Russian Civil War, the

by Evan Mawdsley

The Russian Civil War of 1917-1920, out of which the Soviet Union was born, was one of the most significant events of the twentieth century. The collapse of the Tsarist regime and the failure of the Kerensky Provisional Government nearly led to the complete disintegration of the Russian state.

This book, however, is not simply the story of that collapse and the rebellion that accompanied it, but of the painful and costly reconstruction of Russian power under a Soviet regime. Evan Mawdsley's lucid account of this vast and complex subject explains in detail the power struggles and political maneuvers of the war, providing a balanced analysis of why the Communists were victors.

Genres: History, Russia, Russian History, Military History, War, Russian Revolution, Nonfiction

403 pages, Paperback

First published July 1, 1987

About the author

Evan Mawdsley is Professor of International History at Glasgow University. He has written numerous books and articles on Russian history and is the co-author of The Soviet Elite from Lenin to Gorbachev. He lives in Glasgow.

Reviews

[Ian · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was inspired to learn more about the Russian Civil War after watching "The Red and the White"—a Hungarian film circa 1965 which is a fictionalized account of Hungarians who volunteered in the international contingent of the Red Army. Apparently a large number of Hungarians volunteered to fight for the Reds, hoping that a Red victory would speed a communist revolution in their own country. The film was shot in black-and-white and all in Russian and Hungarian, with subtitles (though not everything was translated). The point of the film was the pointlessness of the war ... the massive loss of life, much of it innocent life ... and for what?

So like I say I wanted to learn more and I picked up this book at the library. Unfortunately I wasn't able to finish it. Well, okay, I was ABLE to finish it but I didn't WANT to finish it.

The book isn't so bad, really. The writing is informative and gives a reasonably smooth presentation. The way the author organized the information has bothered some people but there's a method to his madness. I think organizing the Russian Civil War in a way that pleases everybody is an impossible task. The war wasn't such a straightforward affair; a purely chronological presentation would not relate the true "story" of the people living (and dying) in that place and time. So the author does his best to blend a chronological perspective with regional and political perspectives. There is a lot of chronological overlap in his presentation but he effectively relates complete stories of each region and phase in the war. The major personalities in the war have their stories told, and not separately but weaves onto the telling of the war's various political and military campaigns. This book is not—and does not claim to be—a biography of any sort, so don't expect to find extensive personal backstories on the major or minor players. The auhor tells you what you need to know about the individuals to understand the parts they played. This is, after all, a history of the war, so personal stories are ancillary.

The book is full of interesting details and stories. And that's exactly why I decided not to read the whole thing: it is FULL of interesting stuff. This book is DENSE, and halfway through I felt like I had my fill of the Russian Civil War. I'd had enough of the political machinations and backstabbing, of competing philosophies and alliances. I'd read plenty about battles and commanders and creating effective fighting forces out of rag-tag remnant leftovers from the Tsar's beaten army. I'd digested plenty of stories about suffering and atarving populations. Basically I learned enough to satisfy my new-found (but not especially passionate) interest in a key period of 20th-century history. I feel like I have a good handle on the war from the October 1917 Bolshevik revolution through the end of 1918, a year of victories and defeats for both sides. I don't know much about how the war progressed through 1919 and 1920, but I figure I can always get the book from the library again when I get another hankerin' to read about the pointless suffering and death that was the Russian Civil War.

[Eric Murphy · Rating 2 out of 5]

A decent overview of the main campaigns, dynamics, and personalities of the 1917-20 period in Russia. Told from an unapologetically Western and anti-Bolshevik perspective which certainly colors the analysis.

Mawdsley routinely contradicts his own commentary with the (good) information he presents. He will say something like Bolshevik propaganda causing desertions in the White Army wasn't much of a factor--then quote a White general saying it was one of the major factors leading to defeat. He says not much should be made of Allied intervention, then provides 1919 figures showing that the Allies provided 12,000 machine guns, 400,000 rifles, and 800 million rounds of ammunition to the White Army across multiple fronts, more than the entire Soviet state produced in all of 1919.

Like in most Western accounts, Bolshevism is presented here as an infectious disease, some sort of frothing mania that causes people to hate democracy and love evil, rather than a historical current of thought and action that enjoyed large popular support throughout Russia during and after this period, winning legitimacy through deed and word over the course of two revolutions and a civil war. The author wants to fight and discredit the concept instead of understanding it. His immaturity and lack of nuance means he does a lot of work to set up the White Army as the force for democracy against the despotic, totalitarian Reds. Then has to detail how on one front the Whites invited a prince to be ruler, bringing back literal monarchy. On not one but two *other* fronts, what began as socialist (Left SR) governments resisting the Bolsheviks changed via coup into unpopular conservative military dictatorships. So much for fighting for democracy I guess. Not only did this alienate the population, 85% of whom the author shows voted for socialist parties of various stripes, it pushed the center and center-left back to the side of the Bolsheviks.

The author never directly says so, but reading the facts of the case makes clear that the Whites were defeated because they were an unpopular zombie army with no popular base or really much purpose, propped up by Allied supplies and money, fighting against a very broadly popular government with extremely committed strategists, soldiers, and workers. As Mawdsley says, the Whites were "a movement of property owners and [military] officers." The popular support for the Bolsheviks' ideas and programs led directly to their eventual numerical advantage over the Whites. But that is just not as fun as saying Bolshevism was an illegitimate, unpopular, antidemocratic, incompetent personality cult ruled with an iron fist. I found the discussions outside of ideology and propaganda more illuminating, like how the Reds adopted so much of the Tsarist administrative state and former military officers to keep their capacity up during the most critical periods.

The book is worthwhile for an overall orientation to this period, which I needed, but I am confident there are much more intelligent analyses out there, even coming from the Western conventional wisdom perspective.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good history but it is a older history, written when the Soviet Union was still in existence, it didn't actually fall until 1991 and this book was first published in 1987 so a great of the research and writing was probably done earlier. That doesn't make it bad, or wrong, just from a different era. I think things written closer to the end or just after the end of communism are more problematic then much older books. It is difficult to say what should be read but I would suggest rather then this books a first time reader might start with literature:

'The White Guard' by Mikhail Bulgakov because I do not know of better introduction the sheer complexity of the civil war in Ukraine.

Then there are the memoirs which as also works of literature:

'Cursed Days: Diary of a Revolution' by Ivan Bunin

'Red Cavalry' by Isaac Babel (many would say that Babel's stories are really fiction but I place him as a balance to Bunin)

'A Sentimental Journey: Memoirs, 1917-1922' by Victor Shklovsky

'The Story of a Life' by Konstantin Paustovsky

If I were to discuss these few memoirs in minimal detail I would overwhelm this review. I don't say you need to read all or any of them only that they are very good.

As for straight history:

'The White Generals: The White Movement and the Russian Civil War' by Richard Luckett. Although published in 1971 it is an excellent, readable history of the Civil War and Intervention across what had been the Russian Empire and in many ways is still an excellent introduction to all theatres of that vast war.

'Russia: Revolution and Civil War 1917-1921' by Antony Beevor. This is the most recent history and, although I haven't read it yet, one that I would recommend in place of Mawdsley's book.

Finally, avoid like the plague:

'A Nasty Little War: The Western Fight to Reverse the Russian Revolution' by Anna Reid. It has been highly praised but is truly awful.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

In many ways, reading this book is sort of like the opposite experience of reading about the experience of the American or Spanish or Finnish Civil Wars, for example. In those latter two examples, the good guys won, and there may have been a bit of messiness about the result and the experience of the winners, but all the same however frustrating the narrative starts out, everything turns out alright in the end. The Russian Civil War, like the Chinese Civil War, is a case where that, alas, did not happen, and it is in large part for that reason that I have read far fewer books on the subject. The general unhappiness of the ending in a Russia that was imprisoned for decades within a corrupt and violent Soviet state aside, though, there are certainly lessons that can be learned from any civil war, no matter how unpleasant the ending or how deadly the war itself, and that is certainly the case for the Russian Civil War, which is discussed quite thoughtfully in this volume by someone who has thought about why things happened the way that they did and how it was that the Soviets were at length able to exploit their logistical strengths to overcome various weaknesses and the fierceness of their enemies.

Like many books on civil wars, this one is divided into chronological fashion, by year. So it is that after a short section with a glossary and abbreviations, the author begins with 1918 as the year of decision (I), where the Bolsheviks took over in Central Russia (1), the railways spread the revolution (2), Russia was forced to make a brutal peace with the Central Powers (3), the allies intervened against the Germans (4), and various campaigns were fought in the Volga (5), Soviet Zone (6), Ukraine (7) and other Cossack areas, and Siberia and the Urals (8). The author then discusses the year of the Whites in 1919 (II) with chapters on the relationship between Soviet Russia and the world (9), Kolchak's offensive (10), Siberia and North Russia (11), South Russia (12), Central Russia (13), and the turning point of Soviet strength (14). After that the author discusses 1920 as the Year of Soviet Victory (III), with chapters on the end of Denilkin (15), the fighting in Siberia and Central Asia (16), the consolidation of Soviet power in Central Russia (17), the Polish Campaign (18), and the mop-up campaign in Crimea (19), after which the author finishes with a conclusion, maps, notes, bibliographies, and index.

In the Russian Civil War, it is of vital importance to remember that the Soviets began with a lot of advantages in having taken over the state apparatus and been able to start early on in building a state and its institutions, all of which their opponents had to take longer to do and did not do nearly as well. That is not even taking into account the sad popularity of their approach by workers and soldiers, at least initially, which gave them their head start in state building and coalition building and training their military and building a political infrastructure, all of which they had a large head start on when compared to their opponents. And that is not even considering the logistical advantages and numerical advantages that they had against their enemies, and their central location relative to various fronts where their opponents sought to advance or hold, all of which presented the Soviets with enough advantages to win even with their various weaknesses (including the weakness of being radical socialists, and thus miserably poor at providing for the well-being of their people). Sometimes one does not have to be perfect to win, only good enough, and that was the case for the Soviets of Russia in the Russian Civil War.

[K · Rating 1 out of 5]

Took me a very long time to get through this. Mawdsley cares more about putting across his "unique perspective" on the date which the civil war _really_ began (which he bluntly draws attention to every 20 pages) than about deeply engaging with the many moving parts of its occurrence.

His blatant lack of impartiality shows through most bizarrely in his repeated argument that the Bolsheviks were simultaneously a terrifying, indestructible military force and also a weak, badly organised collection of armies, made up of soldiers constantly attempting mutiny and lacking any resemblance of unity.

[Rafa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Historia militar de la guerra civil rusa. Se trata de un libro que es aconsejable para aquellas personas que ya tienen una base sobre la Revolución y la posterior guerra civil ya que sin esos conocimientos falta el contexto político y social para entender los acontecimientos que narra.
Si tenemos en cuenta esas limitaciones, el volumen es riguroso y bien documentado, reforzando o complementando los conocimientos aportados por otras obras.

[Askatasuno · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ben escrit i amè. Una bona visió de conjunt de la guerra civil russa de 1917-1922.

[Albert Tapias Planas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Intens resum de la Guerra Civil Russa, massa dens, però interessant d’igual manera.

[Heinz Reinhardt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I must admit that, prior to his book, I knew next to nothing about the Russian Civil War, therefore this review will be bare bones in analysis of the information and far more about the readers impressions.
The Russian Civil War has to rank as one of the most obscenely complex, and chaotic, conflicts of modern times. Not only a war between Communists (Bolsheviks mainly) on one side and Nationalists (the Whites) on the other, it was also a war with an International dimension where several Western Powers and Japan invaded Russia to intervene against the Communists. There was also the dimension of the border states, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Poland, all of them fighting not only against the Communists (sometimes assisted by the Western Powers and even the Germans) but also against the Whites for their independence. In the end all of these save Belarus and Ukraine would gain their independence (with Poland being responsible for the largest, and most dramatic battles of the war in 1920) while the Western Powers and Japan would be forced to retreat, and the Communists would win a bloody, confused victory.
The author points out the non viability of most of the revolutionary rhetoric of the Communists when put into actual practice, very early on true Communist principles were found to be unworkable and unable to succeed. Lenin was not the benign dictator many in academia liken him to, he was actually a rather bloodthirsty tyrant who authorized the Red Terror. And the Whites successes in battle were largely due to the superb Cossacks, many of whom were hoping for an autonomous state of their own.
In the end the Communist/Soviet control over central Russia, what would come to be known as 'Sovdepia' was what garnered the Communists ultimate victory in the war. White strongholds in Siberia, the Caucasus, and in the far north near Murmansk and Arkhangelsk were simply too limited in not only material resources but also human material. The Communists controlled the majority of the population and the resources, and despite a drubbing on the battlefields throughout 1918-1919, emerged victorious.
The Allied intervention (the UK, the USA, France, and Japan) had a limited effect on the war, and only the Japanese engaged in serious operations (marred by massacres on both sides and the turnover of Communists to the Whites who in turn committed bloody massacres of their own). In fact the only foreign intervention that came close to defeating the Communists was that of first the Germans in 1918 and then later in 1920 with the Poles who seized most of Ukraine and Belarus in a search to create a borderlands federation against Russia. The subsequent Communist victory against the Poles at the 16th(!) Battle of Kiev forced the Poles to flee and ensured that Ukraine would remain in Russian hands until 1991. Even if the Red Army was itself smashed at the Battle of the Vistula/Warsaw, it had accomplished its job of ensuring the Poles were kept to their own homelands.
The only bit of data the author seems unable to resolve in this exahustive (if not overly detailed on any one topic) study is the casualties and death toll of the war itself. There are simply too many conflicting reports of battle deaths during the Russian on Russian fighting, the Red Terror and those who died of the rampant starvation and disease the the collapse of Czarist infrastructure brought upon the Russian Empire. Militarily the bloodiest period of the war was the Polish Spring Offensives of 1920 which nearly conquered all of Ukraine and the subsequent Red Army counter-attack which ended in disaster near the Vistula/Warsaw. In this short period (as well as the Polish renewed pursuit offensive which took [again] Minsk) the two sides would suffer 500,000+ military casualties marking it as the bloodiest period of the war even though it took place over a period of a few months. Mawdsley asserts that as many as 7 million people died in Lenin's revolution, either form war, terror and massacre, or of simple starvation and disease brought by the wars collapse of the infrastructure of daily life. Up to this time, it was the worst human catastrophe in European history.
All in all this is an excellent book, however because it covers such a complex, and massive, topic, it never goes into the detail needed to truly give it a real punch. Also the author never goes into any tactical detail of any of the battles, battles are literally mentioned as having occurred, and that's it. Fairly frustrating when the study of how an army fights, or handles defeat, is so important to understanding the course of a war and how that culture makes and endures war.
Overall: highly recommended on a fascinating, important, and obscenely complicated topic. An easy four stars.

[Dimitrii Ivanov · Rating 5 out of 5]

A story of an event (or, arguably, a series of events) of enormous complexity which is told in a clear, balanced, concise and engaging way. The extensive bibliography explains how this was achieved. But seriously, to make no noticeable mistakes in a work like this is a great achievement.

[Emmanuel Gustin · Rating 3 out of 5]

The blurb on the cover announces this as "the best book ever written on the Russian Civil War." If that is true, then there is room for more books on this topic, for in its 403 pages (not including maps, notes and bibliography) this work can only provide a high-level overview. And it is not an easy read, as it is written in a very dry academic style, and has to tell the story of a very confused and confusing war.

It is informative. It does presume a lot of knowledge of the collapse of the Tsarist regime and the Bolshevik coup that preceded the Civil War, because very little introduction is given. The military events of the Civil War are described at the level of strategy and major evolutions of the front lines, and the political events at a similar level of major policy changes and main personalities. It provides a good framework for historical understanding but gives a very limited idea of what it must have been to experience this period.

Mawdsley compromises between a chronological account and one that is organized by region, and often summarizes the chronology first before working out the story in more detail. This approach is reasonable for such a complex and geographically disjoint conflict, but it sometimes obscures the causal links. The extraordinarily complicated cast of characters of the Civil War doesn't make it easier.

Nor does the geography, as this war was fought in many regions that the author chooses to describe as "remote" and "backward" and that are certainly rarely heard of by the average European or American. In the preface Mawdsley praises the maps drawn by Michael Shand for this book. Alas, in this paperback edition the maps, tucked away in an appendix, are rendered very poorly. Some place names are almost illegible. Unless you happen to know very well where Omsk, Ekaterinenburg, the Kuban and the Transbaikal are, you will wish for a better map.

Overall there seems to be a fair chance that this book will add to the knowledge of its reader, but that he or she will not enjoy it.

[Kenneth Barber · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book covers an important part of Russian history. After the February revolution and the abdication if the Tsar, the Bolsheviks staged the November revolution which left them in tenuous control of Russia. However, Bolshevik control was not uncontested. The opposition included many politically divest factions, but were called the “whites”. This ushered in 3-4 years of conflict between all the opponents of the Bolsheviks.
The author traces all these factions and their losses and victories. He also follows the Bolsheviks as they cope with the challenges to their authority. The author details the leaders of both sides and the factors that determined defeat for the White factions and the success of the Bolsheviks. Complicated subject but handled in a cogent and readable fashion.

[John Carter McKnight · Rating 3 out of 5]

Adequate, more-or-less readable, but far from great. Lifeless even for an academic history. For a subject for which geography is both unfamiliar to many readers and critical to the narrative, the maps are poor, too few, and badly placed.

There's little else wrong with the book, but little to recommend it: it's neither devoid of sociopolitical insight nor particularly sharp, no evidence of new archival work, neither show evidence of nor generates particularly deep insights. It's a solid linear-narrative history that at least introduces the major players and events.

[Sam Weisgerber · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book goes very in depth into how the events of the Russian Civil War have impacted the country's history and political parties. Mawdsley analyzes the downfall of the prevailing ideologies during this period in a way that is easy to understand. Every chapter is extremely detailed and perfect for those who want a deeper understanding of the outcome of the war.

[Jon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think my problem when reading this book was that it probably should have been the third or fourth book about this subject that I read, but it was the first

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

Brief account of the Russian Civil War. Examines role of Nationalities, why the Whites failed, and ineptitude of both sides. Wish there was more on the Allied involvement and the war with Poland.

[Lyndon Burns · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mawdsley's "The Russian Civil War" can be summed up as being neither great nor terrible. It is as comprehensive as any single volume covering such an enormous conflict could be, as it is somewhat akin to writing a single volume history of the First World War. The Russian Civil War encompassed roughly a fifth of the world's land area, and involved millions of soldiers, over a period of more than three years, which means at 400 pages the detail is necessarily light.

It is certainly a respectable overview of the conflict for anyone looking for such an account. It is not a particularly enthralling read, although neither is it impossibly dry. There is essentially no use of firsthand accounts from participants - perhaps the fact that this is a republishing of a 1987 book is reflected in that, as the use of firsthand accounts came into vogue somewhat later.

Mawdsley's account might also be dated in a way that is not at first obvious. The preface to the 2008 edition notes that the original 1987 text "described Soviet power as 'enduring', but it would not in fact endure beyond 1991." That irony may be revealing: it often seems that Mawdsley deeply admired the Bolsheviks and their creation, and he was trying to keep this in check in the interests of impartiality. While in 1987 it may have been possible to see Lenin as having brought into existence one of the world's two superpowers, and one of the two dominant political systems worldwide, the collapse of the Soviet Union renders that viewpoint obsolete. The seven decades of Communist Party rule left very little enduring good, and quite a lot of persistent harm.

In the last pages of the book Mawdsley considers different estimates for the casualties of the Russian Revolution and Civil War. He comments that Robert Conquest's estimates of casualties seem "too high". This is amusing, because while Mawdsley had to revise his views after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Conquest did not: he famously suggested that the preface to a post-Cold War edition of his volume of the Great Terror should be "I told you so, you fucking fools!" Mawdsley's sympathy for the Bolsheviks seems to make his judgments contradictory: he tends to say that the Whites failed because they did not secure the support of the populace, whereas the Reds were significantly better at this. And yet, Mawdsley also admits that the Reds were deeply unpopular, and had enormous problems with internal dissent.

Richard Pipes "The Russian Revolution" covers these same issues that Mawdsley cannot explain in a much more coherent fashion. For example, Pipes is able to explain that the peasants saw the breakdown of civil authority as an opportunity to redistribute the land, something they did not want to relinquish, hence they had no interest in a "restoration" by the Whites. This did not, however, mean they supported the Reds: having their grain compulsorily acquired and being given nothing in return was not an appealing program. The disengagement of the average peasant, who desired only to protect their patch, and keep what was theirs, makes the Russian Civil War comprehensible. Mawdsley paints a confusing picture in which the Whites lost because the peasants did not support them, while the Reds were more effective in obtaining support, but then in the next breath concedes that the Reds were equally unpopular.

The net result of is that Mawdsley's book is an acceptable and relatively accessible reference for the entire Russian Civil War, but is not a particularly good source.

[Rhuff · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good general history, concise yet packed with relevant military detail and analysis of this seminal conflict foreshadowing WW II and the Cold War. Mawdsley breaks down the leading actors, the fronts, the campaigns, and the tactical and social forces of each protagonist so general reader and specialist alike finish his brief book with satisfaction. Also helpful are the maps of the various fronts. The text is unburdened by heavy notes, though a scholar like Mawdsley could have packed it full. (There is a chapter-by-chapter source essay at the rear for those interested.)

Since his analysis of the facts are pretty straightforward, I'll base this review on his conclusion. He is correct in saying that Russian demographics could not support the kind of middle class democracy favored by the thinly-stretched intelligentsia, which of necessity relied on the sword of a very undemocratic military caste. The Bolsheviks won because they traveled with the revolution's momentum. Yet his main thesis - shared by all mainstream Western historians - is that "the Bolshevik seizure of power" kicked off the civil war.

Yet what if said seizure was itself a round in a civil war already begun? One can argue Russia was already polarized into civil conflict by July with the sailor's revolt in Petrograd; followed by Kornilov's attempted coup against the soviet and the provisional government itself. Lenin's insurrection was a third but successful round at strongarming events in a country already prepped by and for war. His dictum of turning "the imperialist war into a civil war" certainly bore fruit at home if not abroad (see Jonathan Haslam's "The Spectre of Communism.")

Again, a good and concise summary for both general and specialist reader.

[Enrique · Rating 4 out of 5]

La obra puede servir como una buena obra de introducción al estudio y conocimiento de la Cierra Civil rusa.

Consigue condensar la complejidad política y militar del conflicto, a lo largo de una geografía no siempre conocida por el público castellanoparlante, de una forma lo suficientemente clara. Aunque la diversidad de elementos tratados, o mencionados de forma recurrente, requieren, en ocasiones, de un cierto bagaje para entender matices y determinados aspectos que pueden resultar ambiguos.

Por otro lado, los capítulos en los que el autor aborda cuestiones políticas (también sobre los diferentes grupos étnicos protagonistas) y económicas resultan interesantes y arrojan luz sobre las decisiones militares y las campañas tratadas.

El único aspecto negativo sería que en ocasiones el relato de las campañas y el movimiento de los frentes y los contingentes militares puede resultar tedioso e incluso caótico, en especial cuando aparecen distancias o nombres de unidades. No obstante, al ser una obra de historia militar es evidente que este tipo de precisiones son de obligado cumplimiento, más cuando la obra lleva casi cuarenta años publicada y pese a su reedición en 2007-2008.

En resumidas cuentas, es una obra de referencia si uno se quiere adentrar en este período.

[Rohit · Rating 3 out of 5]

A dense but readable account of the Russian Civil War, from the October Revolution of 1917 to the Polish-Soviet War of spring 1921.

The major focus is on the military aspects of the war; troop movements, the shifting frontlines, the generals, the supply lines. Although despite the military focus, its hard to get much color of the nature of the war; its less about how specific battles went, and more a dry accounting of who won what battle. The most interesting stuff in the book was about the political and socio-economic context of how the war went and why the Bolsheviks won. But despite the overall dryness and the difficulty of retaining much of the details, this was still a relatively easy book to read.

The author himself comes across as rather anti-Bolshevik, and there is a tone of annoyance throughout that the Bolsheviks won, but nonetheless the book feels more or less balanced, and there is begruding respect paid to the Reds for what they did right, and criticism of the Whites for the many, many things they did wrong.

Wouldn't recommend this as a good introduction to the Russian Civil War, but it is a decent supplementary text for people already well-versed in WW1 and the October Revolution, who want a overview of the contours of the Russian Civil War.

[Kabaal van Napels · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good introduction but not a great read.

"The Russian civil war" by Evan Mawdsley gives a good high level overview of the economical, political and military events in Russia between 1917 and 1920. It also analyses the reasons for victory of the Reds and the demise of the Whites during the civil war.

Whilst the book is a good introduction to the Russian civil war, I found myself struggling through the pages. Mawdsley resists the temptation to get lost in the detail but in doing so makes the story too abstract for my liking and fails to bring the period to life. I missed anecdotes, character profiles and exciting adventures, which prevented me from becoming engrossed in the story. For instance, only in the conclusion did I discover this conflict caused up to an astonishing ten million deaths. I would also add that the book contains nine maps, these are however very unclear and are nowhere referenced in the story as such I did not bother looking at them.

All in all, "The Russian civil war" is a decent introduction, but is by no means a great read. This book provides a good analysis of the Russian civil war but is only for readers with perseverance.

[Antonio Iglesias · Rating 3 out of 5]

La guerra civil rusa es un tema sobre el cual hay poca bibliografía en castellano, pero es un periodo muy interesante ya que nos muestra cómo los bolcheviques consolidaron el control de Rusia. El libro está bien documentado ya que el autor ha usado muchas fuentes. La pega es que hay ocasiones en que presenta datos de forma confusa o incompleta

[Bill V · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The maps could have been better. This is about the 4th or 5th book on the subject that I've read and I got more out of this 1 than any of the other. I especially enjoyed all the factions involved, from Makhno to the various cossack groups to the Greens and to specific White and AFSR leaders.

[Risto · Rating 5 out of 5]

Erittäin mielenkiintoinen. opin paljon uutta.

[Gregory · Rating 2 out of 5]

Couldn't finish, very boring.

[Gonzalo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super técnico y innecesariamente extenso para mi gusto. Pero muy completo

[Samppa Sirnö · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aika puolueeton ja objektiivinen kuvaus Venäjän sisällissodasta. Eräänlainen kokooma eri teemoista ja tulkinnoista. Ei sisällä sinänsä juuri mitään uutta, mutta hyvä yleisteos aiheeseen johdatuksena.

[Tom Lewandowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not what I expected but a good overview of the military aspects of the civil war

[Miguel Ángel Moreno · Rating 4 out of 5]

Visión global de la Guerra Civil Rusa. En general fácil de leer, aunque en algunos momentos se hace un poco pesado. El tamaño de la letra de esta edición, sin embargo, es criminalmente pequeño.

[David Poyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this one