A Concise History of the Russian Revolution

by Richard Pipes

Release Date: 26 November, 1996

Edition: Paperback

Price:

More Info

A fine, if slightly biased view on the Russian Revolution

This book works as both an engrossing beginning to a serious study of Russia from around 1905 to the death of Lenin, or as a one-off read for those with a passing interest. A finely written history book, it manages to cram in a topical description of every major happening (and some not so major) during the aforementioned time frame as well as provide a solid foundation upon which to delve deeper into the subject matter. Pipes, a Harvard professor as well as an ex-National Security Advisor for Reagan on Soviet and Eastern European affairs (but don't let this fact dissuade you from reading the book) writes thought-provoking and informative prose with a well-tuned eye for context. The only turn-off is his constant reminders of just how awful the Bolsheviks were, finishing the book with a short diatribe supporting subjective reporting of history (which might be better wrestled with in a different book entirely). Regardless, a fine book, written by one of the world's top authorities of the subject matter

Biased? Yes, but honestly and objectively so

Objecting to Pipes's history of the Russain Revolution as biased misses the point. The author's approach to the issue is clear after reading the introductory chapter, in which he plainly states his thesis: the Russian Revolution was not a popular revolt owing to social and economic conditions, but a coup initiated by small cadre of intellectuals against a weak state. He also attacks the popular argument that Russian communism had an innocent phase before it was perverted by Stalin, arguing that the roots of totalitarianism were planted by Lenin. He repeatedly emphasizes these two main points throughout the book and summarizes his argument again at the end.

Even if one believes that history can be told in purely objective fashion, a dubious position, one still cannot deny that by stating his thesis clearly Pipes satisfies the requirement of truth in advertising. Similar allegations of undue bias have been thrown at countless other works, notably A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, a Marxist historian. Again, even if one disagrees with Zinn's characterization of U.S. history as a mere mosaic of repression, he states his intentions frankly.

The objectivity that should be demanded of the historian is to not fabricate or distort evidence, and not to omit crucial facts merely because they are discomfiting to the argument. Optimally, the historian should also indicate his sources to allow further investigation (Pipes eschews footnotes in the concise version but I believe his full-length history has sufficient citations). Pipes is a credit to historiography by avoiding the delusion trappings of a "scientific" approach to his craft.