رخداد هایی پیاپی مانند آتش بر خرمن مشتعل دیگر کشورها زد و ریشه نظام کمونیستی را از پایه سوزاند و نابود کرد تقریبا علت های اساسی ناآرامی ها و سقوط حکومت های پوشالی را شرح داده ، به گونه ای که خواننده پایانی به جز فروپاشی برای رژیم های کمونیستی نمی تواند تصور کند .
  شاید تنها نکته منفی کتاب را بتوان در تلاش نویسنده برای نشان دادن سیمای انسانی از روسای جمهوری آمریکا و نادیده گرفتن نقش سیا و آمریکا در سقوط بلوک شرق دانست ، تلاشی که به کتاب اندکی حالت مبارزه میان خیر و شر داده است ، می توان گفت رئیس جمهور های آمریکا ، فارغ از هر حزبی که باشند همانند همتایان روس شان نقشی بسیار مهم در نابودی و تضعیف دموکراسی در کشورهای مختلف در هر گوشه ای از جهان داشته اند و تنها اصلی که برای آنها اهمیت نداشته مردم و ملت ها بوده اند .
  در پایان می توان گفت ویکتور شبشتین به زبانی ساده ، تاریخی سخت و پیچیده را شرح داده . کتاب او همانند یک داستان سرشار از فراز و نشیب است ، هنر نویسنده در بیان تاریخی تلخ و دردناک همانند یک روایت تاریخی جذاب بوده است .
• 
  Kinga

  I bought this book on the 12th of June 2012, the day Poland drew against Russia in the Group Stage of Euro 2012 held in Poland and Ukraine. I was at a book launch of some Argentinian novel held in a quaint bookshop in a very posh part of West London and while I enjoyed the book talk and the free wine I was also inconspicuously (or so I thought at least) checking the score on my phone. It was very stressful, because for over half an hour between the 37th minute of the game (Dzagoev’s goal) and the 57th minute (Błaszczykowski’s equalising goal) things did not look very good at all.
  
  It was also the day I met Charles, the owner of CB Editions who then walked me to the tube station and consoled me. Błaszczykowski scored while I was on the tube and I didn’t find out until around Embankment where I got signal again. “Revolution 1989 – the Fall of the Soviet Empire” was an impulsive purchase and, I think, pretty self-explanatory.
  
  Writing this made me remember the first episode of the podcast Serial and the debate there on the difficulty of accounting for every minute of the day. If the police come round asking me what I did on the evening of November 15th this year, I probably wouldn’t have a clue, but should I ever need an alibi for June 12, 2012…
  
  If you enjoyed the above anecdote then you will definitely enjoy this book, which was the best non-fiction book I’ve read this year. Sebestyen has plenty of anecdotes but, unlike mine, they are interesting and they are there for a reason, always to support some larger argument, present the big picture using a small one.
  
  I consider myself an expert on the fall of communism but I realised that while I know pretty much everything on the subject that concerns Poland (I enjoyed correcting some minor errors in this book), I knew precious little about the rest of the Eastern block. I somehow foolishly assumed it was pretty much the same everywhere. And ironically enough, this is what pisses me off so much about some British or American books which take place in ‘unnamed Eastern/Central European countries’ or even in a made-up place somewhere between the Czech Republic and Hungary. Because we’re all the same, right?
  
  My favourite chapters talked about Romania. I didn’t quite realise the sheer madness of Ceausescu’s regime. For example, you needed a special permission to own a type-writer and the typewriter’s ‘fingerprint’ sample was saved and registered at the police station. That way any typed material could be traced back to its typist (or at least the owner the type-writer). Communism in Romania was unlike communism in Poland or Bulgaria, or even the Soviet Republic. It didn’t just reach the absurd and grotesque, it went far beyond it. If I had read this earlier, I would’ve probably understood better the rather unwell Romanian woman who once showed up unannounced in the literary agency I worked for holding a handwritten manuscript and insisted someone read it and published it. We tried to explain that we needed a typed-up manuscript and she needed to leave us with a copy and also give us her address for contact. She refused to do any of it. She said she tried once to type on a laptop someone gave her but the Secret Police was randomly deleting things as she was typing (I’m sure you’re familiar with this phenomenon of accidentally brushing the laptop touchpad with your wrist and making things disappear). She also maintained they were still listening on her conversations, so she couldn’t discuss this matter on the phone. She insisted we didn’t understand. I told her I was from Poland and I knew what she was talking about but that it was over now, it ended. She looked at me and shook her head. ‘Poland,’ she said and snorted with disdain. She was very distressed but there was nothing we could do for her and we made her leave. I can’t forget her.
  
  It seems that I keep forgetting to talk about the book in this review but it is very good. Read it.
  
  Some other time I will tell what I was doing the day Poland beat 2-0 the current World Champion – Germany in the 2016 Euro qualifying match.
• 
  Maryam

  اواخر دهه ۱۹۸۰، میخائیل گورباچف، رهبر شوروی، مجموعه‌ای از تغییرات در سیاست‌های اجتماعی، اقتصادی و خارجی کشورش جهت تقویت کیفیت و استاندارد زندگی و آغاز دوره جدیدی از روابط با ایالات متحده اعمال کرد. اثر همین تفکر جدید بود که نه تنها به جنگ سرد پایان داد بلکه فروپاشی امپراتوری شوروی رو هم تسریع کرد.
  
  اتحاد جماهیر شوروی به تدریج ناتوان و تمایلی به حفظ تعهدات خود در اروپای شرقی نداشت، سقوط قیمت جهانی نفت که باعث کاهش درآمد شوروی شده بود و جنگ طولانی و بی‌نتیجه‌ای که در افغانستان داشتند و از سوی گورباچف تصمیم داشت با کاهش هزینه‌های نظامی و هسته‌ای باعث رونق اقتصاد شوروی بشه مجموعه این عوامل باعث شد گورباچف از رهبران احزاب اروپای شرقی فاصله بگیره تا آنها را مجبور به حل مشکلات داخلی و اقتصادی کشورشون کنه چون یکی از ویژگی‌های مشترک تقریباً هر شش کشور این واقعیت بود که آنها به شدت به بانک‌های غربی بدهکار شده بودند تا اقتصاد خود را حفظ کنند. و امتناع شوروی ​​از نجات آنها باعث شد کارگرانی که صرفاً به دلیل فقدان آزادی‌های سیاسی و آزادی‌های مدنی انگیزه مخالفت با دولت‌های خود را نداشتد انگیزه و نیروی جدیدی بگیرند.
  
  سقوط امپراتوری شوروی در هر یک از کشورها از جمله رومانی، بلغارستان، مجارستان، لهستان، آلمان شرقی شکل‌های متفاوتی داشت. برخی از دولت ها احزاب اپوزیسیون کاملاً سازماندهی شده‌‌ای داشتند که در طول سالیان متمادی مبارزه کردند و از طریق سازش های متوالی توانستند رهبران کمونیست رو سرنگون کنند مثل اتحادیه همبستگی لهستان، برخی کشورها مثل آلمان شرقی هیچ واکنش سازمان یافته‌ای نداشتند و
  به دلیل بیماری هونکر که عملاً باعث فلج شدن رهبری شده بود، مردم از اتفاقات کشورهای همسایه آگاه شدند و فرصتی برای انقلاب پیدا کردند حتی تخریب دیوار برلین هم خطای یک روزنامه‌‌نگار بود. و سرنگونی خونین چائوشسکوی رومانی، در یک رویارویی خشونت‌آمیز که رویدادهای این کشور را از انقلاب‌های بسیار مسالمت‌آمیز در کشورهای مثل چکسلواکی که به انقلاب مخملی معروف شد، متمایز می‌کرد.
  
  انقلاب به مثابه چراغ امیدی برای مردم ستمدیده‌ای بود که در خواب هم رویای آزادی رو نمیدیدند و نهایت اراده مردم برا استبداد پیروز شد. و ده‌ها دیکتاتور بی کفایت، فاسد و شرور از بین رفتند.
• 
  Saman

  انقلاب های 1989
  
  انقلاب های سال 1989 و فروپاشی امپراتوری شوروی موضوعی است که شبشتین در کتاب به اون میپردازه. او از جنگ سرد و توصیف اون دوره شروع میکنه و سپس به بیان مشکلات و معضلات کشورهای اقماری تحت شوروی میپردازه و در نهایت از اعتصابها و شورش ها و انقلاب ها در کشورها صحبت میکنه.لهستان،آلمان شرقی،بلغارستان،مجارستان،چکسلواکی،رومانی و خود شوروی(روسیه کمونیستی) از کشورهای مورد بحث در کتاب فوق الذکر است.
  حکامی که با جمود فکری، و عدم انعطاف و به بار آوردن بدهی های زیاد کشورهای تحت حکومتشون رو به وضعیت وخیمی رسونده بودند و زندگی مردم به سختی میگذشت.توصیف وضعیت کشورها و بیان فضای خفقان در بخش های مختلف کتاب انجام شده.از اشخاص مختلفی در کتاب صحبت میشه که یکی از پر رنگ ترین آنها،گورباچفی است که درسته با رویکرد اصلاح طلبانه قدرت رو به دست گرفت اما نتوانست مانع فروپاشی بشه و در نهایت شد آنچه که در کتاب میخوانیم.یکی از راهکارهای او برای کاهش هزینه ها ،خروج نیروها از افغانستان بود که مفصل در کتاب در موردش میخوانیم.او دیدارهایی با روسای جمهور آمریکا داشت که یکی از جاهایی که نویسنده از دایره انصاف خارج شده بود همین طرز دیدگاهش نسبت به ریگان و بوش بود و کلا امریکایی ها رو بسیار نایس و گوگولی و متین نشون داده بود.به هر حال از سختی های تاریخ خواندن همین گرایش های نویسنده ها به اشخاص و موضوعات مختلفه که باید مورد توجه خواننده قرار بگیره.به چرنوبیل هم در کتاب پرداخته شده که گوباچف در این موضوع هم نتونست واکنش مناسبی داشته باشه.
  واتسلاف هاولی که ما با کتاب قدرت بی قدرتان میشناسیمش از دیگر اشخاص مورد بحث کتاب بود.او نقش مهمی در انقلاب مخملی چکسلواکی داشت و به فعالیت های او در فصول مختلف اشاراتی میشه.
  از معدود انقلاب های این کشورها که خونریزی داشت، برکناری چائوشسکو حاکم رمانی بود که شاید در فضای مجازی فیلم لحظه ی سخنرانی او در بین مردم که برای اولین بار هو میشه و شعارهایی رو علیه خودش میشنوه و دهنش از این واقعه باز میمونه دیده باشید.محاکمه سریع او و کشته شدن او و همسر منفورش النا در کتاب توضیح داده شده.
  بخش فروپاشی دیوار برلین و فاصله ای که این دیوار بین مردم ایجاد کرده بود و سختی های مهاجرت و مسائل دیگر،از موضوعات جالب اشاره شده در کتاب بود.
  
  به هر حال فروپاشی شوروی از موضوعات جالب،مهم،خواندنی و قابل بحث در دنیا و کشور خودمون هست که متاسفانه با فقر شدید کتاب ترجمه شده در این موضوع مواجهیم.البته نمیدونم در دنیا کلا کتابهای قابل اعتنایی در این موضوع نوشته شده یا هنوز تحلیلگران نتونستند از آنچه گذشت موضوعی قابل استناد ارائه بدند.
• 
  Maciek

  Published in 2009, Victor Sebestyen's book is a good gift to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of what has since been called "The Autumn of Nations" - a wave of revolutions which swept across eastern Europe in 1989, and resulted in profound changes in the whole world. The Berlin Wall fell, and Germany was reunified; one by one, countries of eastern Europe - which have been satellite states of the Soviet Union for more than 50 years - have regained their independence through democracy and sheer will of their people; ultimately the Soviet Union has also dissolved itself, resulting in the end of the Cold War and the beginning of a new age in international relations.
  
  This is a great story, and one which has been told before. Sebestyen acknowledges his debt to the British journalist and author Michael Dobbs, and his great book
  Down with Big Brother: The Fall of the Soviet Empire, which I have previously read and reviewed. Dobbs's book is great narrative history, especially so since as a correspondent for the Washington Post he was present in Europe at the time, and personally witnessed many of the events he described and has met many of the people he presented in his book. This gives Down with Big Brother a flair of immediacy: we almost feel as if we were there along with the author, which is a great achievement. I enjoyed it very much and would recommend it to anyone interested in this particular part of history.
  
  This is not to say that Sebestyen's book is inferior, or unnecessary. Sebestyen wrote a good popular history - Revolution 1989 focuses on the eastern European countries which spent almost entire post-war 20th century under Soviet influence: Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Romania. The book is sequenced into chapters which move swiftly between them, easily bringing all the major characters and events into focus - the rise of Solidarity in Poland under Lech Wałęsa, with an appreciated inclusion of the often underappreciated Anna Walentynowicz; the martial law imposed by General Jaruzelski, and his tries to ensure Soviet as the situation was slipping from his control. Sebestyen devotes a significant amount of space to East Germany under Erich Honecker, one of the Eastern Bloc's last truly devoted Stalinists, and his stubborn refusal to undertake any reforms, a stance which eventually led to the sudden collapse of his state, and Todor Zhivkov, the Bulgarian dictator whose policies led to the exodus of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Turks. Also present is Nicolae Ceausescu, the monster who ruled Romania as his personal fiefdom for over a quarter of a century. The book begins and closes with his execution - the only case of a violent overthrow of government in 1989 - drawing full circle.
  
  Sebestyen was born in Budapest and left Hungary with his parents not long after the failed uprising, which was brutally crushed by the Soviet Union as the Western nations stood idly by and watched it happen. They settled in England as refugees, where he worked as a journalist in a number of papers, such as The Times and The London Evening Standard. His journalistic style is present in the book - he knows how to maintain proper pacing and tension to keep his readers interested. Despite this, I can't give his book such an enthusiastic review and ratings that I have given to Dobbs.
  
  First of all, I believe that Sebestyen does himself a disservice by limiting himself to 1989 - although he obviously references earlier events which led to those of 1989, he misses the opportunity to present important developments which took place after 1989, such as German Reunification, or the split of Czechoslovakia into Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and - even though it was never part of the Soviet Empire - the death of Tito and end of communism in Yugoslavia, and the start of the bloodiest nationalist and sectarian conflict in Europe since World War 2.
  
  Another major trouble that I had with Sebestyen's book is that while it is concerned at large with the Soviet Empire - meaning eastern Europe from 1945 to 1989 - it basically skips any events happening in the Soviet Union itself. How can you write about an empire without even mentioning the emperor? In Sebestyen's book, the Soviet Union is essentially reduced to its last ruler - Mikhail Gorbachev, and his attempts at saving communism by making it more democratic and transparent (his policies were called perestroika and glasnost, which means "restructuring" and "openness" in Russian). Sebestyen praises Gorbachev for his revolutionary approach - the conscious choice of allowing other eastern European countries to pursue their destinies on their own, with no pressure from the Soviet Union. This approach has been named "The Sinatra Doctrine", after Frank Sinatra's song "My Way" - the name is a purposeful contrast to the previous Soviet policy put in place by Leonid Brezhnev. The so-called "Brezhnev Doctrine" stated that the threat of an anti-socialist revolution in any country of the socialist camp is the threat to socialism itself, and therefore requires a decisive Soviet intervention. Brezhnev used the doctrine to justify Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the brutal suppression of their respective uprisings. Gorbachev desired to return to Leninist principles, and aside from making the Soviet Union more free and open allow other nations to be free to pursue their own paths to communism; he could not predict that once coercion and the threat of force was gone, the whole thing would come tumbling down very quickly.
  
  Sebestyen portrays Gorbachev as a decent man, and by all accounts he was one. Genuinely concerned about the state of the country, Gorbachev wanted to improve its condition and international standing; he understood that the Soviet Union could no longer be a pariah state and a hypocrite, pretending to ensure the freedom of nations while instead enslaving them. He was young, went to talk to ordinary people, made jokes and was loved by Western press and Western leaders; Margaret Thatcher famously said that she could do business with him, and she meant it.
  
  Although Gorbachev was a decent man with what can be perceived as decent goals, it unfortunately doesn't automatically follow that his time as a ruler was not without indecent moments. While Sebestyen acknowledges the troubles which plagued the Soviet Union when Gorbachev came to power, he focuses largely on its failing economy and remains conspicuously silent about everything else. In fact, he mentions only two of the major events in Soviet history at the end of the 20th century - the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 and the Armenian earthquake of 1988.
  
  Despite writing about various revolutions happening all across eastern Europe, Sebestyen is completely silent about internal revolutions and uprisings which happened in the Soviet Union itself at the time of Gorbachev's rule. While reading the book, one receives a picture of Gorbachev distancing himself from internal affairs of eastern European countries and focusing on internal problems facing Soviet society, but one does not get an adequate picture of said society, which was beginning to tear itself apart n bitter ethnic conflicts and nationalist uprisings, which were often brutally crushed by the state.
  
  Much like in Yugoslavia after the death of Tito, nationalism arose in the Soviet Union after the death of Brezhnev. Anti-soviet and national protests stretched from the Baltic trough the Caucasus, to Central Asia. The Baltic republics - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - were always the ones most striving for independence, having been forcibly annexed into the Soviet Union during World War 2: two million people joined their hands in protest and formed a human chain stretching through all three republics, long for over 600 kilometers. Latvians marched in protests, Estonians sang forbidden national hymns and patriotic songs; Lithuania was the first of all republics to publicly declare its independence from the Soviet Union, prompting Gorbachev to threat the local government with armed force if order was not restored, with Soviet military eventually entering and occupying Vilnius.
  
  The Caucasus saw the rise of independence movement, as well as the resurgence an ethnic conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabach - a majorly Armenian region put in the borders of Soviet Azerbaijan by Joseph Stalin to placate neighboring Turkey. Armenians protests for Karabach to be transferred from Soviet Azerbaijan to Soviet Armenia resulted in pogroms against the local Armenian population in Sumgait, and later in Baku. This prompted Gorbachev to call a state of emergency and send in the army - which resulted in a violent crackdown, today remembered as the Black January.
  
  There are many other instances of anti-soviet protests which occurred during that time, many of which were violently suppressed by the army. The 1986 riots in Alma-Ata, the then capital of Soviet Kazakhstan; the April 1989 protests in Georgian SSR, where hundreds have been wounded, as they also were in the 1990 riots in Dushanbe, the capital of Soviet Tajikistan. You will not read about any of them in this book - and you will also not learn about the later coup which was made against Gorbachev by a number of communist hardliners, who saw that removing him from power was the only way to stop separatism and restore order; the coup failed, as did Gorbachev's plans for a new union with more individual rights for each republic. The saying goes that the rest is history - but it is truly a shame that this history is not included here.
  
  Was Sebestyen afraid that it would distort the image of Gorbachev that he wanted to present, and therefore decided to sweep the dirt under the rug? Possibly, but if so it was certainly a bad decision. Despite my criticism, Sebestyen's book is not bad history for the general reader - I wish it was longer and more inclusive, as the commitment of these important times late of Soviet history is just bizarre. I appreciate his focus on eastern European countries, and his acknowledgment of their many differences and respectful portrayal of their history; I just wished his book to be more inclusive and contain also the few important details about the last days regime which ruled over them for so long.
  
  
• 
  Chrissie

  I think this is a fabulous book of non-fiction. It is clear, interesting from start to finish and the amount of detail is perfect. It is not dry, not ever.
  
  It follows the fall of the totalitarian regimes in the six countries of the Warsaw Pact: Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. You come to understand why the USSR fell apart. It follows the significant role played by leaders and dissidents in these six nations and Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Regan, George H. W. Bush and Pope John Paul II. The events in each of these countries and their respective leaders are covered in detail. Soviet involvement in Afghanistan is also discussed because the disastrous military campaign there partially explains Soviet abandonment of the satellite countries.
  
  I am not knowledgeable enough to check the accuracy of every detail; I read the book to learn. Nevertheless, I do not doubt the author's information - he is an English journalist writing for the London Evening Standard and he witnessed much first hand.
  
  In the introduction the author states that he uses the terms Eastern and Central Europe interchangeably, as well as Soviet Union, Russia and the USSR. It would have been better had he simply stated which counties he classified as Eastern European and which Central European. In addition he uses the words socialism and communism interchangeable. This is sloppy, and in some lines the word choice is quite simply wrong. Socialism and communism cannot be used interchangeably; they are not the same thing! This frequently bothered me.
  
  I wish the book had covered the evolution of events in the Baltic States which also threw off Soviet tyranny. The author states that Yugoslavia is omitted because it deserves a book of its own.
  
  I listened to the audiobook narrated by Paul Hecht. Some of the Eastern European names are hard to catch, but most often I could still find these names with the help of Wiki. The narration is excellent. The reading is slow and clear. You need that in a book of non-fiction where there is so much to learn.
  
  I really, really, really liked this book. I found it fascinating and clear. I just wish I could glue everything in my head so it never disappears. When you read a book that is this good, you don't want to forget any small detail.
  
  (Please read what I have written below. You will find there additional important information.)
  
  ***********************************
  
  About 1/3 through the book:
  
  I have listened to about 1/3 and am totally enjoying it. Absolutely fascinating. It starts in in the 1970s so you watch the disintegration of the Empire, not just the final fall. It is one of those books of non-fiction that IS NOT DRY. When a number is given it is compared with another so you understand its significance. You laugh at what you are being told; the author puts it so amusingly. For example, when he talks about the Stasi and the GDR he speaks of a spy who marries for the sole purpose of spying on the woman more efficiently! Everything had to be recorded on paper because there were so many power cuts. He talks of mountains of information and how stupid much was - such as the exact conversation of a guy buying a hot dog. "No the mustard isn't necessary, just the bread." The book is interesting and easy to read and read and read. Just the right amount of information to pique your interest. Not too much so it gets tedious.
  
  I hadn't realized to what extent the dissension in Poland in the 80s was hinged upon the papal choice of Pope John Paul II.
  
  All readers will recognize name after name after name. You learn about Lech Wałęsa, Solidarity (The Polish Trade Union), Václav Havel, Erich Honecker, Erich Mielke (German secret police official, head of Stasi), Leonid Brezhnev, Andrei Gromyko and of course Mikhail Gorbachev. And I have only read a third of the book!
  
• 
  Kaveh Rezaie

  بسیار بسیار واجب است خواندنش در این زمانه و روزها...
  
  کتاب از روز اعدام چائوشسکو رهبر بی‌همه‌چیز رومانی آغاز می‌کند و به عقب برمی‌گردد و سال‌ها و روزهایی را که در اروپا به این نتیجه مبارک منجر شد بررسی می‌کند:
  
  - روسیه در دوران برژنف و خلف‌های فرتوت که در فاصله‌ی کوتاهی می‌مردند و جایشان را تقدیم پیر بعدی می‌کردند. تا سرانجام به گورباچوف ختم شد و اصلاحات و روشن‌فکری‌های او...
  - اشغال احمقانه افغانستان توسط شوروی و عقب‌نشینی مفتضحانه پس از سال‌ها
  - لهستان و کلیسا و پاپ ژان پل دوم و لخ والسا و جنبش همبستگی و ...
  - مجارستان و قیام ۱۹۵۶ و کاداریسم و «پرده آهنین»ش با اتریش و ...
  - چکسلواکی و هوساک و قیام ۱۹۶۸ (بهار پراگ) و واتسلاو هاول و «انقلاب مخملی» و الکساندر دوبچک و
  - رومانی و زوج خونخوار
  - بلغارستان و ژیوکوف و آزار ترک‌ها و ...
  - آلمان شرقی و دیوار برلین و سیستم عریض و طویل و عجیب اشتازی و اریش هونکر و ....
  - سیاست‌های امریکای ریگان و بوش، و غرب در آن دوران
  - و...
  
  چقدر زیاد این روزهای ما شبیه آن روزهای کشورهای اتحاد شوروی است...همه سیاست‌ها، بلندپروازی‌های توهمی، رجزخوانی‌های بی‌مصرف داخلی، فقر، نابودی منابع و محیط زیست، سرکوب و ...
  
  ترجمه عالی.
• 
  Mahya danesh

  اگه تا امروز کتاب شوروی ضد شوروی با ترجمه جناب اشتری در صدر تمام کتاب هایی که برای تاریخ شوروی خوندم بوده ، باید بگم هنوزم هست😁 اما رتبه دوم رو اختصاص دادم به این کتاب .
  شوروی ضد شوروی بیشتر حول محور فرهنگ و شرایط سخت مردم اقمار کمونیستی بود ولی این کتاب به جز این موارد به فروپاشی امپراطوری سوسیالیستی میپردازه .
  توی هر بخش به سراغ یکی از کشورها میره ،شرایط رو میگه ،زمینه سازی میکنه و جرقه انقلاب ،کودتا و فروپاشی رو میزنه.
  بی نهایت قسمتی که مربوط به ریزش دیوار برلین بود رو دوست داشتم و تاکید میکنم چندبار بخونیدش😉
  این کتاب سراسر عبرته و به زیبایی هرچه تمام تر نشون میده که توتالیترترین حکومت های تاریخ هم میتونن در عرض چندماه ،چندهفته و چند روز از هم بپاشن و در نهایت مردم پیروز بشن .
  خوندنش رو بهتون توصیه میکنم اگه قرار باشه تعداد محدودی کتاب از تاریخ شوروی بخونید و توصیه من اینه اگه شما هم میخواید چندسال برای تاریخ شوروی وقت بذارید این اخرین کتابی باشه که میخونید 😌
  مثل همیشه ترجمه حرف نداشت و بی نهایت لذت بردم ❤️
• 
  Chin Joo

  1989 was an amazing in the history of the Cold War. It was the year when the satellite states of the Soviet Union in East Europe rid themselves of Communist Parties that have been ruling them for more than 40 years and decided that they deserved a better life. This book, Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire by Victor Sebestyen was a very good introductory reader for anyone wanting to have an overview of the events in the various states.
  
  A journalist who covered the events in Eastern Europe in 1989, Sebesteyn was able to capture the mood of what was happening in the various states at that time very well in the book. His pace was brisk, increasingly so as we near the final section of the book detailing the unfolding events in different states. His perspective was not only from that of high politics, or that between the West (particularly the US) and the Soviet Union, but also down to the people's level, as with his description of Anna Walentynowycz and her wrongful dismissal from her job. This has the benefit of informing his readers of the sentiments at the ground, but more interesting was his description of the festering anti-establishment organisations (or lack of, in the case of Romania) in the different countries just waiting for the the right time to strike and how they were harassed before that. In this, it must also be said that the author gave a fair treatment to his subjects, describing their incompetence and ill-preparedness when it was due (e.g., Solidarity's lack of foresight resulting in the arrest of many of its members) and giving praise when it is deserved.
  
  A reader of this book, upon reflection, would not fail to recognise some questions as he reads the book, all of which I cannot address in this review, but would invite readers consider them for themselves:
  
  1. While Gorbachev appeared to be the hero in the book, what did the Russians really think of him?
  2. Despite the rhetoric of the Cold War, it appeared that stability meant more to the West than the dissolution of the empire (see how even West Germany was worried about the instability that would be caused by East Germany's ousting of the Communists).
  3. Were the Soviets not using the same arguments in deciding whether or not to leave Afghanistan as the Americans when they argued about leaving Vietnam, and perhaps even Iraq - how do you answer to all those who have died? That they died for nothing? This question would no doubt be asked again by future governments, despite the 'black-hole' outcome that inevitably shows up.
  4. Does ideology actually matter? No matter how zealous the party apparatchiks were about their ideology, when they came to realise that it could no longer be saved, all went back to their most basic instincts, self-interest. Machiavelli knew something, and Hobbes was right.
  
  This is an ambitious project and for anyone to want to cover so many countries in a 400-page book, the treatment of each country cannot be comprehensive, and thus my comment earlier about this being a book that provides an overview. The author brought in different players, anti-establishment organisations, the rulers in the different countries, the Soviets (especially Gorbachev), and the Americans, both Reagan and the succeeding president, Bush. However he purposely left the critical question unanswered: Why did the empire fall? Was it because of the popular movements driven by the people? Or were the rulers in the various states so weakened by then that they would have imploded anyway? Or was it Gorbachev who decided to embrace Perestroika and Glasnost because he could not longer sustain the Union otherwise (given the hemorrhage in Afghanistan? Or was it the wisdom of Reagan who decided that he should bet on the sincerity of Gorbachev contrary to all the advice that he was receiving (pg. 224)?
  
  More importantly, why would this revolution be successful where others fail. It was only months prior to this that the students in China gathered in Tiananmen demanding change. That failed, brutally crushed. Was it because Chinese would do to their own what Eastern Europeans would not? Twenty years hence the optimistically called 'Arab Spring' fizzled out in some cases and reverted to other dictators in others. What ingredient was missing in these cases?
  
  The author made no attempt to answer the question in the case of the Soviet empire, therefore providing no leads for us to consider these cases.
• 
  Malihe63

  بسیار بسیار کتاب جذابی بود خلاصه ای از انقلاب هایی که در کشورهای سوسیالیستی رخ داد و علل آن
• 
  Negar

  انقلاب‌های کشورهای اروپای شرقی در واقع انقلاب به اون معنی که توسط مردم رقم زده شه نبودن و بیشتر استحاله‌ای از درون حکومت‌هاشون بود که باعث سقوط کمونیسم شد. این کتابو خیلی دوست داشتم جزئیات اتفاق‌ها و نوع روایتش برام واقعا جذاب بود.
• 
  Adrian Dumitru

  Recomand pasionaților de istorie.
• 
  John

  Excellent. Gives an interesting take on the factors that led to the fall of the empire.
  
• 
  Derek

  Lots of interesting stories about lots of interesting former Eastern bloc countries. For better or worse, the author’s journalistic background shows through in his approach to the history. You get a feeling of immediacy here, and a sense that the author has carefully selected many of the best stories to tell, but you lose a certain sense of historical analysis and theoretical explanation of the collapse of communism.
• 
  Jon Spoelstra

  In November 1989 I was reading in USA Today that the Berlin Wall was going to come down. Impossible! I remember when it went up. I remember Kennedy speaking near it. I thought this wall would never come down.
  
  I said to my wife, "Let's go see history in the making."
  
  She said, "No, I can't, but you go."
  
  I did. In fact, I think I was one of the first Americans to travel in East Germany since World War 2.
  
  Now there is a book about WHY it came down. Economics.
  
  REVOLUTION 1989 focuses on Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and, of course, Russia. Russia was reeling financially and Gorbachev bascially told his satellite countries that they were on there own. Oh-oh. Bulgaria used to receive cheap oil from Russia and then sell it on the open market for a big profit. Now, no more oil. Poland was $66 billion in debt to Western banks. Over 70% of their revenue went to just pay the INTEREST.
  
  These satellite countries borrowed money to buy such things as fruit and vegetables to give the illusion that their corrupt countries were working.
  
  If you're into history, this is a great book to read. The author is a great writer and makes all this history interesting to read.
• 
  Marc

  A brisk, concise account of the inspiring story of the people's revolutions that led to the decline and collapse of the six Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe. The emphasis is on Poland and Czechoslovakia (where the dissident movements were most most disruptive and effective) and East Germany (where the ultimate collapse was most visible and dramatic). Less coverage is given to Hungary (which was the first of the six countries to abandon Communism, but where the process was more gradual and less confrontational), and Bulgaria and Romania (whose leaders tolerated little or no dissent). Much coverage throughout the book is devoted to developments within the Soviet Union that enabled the ensuing events in the six satellite states.
  
  The book is arranged chronologically and divided into three sections that build dramatic momentum.
  
  The first section provides an overview of key events in the satellite states' early decades, taking us up through the efforts of nascent Helsinki Watch groups in the late 1970s, and the early 1980s efforts of the key dissident groups: KOR and Solidarity in Poland, and Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia. This section also illuminates the broader context: the war in Afghanistan sucking resources from the USSR; economic decline, and increased dependence on loans from Western lenders, in the satellite states; arms race pressures brought to bear by Reagan and Thatcher; and the era of weak leadership in the Soviet Union (Brezhnev's final years, followed by the brief, feckless administrations of Andropov and Chernenko).
  
  The second section focuses on developments between 1985 and 1988: Gorbachev's rise to power in the Soviet Union, and the practical consequences in the satellite states of the radical new policies of glasnost and perestroika. This period sees the acceleration of economic collapse, and greater reliance on loans from Western lenders; the Chernobyl disaster; and the growing boldness of dissident groups across most of the region.
  
  The third section takes us chronologically--and dramatically--through the pivotal (and title) year, 1989.
  
  The book is crisply written and neatly organized into 48 concise chapters. The author maintains an objective tone, and the book is very well researched. I can't imagine this epochal story told better within the confines of 400 pages. But I had a few minor quibbles. There was too much coverage of Afghanistan, and the selection of photos could have been improved: there are too many photos of the Berlin Wall and of Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan but no photos at all of many of the key political figures. And I would have liked to see a brief epilogue. In a broad sense, of course, the epilogue to this story is still being written, and I understand the author's decision to conclude the book with Vaclav Havel's Prague Castle speech on New Year's Day, 1990. But a brief epilogue describing what became of some of the movements' key figures would have been useful.
• 
  Mallory

  Unlike most of the books I’ve read about the end of the Cold War and the downfall of the Soviet Union, this book focuses on the Eastern European satellite states. It begins with the execution of Nicolae Ceausescu (no spoiler alert, because honestly), then goes back in time to the creation of Solidarity in Gdansk. As the book progresses, we jump from satellite to satellite, telling the often absurd stories of the regimes and the activists who confronted them. At times, we see the Kremlin’s point of view, but the focus is clearly on the fraying regimes. You know that the end is coming, inevitably, but the author manages to put some suspense into his writing.
• 
  Chris Walker

  A fascinating and wide-ranging account of the decade long Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. Sebestyen writes with a journalistic intensity, with an eye both for the personal anecdotes and political big picture. All the major players of the era are here and I gained a new appreciation in particular for Ronald Reagan, whose view of what needed to be done in international relations changed to the point we he needed to stand up to his hawkish advisors. I would have liked more on the character and role of Pope John Paul II, who is widely credited with contributing to the key events in Eastern Europe.
• 
  Evelyn

  If you want an easy to read, fully accessible and engaging history overview of the downfall of the Soviet Empire, then this is the title for you. I've picked up (and inevitably also put down) many books on this era and found the majority dull and far too dense for me. It's almost like you need a Masters in Eastern European history just to look at some of them! So I was very happy to stumble across this one as it's a great starting point / introduction to whet your appetite with.
• 
  Michael Gerald

  This book is among the books that came out in 2009, the twentieth anniversary of the democratic revolutions that toppled the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. I've read of those events in college and read about them in another commemorative book, "The Year That Changed the World".
  
  
• 
  Marco Caetano

  No passado 9 de Novembro foi comemorado o vigésimo aniversário da queda do muro de Berlim. No âmbito desta comemoração a Editorial Presença teve a gentileza de me convidar a ler esta obra de Victor Sebestyen que de uma forma geral relata os últimos dias da Guerra Fria e de todo o Império Soviético.
  
  Na altura de toda esta revolução, era eu ainda uma criança, tudo para mim era algo que acompanhei muito ao de leve na televisão. Mas de facto não tinha uma noção real do que passaram milhões de pessoas subjugadas a este sistema de governação.
  
  "Revolução 1989" é uma obra muito bem conseguida que, com uma leitura fácil, nos leva a compreender o que foi acontecendo aos vários estados membros da União Soviética. Palavras que nos acostumámos a ouvir nos anos 80 e que ainda hoje nos são familiares, tais como glasnost ou perestroika, são esmiuçadas nesta obra levando o leitor a compreender perfeitamente a sua origem e o seu significado. Também a importância de Mikhail Gorbachev é detalhadamente analisada neste livro.
  
  Para todos aqueles que quiserem aprender um pouco mais sobre este flagelo que assolou a Europa de Leste, aconselho veementemente a leitura deste livro. Garanto que não se vão arrepender.
  
  Por último, um agradecimento à Presença pelo convite e pela qualidade do livro que aqui apresento.
  
  Págs. 424
  Ref. ISBN: 978-972-23-4260-5
  Editora: Editorial Presença
  
  
  http://conspiracaodasletras.blogspot....
• 
  René

  Most books written by journalists share common weaknesses - too much irrelevant info (including gossips) and a lack of historical perspective. However, knowing more about this critical period of European history may help some readers better understand why the Soviets’ old guard (including Putin, who grew up under this tyrannical view of the world) has not yet gone away - such as we now see with Russia’s totally unjustified and inhuman invasion of Ukraine.
• 
  Liviu

  As a witness to the events of 1989 in Romania and of what came before of course, I found this book among the better ones on the topic published for the general "Western" audience; too short and reduced to a bare bones story, I agree with its thesis but I wish the author had the space for considerable more analysis and background
• 
  Suitcaselife

  Can you fall in love with a history book? Zhe answer is yes. My mind is blown by all the information I got within the last 10 days.
• 
  Ben Schnell

  I should read more books about revolutions. It’s the ultimate underdog story. I loved every page of this one.
• 
  MarcosKtulu

  This journey deals with malfunctioning soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe (Namelly Soviet Empire, or Iron Curtain) in it´s last decade of existance. This is what these six countries were all about since the end of ww2: colonies or protectorates from the Soviet union. These communist dictatorships imposed by force couldn´t forge any policy without consulting their soviet masters, lest they would be invaded or intervened. The soviet invasion of Afganistan changes thence the rules, as the Soviet union would now turn their back on Eastern europe. Since then, puppet states are more or less left without support or guidance upoon changing conditions and challenges. Gorbachev, formal overlord, simply did not involve in east european local matters, dedicating his better efforts in engaging relations with USA.
  On their own. the stand off between harsh dictatorships and regular citizens and dissidents is strongly unequal matter. Progressively, as economic conditions worsen and political legitimacy decays, taboos start to be let aside. Ultimatelly, it´s clear how communist dictatorships rest on sole military and security grip. Each country develops it´s own crisis, until all these crisis connect in the sequence of 1989, a chain reaction, whereby events in one place echo and rebound in another. The east german refugee crisis based on GDRs stern positions triggers critical events later on.
  All along this tense journey biographies of the most important characters are provided, among anecdotes picturing the grey lifestyle of communism. Some countries receive more attention span than others: Poland and East Germany respectively as crisis ridden and faux model, one shaken by the opposition of Solidarity, and the other terrified by the Stasi and deceived by propaganda. Romania gets a lot of attention not so much for their strategic interest within Warsaw pact but for how pathetic it´s personalist dictatorship carried on and how tragically it ended. Czekoslovakia and Hungary less, save from their cultural (Czeck) and ecological and ethnic i(Hungary) interest groups. Bulgaria only gets a couple of short chapters, despite having a longest running dictator.
  Well written short narrative on a complex topic, enjoyable, for moments thrilling, sourced in many intreviews the author had with the key players.
  
  
• 
  Travis High

  The collapse of communism is a subject I haven't looked at in any great detail. So when I decided to read this book, it was to fill that big knowledge gap. Revolution 1989 is packed with stories from six countries - East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria - as they meandered through the 1980s. Written in episodic form, the author bounces from one country to the next, with cyclical provocations, incidents, and regime responses progressing toward the outcome we now know from history. It's very fast paced and so for me, it was exciting to read.
  
  The characters in this history - whether for or against the regime, and including in the U.S. government - are never sure or confident that the history was about to change. But it did. I wonder where in the world today the same might apply. Nicolae Ceausescu's government in Romania, for instance, once seemed unbreakable. Are there authoritarian states today that are ready to fall? What histories will we be reading in the future that once seemed impossible?
• 
  Morteza Abdollahzadeh

  یک روایت بسیار جذاب و مستند از سقوط حکومت‌های کمونیستی در شوروی و کشور‌های اقماریش. داستان به طور موازی (نه لزوماً از لحاظ زمانی) و در اپیزودهای کوتاه، هر کدام در یک کشور، پیش می‌رود و البته که این اپیزود‌ها مستقل از هم نیستند.
• 
  Assem Saleh

  As in Dubcek’s famous political reform program slogan from the 1968 Prague Spring “Socialism with a Human Face”, this book presents history with a human face. An excellent brief account of the events leading to the fall of communism in the 1980-1989 time span written in a very delicious style. I only wished if the author could’ve added few more chapters covering the post revolution era and the success & failures in the democratic transition in the 5 nations.