Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn more Shop now Shop now

Customer Reviews

4.6 out of 5 stars71
4.6 out of 5 stars
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 12 March 2013
Whoever reads this account of the Russian revolution will surely feel that after the tercentenary celebrations of Romanov rule in 1913 there was nothing actually carved in stone on the wall of fate. It is with hindsight that we can mouth the still prevailing Marxist perception of history where feudalism had to make way for capitalism with imperial aspirations which in turn must bow out when the workers of the world unite. In actual fact in 1913 we have a scenario where "the side" that makes the least mistakes is the side that must eventually prevail. Time and again it is shown that there were opportunities missed that could have changed the course of history.

Orlando Figes admits it took him six years to write his physically unwieldy 900 page tome which covers the social history of the period 1891-1924 as much as the political events that shaped it. It might have benefitted being conceived as two volumes, but either way it must be granted that Figes is not dry or dull and where he occasionally gives way to a narrative account his book becomes highly entertaining. For non-historians it is possible to get a bit confused after the October Revolution with all the balooning buraucratic changes that the Bolsheviks bring about in order to consolidate the Leninist position : apart from the trades unions and the Soviets where the grass-roots of the Party lay, there were the staff of the Central Committee, with nine departments, together with a Party Secretariat and a special organization bureau (Orgburo), the Cheka - or secret police - often somewhat independent of the Party itself, and Sovnarkom, the Council of the People's Commissars.

If only Tsar Nicholas had had a more flexible attitude vis à vis his status and divine right to rule absolutely; if only the German born Tsarina had not alienated many liberals by her interference in affairs of state and her blind faith in Rasputin; if only the World War where the Tsar felt obliged to commit Russia's participation had not weakened so terribly the Imperial regime; and later .... if only the Whites engaged in the civil war had been less reactionary in their views concerning the need to overthrow the land reforms in full and without compromise. If only !!! And the Bolsheviks who eventually took power could reflect on their mistakes which at times had alienated them from their very own supporters - the peasants, industrial workers and the soldiers - yet by the time Lenin died Stalin had all but taken control of the Party and he was not someone known for showing remorse !

This is a great study in the origins and perpetuation of tyranny and shows how the Russian people liberated themselves from one regime only to be enslaved by another - ironically carrying out their programmes in the name of the people they subjugated.
0Comment|8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 23 April 2014
It’s a good time to re-visit the Russian Revolution, as we creep closer to the 100th anniversary, and with the distance of 20 years since the fall of Soviet Communism, better able to see how much of it was ‘Russian’ rather than ‘Revolutionary’.

This account, which only takes us as far as Lenin’s death in 1924, is at over 800 pages, not a book for those with short attention spans (or weak wrists) and the detail of factional fighting is best understood by readers who already know the story in outline. But it’s certainly not a slog – Figes style is easier than that of many academic historians, the story is inherently a gripping one and is enlivened with deadpan episodes of low farce amongst the tragedy. My favourite is when loyalist soldiers fight their way to the Winter Palace to support Grand Duke Mikhail in a last effort to save the monarch - only to be turned away because their boots were too dirty and it was feared they might damage the floor.

This is old fashioned history in several ways. For one thing, Figes write unashamedly from a point of view – that the triumph of Communism was a tragedy. And he is surely right to so – one could not more write dispassionately about the outcome than about the Nazi seizure of power, two dictatorships with equal claim to be the greatest source of human suffering in all history.
Old fashioned too in assuming that what individual leaders do can shape history. Indeed, what is particularly satisfying is the effortless way Figes combines analyses of the long term economic, social, and intellectual trends that made the downfall of the monarchy and triumph of Bolshevist tyranny probable, with sharp portraits of the foolishness and brutality of the main players, Nichols and Lenin especially, which made those outcomes all but inevitable. Throughout the book, one keeps asking oneself ‘if only’ – if only Russia had had a reforming Czar (or one without a proto-facist Czarina), if it only it had kept out of the First World War 1, if only the Left factions had realised that they were supping with the Devil.....could Russia have taken a less destructive path? It seems unlikely. A sense of rather Russian doom hangs over the story from the start (Figes is wonderfully un-PC in believing it such a thing as National Character).

Although I knew the story in outline already, there is much here that was new to me – the utter lack of support for the Car after 1905, the lack of any organised State at local level in Russia before the Revolution, the gangster nature of early communist power (Figes describes some provincial communist as more like heavily armed mafia than a political group), Lenin’s bouts of indecision, his personal cowardice and uncontrollable rage, the fatal naivety of the liberals and non Bolshevist left, the violent reaction against the Communist dictatorship in its early years from their own sailors, peasants and workers (that in Lenin’s view came nearer to destroying it than the White Armies did), the awesome growth in bureaucracy after the Revolution, and the pathological sadism that seems to have been part of Russian national character.

It is all truly a depressing monument to human folly – the only human being to come out of it with any sense of decency, intelligence and integrity in these pages is Gorky, and even he sold his soul to Stalin in the end.

The book is equipped with a serviceable suite of maps, much needed if you don’t know your Omsk from your Tomsk.

Perhaps the one thing missing from the book is a real understanding of Stalin, who arrives on stage ready made, as it were, it the final pages. But then he was the most enigmatic - and most successful - of all the great dictators of that tragic century.

It is, sadly, a book with many resonances today. Here’s one such: a footnote on page records that between 1917 and 1920 Kiev was occupied by 12 different regimes – including the Russian Provisional Government, Polish, German, Whites, Ukrainian nationalist of various hues, and finally Bolshevist Russian. Plus ca change...
0Comment|7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 10 August 2013
By far the best account on the Russian Revolution I've ever read. Blows away the arguments of marxist apologists for the revolution - that the revolution was somehow 'betrayed' by Stalin. Instead Figes irrefutably describes how mass violence was an integral part of the psyche of Lenin and the Bolshevik movement right from the start. The author brilliantly combines a thorough analysis of social and political factors which shaped the revolution, alongside [all too often painful] personal accounts of the lives of individuals who lived through it. My only regret was the book concludes with the death of Lenin and doesn't go on to describe the rule of Stalin.
0Comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 22 September 2009
I've always wanted to make some sense of the chaos of Russian History in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and this book comes as close to this as it is humanly possible. In addition to providing a rich and detailed view of the events in the period under consideration Orlando Figes manages to answer convincingly such questions as "Who is the main villain behind the disasters that befell Russia in this period", and "Why, for all their failings, did the Bolsheviks ultimately prevail". One comes away from this book with the distinct feeling that history is not the product of random forces, but the result of follies and miscalculations of some of the actors of history as well as insights and audacity of others.
0Comment|26 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 7 May 2012
this was a long and sometimes tough read but also a fascinating one. what Figes has done here is give the world a complete account of a very long and complicated event in human history that is still misunderstood today. the russian revolution was a huge event in the 20th century, one whose legacy we still live with today. standing apart from other authors Figes has gone an extra mile here in not just writing about 1917 but does an entire history of russia from 1891 to 1924 in giving a total story of how the ideals of the revolution built and how the desire for change began. his writing style in engaging (and very witty in some parts) with there rearly being any dry moments as he tells an incredible story of human suffering, endurance and ultimately tragedy. if anyone here ever wishes to learn anything on russian history then this book is mandatory reading as it not only tells the story of the revolution but also of russians in general. be cautious as well because in parts this is a quite shocking book with many hideous stories of torture, cannibalism and human degradation that will shock any reader as we see just how cruel and animalistic we are capable of becoming. Figes has shown that if we are to ever learn from the revolution we must come to terms with what happened and that still has not happened as he says in the final sentence of his work
"the ghosts of 1917 have still not been laid to rest"
22 comments|16 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
This is a masterpiece of historical exposition. I was mesmerized from the first page and it lasted right until the end, complete with characters who are followed throughout the entire story, quick and dense analyses of the forces behind events, and a full explanation of the consequences that inevitably followed.

The story begins with an analysis of the old regime, the last major one to survive in Europe. On top was the Tsar and the aristocracy, which dominated government and much of the bureaucracy. They owned most of the land, had the most education, and controlled the armed forces. There was a slim tranche that represented an urban middle class, a rising bourgeoisie that dominated commerce and the rudiments of a manufacturing industry, but they were too weak to have much political influence. All the rest, over 90% of the population, were peasants in primitive villages, most of them illiterate; though serfs until the 1860s (bound to the land under the total control of the gentry), they had recently gained some legal rights, including minimal self governance; they were a mix of reactionary conservatives and the disgruntled, who carried a simmering rage.

Nicolas II, the Tsar, was so ill-suited to his role that the socio-political forces he faced led to complete catastrophe. Rather than take an interest in the reforms needed - or even in the practical tasks of governing - he chose to live in a dream world in which he imagined the "people" loved him as the eternal soul of the entire country. After a series of assassinations and violent uprisings, he indulged in the idea that autocracy was the answer for the Russian Empire, egged on by his German wife, who believed he should rule as Ivan the Terrible had done. Because Nicolas II was suspicious of anyone who challenged his authority, he actively undermined the government and bureaucracy, preferring the fawning nonsense of manipulative courtiers and religious figures, such as Rasputin. As the social situation worsened, he remained studiously unaware of what should be done to protect Russian institutions and his office. After the 1905 revolution, the Tsar agreed to establish a Parliament, the Duma, but he did not choose to nurture or work with it, losing a significant opportunity.

Had there been peace, more peaceful political change might have eventually come, but Nicolas II chose instead to join in the Great War as a Western ally. This war - the first fully modern one that required both an industrial capacity and more flexible institutions - brought the situation to a head. Not only was the aristocratic military revealed as incompetent and uncaring of the lives of its peasant foot soldiers, but the catastrophic conditions under which the war unfolded completely undermined the support of the masses for the Tsar's autocratic government. The result was a revolution that forced him to abdicate in favor of a new parliamentary democracy, which was soon identified with Kerensky.

One of the weaknesses of coverage is the precise configuration of the institutions that emerged to fill the gap created by the collapse of the autocracy. First, the Duma remained unrepresentative and weak, particularly with the absence of any viable middle class. Second, there were the Soviets, which apparently were more spontaneous groupings that better reflected the revolutionary forces, though they varied widely in their composition and openness. It was here that the Bolsheviks (the "Reds"), Mensheviks, and various Social Democrats met to debate courses of action. Third, there were disparate groupings that might be seen as power centers, including conservative Aristocrats (the "Whites") and many others, such as ethnic groups, but few added up to any coherent force. I was never clear on how these interacted or what their powers were.

Nonetheless, the politics of the situation is very well covered. As the rage of peasants was unleashed in a series of violent movements that attacked and disenfranchised the landed gentry, the Duma appeared impotent to restore order to the situation. Meanwhile, as the war wreaked havoc on the economy, the Bolsheviks emerged as the only ones who clearly opposed continuing to fight (as well as the only party to endorse the aristocracy's destruction as wholly desirable as well as the takeover of industries by workers). This won them the political heart of many peasants, who identified the Reds as the only true force genuinely supporting the revolution. No one else seemed to understand these political facts in the civil war that erupted after the Bolsheviks seized power in the October 1917 coup - the Whites appeared to want to restore the monarchy and land rights of the aristocracy, which at this point was politically impossible and hence completely undermined their cause in the medium term.

It is at this point that the personal stories become important. Figes proves that Lenin was the dominant politician of his time, pushing the Bolsheviks to seize power and establish their own form of autocracy, improvising the whole time with decisions that would prepare the ground for the ambitious Stalin to take over the party apparatus and soon (with his ability to appoint cronies in key positions) the entire government. The portraits of these men and scores of others are compelling and fascinating in their quirky detail. Figes is of the opinion that, due to the institutions that Lenin set up, Stalin was an inevitable and natural outgrowth of all that followed, even though Lenin came to oppose him while on his death bed.

Once the Bolsheviks were in power, even though they withdrew Russia from the war (with great difficulty), they made a series of mistakes that plunged the country into famine, renewed civil war, and desperate anarchy that took years to set right. To keep themselves in power, they relied on terror in a similar manner to the Tsar, but with ideological purpose guiding their actions and a huge bureaucracy that they installed, often run by uneducated and inexperienced peasant revolutionaries. Figes covers this process well, but his explanations of the impact of Marxist theory were less than satisfying for me, perhaps due to my own ignorance of it (i.e. he goes on about the lack of a capiltalist class, a "stage" which had to be skipped).

Throughout the book, Figes exhibits an admirable skepticism, never indulging in romanticization of any of the characters or their ideas. Except for certain individuals, no class or group comes off well - not the peasants, not the revolutionaries, not representatives of the old regime. A very interesting analysis is offered regarding the mentalities of each group. Cut off as the vast majority was from the ideas in ferment to the west, there was a poverty of ideas under discussion, with few alternatives emerging organically from the society. Instead, the few ideas that did get into the country were viewed as exclusive panaceas rather than part of a mix that required compromise and negotiation; rather than an openness of mind, the lack of education and ignorance promoted rigid minds that rarely questioned opinions once they were adopted. For their part, the Bolsheviks disdained the peasants and workers, in whose name they established their dictatorship. I cannot due justice to the subtlety of Figes' ideas here, but it was one of the most interesting cultural aspects of the book for me. (For example, he views the search for philosophical answers to everything as a key to the appeal of the great Russian novelists of the 19C.)

This book is as satisfying an intellectual meal as the general reader could hope for. I simply could not stop reading it and almost never felt bogged down over its 800+ pages. It is an astounding achievement: for the first time in my life, I feel I truly grasp this revolution and all that it meant. While sometimes exhaustive in its detail, Figes never covers events to excess: there is always a purpose to his narrative, so that every single battle or political maneuver is not described; instead, significant or illustrative episodes are highlighted, a relief for lay readers.

Recommended with the greatest enthusiasm.
22 comments|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 25 April 2011
I have to say that this book was a massively impressive account of one of the most important events in twentieth century (maybe even World) history. After finishing it, I could not help but feel that I had read the definitive work on the subject, even though I have in fact read no others to compare it to.

There was an enormous amount of detail (as you would expect from nearly 1000 pages) but I felt that the breakdown of the book into sections, then chapters, then passages was just enough to make it accessible to a general reader such as myself. Admittedly, the section on pre-1917 may have been a bit much for people who just want the 'action' phase, but I guess that the author invested so much into those years in order to make it a 'complete' account.

I felt that the personal accounts, as well as some of the more outrageous stories (such as the 'misunderstanding' between Lenin and Dzerzhinsky that resulted in the needless execution of many prisoners), really added to the readability of the book, helping to break up potentially dense paragraphs. I am glad that the author did not go all 'biographical' when talking of Lenin and Trotsky, because there are plenty of good books on those individuals, and to include irrelevant information about their whole lives would have somewhat overloaded this book.

I did have some basic knowledge of the revolution (through school and college) prior to reading the book, which helped me through it. However, I do not feel this was essential (although there's bound to be websites that provide a quick summary of the revolution before you start this, should you require). Also, I would advise people to stick with this book (it took me over a month to finish), as its over 900 pages and covers over 30 years of history, so you're bound to find certain parts that don't interest you as much as others.

In summary, I could not really fault this book (although I'm sure some experts in the field probably could, as with any book) and would recommend it to anyone with a genuine interest in early twentieth century/Russian history.
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 17 January 2013
this book makes easy to understand a part of history in which so many have made difficult, he has captured the true happenings of the revolution with a perspective that is unbiased unlike others before him
0Comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 4 May 2004
Having already read "Natasha's Dance", "A People's Tragedy" had a lot to live up to - it did. In this superb book, Figes describes the social forces and events that led to, then ruined, the democratic revolution in Russia. The book achieves a rare balance between the stories of the great personalities who helped shape the revolution, and the lives of the common people who felt its effects. He is even-handed, taking to task both left- and rightist interpretations of the revolution and the motivations of those involved; it is this impartiality that condemns both the old tsarist regime and the new Bolshevik dictatorship. "A People's Tragedy" is long, but is an enthralling, if grim, read throughout.
0Comment|50 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 9 June 2009
I have recently finished 'A People's Tragedy' and read it as part of ongoing revision and research for my AS History Paper on Russia in Revolution.
I thought that it was a stunning book that left out little and offered a thorough examination of events with Figes concluding on his own opinion on matters that would be heavily argued between the right and left of the historical world!
This allowed for clearer reading (and should not be a criticism of him) and also meant that I could compare my own interpretation of events with his.
Do not let the number of pages out you off at all! If you want to learn about the Russian Revolution in it's entirety from the late Tsars to the death of Lenin then this is the book for you!
0Comment|17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)