The Student Room Group

Best book on Russian revolution?

What's a good book on the Russian Revolution / Russian history (Modern, 1880-~1960) that is interesting to read?

I have a friend who is interested in reading about Russian history but I don't want to give any boring textbook.

Thanks in advance.

Scroll to see replies

A People's Tragedy by Orlando Figes. It's narrative, covers 1891-1924 and covers the whole thing (a lot of books on this are pretty focused on certain areas and events, but this gives a good view of it all). It's very unbiased (it got good reviews from the Telegraph, Times and Independent, as well as Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm) and does focus on interesting stories surrounding the revolution. I can recommend others if you want but they're more likely to be more specialised in a certain area and more biased.
Reply 2
Original post by brstc
What's a good book on the Russian Revolution / Russian history (Modern, 1880-~1960) that is interesting to read?

I have a friend who is interested in reading about Russian history but I don't want to give any boring textbook.

Thanks in advance.


Anything by Orlando Figes, but Natasha's Dance is very evocative. Robert Service's Comrades: A History of World Communism provides a skilful overview, whilst Martin Macauley's Stalin & Stalinism provides a brief overview of the Terror and Stalin's particular brand of autocracy.

Robert Conquest's The Great Terror is a very very detailed study of The Purges.
Reply 3
I have to smirk when people suggest Orlando Figes. Go with someone like Richard Pipes instead.
Reply 4
Im going to have to agree with the prior two posters and say Figues, in particular Peasant Russia, Civil War: The Volga Countryside in Revolution, 1917-21 and A People's Tragedy: Russian Revolution 1891-1924, excellent books.
Reply 5
Endurance and Endeavour, Russian History 1812-1992 (you only have to read the relevant bits) By J.N. Westwood. I studied Russia last year and found this book really helpful and interesting. Hope this helps :smile:
Original post by evantej
I have to smirk when people suggest Orlando Figes. Go with someone like Richard Pipes instead.


Orlando Figes is very good.
Reply 7
If you want an insight into the mindset of the Stalinist regime, I'd recommend reading Victor Serge, especially The Case of Comrade Tulayev. His autobiography Memoirs of a Revolutionary is excellent too.
Original post by evantej
Go with someone like Richard Pipes instead.


The same Richard Pipes who thinks the entire revolution from the start was some sort of massive conspiracy from the start by the Bolsheviks and that it was never at any point a popular liberatory movement? That Richard Pipes?
Although it's a book on Imperial Russia, you'd still find it relevant for it's latter sections - so I'd recommend 'Fragile Empire - A History of Imperial Russia by Alexander Chubarov. That and Russia - the Tsarist and Soviet Legacy by Edward Acton were my two go-to books when starting any of my essays dealing with Russian history :smile:
I don't want to give any boring textbook.

Thanks in advance.
try this if you would rather something that is fictitious - i enjoyed it and found it got me curious to learn more.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Russka-Edward-Rutherfurd/dp/0099635208/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1345862089&sr=1-1-catcorr
Reply 12
I'd say Richard Pipes, "The Russian Revolution" is one of the best accounts. Some of the things Figes is saying are just insane. He liked Lvov, who was a complete disaster as a Prime Minister. He likes Brusilov, who is a traitor and opportunist. Total nonsense.
Reply 13
Original post by anarchism101
The same Richard Pipes who thinks the entire revolution from the start was some sort of massive conspiracy from the start by the Bolsheviks and that it was never at any point a popular liberatory movement? That Richard Pipes?

I do not actually know what you mean. Quote Pipes specifically and then I will comment.
Reply 14
Original post by carolgreen234
I don't want to give any boring textbook.

Thanks in advance.


You want some Victor Serge then. or John Reed's "Ten Days That Shook the World".
Reply 15
Original post by evantej
I do not actually know what you mean. Quote Pipes specifically and then I will comment.


He probably means that Bolsheviks forces themselves upon Russia, rather than were brought on top by the people themselves. And it is true - they did. At best they were supported by about 25%, which was shown by their result in the election to Constituent Assembly.

Later they most definitely slipped even lower, since their promises ended up in deceit - instead of "peace" they created another war (civil), and instead of "land" they brought about war with peasants for bread. But by then it was too late.
Reply 16
Original post by janjanmmm
He probably means that Bolsheviks forces themselves upon Russia, rather than were brought on top by the people themselves. And it is true - they did. At best they were supported by about 25%, which was shown by their result in the election to Constituent Assembly.

Later they most definitely slipped even lower, since their promises ended up in deceit - instead of "peace" they created another war (civil), and instead of "land" they brought about war with peasants for bread. But by then it was too late.


I was interested in whether or not he could substantiate his negative interpretation of Pipes's work with specific quotes rather than generalise in the space of two sentences. I know about Russian history.
Reply 17
Original post by evantej
I was interested in whether or not he could substantiate his negative interpretation of Pipes's work with specific quotes rather than generalise in the space of two sentences. I know about Russian history.


Then you probably should have said that you know what he means, but would like to see the proof.
Trotsky wrote a book on it that is meant to be good. Never read it though so I'm not sure.
Reply 19
Original post by Kibalchich
You want some Victor Serge then. or John Reed's "Ten Days That Shook the World".


I'm reading the latter at the moment. It's very interesting as it is written from the viewpoint of someone spatially and temporally very close to what is going on and who has no idea of what follows.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending