What do you think?
Rate this book
Shortest History
The Shortest History of the Soviet Union
In 1917, Bolshevik revolutionaries came to power in the war-torn Russian Empire in a way that defied all predictions, including their own. Scarcely a lifespan later, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed as accidentally as it arose. The decades between witnessed drama on an epic scale--the chaos and hope of revolution, famines and purges, hard-won victory in history's most destructive war, and worldwide geopolitical conflict, all entwined around the dream of building a better society.
This book is a lively and authoritative distillation of this complex history, told with vivid details, a grand sweep, and wry wit. The acclaimed historian Sheila Fitzpatrick chronicles the Soviet Age--its rise, reign, and unexpected fall, as well as its afterlife in today's Russia. She underscores the many ironies of the Soviet experience: An ideology that claimed to offer humanity the reins of history wrangled with contingency. An avowedly internationalist and anti-imperialist state birthed an array of nationalisms. And a vision of transcending economic and social inequality and injustice gave rise to a country that was, in its way, surprisingly normal.
Moving seamlessly from Lenin to Stalin to Gorbachev to Putin, The Shortest History of the Soviet Union provides an indispensable guide to one of the twentieth century's great powers and the enduring fascination it still exerts.
This book is a lively and authoritative distillation of this complex history, told with vivid details, a grand sweep, and wry wit. The acclaimed historian Sheila Fitzpatrick chronicles the Soviet Age--its rise, reign, and unexpected fall, as well as its afterlife in today's Russia. She underscores the many ironies of the Soviet experience: An ideology that claimed to offer humanity the reins of history wrangled with contingency. An avowedly internationalist and anti-imperialist state birthed an array of nationalisms. And a vision of transcending economic and social inequality and injustice gave rise to a country that was, in its way, surprisingly normal.
Moving seamlessly from Lenin to Stalin to Gorbachev to Putin, The Shortest History of the Soviet Union provides an indispensable guide to one of the twentieth century's great powers and the enduring fascination it still exerts.
248 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2022
204 people are currently reading
1,776 people want to read
About the author
Sheila Fitzpatrick
51?books145?followersSheila Fitzpatrick (born June 4, 1941, Melbourne) is an Australian-American historian. She teaches Soviet History at the University of Chicago.
Fitzpatrick's research focuses on the social and cultural history of the Stalinist period, particularly on aspects of social identity and daily life. She is currently concentrating on the social and cultural changes in Soviet Russia of the 1950s and 1960s.
In her early work, Sheila Fitzpatrick focused on the theme of social mobility, suggesting that the opportunity for the working class to rise socially and as a new elite had been instrumental in legitimizing the regime during the Stalinist period. Despite its brutality, Stalinism as a political culture would have achieved the goals of the democratic revolution. The center of attention was always focused on the victims of the purges rather than its beneficiaries, noted the historian. Yet as a consequence of the "Great Purge", thousands of workers and communists who had access to the technical colleges during the first five-year plan received promotions to positions in industry, government and the leadership of the Communist Party.
According to Fitzpatrick, the "cultural revolution" of the late 1920 and the purges which shook the scientific, literary, artistic and the industrial communities is explained in part by a "class struggle" against executives and intellectual "bourgeois". The men who rose in the 1930s played an active role to get rid of former leaders who blocked their own promotion, and the "Great Turn" found its origins in initiatives from the bottom rather than the decisions of the summit. In this vision, Stalinist policy based on social forces and offered a response to popular radicalism, which allowed the existence of a partial consensus between the regime and society in the 1930s.
Fitzpatrick was the leader of the second generation of "revisionist historians". She was the first to call the group of Sovietologists working on Stalinism in the 1980s "a new cohort of [revisionist] historians".
Fitzpatrick called for a social history that did not address political issues, in other words that adhered strictly to a "from below" viewpoint. This was justified by the idea that the university had been strongly conditioned to see everything through the prism of the state: "the social processes unrelated to the intervention of the state is virtually absent from the literature." Fitzpatrick did not deny that the state's role in social change of the 1930s was huge. However, she defended the practice of social history "without politics". Most young "revisionists" did not want to separate the social history of the USSR from the evolution of the political system.
Fitzpatrick explained in the 1980s, when the "totalitarian model" was still widely used, "it was very useful to show that the model had an inherent bias and it did not explain everything about Soviet society. Now, whereas a new generation of academics considers sometimes as self evident that the totalitarian model was completely erroneous and harmful, it is perhaps more useful to show than there were certain things about the Soviet company that it explained very well."
Fitzpatrick's research focuses on the social and cultural history of the Stalinist period, particularly on aspects of social identity and daily life. She is currently concentrating on the social and cultural changes in Soviet Russia of the 1950s and 1960s.
In her early work, Sheila Fitzpatrick focused on the theme of social mobility, suggesting that the opportunity for the working class to rise socially and as a new elite had been instrumental in legitimizing the regime during the Stalinist period. Despite its brutality, Stalinism as a political culture would have achieved the goals of the democratic revolution. The center of attention was always focused on the victims of the purges rather than its beneficiaries, noted the historian. Yet as a consequence of the "Great Purge", thousands of workers and communists who had access to the technical colleges during the first five-year plan received promotions to positions in industry, government and the leadership of the Communist Party.
According to Fitzpatrick, the "cultural revolution" of the late 1920 and the purges which shook the scientific, literary, artistic and the industrial communities is explained in part by a "class struggle" against executives and intellectual "bourgeois". The men who rose in the 1930s played an active role to get rid of former leaders who blocked their own promotion, and the "Great Turn" found its origins in initiatives from the bottom rather than the decisions of the summit. In this vision, Stalinist policy based on social forces and offered a response to popular radicalism, which allowed the existence of a partial consensus between the regime and society in the 1930s.
Fitzpatrick was the leader of the second generation of "revisionist historians". She was the first to call the group of Sovietologists working on Stalinism in the 1980s "a new cohort of [revisionist] historians".
Fitzpatrick called for a social history that did not address political issues, in other words that adhered strictly to a "from below" viewpoint. This was justified by the idea that the university had been strongly conditioned to see everything through the prism of the state: "the social processes unrelated to the intervention of the state is virtually absent from the literature." Fitzpatrick did not deny that the state's role in social change of the 1930s was huge. However, she defended the practice of social history "without politics". Most young "revisionists" did not want to separate the social history of the USSR from the evolution of the political system.
Fitzpatrick explained in the 1980s, when the "totalitarian model" was still widely used, "it was very useful to show that the model had an inherent bias and it did not explain everything about Soviet society. Now, whereas a new generation of academics considers sometimes as self evident that the totalitarian model was completely erroneous and harmful, it is perhaps more useful to show than there were certain things about the Soviet company that it explained very well."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 155 reviews
April 9, 2025
3.75 stars
The title hits the mark. Sheila Fitzpatrick, an acknowledged Sovietologist, sets herself the challenging task of composing a concise history that covers the entire period of the Soviet Union's existence. The book is rather dry and at times reads like a textbook. The reader will find here the major milestones, names, achievements, crimes, and the briefly outlined fates of various figures.
For a reader who has chosen The Shortest History of the Soviet Union as a first cursory acquaintance, the narrative might seem a bit meandering and not very amenable. I am not sure if a reader with very little knowledge about Soviet history finds it easy to pinpoint the main points that should help better understand how the Bolsheviks were able to seize and secure power, and why all attempts to reform the Soviet state failed. It was not always easy for me to make sense of what was going on and connect the dots. Fitzpatrick believes that much depended on a particular set of circumstances and that nothing in Soviet history was predetermined.
Was the Bolshevik project doomed from the start? Or did the future of the country and its millions of people depend on the political will and decisions made at the top? Could this or that general secretary change the future of the Soviet Union? According to historian Kotkin, except for Brezhnev, every Soviet general secretary acted unpredictably and made history with his decisions.
Was the Soviet Union a colossus with feet of clay? Or a mighty power undermined from within by treachery at the top?
One of the advantages of the Bolsheviks was that they grasped the importance of the national question. Their strategy contrasted with the "Russia, one and indivisible" thesis of their opponents. Collectivization and famine claimed many lives. After Stalin's death, agrarian reforms were launched ¡°to raise the woefully low standard of living in the countryside.¡± Competitive slogans in the spirit of "catching up" and "surpassing" the West were part of the public atmosphere. Significant improvements in access to education took place during the Soviet era. The adult literacy rate approached one hundred percent during the Khrushchev era. Urbanization processes were underway. Thus, by 1962, almost half of the population of the Soviet Union lived in cities. The coexistence of the traditions of having a vozhd (a leader in Russian) and what can be called collective leadership ("meaning a small group of party leaders whose members had curatorial responsibility for various sectors such as defence, trade and heavy industry, met frequently as a collective with the vozhd¡¯ in the chair and did a lot of the heavy lifting of government").
The author discusses demographic issues and the attempts to create a unified Soviet identity, which ultimately failed. A growing importance of local ethnic identity can be observed. In the Soviet republics, local rulers sought more power, desiring greater freedom of action.
Also important are what might be called observations of everyday life. The gradually growing desire of people to have access to a wider range and higher quality of consumer goods led to the need to satisfy the growing demand. This seems to have created problems for the Soviet economy. The historian also notes that many Soviet women were tired of combining emancipation, which implied full-time work, with housework and childcare, still considered women's duties.
Nadezhda Krupskaya (Lenin's wife), "a teacher and educational theorist by vocation," evokes certain sympathy. She was concerned with the problems of public education, paying attention to schools, literacy classes, and libraries.
Dark sides are mentioned, such as mass repression and the Gulag, ethnic deportations, suppression of freedoms, and the difficulty of any attempt to reform the over-centralized state and transform it into a workable federation of republics.
Given the relatively slim size of the book, many important events are not discussed or are mentioned only en passant. For example, nothing is said about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
In conclusion, Fitzpatrick's account can help to update general knowledge on the history of the USSR, but perhaps one should not expect more from it.
The title hits the mark. Sheila Fitzpatrick, an acknowledged Sovietologist, sets herself the challenging task of composing a concise history that covers the entire period of the Soviet Union's existence. The book is rather dry and at times reads like a textbook. The reader will find here the major milestones, names, achievements, crimes, and the briefly outlined fates of various figures.
For a reader who has chosen The Shortest History of the Soviet Union as a first cursory acquaintance, the narrative might seem a bit meandering and not very amenable. I am not sure if a reader with very little knowledge about Soviet history finds it easy to pinpoint the main points that should help better understand how the Bolsheviks were able to seize and secure power, and why all attempts to reform the Soviet state failed. It was not always easy for me to make sense of what was going on and connect the dots. Fitzpatrick believes that much depended on a particular set of circumstances and that nothing in Soviet history was predetermined.
Was the Bolshevik project doomed from the start? Or did the future of the country and its millions of people depend on the political will and decisions made at the top? Could this or that general secretary change the future of the Soviet Union? According to historian Kotkin, except for Brezhnev, every Soviet general secretary acted unpredictably and made history with his decisions.
Was the Soviet Union a colossus with feet of clay? Or a mighty power undermined from within by treachery at the top?
One of the advantages of the Bolsheviks was that they grasped the importance of the national question. Their strategy contrasted with the "Russia, one and indivisible" thesis of their opponents. Collectivization and famine claimed many lives. After Stalin's death, agrarian reforms were launched ¡°to raise the woefully low standard of living in the countryside.¡± Competitive slogans in the spirit of "catching up" and "surpassing" the West were part of the public atmosphere. Significant improvements in access to education took place during the Soviet era. The adult literacy rate approached one hundred percent during the Khrushchev era. Urbanization processes were underway. Thus, by 1962, almost half of the population of the Soviet Union lived in cities. The coexistence of the traditions of having a vozhd (a leader in Russian) and what can be called collective leadership ("meaning a small group of party leaders whose members had curatorial responsibility for various sectors such as defence, trade and heavy industry, met frequently as a collective with the vozhd¡¯ in the chair and did a lot of the heavy lifting of government").
The author discusses demographic issues and the attempts to create a unified Soviet identity, which ultimately failed. A growing importance of local ethnic identity can be observed. In the Soviet republics, local rulers sought more power, desiring greater freedom of action.
Also important are what might be called observations of everyday life. The gradually growing desire of people to have access to a wider range and higher quality of consumer goods led to the need to satisfy the growing demand. This seems to have created problems for the Soviet economy. The historian also notes that many Soviet women were tired of combining emancipation, which implied full-time work, with housework and childcare, still considered women's duties.
Nadezhda Krupskaya (Lenin's wife), "a teacher and educational theorist by vocation," evokes certain sympathy. She was concerned with the problems of public education, paying attention to schools, literacy classes, and libraries.
Dark sides are mentioned, such as mass repression and the Gulag, ethnic deportations, suppression of freedoms, and the difficulty of any attempt to reform the over-centralized state and transform it into a workable federation of republics.
Given the relatively slim size of the book, many important events are not discussed or are mentioned only en passant. For example, nothing is said about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
In conclusion, Fitzpatrick's account can help to update general knowledge on the history of the USSR, but perhaps one should not expect more from it.
May 22, 2024
????? ????? ????? ????? ? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ? ??????? ? ???? ?????????? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? . ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ? ????? ????? ? ??? ??? ???? ????? ? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??????? .
???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ? ??? ?????? ????? ????? . ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ? ?????? ?????? ? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????.
????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ???? ? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ???????? ? ??????? ????? ????. ??? ??? ??????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ?????? ? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? .
?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ? ????? ? ????? ? ??????? ? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? .
??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ? ?? ?????? ? ????? ????? ? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ? ????? ????? ???? .
?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ? ??? ????? ? ?? ???? ? ??????? ??? . ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ? ???? ????? ? ?????? ? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? . ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ? ????? ???? ????? ? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? .
??????? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ? ?????? ? ????? ?? ???? . ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ? ????? ? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ? ?? ???? ?? ?????????? ? ????? ????? ?? ??? . ??? ?? ???? ??? ? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? 70 ???? .
???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ? ???? ???? ????? ??? ? ????????? ??????? ??? . ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ? ??????? ????? ?? ? ??? ???? ? ??????? ????? ???????? . ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ? ????? ???? ????? ? ???? ????? ????? ? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? .
????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????????. ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?????????? ???? ? ????? ??????? ?? ???????? ????? ? ?????????? ??? ???? ??? ?????????. ????? ????? ? ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????.
???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ? ??? ?????? ????? ????? . ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ? ?????? ?????? ? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????.
????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ???? ? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ???????? ? ??????? ????? ????. ??? ??? ??????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ?????? ? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? .
?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ? ????? ? ????? ? ??????? ? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? .
??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ? ?? ?????? ? ????? ????? ? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ? ????? ????? ???? .
?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ? ??? ????? ? ?? ???? ? ??????? ??? . ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ? ???? ????? ? ?????? ? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? . ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ? ????? ???? ????? ? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? .
??????? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ? ?????? ? ????? ?? ???? . ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ? ????? ? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ? ?? ???? ?? ?????????? ? ????? ????? ?? ??? . ??? ?? ???? ??? ? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? 70 ???? .
???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ? ???? ???? ????? ??? ? ????????? ??????? ??? . ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ? ??????? ????? ?? ? ??? ???? ? ??????? ????? ???????? . ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ? ????? ???? ????? ? ???? ????? ????? ? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? .
????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????????. ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?????????? ???? ? ????? ??????? ?? ???????? ????? ? ?????????? ??? ???? ??? ?????????. ????? ????? ? ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????.
July 28, 2022
Written in the usual tongue in cheek style typical for the pro-US historians with every positive fact about the Union is quickly undermined with a "but" or a witty anecdote designed to shepherd the potential sympathisers away from socialism. "Open-minded and energetic, a good politician and consensus-builder, and an effective administrator" is her depiction of the man who managed to destroy the USSR and threw its remains to capitalist wolves in just 6 years.
This is, however, quite normal. Since the end of the Cold War the US foundations, Western universities spent millions on the researchers who dove into the Soviet archives and found evidence after evidence of the virtues of capitalism. An intellectual Cold War on the Soviet history is waged after 1991 and the balance of forces favours heavily the imperialist camp this time.
So, if you are not careful enough, Fitzpatricks will have you hating the Soviets who contributed to the global decolonization, women's emancipation, contemporary social, economic and educational rights we hold, and loving the imperialists that exploit, neocolonize, underdevelop and oppress the rest of the world.
This is, however, quite normal. Since the end of the Cold War the US foundations, Western universities spent millions on the researchers who dove into the Soviet archives and found evidence after evidence of the virtues of capitalism. An intellectual Cold War on the Soviet history is waged after 1991 and the balance of forces favours heavily the imperialist camp this time.
So, if you are not careful enough, Fitzpatricks will have you hating the Soviets who contributed to the global decolonization, women's emancipation, contemporary social, economic and educational rights we hold, and loving the imperialists that exploit, neocolonize, underdevelop and oppress the rest of the world.
July 12, 2022
Rounded up from 3.5 stars.
I enjoyed this more than I was expecting to. Although her starting point is broadly anti-Soviet, Fitzpatrick is a serious historian, not simply a purveyor of nutty Cold War-era slander, and her analysis is at times surprisingly insightful. Needless to say I think she's wrong about many of her assertions, but she's done the research, listened to a variety of opinions, and put together a fairly cohesive and interesting narrative.
Whizzed through it while down with Covid. Pretty easy reading.
I enjoyed this more than I was expecting to. Although her starting point is broadly anti-Soviet, Fitzpatrick is a serious historian, not simply a purveyor of nutty Cold War-era slander, and her analysis is at times surprisingly insightful. Needless to say I think she's wrong about many of her assertions, but she's done the research, listened to a variety of opinions, and put together a fairly cohesive and interesting narrative.
Whizzed through it while down with Covid. Pretty easy reading.
April 10, 2023
§º§Ö§Û§Ý§Ñ §¶§Ú§è§á§Ñ§ä§â§Ú§Ü §ß§Ñ§á§Ú§ã§Ñ§Ý§Ñ §Ü§â§à§ê§Ö§é§ß§å§ð §Ü§ß§Ú§Ø§Ü§å §ã §ß§Ñ§Þ§Ö§Ü§à§Þ §ß§Ñ §ß§Ö§Ó§à§Ù§Þ§à§Ø§ß§í§Û §Ü§à§ß§Ö§é§ß§à §Ó§ã§Ö§à§ç§Ó§Ñ§ä
§Ñ§Ó§ä§à§â - §Ú§ã§ä§à§â§Ú§Ü §Ú §Þ§à§Ø§Ö§ä §ã§Ö§Ò§Ö §á§à§Ù§Ó§à§Ý§Ú§ä§î §à§ã§ä§Ñ§Ó§Ñ§ä§î§ã§ñ §Ò§Ö§ã§ã§ä§â§Ñ§ã§ä§ß§à§Û, §â§Ñ§ã§ã§Ü§Ñ§Ù§í§Ó§Ñ§ä§î §Ú§ã§ä§à§â§Ú§ð, §ß§Ö §ã§Ü§Ñ§ä§í§Ó§Ñ§ñ§ã§î §Ó §Ú§ã§ä§Ö§â§Ú§Ü§Ú, §à§Ò§Ú§Õ§í, §á§â§Ñ§Ó§Ö§Õ§ß§í§Û §Ô§ß§Ö§Ó. §é§Ñ§ã§ä§Ú§é§ß§à §á§à§ç§à§Ø§Ö §ß§Ñ §Ó§Ù§Ô§Ý§ñ§Õ §Ú§Ù §Õ§Ñ§Ý§Ö§Ü§à§Ô§à §Ò§å§Õ§å§ë§Ö§Ô§à, §Ü§à§Ô§Õ§Ñ §á§à §Ò§à§Ý§î§ê§à§Þ§å §ã§é§Ö§ä§å §å§Ø§Ö §Ó§ã§Ö §â§Ñ§Ó§ß§à. §Ó§Õ§â§å§Ô §ä§Ñ§Ü§à§Ö §Ò§å§Õ§å§ë§Ö§Ö §Ú §á§â§Ñ§Ó§Õ§Ñ §ß§Ñ§ã§ä§å§á§Ú§ä
§ß§Ö§Ü§à§ä§à§â§í§Ö §ß§ð§Ñ§ß§ã§í - §á§â§à§ß§Ù§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§î§ß§í§Ö. §à §ß§Ö§Ü§à§ä§à§â§í§ç §Ó§Ñ§Ø§ß§í§ç §Ó§Ö§ë§Ñ§ç §å§á§à§Þ§Ú§ß§Ñ§Ö§ä§ã§ñ §ã§à§Ó§ã§Ö§Þ §Ó§ã§Ü§à§Ý§î§Ù§î. §ß§Ö§ã§Þ§à§ä§â§ñ §ß§Ñ §à§á§í§ä §â§Ñ§Ò§à§ä§í §ã §Ú§ã§ä§à§â§Ú§Ö§Û §á§à§Ó§ã§Ö§Õ§ß§Ö§Ó§ß§à§ã§ä§Ú, §Ù§Õ§Ö§ã§î §Ó§Þ§Ö§ã§ä§à §ß§Ö§× §Ù§Ñ§é§Ñ§ã§ä§å§ð §Ó§í§ã§ä§å§á§Ñ§Ö§ä §ã§ä§Ñ§ä§Ú§ã§ä§Ú§Ü§Ñ §à §Ü§à§Ý§Ú§é§Ö§ã§ä§Ó§Ö §ä§Ö§Ý§Ö§Ó§Ú§Ù§à§â§à§Ó §ß§Ñ §Õ§å§ê§å §ß§Ñ§ã§Ö§Ý§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ. §Ö§ã§ä§î §Ú §Ñ§ß§Ö§Ü§Õ§à§ä§í, §Ú §Ô§Ö§à§Ô§â§Ñ§æ§Ú§é§Ö§ã§Ü§Ú§Ö §Ü§Ñ§â§ä§í
§ã§à§Ó§Ö§â§ê§Ö§ß§ß§à §ß§Ö §å§é§Ö§Ò§ß§Ú§Ü §Ú§ã§ä§à§â§Ú§Ú, §ß§à §á§à§Ù§Ó§à§Ý§ñ§Ö§ä §á§à§ã§Þ§à§ä§â§Ö§ä§î §ß§Ñ §·§· §Ó§Ö§Ü §à§Õ§ß§à§Û §ê§Ö§ã§ä§à§Û §ã§å§ê§Ú §à§ä§ã§ä§â§Ñ§ß§×§ß§ß§í§Þ §Ó§Ù§Ô§Ý§ñ§Õ§à§Þ. §Ú§ß§ä§Ö§â§Ö§ã§ß§í§Û §à§á§í§ä
§Ñ§Ó§ä§à§â - §Ú§ã§ä§à§â§Ú§Ü §Ú §Þ§à§Ø§Ö§ä §ã§Ö§Ò§Ö §á§à§Ù§Ó§à§Ý§Ú§ä§î §à§ã§ä§Ñ§Ó§Ñ§ä§î§ã§ñ §Ò§Ö§ã§ã§ä§â§Ñ§ã§ä§ß§à§Û, §â§Ñ§ã§ã§Ü§Ñ§Ù§í§Ó§Ñ§ä§î §Ú§ã§ä§à§â§Ú§ð, §ß§Ö §ã§Ü§Ñ§ä§í§Ó§Ñ§ñ§ã§î §Ó §Ú§ã§ä§Ö§â§Ú§Ü§Ú, §à§Ò§Ú§Õ§í, §á§â§Ñ§Ó§Ö§Õ§ß§í§Û §Ô§ß§Ö§Ó. §é§Ñ§ã§ä§Ú§é§ß§à §á§à§ç§à§Ø§Ö §ß§Ñ §Ó§Ù§Ô§Ý§ñ§Õ §Ú§Ù §Õ§Ñ§Ý§Ö§Ü§à§Ô§à §Ò§å§Õ§å§ë§Ö§Ô§à, §Ü§à§Ô§Õ§Ñ §á§à §Ò§à§Ý§î§ê§à§Þ§å §ã§é§Ö§ä§å §å§Ø§Ö §Ó§ã§Ö §â§Ñ§Ó§ß§à. §Ó§Õ§â§å§Ô §ä§Ñ§Ü§à§Ö §Ò§å§Õ§å§ë§Ö§Ö §Ú §á§â§Ñ§Ó§Õ§Ñ §ß§Ñ§ã§ä§å§á§Ú§ä
§ß§Ö§Ü§à§ä§à§â§í§Ö §ß§ð§Ñ§ß§ã§í - §á§â§à§ß§Ù§Ú§ä§Ö§Ý§î§ß§í§Ö. §à §ß§Ö§Ü§à§ä§à§â§í§ç §Ó§Ñ§Ø§ß§í§ç §Ó§Ö§ë§Ñ§ç §å§á§à§Þ§Ú§ß§Ñ§Ö§ä§ã§ñ §ã§à§Ó§ã§Ö§Þ §Ó§ã§Ü§à§Ý§î§Ù§î. §ß§Ö§ã§Þ§à§ä§â§ñ §ß§Ñ §à§á§í§ä §â§Ñ§Ò§à§ä§í §ã §Ú§ã§ä§à§â§Ú§Ö§Û §á§à§Ó§ã§Ö§Õ§ß§Ö§Ó§ß§à§ã§ä§Ú, §Ù§Õ§Ö§ã§î §Ó§Þ§Ö§ã§ä§à §ß§Ö§× §Ù§Ñ§é§Ñ§ã§ä§å§ð §Ó§í§ã§ä§å§á§Ñ§Ö§ä §ã§ä§Ñ§ä§Ú§ã§ä§Ú§Ü§Ñ §à §Ü§à§Ý§Ú§é§Ö§ã§ä§Ó§Ö §ä§Ö§Ý§Ö§Ó§Ú§Ù§à§â§à§Ó §ß§Ñ §Õ§å§ê§å §ß§Ñ§ã§Ö§Ý§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ. §Ö§ã§ä§î §Ú §Ñ§ß§Ö§Ü§Õ§à§ä§í, §Ú §Ô§Ö§à§Ô§â§Ñ§æ§Ú§é§Ö§ã§Ü§Ú§Ö §Ü§Ñ§â§ä§í
§ã§à§Ó§Ö§â§ê§Ö§ß§ß§à §ß§Ö §å§é§Ö§Ò§ß§Ú§Ü §Ú§ã§ä§à§â§Ú§Ú, §ß§à §á§à§Ù§Ó§à§Ý§ñ§Ö§ä §á§à§ã§Þ§à§ä§â§Ö§ä§î §ß§Ñ §·§· §Ó§Ö§Ü §à§Õ§ß§à§Û §ê§Ö§ã§ä§à§Û §ã§å§ê§Ú §à§ä§ã§ä§â§Ñ§ß§×§ß§ß§í§Þ §Ó§Ù§Ô§Ý§ñ§Õ§à§Þ. §Ú§ß§ä§Ö§â§Ö§ã§ß§í§Û §à§á§í§ä
April 4, 2022
Fitzpatrick is considered to be a social historian, writing revisionist ¡®history from below¡¯. In other words, she focused on the historical narrative as viewed by ordinary people, the marginalised, oppressed, poor, or disenfranchised, as opposed to the leaders. Soviet history and social identity under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin has been her field of expertise.
She has had an impressive career. Born in Melbourne in 1941, she completed a BA in Soviet music (she played violin for the Australian Youth Orchestra, 1957-59) and history from the University of Melbourne in 1961 followed by a PhD from Oxford in 1969 on Soviet education. From 1969 -1972 Fitzgerald was a Research Fellow at the London School of Slavonic and East European Studies.
Over the next 40 years, she lived, taught, lectured and carried out research in universities in Birmingham, New York, Chicago and Texas as well as spending some time in Moscow. She moved back to Australia in 2012 where her research has focused on displaced persons after WWII.
In light of current events in the Ukraine, the arrival of this ARC at work a couple of weeks ago, was very timely. Trying to untangle the various states within Tsarist Russia and then again during the time of the revolution and into the creation of the USSR is not easy. Loyalties were divided, not necessarily along racial or ethnic grounds either. Rural peasants did not feel that the Bolsheviks understood them or their needs and during the Civil War, the Ukrainian peasant army led by Nestor Makhno, was one such group, where they fought against both the Bolsheviks and the Whites.
Full response here -
She has had an impressive career. Born in Melbourne in 1941, she completed a BA in Soviet music (she played violin for the Australian Youth Orchestra, 1957-59) and history from the University of Melbourne in 1961 followed by a PhD from Oxford in 1969 on Soviet education. From 1969 -1972 Fitzgerald was a Research Fellow at the London School of Slavonic and East European Studies.
Over the next 40 years, she lived, taught, lectured and carried out research in universities in Birmingham, New York, Chicago and Texas as well as spending some time in Moscow. She moved back to Australia in 2012 where her research has focused on displaced persons after WWII.
In light of current events in the Ukraine, the arrival of this ARC at work a couple of weeks ago, was very timely. Trying to untangle the various states within Tsarist Russia and then again during the time of the revolution and into the creation of the USSR is not easy. Loyalties were divided, not necessarily along racial or ethnic grounds either. Rural peasants did not feel that the Bolsheviks understood them or their needs and during the Civil War, the Ukrainian peasant army led by Nestor Makhno, was one such group, where they fought against both the Bolsheviks and the Whites.
Full response here -
March 18, 2022
Meh. Sheila Fitzpatrick is a great author and I enjoy her books immensely but even she with her expertise couldn¡¯t really accomplish this project to 5 star standard. It¡¯s impossible really to write an 80 yr history of a 140 million country in 200 pages. Must say it¡¯s a good attempt but if you really want a history of the Soviet Union in one book go to Volkogonov or Lewin. It¡¯ll be slightly more involved but just higher in quality. From Sheila Fitzpatrick¡¯s books I¡¯d recommend ¡®A spy in the archives¡¯ and ¡®Everyday stalinism¡¯ which are both brilliant.
Fun starter for those entirely new to this though, the ¡®Shortest History¡¯ are a great series, well done to Old St Publishing.
Fun starter for those entirely new to this though, the ¡®Shortest History¡¯ are a great series, well done to Old St Publishing.
June 30, 2023
I¡¯ve always wanted to know more about Russian history and when I saw this as part of the buy one get one half price at the airport I said let¡¯s gooooo.
Admittedly my knowledge of history is practically nil so it did take me a while to get into the book as there was a decent amount of assumed prior knowledge (I had to keep googling things and rereading passages and flipping back to earlier parts of the book). It was, as promised, a shortened history, and I feel I¡¯ve come away with a good summary of the main events and figures from this period, which is what l was hoping to achieve. I¡¯d need to reread it a second time to actually remember the details but this will do for now. Will be checking out the other books in this series (China is next!!!)
Admittedly my knowledge of history is practically nil so it did take me a while to get into the book as there was a decent amount of assumed prior knowledge (I had to keep googling things and rereading passages and flipping back to earlier parts of the book). It was, as promised, a shortened history, and I feel I¡¯ve come away with a good summary of the main events and figures from this period, which is what l was hoping to achieve. I¡¯d need to reread it a second time to actually remember the details but this will do for now. Will be checking out the other books in this series (China is next!!!)
May 8, 2023
A good, succinct overview of the complex history of the Soviet Union. I wish there more explanations of some of the technical language as it pertains to USSR history and less of an assumption that the reader had preexisting knowledge.
April 3, 2023
i loved carrying this around in public ! (this is sarcasm)
February 5, 2025
A delightful, brisk overview¡ª O curiosity, you Soviet era.
February 6, 2023
Mercifully free of both military details and cliches about totalitarianism.
December 23, 2022
First encountered Fitzpatrick in the endnotes of Hobsbawm. If I remember correctly she was one of the most cited scholars when Hobsbawm was discussing the Soviet Union in Age of Extremes. I bookmarked Everyday Stalinism to read but have not yet gotten around to it.
I think I¡¯ve encountered most of this stuff in this book before, but it¡¯s nice to work through a lot of it in this concisely formatted way. It¡¯s basically pre-revolutionary context, revolution, Lenin, Stalin, WW2, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and collapse. I still struggle to organize this history in my head well in a way that I could hold a substantive conversation on it. But I find this history very interesting. Most of my remarks from here on will move unsystematically through the book, largely by way of excerpts.
Fitzpatrick does unequivocally state she sees the famine in Ukraine known as ¡®Holodomor¡¯ (reinterpreted as genocide by Ukrainians according to Fitzpatrick) not as a deliberate plan by Stalin to starve Ukrainians but a failure of the way collectivisation was executed. She mainly thinks so because there were famines of equal order during this time in other parts of the Soviet Union like southern Russia and Kazakhstan. The issue for Fitzpatrick was that the state was trying to maximize grain exports from peasant producers but there was very poor quality information and local officials never trusted quantities reported by peasants. They were perpetually suspicious that peasants were hiding grain in secret reserves. Stalin eventually did come to generally believe peasant-reported numbers but by then it was too late, and many people had already died.
Fitzpatrick also elaborates on the really horrible conditions that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, noting that: ¡°Margaret Thatcher, scarcely a friend of socialists, declared that she liked Gorbachev and they could do business together.¡±
Another illuminating comment by Fitzpatrick on this period of collapse:
¡°Gorbachev thought that he had secured verbal assurances from German foreign minister Kohl and US secretary of state James Baker that US-led NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe in the wake of the unravelling of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, not even into a newly unified Germany. Perhaps he had, but Gorbachev should have remembered never to trust the capitalists ¨C and, as a lawyer, he should have known that you get your assurances in writing. By October 1990, the former German Democratic Republic was absorbed into the Federal Republic of Germany and became, ipso facto, a part of NATO.¡±
This is also an interesting overview of public perception of ¡®western democracy¡¯ in Russia in the 90s:
¡°No more than a fifth of respondents to opinion polls in the 1990s thought that Russia would benefit from ¡®democracy¡¯ in its Western forms, and observation of post-Soviet political practice generated widespread negative reactions to the word itself, along with ¡®freedom¡¯ and ¡®elections¡¯. In response to a 1999 poll asking Russians which of thirteen variables were most important to them, ¡®democracy¡¯ came in second last, less popular than any of the options except ¡®freedom of entrepreneurship¡¯. Top choices were ¡®stability¡¯ and ¡®social welfare¡¯.¡±
Finally I just wanted to leave this interesting comment on an interesting shift in Western academic scholarship on the Soviet Union that Fitzpatrick makes much earlier on in the book, which I think outlived the Soviet Union¡¯s collapse in some ways:
¡°The West had made a totalitarian bogeyman out of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, equating Communism with Nazism as the antithesis of Western democracy, and one of the tenets of this theory was that a totalitarian regime, once in place, was immutable and could be overthrown only by external force. But that idea seemed less plausible when, after Stalin¡¯s death, the regime not only failed to collapse but also showed itself capable of radical change. By 1980, ¡®totalitarianism¡¯, although remaining a powerful and emotive image for the Western public, had lost its appeal for scholars, American political scientists Stephen F. Cohen and Jerry Hough being among its challengers. Even in conservative quarters, hopes that had been cherished for more than sixty years about the imminent collapse of the Soviet regime were being quietly abandoned.¡±
I think I¡¯ve encountered most of this stuff in this book before, but it¡¯s nice to work through a lot of it in this concisely formatted way. It¡¯s basically pre-revolutionary context, revolution, Lenin, Stalin, WW2, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and collapse. I still struggle to organize this history in my head well in a way that I could hold a substantive conversation on it. But I find this history very interesting. Most of my remarks from here on will move unsystematically through the book, largely by way of excerpts.
Fitzpatrick does unequivocally state she sees the famine in Ukraine known as ¡®Holodomor¡¯ (reinterpreted as genocide by Ukrainians according to Fitzpatrick) not as a deliberate plan by Stalin to starve Ukrainians but a failure of the way collectivisation was executed. She mainly thinks so because there were famines of equal order during this time in other parts of the Soviet Union like southern Russia and Kazakhstan. The issue for Fitzpatrick was that the state was trying to maximize grain exports from peasant producers but there was very poor quality information and local officials never trusted quantities reported by peasants. They were perpetually suspicious that peasants were hiding grain in secret reserves. Stalin eventually did come to generally believe peasant-reported numbers but by then it was too late, and many people had already died.
Fitzpatrick also elaborates on the really horrible conditions that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, noting that: ¡°Margaret Thatcher, scarcely a friend of socialists, declared that she liked Gorbachev and they could do business together.¡±
Another illuminating comment by Fitzpatrick on this period of collapse:
¡°Gorbachev thought that he had secured verbal assurances from German foreign minister Kohl and US secretary of state James Baker that US-led NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe in the wake of the unravelling of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, not even into a newly unified Germany. Perhaps he had, but Gorbachev should have remembered never to trust the capitalists ¨C and, as a lawyer, he should have known that you get your assurances in writing. By October 1990, the former German Democratic Republic was absorbed into the Federal Republic of Germany and became, ipso facto, a part of NATO.¡±
This is also an interesting overview of public perception of ¡®western democracy¡¯ in Russia in the 90s:
¡°No more than a fifth of respondents to opinion polls in the 1990s thought that Russia would benefit from ¡®democracy¡¯ in its Western forms, and observation of post-Soviet political practice generated widespread negative reactions to the word itself, along with ¡®freedom¡¯ and ¡®elections¡¯. In response to a 1999 poll asking Russians which of thirteen variables were most important to them, ¡®democracy¡¯ came in second last, less popular than any of the options except ¡®freedom of entrepreneurship¡¯. Top choices were ¡®stability¡¯ and ¡®social welfare¡¯.¡±
Finally I just wanted to leave this interesting comment on an interesting shift in Western academic scholarship on the Soviet Union that Fitzpatrick makes much earlier on in the book, which I think outlived the Soviet Union¡¯s collapse in some ways:
¡°The West had made a totalitarian bogeyman out of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, equating Communism with Nazism as the antithesis of Western democracy, and one of the tenets of this theory was that a totalitarian regime, once in place, was immutable and could be overthrown only by external force. But that idea seemed less plausible when, after Stalin¡¯s death, the regime not only failed to collapse but also showed itself capable of radical change. By 1980, ¡®totalitarianism¡¯, although remaining a powerful and emotive image for the Western public, had lost its appeal for scholars, American political scientists Stephen F. Cohen and Jerry Hough being among its challengers. Even in conservative quarters, hopes that had been cherished for more than sixty years about the imminent collapse of the Soviet regime were being quietly abandoned.¡±
November 24, 2024
Speedy, zippy, succinct. Focused a lot on the leaders rather than from below life in the Union. I'd have preferred a bit more of that but this book had a job to do and it did it.
April 22, 2024
"I'd rather have 100 friends than 100 roubles"
March 19, 2022
Fitzpatrick does a nice job giving a succinct historical narrative of the Soviet Union's history, from the Russian Revolution through its fall. I was a little ambivalent that such a detailed and complex history could be told in less than 200 pages, but she is able to pull it off well. The biggest strength of the book is Fitzpatrick's ability to deftly explain the Russian Revolution and the rise of socialism in Russia, both on the theoretical and political organizing side. It's a great place to start learning this history, and I would recommend to several students who want to learn more about it but don't want to be overwhelmed by academic scholarship.
December 15, 2023
Short and concise. However was more focused on its leaders than the nation and its people
Was a bit dry, like a typical Russian.
Was a bit dry, like a typical Russian.
August 19, 2022
What it says on the label. Love these shortest histories from Black Inc. They provide quick, digestible context for a lot of the current conflict that is happening in the world. And some of us had half arsed educations, especially in history, that leaves us short on completely understanding the world we occupy.
Also, I mentioned this in my reading update, but even though I watched the Death of Stalin, I was for some completely unreasonable reason, under the impression that Stalin lived and ruled for far longer than he did? Funny how our brain just makes up things.
Informative.
Also, I mentioned this in my reading update, but even though I watched the Death of Stalin, I was for some completely unreasonable reason, under the impression that Stalin lived and ruled for far longer than he did? Funny how our brain just makes up things.
Informative.
May 29, 2023
I am probably not the right audience for this I don¡¯t know why I bought a beginners book on this topic I am not a beginner. Did relearn some things I¡¯d forgotten though
June 23, 2022
On February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine. Two days before, Vladimir Putin gave his version of history during a speech in which he declared Ukraine "an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space." He blamed Lenin for the establishment of modern Ukraine, with further gifts of land by Stalin and Khrushchev. But rather than believe an unhinged thug, why not read an account of history not fabricated by someone trying to justify a disgusting and doomed war?
The book spans the years 1922 to 1991, but Fitzpatrick begins in 1980 in Brezhnev's USSR, when a conference of American Sovietologists confidently declared that the Soviet Union would not become a political democracy, nor would it collapse in the foreseeable future. They were wrong. Within ten years it was gone. The abruptness of this development reflects Fitzpatrick's view that there are few certainties throughout history (certainly in the Soviet Union, and perhaps in general):
"Historians¡¯ narratives tend, by their nature, to make events seem inevitable¡. But this is not my intention with this Shortest History. My view is that there are as few inevitabilities in human history as there are in the individual lives that compose it. Things could always have turned out differently but for accidental encounters and global cataclysms, deaths, divorces and pandemics...."
"The many ¡®accidental¡¯ changes of course and ¡®spontaneous¡¯ diversions along the way were simply irrelevant to this grand scheme, although they will play a large part in my Shortest History. They were not irrelevant to the life of people living in the Soviet Union, of course, and the gap between official rhetoric and lived experience was the stuff of the distinctively Soviet genre of political jokes (anekdoty) that bubbled under the surface as a constant, irreverent commentary. The contrast between ¡®in principle¡¯ (a stock Soviet phrase provoking immediate distrust, like ¡®frankly¡¯ in the West) and ¡®in practice¡¯ was one of the staples of the Soviet anekdot." (pp. 11, 13)
There are seven chapters in the book, and then a conclusion. As the title indicates, the book is about the Soviet Union, not the Tsarist Russia that preceded it, and it goes up to the fall of the Soviet Union. The conclusion is about post-USSR events. Fitzpatrick has an eye for detail and a wry sense of humor that shines through even in politics-heavy discussions, and it makes for an enjoyable read even for those who are not Russia-specialists. Definitely worth adding to the TBR.
Thank you to the publishers and NetGalley for the opportunity to review a temporary digital ARC in exchange for an unbiased review.
The book spans the years 1922 to 1991, but Fitzpatrick begins in 1980 in Brezhnev's USSR, when a conference of American Sovietologists confidently declared that the Soviet Union would not become a political democracy, nor would it collapse in the foreseeable future. They were wrong. Within ten years it was gone. The abruptness of this development reflects Fitzpatrick's view that there are few certainties throughout history (certainly in the Soviet Union, and perhaps in general):
"Historians¡¯ narratives tend, by their nature, to make events seem inevitable¡. But this is not my intention with this Shortest History. My view is that there are as few inevitabilities in human history as there are in the individual lives that compose it. Things could always have turned out differently but for accidental encounters and global cataclysms, deaths, divorces and pandemics...."
"The many ¡®accidental¡¯ changes of course and ¡®spontaneous¡¯ diversions along the way were simply irrelevant to this grand scheme, although they will play a large part in my Shortest History. They were not irrelevant to the life of people living in the Soviet Union, of course, and the gap between official rhetoric and lived experience was the stuff of the distinctively Soviet genre of political jokes (anekdoty) that bubbled under the surface as a constant, irreverent commentary. The contrast between ¡®in principle¡¯ (a stock Soviet phrase provoking immediate distrust, like ¡®frankly¡¯ in the West) and ¡®in practice¡¯ was one of the staples of the Soviet anekdot." (pp. 11, 13)
There are seven chapters in the book, and then a conclusion. As the title indicates, the book is about the Soviet Union, not the Tsarist Russia that preceded it, and it goes up to the fall of the Soviet Union. The conclusion is about post-USSR events. Fitzpatrick has an eye for detail and a wry sense of humor that shines through even in politics-heavy discussions, and it makes for an enjoyable read even for those who are not Russia-specialists. Definitely worth adding to the TBR.
Thank you to the publishers and NetGalley for the opportunity to review a temporary digital ARC in exchange for an unbiased review.
November 28, 2024
SSCB tarihinin ba??ndan sonuna, liderler ve d?nemleri a??s?ndan ele alan kronolojik bir ?al??ma. Spesifik olarak Sovyet tarihinin tamam?n? ele alan T¨¹rk?e'ye ?evrilmi? neredeyse ba?ka hi?bir eser olmamas? nedeniyle, ?u an i?in okunabilecek tek kaynak gibi duruyor. Genel Rusya tarihi kitaplar? i?indeki ilgili b?l¨¹mlere de ku?kusuz bak?labilir.
Kitap bence olduk?a ?zet nitelikte ve ?zellikle ??z¨¹l¨¹? s¨¹recinin dinamikleri hakk?nda sadece olgu ve olaylar? veriyor. S¨¹recin hangi a?amada ??z¨¹l¨¹?e s¨¹r¨¹klendi?i ve eski SSCB liderli?inin nelerin sonucunda kapitalist ideolojiyi benimsedi?i hakk?nda hi?bir veri veya g?r¨¹? sunmuyor. Bu bence ciddi bir bo?luk.
Ayn? yazar?n Rus Devrimi hakk?ndaki ?al??mas?n? ge?ti?imiz aylarda okumu? ve be?enmi?tim. Bu ?al??ma ilk kitab?n gerisinde kal?yor.
?eviri genel olarak iyi olmakla birlikte, b?yle bir kitab?n ?evirmeninin sol k¨¹lt¨¹re a?ina olmas?n? ve "T¨¹m ?ktidar Sovyetlere" slogan?n? do?ru ?evirmesini ¨¹mit etmenin hakk?m?z oldu?una inan?yorum. ?eviri "Sovyetlere Tam G¨¹?" diye yap?lm?? ve olmam??.
Kitap bence olduk?a ?zet nitelikte ve ?zellikle ??z¨¹l¨¹? s¨¹recinin dinamikleri hakk?nda sadece olgu ve olaylar? veriyor. S¨¹recin hangi a?amada ??z¨¹l¨¹?e s¨¹r¨¹klendi?i ve eski SSCB liderli?inin nelerin sonucunda kapitalist ideolojiyi benimsedi?i hakk?nda hi?bir veri veya g?r¨¹? sunmuyor. Bu bence ciddi bir bo?luk.
Ayn? yazar?n Rus Devrimi hakk?ndaki ?al??mas?n? ge?ti?imiz aylarda okumu? ve be?enmi?tim. Bu ?al??ma ilk kitab?n gerisinde kal?yor.
?eviri genel olarak iyi olmakla birlikte, b?yle bir kitab?n ?evirmeninin sol k¨¹lt¨¹re a?ina olmas?n? ve "T¨¹m ?ktidar Sovyetlere" slogan?n? do?ru ?evirmesini ¨¹mit etmenin hakk?m?z oldu?una inan?yorum. ?eviri "Sovyetlere Tam G¨¹?" diye yap?lm?? ve olmam??.
June 27, 2022
Sheila Fitzpatrick, sa?lam k?kleri olan bir sovyetolog. K?sa bir kitapta, SSCB'nin kurulu?u ?ncesinden ba?layarak, y?k?l??? ve Putin'i do?uran s¨¹reci ?zetliyor.
Kitap bir giri? kitab? olarak ?nerilmesi gereken, okuyunca baz? ?eyleri daha derinlemesine ara?t?rmaya y?nlendiren, ¨¹stelik bak?? a??s? anti-sovyetik ya da sovyetik olmad??? i?in bilimsel yakla??mdan uzakla?mam?? bir eser.
Kitab?n T¨¹rk?e bask?s?nda, ?evirmenin, sol s?ylem ve jargona pek hakim olmamas? gibi bir sorunun alt? ?izilebilir. Her yerde de?il ama ?zellikle baz? slogan ve s?ylemlerin T¨¹rk?ele?tirilirken ?evirmenin bu eksikli?inin hissedildi?ini s?yleyebilirim. (?rne?in, Lenin'in [§Ó§ã§ñ §Ó§Ý§Ñ§ã§ä§î §³§à§Ó§Ö§ä§Ñ§Þ] "T¨¹m iktidar sovyetlere" slogan?, "Sovyetlere tam g¨¹?" gibi mekanik bir ?eviri ile kar??m?za ??k?yor.)
Kitap bir giri? kitab? olarak ?nerilmesi gereken, okuyunca baz? ?eyleri daha derinlemesine ara?t?rmaya y?nlendiren, ¨¹stelik bak?? a??s? anti-sovyetik ya da sovyetik olmad??? i?in bilimsel yakla??mdan uzakla?mam?? bir eser.
Kitab?n T¨¹rk?e bask?s?nda, ?evirmenin, sol s?ylem ve jargona pek hakim olmamas? gibi bir sorunun alt? ?izilebilir. Her yerde de?il ama ?zellikle baz? slogan ve s?ylemlerin T¨¹rk?ele?tirilirken ?evirmenin bu eksikli?inin hissedildi?ini s?yleyebilirim. (?rne?in, Lenin'in [§Ó§ã§ñ §Ó§Ý§Ñ§ã§ä§î §³§à§Ó§Ö§ä§Ñ§Þ] "T¨¹m iktidar sovyetlere" slogan?, "Sovyetlere tam g¨¹?" gibi mekanik bir ?eviri ile kar??m?za ??k?yor.)
January 9, 2023
In a world where specialized research has reached absurd levels and everything has become discursive, we badly need historians who will tell us an answer to the old fashioned question - "what happened?". And we need historians who can draw the big picture, write a meaningful narrative based on secondary sources, without forgetting the most important attribute of the old-fashioned scholar - balance of judgement. I know I am sounding like a man from the modern era, which is of course now the "medieval" era ("Oh my God, look he is modern!"). Anyway, jokes apart, this is a terrific book. Go for it.
August 1, 2024
С²á×Ó·Ò»·£¬µÄÈ·¾õµÃ±«³§³§¸éµÄµØ°åÊDZʸé°äµÄÌ컨°å¡£¡°ÎªµÞÔìºÍά³ÖËÕÁª¶øÁ÷ÁË´óÁ¿µÄѪ¡ª¡ªÓÐÀíÏëÖ÷ÒåÕßµÄѪ£¬ÓÐÁ÷Ã¥ºÍÒ°ÐļҵÄѪ£¬µ«Á÷×î¶àѪµÄÊÇÖ»¹ØÐÄÉú´æµÄÆÕͨÈË¡£¡±
1. ºì¾ü±È°×¾üÄÜÕ÷µ½¸ü¶àµÄ±øÊÇÒòΪũÃñ¼ÓÈëºì¾ü±È½ÏËæÒ⣬¶øÇÒÄÚÕ½²¢²»ÑªÐÈûÓÐÏŵ¹ÕâЩׯ¼Úºº¡£¶ø°×¾ü²»½ÓµØÆø+ÐÔ¼¹ú¸øµÄÎï×ʲ»¹»µ«È´¼¤·¢Á˶í¹úÃñÖÚ¶Ô¡°¾³ÍâÊÆÁ¦¡±µÄ·´¸Ð£»
2. ×îÔçµÄ¡°ÎÄ»¯¸ïÃü¡±ÓÉ˹´óÁÖ·¢Æð£¬ÖйúÊÇѧÉú¾¾¶·Ñ§ÊõȨÍþ£¬ËÕÁªÊǹ¤È˾¾¶·µÂ¸ßÍûÖع¤³Ìʦ¡£ºìС½«¹²ÇàÍÅÖ÷ÒªÓÃÀ´´ò»÷×Ú½ÌÊÆÁ¦£¬È»¶ø¡°¶í‡øÞrÃñÔڽ̕þÊܵ½ß@·N¹¥“ôÒÔÇ°Œ¦»ù¶½µÄÐÅÑöÓжàÉîÊÇ¿É ŽÕ“µÄ£¬µ«ÆȺ¦”àÈ»¼ÓŠÁËËû‚ƒµÄÐÅÑö¡±£»
3. ¶ÔÓÚ֪ʶ·Ö×Ó£¬ÈýÊ®Äê´úÕþÖοֲÀ±ÈÄÉ´âµÂ¹ú»¹¿ÉÅ¡£´óÇåÏ´ÊÇûÓеÐÈËÈ´ÒªÔÚÄÚ²¿ÕÒµ½µÐÈË£¬Ï£ÌØÀյijöÏÖÈÃËûÃÇÓÐÁËÕæÕýµÄµÐÈË£»
4. ¡°Ç«Ñ·¡±µÄ˹´óÁÖ¡ª¡ª£¨¶þսʤÀûºó£©ËûÔÚ¿ËÀïÄ·ÁÖŒm¸æÔVһȺ܊ÊÂŒ¢îI£¬ÓÐèaì¶ËûÔçÇ°Ëù·¸µÄåeÕ`ºÍµÂ‡øÈËŒ¦ß@‚€‡ø¼ÒºÜ¶àµØ·½µÄÕ¼îI£¬¡¸“Q³ÉÁíÒ»ÅúÈËÃñµÄÔ’£¬Ëû‚ƒÒ²ÔS•þŒ¦Õþ¸®Õf£º¡ºÄãÓÐØ“ÎÒ‚ƒµÄËùÍû£¬L°É£¬ÎÒ‚ƒŒ¢•þ³ÉÁ¢ÁíÒ»‚€Õþ¸®¡£¡»¡¡µ«ÎÒ‚ƒµÄÌK“ÈËÃñ£¬ÌØ„eÊǶíÁ_˹ÈËÃñ£¬K›]ÓÐÄǘÓ×ö¡£¡¹ÒÔëyµÃµÄÖtßd£¬Ê·ß_ÁÖÏò¶íÁ_˹ÈËÃñ×£¾Æ£¬±íʾ¸ÐÖxËû‚ƒµÄ¡¸ÐÅÙ‡¡¹£»
5. ±´ÀûÑÇÊÇΪ˹´óÁÖʱ´ú·ÆªµÄÌæ×ïÑò£¬ÀàËÆËÄÈË°ïÖ®ÓÚÎĸ¡ª£¨ºÕ³Ïþ·òµÈÁìµ¼ÈË£©Òª±Üé_ÄÇ‚€¼¬ÊֵĆ–î}£ºËû‚ƒºÍËû‚ƒµÄÅfÀÏé›Ê·ß_ÁÖÊÇʲüNêP‚S£¿Ëû‚ƒºÍÊ·ß_ÁÖµÄѪÐȽyÖÎÊÇʲüNêP‚S£¿³ýµôØÀû†ÓÐÖú춽â›Qß@‚€†–î}£¬Òòžé×öžé±£°²î^×Ó£¬Ëû¿ÉÒÔ±»áh»¯žéÊ·ß_ÁÖµÄаº½ÌËôÕߣ¬×ŒËûžé¿Ö²ÀÐЄÓؓ؟¡£²»ß^ºÜëy°Ñ¼¯ów»¯µÄß^»ðÒ²šw¾Ì½oËû£¬ÒòžéËû®”†ÌÖΆ•øÓ›•rÔø½›³É¹¦´óÁ¦ÒÖÖƼ¯ów»¯£»Ò²ºÜëy°Ñ´óÇåÏ´šw¾Ì½oËû£¬ÒòžéËûÊÇÔÚ´óÇåÏ´¿ì½YÊøÖ®•r²Å±»Õ{µ½ÄªË¹¿ÆÊÕÊ°ÉÆáá¡£
6. ²ªÁÐÈÕÄù·òʱÆÚµÄÈ··¦Î¶£¬ËÕÁªÉç»áÑÏÖØÒÀÀµºÚÊо¼Ãά³ÖÕý³£ÔËת£¬¶øºÚÊаéËæן¯°ÜºÍ·¸×ÔÚµÚ¶þ½›úówØœÙuµÄÉÌƷͨ³£ÊÇĵÚÒ»½›úówÍµí£©
1. ºì¾ü±È°×¾üÄÜÕ÷µ½¸ü¶àµÄ±øÊÇÒòΪũÃñ¼ÓÈëºì¾ü±È½ÏËæÒ⣬¶øÇÒÄÚÕ½²¢²»ÑªÐÈûÓÐÏŵ¹ÕâЩׯ¼Úºº¡£¶ø°×¾ü²»½ÓµØÆø+ÐÔ¼¹ú¸øµÄÎï×ʲ»¹»µ«È´¼¤·¢Á˶í¹úÃñÖÚ¶Ô¡°¾³ÍâÊÆÁ¦¡±µÄ·´¸Ð£»
2. ×îÔçµÄ¡°ÎÄ»¯¸ïÃü¡±ÓÉ˹´óÁÖ·¢Æð£¬ÖйúÊÇѧÉú¾¾¶·Ñ§ÊõȨÍþ£¬ËÕÁªÊǹ¤È˾¾¶·µÂ¸ßÍûÖع¤³Ìʦ¡£ºìС½«¹²ÇàÍÅÖ÷ÒªÓÃÀ´´ò»÷×Ú½ÌÊÆÁ¦£¬È»¶ø¡°¶í‡øÞrÃñÔڽ̕þÊܵ½ß@·N¹¥“ôÒÔÇ°Œ¦»ù¶½µÄÐÅÑöÓжàÉîÊÇ¿É ŽÕ“µÄ£¬µ«ÆȺ¦”àÈ»¼ÓŠÁËËû‚ƒµÄÐÅÑö¡±£»
3. ¶ÔÓÚ֪ʶ·Ö×Ó£¬ÈýÊ®Äê´úÕþÖοֲÀ±ÈÄÉ´âµÂ¹ú»¹¿ÉÅ¡£´óÇåÏ´ÊÇûÓеÐÈËÈ´ÒªÔÚÄÚ²¿ÕÒµ½µÐÈË£¬Ï£ÌØÀյijöÏÖÈÃËûÃÇÓÐÁËÕæÕýµÄµÐÈË£»
4. ¡°Ç«Ñ·¡±µÄ˹´óÁÖ¡ª¡ª£¨¶þսʤÀûºó£©ËûÔÚ¿ËÀïÄ·ÁÖŒm¸æÔVһȺ܊ÊÂŒ¢îI£¬ÓÐèaì¶ËûÔçÇ°Ëù·¸µÄåeÕ`ºÍµÂ‡øÈËŒ¦ß@‚€‡ø¼ÒºÜ¶àµØ·½µÄÕ¼îI£¬¡¸“Q³ÉÁíÒ»ÅúÈËÃñµÄÔ’£¬Ëû‚ƒÒ²ÔS•þŒ¦Õþ¸®Õf£º¡ºÄãÓÐØ“ÎÒ‚ƒµÄËùÍû£¬L°É£¬ÎÒ‚ƒŒ¢•þ³ÉÁ¢ÁíÒ»‚€Õþ¸®¡£¡»¡¡µ«ÎÒ‚ƒµÄÌK“ÈËÃñ£¬ÌØ„eÊǶíÁ_˹ÈËÃñ£¬K›]ÓÐÄǘÓ×ö¡£¡¹ÒÔëyµÃµÄÖtßd£¬Ê·ß_ÁÖÏò¶íÁ_˹ÈËÃñ×£¾Æ£¬±íʾ¸ÐÖxËû‚ƒµÄ¡¸ÐÅÙ‡¡¹£»
5. ±´ÀûÑÇÊÇΪ˹´óÁÖʱ´ú·ÆªµÄÌæ×ïÑò£¬ÀàËÆËÄÈË°ïÖ®ÓÚÎĸ¡ª£¨ºÕ³Ïþ·òµÈÁìµ¼ÈË£©Òª±Üé_ÄÇ‚€¼¬ÊֵĆ–î}£ºËû‚ƒºÍËû‚ƒµÄÅfÀÏé›Ê·ß_ÁÖÊÇʲüNêP‚S£¿Ëû‚ƒºÍÊ·ß_ÁÖµÄѪÐȽyÖÎÊÇʲüNêP‚S£¿³ýµôØÀû†ÓÐÖú춽â›Qß@‚€†–î}£¬Òòžé×öžé±£°²î^×Ó£¬Ëû¿ÉÒÔ±»áh»¯žéÊ·ß_ÁÖµÄаº½ÌËôÕߣ¬×ŒËûžé¿Ö²ÀÐЄÓؓ؟¡£²»ß^ºÜëy°Ñ¼¯ów»¯µÄß^»ðÒ²šw¾Ì½oËû£¬ÒòžéËû®”†ÌÖΆ•øÓ›•rÔø½›³É¹¦´óÁ¦ÒÖÖƼ¯ów»¯£»Ò²ºÜëy°Ñ´óÇåÏ´šw¾Ì½oËû£¬ÒòžéËûÊÇÔÚ´óÇåÏ´¿ì½YÊøÖ®•r²Å±»Õ{µ½ÄªË¹¿ÆÊÕÊ°ÉÆáá¡£
6. ²ªÁÐÈÕÄù·òʱÆÚµÄÈ··¦Î¶£¬ËÕÁªÉç»áÑÏÖØÒÀÀµºÚÊо¼Ãά³ÖÕý³£ÔËת£¬¶øºÚÊаéËæן¯°ÜºÍ·¸×ÔÚµÚ¶þ½›úówØœÙuµÄÉÌƷͨ³£ÊÇĵÚÒ»½›úówÍµí£©
November 24, 2024
Una panoramica sulla storia dell'Unione Sovietica, utile per chi come me ¨¨ molto ignorante, ma che non mi sentirei proprio di consigliare a chi gi¨¤ un po' conosce la sua storia, e tanto meno a chi volesse approfondire.
E' insomma un punto di partenza, che riesce a dare un'idea di massima su che cos'era l'URSS, pur con alcuni passaggi poco chiari (ad esempio, non ho capito come ha fatto Stalin ad ottenere il potere).
E' insomma un punto di partenza, che riesce a dare un'idea di massima su che cos'era l'URSS, pur con alcuni passaggi poco chiari (ad esempio, non ho capito come ha fatto Stalin ad ottenere il potere).
June 2, 2023
I wanted a brief overview, but then I got frustrated by important events that were overlooked. You cant have it both ways, I suppose! This wasn¡¯t particularly dry, but for a book that sells itself as being ¡°read in a day¡±, it was surprisingly hard going.
This book was rather more balanced and even-handed than many of the others that I¡¯ve read.
This book was rather more balanced and even-handed than many of the others that I¡¯ve read.
March 3, 2024
This book is exactly what it says on the cover: a short overview of a long and complicated history of the Soviet Union. The writing is engaging, all of the most crucial events and people are covered although a certain degree of familiarity with the topic can really come in handy from time to time.
This is not a textbook so the author does bring her own interpretation and understanding of the events but for the most part manages to keep a relatively neutral tone.
This book is by no means a comprehensive retelling or an analysis of the entire Soviet Era but can be a excellent, easy to read introduction to the topic if you don't want to spend too much time going through other more focused works.
This is not a textbook so the author does bring her own interpretation and understanding of the events but for the most part manages to keep a relatively neutral tone.
This book is by no means a comprehensive retelling or an analysis of the entire Soviet Era but can be a excellent, easy to read introduction to the topic if you don't want to spend too much time going through other more focused works.
April 1, 2022
This book offers an excellent overview of the entirety of soviet history. I was looking for a book to freshen up but never knew were to begin. It covers the important events chronicling its story from the beginning to end. You can use this to dip your toes and then read up on subjects individually for further detail. Its a perfect starter for those who don't know much at all about the Soviet Union.
The writing itself is fluid and easy to digest.
I just wish it had a more elaborate cover. This one is too bland!
The writing itself is fluid and easy to digest.
I just wish it had a more elaborate cover. This one is too bland!
May 18, 2022
A great introduction to the history of the Soviet Union. Very easy to read and understand. Peaked my interest to look into some areas further. With all that is currently going on in the world, it's vital that we understand the Russian people better.
June 6, 2023
A good read on the whole. I think it's between read in a day (which is unlikely) and going into detail on some things. Regardless, so long as you're familiar with the concepts so heavily linked with Soviet times, itll be a fun read
Displaying 1 - 30 of 155 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.