Three " Whys" of the Russian Revolution

Rating:
Summary: Refutes Marxist mythology, but ultimately misleads
Review: Although Richards Pipes does an excellent job of supporting his thesis that the October 1917 revolution was fundamentally a coup without significant popular support, he neglects to satisfactorily answer the question of why the Bolsheviks triumphed in the civil war that ensued. The logistical details of Lenin's coup, while meriting some attention, are probably of less importance than the long, arduous civil war through which the Bolsheviks had to prevail. Pipes implies that once the Bolsheviks seized power, communist domination would be inevitable.

Pipe's arguments about the October Revolution are more aimed at refuting the interpretations of Soviet and libertarian historiographers than providing a coherent explanation of why the Bolsheviks triumphed. Pipes barely explores the social, political, or economic factors which led to significant proportions of Russia's population to support the Reds at one point. Why did Aleksei Brusilov, a man whose patriotism would be near-impossible to impugn, choose to lead the Red Army rather than the White? What, exactly, assured the Communists' rise to power after the October putsch? Pipes neglects these questions, instead choosing to proceed directly to the question of Stalin's ascendancy in the mid-1920s.

Pipes's interpretation of the Russian Revolution in Three "Whys" of The Russian Revolution is tight and well-constructed but in some ways very incomplete. He explains the events leading up to both revolutions impeccably well, but fails to put the October revolution in detailed social or political context. Some disagreements I may have with his dismissal of social or economic factors may be merely tautological; he classifies some events that I would define as social, cultural, or economic, such as food shortages or deeply rooted anti-government sentiments, as merely political or short-term phenomena.

As a refutation for pseudo-scientific Marxist theories of history, Pipes makes an excellent argument. As a comprehensive explanation of the causes leading up to the Russian Revolution, this condensed booklet fails.

Rating:
Summary: A revolutionary rethink
Review: As well as completely changing the political and geographical structure of Europe, the demise of the Soviet Union has significantly altered the approach of historical scholarship about the Russian Revolution.

In Three Whys of the Russian Revolution, the eminent scholar of Russian history, Richard Pipes, confronts the challenge of assessing the causes and course of the Russian Revolutions from a post-Cold War perspective.

Pipes explains that for 70 years prior to the 1990's, historians in the West adopted a "revisionist" perspective of the Russian Revolutions that was largely influenced by Communist scholarship. The events of 1917, these Communist scholars concluded, were nothing but revolutionary activity.

Western scholarship's acceptance of this conclusion stems, Pipes explains, from a lack of source material, much of which was deemed classified by the Soviet regime.

But access to this information is now open, and Pipes, among others, has utilized this opportunity in an attempt to re-evaluate the Revolutions, with the product being two extensive works (on which these essays are based). Not surprisingly, his understanding of the events of 1917 has changed somewhat, and thus the three essays in the book are a continued attempt to debunk much of the "revisionist" perspective with less radical conclusions.

Among the notions that Pipes challenges is the very insistence by the "revisionists" that the Revolutions were in fact revolutions.

As the author clearly outlines, the events of 1917 were actually the work of a small group of intellectuals headed by the idealist Lenin. His overthrow of the Czarist regime is argued by Pipes as being a coup d'etat which involved the people as a whole in only a small degree.

This brings Pipes to his second major argument. Were the people ready, willing, or even a part of the coup d'etat process? It has often been a marvel to historians that the agrarian based nation of Russia was the one nation to take heed of Marx's dialectical writings. But, as Pipes explains, the people (that is, peasantry) indeed had little reason or precedent to desire a change in the ruling regime, and the radical writings of Lenin and his cohorts had little impact on them, since it offered little in the way of a betterment of lifestyle.

Lastly Pipes addresses the post-coup d'etat events surrounding the ascension of Stalin as the next leader of the Soviet Regime. Several years after the events of 1917, Lenin's failing health allowed Stalin to enter the scene, a man who Lenin recognized as having an unstable personality, one unviable for effectively continuing the Communist programmes as Lenin had planned.

This opposition to Stalin was glossed over by Communist scholars to maintain a healthy image of the leadership, and thus was subsequently adopted by Western scholars.

It is easily said, then, that there is much of value in Three Whys of the Russian Revolution to history students and others interested in the events of 1917. Pipes' three essays present sound, articulate, and compelling arguments as to the causes and course of the Revolutions, and is thus an important asset for future scholarship on the subject.

Rating:
Summary: Well Written but too Conservative
Review: I enjoyed Richard Pipes short but too the point look at the Russian Revolution. I have read and heard that he is one of the top authorities on the Russian Revolution. The book was well written and very informative. However, while far from a revisionist, I found his explanation too conservative and way too political towards the right wing. His arguements that WWI and the Czars oppressive government were not as important to the revolution as we like to think is a bit much. I can't buy into that even as a traditionalist and anti-revisionist. Pipe's just seemed a little too preachy a little too political in his explanations. I feel he, though from another prospective, is no better than the revisionists in letting his politics take away from his history. I think it is a good investment of time to read this little book, but take it with a grain of salt. Right wing salt.

Rating:
Summary: Well Written but too Conservative
Review: This book explored three very important questions regarding the Russian Revolution: Why Tsarism fell, why the Bolsheviks gained power, and why Stalin succeeded Lenin. However, Pipes does not limit himself to giving simple solutions to these questions (which was a very good thing). He examines the events through different perspectives and, in effect, teaches the reader many interesting things that are not common knowledge concerning the Revolution. It was very well written and structured, and overall it was a great book. It is often difficult to read an historical book, but Pipes makes it easy.

Rating:
Summary: Good, Brief Intro to Russian Revolution
Review: Yes, Professor Pipes argues some conservative points, but this book is a very useful antidote to other histories written by persons with left-wing axes to grind. Pipes at least is open and honest about his background and perspective, and based upon his other works which I have read he has conducted careful, extensive scholarship. In his other more detailed books--The Russian Revolution and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime--he provides further evidence for judgments provided in this volume, and narrative history of the Russian Revolution and its immediate aftermath.

One part of this book which I found particularly interesting was the discussion of why Stalin came to power. Pipes argues that, rather than being a deviation from the natural course of Bolshevism, Stalinism was a logical outcome, and Stalin implemented some, though not all, of Lenin's goals. Pipes also shows how Stalin achieved and consolidated his power through his skill at administration, and his ability to insert his supporters into key positions.

The Three Why's is written in a lively style without jargon. In addition to describing the collapse of the Tsarist regime, the Bolshevik seizure of power and Stalin's rise, it includes a general review of the historiography of the Russian Revolution, and a few brief observations on events during the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Rating:
Summary: Good, Brief Intro to Russian Revolution
Review: Yes, Professor Pipes argues some conservative points, but this book is a very useful antidote to other histories written by persons with left-wing axes to grind. Pipes at least is open and honest about his background and perspective, and based upon his other works which I have read he has conducted careful, extensive scholarship. In his other more detailed books--The Russian Revolution and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime--he provides further evidence for judgments provided in this volume, and narrative history of the Russian Revolution and its immediate aftermath.

One part of this book which I found particularly interesting was the discussion of why Stalin came to power. Pipes argues that, rather than being a deviation from the natural course of Bolshevism, Stalinism was a logical outcome, and Stalin implemented some, though not all, of Lenin's goals. Pipes also shows how Stalin achieved and consolidated his power through his skill at administration, and his ability to insert his supporters into key positions.

The Three Why's is written in a lively style without jargon. In addition to describing the collapse of the Tsarist regime, the Bolshevik seizure of power and Stalin's rise, it includes a general review of the historiography of the Russian Revolution, and a few brief observations on events during the breakup of the Soviet Union.