Making War, Forging Revolution: Russia's Continuum of Crisis, 1914-1921

by Peter Holquist

Offering a fundamental reinterpretation of the emergence of the Soviet state, Peter Holquist situates the Bolshevik Revolution within the continuum of mobilization and violence that began with World War I and extended through Russia's civil war. In so doing, Holquist provides a new genealogy for Bolshevik political practices, one that places them clearly among Russian and European wartime measures. From this perspective, the Russian Revolution was no radical rupture with the past, but rather the fulcrum point in a continent-wide era of crisis and violence that began in 1914.

While Tsarist and Revolutionary governments implemented policies for total mobilization common to other warring powers, they did so in a supercharged and concentrated form. Holquist highlights how the distinctive contours of Russian political life set its experience in these years apart from other wartime societies. In pursuit of revolution, statesmen carried over crisis-created measures into political life and then incorporated them into the postwar political structure. Focusing on three particular policies--state management of food; the employment of official violence for political ends; and state surveillance--Holquist demonstrates the interplay of state policy and local implementation, and its impact on the lives of ordinary citizens. Making War, Forging Revolution casts a new light on Russia's revolution and boldly inserts it into the larger story of the Great War and twentieth-century European history.

Genres: Russia, Nonfiction, Soviet Union, Grad School, European History, History

384 pages, Hardcover

First published December 30, 2002

Reviews

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Peter Holquist has a very interesting argument to make: that the Russian Revolution(s) of 1917 were not an end- or beginning-point in history, but rather a part of the continuity of the disruption which began in 1914 with the outbreak of the First World War, and continued until (at least) 1921 and the end of the Russian “Civil War.” Moreover, he sees this disruption as being a shared European event, not merely a Russian aberration or result of corruption or weakness in Russian government. Revolutionary practices, he says, are a continuation of the processes already established in Russia and elsewhere for mobilization of society for conditions of total war. All states engaged in these types of practices, but after the Bolshevik revolution, Russia did so in a “supercharged” fashion. Some of the types of policies examined include state management of food (through rationing and price-fixing), the use of state violence for political ends, and state surveillance of the citizenry.

Or so the introduction and blurb on the cover would have it. Actually, a comparative study that looked at, let us say, Russia, Germany, and England during this period could demonstrate some fascinating continuities and possibly re-shape thinking about periodization and assumptions about Soviet particularism. Instead, however, Holquist focuses his study on the Don Basin and the shifting political position of the Cossacks there. As a case study, it is interesting, but it proves far less about the universality of revolutionary conditions than is needed to make the case presented in the above paragraph. Put simply: his thesis is too ambitious for his evidence, and the book would be more useful without all of the claims to large-scale rethinking of historical narratives.

I did learn a great deal about Don Cassacks from reading this book, and it does provide a useful perspective on that part of the legacy of the World War/Revolutionary period/ Holquist has utilized archives that most Western scholars never got to see, and has given a very complete view of the time and place under study. For that reason, I would still recommend it to serious students of Russian history or the development of Communism. I simply question its broader impact and relevance to European studies beyond its area of interest.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really a struggle to read if you're not a specialist in the field, but if you are a specialist in Soviet history, then you most likely have read this book already because it made a very important argument in the early 2000s to change the way that Russianists are supposed to see the 1917 divide between Soviet and imperial Russian history. I appreciate that argument, as I am quite fond of it myself, but Holquist dismisses the traditionalist argument in favor of his own interpretation, which is that the entire period of 1914-1921 is an important continuum. His argument is compelling but has been argued against for giving "modernity" too much agency and not delving enough into the specific peculiarities of the ideologies he discusses. Worth reading if you are interested in the Russian revolution and civil war.

[BC · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a previous reader indicated, Holquist makes the 1917-1920s seem like a continuous period. He highlights the many things that did not change during the period, or that changes slightly, only to revert back to their previous form. Food procurement, for example, shows the ways that the Bolsheviks, the Whites, and the Tsarist officials during the war were remarkably similar.

It was also nice to read about the Russian Revolution away from the Petrograd/Moscow axis, and look at the revolution in different parts of the country. It's a bit too easy when reading the massive literature on the subject to become convinced that the affairs of Petrograd were all important, and that the rest of the country followed along.

[Danny · Rating 3 out of 5]

De-emphasizes the importance of the 1917 Revolution in the development of the Soviet state. Sees 1914-1921 as a coherent, if changing period.