A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924

This is a 5 star book. No question about it. Professor Figes has to be the most knowledgeable person in the world when it comes to Russian history and specifically the multidimensional aspects of the Russian Revolution. I was mystified by how he looped the entire story together with detail and insight that is unparalleled. I found myself saying... how does he know all this? Seriously, if you want to read a book on the Russian Revolution - and as a history nerd it’s been a long term bucket list subject for me - this book is it. Full stop end of story. BUT You had better be ready. I have read 200+ biographies and historical must reads through the years and this is simply the HEAVIEST LIFT of my entire reading life. I can’t imagine a book being more informative and yet at times less enjoyable and tedious than this book. It sucks the life out of you at times in about page 300 as you get bogged down in details, dates, and Russian names. Especially when you realize to complete this epic book it is 820 pages. I usually read a book a month. It took me 2.5 months to read this. But I kept at it because this is absolutely the book to read on the Russian Revolution. Read it but be ready because it is a long and challenging hill to climb.

There are lots of books on the Russian Revolution. Few are as comprehensive and compelling as Orlando Figes’ “A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891 – 1924,” first published to wide critical acclaim in 1997. Figes takes a broad view of his subject; his history stretches over nearly two generations, from the famine of 1891 to the death of Lenin in 1924. He argues for the 1891 date because the whole of Russian society had been “politicized and radicalized” as a result of the famine crisis and the Tsarist regime’s inept response to it. Tsar Nicolas II remained wedded to autocracy in the face of increasing calls for reform from both the industrial centers of his country and the agricultural peasantry. Hostility and resentment would fester for decades. The author ascribes great importance to the personal role played by Bolshevik leader, Vladimir Lenin, in the Revolution of 1917. “Much of Lenin’s success in 1917 was no doubt explained by his towering domination over the [Bolshevik] party,” Figes writes, “which distinguished [them] from the Mensheviks (who had no clear leader of their own).” Indeed, according to Figes, “few historical events in the modern era better illustrate the decisive effect of an individual on the course of history … Without his decisive personal influence, it is hard to imagine a Bolshevik seizure of power.” That is not to say that a Bolshevik victory was foreordained. Far from it. Alexander Kerensky was, for a brief time, the most popular man in Russia and had a reasonable chance at establishing the authority of the Provisional Government. In Figes’ estimation, Kerensky and his allies failed to grasp the depth of war wariness among the Russian people. They believed that a last ditch offensive against the Germans might rally the country behind the Provisional Government in the national defense of democracy. They were badly mistaken. Had the Provisional Government adopted a similar policy as the Bolsheviks and immediately opened peace negotiations with the Germans in the summer of 1917, “no doubt the Bolsheviks would never have come to power,” says Figes. The author also claims that Kerensky made critical errors in his handling of the so-called Kornilov Affair. “One of the most enduring myths of the Russian Revolution is the notion that Kornilov was planning a coup d’etat against the Provisional Government,” Figes says. “But the evidence suggests that Kornilov, far from plotting the overthrow of the Provisional Government, had in fact intended to save it.” Miscommunication and misunderstanding led to a rupture that in many ways sealed the fate of Kerensky and his Provisional Government. The Bolsheviks, meanwhile, stumbled toward power. Lenin was ill-prepared for seizing power during most of 1917. For instance, Figes argues that the Bolshevik leader could have taken power during the spontaneous July Days uprising, if he had been prepared and willing. “With 50,000 armed and angry men surrounding the Tauride Palace” in July 1917, Figes writes, “there was nothing to prevent a Bolshevik coup d’etat.” When the next opportunity came in October Lenin would not be caught flat-footed. Figes claims that Lenin almost single-handedly seized power. For the Bolsheviks of 1917, the revolution in Russia was only a part – and a small part at that – of the worldwide struggle between imperialism and socialism. The decision to make a separate and humiliating peace with Germany was, Figes says, “without doubt one of the most critical moments in the history of the party.” The newborn Soviet Republic lost 34% of her population, 54% of his industrial enterprises and 89% of her coalmines in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. In Figes’ estimation, “The peace of Brest-Litovsk marked the completion of Lenin’s revolution: it was the culmination of October.” There was no longer any prospect of the revolution spreading to the West. The subsequent Russian Civil War of 1918 to 1920 was brutal. The Whites assumed they could win the civil war without the support of the peasantry; or, at any rate, they seemed to think that the whole question of land reform could be put off until after victory. It couldn’t. “Whereas land reform was the first act of the Bolsheviks,” Figes writes, “it was the last act of the Whites,” and this goes a long way in explaining the outcome of the civil war. Both the Reds and the Whites were constantly crippled by mass desertion, by the breakdown of supplies, by strikes and peasant revolts in the rear. But their ability to maintain their campaigns in spite of all these problems depended less on military factors than on political ones. The Reds had one crucial advantage, Figes says: they were able to fight under the Red Flag and claim to be defending “the revolution.” Meanwhile, the Whites’ failure to recognize the peasant revolution on the land and the national independence movements doomed them to defeat. “In the end,” Figes writes, “the defeat of the Whites comes down largely to their own dismal failure to break with the past and to regain the initiative within the agenda of 1917.” If you’re looking to read just one book on the Russian Revolution and have the stamina and fortitude to plow through 800 pages of dense historical writing, “A People’s Tragedy” is an excellent choice.

If you want to know more about the subject, buy this book. Despite its length, it's very easy to read and offers tremendous insight into the period, the people (both famous and not-so-famous), the countless factors that led to the Russian Revolution, and the events of the Revolution itself. Figes is not here to push an agenda, but rather to offer a complex and nuanced analysis of a complex and nuanced series of events that completely changed the world. I was absolutely blown away by A People's Revolution, and I can't recommend it highly enough.

If you want the definitive one-volume take on Lenin's revolution and all that it entailed, this is your book. 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. It is a masterpiece of historical exposition. 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 capitalist class, which had to be "skipped", betraying Marx's teleology of revolution). 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 do 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.

I started reading this book when I got antsy waiting for Mike Duncan to finish up his series of podcasts on the Russian Revolution. I'm very happy I did! The wealth of detail was exactly what I wanted to learn. The in depth personal stories from different levels of society provide rich and heart wrenching perspectives. I was most strongly affected by the story of Semien Semyonov and his battle to better his life, family,, and farm against all odds. I would have liked more information on the peasant revolutions ongoing during the Red and White Civil War but they are covered to some extent. I would recommend this book to lovers of history but caution that it is a TOME and the number of different people covered could lead to brain fatigue keeping track of everyone.

Seems to be very good and well researched, but it is pretty dry. You've got to really pay attention and be interested in this subject to keep the ball rolling mentally. Overall, the author did a good job. But there is so much detail that sometimes it gets tedious. I'm about halfway through the audio book now.

Figes's history of the Russian Revolution is detailed and an enjoyable read. Figes's use of individual storylines is especially helpful in elucidating this complicated subject matter. These individual storylines never lose their context and Figes does not stray too long from the main story. Figes should also be commended for not pulling punches. Figes is sure to point out each party's weaknesses and positives. He also spends a great deal of the book (first 1/3 of book) examining the causes of the Revolution, including the 1905 Revolution. This portion of the book can be frustrating when you mostly want to know about the actual events of the Revolution. However, the reader is rewarded once the details and events of the Revolution are told. The actual Revolution is complex, proper introduction and context enhances the reader's understanding to a great deal. This information is especially important because of the different parties involved (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, The Duma, the Social Democrats, the Revolutionary Democrats). A handy index of these parties is helpful; but more detail in the index would be helpful. Overall, this book is a detailed and compelling telling of the Russian Revolution. Although, its length will give some readers pause (rightly so), taking the plunge with this book will reward the reader interested in the Russian Revolution.

The author takes the reader on an informative journey through the Russian Revolution. Much of the text is devoted to elaborations, justifications, and explanations of persons and events, and this can be soporific, especially if you aren't caught up on your sleep. But if you forge ahead, you will be well rewarded. Colorful and historically important characters like Nicholas II, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Gorky are brought to life with insight, along with the important events they take part in. A large supporting cast, with characters like Alexandra, Rasputin, Kerensky, General Brusilov, and Prince Lvov add to the dramatic saga, highlighted by many tasty anecdotes. You get only a few, unremarkable maps, but you get many photos, and they are good. "A People's Tragedy" is a great accomplishment, and a reading of it will enrich you.

My book club read this book. I wouldn't have picked it out or read otherwise, but I learned a great deal.

You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs and the Russian Revolution was one bloody big omelet. Orlando Figes does an admirable job of providing a look at the big picture of the Revolution--taking us back a good two decades before it began and bringing us up to Lenin's death, about a decade after. The advantage of this perspective is that it gives the reader an historical context for the events that eventually brought down centuries of tsarist rule and raised up the Bolsheviks. The obvious disadvantage of such an approach is that a certain amount of detail is unavoidably lost. Still, for a one-volume treatment of the subject, you can't go wrong with this book. Comprehensive and informed, it is a generally lively read, as history books go. Figes tries to balance the personalities, the politics, and the events of the Revolution to bring it to life without sacrificing facts. It is a compelling period filled with fascinating characters--Rasputin, Tsar Nicholas, Kerensky, Lenin, Trotsky, Lvov, Gorky and that's just scratching the surface. Figes, not quite agreeing with the Marxist/Hegelian view that men don't make history, effectively shows the importance of the personalities of the Revolution's cast of characters and how a different man in the same place at the same time could have easily changed everything. Figes tries to remain balanced in his account by pointing out where "right wing" historians and "left wing" historians often interpret events differently. His own view, in the end, is that the Bolshevik revolution was an idealistic concept that was doomed to fail when applied by and applied to imperfect human beings. The result was the erosion of idealism to totalitarian terror. If you are a committed Marxist, chances are you'll find yourself opposing the tone of this book. If you are a commie-basher, it'll probably suit you better, but Figes sympathy towards the more genuinely committed communists will probably aggravate your intolerance. For the rest of us, without a particular ideological axe to grind, Figes comes off about as fair and balanced as a thinking individual with the capacity for informed judgment can be. This book is long, dense, and it'll take a while for you to read, but if the subject interests you at all, it's well worth the time and effort. It's also essential reading to understand how and why the Soviet experiment degenerated into the nightmare that were the Stalin years. With so much talk lately about America's turn towards "socialism" and the rising level of vitriolic and polarizing discontent with our government, *A People's Tragedy* offers unexpected contemporary insight into the dynamics of political and social change that should give us all pause. Even if we're condemned to repeat history, at least we can be prepared for it.

This is a 5 star book. No question about it. Professor Figes has to be the most knowledgeable person in the world when it comes to Russian history and specifically the multidimensional aspects of the Russian Revolution. I was mystified by how he looped the entire story together with detail and insight that is unparalleled. I found myself saying... how does he know all this? Seriously, if you want to read a book on the Russian Revolution - and as a history nerd it’s been a long term bucket list subject for me - this book is it. Full stop end of story. BUT You had better be ready. I have read 200+ biographies and historical must reads through the years and this is simply the HEAVIEST LIFT of my entire reading life. I can’t imagine a book being more informative and yet at times less enjoyable and tedious than this book. It sucks the life out of you at times in about page 300 as you get bogged down in details, dates, and Russian names. Especially when you realize to complete this epic book it is 820 pages. I usually read a book a month. It took me 2.5 months to read this. But I kept at it because this is absolutely the book to read on the Russian Revolution. Read it but be ready because it is a long and challenging hill to climb.

There are lots of books on the Russian Revolution. Few are as comprehensive and compelling as Orlando Figes’ “A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891 – 1924,” first published to wide critical acclaim in 1997. Figes takes a broad view of his subject; his history stretches over nearly two generations, from the famine of 1891 to the death of Lenin in 1924. He argues for the 1891 date because the whole of Russian society had been “politicized and radicalized” as a result of the famine crisis and the Tsarist regime’s inept response to it. Tsar Nicolas II remained wedded to autocracy in the face of increasing calls for reform from both the industrial centers of his country and the agricultural peasantry. Hostility and resentment would fester for decades. The author ascribes great importance to the personal role played by Bolshevik leader, Vladimir Lenin, in the Revolution of 1917. “Much of Lenin’s success in 1917 was no doubt explained by his towering domination over the [Bolshevik] party,” Figes writes, “which distinguished [them] from the Mensheviks (who had no clear leader of their own).” Indeed, according to Figes, “few historical events in the modern era better illustrate the decisive effect of an individual on the course of history … Without his decisive personal influence, it is hard to imagine a Bolshevik seizure of power.” That is not to say that a Bolshevik victory was foreordained. Far from it. Alexander Kerensky was, for a brief time, the most popular man in Russia and had a reasonable chance at establishing the authority of the Provisional Government. In Figes’ estimation, Kerensky and his allies failed to grasp the depth of war wariness among the Russian people. They believed that a last ditch offensive against the Germans might rally the country behind the Provisional Government in the national defense of democracy. They were badly mistaken. Had the Provisional Government adopted a similar policy as the Bolsheviks and immediately opened peace negotiations with the Germans in the summer of 1917, “no doubt the Bolsheviks would never have come to power,” says Figes. The author also claims that Kerensky made critical errors in his handling of the so-called Kornilov Affair. “One of the most enduring myths of the Russian Revolution is the notion that Kornilov was planning a coup d’etat against the Provisional Government,” Figes says. “But the evidence suggests that Kornilov, far from plotting the overthrow of the Provisional Government, had in fact intended to save it.” Miscommunication and misunderstanding led to a rupture that in many ways sealed the fate of Kerensky and his Provisional Government. The Bolsheviks, meanwhile, stumbled toward power. Lenin was ill-prepared for seizing power during most of 1917. For instance, Figes argues that the Bolshevik leader could have taken power during the spontaneous July Days uprising, if he had been prepared and willing. “With 50,000 armed and angry men surrounding the Tauride Palace” in July 1917, Figes writes, “there was nothing to prevent a Bolshevik coup d’etat.” When the next opportunity came in October Lenin would not be caught flat-footed. Figes claims that Lenin almost single-handedly seized power. For the Bolsheviks of 1917, the revolution in Russia was only a part – and a small part at that – of the worldwide struggle between imperialism and socialism. The decision to make a separate and humiliating peace with Germany was, Figes says, “without doubt one of the most critical moments in the history of the party.” The newborn Soviet Republic lost 34% of her population, 54% of his industrial enterprises and 89% of her coalmines in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. In Figes’ estimation, “The peace of Brest-Litovsk marked the completion of Lenin’s revolution: it was the culmination of October.” There was no longer any prospect of the revolution spreading to the West. The subsequent Russian Civil War of 1918 to 1920 was brutal. The Whites assumed they could win the civil war without the support of the peasantry; or, at any rate, they seemed to think that the whole question of land reform could be put off until after victory. It couldn’t. “Whereas land reform was the first act of the Bolsheviks,” Figes writes, “it was the last act of the Whites,” and this goes a long way in explaining the outcome of the civil war. Both the Reds and the Whites were constantly crippled by mass desertion, by the breakdown of supplies, by strikes and peasant revolts in the rear. But their ability to maintain their campaigns in spite of all these problems depended less on military factors than on political ones. The Reds had one crucial advantage, Figes says: they were able to fight under the Red Flag and claim to be defending “the revolution.” Meanwhile, the Whites’ failure to recognize the peasant revolution on the land and the national independence movements doomed them to defeat. “In the end,” Figes writes, “the defeat of the Whites comes down largely to their own dismal failure to break with the past and to regain the initiative within the agenda of 1917.” If you’re looking to read just one book on the Russian Revolution and have the stamina and fortitude to plow through 800 pages of dense historical writing, “A People’s Tragedy” is an excellent choice.

If you want to know more about the subject, buy this book. Despite its length, it's very easy to read and offers tremendous insight into the period, the people (both famous and not-so-famous), the countless factors that led to the Russian Revolution, and the events of the Revolution itself. Figes is not here to push an agenda, but rather to offer a complex and nuanced analysis of a complex and nuanced series of events that completely changed the world. I was absolutely blown away by A People's Revolution, and I can't recommend it highly enough.

If you want the definitive one-volume take on Lenin's revolution and all that it entailed, this is your book. 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. It is a masterpiece of historical exposition. 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 capitalist class, which had to be "skipped", betraying Marx's teleology of revolution). 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 do 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.

I started reading this book when I got antsy waiting for Mike Duncan to finish up his series of podcasts on the Russian Revolution. I'm very happy I did! The wealth of detail was exactly what I wanted to learn. The in depth personal stories from different levels of society provide rich and heart wrenching perspectives. I was most strongly affected by the story of Semien Semyonov and his battle to better his life, family,, and farm against all odds. I would have liked more information on the peasant revolutions ongoing during the Red and White Civil War but they are covered to some extent. I would recommend this book to lovers of history but caution that it is a TOME and the number of different people covered could lead to brain fatigue keeping track of everyone.

Seems to be very good and well researched, but it is pretty dry. You've got to really pay attention and be interested in this subject to keep the ball rolling mentally. Overall, the author did a good job. But there is so much detail that sometimes it gets tedious. I'm about halfway through the audio book now.

Figes's history of the Russian Revolution is detailed and an enjoyable read. Figes's use of individual storylines is especially helpful in elucidating this complicated subject matter. These individual storylines never lose their context and Figes does not stray too long from the main story. Figes should also be commended for not pulling punches. Figes is sure to point out each party's weaknesses and positives. He also spends a great deal of the book (first 1/3 of book) examining the causes of the Revolution, including the 1905 Revolution. This portion of the book can be frustrating when you mostly want to know about the actual events of the Revolution. However, the reader is rewarded once the details and events of the Revolution are told. The actual Revolution is complex, proper introduction and context enhances the reader's understanding to a great deal. This information is especially important because of the different parties involved (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, The Duma, the Social Democrats, the Revolutionary Democrats). A handy index of these parties is helpful; but more detail in the index would be helpful. Overall, this book is a detailed and compelling telling of the Russian Revolution. Although, its length will give some readers pause (rightly so), taking the plunge with this book will reward the reader interested in the Russian Revolution.

The author takes the reader on an informative journey through the Russian Revolution. Much of the text is devoted to elaborations, justifications, and explanations of persons and events, and this can be soporific, especially if you aren't caught up on your sleep. But if you forge ahead, you will be well rewarded. Colorful and historically important characters like Nicholas II, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Gorky are brought to life with insight, along with the important events they take part in. A large supporting cast, with characters like Alexandra, Rasputin, Kerensky, General Brusilov, and Prince Lvov add to the dramatic saga, highlighted by many tasty anecdotes. You get only a few, unremarkable maps, but you get many photos, and they are good. "A People's Tragedy" is a great accomplishment, and a reading of it will enrich you.

My book club read this book. I wouldn't have picked it out or read otherwise, but I learned a great deal.

You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs and the Russian Revolution was one bloody big omelet. Orlando Figes does an admirable job of providing a look at the big picture of the Revolution--taking us back a good two decades before it began and bringing us up to Lenin's death, about a decade after. The advantage of this perspective is that it gives the reader an historical context for the events that eventually brought down centuries of tsarist rule and raised up the Bolsheviks. The obvious disadvantage of such an approach is that a certain amount of detail is unavoidably lost. Still, for a one-volume treatment of the subject, you can't go wrong with this book. Comprehensive and informed, it is a generally lively read, as history books go. Figes tries to balance the personalities, the politics, and the events of the Revolution to bring it to life without sacrificing facts. It is a compelling period filled with fascinating characters--Rasputin, Tsar Nicholas, Kerensky, Lenin, Trotsky, Lvov, Gorky and that's just scratching the surface. Figes, not quite agreeing with the Marxist/Hegelian view that men don't make history, effectively shows the importance of the personalities of the Revolution's cast of characters and how a different man in the same place at the same time could have easily changed everything. Figes tries to remain balanced in his account by pointing out where "right wing" historians and "left wing" historians often interpret events differently. His own view, in the end, is that the Bolshevik revolution was an idealistic concept that was doomed to fail when applied by and applied to imperfect human beings. The result was the erosion of idealism to totalitarian terror. If you are a committed Marxist, chances are you'll find yourself opposing the tone of this book. If you are a commie-basher, it'll probably suit you better, but Figes sympathy towards the more genuinely committed communists will probably aggravate your intolerance. For the rest of us, without a particular ideological axe to grind, Figes comes off about as fair and balanced as a thinking individual with the capacity for informed judgment can be. This book is long, dense, and it'll take a while for you to read, but if the subject interests you at all, it's well worth the time and effort. It's also essential reading to understand how and why the Soviet experiment degenerated into the nightmare that were the Stalin years. With so much talk lately about America's turn towards "socialism" and the rising level of vitriolic and polarizing discontent with our government, *A People's Tragedy* offers unexpected contemporary insight into the dynamics of political and social change that should give us all pause. Even if we're condemned to repeat history, at least we can be prepared for it.

Wonderful. If there's a man who can write non-fiction books Orlando Figes is one. I wish he would write about other times and places, I would buy his books immediately. His other book on Russia's culture (I forgot the title) is also great. The best thing about this author is that anything he writes about, no matter how complicated it may seem or how foreign it may be, he makes it vivid and absorbing. Reading him is like having your best friend trying to make you understand something you've been studying but still can't get the gist of. I like the way he presents us with the facts. It's not deferential to any political side. He talks about the people, not about ideas or policies. He lets us know how people lived, their environment, their heritage and personal backgrounds, how they felt and what they believed in, what they lacked and what they wanted. It's all about people. You see what they did, you know their circumstances, then you judge. I love that. I did notice, though, that the author tends to explain (or should I say blame?) failure many times on lack of a consensus between factions, which seems to me a childish excuse, an easy scapegoat. Then, when he presents other versions of the facts, and compares them to his, he always makes sure his version stands middle-of-the-way between the "rightist" and the "leftist". But I doubt if there really exists any "rightist" version at all in some cases. Anyway, this book was a pleasure to read.

Outstanding history of the Russian Revolution. Meticulously researched with strong psychological analyses of the main characters in this major world event

Having written all of what follows, I am still going to give the book a 5 stars based on the good that everyone else talks about in these reviews, which I agree with, even though I am tempted to give it a 4. This was my third book of Figes' that I read, and I have to say that while they are all great, they all left me wondering what the standard story line was...what was I missing, how is Figes stretching the truth and what is he deliberately downplaying. It's definitely part of the excitement in reading Figes because even though I didn't have much expertise in the subject, I got the feeling that I was getting a fresh interpretation of the facts. His bibliography and research into the recently opened up Soviet archives was great. And putting all this information into a gripping and logical story line is a gift that he has. Again, while I really liked the book, Figes tends to tell the story in themes and threads and spurts, instead of in a straight chronological manner. This technique makes for a better understanding of the revolution, but I also felt a need to consult other sources to get a better understanding of the timeline. Clearly, the revolution was incredibly complex with many, many players and theaters of action all going on simultaneously and within a tight time frame, but at one point I realized that I didn't know how the Whites had come into existence or what they were about. So I went back in the index and eventually realized that he never gives this information even though they're a major player in the whole story! It is also difficult to keep track of all the different people and organizations. Additionally, a MAJOR PROBLEM with the book is that there are just two rudimentary maps of Russia in the beginning of this 850-page book. This is a huge book dealing with multiple wars in the largest country in the world. It would have benefitted from at least 20 or 30 maps at different periods and in different theaters of action sprinkled throughout the text. ...enjoy

Must read for anyone interested in Russian history. I especially like the author's tone and perspective.

Good history of Russia 1891-1918.

The author explains the XIX century Russian world, the stratum from which the revolution emerged. More complex than the 'there was Zar … then there was a USSR' explanation one often hears in non-academic sources. The Russian 'ancien régime' is presented with it's ramifications & consequences for the benefit of the reader. One gets to understand how this Russian Revolution was foremost the failure of the right, the absence of the center (& why a center was absent in a society like that of the Russia of the time) & the inaction of the more moderate socialists. Ending with a few, uniquely radicals in the furthest-left in charge of the planet's largest country. The author does a very good job presenting the sociopolitical events behind that Russian revolution &, eventually, describes very well how the Bolsheviks seized the situation to set in place their uncanny Orwellian state. If you want to read 1 book about this topic, understand how the Soviet regime was later able to come into being, don't let this one pass.

There is no one like Orlando Figes for a chronicler of Russian history that reads like poetic fiction, yet remains rigorously researched. One feels at times that he is personally recounting this to the reader as if it happened to him. It feels immediate and is passionately written.

What a nightmare for those who live through it. Compelling and complete.

An highly detailed and excellent account of the Russian Revolution; a must read for capitalists and socialists alike.

good

Beautiful copy with no flaws. I love it!

The best history book I've ever read. A great mix of broad storytelling and specific anecdotes.

Highly recommended if you are interested in early 20th century Russian history. After I read this book I went back and read Dr. Zhivago. "A People's Tragedy" provides so much context for "Dr. Zhivago."

As a person only familiar with the basic outline of the Russian Revolution, I found this book simply entrancing. I have long intended to read a work on this crucial event and period in world history; I am glad this was the volume I selected. While the length and subject matter of this book is somewhat daunting, Figes presents this history in a highly readable fashion without skimping on fascinating detail. Part of how he does this is by interspersing historical detail with personal histories of both famous and everyday Russians. Figes foes beyond just describing the key events but analyzes why they happened and how it impacted the Russian people at all levels of society. Importanty, Figes also stresses how the history of Russia formed its people and how these people formed the Revolution and the resulting disaster of Bolshevism. He goes into great detail concerning the other key political groups of this era. Figes scope and knowledge of his subject matter is amazing. I feel much wiser for having spent a couple weeks plowing through this important tome. I would say if you read only one book on the Russian Revolution, this is the one. However, this is the only book I have read on the subject. So, with that qualification, I will say that--in my opinion--this is a darn good book for someone looking to better understand one of the most important events of the twentieth century.

Figes' history of Russia is thorough, well-written, and fascinating. It's a long read but definitely worth it.

Orlando Figes has written a very good book on the Russian Revolution. At over 800 pages it is very long. It took me about six weeks to read! Some sections were a bit tedious. I sometimes got lost in the explanations of the many parties and factions, and all the different governmental organizations that came and went. But if you are patient enough you will find it to be a very interesting history book. Since it spans the period from 1891 to 1924 you learn about the events leading up to the revolution as well as the consequences of the revolution up to Lenin's death in 1924. Before the 1917 revolution, Figes explains how, time after time, Tsar Nicholas II had the opportunity to reform his government into a constitutional democracy, but instead he stubbornly stuck to his ideals that he must rule as an autocrat with divine authority granted by God. The Tsar comes across as a tragic figure who could have done better, but was stuck in the past. Also, I was amazed at how extremely rough and primitive the majority of the Russian peasants lived under the Tsarist regime. Their isolated world was confined to their own village and they had very little concept of the outside world. The major Russian cities were like tiny islands of modern life in a sea of country that was living in the Dark Ages. Later when the Bolsheviks came to power they became very afraid of this mass of peasantry. They knew that according to Marxist theory, communist revolutions should happen in more developed and industrialized societies, and that they were precariously jumping ahead by taking power in Russia. In fact, they were hoping that the communist revolution would spread to the western powers mainly Germany to give their own regime more support. In early 1918, when World War I was still in progress, and the Bolsheviks were negotiating with Germany, Trotsky refused to give in to German demands but also really refused to fight. He was hoping that Germany was on the verge of its own socialist revolution where the mass of the German troops would refuse to fight against their fellow proletarians in revolutionary Russia. What happened instead was a swift and easy German invasion of Russia. Germany actually ended up taking over as much Russian territory as they did at the height of World War II. Of course, after the armistice of November 1918 they had to give all this territory up. The October Bolshevik Revolution itself was actually quite bloodless, especially compared with the Civil War that followed. The way Figes describes the events of the 25 of October 1917, it is almost comical how the Bolsheviks seized power. Of course the ensuing civil war with the Red and White Terrors, was anything but comical. I was surprised to learn that much of the Red Terror was carried out by the peasants themselves with their underlying violent urges unleashed. They seemed to view the Reds as the lesser of two evils over the Whites. The Whites mainly stood for going back to the past of the Tsarist era, while at least with the Reds the peasants thought they had some control over their local villages. (Another surprising fact was how the officials in White government in Siberia lived like 1970s rock stars with vodka, cocaine, heroine and hookers.) The Whites were definitely not an ideal force of democracy and progress for Russia. After the Civil War things still did not settle down for Russia. Across the countryside the peasants revolted against the Bolsheviks (and their food requisitioning) and took gruesome revenge upon them before the Red Army got things under control. And then Russia had to deal with the great famine of 1921-22. In 1922 Lenin health problems and strokes began and he slowly had to withdrawal from power. He became distraught at the failings of the Revolution and wary of Stalin's power. He tried to warn the other Bolsheviks about Stalin, but of course it was too late and Stalin's rise to dictatorship was set. Reading this book, it is just amazing how many horrible and violent things the Russians had to live through. In his conclusion, Figes puts part of the blame on the people themselves and not just on the Bolsheviks, something that Russians even today may have a hard time accepting.

Once in a great while a history comes along that eclipses all others in the foreseeable future. And no, I am not Orlando Figes. This book has the passion and the pathos, the humor and the humanity. I guess that this is what they call literature. My only critique is the sheer weight of the volume and its mind numbingly tiny text. Couldn't this be reissued as an e-book?

One reads about the poor Russian peasants and how they suffered through the revolution, as well as the elite. Figes makes you feel as though you had experienced it yourself. I highly recommend this book.

Arrived in great condition.

This book is a tome, but it is fascinating. Figes effortlessly glides between discussion of peasant life in pre-revolutionary Russia, to the intellectuals in the salons of St. Petersburg, to the ideology of the Tsar, and to descriptions of military movement during the Civil War. It is unnecessary to have even the slightest knowledge of the Russian Revolution to read and learn from this book. I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in Russian history.

History seem to repeat itself again

This book defies the traditional ideological camps of leftist and rightist historiography, the methodological approaches of top-down history or bottom-up history, and grows well beyond the comfort and stagnancy of writing about political history. This account of the revolution explores varying ideological views of the revolution and offers the most lengthy and highly detailed narrative of social, cultural, economic, technological and religious variables at work leading to and acting within the revolution. For those of you bored with the mountain of texts available "about the people at the top" i.e. Lenin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, Stalin, etc, this book is ultimately about those at the bottom who were the actual participants, and later its victims. Without question Figes offers us the necessary texts to understand why, at the end of the day, this event was truly a people's tragedy.

Top flight

Very good quality book, but in content and it just physically arrived in good condition.

A long book to get through, but if you enjoy history it's a page-turner. The Bolsheviks were extremely lucky to come to power. Those already in power, no matter who they were, could never seem to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. This is an extremely informative book.

I bought this book for a college history course and thoroughly enjoy it. It is interesting and reads more like a novel that a list of dates and names like traditional history books often do.

Undoubtedly the best book I've read about the Russian revolution. It is well documented and beautifully written in a way that the reader can follow sometimes confusing events in an orderly manner. Of the 30 plus books I've read on the subject this one stands above the rest in scope by including lesser known but important figures in the tragic events of the period.

This is an all encompassing and engrossing treatment of the Russian revolution. It is still scary today.

A terrific narrative style from a fine historian.

Figes is unbelievably thorough and a real master of the material

A deeper insight to the Russian revolution and its causes and outcomes. Recommended for anyone who is interested in the subject.

The book was high quality, and an excellent price, just as they promised. I will consider buying more next time

Excellent read, makes you feel bad for the people of Russia. Depicts communism for what it was, a terroristic totalitarian regime. No friend of the Czar either.

Forgot this was written in the mid90s (I believe) Since then, it has certainly held up as one of the best contemporary analysis of the Russian Revolution and subsequent Civil War. Arguably a "modern classic" its then-young Brit author achieved.

Figes has brought the Russian revolution (actually several revolutions) to us in exquisite detail. In "A Peoples Tragedy" we learn the causes of the revolution as well as the brutality of the Russian people during one of the most dramatic and traumatic periods of that country. Wonderfully well written, extremely detailed, and well-researched, this book presents details of the revolution that could only be revealed after the fall of the Soviet UInion.

This is a great book, that is well written and an easy read. If you've ever visited St. Petersburg, ( and seen the former palaces and majesty) and wondered what happened, and want a comprehensive answer, this is it. My only wish that in 2016 there would be a Kindle version of this book. Seriously it can't be hard. The hardcover version is heavy and big, ( Note : if you travel a lot this can be pain to carry around, thus the kindle edition!) This book was written in 1997, but the content does not go obsolete. The events described happened early last century. I'm surprised its out of print....

Great book

For anyone who wants to do a serious, up-to-date read about the Russian Revolution, this is an excellent source. The book is well organized, full of interesting and supporting details, and well written. Unlike some histories, this book is not dry or dull going. The author has amassed an amazing amount of information in these 825 pages. I am in awe of this work.

Really quite good. It is particularly good at exploring the motivations of the peasants and the so unlikely triumph of the Bolsheviks. Also puts a great damper on middle class sentimentalist enthusiasms for the oh-so-noble poorer classes. Everybody at the NYT and NBC ought to be required to read this the next time they feel the need to demagogue the poor.

One of the best books I have ever read on the Russian Revolution. Any Slavophile will find the information presented in this book to be a great time investment !!!

excellent

If you look at pre-Soviet history, you will see starvation under the Tsars, peasant uprisings that were crushed; inner court people that were murdered by their rulers, and all of this is routina. That's Russia folks. Sometimes I think they are more Oriental that Western, and the Byzantine tradition merely reinforces that. If you want Figes to appologize for the 1 to several million Ukrainians that starved to death (remember, they also culled their cattle rather than collectivize), then you might as well ask the Turks to appologize for any atrocities committed during the Greek/ Armenian crisis. It's not gonna happen. If you want lots of trivia on history, knowing full well that historians often cannot tell you "why", because history rhymes but does not repeat itself like a chemical reaction, then this book is for you. Besides, I really don't care what the author thinks, aslongas they get the facts straight. So this is a good, albeit wordy, book on minutae.

One of the best historries of the Russian revolution.

This is the fourth book I read by Mr. F iges. He makes history come alive and astonishes with the precision and accuracy of his research . His style makes reading history a pleasure and almost like reading good fiction.

The best book on Russian history if you ask me.

I happended to be at a college library when I opened the pages to 'A Peoples Tragedy ' and I could hardly put it down for the next few hours. I confess I did not read the whole book and I am not going to pretend that I did or that I am ready to write the serious review I would like to. I very much enjoy the spirit of a peoples revolution. It is a tremendous hope, of oppressed people around the World. It could be a great change that would benefit everyone, eventually. It is not about murdering all the other classes. The Bolsheviks did not do that, and Trotsky did not raise his successful armuy that way. This is according to Figes as well as other objective historians. Judging from the past the great proletarian revolution has been very precarious, like riding a hurricane. but maybe the Russian Revoloution as well as other revolutions still may have something to teach us. As for What I read from Figes book my perception may be altered a little, reinoforced in others, but not at all reversed. Stalin is the tyrant, the mass merderer and the Totalitarian. He had many followers and supporters, but they were not the majority of the Bolsheviks. It seems so simple, and maybe it is not the whole story but Stalin knew more about what brings power than leaders who were seemingly more brilliant than he was. ) (Having said this, there are always important things to learn from other human movements that have great value. We have our own bill of rights; non violent movements associated with such people as Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr, many of the teachings of Jesus and he Buddha. lesson from labor union movements, and may more. Also peolle should be able to read what they want.) Figes is not the only historian to recognize Lenin's growing recognition, before his final stroke, of Stalins threat as a tyrant who would destroy the revolution, or at least destroy the Revolution that Lenin, Trotsky and and so many others made their life's work. Isaac Deutsher certainly told a similar story, but Figes tells this story extremely well, and lays out Lenin's plan for his war to oust Stalin from power. At the vital center of his plan is restoring peoples democracy, the rights and participation of ordinary working people. Trotsky played a big role in a similar plan, and took it to ther streets to win popular support (a little like Iran's current opposition). Since this did not begin until around August 1923, it is mainly beuyound the scope of Figes book. What Trotsky did is well documented by Trotky's writings and by the left Opposition. A good source is 'The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25)', by Trotsky. Trotsky was also against a ruling bureaucracy, and for ordinary working people to have some control over governance. He argued that people could only learn if they can make decisions, and make mistakes they learn from. Trotsky never abandoned his fight for a workers democracy, and much of it continued into his exile and appears in 'The Revolution Betrayed', 1936. Stalin created a bureaucracy that was independent, or as Trotsky put it at the time, independent of the party rank and file as well ordinary workers. (Some independence that was!) To me, Stalin was the Totalitarian, and Lenin, Trotsky and so many others were not. There may be many things you do not like about them, and that is your right, but please argue about those things for what they are instead of falsely linking other Bolshevik leaders to Stalin and his followings terrible works. do not paint them all with the same broad brush. When you do so, you are doing as the many Stalins in the Right dc.

Thoroughly written. A history that we must study and learn.

I have not studied the Russian revolution and its surrounding events in depth, and have found 'A People's Tragedy' very enlightening and detailed. As with other exhaustive treatments of complex subjects I feel that an outline of the author's treatment plus a timeline detailing the points and vignettes illustrated by the author would be very helpful.

This is a great read. The author wrote in a style that reads like a novel instead of a boring history. If you want to learn why Russia moved to the political left and then back again, this is the book. The application to today is worth the time to read this. You won't be disappointed.

Excellent coverage of the topic in wonderful detail. Clearly written as well as absorbing, taking the reader into the past in a graphic way.

The best possible book on the 20th century Russia you would find -

Beautifully written, very well researched and throroughly worked on. A reference on the subject and a must read in general.

This gives you a very nice and clear narrative on the events leading up to the Russian Revolution, as well as information on all the different people who were involved. I strongly recommend this book.

Combines excellent scholarship and narrative. I like the way chapters start by describing a certain event, linked to the overall subject theme (e.g. the celebration of the dynasty's anniversary) and then broaden and deepen the analysis. Excellent choice of photographs too.

Orlando Figes: book about the Russian revolution, a well researched topic, Could that still be used today? Circumstance haven't much changed.

I love this book. It's a great read and I could barely take my eyes off of it. The delivery service was great it got to me in about two days after I ordered it on Amazon prime, and it's just great!

Everybody who wanted to know something basic about Russia ,and I may add about Putin , should read this book.

This is a very succinct and factually reach textbook on the Russian revolution, written in very nice and academic language. Every student or scholar in Russian Studies have to be aware of this excellent manual.

Perfect

Some good reading.

This is just a great book. There is so much to it, but I couldn't stop reading it. Many of the elements might remind you of our country now. In particular, when Figes describes the "cultural-artist" movements that the Soviets sponsored - you'll see astonishing parallels to the 1960's. It is amazing at how depraved a people can get when instead of focusing on helping their brother they focus on the things they can steel from him. And then someone else steals it from them - and up the line. In the end, Lenin declares war on the peasants - for not producing enough grain (a product of his policies) and then later declares war on the proletariat for not producing enough products (again a result of his policies). War Communism was what the called it. I highly recommend it.

great book, very insightful

He was so absorbed in it - he was late for college morning class a few times, I thought the size would over-whelm him but it didn't. Another side to history.

If you're fascinated with Russian history like me, I highly recommend this meticulously researched tome about the events leading up to the revolution of 1917. I'm reading this now and it's not an easy read. Not that it's difficult or hard to comprehend, it's rather the horrific events catalogued and detailed. Peasants live in abject poverty while the Tsar and elite give themselves lavish balls and dine on fine China. Lessons in history are blatantly ignored as the country speeds along to WWI and the resulting bloodbath of trench warfare. Rampant anti-semitism is allowed to fester unchecked by the inept and henpecked Tsar, who'd rather cover his ears and hide in his various palaces than deal with the nuisance of angry peasants wanting a loaf of bread. And the reality is that Tsarist Russia was disintegrating long before Nicholas II abdicated. Orlando Figes is a professor and it shows. This book is well-written. It must have taken years to amass the wealth of information he condenses into chapters. While he doesn't go into detail about the many characters involved, he does give us a window in their psyche. What makes these people tick? Why was Nicholas content to sit back and ignore his people crying in the streets during the war? Why did the only protection he had against revolution, the military, revolt? Why did he tolerate the unholy corrupting influence of Rasputin? And why did he ignore Moscow? In the book, you find out he hadn't visited in years leading up to the revolution. Why ignore the backbone of your country? The peasants farmed the land, produced food, and contributed to the economy that the Romanovs enriched themselves with. There is a lot of that in this book of horrific deeds and irresponsibility of the imperial regime. The one thing that stands out is the stark divide between rich and poor. It's almost as if the Romanovs were content to live out their luxurious lives while the peasants were stuck in 16th century Russia. Indeed, reading this it is almost impossible to imagine someone being content with their people living in a backwards society without clean water and proper sanitation, while the rest of the world marches on towards the 20th century. The stubbornness and refusal to accept Tsarism as a relic of the past will make you want to grab Nicholas and his arrogant wife and give them both a good shake. Up until the abdication they still believed in autocrat rule. Not one thought is spared for the harried factory workers who just want things to change. The peasants are tired of living as if it were still 1613. They have been kept dirty, illiterate, and imprisoned for nearly 300 years in perpetual poverty. When Russia enters the war it is a recipe for the perfect disaster. The peasants are conscripted and cannot farm the land and are slaughtered on the battlefield. Riots break out in the capital over loaves of bread. Trains evacuate the elite and their mistresses but leave the wounded and sobbing refugees behind. Rasputin manipulates the Tsar through the empress via letters. She allows paranoia and imagined slights dictate her judgement. Prime ministers are quickly shuffled in and out as the country descends into chaos. It's a tragedy on a massive scale. But none more so than the one to follow what came after: Communist Rule. Chaos begets more chaos. The people are relieved to finally be freed of the oppressive tsarist regime. But in ridding themselves of one tyrant, they get another in the form of Lenin. The tsarist secret police becomes The Cheka, aka The KGB. The days preceding the abdication are full of murderous mayhem in the streets. The Tsar pouts and refuses to believe the people are unhappy. The peasants are devoid of any emotion as the Tsarist regime had drained it years ago. Bolsheviks run amok while the people passively look on. Even when the Tsar is executed, along with his wife and children, the country collectively yawns. They simply do not understand what they have done. In reality the peasants were unruly children who sought to free themselves from their "Father" the Tsar. They got their wish and more. The book is huge and some parts are tedious to get through. But it's worth it to stick it out and finish each chapter. It's like watching a train careen out of control. Even though you know the outcome, you can't stop yourself from looking. If you've ever wondered what the heck happened with Russia and how they fell into the deadly traps of Marxism and socialism, this book will enlighten you. Imagine, you overthrow a corrupt regime to exchange it for another. You will be starved, murdered en masse, told what to think, what to read, have your every move scrutinized by the secret police, and fear will be your new religion. You will live happily like this, or else. Or least until 1991. This is a scholarly text, but I think anyone who loves history will find it fascinating. Five stars from me.

'A People's Tragedy' is an 800 page account of the Russian Revolution(s) from 1891 to the death of Lenin in 1924. It admirably fills gaps in his shorter book that covers 1891 to 1991. Despite great attention to detail in both history and analysis there is significance in every inch of this book. It's a masterpiece of both research and presentation. There are good maps, but a chronology and caste of characters might make for easier following of the detailed text. Lack of a caste of characters is somewhat compensated for with a sparse set of photographs. The maps are good and the glossary is helpful but incomplete. As the title indicates, Figes sees the Russian Revolution as a tragedy. He engages in an occasional ‘if only’ speculations such as if Nicholas had been a more capable Tsar, or if the Whites had had better commanders things might have turned out differently. But the best is the real history of Russia and revolution. He depicts and tries to convey understanding of the Russian Revolution with all its theoretical and practical complexity and brutality. In this very impressive piece of history-writing Figes has tried to make us understand it by re-creating, but also explaining, the experience of Russia from the famine of 1891, which he regards as the effective beginning of the final crisis of tsarism, to the death of Lenin. A People’s Tragedy combines analysis, narrative and exploration of the lives of those who experienced. There were no happy outcomes. It's a great history and political analysis of the formation of the USSR. Besides history, he's especially adept at interspersing political analysis covering ideological, economic and nationalistic elements. The book starts with the Great Famine of 1891, continues through the revolution in 1905, the two in 1917 and civil war before the death of Lenin in 1924. In a poignant note, Russia celebrated 300 years of Romanov rule in 1913 with ineffectual Tsar Nicholas II in place. Nicholas retained blind anachronistic adherence to autocracy, proving incapable of coping with events. Following Massie, the book touches on the effects of hemophilia and Rasputin. Russia had a series of capable ministers. Plehve and Stolypin instituted reforms that Nicholas deigned to support. Both were assassinated. Adding to the well known detrimental effects of the Russo-Japanese war there as strained relationship with Poland leading to Marshall Pilsudsky negotiating with the Japanese against Russian interests. It was ineffective communal agricultural system, not shortage of food, that led to collapse of the Tsarist economy. Figes demonstrates that the tsarist system was doomed by its defects, primarily a tsar unqualified to rule. Failure of the 1905 Revolution did not gain Nicholas much respite as he sabotaged his capable minister, Stolypin's reforms, with myopic adherence to an anachronism of autocratic rule that he was not capable of administering. He preferred to rely on his wife and Rasputin to the great detriment of Russia as well as himself. Reversion to a constitutional monarchy or even abdication in favor of his hemophiliac son were alternatives that Nicholas declined to consider. The 1914 war may initially have postponed such a revolution, but thereafter accelerated it. The idea that tsarist Russia could have survived if not for the war, is a fantasy. None of the White leaders in the Civil War embraced monarchism as a cause, despite the efforts of the many monarchists in their ranks. With a very effective narrative device, Figes traces the revolution through the eyes of five principle careers representing different walks of life whose viewpoints he follows from beginning to the end and afterwards. These is popular patriotic writer Maxim Gorky, liberal nobleman Prince Lvov, first prime minister of the provisional government after the February Revolution of 1917, General Brusilov, a Tsarist general, who joined the Red Army, Dmitri Os'kin, a peasant soldier from Tula who became a Bolshevik cadre, and Sergei Semenov, a peasant activist from a village about 100 miles South of Moscow. Photographs of these five, together with Lenin, Trotsky and Alexandra Kollontai, make up the section of Figes’s extremely well-chosen illustrations headed ‘Dramatis Personae’, another effective literary device. Continued focus on these five viewpoints doesn't mean neglect of others. There are careers of many others like Alexandra Kollontai, who became an influential commissar. There is involvement and character analysis of Nicholas, Stolypin, Gapon, Lenin, Trotsky, Plehkov, Denikov and dozens more. It's very educational on the institutions of Tsarist Russia as they were revised to suite the new Bolshevik regime. Most interesting is the politics of the Revolution, especially as it changed nature both prior and subsequent to 1917. Figes expertly distinguishes deviations in viewpoint between Marx and Lenin as well as Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and other temporary party outlooks. It appears that the Bolsheks had better political leadership, rather than theoretical superiority over other viewpoints. Peasant basis and industrial worker basis is another distinction that Figes clarified for me. That's why Marx was so surprised at the success of his book in Russia rather than in central Europe. Many Bolsheviks as well as others, lead by Gorky, rejected use of terror. Gorky hated Bolsheviks. He treaded a fine line as apparently the only figure too popular to eliminate. The book describes the Black Hundreds implementing pogroms largely against Jews. It continued beyond the revolution. There is very detailed roles of political factions Soviets, Provisional Government, Mensheviks, SRs as well as Bolsheviks Brusilov assumed leadership of the Red Army in the civil war, thinking that the Bolsheviks would prove a temporary phenomenon. He was right, but thought in terms of weeks rather than 70 years. As a cavalry officer viewing the the future he complained of too much cavalry. Then as now inflation demanded state control. (specie good- paper better) Along with other Socialist institutions Figes describes the rise of the Cheka as it outdid the Okhrana as a tool of brutal repression. Figes illustrates popular reaction to the revolution, especially during the famine of 1921. “Down with Lenin and horse meat, give us the Tsar and pork.” Socialism, like Canute, could not stamp out market effects. One third of the bureaucracy became involved in regulating the planned economy with more involved in recovering deserters than in fighting war. The socialist ideal was (and still is) to make human spirit more collectivist in nature. (individual initiative good – collectivism better) Except for depiction of Bolshevik use of terror, Figes's analysis is very even handed consideration of pros an cons of revolutionary effects. A Left Wing reviewer, like Eric Hobsbawm, can read this social analysis and cite positive Soviet achievements like significant gains in economic growth, productivity and employment as well as pointing out that the book is not a critique of revolutions in general. Marxism idolizes workers and views peasants with contempt. Then as now we see the Communist political hierarchy living off the backs of the common people. Then as now the best goes to government hierarchy. They scapegoated capitalist “kulaks' as we blame “the rich”. Trotsky's resplendent estate formerly belong to the Yusupov family. In a fine detailed account of the civil war Figes points out that the White failure was a failure of politics as well as military. The White armies were top heavy while the Bolsheviks relied on a preponderance of common soldiers. I get the impression the Whites were not well coordinated. Besides a detailed history of revolution, depression and civil war, there is very informative and astute depiction of all social economic and political factions as well as analysis of the mindset of collectivism and central planning. There is an introduction to Russian culture including literature art and theater as director Eisenstein promulgating myth of October Revolution. Lenin studied Frederick Taylor, American factory operations innovator (remember 'Cheaper by the Dozen.”) It's reminiscent of Japan preempting American quality control in the 1960s. Lenin also studied Pavlovian theory in an investigation into control of human motivation as he said “Man can be made what we want him to be.” Trotsky favored militarizing factory operation. Also interesting is Lenin's study of Pavlov in an attempt to learn extensions to control of human behavior. That's used today by politicians, sales people and stock brokers. Lenin policy ended with economics of the consumer oriented New Economics Plan (NEP) that proved moderately successful in increasing productivity and literacy. It didn't didn't survive the transition from Lenin to Stalin. The “autonomization plan” began the USSR with a loose union of Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, and the central Asian republics. The most striking bit of analysis is the idea that freedom allows whatever is not prohibited, while socialism requires asking permission to do anything. It strikes me that's exactly what's happening with modern interpretation of our Constitution. I think that Figes must have gotten a bit tired when it came to conclusion time. The conclusion ”The ghosts of 1917 have not yet been laid to rest,” is a bit simplistic to do credit to the rest of the book. As with many great histories, ancient to modern, I am struck with parallels to politics and economics in today's USA. There's a lot to consider here as the US moves towards replacing the USSR as leader of the Socialistic world.

As a Russian and a specialist in this field of history I consider Orlando Figes’s People’s Tragedy one of the best books about the Russian Revolution.It’s highly informative, conceptual and it’s brilliantly written. It’s less fundamental and systematic as the famous work by Richard Pipes but it doesn’t lack in important. The author represents a broad picture of the Russian society on the eve of the Revolution and carefully investigates the psychology of different groups of population considering multiple and controversial sources. The portrait of Nicholas II is very persuading and Figes’s reflections on Russian peasantry are very interesting and revealing. To compare this dense and profound work with shallow and superficial books by Sheila Fitzpatrick is like comparing a huge river stream with a trickle of tap-water. I must admit though that “People’s Tragedy” contains some funny mistakes and odious statements. For example, the author writes that in Leo Tolstoy’s novel “Anna Karenina” a simple peasant Platon Karataev teaches wisdom of life to prince Levin. Well, Platon Karataev, being a character of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”, never appears on the pages of “Anna Karenina” whereas Levin, one of the protagonists of “Anna Karenina”, had never been a prince. Or, the writer insists that “during 1917-1918 the peasants proved themselves quite capable of restructuring the whole of rural society, from the system of land relations and local trade to education and justice, and in so doing they often revealed a remarkable political sophistication”. I’m not going to comment on this remark for my lack of the sense of humour. Still in my opinion all these errors and misconceptions are a minor misdemeanor if we take into consideration the length and the depth of this work. I think it can be recommended to everybody who is interested in this period of Russian history, specialists or not.

Let a Russian Judge. Who is the author to make judgments about Russian political culture? I do not think of Figes' work as written by a professional historian, regardless of his degrees and academic posts. For, rather than history of the revolution, his work is journalistic and imaginative at best. The book will appeal only to these who are not familiar with Russian history. The book's treatment of events is frivolous. The usage of primary materials is highly selective and tendentious. The information the author introduces about Russian peasants before and after 1917 is, to say the least, inadequate. For one example, on page 96 the author writes, "[i]t is difficult to say where this barbarism came from -- whether it was culture of the Russian peasants, or the harsh environment in which they lived." To this reader, this "barbarism" is a product of the author's own poorly informed imagination. The author could consult the rich Russian peasants' scholarship to avoid such rude statements. The author reflects tendentious, nearly racist and ugly views about Russian culture. Rather than a story about the Russian revolution, the book illustrates fallacies and prejudices of the Cold War scholarship upon which the author builds his story, not a serious academic work to suggest to students of Russian history today.

I read Figes' superb The Crimean War and knew I had to read another book of his. But the two books are completely different, so one needs to be cautious. The Crimean War is a really good military history but A People's Tragedy is a different sort of a book altogether. Figes' excellent writing is the common thread that runs through both books. He is both scholarly and detailed and you are always aware it's a history professor writing, not a journalist. Yet, Figes' writing never feels boring; he knows when and how to inject interesting human stories that keep the book alive. His organizational skill is truly impressive - the amount of details in A People's Tragedy is staggering but everything is arranged in such a natural way, the story flows along very nicely. But this book does not feel as natural a fit for me as The Crimean War did. For one thing A People's Tragedy, at more than 800 pages of text, is just too long for me. Figes also has a tendency in this book to press his conclusions quite persistently on his readers. For example, at the beginning of the book he keeps reminding his readers that if the Tsar had been more conciliatory with this or that, he could have avoided a revolution. Later in the book, he feels the need to press the point that if the Soviets had taken this step or that step, they would have been able to stop the Bolsheviks from gaining power. This thing runs right through the book and might not bother some readers but I did find it annoying. Another disquieting feature about the book is how depressing it is. Of course, being such a major tragedy, any serviceable book on the Russian Revolution cannot help but be depressing. However, there is no denying that the book is a masterpiece. There is no better book on the Russian Revolution and it's hard to think of any other book topping this one. I find it hard to imagine another historian who can write so masterfully. Just make sure you prepare yourself for the long, painful ride.

This was one of the first books I read on Russian history several years ago when I first became interested in the subject. While not a reflection on the author's style, which is excellent, it was a difficult read at the time because I didn't have any background in Russian geography or any knowledge of the political leaders of the time beyond Lenin, Trotsky and Nicolas II. I've read many other books on the subject since then and decided to reread this one. Only after reading many others can I really appreciate how well researched and written this one is. The amount of detail provided is phenomenal, as one could expect from a book +800 pages excluding notes. The author also does an excellent job of combining the events of the period at a macro level with the personal experiences of a number of individuals who represented different and sometimes conflicting interests at the time. The book is filled with a number of compelling illustrations throughout that bring the author's words to life. If one has an interest in understanding the Russian revolution and wants to get the most bang for their buck, this is the book.

A Sunday Telegraph reviewer quoted on the back jacket of A People's Tragedy: A History of the Russian Revolution posits that "I doubt if there is anyone in the world who knows the revolution as well as [Orlando] Figes does." After finishing A People's Tragedy, I also cannot imagine that there is anyone that knows the subject so well. The phrase "exhaustive" came to mind over and over while reading this book. Figes has written a book so all-encompassing that I have read other reviewers say that it delves almost too deeply and is overly detailed. I agree with the author that the Russian Revolution in 1917 was the paramount event of the 20th century and "an experiment which the human race was bound to make at some point in its evolution." As such, I can't see how it's possible to provide too much context to such an event. I hesitate to even call it an "event," because as Figes shows, the revolution was more than just the largest chapter in some history textbook. Rather, it was a progression and eventual clash of societies, cultures, ideologies, and base mass emotions over many years. He connects the dots from the effect of slavery under serfdom in the mid-19th century all the way up to the rise of Stalin (and even touches on the post-communist Russia of today). By injecting the stories and reflections of players both major and minor--from farmers to generals in the White Army to Lenin himself-- A People's Tragedy never felt like the horrible high school or college textbook that you couldn't wait to skim through. Rather, it is both fascinating and the only book you might ever need to read on the subject. History writers can vary so greatly but the best always engage your heart through their narratives as well as your intellect. In this case, the chronicle of someone like Sergei Semenov or the Tsar himself is enough to make A People's Tragedy some of the finest history writing I've read. My only problem--if you can call it a problem--is that the monumental sweep of this history (we're talking nearly 60 or 70 years covered in total) makes it nearly impossible to retain a lot of what you've read without notes or underlining and writing in the margins. Again, maybe this isn't so much a problem as a way of saying that you might want to read the book several times over throughout your life.

Figes has written an incredibly thorough and very engrossing history of the Russian revolution, tracing it from its roots in Alexander III's reign, through the upheaval and brutal repressions of Nicholas II, and all the way through to Lenin's death and Stalin's ascendancy. It is an academic achievement that, surprisingly, is also very readable. Although it took me almost 2 months to complete - it started to feel like a family member - I always found the book very hard to put down. Every page was engrossing, every story had another 10 stories behind it, and Figes writes so well that I wanted to read every single one. The book is organized in rough chronological segments, but Figes jumps around somewhat. You'll think you've learned all there is to know about the July Days, and then half a chapter later he'll come back and look at it from another angle, explaining entirely different causes. This became fairly confusing. Also, he often drops the year off his dates, so you have to search back several pages to figure out where you are for each new event. Figes makes a good effort to draw new conclusions, differ with recognized historians, and be opinionated on the causes of this failure or that success. I didn't always buy him when he prefaced a statement with "in all likelihood" or made claims like "this was the cause of xyz." On the other hand, when it came to his factual statements, I trusted his authority implicitly. The copious bibliographical notes at the end helped with that. But aside from minor quibbles, the only real complaint I have is that this 800+ page book wasn't even longer. I wanted him to go into Stalin's rise to power in more detail, to continue walking me through the last century of Russian history. I would have gladly followed him there, and will soon check out his

This is a remarkable book on the Russian Revolution. It's coverage from 1891 thru 1924 is detailed, but very readable. We are presented with a wide panoply of characters; Tsar Nicholas II, Lenin, Prince Lvov, Kerensky, Gorky and many more. This gives a distinctive personal feeling where history is populated by real people and provides us with a ground view of the turbulent events of Russia. It's a brutal history. Sadly, there were periods during the Tsar's rule and the first months after the 1917 revolution where the country seemed to be edging towards a democratic and liberal constitution - but this was thwarted time and again and fell back to authoritarianism, which to some extent seems ingrained in the Russian psyche. The author vividly portrays these figures for what they truly were - Nicholas was weak-kneed and never wanted anything to with democracy and liberalism - he hindered any attempts to proceed in that direction - falling back to a rigid domination was his rule-of thumb. Kerensky was the wrong man in the right place - in that small opening after the events of February 1917 there was a potential for parliamentarianism; but Kerensky was rudderless and a prima donna. Lenin knew what he wanted. Lenin was intolerant of any criticism and over time succeeded in establishing a strong centralist dictatorship. It was Lenin that made the Stalinist regime possible. Throughout this period Russia was often in a state of virtual anarchy - particularly after the start of World War I where the country was not only combating external enemies, but at war with itself. After Lenin's coup in October 1917, it was Lenin himself who precipitated these internal struggles against "enemies of the people" - war against the bourgeoisie, war against the peasants for allegedly hoarding foodstuffs, war against striking workers and of course the civil war (the Reds and the Whites -where often groups quickly switched allegiances). The author gives us excellent depictions of the miserable and backward existence of the peasantry - and also how the urban cities were in a constant state of flux - revolution on the street, destitution and starvation. One does come away with a view that Marxist-Leninist philosophy and dictums gave little credence to human rights and viewed the individual as subservient to the state. After all one of its principal slogans "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" has always emphasized "Dictatorship". It hardly compares to the motto of the French revolution "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity". The long authoritarianism of the Tsarist rulers gave way to an even more vicious dictatorship under Communism - where the rights of man were crushed under a Central government that stopped at nothing to implement state policies. If you wish to gain an insight into this key era of history this is definitely the book for you. One also comes away with an understanding of Russia and its vast land mass today. At over 800 pages it is lengthy but well worth it.

I typically don't write reviews for books that have this many reviews already, but I so thoroughly enjoyed this work I decided to make an exception. What I loved about this book is how the author was able to take one of the most important moments in human history and make it a personal experience for the reader. This revolution was so massive in scope that it would be very easy for the author to get bogged down in the minutia of details about what happened and when, and neglect the personal side of the story. The author's ability to focus in on individuals being swept along the tide of history reminds the reader that the millions of people who were involved in this moment were real people with stories of their own. This focus on the people gives the reader connection to the history being told and helps give the story focus and a reality that can be missing from a lot of histories. It also reminds the reader of the personal tragedy of this revolution which goes a long way to enriching everyones understanding of the events that transpired during this time period. There's plenty of reviews here to give any potential reader a good idea of what they will be getting with this book. I will end by saying the author's focus on the people of Russia makes the book a very compelling read. The stories and tragedies within this work are fascinating, and much more interesting than anything you get from fiction. I found this book a terrific read that greatly enhanced my understanding of the events around the Russian Revolution. It also gave me a greater sense of human toll this event took on those willing and unwilling participants. It is a fascinating read that absolutely recommend for anyone even remotely intersted in this event, and anyone intimidated by the size of this work I would just say that the writing is very well done and the author's focus makes the work compelling and entertaining rather than a labor.

I won't try to add my praise to what has already been well expressed in other reviews: this is a great book for anyone willing to follow the author through the masses of detail necessary to portray the reality of the Russian Revolution, its causes and effects. It takes a lot of work on the reader's part, but for the most part Figes succeeds admirably in keeping the narrative engrossing. A few comments: Though the concept of evil is unfashionable in modern times, 95% of the drive behind this story comes from what is most ignoble and degraded in human character. Regardless of how it got that way to begin with, Russian society under the tsars--and later under the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party--was shaped by the tension between haves and have-nots in its most brutal, barbaric forms. As in any slave society, the guys on top subjugated, oppressed, abused and extorted from the guys on the bottom in order to maintain dominance and a cushy life style. The guys on the bottom propitiated and lulled the suspicions of their masters enough to escape punishment as much as possible, while nursing at the same time their own hatred, envy and festering resentment. Despite the usual apparent exceptions of nurses devoted to their charges, etc., neither group regarded the other as being fully human, or even mostly human. The masters despised their slaves, the slaves feared and despised their masters. Slave (peasant) society was violent, cruel, barbarous, destructive. This was no society of noble savages; many of the more intelligent among them hated their own peasant culture. The society of the land-owning nobility was superficially civilized in the manner of invaders who had no personal stake in the society they suppressed. As soon as the underdogs saw that they might gain the upper hand--usually with the help or at least encouragement of renegade intellectuals looking for their own place in the sun--the result was ever-increasing levels of vicious anarchy: unthinkable torture, rape and murder, purposeless destruction. The Revolution put the oppressed and their intellectual advisers in power, ultimately more the latter than the former. But of course it did little or nothing about the evil of the underlying pressures and motivations that prompted it. Not that it was all bad--there's my arbitrary 5%--many were motivated at least in part by the prospects of helping their fellows and their country while "getting ahead in the world" by non-shameful means. And not all of those hopes were stillborn, certainly. But I think mostly they were, or were at least twisted into alien shapes. On the other hand, humanity is nothing if not resilient. In my very limited experience of modern Russians, they are an immensely warm, generous, communicative and generally wonderful people (excluding police and bureaucrats). Yet the majority are already disenchanted with the relative freedom they've experienced during the past 25 years. There is a yearning, rosy nostalgia for the age of security, comradeship, pride in the nation and so on, that seems to have existed only a short time ago. Many long for a strong man to watch over them, a strong man like those they had under the tsars and under Lenin, then Stalin, only of course a kinder one this time. As always, the evil at the core of that system is forgotten. The U.S. isn't immune to evil motivations: desire for power and wealth extorted in small or large part by dishonest means (something for nothing); envy and resentment towards those perceived as wealthier, more able, more powerful in some way (and the conviction that whatever "they" have was obtained unfairly, if we only knew it), coupled with the urge to knock them down to our level; the compulsion towards the free exercise of urges we suspect to be less than noble; the desire to dominate or destroy for the sheer joy of domination or destruction. . . . We can only hope we haven't yet sunk to a level where those make up the prevailing winds. I think, though, that this society still sufficiently values freedom WITH responsibility that we have a fair amount of slack before conditions become truly dire. It's ironic that reading A People's Tragedy was to that extent almost reassuring. At least for the U.S., crazy as it may be politically. We still fall for the strong man (or woman) on a white horse gag. But none of us--Russians, Americans or whoever--is in any position to rest on our laurels.

a. Orlando Figes book offer’s in-depth knowledge of the Russian Revolution and great detail on decisions that would lead to the Revolution of 1917 as well as the after-effects of the Revolution and the decisions of Lenin that would lead to the elevation of communism in Russia with Stalin front and center. Figes’s book certainly offers great detail and a lot of information, but it was not very equal in quantity of answering the questions of what led to the revolution, how it happened, and how did it end. I definitely took away more information about the Romanov family than I did about the Revolution, which is not necessarily a bad thing because you cannot know about a revolution without first having the knowledge of why it began.

I got curious about Russian history and was looking for a book when I came upon this one. What a wonderful find! Truth is indeed stranger than fiction and a People's Tragedy makes "a Game of Thrones" feel like a Daniele Steele novel. It is by no means a literary masterpiece. At times, the narrative goes back and forth chronologically to explain different things that happened simultaneously, it gets confusing and there are more than one spelling errors. However, one rarely finds such a gripping and harrowing account which conveys history in a way that makes the reader think hard about human nature and things we, as a species, are capable of both in terms of cruelty and suffering. It also does a brilliant job of illustrating how history could've gone a different way. There were critical junctures where things might have gone this or that way and the outcome mostly depended on timing and what critical actors did or chose not to do, which for me is a lesson not to be forgotten.

A People's Tragedy Orlando Figes ("Natasha's Dance," "The Whisperers") has undertaken a monumental task in tracing the history of the Russian Revolution. Normally, a tome of over 900 pages wouldn't qualify as a "page-turner," but A People's Tragedy does. Beginning earlier than most histories of the Revolution, Figes provides an exhaustive history of the Romanov Dynasty and the history of the Tsars. Tsar Nicholas was a weak and ineffectual leader, more comfortable with micromanaging the empire than with planning broad strategy. His insecurity was reinforced by various pretenders and sycophants, including the Holy Monk Rasputin, who seemed to have a peculiar hold on the Romanovs because of his apparent ability to improve the health of the young Tsarevich. There was conflict between urban and rural Russia; between peasants and intelligencia; and between the landed gentry and the bureaucracy. The theme of religion runs throughout the story Like a good novelist, Figes includes several recurring characters like the writers Maxim Gorky, Tolstoy and Chekhov. Curiously, as I was alternating between Figes' book and Thomas Keneally's excellent story of the Irish, "The Great Shame" I discovered some parallels. In both cases, the reaction of the government to a famine, and the refusal of those in power to recognize the importance of ownership of land, contributed to the outcome of the story. Figes has made an important contribution to the history of Russia. (Note: Since reading and reviewing his history of the Revolution, I was happy to receive "Natasha's Dance -- A Cultural History of Russia." Figes traces important themes like East V. West, the Orthodox Church, and geographic and cultural isolation. Strongly recommended.

Figes has produced a magesterial history of this seminal period of late 19th Century and early 20th Century Russian history. His research is extensive, and his treatment of this complex series of revolutionary events fair minded. He does not take the approach of some historians to use the conflicts as a sounding board for their own ideological rants. Instead, he considers, as a true historian always should, a broad range of sources, and tries to explain why it was that a longstanding and deep rooted autocracy gave away, in turbulent circumstances, to the foundations of a Bolshevik dictatorship. The detail of late Tsarist Russia is immense. Figes knows his history and literature of the period better than almost anyone else. He is good on the details - such as tracking in to describe the experience of a Tsarist governor arriving in a Provincial District in the late 19th Century, and he is good on the broad brush - explaining the longer term trends that exploded in revolutionary upheaval in 1905, and again in 1917. He is fair minded, taking detailed steps to explain the injustices of the Tsarist system - a thin pinnacle of opulently wealthy aristocrats atop a vast network of opressed urban workers and former serfs. He explains why the Russian people were pushed to their limits, and how extremists, rather than moderates prevailed to capitalise on their opposition to the established order. He keeps in mind alternative courses of history - using the writings of Maxim Gorky superbly in context to document the alternative vision of a socially democratic, humane Russia that was buried beneath the Bolshevik brutality. He also handles the rise of the Bolsheviks with admirable explanatory focus - explaining the link between Marxist ideology and Lenin and Trotsky's exploitation of the masses, that led to their fatal 'people's tragedy' There are terrific vignettes that explain, Orwell style, how the revolutionaries soon established themselves as the new elite -for example their retaining an old Tsarist butler in the Winter Palace and watching contentedlyd as he turned round their soup dishes at dinner so the Russian eagle faced the same way each time. The book is not perfect. The writing of the peirod 1891-1917 is amongst the best I have ever read on the subject, but Figes makes the classic error of many historians of the Russian revolution of focusing too much on the day to day events of the 1918-1924 period, neglecting the crucial undercurrent of Stalin's manipulation of the levers of the Communist party structure. Anyone reading this book without a wider hinterland would struggle to fully understand how Stalin eventually succeeded Lenin after his death in 1924. But overall, 'A People's Tragedy' is a must for any serious student of the Russian Revolution, and it remains on myself as a constant source of reference whenever I am teaching the subject to my pupils.

Orlando Figes in A People’s Tragedy has written a masterful history of the Russian Revolution that clocks in at around 900 pages with notes and bibliographic information, but don’t let its hefty size scare you away. The reading experience is well worth it. Figes takes up through the last days of the Romanovs, the Provisional Government, Revolution, and Bolsheviks consolidating power. While many people could probably write a history of the Russian Revolution, Figes separates himself by going into such intimate detail about the successes and failures of all the major characters in the long term conflict. For the reader, it presents a unique challenge because there is no absolute good or bad, just people who have their strengths and weaknesses. While this approach is much more interesting, it forces the reader to move beyond their stock perceptions and pre-conceived notions. One feels like they are in Russia when reading Figes.

Cannot really add much of value to the excellent 5-star reviews in here but will give another 5'er cause it is certainly deserving of the credit. Immensely complex the entire subject is almost impossible to do in a single (albeit lengthy) tome. I have only read several of the Richard Pipes efforts on the Russian Civil War but Figes is much more readable without seeming to sacrifice veracity and detail. I was especially struck by his emphasis on the divide between peasant and city which drove so many decisions. His descriptions regarding the depth of misunderstanding, indeed the galactic chasm between the entire peasant existence and that of the 'intelligentsia' were remarkable. I might have liked to see more on WW1 itself and the Russian military performance in it, but there is just so much to cover that it is daunting. Moreover, it seemed to be an utterly even-handed account. No one comes off guilt-free, even the Russian people themselves. The Revolution was of the people..well, some of them.

I live and work in Russia, and have been studying the place for 12 years or so. In all that time, because I focus on the here and now, I have always felt that I lacked a real grasp of the history, which I try to fill in from time to time. This book is brilliant on the forty years or so that lead up to 1917. Figes brings you into the two worlds of the revolutionaries and the aristocracy. He is not starry-eyed about any of the participants. He is very clear about how the monarchy failed to reform in time, failed to listen to good advice, and basically brought about its own downfall. He also describes how the Tsarist secret police was just as nasty as its Bolshevik equivalent. All of Russia's totalitarian machinery was in place long before the revolution. He also describes how Russia's peasant culture usurped the Marxist ideals of the revolutionaries. This was a crude egalitarian culture, that punished people who became rich, by stealing or confiscating their property, that tolerated drunken layabouts, and that was generally happy to see no improvement in its standard of living over the course of the 19th century. These Russian peasants deeply distrusted the Bolshevik Jews, especially those who came from the cities to "educate" them. The accounts of the revolution are breathtaking, and all those famous events, like the Cruiser Avrora, are put in their place, as well as descriptions of how the military was mobilised to the side of the Bolsheviks. Figes' history of the First World War, and how it fit into the revolution, was also first-rate. So I would recommend this as a starter to anyone looking to get a grasp of the detailed history of the Bolshevik revolution. It becomes heavy going, as it details the factional fighting of the Bolsheviks post-revolution and post-civil war, and I lost track of who was on who's side. But this is only the last quarter of the book, and the fact is that these events are a lot less exciting than what happened in the first part. I am not a big expert, so I cannot compare this with, say, Pipes' book, which was the standard text when I was a student. My godfather, who taught Russian history at Oxford for forty years, thinks that Figes' book is the best that he has read. I certainly loved it, and strongly recommend it to anyone thinking about learning about Russia and its history. It's amazing how so much of what happened then is still happening today.

I've read this book twice and no doubt will read it again. This is a rare book in that it is scholarly, yet written in an absorbing style. Thus it is certainly appropriate as a college text while also being what one would call a popular history book. This book provides a broad detailed overview of the political, economic and social turmoil inciting the revolutions of 1905 and especially 1917 along with the brutal Civil War. The ineptness and pathetic incompetance of the Tsar, the effects of the Russian military failures in the world war, the fatal indecisiveness of the Provisional Government and the seizure and consolidation of power by Lenin and the Communists are detailed with vivid dramatic descriptions of the tumultuous events and personalities involved. The Civil War period is also described with an analyses as to why the Bolsheviks, at one time seemingly on the verge of collapse, totally defeated the Whites. That these events were a time of great brutality and massive suffering with over 2 million deaths indeed makes this period a "Tragedy". This is the best single volume ever written about the Russian Revolution.

The American Civil War,the French Revolution,the Holocaust,and the Russian Revolution will always tempt writers to re-examine them, from a new generation's perspective. Certainly, idealogues and scholars will never tire of refuting the claims of their opponents, and dismissing attempts at writing a "readable" history of the Russian Revolution as dangerously simplistic. Figes' post-Cold War era history of the Russian Revolution is a good introduction to the topic. The definative "version" of 20th C Russian history is yet to be written, and it will ultimately be the task of a Russian historian free from the taint of Soviet "historiography" to produce such a work. BUT.. while waiting... this book is adequate. I believe it is impossible to read a single work on the Russian Revolution and form an objective opinion. However, objectivity is of more concern to the scholar than the lay-reader. Few scholars on this subject care to rise above sectarian arguments, and they share much in common with the irritating obscurantism of the Menshevik/Bolshevik polemicists. Personally I have always felt that Trotsky's "History of the Russian Revolution" was a readable, if partisan account of the social and economic conditions which led to the Revolution, and that Roy Medvedev's "Let History Judge", was a suitable sequel. Certainly Leninism contained the seeds of Stalinism, if it was not the actual root stock and green-house of Stalinism. Trotsky, although a "hero" of my youth, also lacked " clean hands" after the suppression of the Kronstadt Uprising. It will be worth waiting to see if any definate and readable history of Bukharin waits in the wings. There are dozens of wretched books sitting in community libraries which purport to tell the story of the Russian revolution. Of the post Cold War writers, this is my favotite. Figes has an editorial slant, as do all popular historians. He does arrange his narrative in a readable format.. that is, in "digestible hunks". His use of personal narratives sheds light on complex issues,and his development of certain historical characters help move his narrative forward. His far ranging opinions include observations on post-Soviet political life. The photographs chosen for this book are good,and some are quite disturbing. They are well-arranged, to support ideas developed in the text. Opinions and belief shape our thinking, oft times more than actual facts. I think, that this book is a breath of fresh air. However,if the historical period is of interest to you, keep on breathing, and keep on reading. If this is the ONLY book you read about the Russian Revolution, you will certainly be no more mis-informed than generations of policy makers in the US government OR the Soviet government.

This is an excellent book. It goes into great detail, focusing on all aspects of the revolution, from the political and military to the plight of the peasants on their farms. And it is all written in well-formed prose that is easy to follow, even for someone who's previous knowledge of that period of Russian history could be called rudimentary at best. I do have one complaint about this book, and this is why I only gave it 4 stars. That is in the subject of dates. Due to the way he wrote the book, he jumps back and forth in time to follow certain specific thoughts through to their logical conclusions. This is a strength of the book, but in listing dates, he often assumed you could keep track of the years, and so he would say "come November, xxxx happened." However, to put it in the larger context required a year, and furious flipping back many pages to find the year was infuriating for this armchair historian. Other than that flaw, however, I have nothing but praise for the book. The pictures were an added bonus, and brought some of the points home vividly. Recommended.

Figes manages to cover all of the major events leading up to, including and immediately following the Russian Revolution with a broad, almost cinematic, sweep. The signifcance and details of the events of the revolution are covered in exacting detail, but what makes this book truly important is the focus on the individuals. The Russian Revolution was an event that completely and drastically changed a nation, but Figes does not fall in the trap of focusing only on the broader aspects; he captures the story of soldier, peasant, revolutionary, bourgeiosie, and common individual through the harrowing events of the revolution. He lets the people tell their own stories--stories of feverish revolution, of the betrayal of a nation, of tragedy, and horror. The images of these stories are seared permanently into your consciousness. A People's Tragedy is a long book, but most definitely, worth the time it takes to read it. For any student of Russian history, it will shake up your dry and academic notions about the revolution. Figes' book places a distinctly human face on all of the events of the revolution, and the faces and stories are ones that you will not soon forget.

The book is voluminous and the period of history in focus is densely packed, but Figes's flowing style and keen interest in the matter keep one engaged. Through snapshot descriptions of many personalities that colored the times, the narrative paints as vivid a picture as any one book can. Kerensky, Lenin, Brusilov, Gorky and many others appear as much humans as politicians/generals/intellectuals etc. This especially makes the book memorable. The occasional roughness of style or omission of some facts (for example, the transformation of Gorky, the most often quoted source in the book, from a street urchin and an orphan into an educated and rich man) is more than vindicated by colorful personal and societal portraits and some provocative thoughts. With the backdrop of Nicholas II living in the patriarchal past and Provisional Government living in the future (ever waiting for the Constitutional Assembly), Bolsheviks emerge as the ones firmly living in the present, pragmatically resolving the conflicts of the moment regardless of ideology. They gave peasants gentry's land and in return, with peasant help, won the civil war. They exited the I World War (at the cost of a third of agricultural land and over a half of industrial enterprises) and infiltrated the soldiers' Soviets and in return had military support in the October coup d'état. They gave non-Russian peoples the right of self-determination believing that this would precipitate communist revolutions there. Of course, all these measures were later reversed. The land remained state's property and smallholding peasants were subjected to collectivization. The people were thrown into the bloody civil war and exposed to terror, starvation and disease (the conservative estimate of 10 million Russian deaths resulting from the October events far superseded Russian losses in the I World War, some 1.7 million dead). And the national territories were taken by force. Among these ever changing policies one was constant: the Bolsheviks' drive for power. Taking power by military force, shooting the Constitutional Assemblymen, taking the last food provisions from peasants at a gun point, putting Cheka, with its 250,000 members only during Lenin's times, (approximately 10 times the last Czar's secret police) above the law: descriptions of these events present Bolsheviks as a military junta more than anything else. They created a society in which the main organizing principle was terror. That, indeed, was the people's tragedy. Figes devotes a fair bit of space to the social formations beyond Bolsheviks. The Whites, with their unfortunate Czarist image and land property mentality. Peasants, backward and apolitical but crucial, as the Civil War showed. Soldiers, who let themselves degrade to marauding and shooting millions of their own people. Intelligentsia and politicians, many of whom, in a typically Russian way, preferred to haughtily abstain rather than engage. The book feels much tighter and more coherent than the author's "Natasha's Dance". In addition, appealing is Figes's sensitivity to the precarious historic moments when a very probable different outcome could have radically changed the future (almost reaching for peace in the I World War by the Provisional Government, almost not engaging in the military coup by Bolsheviks etc.). To summarize, very engaging and definitely worthwhile.

Without a doubt the history of the perioed I’ve read. Tells the tragic story of the Russian revolution, starting with an insightful look at the life and character of Tsar Nicholas – who was frighteningly unsuited to manage the tumultuous events unfolding around him. What distinguished Figes here is how well-painted the royal family is. We are next led through the starts and stops of the revolution, with the 1905 events, the various parties, Stolypin, Lenin, Trotsky and their ilk. One generally gets a fairly good sense of character, which is probably the strongest point of the book. As a card-carrying historian, he can’t help but delve from time to time into some actual data, i.e. the literacy, crop outputs - but only to make strong points. The most troubling chapter of all near the end, and is called “Defeat in Victory”. Here Figes shows the absolutely horrendous living and dying conditions brought out by the great famine and exacerbated by Bolshevik efforts to assume power, as well as how Lenin and the Bolshevik party transformed themselves into a dictatorial regime which was ironically far, far more oppressive than that of the Tsar and the nobles. He also does a great job covering the civil war, but there the drama is a bit dampened by his foreshadowing of the many reasons why the Whites were doomed from the onset. Throughout the whole story, the underlying brutality and savagery of the period is well-documented, one gets the feeling that perhaps other historians have downplayed that and Figes feels it’s his mission to be honest. In summary, the tragedy is incredibly real. And thought-provoking.

"A People's Tragedy" is a rather detailed account of the Russian Revolution which maintains an excellent balance of erudition and lucidity. Figes convincingly presents the revolution as a 33-year process involving many contending interests without ever losing his focus on the eventual replacement of Tsarism with Communism. The first few chapters address the state of the Romanov regime in the decades preceding its overthrow, various parliamentary and cultural movements at the turn of the century, and the organization of the peasantry following the abolition of serfdom. This background information later proves essential. One can see, for example, how the land management and village self-governance of the peasants led to the soviet structure used by the victorious Reds. Figes revisits these themes throughout the book, depicting a Romanov dynasty that was more bumbling autocracy than cruel tyranny and raising the peasants from their usual role as a haplessly oppressed mass to a significant political force. I found the treatment of the Bolsheviks to be relatively sympathetic, and the book does not suffer because of it. They are depicted as a ruthless and especially fortunate revolutionary faction, a group ready to use any means necessary to obtain power but, in the end, given a gift with the success of their unlikely coup. Some readers may find this insufficiently damning but, while I would have liked a little more about how the nature of the revolution affected later developments, the abominable governance which followed is not Figes's topic.

This is about as non-partisan a history that you can find for something as ideologically charged as the Russian revolution. But of course, non-partisan is still not impartial: a truly impartial history is impossible and impossibly boring. What's really wonderful about Orlando Figes' account is the coupling of sober analysis with a more sophisticated partiality. It is also written very well, replete with zesty anecdotes. Now let me explain what I mean by non-partisan but partial. Traditionally, a given history of the Russian revolution divides into the two obvious camps. The leftist account is especially repugnant because it extricates Lenin from the bloodbath that ensued, which is doubtless an exercise in monstrous duplicity. The rightist view is more factually sound but the incessant pounding of the ... gavel gets in the way of analysis. Their black and white view of history is only too quick to blast and their viewpoint is duplicitous in more senses than one, though to a much lesser extent than the leftist apologists. I've actually liked the rightist view more because it clearly highlights the ... fruit of Leninism called Stalinism. But I've always wondered how they seemed to think that a revolution could be imposed more or less top-down. Granted, there was the galvanizing force called Lenin, but can one man's willpower really dominate a nation of 100 million+ people speaking diverse languages, largely illiterate, and alienated from the intelligentsia? I'm neither Russian nor a historian, thus, admittedly, my opinion carries little weight. But it seems to me that a revolution of this scale requires more willful participation than willy-nilly coercion at gunpoint, that, say, Paul Johnson would have you believe. (And anyone who is content with "Oh, but after all they're Russians" is perfectly irresponsible.) Figes addresses this point exactly. The thesis of the book is that the revolution is a bottom-up event and not top-down as has been held popularly. This wonderful excerpt from his epilogue hammers the point home deliciously: "Their [the Russian people's] revolutionary tragedy lay in the legacies of their own cultural backwardness rather than the evil of some `alien' Bolsheviks. They were not the victims of the revolution but protagonists in its tragedy ... It was the weakness of Russia's democratic culture which enabled Bolshevism to take root." (pg.808). This is Figes' partiality on which his account of the revolution is built. And build it he does in the whopping 800 oversized pages. His bias really shows in these three aspects: (1) in the barbarism of the peasants (2) in the countless descriptions of how the populace either willfully or inadvertently misconstrued Bolshevism and (3) in emphasizing the haphazardness and opportunism of Bolshevist policies. As for (1), the book aims to show that horrific barbarism was not the sole property of the Bolsheviks, but shared in common with the people. It seems to me that apologists of the peasantry take a Dostoevskian populist view that holds the peasants to be, at bottom, upright people. Figes shows that this was hardly the case: the chapter titled "Icons and Cockroaches" contains a gruesome description of peasant mores (the Jewish pogroms are mentioned later). Here, a household maxim will suffice: "'Hit your wife with the butt of the axe, get down and see if she's breathing. If she is, she's shamming and wants some more'" (pg.97). (If you hold to the view that so-called backward societies are angelic, try Robert Edgerton's "Sick Societies".) On the other hand, Figes is also quick to point out that the Red Terror "was implicit in the regime from the start" (pg. 630). Frequent anecdotes of atrocities and atrocities committed in revenge are persuasive in arguing that brutality at least was equally shared. As for (2), the rightist's argument is that Reds triumphed because they were more ruthless than the Whites in their application of [creating trouble]. But can you really control an entire regiment at gunpoint and hope to win a war? Figes offers a much more reasonable explanation: the very fact that the Reds could claim to be the champions of the revolution and use powerful symbols like the Red Flag gave it the necessary impetus (pg. 668). Afterall, how can a largely illiterate peasantry understand concepts like `socialism' and `communism'? The vagueness of their political position is very clearly shown, to name one example, in the existence of cults of Kerensky and Lenin. All that the peasants ultimately comprehended were land and security. In the end, the people willfully supported the Reds, because they appeared to uphold the crucial land reform, and were therefore the lesser of two evils. As for (3), a typical example is his opinion of the origin of War Communism, that "much of it was in fact improvised" (pg. 614). Indeed, it would take an almost superhuman lucidity to plan the whole evolution into a police state from the very inception of Bolshevik rule. Figes' history of the revolution will show that Leninism "progressed" by fits and starts, often accompanied by clamorous disagreement among entrenched elements within the Party. Almost always, the external impetus was none other than the momentum of the Russian people. I am not able to assess whether the numerous memoranda, documents, etc. cited are authentic enough to be called facts. But there is nothing overtly suspicious that I've found. In which case, the above three points point to Figes' conclusion that the revolution was the handiwork of the Russian population. His bias would then merely be the correct perspective. Maxim Gorky, a writer who witnessed the revolution firsthand, wrote the following heartless indictment: "I do not believe that in the twentieth century there is such a thing as a `betrayed people'" (pg. 808). This may in fact be the chilling truth.

This book gave me all the information I wanted to know about the Russian Revolution. It shows what a deeply disappointing tragedy the whole affair was, to just about everyone involved except Stalin and possibly Lenin. This book was written shortly after the creation of the Russian Federation in the mid-1990s, so the author spends a great deal of time analyzing "what went wrong" in founding a democracy in Russia in 1917, and how to hopefully avoid those mistakes in the 1990s. I have a small criticism to make about this book: the author hardly ever introduces a character with his full name, which makes it difficult to search for information for the person online. I don't think any author should ever introduce a historical figure by calling them only by their last name.

Figes writes so well, and this is an important history for everyone to know about. But the best part is I didn't buy it on amazon. Not giving my money to corruption. Ha ha.

Dr. Figes writes well and knows so much about the subject that one cannot help but admire his erudition. This book also contains many valuable black and white photographs from the revolutionary times. But it suffers from its excessive historicizing, i.e, too many details thrown at the reader without any obvious justificiation for many of them. This is a dense historical account written for a specialist, and it is much more descriptive than analytical. I would like to take an issues with Dr. Figes' cavalier dismissal of the existence of Ukrainian nationalism in 1919, when Bolshevik's took power in that country and incorporated it into the Soviet Union later. He depicts peasants as lacking political consciousness and being hostile to the nation state. He does not give evidence for this. Apparently, his conclusion is based on some theoretical precepts about the way the peasants generally are. He is not correct, as Petl'ura's and even the anarchist Makhno's fight against the Bolsheviks had grass roots support and bore a nationalist character. To crush Ukrainian nationalism, Stalin starved millions of people to death only a dedcade later. Of this there can be no doubt. When did Ukrainians develop their nationalism then? Only in the years 1919-1929? I doubt it. This is a tremendous book and looks like a labor of love by Dr. Figes, but ultimately it is weakly organized and bloated.

This is one of the best history books I have ever read. It possesses every virtue that I look for in a history book. It is well written and engaging making it a pleasure to read. Despite the enormous number of footnotes and references Figes's narrative is never laborious or dry. Figes presents a clear over-all narrative interspersed with a wealth of fascinating detail. For the most part the narrative follows a standard chronological sequence making it easy to follow while the detail adds substance and reality to what would otherwise be bare lifeless assertions. To take just one of many examples, Figes discusses Stolypin's attempts at land reforms under the Tsar but rather than simply describing the reforms as they would have appeared on paper Figes attempts to give some sense of what the land reforms actually meant to the average Russian peasant by following an individual peasant (Sergei Semenov) and the effect Stolypin's land reforms had on his village. Figes does a masterful job of interweaving these individual narratives, of both the big players (Lenin, Trotsky, Kerensky, Tsar Nicholas, Brusilov, Gorky, etc.) as well as a host of more minor figures (Semenov, Os'kin, etc.), with the more general narrative. Figes also does an excellent job of portraying what Russia was like in the period between 1891-1924 both in the cities and the in the rural countryside. It is both a political and a cultural history. The book is definitely substantive in the sense that it provides both analysis and interpretation while providing the reader with a genuine understanding of the events being portrayed without sacrificing readability. The book is definitely scholarly. Figes has done a great deal of research for this book and it shows. Figes also does not possess any obvious biases but seems to be about as fair-minded as it is possible to be when dealing with a subject as contentious as the Russian Revolution. There are very few characters in this story who come out looking well. One certainly does not come away from this book with much, if any, sympathy for the Bolsheviks. But it is equally impossible to route for the Whites who were just as brutal in conducting the civil war as the Bolsheviks. There are a few characters who are perhaps more admirable than most (Gorky, Brusilov, Prince Lvov, and Semenov to name a few) but even they have their faults. There is no hagiography in this book which I certainly appreciated. I also thought Figes did an excellent job of charting a middle path between top-down history and bottom-up history. History is often written in a way which portrays the common people as mere passive pawns in relation to the "great-men and women", the geniuses who truly make history (i.e. those who bend history to their own ends or vision through their sheer energy and charisma or whatever ineffable quality they possess which makes them leaders rather than followers). This is certainly an unrealistic way to portray history. But one can also go to the opposite extreme, the extreme I believe Tolstoy goes to in his philosophy of history (at least as it is presented in War and Peace). Tolstoy believes that the supposed "great men and women" of history are mere pawns and that history is really made not by their decisions (it is an illusion to think they make decisions at all since they merely do what they must under the circumstances) but by an infinite number of small decisions made by individuals (Tolstoy draws the analogy between his version of history and the calculus on this point). Those who adopt the first view of history tend to place all of the blame for the violence and the tragedy of the Russian Revolution on the shoulders of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and a few others. They are the ones who bent history to their own twisted ideological visions and trampled on the Russian people in the process. One of Figes's goals in this book is to combat this view. In the Preface Figes writes, "I have tried to present the major social forces - the peasantry, the working class, the soldiers and the national minorities - as the participants in their own revolutionary drama rather than as 'victims' of the revolution" (pg.xvi). Figes definitely lives up to this promise. He does an excellent job of portraying the ways in which the great actors were often at the mercy of greater social forces and were constrained in their decision making by these wider social forces. The Russian people were not a purely passive material which could be molded in whatever way those who were currently in charge desired. On the other hand, Figes does not go to the extreme of denying that those at the top did often make genuine choices and the results of those choices were often momentous and tragic. Despite the power of the social forces which were driving events things did not have to go the way they did and the decisions of the Tsar, Lenin, Stalin et al. were extremely important in determining the direction events took. One certainly cannot absolve those at the top of all blame for the horrors of what took place. I should also point out that this is a very violent book. Figes often goes into pretty gory detail in describing the horrible ways in which people were tortured and murdered during the Revolution and especially during the Civil War (there are even a few rather gruesome pictures). So this book is not for the faint of heart! The sensitive reader will find it difficult to put down this book at times without feeling rather despondent and even downright depressed in regard to the atrocities human beings are capable of, and, perhaps, depressed about the human condition in general. I would not recommend this book to anyone who is already suffering from depression! It will not lighten your mood. That having been said there are some genuine lessons to be learned from this book which perhaps compensate to some degree for the violence. I will highlight what I think are two of the most important. There was an early revolutionary by the name of Nechaev who had a very interesting life which Figes describes in this book (a character in Dostoevsky's Demons, or The Possessed, was actually based on Nechaev) but who is principally famous for writing a Revolutionary Catechism which was an inspiration to many of the Bolsheviks. Nechaev describes the ideal revolutionary in these terms: "Rejecting all morality, the revolutionary must be ready 'to destroy everyone who stands in his way'. He must harden himself to all suffering: 'All the soft and tender feelings of the family, friendship and love, even all gratitude and honour, must be stifled, and in their place there must be the cold and single-minded passion for the work of the revolution" (pg133). If one is wondering what the logical conclusion of such ideas might be one could do no better than to take a good look at the Russian Revolution (and Figes's book in particular). It is not a pretty sight. What I believe we have learned is that those who are truly interested in social change for the better need to be the exact opposite of what Nechaev describes. They need to cultivate human feelings (the soft and tender feelings of the family, friendship, and love). They must embrace some form of morality and their goal certainly should not be to 'destroy all who stand in their way'. The modern "revolutionary" (if we can even still use that term) must be everything that Nechaev's revolutionary was not. Some might call this idealistic, or even naive, but I believe we have also learned in this century how much can be achieved in this way (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, jr., etc.). The second lesson is found in the conclusion where Figes writes "As we enter the twenty-first century we must try to strengthen our democracy, both as a source of freedom and of social justice, lest the disadvantaged and the disillusioned reject it again" (pg824). In my opinion this is an extremely important point. Democracy must aim for both freedom and social justice. We cannot ignore questions of social justice without disenfranchising large segments of the population. People are not so idealistic that they are going to be willing to support an abstract principle like democracy if they do not feel they have something to gain by it (i.e. if they do not believe their lives are better under a democracy than they would be under some other form of government). People are not likely to be swayed or comforted by the fact that the market is 'neutral' like the weather when it is their house in front of the storm (at least I am being destroyed by an impersonal force rather than those meddling politicians!) We cannot simply wish away the demand for social justice. The only question is whether social justice will be used as an argument for the superiority of democracy (in which case there will have to be some truth to the argument) or whether it will again be used as a weapon against democracy. In conlcusion, I give this book my very highest recommendation! Despite being 800+ pages it is one of the few history books I fully intend to read again (perhaps more than once).

One of the difficulties in selecting books on Russia, is that so many come with a built-in perspective and ideology. Facts which support a thesis are included, those which do not are conveniently ignored. Of all the histories of Russia for the period prior to and during the Revolution, in my view this is the finest. From Figes we certainly get the big picture, and not only the key events, but also insight into Russian culture and the personality of its people, from the peasant through the professionals and the nobility. But Figes has an eye for telling detail. The book spans a half-century, and as the text develops, he follows the lives of ordinary and extraordinary Russians during this time, in little insets within text body. As the major events unfold, we see the lives of individual humans unfold, and their thoughts and feelings evolve. If I could only read one book on the Russian Revolution, this would be the one.

Read this book as a cautionary tale on what is lost and what is gained when a monster is created to destroy a monster. The suffering of the common man during the Russian Revolution is the main theme of this book and oh god did the common man suffer in Figes' account. It must be hard to write an entirely objective, completely impersonal history of the Russian Revolution. Figes allows his mostly human but sometimes political values to color the history, but those colors help him tell the story. I can't imagine an impersonal response to this immense hellish story. It would have to be a tale told by an idiot. I was drawn to this book because of its promise to tell the story of the Civil War that followed the initial revolution (I have never read a good account except for what's inherent in Dr. Zhivago) and because it promised to put the events of 1917 in perspective by starting back in the 1890's as the forces for revolution grew out of the social suffering in Russia in the 19th Century. Figes clearly knows this period of history in his bones. He has spent a lifetime understanding it. The result is a deeply considered, detailed and unobtrusively personal account of Russia's descent into hell (whether or not you believe it ever ascended unto heaven.) The events of 1905 are clearly explained as is the "interregnum" that followed and culminated in the year long anarchy that "ended" in Lenin's takeover. Lenin himself is portrayed in detail through his actions in context as well as his words. The Civil War gets a fairly thorough going over here, and it proves to be disheartening and difficult to read about . Primarily there was the rape and murder of the civilian population by two opposing forces, one representing the 19th Century version of despotism and one representing the new improved 20th Century version. Was there ever a war where the people bore more brutally the brunt of two competing aristocracies? It almost proves to hard to watch, coming as it does after three years of all-out war and a year of revolutionary chaos, fratricide, starvation, disease and despair. How on earth did this country survive to defeat Germany and wreak havoc on the world? Given the ravages of War Communism, it is almost incomprehensible that the Bolsheviks were able to hold on to power against a ravaged proletariat and peasantry, but the exhaustion of World War I followed by the Red and White Terrors was more than enough to kill any resistance in Figes' account in a population that chose Red over White the way one might choose a firing squad over hanging. If human rage on an organized scale is the religion of the 20th Century, the Russian Revolution and the Civil War that followed are the Genesis and Exodus of its Bible.

The author does a splendid job of giving the reader a detailed look at the different political parties which existed during the twilight of the tsar's rule. What sets this book apart from most other history's of this time period, is the author's explanation as to why the Russian revolution was different from others (i.e. French or American). Detailed statistics on land ownership and other factors help the reader understand why Russia turned towards such a harsh and unforgiving political system. The only problem with the book is that it is assumed that the reader has some detailed knowledge of the time period and the various historical characters. Otherwise, it is an excellent detailed view of the period.

The title of this book says it all. The author lays out in detail the history of the Russian Revolution, and how in the end it was the people who ended up the losers. Written without an ideological agenda, the author shows how the Bolsheviks took over power by being the most ruthless, and least willing to compromise, group of Russian revolutionaries. Truly sad in its depiction of the initial resistance of the people to the Bolsheviks, and how this resistance was brutally crushed. This book lays to rest any myths remaining of the "popular" uprising of 1917. The revolution is shown for what is truly was, a takeover of a semi-literate society by a group of ruthless individuals willing to do anything to acquire power. Highly recommended.

Figes covers events in Russia from the last years of the Tsar, through the two revolutions of 1917, to the end of the Russian Civil War and the death of Vladimir Lenin. Even though the scope of time covered in this book is 23 years, every major facet of life in Russia during this time is covered, and the players and places are described in detail. Figes maintains a fairly neutral perspective throughout the book, an apologist to neither the Tsar nor the Communists (though harboring a noticeable preference and remorse for the incompetent Provisional Government ). When he does show some bias, he is never overbearing, and the few opinions that he expresses do not detract in any way from the material. The Tsar is portrayed as an incompetent and stubborn fool, which I have come away thinking is a fair assessment. Figes gives ample evidence for his conclusions, describing the failure of Nicholas to effectively rule over an inefficient and contradictory government. His coverage of the 1905 revolution imparts on the reader an intimate understanding of the rage that the common people felt against the Tsar, after his troops opened fire on peaceful strikers in St. Petersburg, killing perhaps hundreds, some of them women and children. Though in the past I had tended to sympathize with the Tsar, I found myself becoming furious with his regime as I read these words, and I came to understand why he was driven out of power. Figes covers the revolutionary events from February 1917 to October 1917 in such great detail that I kept reminding myself that the provisional government only lasted seven months. So many events occurred in this slice of time that the reader gets the impression that years were passing, rather than days and weeks. So, too, it must have seemed to the people who lived through that time. The Bolshevik Revolution is covered nearly as well; with Lenin, Trotsky, and other major players given due attention. The counter-revolutionaries are given almost equal treatment, and the clash of the various factions in the civil war makes a fascinating read. Overall, A People's Tragedy give the reader an intimate understanding of the Russian Revolution written in an entertaining style.

This book is fascinating. It's long, but worth the time you invest in it. I found some reviews of Figues' work truly hilarious in their transparent bias. People who call Figes "a coward" (but never bother to explain why), or whine about the author's alleged "unfairness to the Russian revolution" (but again, never give any basis for the accusation). And my all-time favorite: the one which called Figes' scholarship in question based on the opinion of ... The Nation. Come ON! The Nation!? I bet Pravda would also have called Figes "a coward," "unfair to the Russian revolution," and called his scholarship in question. People are entitled to their opinion, for course. But if they are going to accuse an author of all of the above, they could at least supply some basis for their accusations. Not just mouth off because they don't like what they read. Talk about cowardice.

Fantastic story of the people and societal and cultural forces that led to the Bolshevik seizure of power and flawed attempt to reframe the Russian economy and social order. Does a great job of demonstrating that the communist victory was not a certainty; for many years opposition from both the right and the peasantry threatening its tenuous hold on power.

Figes attempts to interpret what the Revolution meant to all levels of society and how it affected them. In doing so, threads are lost and recaptured in this long treatise leading to confusion on a Tolstoyan scale. A limited number of individual characters are fleshed out and their lives are followed during the turbulent years of the RR and Civil War. They die, betray each other, get sent to camps, go to battle, swap allegiences, debate Communism and so on. People frustratingly disappear in the book and then pop up at later points. Figes does make a valuable contribution but you get the impression that it there are many stories hidden within the Kremlin's vaults which would shed light on the people lives he describes.

Is a revolution a people's tragedy, but not a nation's tragedy? Well, it might well be. The author has endeavored to capture the worm's eye view of the Russian revolution. Has he succeeded in his audacious endeavor? Not really. Neal Bascomb, in his "RED MUTINY" (2007), provides a proto-example of what a worm's eye view of a mutiny is. Figes seems to have been infatuated with Maxim Gorky's work, but Gorky's works stand pale beside Solzhenitsyn's poem, "THE PRUSSIAN NIGHTS" (1977) that reads in part: "A girl's been turned into a woman, A woman turned into a corpse...Do not forget! Do not forgive! Blood for blood! A tooth for a tooth! The mother begs, Tote mich Soldat!" By concentrating on Lenin's largely mendacious relationships with Gorky, Figes has lost sight of his intended worm's eye view of a revolution.

Having recently read several books on Stalin and the Revolution by such illustrious scholars as Stephen Cohen and Robert Conquest, I preferred this one mostly because it is not assumed that you already have a background in the subject. You are given full historical, political, and social context in a fascinating way. It is an incredibly violent book with disturbing primary sources and bizarre facts about the truly medieval lives of the peasantry (it was not uncommon for mothers to fellate infants to keep them from crying in peasant Russia). The Tsars, Lenin, and Stalin are very much alive in this book and it will haunt you for years to come. Can't recommend it more highly.

I picked up this book by Orlando Figes on a whim. The Russian Revolution is an interesting topic so I figured that one day I'd get around to reading this massive book. I finally read it over Christmas break, and I must say that this is an excellent history book. One of the best I've ever read, actually. It is a real page turner, something very rare for a scholarly book of this size and scope. Figes certainly has the education to pull off this type of history: he was educated at Oxford and has written other works concerning Russia. Figes goes against the grain with this book. In opposition to such scholars as Richard Pipes (author of another huge tome I own but have yet to read), Figes believes that the Russian Revolution was in fact a "bottom up" revolution. Figes proves that the peasantry in Russia were sick to high heaven of a system that degraded them to a status of barely human. To the peasant, the most important thing was land and freedom from the state. All government forms, from the tsarist state to the Bolsheviks, were judged by how much autonomy the peasants earned under them. Figes actually seems to measure the success and failure of each government according to how the peasants received them. Not surprisingly, the tsarist system was a dismal failure. It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback with history, but the tsarist regime was pathetic. The list of the problems confronting Tsar Nicholas is too numerous to list here, but what is important to note is that this regime failed them all. Land reforms were desperately wanted, but the Tsar denied them. Nationalism in the peripheral states around Russia was not only denied, but a program of Russification was instituted that caused more problems than were necessary. The list could go on and on. The problem was power. The tsarist state refused to give any ground on the autocratic principles that the Russian tsars loved so much. Figes spends a good portion of his book discussing the failures of the tsarist system and shows how that system could have averted problems and maintained the throne (although as a constitutional monarchy akin to England). The other elements of government, the Bolsheviks, the Provisionals and the Whites, failed just as badly. The Provisionals were forced to tread the line between extremists and failed to reconcile both. The White regimes failed because the conservative elements that made up the bulk of the movement refused to budge on principles they enjoyed under the Tsar. Even the Bolsheviks failed, but their failure wasn't as pronounced because they were able to retain at least some semblance to the revolutionary principles that the peasants loved so much. Even here, the Bolsheviks had to make some concessions to retain power. The examination of the Communist regime is probably the most interesting aspect of this book. The Communists are given heavy treatment in this text. Not only do we see how they came to power, we get huge doses of their philosophy. Figes gives a detailed examination of the intellectual currents that gave rise to the Communist movement, as well as their actions once they attained power. What emerges is a bleak picture. Communism is death to all it touches. The Bolsheviks sought to not only rule by dictatorship, but to change the very essence of man into an automaton subservient to the state. Figes shows the reader the Red Terror and some of the other methods the Bolsheviks used to try and bring about this subservience. It is a horrifying picture made worse, of course, under the rule of Stalin. Figes states in his introduction that it took six years to do the research for this book. It is beautifully done and, I should mention, done by Figes himself without research assistants. I am amazed at how much information I have retained from this book, something that can't be said about many history books. I'd love to take a class from this scholar. His insights are fresh and his writing is erudite. Buy this book!

I am very glad this book was written and is available to read. It is a scholarly, seamless and much needed objective work about the fall of the monarchy and the rise of the Bolsheviks. It details how the Bolsheviks took over the soviets and how they used every tactic to gain power. It is unbelievable that some still romanticize Lenin and Trotsky and yet do not know a thing about them or their real names. I found this book very informative and well researched (and time consuming!).

For those of you undaunted by the length of Figes book (actually it is shorter than most books about Russia), this book is truly rewarding. Figes grasp of the lives of the people who led, followed and were effected by this event truly amazed me. While I knew how rough life was in Russia both pre and pst revolution, this book gave me new insights into it. The book also provided many insights into the minds of leaders and the outcome of events. I highly recommend this book to any person who truly likes histroy.

Rarely, one stumbles across a book that is of such surpassing excellence, and whose scholarship is worn so lightly, that you know, reading it, that you will never be able to forget it, and what you learn from it. Figes' A People's Tragedy is this rarity. I have read many books about the Russian Revolution, but no book has the sweep, the clarity, the balance, and the heartbreak of this. I literally had to put it down every so often because the sheer tragedy of what I was reading was more than I could bear. First, Figes briskly deals with all those things you thought you knew about the Russian Revolution, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Kerensky - the liberals, the Bolsheviks, the Tsar. Again and again, I realized I had picked up myths either promoted by those who lost, or those who consolidated, the Revolution. The mythmaking machine was going full tilt from 1917 onwards (particularly during the Stalinist and Cold War Years) and this book would be irreplaceable if only for stripping away so much that you thought you knew - which was wrong. Second, by starting the book in 1891 (with a famine which revealed the incompetence of the Tsarist beaurocracy) and ending with the death of Lenin in 1924, Figes permits himself a sweep of events that makes what actually happened even more dramatic than it was. Again and again, you not only read about, but hear from the survivors of, mistakes, errors, misconceptions - indolence, arrogance, foolishness, well-meaning idiocy - in a way that, as a human being, is more than heartbreaking. Again and again, the Revolution might never have happened, a democracy might have developed, steps taken could have been taken back - but they weren't. Instead, one of the great mass tragedies of history occurred, and you feel like a helpless bystander, watching it happen. This is remarkable history and it is an extraordinary achievement. It is bound to upset those with fixed ideologies on both the left and the right. If you ever read only one book on the Russian Revolution, make it this one.

A People's Tragedy is an extraordinary book, and I highly recommend it. Nevertheless, I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 simply because my eyes glazed over some of the political text. I'm more keen on knowing about the personal and social history than the political narrative. I, particularly liked reading the revolutionary's romance with the common Russian peasant and their illusions, there of. The passion lasted until they come face to face with these harden and suspicious people. I've read a lot of Russian history concerning the surfs of the earlier years, but not a whole lot about the peasants during the late 19th and early 20th century. There are plenty of interesting facts that I wasn't previously aware of, plus a lot about Lenin too. If you want a precise, definitive, blow by blow perspective, with all the players on the stage, I couldn't endorse a better book.

Figes pulls off a pretty impressive feat here: he makes a relatively fast and interesting book out of a complex and painful human event. This book gives a good idea of the extremities of brutality, stupidity, and treachery that accompanied the Russian Revolution. It may not please some readers seeking a final, official "judgment" of the event, but so what? It tells you what happened and gives some reasons why. That's the purpose of the study of history.

Figes' book is a remarkable achievement. He is able to capture the chaos, the confusion and the captivating power of revolutionary Russia without resorting to the dramatisation of his sybject. He tells Russia's tale from the perspective of the people - peasants, soldiers, workers - and from the great men who took centre stage - Lenin, Trotsky, Gorky, et al. Figes is fair and detailed in his account but he is also not afraid to make judgements or present an analytical viewpoint. He does not fall into the trap of simply recounting events - he seeks to shed light onto a the Revolution that shaped this century and does so with great success. "A People's Tragedy" travels back into the 19th Century to examine the development of a revolutionary consciousness in Russia. Figes looks at the literary and theoretical heritage of the Revolution - from Tolstoy to Chernyshevksy. He explores the mentality of the Russian workers, soldiers and peasants - why did Marxism appeal to the people of Russia? He also provides fascinating insight into the psychology of the intelligentsia. Like Simon Schama's "Citizens", Figes' book is a must-read for any student of revolution. He captures the broad and sweeping vista of the era but does not neglect the common people who lived through it. Or those who died for it. "The Russian Revolution launched a vast experiment in social engineering - perhaps the grandest in the history of mankind" says Figes. "A People's Tragedy" is a worthy chronicle of one of the most important events in history.

I liked this book more than I should have, owing to my inordinate glee of reading people who are so thoroughly wrong. I call Figes historical account the 'Brittany Spears "Oops I did it again" theory of Soviet massacres' for its approach to the eventual massacre of Russian civilization by a group of men dedicated to an idea about history. The curious end effect of this "post-cold war" postmodern history is that it takes the marrow out of the bones of the dead on which it rests. I did appreciate so much about this history that it almost seems petty of me to rest my objection on the small matter of Figes treating the massacre of the Russian population as just events getting out of control, as if the Russian Revolution were just a tea and crumpet party gone terribly, terribly wrong, and ended up killing a couple dozen million people. Those boys in the Politburo, they sure do get in some wacky capers. A lot of this was interesting, and I liked it. The personal accounts and uses of personal documents are done better here than almost anywhere else except with Volkoganov's treatments of the Soviet leadership, and I appreciate the attempt at sobriety in scholarship. However, in an attempt to avoid the heavy-breathing aspects of the Pipe's and the Conquest's of historiography, Figes has essentially exculpated the Soviet leadership of blame while simultaneously blaming them for lesser evils. The net effect is Figes looks like he's trying to cover for them, and this is unnacceptable. In the end, the book ended up valuing a sober tone in expense of the truth of the subject. What Figes should have aimed for was sobriety plus truth. As it is, I got no sense of the inevitability of the hell unleashed by an apocryphal ideology bent on conquering the world. I know it's unfashionable now to say things like it now, but you know, the commies did this, not the Rotarians or Tsar Nicholas or Stolypin his own dumb self. The "skepticism" NYTBR's Steven Miner sees in Fige's treatment of Lenin leaves quite a lot to be desired, namely, the square blame of the Soviet "experiment". While stressing how badly things did suck for the average peasant under Lenin, Figes always stops short of the plain blame we can find in, say, William Shirer's account of Hitler. This is unnacceptable, and it amounts to a historical double standard that I cannot help but think is ideologically based. Simply put, like the Easter Bunny and moderate Arabs, the non-ideological discussion of the Soviet experiment doesn't exist, nor should it. Those who attempt non-ideological approaches invariably end up merely disguising their presuppositions rather than airing them openly. I did like a lot else about the book, namely, as another reviewer put it, it's not a history that assumes the reader has foreknowledge of the early Soviet times. Other prominent historians like Pipes and Conquest write first rate history, but they do so for my clique, those who are already well educated on the subject at hand. This is not to say their approaches are wrong, but that more basic tomes such as Fige's are quite useful for beginners who want a serious understanding of an important event. All in all, I recommend the book. It would be perfect if not for the tiny problem of being wrong. The Russian people were not destroyed because Lenin wasn't good at foreseeing economic relations or he was crabby after getting shot. The end result was forordained in the nature of the system. Trotsky in charge would have been another series of slaughters. You wouldn't be able to tell that with Figes around.

Mr. Figes has captured the feel, the ideas and struggles of the Russian people throughout the last 150 years (give or take).He has clearly reasearched his topic and presents an impeccable account of life in Russia for those who were "ordinary" citizens. He illustrates very well the concept that outside of the bourgeoisie, there were only two "real" social classses: the aristocracy and the muzhik (peasants.)The aristocracy believed their good fortune would never end and lived life as such; the muzhik knew there would be another tomorrow and dreaded the fact; another day of hunger, slumlords, eighteen hours workdays and disease. This is not a book if you are looking for a "feel good" book, but it is a book that is real. It is everything we never learned in school about the Russian culture and, moreover, the degree of poverty most subsisted within.

This book is thick but worth reading every last page! I could not put it down there was so many fascinating facts and so many tragedies! The Russian people suffered a terrible fate when they turned to Lenin's Communist Ideology. It proved to be the death of some 60 million people! Russia is still reaping the 'terrors' of Bolshevism/Communism. Most Russian people are fearful, haunted, dejected, and extremely poor. Communism was no god but a losing ideology. It only helped those at the top and even they were hunted, fearful, killed off or put in labor camps. An excellent, information-packed book!

Figes has a most stellar habit of describing Russia's revolutionary period through the actions and thoughts of individual people. This, without losing sight of broader tides. The book is a bit haunting in that it reads like fiction, but isn't. 'Tragedy' is definitely the appropriate word. All-in-all its one of the best written historical accounts that I have read, of any era.

Figes' work gives a great deal of information on Russia to the reader without properly analyzing it. His description of the outbreak of the First World War is basically wrong and he gives far too much credit to pan-slavism for prompting Russia's entry into the war than he does the alliance system or any of the other international events of the July Crisis. He continues to repeat the myths of the Russian Army fighting with sticks which were demolished back in the '70s by Norman Stone. As for the Revolution, he is contradictory in a number of areas, at one point describing the attack on Poland in 1920 defensive, and then a few pages later portraying it as a measure to spread revolution to Germany. The use of a mass of material combined with lack of analysis don't make a good book!

Figes is a historian of the very highest calibre, and this book is nothing short of breath-taking -- in its scope, in its fluency, in its mastery, in its impact. As the title makes clear, this is a tragic story, told with force and coherence, on the ascendancy of Communism in Russia. Leninism was not an inevitable consequence of conditions in Russia at the start of the 20th century. Rather, as Figes argues, it was an outgrowth of circumstance, of cowardice, of miscalculation and missed opportunities. Into this breach stepped Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks. The book, ultimately, stands as the most fitting possible epitaph for the unmourned death of the Soviet Union.

I have read many books on the Russian Revolution, and this one is among the best. He presents many vivid anecdotes which give one the sense of the confusion and violence, but also the euphoria and promise, of Russia during the revolutionary period. He clearly sides against the Bolsheviks (though he is fair enough to present some valid reasons why they imposed some of their policies, and carefully distinguishes the different strands of this variant of Marxism), and seems to favour Prince Lvov's liberalism and Maxim Gorky's leftist humanism, but I myself have no problem with this: of all the perspectives of the Russian revolutionary period, the latter seem to be the most humane, even if they were ultimately doomed.

I found the first hundred pages of this to be really slow. I felt like a lot of detail just seemed unnecessary to understanding the subject matter. I am so glad I kept on reading though as the whole book seemed to improve dramatically from that rocky start. The detail was good and interesting, the history well written. Even though I know a lot about the period I found the way it was delivered here to be moving. I would definitely recommend this as a great book on this period.

Orlando Figes' book is not concise being 966 pages long, although it is a good read all the same, going into graphic detail using personal accounts for every important event. The main personalities of the period (Tsar Nicholas, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin) are all mentioned with significant detail. The most comical part of the book is the chapter on the Russian War effort and accounts of the Peter and Paul fortress- Figes' narrative account of the period is descriptive and helpful to both student and enthusiast.

Mr. Figes, with his crisp, detailed writing, makes you feel the events he describes. Professor Figes has done incredibly estensive research yet the reader never feels bogged down by too much minutiae. Conversely, the seemingly minor details add the essential human element in what would otherwise read as a tale of horrific cruelty and unending sadness. This book is a must for any student of Russian history.

an excellent book but I have to warn you. The photos are quite horrific. Specifically I remember a photo of cannibals selling human body parts. It's even worse than it sounds but I will spare you the details. I don't currently own a copy of this book due to this issue.

with vivid attention to the impact of the bolshevik revolution on all levels of russian society, the author provides us with a definitive picture of the individuals who determined Russia`s course for the first 70 years of this century. this is history written at its best: you`ll understand Lenin, Stalin and the rest; you`ll also realize that russia could have gone in an other direction - had only a few decisions been made differently. this book is great.

I have lived in the Soviet Union for 33 years. I have studied the History of USSR, the History of the Communist Party, the Dialectical Materialism, the Historical Materialism, the Scientific Communism, the Scientific Atheism and other subjects of the typical Soviet college. Additionally, I studied all kinds of subjects associated with every Party congress. Also, works by Lenin were the mandatory reading. I'm more than qualified to say that Olrando Figes has written an excellent account on the subject of the tragic even - the Russian revolution.

What makes great historical events "great" is the way they are perpetually refought by each suceding generation and are perpetually revaluated in the light of changing perceptions.I knew this would be a liberal-conservative account of the Russian Revolution and I was prepared to accept it as it was. Specially because I read this after reading Richard Pipes' two-volume history and, having to cope with Pipes' throughly rightist viewpoint - his demonologies about evil Bolsheviks craving for raw power- I felt it would be a lighter, less offensive (from a Left viewpoint such as mine, that is) read. Instead, it wasn't. Figes has a light, interstingly tongue-in-cheek mode of writing that makes his reading all the more easier, only, writing in a post-Cold War setting, and seemingly imbued with the Post-Modern certainity that all "great narratives" are bunk, he simply fails to take the Russian Revolution very seriously - and that is what makes his history far _less_ readable and _more_ offensive for a Leftist to read, as compared to Pipes, who, being a staunch Cold warrior anti-communist, at least takes the Bolsheviks very seriously, if only as evil geniuses. Figes, instead, writes with a somewhat flippant attitude, and sometimes seems to be bored to death with the complexities posed by the Russian Revolution, and therefore has a tendence for developing - and indulging in -a taste for the anecdotal, the frivolous, even the downright irrelevant. For me, the epitome of this tendancy of his was his appraisal of Lenin, which at a certain point reads thus (pg.389): "Lenin did weight training to build up his muscles. It was all part of the macho culture (the black leather jackets, the militant rethorics, the belief in action and the cult of violence) that was the essence of Bolshevism". Sure, Figes is a child of his -ours- postmodernage, an age in which bodybuilders _do_ enter politics as bodybuilders; but then, to treat Lenin as somekind of Schwarzenegger's forerunner is to lack historical perspective, i.e., the yearning to know in which way the past was _different_ from our present (not to speak of the fact that Figes does not offer references in footnotes for this particular vignette).To put it short: what is most ideological in Figes history is his refusal to appear as ideological. There are many good things about this history, above all Figes' clear, interstingly - and very British, in the best sense of the word - writing style, but then it's all so "contaminated" with a postmodern, Foucault-esque lack of awareness of any hierarchy of the various causative factors, that one could say that his is a history intent on ending all histories.

I will not bother adding to the already voluminous amounts of praise afforded Figes' work here at Amazon. Despite its size (over 800 pages), the tome is, indeed, a wonderfully sweeping and and well-written chronological history of the Russian Revolution. However, a few -- very short -- qualifications are in order. First, Figes' often makes occasionally annoying (and inaccurate) sociological and psychological observations about "revolution" best left to social scientists; and second, his perspective tends to be (not infrequently) ideologically right-of-center, suggesting a link to the Post-Soviet "I-Told-You-So" school of Russian historiography currently fashionable among Western scholars. Enjoy, fellow readers, but Figes' monumental study, contrary to what is so boldly stated on the back cover, is NOT the last word on the subject..........

There are several problems with this overall well-executed tome that have been pointed out by others, but what I particularly took exception to was the evident eagerness to excuse bloodlust by the mob by reducing it to "violence." Professor Figes seems to believe that if a mob involved in social unrest commits an atrocity, then it can't really be an atrocity, especially if that social unrest blossoms into a full-blown revolution. This lack of a moral compass in favor of Power to the People is downright bizarre. Even a righteously angry mob is composed of men and women who possess the power of self-control, and whatever their justification for revolting, they are morally responsible for the deeds they commit when they let go of that self control. "Freedom" and "liberty" are no excuse for murder, rapine and torture, and the professor is very wrong to snidely cite Schama and Pipes as examples of modern writers with a "prejudice against violence" because they evidently couldn't turn a blind eye toward a revolutionary crowd running amuck. And as a post script--unlike some reviewers, I welcomed most of the anecdotal material as a window onto the day-to-day struggles of the selected individuals chosen for the book. Figes' literary style is engaging and appealing, no small task in so daunting a subject. This history reads as well as his captivating social history, Natasha's Dance.

This is a well written book but there are problems with Figes that make reading problematic. He has been caught plagiarizing more than once and he even admitted to using a pseudonym to write nasty, negative reviews for books written by his perceived rivals. This is really pathological behavior. Its hard to take him seriously as a scholar with this in mind and it clouds everything he writes.

I read this good book, here in Brazil.This long book is about russian people history.Since 1891, until the Lenin's death by syphillis in 1924. Massive famine, World War I,torture, civil war, genocides and canibalism are in full coverage in this good book. The main defect of this book is to be so long. Some photos on this book; all of them are black & white.

Excellent read and an interesting perspective on the Russian Revolution. At times a bit repetitive and long winded with supporting evidence.

This book is extremely well-reviewed, so I went and got a copy of it from the library. But I have a massive problem with it: every time the author mentions something I'm aware of, his take strikes me as intensely biased and something that would easily start an argument with knowledgeable Russians. Anything you learn from this book could be easily argued with, and your interlocutors would have plenty of facts on their side. I could cite petty examples of this, but one fairly major one is his belief about 19th century peasant life. He says (with the arrogance that only someone living 150 years later on the other side of the world can have) that Dostoyevsky and his ilk idolized the peasants too much and naively viewed them as good, Christian people. This is reiterated in depth over the book's early pages. So basically... peasants were brutish, dumb pagans? This strikes me as a rather silly misreading of basic human impulses. Did Dostoyevsky aspire to a Christian peasantry? Why? To eliminate their native substance? Or to make it more true to reality? How did he imagine that reality would materialize? Education and dogmas? Is this an "ideology" the way Marxism is an ideology? Look, here are the real questions, which Mr. Figes is so vapidly ignoring... I think I would rather read any classic work of Russian literature over this book. What a waste of time it was to get this out of the library.

I see many five-star reviews here. Seems slightly suspicious, given that the author copped to writing some glowing reviews of his own book. I'm guessing those have been removed from Amazon. Right? And these that are left are authentic. Right? They are really *very* complimentary. So I just want to be sure. I've only begun to read this book, but have several other accounts of the Russian Revolution on hand and so quite a good comparison. And the first thing that strikes me on the very first page of the preface to "A People's Tragedy" is a very breezy kind of moral equivalence, combined with rather sloppy accounting that does not seem to foreshadow a really superb, richly detailed work of history. Here's Figes: "At the risk of appearing callous, the easiest way to convey the revolution's scope is to list the ways in which it wasted human life: tens of thousands were killed by the bombs and bullets of the revolutionaries, and at least an equal number by the repressions of the tsarist regime, before 1917; thousands died in the street fighting of that year; hundreds of thousands from the terror of the Reds -- and an equal number from the Terror of the Whites, if one counts the victims of their pogroms against the Jews -- during the years that followed; more than a million perished in the fighting of the civil war, including civilians in the rear; and yet more people died from hunger, cold and disease than from all these put together." Hmmm. So it all pretty much equals up then? No one side is worse than any other? There are no real victims? No real perpetrators? This is how one of the finest historians of our time begins this "account of the Russian Revolution for a new generation"?? I'd like to see a summing up that mentions the 10 million who died in the Ukraine in a genocide orchestrated by the Bolsheviks to punish the Ukrainians for resisting collectivization of their farms. Where does that fit in to this casual accounting? The Russian Revolution, Figes writes in one of his first sentences, was "one of the biggest events in the history of the world." Yes. Yes. And so it's very, very important to understand what happened. Don't wave all aside by claiming that the blame sits equally with all sides. This is rot. Who did it, Figes? Who did it? Who overthrew the Romanov dynasty? If the October 1917 revolution was a coup, then who staged the coup? Who? The book opens with the the lavish 1913 celebration of 300 years of Romanov rule, in St. Petersburg and Moscow, with Figes presenting us with this scene of an autocrat who is desperate to strengthen his rule by this splendorous show. The first visits of Tsar Nicholas II and his family during this celebration are to the cathedrals to pray...to Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg and in Moscow to Uspensky Sabor in Red Square. I suppose Figes meant to show the the Tsar and the Romanov dynasty was hopelessly out of touch. Instead, this reader is struck by what happened here, and what was lost. In the years that followed, a revolution (coup!) by atheists who murdered priests, destroyed thousands of churches and banished God. I'll continue with Figes. But with trepidation, and an eye out for casual falsehoods and some big omissions. To be continued!!

While reading I found myself folding numerous pages to flip back and forth trying to understand information the book is trying to convey. Too complex, too time consuming, too much minutia, too tedious and basically impracticable reading. I still have no understanding of the Russian Revolution so I am searching for another book.

In Over 1,000 pages Mr. Figes never thinks to ask how a "people's revolution" scores twenty million dollars from a Jewish banker, one Mr. Jacob Schiff of Kuhn and Loeb of New York. How is this possible? How many down trodden 'workers' hang out with "richer than God" capitalists? He also neglects to mention that Mr. Moses Mordecai whose nom de plume was Karl Marx, was in the employ of the Rothschilds family, some more poor Jewish bankers, when he and (mostly Engels, off of whom he lived a very bourgoise existence) penned their Communist Manifesto.

This book has amalgamated data from many sources and provides many quoted sources that illustrate aspects of the Revolution. But so much of it is utter nonsense. 1. It constantly describes isolated events during February snd October Revolution to make both events sound like wild iresponsible riots by the rabble. Figes goes so far to even suggest that the Bolsheviks had no worker support in the streets: only hooligans. Clearly figes looks down on commoners with contempt by degrading a popular uprisibg like February into a series of lootibgs and riots 2. Figes pummels you with this notion of Lenin ad a totalitarian dictator. But then he shows how lenin manipulated politics to get his way, and his views were not popular even among the bolsheviks. Well which is it? Did he have absolutebpower or not? Clearly, this whole notion is not rooted on historical reality. Lenin lost msny critical votes in the party and was voted down. Brest Litovsk for one. 3 He totally fails to correctly distinguish between the various marxistbyheories at the time. He completely miststesbthe views of trotsky and lenin on russia and fails to correcyly desribe how lenin's views on the needs of a bourgeoisbphase in russia and how this opinion changed to become more like trotsky's theory of permsnent revolution. If you want true history, do not look for it here. He merrly pulls together a complete listnof sourcs anf distilld nothing. Very disappointing work.

This is the worst history book I ever tried to read. Dr. Figes is not only a poor scholar, he uses the most puerile and base descriptions of Slavic culture that seem to come from nowhere other than his own perverse imagination. The Russian and Siberian countryside was a deeply conservative and religious society. I should know - my maternal family is from Western Siberia, Omsk, and my paternal family is from the central Volga region by Kazan. The author makes endless egregiously absurd statements that paints a picture of Russia as a cross between the Taliban and a Roman Orgy. He writes nonsense such as it was common in every Russian village for the women to walk around half naked and that screwing in the streets was a common sight and that each village had daily public executions and tortures that would make M. De Sade look like Disney. This is a piece of pathetic revisionist history. While it is true that the 1917 revolution was indeed a peoples' tragedy - and it is a fitting title - the author fixates on the inherent "barbarism" of Russian culture, deriving some type of sinful pleasure in descriptions of horror that come 99% out of his own imagination. It is true that there were horrific events that occurred during the Civil War after the end of the monarchy but Figes practically delights in a gruesome "Orientalism" of his own imagination therein blaming the victims for the tragedy based on the Russians' supposed backwardness. A tragedy like the Russian Revolution deserves a lot better than 1000 pages of BDSM porn and a weird barely disguised ethnic hatred.

A masterpiece. Well-written, absorbing, fascinating. It's huge but I couldn't put it down and found myself reading snatches whenever I could - at breakfast, for example: it's very easy to pick up from where you were (unlike other academic books I've read). Structured chronologically, it's a full account of the Tsarist regime's downfall, the revolutions of 1917 and the Lenin years. However, it's so much more than that. Spiced with personal stories and anecdotes, it is history 'brought alive'. The real strength is that political history is underpinned by social history: evidence of how these historic events affected people. The political and the social are equally valid and necessary. I've have studied Russian history at A level and I've also visited Russia, but reading this book allowed me, for the first time, to really understood the Russian story, even some of the famous episodes. Much of Russian history is simplified, biased, made facile, or fudged. Figes shows that it is SO much more complex than you thought! But the joy of this book is that the complexities are untangled for you. At the same time, the real essence of things is exposed: Figes seems to really 'get' Russia and its people. I have read many, many history books - but this one stands out as the best I've ever read. Not only is it formidably scholarly, it's written and easy to read. I highlighted sections as I read, for ease of locating important points when using it as a reference book. Two minor points to end with: I was very familiar with the history before I read this (or thought I was!) - i.e. I knew all the major and even minor figures fairly well and have read Service's biography of Lenin, but if this was your first introduction to the subject it might be a bit more daunting (though still accessible, I feel). Secondly, there was repetition and the author could have used a more ruthless editor. Having said this, it remains, in my view, a masterpiece of history and probably one of the most important accounts of the revolution written in English.

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.

A good read but nothing to getting really appreciate or get excited about! Too much waffle...

I wanted the definitive history of the Russian Revolution and civil war. And got it here!

I bought this as the definitive one-volume guide to the Russian Revolution. It didn't disappoint. This is thorough and all-encompassing. Figes focusses on the 'ordinary man or woman' in the Revolution, but the rest of the aspects of the revolution's causes are also given due attention. In short, if you want a book on the Russian Revolution, this should really be it.

This book is highly informative, intelligent and beautifully written covering so much more than the politics - as must be expected from this academic and the vast subject.

The Russian Revolution was a mess, according to this book and almost everything else I've heard about it. There seems to be a sort of relish to the descriptions of some of the deaths in this book. Not for the squeamish.

A comprehensive insight into this period of Russian history explaining the complexity and diversity of the Russian people which lead to the difficulty of unifying a common strategy of leadership. Considering the scope of this book it was not difficult to read and comprehend. It answered many questions following to my recent visit to Russia.

Orlando Figes offers a very comprehensive overview of a significant period of Russia's history in what is a very good read yet also extremely informative, particularly focusing on the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Incredibly well researched, this book details all the intricacies and convolutions of Russia's transition from Tsar Nicholas II to Lenin. Very well written.

This is a great value copy of a great book.

excellent read - written by a master of Russian history

A wonderful and intensely moving book. Read this and hate the Bolsheviks with a vengeance.

This is a well researched, well written book by an informed academic, a most useful book. Brilliant for dipping in and out of.

This is the second time we have bought this book.... it disappeared from our shelves... loaned to someone who liked it too much!

fantastic

Great book.

Enjoyed reading such an authorative account.

Very well written by a guy who knows his stuff and is clearly passionate about the subject. I'd recommend for students of Russian history.

As described - thanks

Very prompt delivery and it is an excellent book to read. Good value for money as well as it is a very large book!