Rating: 
Summary: An Up Close View of The Russian Revolution
Review: "Ten Days That Shook The World" is the account by John Reed of what he saw during the Russian Revolution. Reed was an American Communist and journalist who is the only American known to be buried in the Kremlin. Throughout this book we read a series of observations and dialogues reported by Reed, virtually without comment, although his bias is apparent. We read his reports of political meetings, encounters with minor officials and his observations of events occurring during those turbulent revolutionary days in Petrograd. This book is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. The view is too up close to permit the reader to see the big picture. One does not look here for the history of the Revolution. We look here for its spirit. Here we see the swirling chaos, hear the repeated buzz words and get a feeling for the competing factions which fashioned the Communist tyranny which emerged from the Revolution. In writing this book, Reed gives the reader a view of himself and other American Communists who saw in the Revolution the future that worked. His view can best be summarized in his comment that, while watching a funeral, he realized that the Russian people no longer needed priests to pray them into heaven because they were building a world brighter than any which heaven promised. This hope is in stark contrast to the now known Communist record. Overall I enjoyed this book as it taught me some more about the Russian Revolution than I had learned from other books which I had read. (See my Amazon review of "The Russian Revolution" by Alan Moorehead.) For that it was worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: An Up Close View of The Russian Revolution
Review: "Ten Days That Shook The World" is the account by John Reed of what he saw during the Russian Revolution. Reed was an American Communist and journalist who is the only American known to be buried in the Kremlin. Throughout this book we read a series of observations and dialogues reported by Reed, virtually without comment, although his bias is apparent. We read his reports of political meetings, encounters with minor officials and his observations of events occurring during those turbulent revolutionary days in Petrograd. This book is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. The view is too up close to permit the reader to see the big picture. One does not look here for the history of the Revolution. We look here for its spirit. Here we see the swirling chaos, hear the repeated buzz words and get a feeling for the competing factions which fashioned the Communist tyranny which emerged from the Revolution. In writing this book, Reed gives the reader a view of himself and other American Communists who saw in the Revolution the future that worked. His view can best be summarized in his comment that, while watching a funeral, he realized that the Russian people no longer needed priests to pray them into heaven because they were building a world brighter than any which heaven promised. This hope is in stark contrast to the now known Communist record. Overall I enjoyed this book as it taught me some more about the Russian Revolution than I had learned from other books which I had read. (See my Amazon review of "The Russian Revolution" by Alan Moorehead.) For that it was worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Blueprint and Case Study for Modern Communists
Review: A classic study of the Bolshevik Revolution in October/November, 1917 in Russia. Truly an excellent vision of the struggles that workers faced at the time from the inherently oppressive capitalist and feudal capitalist system. A blueprint for today's communists which demonstrates the urgent need to smash the capitalist state and to dispose of private property. The facists will hate this book as it shows an example of their inevitable demise through their own self-interest
Rating: 
Summary: Biased but still interesting...
Review: Although Ten Days That Shook the World is clearly totally biased towards the Bolsheviks, it is still an interesting read. It does an excellent job of revealing the dramatic side of the Russian Revolution, and it gives the events of the revolution the sort of immediacy that can only be achieved by on-the-spot reporting. There are also many facinating quotes and interviews with leaders, like Trotsky. It is an engaging and exciting book, and it is very well written. However, it is not really ideal (never mind ideal, it is pretty useless) for a research project or for real information. Unless you are pretty familiar with the events of the revolution, it would probably be confusing (he uses many terms without really explaining them and is VERY detailed). Furthermore, the book was written by a dedicated believer in the regime right after the event occured. Reed did not have the benefit of hindsight in writing his book - and he was blinded by his faith in socialism. Some of the events in the book are somewhat inaccurate, and Lenin and Trotsky are totally idealized! One thing that shows how biased Reed was towards the Bolsheviks is that Lenin himself states that the book is an accurate depiction of the revolution. This would seem like a good thing, but actually, when the revolution is depicted in way that is favorable to Lenin, one thing is for sure: it is completely inaccurate! For instance, the book leaves the reader with the impression that the Bolsheviks had planned the revolution much more carefully than they did in reality (it was more a lucky break than anything else). Nevertheless, this book is irreplaceable as a first-hand illustration of what the revolution was like. Even though some of the information cannot be trusted completely, it is still a facinating book!
Rating: 
Summary: Review of "Ten Days that Shook the World."
Review: Although this book may be so brilliantly written by John Reed, I found it to be too laden with historical details, and even somewhat confusing for someone who is using this book to merely familiarize her (him)self with the makings of the Russian Revolution for the first time. The book provides with a glossary of Russian terms, events and political parties necessary to understand it but even so I found myself hopelessly stumbling through the chapters trying to pick up information here and there. However, due to my lack of knowledge of Russian history I was unable to piece together any of the information. So, in frustration I gave up and relinquished the book to somebody who knows somebody who is a "history buff". From this experience I learned that if you want to familiarize yourself with a historical event about which you know truly nothing, it is always better to read a book which describes that event perhaps in a very broad outline form on the first page of the book. The rest of the book should be written according to that outline. A glossary of main events would also be helpful. On the other hand I do realize that most historical events are way too complicated to be approached in this manner. Anyway, if you would like to expand your knowledge about the Russian Revolution, I highly recommend this book. However, if like me you are looking to merely acquire a basic knowledge about this historical event you will get lost in its too many facts.
Rating:
Summary: REED WAS EITHER DUPED OR PLAYED ALONG
Review: EXCERPTED FROM "GOD'S COUNTRY" BY STEVEN TRAVERS... The 1920s were a strange time. John Reed's "Ten Days That Shook the World" reached a large audience in the United States and internationally. Many wanted to know why an entire planet could be thrust into war. In an attempt to address that issue, some decided that nationalism, governmental agendas, realpolitik, racism, class warfare, capitalism, Democracy, and corporations in bed with politicians and militarists were to blame. Nationalism was part of it. German unification and Balkan nationalism played a role. Governmental agendas and realpolitik always have played a role in conflict. Since Communism addressed the concept of "one world government" and a "world without borders," some concluded that Communism offered the answer to these problems.
Racism was never an original part of the war, but would emerge as an ugly by-product. The Turks unleashed an open can of worms resulting in "ethnic cleansing" and genocide pitting Christians against Muslims, Turks against Arabs, secular vs. religious. In Germany, an easy scapegoat began to emerge: The Jews. Lies began to spread that Jewish banking interests profited from the war. In the American South Jewish influence was an affront to their sensibilities. The Ku Klux Klan rose again after a period of dormancy. The KKK's "mandate" pitted them against a "worldwide Jewish conspiracy" somehow in league with Papal domination. They said Catholics pledge allegiance not to the U.S., but to the Vatican. But few Catholics and fewer Jews lived in the South. Many blacks did. They were becoming a more prominent segment of society. Blacks were emerging as professional athletes in the Negro baseball leagues, and as musicians in the jazz world. As they asserted themselves, this infuriated the white underclass.
But the most pernicious thing that emerged out of World War I were Westerners who believed that the war had occurred because of the failure of capitalism, Democracy, and corporations who were in bed with politicians and militarists. When Reed's book came out, a segment of society allowed themselves to believe that the new political system in Russia should be given a chance. Communism became "the answer" to society's many problems, including racism and poverty. The failure of Communism, already evident by 1920, was not exposed to the world. Reed either chose not to write about the thousands and thousands of famine victims, the secret police, the crackdowns and forced marches, the banishments, assassinations and disappearances, or he was controlled by the hierarchy, and not allowed to see it. He probably did not want to see it. He had found his story and he was going to stick to it. The great failure of the free press, of governments and political figures, of humanists and truth-seekers, was the failure to pin Russia - Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and the rest of them - down before they became too powerful. To expose them for what they were. STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
...
Rating:
Summary: REED WAS EITHER DUPED OR PLAYED ALONG
Review: EXCERPTED FROM "GOD'S COUNTRY" BY STEVEN TRAVERS... The 1920s were a strange time. John Reed?s "Ten Days That Shook the World" reached a large audience in the United States and internationally. Many wanted to know why an entire planet could be thrust into war. In an attempt to address that issue, some decided that nationalism, governmental agendas, realpolitik, racism, class warfare, capitalism, Democracy, and corporations in bed with politicians and militarists were to blame. Nationalism was part of it. German unification and Balkan nationalism played a role. Governmental agendas and realpolitik always have played a role in conflict. Since Communism addressed the concept of "one world government" and a "world without borders," some concluded that Communism offered the answer to these problems.
Racism was never an original part of the war, but would emerge as an ugly by-product. The Turks unleashed an open can of worms resulting in "ethnic cleansing" and genocide pitting Christians against Muslims, Turks against Arabs, secular vs. religious. In Germany, an easy scapegoat began to emerge: The Jews. Lies began to spread that Jewish banking interests profited from the war. In the American South Jewish influence was an affront to their sensibilities. The Ku Klux Klan rose again after a period of dormancy. The KKK?s "mandate" pitted them against a "worldwide Jewish conspiracy" somehow in league with Papal domination. They said Catholics pledge allegiance not to the U.S., but to the Vatican. But few Catholics and fewer Jews lived in the South. Many blacks did. They were becoming a more prominent segment of society. Blacks were emerging as professional athletes in the Negro baseball leagues, and as musicians in the jazz world. As they asserted themselves, this infuriated the white underclass.
But the most pernicious thing that emerged out of World War I were Westerners who believed that the war had occurred because of the failure of capitalism, Democracy, and corporations who were in bed with politicians and militarists. When Reed?s book came out, a segment of society allowed themselves to believe that the new political system in Russia should be given a chance. Communism became "the answer" to society?s many problems, including racism and poverty. The failure of Communism, already evident by 1920, was not exposed to the world. Reed either chose not to write about the thousands and thousands of famine victims, the secret police, the crackdowns and forced marches, the banishments, assassinations and disappearances, or he was controlled by the hierarchy, and not allowed to see it. He probably did not want to see it. He had found his story and he was going to stick to it. The great failure of the free press, of governments and political figures, of humanists and truth-seekers, was the failure to pin Russia - Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and the rest of them - down before they became too powerful. To expose them for what they were. STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
...
Rating:
Summary: A Real Snoozer
Review: Hard to believe that someone could take one of the most dramatic events of the twentieth century and make it this mind-numbingly boring. Written with an overly verbose, convoluted style, it just never seemed to get to the point. NOTE to future authors: three page end notes have a name - THEY'RE CALLED CHAPTERS. The text reads like a caricature of a blabbering communist from an old movie from the Fifties in Hollywood.
Rating:
Summary: An impressive though biased account of history
Review: Having just finished John Reed's great work of historical journalism I would call it compelling, articulate, a page-turner, etc. It is unfortunate that Reed died so young and was unable to see what his idealistic heroes set loose upon Russia and later the world. Reed was undoubtedly a good man and I don't mean to discredit his character, just his logic. That aside, this work is fascinating in that it presents so many of the pivotal events in the formation of the Soviet Socialist system from the point of view of someone who was right there while it happened. Add to this the fact that he was an American and thus understood the American sensibility and you have a work of near genius. For the average American reader, this work must have been illuminating for reasons of its style as well as its content. Reed does have obvious bias in favor of the Bolsheviki, indeed Trotsky is portrayed as a demigod, but he is able to sympathetically depict the plight of the nation of Russia near the close of WWI and enlighten the reader to the numerous causes of the Revolution, and why it must have seemed so inevitable and right to those who experienced it. Overall a stunning work of journalism and history, highly worth your time.
Rating:
Summary: An impressive though biased account of history
Review: Having just finished John Reed's great work of historical journalism I would call it compelling, articulate, a page-turner, etc. It is unfortunate that Reed died so young and was unable to see what his idealistic heroes set loose upon Russia and later the world. Reed was undoubtedly a good man and I don't mean to discredit his character, just his logic. That aside, this work is fascinating in that it presents so many of the pivotal events in the formation of the Soviet Socialist system from the point of view of someone who was right there while it happened. Add to this the fact that he was an American and thus understood the American sensibility and you have a work of near genius. For the average American reader, this work must have been illuminating for reasons of its style as well as its content. Reed does have obvious bias in favor of the Bolsheviki, indeed Trotsky is portrayed as a demigod, but he is able to sympathetically depict the plight of the nation of Russia near the close of WWI and enlighten the reader to the numerous causes of the Revolution, and why it must have seemed so inevitable and right to those who experienced it. Overall a stunning work of journalism and history, highly worth your time.
| 
