What do you think?
Rate this book
Russia: A 1000-Year Chronicle of the Wild East
As the BBC Moscow correspondent for almost twenty years, Sixsmith tells Russia's full and fascinating story, from its foundation in the last years of the tenth century to the first years of the twenty-first, skillfully tracing the conundrums of modern Russia to their roots in its troubled past. Covering politics, music, literature and art, he explores the myths Russians have created from their history. Marking the twentieth anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the complex political landscape of Russia and its unique place in the modern world.
624 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2011
164 people are currently reading
2787 people want to read
About the author
Martin Sixsmith
29 books104 followersGeorge Martin Sixsmith, British author and journalist.
Sixsmith joined the BBC in 1980 where he worked as a foreign correspondent, most notably reporting from Moscow during the end of the Cold War. He also reported from Poland during the Solidarity uprising and was the BBC's Washington correspondent during the election and first presidency of Bill Clinton. He was based in Russia for five years, the US for four, Brussels for four and Poland for three.
Sixsmith left the BBC in 1997 to work for the newly elected government of Tony Blair. He became Director of Communications (a civil service post), working first with Harriet Harman and Frank Field, then with Alistair Darling. His next position was as a Director of GEC plc, where he oversaw the rebranding of the company as Marconi plc.
In December 2001, he returned to the Civil Service to join the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as Director of Communications in time to become embroiled in the second act of the scandal over Jo Moore. Moore was special adviser to the transport secretary Stephen Byers and had been the subject of much public condemnation for suggesting that a controversial announcement should be "buried" during the media coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1]
Sixsmith incurred the displeasure of Downing Street when his email advising Byers and Moore not to bury more bad news was leaked to the press. Number Ten attempted to "resign him", but had later to issue an apology and pay him compensation. Sixsmith was widely expected to write a memoir or autobiography in the wake of his civil service departure, but was gagged by the government[citation needed] Instead, he produced a novel about near-future politics called Spin, published in 2004.
His second novel, I Heard Lenin Laugh, was published in 2005. In 2006 he was commissioned by BBC Radio 4 to present a series of programmes on Russian poetry, literature and art.
In 2007 he wrote The Litvinenko File, an examination of the feud between the Kremlin and Russia's émigré oligarchs.
In 2008 Sixsmith worked on two BBC documentaries exploring the legacy of the KGB in today's Russia and also presented a BBC documentary, The Snowy Streets of St. Petersburg, about artists and writers who fled the former Eastern bloc.
In 2009 he wrote The Lost Child of Philomena Lee, about the forcible separation of a mother and child by the nuns of an Irish convent during the 1950s, and the subsequent attempts of the mother and child to contact one another.[2] The book was adapted into the film Philomena, directed by Stephen Frears, starring Dame Judi Dench and Steve Coogan (as Sixsmith), and written by Coogan and Jeff Pope; it premiered at the Venice Film Festival and was released in the UK on November 1 2013.
In February 2010 Sixsmith wrote Putin's Oil, about Russia's energy wars and their consequences for Moscow and the world.
He worked as an adviser to the BBC political sitcom The Thick of It, and the Oscar-nominated film, In the Loop.
In 2011, he presented Russia: The Wild East, a 50-part history of Russia for BBC Radio 4, the last episode of which was broadcast on 12 August.[3] His book Russia, a 1,000 Year Chronicle of the Wild East was published by Random House.
In 2014 Sixsmith will present a 25 part programme about the history of psychology and psychiatry for the BBC radio.
Sixsmith joined the BBC in 1980 where he worked as a foreign correspondent, most notably reporting from Moscow during the end of the Cold War. He also reported from Poland during the Solidarity uprising and was the BBC's Washington correspondent during the election and first presidency of Bill Clinton. He was based in Russia for five years, the US for four, Brussels for four and Poland for three.
Sixsmith left the BBC in 1997 to work for the newly elected government of Tony Blair. He became Director of Communications (a civil service post), working first with Harriet Harman and Frank Field, then with Alistair Darling. His next position was as a Director of GEC plc, where he oversaw the rebranding of the company as Marconi plc.
In December 2001, he returned to the Civil Service to join the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as Director of Communications in time to become embroiled in the second act of the scandal over Jo Moore. Moore was special adviser to the transport secretary Stephen Byers and had been the subject of much public condemnation for suggesting that a controversial announcement should be "buried" during the media coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1]
Sixsmith incurred the displeasure of Downing Street when his email advising Byers and Moore not to bury more bad news was leaked to the press. Number Ten attempted to "resign him", but had later to issue an apology and pay him compensation. Sixsmith was widely expected to write a memoir or autobiography in the wake of his civil service departure, but was gagged by the government[citation needed] Instead, he produced a novel about near-future politics called Spin, published in 2004.
His second novel, I Heard Lenin Laugh, was published in 2005. In 2006 he was commissioned by BBC Radio 4 to present a series of programmes on Russian poetry, literature and art.
In 2007 he wrote The Litvinenko File, an examination of the feud between the Kremlin and Russia's émigré oligarchs.
In 2008 Sixsmith worked on two BBC documentaries exploring the legacy of the KGB in today's Russia and also presented a BBC documentary, The Snowy Streets of St. Petersburg, about artists and writers who fled the former Eastern bloc.
In 2009 he wrote The Lost Child of Philomena Lee, about the forcible separation of a mother and child by the nuns of an Irish convent during the 1950s, and the subsequent attempts of the mother and child to contact one another.[2] The book was adapted into the film Philomena, directed by Stephen Frears, starring Dame Judi Dench and Steve Coogan (as Sixsmith), and written by Coogan and Jeff Pope; it premiered at the Venice Film Festival and was released in the UK on November 1 2013.
In February 2010 Sixsmith wrote Putin's Oil, about Russia's energy wars and their consequences for Moscow and the world.
He worked as an adviser to the BBC political sitcom The Thick of It, and the Oscar-nominated film, In the Loop.
In 2011, he presented Russia: The Wild East, a 50-part history of Russia for BBC Radio 4, the last episode of which was broadcast on 12 August.[3] His book Russia, a 1,000 Year Chronicle of the Wild East was published by Random House.
In 2014 Sixsmith will present a 25 part programme about the history of psychology and psychiatry for the BBC radio.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 203 reviews
August 12, 2023
“From the earliest rulers, Rurik and Oleg, to Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great, the argument was advanced that Russia was too big and too disorderly ever to be suited to devolved power; only the silnaya ruka of centralized autocracy could hold together the centripetal empire and maintain order among her disparate people. The same rationale would be used by the eighteenth-and-nineteenth-century tsars, by the Communist regime of the twentieth century and…by Vladimir Putin in the twenty-first. Winston Churchill’s exasperated quip about a ‘riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma’ set the tone for a lazy Western assumption that Russians are too complex even to try to understand. But if we can grasp Russia’s history, we can uncover the roots of her sometimes puzzling behavior. She is a jarring combination of East and West that would trouble her artists, writers, politicians and thinkers for many centuries…”
- Martin Sixsmith, Russia: A 1,000-Year Chronicle of the Wild East
Everything about Russia is huge, with a history to match its landmass. You can fill entire libraries with books about Russia’s wars and revolutions, its cruel despots and enlightened leaders, its triumphs and tragedies and crimes. Like many nations, Russia is a place of contradictions, but here they are especially stark. It is a place where globally-recognized achievements in technology, music, literature, and dance rest uncomfortably next to a past littered with gulags, secret police, mass executions, and manmade famines.
Having approached Russia in piecemeal fashion, with a heavy focus on the first half of the twentieth century, I was looking for a book that – like Lebowski’s rug – would tie everything together. That’s how I came across Martin Sixsmith’s Russia.
Obviously, I knew it could not possibly be comprehensive. Even weighing in at over 500 pages of text, no single volume – probably not even a hundred – could possibly accomplish that task. Still, I was hoping it could provide a Sputnik-eyed view of Russia’s many rises and falls, and falls and rises.
Given its somewhat spotty and idiosyncratic coverage, Russia is not exactly what I was looking for. That said, it provides an interesting framework for understanding Russia in the present day. It is also – not for nothing – quite entertaining.
***
The subtitle to Russia promises a lot more than it can deliver. Though it starts at the beginning, with Rurik the Rus, Sixsmith does not spend a lot of time on Russia’s early years. For example, Sixsmith covers the approximately 860 years between the start of Rurik’s rule and the death of Peter the Great in only 84 pages.
Instead of shining a light on formative events and lesser-known tsars, Sixsmith tends to play the hits like he’s working a Stradivarius. Much of Russia coalesces around the Russian Revolution in 1917, the era of Stalin, and the Cold War. There is a good reason for this, of course, as these are massively important turning points, not just for Russia but the whole world. They’re also inherently fascinating. Nevertheless, I wish that Sixsmith had ventured a bit more off the marked path, or taken a few more detours from the obvious.
***
Structurally speaking, this proceeds chronologically, and there is a timeline at the end of Russia to keep you oriented. But this is not a typical work of history, delivered objectively by an unobtrusive author.
Sixsmith spent many years as a Moscow correspondent for the BBC, and had a front-row seat to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Much of his knowledge and understanding of Russia comes firsthand – aided by his facility with the language – rather than plucked entirely from dusty documents in a library. Don’t get me wrong. Documents in a library are great, the dustier the better. Yet there’s something to be said for the sense of a place that only comes from living there.
To that end, Sixsmith makes himself a character in Russia. When he introduces a topic, he typically does so by narrating from firsthand experience, often visiting the relevant building, gravesite, or museum. While not exactly a rigorously academic methodology, it is certainly lively.
***
With a story this good, all you need is a decent storyteller, and Sixsmith exceeds that description. From beginning to end, I found this engaging, well-paced, and fun to read.
The highlight, for me, is Sixsmith’s discussion of the Soviet Union’s dissolution under Mikhail Gorbachev. In this section, he effectively utilizes his journalistic involvement to give a coherent, perceptive account of the unraveling. Despite actually being alive when this took place, I had surprisingly little clue about how it unfolded. Sixsmith’s skillful explanations, and his characterizations of Gorby and Boris Yeltsin, are learned without being impenetrable.
I also appreciated Sixsmith’s ability to summarize Russia’s flirtation with capitalism, and how that transmogrified into an oligarchical system in which certain individuals became so rich that they started buying English football clubs like they were packs of ramen noodles. I’ve spent a lot of time with Catherine the Great, Peter the Great, Tsar Nicholas II, and Joe Stalin, so it was helpful to finally read a bit about Russia’s more-recent past.
***
The ongoing theme in Sixsmith’s Russia is the role of autocracy. Throughout, he highlights those few moments when a more democratic path might have been taken. By and large, though, power in Russia has – at any given point – resided within a single pair of hands. That’s been true whether the leader is a tsar, the General Secretary of the Communist Party, the First Secretary of the Communist Party, or the President of the Russian Federation.
While the West has long convinced itself that democracy is the best choice among flawed alternatives, experiments in its export have proven to be a mixed bag. It thus remains an open question – one that Sixsmith cannot answer with certainty – as to whether one-person rule is in Russia’s best interest. He is sure, however, that it is going to be the reality going forward.
***
Fear is a terrible driver of decisions.
Aside from autocracy, Sixsmith’s survey of Russian history also focuses on its overriding national concern: invasion.
With its tremendous size and potent military – including massive nuclear stockpiles – it might seem odd that Russia would be afraid of anything, especially the much-smaller countries in its orbit. Yet that intimidating size means it has a lot of border to defend, a reality that has been exploited in the past, most infamously by Napoleon and Hitler.
A Westerner himself, Sixsmith does a good job of looking out at the world through Russian eyes. He describes a loop in which Russia acts aggressively because it’s frightened, and then NATO ratchets up its preparations because of that aggression, and then Russia gets more frightened because it sees that buildup. It is a jointly-created self-fulfilling prophecy.
It’s telling to me that though this was published in 2012 – two years before Russia invaded the Crimea – it is quite useful in understanding the current Russo-Ukrainian War.
***
Countries are complicated things, resistant to simple binaries like “good” or “bad.” Sixsmith succeeds in embracing that national complexity, while also recalling that the people within a country should not be held responsible for everything done in their name. He has a palpable fondness – perhaps even love – for Russia, but he is admirably clear-eyed in his judgments. He is able to note Russia’s faults, as well as celebrate its virtues; he can applaud Russia’s successes, but also mourn the incalculable costs of its mistakes.
- Martin Sixsmith, Russia: A 1,000-Year Chronicle of the Wild East
Everything about Russia is huge, with a history to match its landmass. You can fill entire libraries with books about Russia’s wars and revolutions, its cruel despots and enlightened leaders, its triumphs and tragedies and crimes. Like many nations, Russia is a place of contradictions, but here they are especially stark. It is a place where globally-recognized achievements in technology, music, literature, and dance rest uncomfortably next to a past littered with gulags, secret police, mass executions, and manmade famines.
Having approached Russia in piecemeal fashion, with a heavy focus on the first half of the twentieth century, I was looking for a book that – like Lebowski’s rug – would tie everything together. That’s how I came across Martin Sixsmith’s Russia.
Obviously, I knew it could not possibly be comprehensive. Even weighing in at over 500 pages of text, no single volume – probably not even a hundred – could possibly accomplish that task. Still, I was hoping it could provide a Sputnik-eyed view of Russia’s many rises and falls, and falls and rises.
Given its somewhat spotty and idiosyncratic coverage, Russia is not exactly what I was looking for. That said, it provides an interesting framework for understanding Russia in the present day. It is also – not for nothing – quite entertaining.
***
The subtitle to Russia promises a lot more than it can deliver. Though it starts at the beginning, with Rurik the Rus, Sixsmith does not spend a lot of time on Russia’s early years. For example, Sixsmith covers the approximately 860 years between the start of Rurik’s rule and the death of Peter the Great in only 84 pages.
Instead of shining a light on formative events and lesser-known tsars, Sixsmith tends to play the hits like he’s working a Stradivarius. Much of Russia coalesces around the Russian Revolution in 1917, the era of Stalin, and the Cold War. There is a good reason for this, of course, as these are massively important turning points, not just for Russia but the whole world. They’re also inherently fascinating. Nevertheless, I wish that Sixsmith had ventured a bit more off the marked path, or taken a few more detours from the obvious.
***
Structurally speaking, this proceeds chronologically, and there is a timeline at the end of Russia to keep you oriented. But this is not a typical work of history, delivered objectively by an unobtrusive author.
Sixsmith spent many years as a Moscow correspondent for the BBC, and had a front-row seat to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Much of his knowledge and understanding of Russia comes firsthand – aided by his facility with the language – rather than plucked entirely from dusty documents in a library. Don’t get me wrong. Documents in a library are great, the dustier the better. Yet there’s something to be said for the sense of a place that only comes from living there.
To that end, Sixsmith makes himself a character in Russia. When he introduces a topic, he typically does so by narrating from firsthand experience, often visiting the relevant building, gravesite, or museum. While not exactly a rigorously academic methodology, it is certainly lively.
***
With a story this good, all you need is a decent storyteller, and Sixsmith exceeds that description. From beginning to end, I found this engaging, well-paced, and fun to read.
The highlight, for me, is Sixsmith’s discussion of the Soviet Union’s dissolution under Mikhail Gorbachev. In this section, he effectively utilizes his journalistic involvement to give a coherent, perceptive account of the unraveling. Despite actually being alive when this took place, I had surprisingly little clue about how it unfolded. Sixsmith’s skillful explanations, and his characterizations of Gorby and Boris Yeltsin, are learned without being impenetrable.
I also appreciated Sixsmith’s ability to summarize Russia’s flirtation with capitalism, and how that transmogrified into an oligarchical system in which certain individuals became so rich that they started buying English football clubs like they were packs of ramen noodles. I’ve spent a lot of time with Catherine the Great, Peter the Great, Tsar Nicholas II, and Joe Stalin, so it was helpful to finally read a bit about Russia’s more-recent past.
***
The ongoing theme in Sixsmith’s Russia is the role of autocracy. Throughout, he highlights those few moments when a more democratic path might have been taken. By and large, though, power in Russia has – at any given point – resided within a single pair of hands. That’s been true whether the leader is a tsar, the General Secretary of the Communist Party, the First Secretary of the Communist Party, or the President of the Russian Federation.
While the West has long convinced itself that democracy is the best choice among flawed alternatives, experiments in its export have proven to be a mixed bag. It thus remains an open question – one that Sixsmith cannot answer with certainty – as to whether one-person rule is in Russia’s best interest. He is sure, however, that it is going to be the reality going forward.
***
Fear is a terrible driver of decisions.
Aside from autocracy, Sixsmith’s survey of Russian history also focuses on its overriding national concern: invasion.
With its tremendous size and potent military – including massive nuclear stockpiles – it might seem odd that Russia would be afraid of anything, especially the much-smaller countries in its orbit. Yet that intimidating size means it has a lot of border to defend, a reality that has been exploited in the past, most infamously by Napoleon and Hitler.
A Westerner himself, Sixsmith does a good job of looking out at the world through Russian eyes. He describes a loop in which Russia acts aggressively because it’s frightened, and then NATO ratchets up its preparations because of that aggression, and then Russia gets more frightened because it sees that buildup. It is a jointly-created self-fulfilling prophecy.
It’s telling to me that though this was published in 2012 – two years before Russia invaded the Crimea – it is quite useful in understanding the current Russo-Ukrainian War.
***
Countries are complicated things, resistant to simple binaries like “good” or “bad.” Sixsmith succeeds in embracing that national complexity, while also recalling that the people within a country should not be held responsible for everything done in their name. He has a palpable fondness – perhaps even love – for Russia, but he is admirably clear-eyed in his judgments. He is able to note Russia’s faults, as well as celebrate its virtues; he can applaud Russia’s successes, but also mourn the incalculable costs of its mistakes.
December 11, 2023
This is one of the bigger undertakings I have made recently - I have several large books called 'Russia' (or some close approximation) and thought it about time I tackled one.
The chapters are short and readable, they don't dive too deep, and they are not so academic that they wash over. Detail is outlined, often with quotes from source material, but not repeated, and the narrative is fairly brief, which it needs to be in such a sweeping arc. All though the telling of this history Sixsmith visits the key places and takes us through ruins and relics still in existence.
Commencing in 862, with the perhaps-real, perhaps-not Rurik of Rus, the Viking who was called upon to put the fiefdoms into order, and rule the area which became Rus, with its centre in Kiev and ending with the beginning of Putin's power, including the Chechnya wars and the sanctioned murder of Litvinenko in London.
I started making notes as I read - a few sentences per chapter, but it quickly got out of hand with so much going on. So many names fire around and the only saving grace is so many are killed off that they can't come back later! I guess if I am honest it all makes sense and sits in place while I read the chapter but very soon after it is gone again - just an overwhelming amount of information.
Part of what I liked in the book is Sixsmith visiting many of the places of importance and adding a short anecdote about his visit in comparison to its time in history. The way it was presented also helped me with aligning the Russian leader at each period with his American counterpart - something I benefited from at the time, but will have probably forgotten again in a few weeks!
What does this history tell us? Primarily for me it tells us not to be at all surprised about the aggressive and violent behaviour of the current autocrat Putin, as he is acting in exactly the same manner as so many of his predecessors. Blatant lying and manoeuvring for power, the masses being only a means to achieve this, and basking in the glory of absolute power are all hallmarks of he Russian ruling system. No doubt Putin's outcome will be the same as his predecessors too - stabbed in the back, or dying suddenly.
A solid 4 stars.
The chapters are short and readable, they don't dive too deep, and they are not so academic that they wash over. Detail is outlined, often with quotes from source material, but not repeated, and the narrative is fairly brief, which it needs to be in such a sweeping arc. All though the telling of this history Sixsmith visits the key places and takes us through ruins and relics still in existence.
Commencing in 862, with the perhaps-real, perhaps-not Rurik of Rus, the Viking who was called upon to put the fiefdoms into order, and rule the area which became Rus, with its centre in Kiev and ending with the beginning of Putin's power, including the Chechnya wars and the sanctioned murder of Litvinenko in London.
I started making notes as I read - a few sentences per chapter, but it quickly got out of hand with so much going on. So many names fire around and the only saving grace is so many are killed off that they can't come back later! I guess if I am honest it all makes sense and sits in place while I read the chapter but very soon after it is gone again - just an overwhelming amount of information.
Part of what I liked in the book is Sixsmith visiting many of the places of importance and adding a short anecdote about his visit in comparison to its time in history. The way it was presented also helped me with aligning the Russian leader at each period with his American counterpart - something I benefited from at the time, but will have probably forgotten again in a few weeks!
What does this history tell us? Primarily for me it tells us not to be at all surprised about the aggressive and violent behaviour of the current autocrat Putin, as he is acting in exactly the same manner as so many of his predecessors. Blatant lying and manoeuvring for power, the masses being only a means to achieve this, and basking in the glory of absolute power are all hallmarks of he Russian ruling system. No doubt Putin's outcome will be the same as his predecessors too - stabbed in the back, or dying suddenly.
A solid 4 stars.
July 21, 2025
I really enjoyed this book because it flows well and is written for anyone wanting broad overviews of Russia's extensive history. This book can be read by anyone and does not require constant research for "Who the heck is that is dude?" or "What is this guy trying to tell me?" This book does not go to great lengths of too much information and read more like a college first-semester "Western Civ 101: Roman Empire to 1700."
Look elsewhere if you want a graduate/doctorate thesis. Also gives 8 pages of Timeline Dates beginning with 862 AD " Rurik the Rus becomes Rus-ians Prince of Novogorod" going to 2011 "Terrorists attack at Domodedovo airport kills 37."
Highly recommended book on Russian history without detailed overkill.
Look elsewhere if you want a graduate/doctorate thesis. Also gives 8 pages of Timeline Dates beginning with 862 AD " Rurik the Rus becomes Rus-ians Prince of Novogorod" going to 2011 "Terrorists attack at Domodedovo airport kills 37."
Highly recommended book on Russian history without detailed overkill.
February 12, 2015
Mixed feelings. Well written and very readable, even gripping at times. Considering he was trying to cover 1000 years in just over 550 pages, Sixsmith did a pretty decent job (obviously a lot had to be left out - I'd probably be more upset if I knew more about Russian history). He seemed to be well versed in the arts (esp. literature) and was able to tie a lot of the better known authors/poets into their historical moments.
All that said, there were fundamental problems that rubbed me the wrong way. Mainly, Sixsmith seemed to be viewing all of Russian history from an ivory tower of some modern Western liberal democratic ideal, and judging all else as objectively worse or backward. Throughout the book he made a distinction between Western, liberal, democratic (i.e., Good) and 'of the Asiatic despot' (Bad). Through this lens, there is very little room for historical or political nuance, leading to an almost complete lack of distinction between, say, Ivan the Terrible, Stalin, and Putin (BAD). Meanwhile, both Peter and Catherine the Great might have been Good, but then they were Bad. It didn't ruin the book, as I still learned a lot and was able to put some things in order in my head, but it was overly simplistic.
All that said, there were fundamental problems that rubbed me the wrong way. Mainly, Sixsmith seemed to be viewing all of Russian history from an ivory tower of some modern Western liberal democratic ideal, and judging all else as objectively worse or backward. Throughout the book he made a distinction between Western, liberal, democratic (i.e., Good) and 'of the Asiatic despot' (Bad). Through this lens, there is very little room for historical or political nuance, leading to an almost complete lack of distinction between, say, Ivan the Terrible, Stalin, and Putin (BAD). Meanwhile, both Peter and Catherine the Great might have been Good, but then they were Bad. It didn't ruin the book, as I still learned a lot and was able to put some things in order in my head, but it was overly simplistic.
January 24, 2022
This is a treasure trove for anyone interested in the history of Russia, from 862 Rus to the Putin era. The author does a brilliant job of piecing together evidence, testimonials, writings, and his own experience of Russia, into a comprehensive history. The first third of the book covers the origins of Rus in Novgorod then Kiev, and finally Moscow and St Petersburg (Petrograd), right up to the fall of the tsarist regime in 1917.
The events that follow are cast in the dim light they deserve: communist idealism used first to reunite peasants and land, then to separate them again as the regime's stronghold strengthens through brutal repression, starvation and terror. Where the Tsars had been content to wage wars when necessary, Lenin, then Stalin, used an ever firmer grip to reinstate the same regime (without a "Little Father" to rule the land) under a new name. The people are treated so badly tsar Nicholai II’s infamous blunders pale in comparison.
As BBC correspondent in Russia, Sixsmith delivers a vivid account of the events of the 1980s and '90s, the tragedy of Yeltsin's failure to deliver what he had hoped for, and the return of the 'silnaya ruka' - or iron fist - under Putin. He also gives testimony of how the West spectacularly failed to comprehend what was happening during the rules of Gorbatchev and Yeltsin. When the 1991 coup d'état attempt occurred, ultimately leading to Yeltsin's claim to power, I was twelve. The Scorpions were not alone in believing the Wind of Change would make for a better tomorrow (and, although this was certainly more of a political consideration, a clean and final end to the Cold War): I remember my mother excitedly announcing, after reading Time magazine, that Russia was now well on the path to becoming a real democracy. World leaders showed enthusiasm and hope at the prospect, but a decade of hunger and economic decline was enough to turn russian public opinion back to wanting a strong centralised governing body. Sixsmith studies why, in retrospect, nothing could ever have been that simple in a country that has for centuries been teetering on the brink of westernisation, whilst over and over falling back on asian forms of government.
Despite the little knowledge I have of russian history, this made for an instructive and intense read. Thank you to my brother Anthony for giving me this super read for Christmas!
The events that follow are cast in the dim light they deserve: communist idealism used first to reunite peasants and land, then to separate them again as the regime's stronghold strengthens through brutal repression, starvation and terror. Where the Tsars had been content to wage wars when necessary, Lenin, then Stalin, used an ever firmer grip to reinstate the same regime (without a "Little Father" to rule the land) under a new name. The people are treated so badly tsar Nicholai II’s infamous blunders pale in comparison.
As BBC correspondent in Russia, Sixsmith delivers a vivid account of the events of the 1980s and '90s, the tragedy of Yeltsin's failure to deliver what he had hoped for, and the return of the 'silnaya ruka' - or iron fist - under Putin. He also gives testimony of how the West spectacularly failed to comprehend what was happening during the rules of Gorbatchev and Yeltsin. When the 1991 coup d'état attempt occurred, ultimately leading to Yeltsin's claim to power, I was twelve. The Scorpions were not alone in believing the Wind of Change would make for a better tomorrow (and, although this was certainly more of a political consideration, a clean and final end to the Cold War): I remember my mother excitedly announcing, after reading Time magazine, that Russia was now well on the path to becoming a real democracy. World leaders showed enthusiasm and hope at the prospect, but a decade of hunger and economic decline was enough to turn russian public opinion back to wanting a strong centralised governing body. Sixsmith studies why, in retrospect, nothing could ever have been that simple in a country that has for centuries been teetering on the brink of westernisation, whilst over and over falling back on asian forms of government.
Despite the little knowledge I have of russian history, this made for an instructive and intense read. Thank you to my brother Anthony for giving me this super read for Christmas!
April 23, 2012
There's nothing like a good chronological history to make you realize how much you know out of order.
I was pleased to realize that I actually knew a fair amount of Russian history through reading about tangentially connected topics, from lives of the saints (including St Cyril) to a biography of Voltaire (including his correspondence with Catherine the Great) to a history of the Franco-Prussian War. Fiction, too--Horatio Hornblower, War and Peace, and Tom Clancy have all given me strange little windows. To have the whole thing laid out end-to-end, in order, makes everything suddenly make so much more sense. Among other things, I've perpetually confused events from the lives of Nicholas I, Alexander II, Alexander III, and Nicholas II (the last four tsars). When you can actually see, oh, this one was assassinated, which made that one halt the reforms, things start to make more sense.
It becomes particularly compelling (and a bit embarrassing) as the narrative approaches the present day. When I got to events that happened during my childhood that I remember but did not understand, I was fascinated. When I got to events in the last ten or so years, I think I was more embarrassed than anything else. In many cases, I remember reading articles about them, but I realize now that I had no idea why the events were happening or what they meant. I knew more about Alexander II's blundering emancipation of the serfs than I did about the fundamental causes of the Chechen War.
Overall, Sixsmith's theme is that the Russian people have repeatedly approached the idea of an open, democratic society, and every single time have turned around and re-chosen autocracy. It's increasingly tragic, as again and again Russia is plunged back into repression and then marvels at how they remain a backwater despite being absolutely enormous and possessing abundant resources. Somehow, the common people always end up in some form of slavery, without enough to eat.
Sixsmith does a good job of staying focused on Russian history, but occasionally providing touchstones of what was going on elsewhere in the world at the time so you can keep oriented. He was a BBC correspondent in Russia for years, so he often interjects bits of descriptions of current day Russia or small anecdotes from his own career to illustrate points. It's dangerous--it could easily become overly self-absorbed or annoying--but overall, he manages this deftly, giving just enough humanize the history without becoming distracting.
My one objection is that far more of the book is focused on the last century, with more coverage given to each successive decade, it seems. So there's almost nothing at all about the Crimean War, but we get nearly a full chapter of a blow-by-blow account of the attempted coup against Gorbachev. It's somewhat understandable, given the author's focus, and if a reader's goal is to understand modern Russia, it's a sensible approach. I'll admit, though, that I was just as if not more interested in Catherine's rule as I was in Brezhnev's. I would have preferred a more even pacing.
I now have such a compulsion to go back and re-read Tom Clancy's books, now understanding what the heck was going on.
I was pleased to realize that I actually knew a fair amount of Russian history through reading about tangentially connected topics, from lives of the saints (including St Cyril) to a biography of Voltaire (including his correspondence with Catherine the Great) to a history of the Franco-Prussian War. Fiction, too--Horatio Hornblower, War and Peace, and Tom Clancy have all given me strange little windows. To have the whole thing laid out end-to-end, in order, makes everything suddenly make so much more sense. Among other things, I've perpetually confused events from the lives of Nicholas I, Alexander II, Alexander III, and Nicholas II (the last four tsars). When you can actually see, oh, this one was assassinated, which made that one halt the reforms, things start to make more sense.
It becomes particularly compelling (and a bit embarrassing) as the narrative approaches the present day. When I got to events that happened during my childhood that I remember but did not understand, I was fascinated. When I got to events in the last ten or so years, I think I was more embarrassed than anything else. In many cases, I remember reading articles about them, but I realize now that I had no idea why the events were happening or what they meant. I knew more about Alexander II's blundering emancipation of the serfs than I did about the fundamental causes of the Chechen War.
Overall, Sixsmith's theme is that the Russian people have repeatedly approached the idea of an open, democratic society, and every single time have turned around and re-chosen autocracy. It's increasingly tragic, as again and again Russia is plunged back into repression and then marvels at how they remain a backwater despite being absolutely enormous and possessing abundant resources. Somehow, the common people always end up in some form of slavery, without enough to eat.
Sixsmith does a good job of staying focused on Russian history, but occasionally providing touchstones of what was going on elsewhere in the world at the time so you can keep oriented. He was a BBC correspondent in Russia for years, so he often interjects bits of descriptions of current day Russia or small anecdotes from his own career to illustrate points. It's dangerous--it could easily become overly self-absorbed or annoying--but overall, he manages this deftly, giving just enough humanize the history without becoming distracting.
My one objection is that far more of the book is focused on the last century, with more coverage given to each successive decade, it seems. So there's almost nothing at all about the Crimean War, but we get nearly a full chapter of a blow-by-blow account of the attempted coup against Gorbachev. It's somewhat understandable, given the author's focus, and if a reader's goal is to understand modern Russia, it's a sensible approach. I'll admit, though, that I was just as if not more interested in Catherine's rule as I was in Brezhnev's. I would have preferred a more even pacing.
I now have such a compulsion to go back and re-read Tom Clancy's books, now understanding what the heck was going on.
December 9, 2023
Supposedly, Western Europe's history has been typified by a spirit of democracy, and that of Eastern Eurasia by despotism. But underneath these geographical associations, Sixsmith highlights something deeper, namely the gigantic influence of insecurity. In a country of open land borders in every direction, Russians have faced a catastrophic series of invasions and battles for survival. The lesson has been rammed home that survival itself depends on unity in the face of the enemy. Salvation requires military-style strongmen to assume command. And those who will not serve their people's leaders with unconditional loyalty are betrayers who don't deserve to exist. This kind of autocracy has been imposed top-down by tyrants, but it has also been demanded by ordinary people as a requirement of popular faith. I think Sixsmith has done a great service in highlighting this great root of traditionalism. His book gives a long, detailed look at the fear behind ethnocentric patriotism, and asks what kind of friendship can possibly overcome it.
July 10, 2016
This is a good book if you want to test the waters with Russian history a bit, but not one I’d recommend for a thorough understanding of Russia.
For one, it doesn’t cover the 1K period it suggests it does. While I understand that earlier history of any region is difficult to establish because there is often little evidence to work with, majority of this book is history from mid-19 century and after.
Secondly, while I think the author does a good job of stating that we cannot judge the history of such a unique country with our own preconceived notions of what is right or wrong, I think he also passes a few judgements that needn’t be there.
Overall, it’s an OK book. But there are likely better works of nonfiction to seek out if you want to learn about Russia in all its glory.
For one, it doesn’t cover the 1K period it suggests it does. While I understand that earlier history of any region is difficult to establish because there is often little evidence to work with, majority of this book is history from mid-19 century and after.
Secondly, while I think the author does a good job of stating that we cannot judge the history of such a unique country with our own preconceived notions of what is right or wrong, I think he also passes a few judgements that needn’t be there.
Overall, it’s an OK book. But there are likely better works of nonfiction to seek out if you want to learn about Russia in all its glory.
August 4, 2022
Today, Russia is spread over nine time zones, and its people speak 150 languages. In 862, Rurik the Rus, was asked to invade Ladoga or Novgorod and bind disputing Slavs together as an invited immigrant strong man. For Russia’s first four centuries, Kiev was its center, not Moscow. If Kiev never was, perhaps today we’d be eating Chicken Moscow. Back then Novgorod, Kiev, and Pskov all had a “veche” system which acted as an early democracy. Veche means “speak out” and a special bell in the city would announce it. There was widespread literacy and culture. In Novgorod in the 11th century, women were equal to men and were “prominent in the affairs of the city.” Novgorod had sewage treatment then and had sidewalks 200 years before Paris, and 500 years before London. Novgorod courts relied on fines instead of physical punishment.
Genghis Khan doesn’t invade Russia, but his grandson Batu Khan did. Mongols were called Tatars by the Russians; I guess that’s a reference to the invader’s teeth having lots of calcified plaque. Tsar Batu founds the Golden Horde. Nearly all of Kievan Rus is conquered by the Mongols and many are murdered between 1237 and 1240. In Kiev, forty-eight of the fifty thousand occupants are slain. If you still lived, you were a slave. The Mongols were a “perpetual war machine” and Russia lived under them for 240 years (1240 to 1480). This is a time period when Russia is totally cut off from the West. Note that these centuries of Russian slavery kept the population from both the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. This leads Russia to adopt “the Asiatic model of Iron Rule learned under the Mongols”. Tartar rule was “a prison of barbarism”.
Back then, Moscow was still a Russian cultural backwater, probably like New Jersey or West Virginia is for us today. Under Ivan I, who is loyal to the Golden Horde, the prince and administration move to Moscow. Ivan III (Ivan the Great) was both a cruel tyrant and a drunk misogynist. Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) murders his own son and creates the secret police which has unlimited powers. Ivan IV’s reign of terror anticipated Stalin and was later approved by the Mustache King himself. Ivan IV allied with Elizabeth I of England and sent her letters. When she once didn’t respond to his liking, Ivan IV wrote, “I spit on you and your palace.” But under Ivan IV, Russia finally frees itself from the Tartar khanate. Russia would now grow at a rate of 50 miles per day for the next three hundred years, until 1914. Ivan IV’s death neutralizes the balancing effect of the boyars and Russia gets really autocratic; the individual’s needs gets totally subjugated to the needs of the state, or “the common good.” Centuries of distilled Russian propaganda: the individual must sacrifice himself for the greater good.
Ivan IV gives away lands that still belonged to Islamic khans and the colonialization begins. Later on, Siberia provides gold, coal, timber and iron, but back then, Siberia offered the pleasure of bludgeoning countless animals to death and taking their fur. Russian Cyrillic came from Saint Cyril’s created alphabet, Old Slavonic, used by the Orthodox Church and many Slavic people.
Peter the Great was great at putting the interest of the state above the interest of the people. He wanted to change the façade of Russia after having toured Europe. The building of St. Petersburg is the story of slave laborers endlessly dying to complete it with a death toll conceivably in the hundreds of thousands. Peter introduces a beard tax to force his favorite kind of change, superficial change. When Peter had a thousand of his guards tortured and killed for rebelling, Peter jumped up, “personally participating in the slaughter and hanging their corpses from street corners. He ordered his own son to be beaten and eventually beheaded, and he locked up his wife, his sister and his mistress in nunneries.” Dad of the year. He refused all reforms that lessened his autocratic power. No explanation of why he was called Peter the “Great”.
When Voltaire died, he owned 7,000 books. Catherine the Great bought all Voltaire’s stuff at his death because she had previously sent him letters when she was still liberal and now as a conservative, she wanted the letters back, to better lie to her own people about her own actual history. It will be 76 years before emancipation of the serfs. The gulf between the rich and poor was getting wider under Catherine’s Charter (a gift to the nobility). “The great reformer had become the great reactionary.” Russia experiences Napoleon’s invasion with the memory of the Mongol invasion still in its memory. Paul I introduces a novel torture, the tearing out of the nostrils, and brings back the “vengeful autocratic state.” Note: Alexander I gets betrayed after signing a non-aggression pact with Napoleon five years earlier, and Stalin gets betrayed by Hitler more than a century later. Napoleon and his generals admired the Russian collective will and patriotism shown in burning their own city before invasion. Alexander I leaves behind a backward conservative police state. Under Alexander, his troops had occupied Paris and had seen prosperity and freedom; as Decembrists returning back home they would fight for change.
The Decembrists, in response also to the American Revolution, rebelled against the autocracy. The revolt was received by Nicholas I as a warning that Russia might fracture. Like most douchebag rulers, Nicholas responded by ignoring the people and doubling down on the repression. Liberal Pushkin got openly jingoistic about Russia’s imperial campaign’s down south in the Caucasus in 1816. No progressive would have done that. During that campaign, Russian forces destroyed millions of acres of forest to stop rebels from hiding there, and they raped and kidnapped women. Chechnya was thus won. Chechen people today see this as a genocide never forgotten. Lermontov in his “A Hero of Our Time”, saw Russia as a prison while the Caucasus offered liberty. Tolstoy also served in the Caucasus and called the campaign “ugly and unjust”. He wrote that Chechens saw Russians as less than humans for their past actions. So, by this time thirty-five percent of Russia is conquered nationalities. “The decline of the Ottoman Empire left Russia and Britain facing off in a struggle to fill the power vacuum left by the Ottoman’s.” The Crimean War is the Russians wanting buffers to the south while the French and British want to extinguish the Russian Black Sea fleet. Russia loses and loses its warm water port and access to the Mediterranean. This marked “the beginning of the end for Russia as the dominant European power”.
In the sixteenth century, slaves became classified as serfs and many masters realized it was better to not mistreat one’s serfs. But under Peter I, peasants became property of their master. “By 1796, the census showed that 17 million people out of a population of 36 million were in bonded service.” A disobedient serf could be beaten or sent to Siberia. Alexander II allows the publication of Marx’s Das Capital in 1872, but he also reinforces the secret police and sends “thousands of suspected revolutionaries” to Siberia. Anti-Semitism forces 2 million Jews to leave Russia between the time of Alexander and 1917. Peasants who wanted change would be turned in by their village elders. Because of fear and terror, it was becoming clear that the peasants wouldn’t rise up by themselves.
By the 1890’s the Russian Empire included Poland and Afghanistan. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-8 liberates Serbia and Bulgaria. Poland was part of the Russian Empire until the Germans take it in 1915. In 1917, there was Soviet direct democracy reminding one of the ancient veches. All voices were there at Tauride Palace, including Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries and even Bolsheviks. One of the first acts of the Bolsheviks is to create a new secret police. Then comes the death of Tauride Palace’s political pluralism. Trotsky was the military brains behind the Revolution. Rosa Luxemburg was okay with a dictatorship of the working classes over the middle classes but not a dictatorship of the Communist Party over the working classes.
1917 was much less threatening than the US lets on; “Russia’s thousand-year history of autocracy was going to continue. Only the name had changed.” But in 1917, tsarist rule ended. The Russian people’s search for freedom had thrown off the old yoke for a tighter fitting new Lenin one. It is Lenin, not Stalin, who creates the Gulag, the secret police system and the one-party state. Bolshevik promises weren’t kept. Instead of bread, Lenin brings starvation. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918) makes the Soviet Republic give up Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, Belorussia and much of the Ukraine. The Bolsheviks then turn on the kulaks; this meant murdering those who knew how to best farm and bring it to market – this makes grain scarce, and “cities starved”. Lenin displayed zero sympathy through the worst of it. Resistance made Lenin increase the terror. Lenin suffers two strokes and the last two years of his life he writes little except “Lenin’s Testament” which says he likes Bukharin the most, Trotsky second, and Stalin he simply didn’t like because he thought he was too coarse and would exercise power without caution. Lenin dies in 1924, but Trotsky doesn’t make his funeral because Stalin lied about the time and date. In 1927, Trotsky is expelled from the party.
Stalin continued Lenin’s war on the kulak. “Three quarters of Soviet territory was eventually collectivized.” Think of Collectivization as a war without pleasantry on peasantry. Wait? Weren’t Lenin and Stalin in theory supposed to help not hinder the peasantry? Good point. Fourteen million people were sent to Stalin’s Gulags from 1929 and 1953. Showpieces of the Russian economy were built by political prisoners who were rebranded as “enemies of the people”. Collectivization was hated by the peasantry who refused to plant crops, smashed farm equipment, and slaughtered one quarter of the Russia’s cattle, horses, pigs, and sheep rather than give it to the state.
What resulted was a manmade famine called the Holodomor, which killed two to four million Ukrainians between 1932 and 1933. There was cannibalism. A British diplomat tosses a crust of bread in a spittoon on a train only to see a peasant fished it out and “ravenously ate it.” Eight million tons of Ukrainian grain were cruelly exported at this time, insuring mass death for peasants. That amount of grain would feed five million people. To make matters even worse, peasants were not legally allowed to leave the famine afflicted areas. Khrushchev said, “for Stalin, the peasants were scum.” Ukrainians were also seen by Stalin as having too many enemies of the state.
Many Russian artists and musicians left after the Revolution and became exiles: Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Nabokov, Chagall and Kandinsky. Shostakovich, who stayed behind, had to write music the authorities wanted, and so wrote into it, a hidden defiance. Some defiant Russians like Nadezhda Mandelstam and Akhmatova memorized banned poems for the day when Stalin kicked the bucket, and they could be published again. Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago (which questioned Soviet Communism) had to be smuggled out of Russia, but got him a Nobel prize. Gorky sold out and became an apologist for the regime. Stalin appealed to Gorky’s vanity and got him to champion “collectivization, the secret police and repression.” When Stalin’s poet Mayakovsky commits suicide, the people thought, “Wow, if a celebrated hardcore Stalin fan was that disillusioned, then…” Yesenin was another famous poet of the Revolution who became disenchanted and he hung himself after writing a poem in his own blood (Nietzsche once wrote, “Of all that is written, I love what a man has written with his own blood”).
Then came the purges. One purge in 1933 removed 854,000 people from the party. Anyone who opposed Stalin increasing the pace of economic growth (which would kill many people) was removed. In 1932, a thirteen-year boy turns his father in; thanks to him, family members around Russia suddenly had a duty to turn any politically wayward parents in, or themselves face five years in the Gulag. Quotas for “anti-Soviet elements” to arrest appeared; “the actual offenses were less important than filling the quota.” The Old Bolsheviks were killed off, leaving Stalin intentionally as the last man standing. Stalin felt they knew too much about his secrets and dirty work. Stalin blames the purges and terror on the bloodlust of Yezhov. Luckily, in 1988, Bukharin’s charges were all dropped against him under Gorbachev. This left one more opponent/rival for Stalin to eliminate: Trotsky. Soviet agent Mercader kills Trotsky in Mexico with an ice axe while he was working in his study. In 1936, Stalin lies by saying that the USSR had achieved socialism (even though Lenin had earlier, and correctly, said that the USSR had not). Actual communism would be achieved after socialism. Today’s US liberals, buying their inherited Cold War Kool-Aid, still pretend the USSR was communist.
“By 1939, the number of inmates in the Gulag ran into the millions”. The tsarist regime had executed 3,932 people from 1825 to 1910. Stalin’s secret police meanwhile killed 681,692 people for state crimes just between 1937 and 1938. Stalin approved of Ivan the Terrible’s willingness to execute rivals. Stalin underlines in his copy of a Genghis Khan bio, the phrase: “The deaths of the vanquished are necessary for the tranquility of the victors.” Can anyone picture Stalin acting “tranquil” or sated, no matter how many people he just killed? After Hitler and Stalin sign their pact, fascism was no longer discussed in the Soviet press. The biggest loser of their pact was Poland; Hitler had rights to Western Poland and Stalin got Eastern Poland back again for Russia. Western powers had less of a hold on Stalin than most US liberals were taught; Stalin and fellow Russians remembered well that fifteen capitalist nations had happily invaded Russia during its 1917 Civil War just to keep Communism, and Socialism (but not fascism) from ever materializing. Woodrow Wilson sent 8,500 soldiers to Siberia then to overthrow the Soviet government. Stalin thought the western powers were a bunch of appeasers who wouldn’t stand up to the Nazi’s and he wanted the Soviet Union to be protected from German expansionism. Stalin then enters Poland and executes the cream of Polish society in 1940; today, this is called the Katyn Forest Massacre. When Poland later turns against Germany, Stalin pretends the Germans did all that bad killing stuff. The Soviets in Finland found the Finns using a new weapon: the Molotov Cocktail. Hundreds of Soviet tanks were destroyed by them.
When Germany turns on Russia, Hitler is gambling that he can conquer Russia with left-over supplies of fuel provided by former ally he was now attacking. The biggest mass killing during WWI by the Nazis happens in the Kiev suburb of Babi Yar. Each of the thirty thousand Jews had lie down neatly on top of corpses in a ravine to get shot in a way that would pack them tightly yet do it fast. Leningrad gets a two-year siege; one in three in the city will die before its end. Russians had learned white camouflage from the Finns a year ago and paired it with skis and warm clothing against the Germans who had none of these advantages. The German advance stops only 10 miles from Moscow. To celebrate, Stalin allows the Orthodox Church to make a comeback once it promises to collaborate with the state. The idea of any Christian rationalizing Jesus blessing tanks is comical.
Warsaw was the city most damaged by WWII (85%), a higher percentage of the city destroyed than even Nagasaki, Hiroshima, or Tokyo. Stalin had to watch the morale of his returning soldiers; they had seen Western wealth and felt its allure while out of the country. Soviet Veterans groups weren’t allowed to exist, and soldiers couldn’t publish about their experiences. To catch up with the US with its atomic bomb, 150,000 to 200,000 prisoners mined the uranium and plutonium, and many died “slow and agonizing deaths caused by exposure to radioactive radon gas.” Sufferers were given no idea why they might be feeling so sick. Tito removes Yugoslavia from Stalin’s orbit, and he kills off as many as 50,000 Moscow loyalists to complete the break. Stalin did not expect the US to come to South Korea’s aid. The UN sides with the US because the USSR had left the UN at the time. According to Martin, Soviet autocracy killed from 20 to 60 million people. It was hard to be an industrial giant when you are sending so many of your factory-aged men to the Gulags. After Stalin, the Lenin Testament against Stalin is publicly read for the first time, and the secret police was renamed the KBG.
Khrushchev started off as a shepherd. I picture him then already bald, dressed as Little Bo-Peep with her staff. Before the Revolution, Russia was a net exporter of grain, under Khrushchev the USSR couldn’t even feed itself. Yes, Khrushchev removes his missiles from Cuba in the 60’s, but how many of us were told that the US also had to remove missiles from Turkey as well? Brezhnev was in power for 18 years, second only to Stalin. Détente in Russian is called “razryadka”. Did you know that Gulag survivor Solzhenitsyn was an Orthodox nationalist who believed Russia must be authoritarian ruled and specifically not a democracy? Gorbachev was hated by military-hardliners for wanting to pull out of Afghanistan; because of them it took so long to finally cut and run. Glasnost went further than Perestroika. 1986 was Chernobyl. Soviet Communism collapses in six days after seventy-four years of political domination. In 1991, the Soviet hammer and sickle is replaced by the Russian flag. “Privatization left most worse off; a handful of wealthy became wealthy beyond imagination.” In 1999, Putin becomes Prime Minister. Putin gets great ratings, after alcoholic Yeltsin, by showing himself to be tough. Putin wrote: “For Russians, a strong state is not an anomaly to be got rid of. Quite the contrary, it is the source of order.” This takes us back to the beginnings of Russia when early Slavs appealed to Rurik the Viking to come rule them to stop the horizontal tribal squabbling of the time. You, asked for it, you got it, Toyota.
Four critical facts about Russia which this book refused to mention: First, the US gave the Afghanistan War to Russia in order to give them a Vietnam of their own by funding religious madrassas fomenting Islamic extremism. Review ends in comment section below...
Genghis Khan doesn’t invade Russia, but his grandson Batu Khan did. Mongols were called Tatars by the Russians; I guess that’s a reference to the invader’s teeth having lots of calcified plaque. Tsar Batu founds the Golden Horde. Nearly all of Kievan Rus is conquered by the Mongols and many are murdered between 1237 and 1240. In Kiev, forty-eight of the fifty thousand occupants are slain. If you still lived, you were a slave. The Mongols were a “perpetual war machine” and Russia lived under them for 240 years (1240 to 1480). This is a time period when Russia is totally cut off from the West. Note that these centuries of Russian slavery kept the population from both the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. This leads Russia to adopt “the Asiatic model of Iron Rule learned under the Mongols”. Tartar rule was “a prison of barbarism”.
Back then, Moscow was still a Russian cultural backwater, probably like New Jersey or West Virginia is for us today. Under Ivan I, who is loyal to the Golden Horde, the prince and administration move to Moscow. Ivan III (Ivan the Great) was both a cruel tyrant and a drunk misogynist. Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) murders his own son and creates the secret police which has unlimited powers. Ivan IV’s reign of terror anticipated Stalin and was later approved by the Mustache King himself. Ivan IV allied with Elizabeth I of England and sent her letters. When she once didn’t respond to his liking, Ivan IV wrote, “I spit on you and your palace.” But under Ivan IV, Russia finally frees itself from the Tartar khanate. Russia would now grow at a rate of 50 miles per day for the next three hundred years, until 1914. Ivan IV’s death neutralizes the balancing effect of the boyars and Russia gets really autocratic; the individual’s needs gets totally subjugated to the needs of the state, or “the common good.” Centuries of distilled Russian propaganda: the individual must sacrifice himself for the greater good.
Ivan IV gives away lands that still belonged to Islamic khans and the colonialization begins. Later on, Siberia provides gold, coal, timber and iron, but back then, Siberia offered the pleasure of bludgeoning countless animals to death and taking their fur. Russian Cyrillic came from Saint Cyril’s created alphabet, Old Slavonic, used by the Orthodox Church and many Slavic people.
Peter the Great was great at putting the interest of the state above the interest of the people. He wanted to change the façade of Russia after having toured Europe. The building of St. Petersburg is the story of slave laborers endlessly dying to complete it with a death toll conceivably in the hundreds of thousands. Peter introduces a beard tax to force his favorite kind of change, superficial change. When Peter had a thousand of his guards tortured and killed for rebelling, Peter jumped up, “personally participating in the slaughter and hanging their corpses from street corners. He ordered his own son to be beaten and eventually beheaded, and he locked up his wife, his sister and his mistress in nunneries.” Dad of the year. He refused all reforms that lessened his autocratic power. No explanation of why he was called Peter the “Great”.
When Voltaire died, he owned 7,000 books. Catherine the Great bought all Voltaire’s stuff at his death because she had previously sent him letters when she was still liberal and now as a conservative, she wanted the letters back, to better lie to her own people about her own actual history. It will be 76 years before emancipation of the serfs. The gulf between the rich and poor was getting wider under Catherine’s Charter (a gift to the nobility). “The great reformer had become the great reactionary.” Russia experiences Napoleon’s invasion with the memory of the Mongol invasion still in its memory. Paul I introduces a novel torture, the tearing out of the nostrils, and brings back the “vengeful autocratic state.” Note: Alexander I gets betrayed after signing a non-aggression pact with Napoleon five years earlier, and Stalin gets betrayed by Hitler more than a century later. Napoleon and his generals admired the Russian collective will and patriotism shown in burning their own city before invasion. Alexander I leaves behind a backward conservative police state. Under Alexander, his troops had occupied Paris and had seen prosperity and freedom; as Decembrists returning back home they would fight for change.
The Decembrists, in response also to the American Revolution, rebelled against the autocracy. The revolt was received by Nicholas I as a warning that Russia might fracture. Like most douchebag rulers, Nicholas responded by ignoring the people and doubling down on the repression. Liberal Pushkin got openly jingoistic about Russia’s imperial campaign’s down south in the Caucasus in 1816. No progressive would have done that. During that campaign, Russian forces destroyed millions of acres of forest to stop rebels from hiding there, and they raped and kidnapped women. Chechnya was thus won. Chechen people today see this as a genocide never forgotten. Lermontov in his “A Hero of Our Time”, saw Russia as a prison while the Caucasus offered liberty. Tolstoy also served in the Caucasus and called the campaign “ugly and unjust”. He wrote that Chechens saw Russians as less than humans for their past actions. So, by this time thirty-five percent of Russia is conquered nationalities. “The decline of the Ottoman Empire left Russia and Britain facing off in a struggle to fill the power vacuum left by the Ottoman’s.” The Crimean War is the Russians wanting buffers to the south while the French and British want to extinguish the Russian Black Sea fleet. Russia loses and loses its warm water port and access to the Mediterranean. This marked “the beginning of the end for Russia as the dominant European power”.
In the sixteenth century, slaves became classified as serfs and many masters realized it was better to not mistreat one’s serfs. But under Peter I, peasants became property of their master. “By 1796, the census showed that 17 million people out of a population of 36 million were in bonded service.” A disobedient serf could be beaten or sent to Siberia. Alexander II allows the publication of Marx’s Das Capital in 1872, but he also reinforces the secret police and sends “thousands of suspected revolutionaries” to Siberia. Anti-Semitism forces 2 million Jews to leave Russia between the time of Alexander and 1917. Peasants who wanted change would be turned in by their village elders. Because of fear and terror, it was becoming clear that the peasants wouldn’t rise up by themselves.
By the 1890’s the Russian Empire included Poland and Afghanistan. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-8 liberates Serbia and Bulgaria. Poland was part of the Russian Empire until the Germans take it in 1915. In 1917, there was Soviet direct democracy reminding one of the ancient veches. All voices were there at Tauride Palace, including Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries and even Bolsheviks. One of the first acts of the Bolsheviks is to create a new secret police. Then comes the death of Tauride Palace’s political pluralism. Trotsky was the military brains behind the Revolution. Rosa Luxemburg was okay with a dictatorship of the working classes over the middle classes but not a dictatorship of the Communist Party over the working classes.
1917 was much less threatening than the US lets on; “Russia’s thousand-year history of autocracy was going to continue. Only the name had changed.” But in 1917, tsarist rule ended. The Russian people’s search for freedom had thrown off the old yoke for a tighter fitting new Lenin one. It is Lenin, not Stalin, who creates the Gulag, the secret police system and the one-party state. Bolshevik promises weren’t kept. Instead of bread, Lenin brings starvation. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918) makes the Soviet Republic give up Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, Belorussia and much of the Ukraine. The Bolsheviks then turn on the kulaks; this meant murdering those who knew how to best farm and bring it to market – this makes grain scarce, and “cities starved”. Lenin displayed zero sympathy through the worst of it. Resistance made Lenin increase the terror. Lenin suffers two strokes and the last two years of his life he writes little except “Lenin’s Testament” which says he likes Bukharin the most, Trotsky second, and Stalin he simply didn’t like because he thought he was too coarse and would exercise power without caution. Lenin dies in 1924, but Trotsky doesn’t make his funeral because Stalin lied about the time and date. In 1927, Trotsky is expelled from the party.
Stalin continued Lenin’s war on the kulak. “Three quarters of Soviet territory was eventually collectivized.” Think of Collectivization as a war without pleasantry on peasantry. Wait? Weren’t Lenin and Stalin in theory supposed to help not hinder the peasantry? Good point. Fourteen million people were sent to Stalin’s Gulags from 1929 and 1953. Showpieces of the Russian economy were built by political prisoners who were rebranded as “enemies of the people”. Collectivization was hated by the peasantry who refused to plant crops, smashed farm equipment, and slaughtered one quarter of the Russia’s cattle, horses, pigs, and sheep rather than give it to the state.
What resulted was a manmade famine called the Holodomor, which killed two to four million Ukrainians between 1932 and 1933. There was cannibalism. A British diplomat tosses a crust of bread in a spittoon on a train only to see a peasant fished it out and “ravenously ate it.” Eight million tons of Ukrainian grain were cruelly exported at this time, insuring mass death for peasants. That amount of grain would feed five million people. To make matters even worse, peasants were not legally allowed to leave the famine afflicted areas. Khrushchev said, “for Stalin, the peasants were scum.” Ukrainians were also seen by Stalin as having too many enemies of the state.
Many Russian artists and musicians left after the Revolution and became exiles: Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Nabokov, Chagall and Kandinsky. Shostakovich, who stayed behind, had to write music the authorities wanted, and so wrote into it, a hidden defiance. Some defiant Russians like Nadezhda Mandelstam and Akhmatova memorized banned poems for the day when Stalin kicked the bucket, and they could be published again. Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago (which questioned Soviet Communism) had to be smuggled out of Russia, but got him a Nobel prize. Gorky sold out and became an apologist for the regime. Stalin appealed to Gorky’s vanity and got him to champion “collectivization, the secret police and repression.” When Stalin’s poet Mayakovsky commits suicide, the people thought, “Wow, if a celebrated hardcore Stalin fan was that disillusioned, then…” Yesenin was another famous poet of the Revolution who became disenchanted and he hung himself after writing a poem in his own blood (Nietzsche once wrote, “Of all that is written, I love what a man has written with his own blood”).
Then came the purges. One purge in 1933 removed 854,000 people from the party. Anyone who opposed Stalin increasing the pace of economic growth (which would kill many people) was removed. In 1932, a thirteen-year boy turns his father in; thanks to him, family members around Russia suddenly had a duty to turn any politically wayward parents in, or themselves face five years in the Gulag. Quotas for “anti-Soviet elements” to arrest appeared; “the actual offenses were less important than filling the quota.” The Old Bolsheviks were killed off, leaving Stalin intentionally as the last man standing. Stalin felt they knew too much about his secrets and dirty work. Stalin blames the purges and terror on the bloodlust of Yezhov. Luckily, in 1988, Bukharin’s charges were all dropped against him under Gorbachev. This left one more opponent/rival for Stalin to eliminate: Trotsky. Soviet agent Mercader kills Trotsky in Mexico with an ice axe while he was working in his study. In 1936, Stalin lies by saying that the USSR had achieved socialism (even though Lenin had earlier, and correctly, said that the USSR had not). Actual communism would be achieved after socialism. Today’s US liberals, buying their inherited Cold War Kool-Aid, still pretend the USSR was communist.
“By 1939, the number of inmates in the Gulag ran into the millions”. The tsarist regime had executed 3,932 people from 1825 to 1910. Stalin’s secret police meanwhile killed 681,692 people for state crimes just between 1937 and 1938. Stalin approved of Ivan the Terrible’s willingness to execute rivals. Stalin underlines in his copy of a Genghis Khan bio, the phrase: “The deaths of the vanquished are necessary for the tranquility of the victors.” Can anyone picture Stalin acting “tranquil” or sated, no matter how many people he just killed? After Hitler and Stalin sign their pact, fascism was no longer discussed in the Soviet press. The biggest loser of their pact was Poland; Hitler had rights to Western Poland and Stalin got Eastern Poland back again for Russia. Western powers had less of a hold on Stalin than most US liberals were taught; Stalin and fellow Russians remembered well that fifteen capitalist nations had happily invaded Russia during its 1917 Civil War just to keep Communism, and Socialism (but not fascism) from ever materializing. Woodrow Wilson sent 8,500 soldiers to Siberia then to overthrow the Soviet government. Stalin thought the western powers were a bunch of appeasers who wouldn’t stand up to the Nazi’s and he wanted the Soviet Union to be protected from German expansionism. Stalin then enters Poland and executes the cream of Polish society in 1940; today, this is called the Katyn Forest Massacre. When Poland later turns against Germany, Stalin pretends the Germans did all that bad killing stuff. The Soviets in Finland found the Finns using a new weapon: the Molotov Cocktail. Hundreds of Soviet tanks were destroyed by them.
When Germany turns on Russia, Hitler is gambling that he can conquer Russia with left-over supplies of fuel provided by former ally he was now attacking. The biggest mass killing during WWI by the Nazis happens in the Kiev suburb of Babi Yar. Each of the thirty thousand Jews had lie down neatly on top of corpses in a ravine to get shot in a way that would pack them tightly yet do it fast. Leningrad gets a two-year siege; one in three in the city will die before its end. Russians had learned white camouflage from the Finns a year ago and paired it with skis and warm clothing against the Germans who had none of these advantages. The German advance stops only 10 miles from Moscow. To celebrate, Stalin allows the Orthodox Church to make a comeback once it promises to collaborate with the state. The idea of any Christian rationalizing Jesus blessing tanks is comical.
Warsaw was the city most damaged by WWII (85%), a higher percentage of the city destroyed than even Nagasaki, Hiroshima, or Tokyo. Stalin had to watch the morale of his returning soldiers; they had seen Western wealth and felt its allure while out of the country. Soviet Veterans groups weren’t allowed to exist, and soldiers couldn’t publish about their experiences. To catch up with the US with its atomic bomb, 150,000 to 200,000 prisoners mined the uranium and plutonium, and many died “slow and agonizing deaths caused by exposure to radioactive radon gas.” Sufferers were given no idea why they might be feeling so sick. Tito removes Yugoslavia from Stalin’s orbit, and he kills off as many as 50,000 Moscow loyalists to complete the break. Stalin did not expect the US to come to South Korea’s aid. The UN sides with the US because the USSR had left the UN at the time. According to Martin, Soviet autocracy killed from 20 to 60 million people. It was hard to be an industrial giant when you are sending so many of your factory-aged men to the Gulags. After Stalin, the Lenin Testament against Stalin is publicly read for the first time, and the secret police was renamed the KBG.
Khrushchev started off as a shepherd. I picture him then already bald, dressed as Little Bo-Peep with her staff. Before the Revolution, Russia was a net exporter of grain, under Khrushchev the USSR couldn’t even feed itself. Yes, Khrushchev removes his missiles from Cuba in the 60’s, but how many of us were told that the US also had to remove missiles from Turkey as well? Brezhnev was in power for 18 years, second only to Stalin. Détente in Russian is called “razryadka”. Did you know that Gulag survivor Solzhenitsyn was an Orthodox nationalist who believed Russia must be authoritarian ruled and specifically not a democracy? Gorbachev was hated by military-hardliners for wanting to pull out of Afghanistan; because of them it took so long to finally cut and run. Glasnost went further than Perestroika. 1986 was Chernobyl. Soviet Communism collapses in six days after seventy-four years of political domination. In 1991, the Soviet hammer and sickle is replaced by the Russian flag. “Privatization left most worse off; a handful of wealthy became wealthy beyond imagination.” In 1999, Putin becomes Prime Minister. Putin gets great ratings, after alcoholic Yeltsin, by showing himself to be tough. Putin wrote: “For Russians, a strong state is not an anomaly to be got rid of. Quite the contrary, it is the source of order.” This takes us back to the beginnings of Russia when early Slavs appealed to Rurik the Viking to come rule them to stop the horizontal tribal squabbling of the time. You, asked for it, you got it, Toyota.
Four critical facts about Russia which this book refused to mention: First, the US gave the Afghanistan War to Russia in order to give them a Vietnam of their own by funding religious madrassas fomenting Islamic extremism. Review ends in comment section below...
January 10, 2021
For all you fellow Russian history geeks, this was an EXCELLENT listen. Not so much a book as a compilation of radio segments. An early podcast, if you will. The audio version comes in two parts, I highly recommend both.
June 27, 2017
A good book with a twist.
The premise is simple: Europe vs Asia. Western mentality versus Eastern mentality. Democracy vs Autocracy. And so the author goes over a 1,000-year history of Russia, starting with the Vikings all the way modern-day era.
Early periods are full of poems, fables and ancient records found in old churches. Then we get a glimpse into the three important rules of the medieval era, so to speak - Ivan, Peter and Catherine, and reasons why each one of these used autocracy as their modus operandi. Then, there's the more recent history, focusing on the late imperial days, the reforms, the revolts, and the birth of revolutionary ideas.
Most of the book is actually dedicated to Lenin and Stalin, and there's no mistaking the author's agenda. He wants to show us that Russia always chooses the 'iron rule' in the hour of need. What I never like is when authors feed me opinion. I don't need you to think for me. Give me facts and I'll decide for myself whether the Bolsheviks were tyrants, peasants, dictators, or else.
If you disregard the occasional reminder that Russia does what Russia does, the stories are truly fascinating. It's an amazing basket of chaos, power play, the misuse of economics, the great political games, the ruthless gambles, the wars. Then, we also get a glimpse into the Soviet era under Brezhnev and Khrushchev, and again, there's an endless supply of witty stories and references that makes one wonder how the world did not end in a nuclear war 50 years ago.
The last section is dedicated to the rapid deterioration of the Soviet economy, the attempt to gain liberalization and democracy, and the recent Putin era, all of which Martin portrays with a solid dose of skepticism. He eagerly embraces opinions and memories of anti-Soviet and anti-modern-Russia people, but he does not believe the official word. Nor does he give any context as to how things are for the common person in Russia today other than the offhand reference to improved stability and economy in the past 15 years, which is a gross generalization that does not do justice to an otherwise in-depth and detailed work. These are critical factors that cannot be ignored, because they were major factors in the uprisings and protests of the late 19th and the early 20th century, as so they must be treated with the same importance as the past events.
Anyway, with the BS filter turned on, I really liked reading this, as I've learned a lot of cool stuff, things like Ivan the Terrible and his letters, Catherine's love life, Lenin's mannerisms, Stalin's style, Brezhnev's Kuzma's Mother, and many other interesting tidbits.
But ...
There's a problem.
I've found three big factual errors in this book.
1. Martin mentions Tsar Bomba, a thermonuclear device detonated by the Soviets in 1961. He writes about the 100MT yield. In fact, the weapon was de-rated to 60MT from its original yield, for the fear of completely destroying the delivery aircraft and the photography escort.
2. He mentions thousands being fatally irradiated in the Chernobyl disaster. This is not true. The total death toll from the disaster is less than 100 people, mostly firefighters on the first day. Many people were treated for thyroid cancer (about 5,000), but without a single fatality. Lastly, the prediction is for about 5,000 fatalities for the overall population of about 8 million over the next 100 years as a result of the disaster (this is less than smoking and alcohol rates). I really have no idea where he got this information.
3. He writes that Russia bombed Georgia after it took control and imposed order in South Ossetia. Factually, the Russians intervened following the shelling of Gori by Georgian forces. This has nothing to do with taking sides. Just being factual. But I guess the author's dislike for Russian's leaders and style in the past 15 years - it's evident from the tone and style of writing, which goes from being highly colorful, detailed and informative to speculative, possibly because Martin lived in Moscow for a bunch of years, witnessed the Perestroika and cannot really remain impartial - got in the way.
All in all, I found this book extremely entertaining and interesting.
I'm just not sure how much of it can be trusted.
Read with a pinch of salt and your Western goggles on.
Igor
The premise is simple: Europe vs Asia. Western mentality versus Eastern mentality. Democracy vs Autocracy. And so the author goes over a 1,000-year history of Russia, starting with the Vikings all the way modern-day era.
Early periods are full of poems, fables and ancient records found in old churches. Then we get a glimpse into the three important rules of the medieval era, so to speak - Ivan, Peter and Catherine, and reasons why each one of these used autocracy as their modus operandi. Then, there's the more recent history, focusing on the late imperial days, the reforms, the revolts, and the birth of revolutionary ideas.
Most of the book is actually dedicated to Lenin and Stalin, and there's no mistaking the author's agenda. He wants to show us that Russia always chooses the 'iron rule' in the hour of need. What I never like is when authors feed me opinion. I don't need you to think for me. Give me facts and I'll decide for myself whether the Bolsheviks were tyrants, peasants, dictators, or else.
If you disregard the occasional reminder that Russia does what Russia does, the stories are truly fascinating. It's an amazing basket of chaos, power play, the misuse of economics, the great political games, the ruthless gambles, the wars. Then, we also get a glimpse into the Soviet era under Brezhnev and Khrushchev, and again, there's an endless supply of witty stories and references that makes one wonder how the world did not end in a nuclear war 50 years ago.
The last section is dedicated to the rapid deterioration of the Soviet economy, the attempt to gain liberalization and democracy, and the recent Putin era, all of which Martin portrays with a solid dose of skepticism. He eagerly embraces opinions and memories of anti-Soviet and anti-modern-Russia people, but he does not believe the official word. Nor does he give any context as to how things are for the common person in Russia today other than the offhand reference to improved stability and economy in the past 15 years, which is a gross generalization that does not do justice to an otherwise in-depth and detailed work. These are critical factors that cannot be ignored, because they were major factors in the uprisings and protests of the late 19th and the early 20th century, as so they must be treated with the same importance as the past events.
Anyway, with the BS filter turned on, I really liked reading this, as I've learned a lot of cool stuff, things like Ivan the Terrible and his letters, Catherine's love life, Lenin's mannerisms, Stalin's style, Brezhnev's Kuzma's Mother, and many other interesting tidbits.
But ...
There's a problem.
I've found three big factual errors in this book.
1. Martin mentions Tsar Bomba, a thermonuclear device detonated by the Soviets in 1961. He writes about the 100MT yield. In fact, the weapon was de-rated to 60MT from its original yield, for the fear of completely destroying the delivery aircraft and the photography escort.
2. He mentions thousands being fatally irradiated in the Chernobyl disaster. This is not true. The total death toll from the disaster is less than 100 people, mostly firefighters on the first day. Many people were treated for thyroid cancer (about 5,000), but without a single fatality. Lastly, the prediction is for about 5,000 fatalities for the overall population of about 8 million over the next 100 years as a result of the disaster (this is less than smoking and alcohol rates). I really have no idea where he got this information.
3. He writes that Russia bombed Georgia after it took control and imposed order in South Ossetia. Factually, the Russians intervened following the shelling of Gori by Georgian forces. This has nothing to do with taking sides. Just being factual. But I guess the author's dislike for Russian's leaders and style in the past 15 years - it's evident from the tone and style of writing, which goes from being highly colorful, detailed and informative to speculative, possibly because Martin lived in Moscow for a bunch of years, witnessed the Perestroika and cannot really remain impartial - got in the way.
All in all, I found this book extremely entertaining and interesting.
I'm just not sure how much of it can be trusted.
Read with a pinch of salt and your Western goggles on.
Igor
August 3, 2014
Decent history, but I have a few problems with it. First, it's more a history of the Soviet Union than of Russia. All of pre-Soviet history is covered within the first hundred pages or so and almost all the rest of it is Soviet Union. Second, I take issue with the author's identification of "Asiatic" with oppressive, despotic, and irrational while "Western" or "European" represents everything enlightened, grand, and great. This is a pretty old, simplistic, and false prejudice that really only belongs in the 19th century.
September 23, 2023
O lectură fermecătoare, în urma căreia sunt șanse să înțelegem ceva mai bine Rusia. Chiar dacă nu și s-o apreciem. Nu găsesc că ne-a oferit - de-a lungul istoriei sale - prea multe ocazii s-o ridicăm în slăvi.
Pe măsură ce citesc mai multe despre țara respectivă, încercarea noastră (firească) de a o înțelege îmi pare tot mai deșartă și, de ce nu?, un pic ridicolă.
Dar nu trebuie să renunțăm. Plus că a “înțelege” Rusia nu înseamnă a o justifica sau a o scuza.
Pe măsură ce citesc mai multe despre țara respectivă, încercarea noastră (firească) de a o înțelege îmi pare tot mai deșartă și, de ce nu?, un pic ridicolă.
Dar nu trebuie să renunțăm. Plus că a “înțelege” Rusia nu înseamnă a o justifica sau a o scuza.
June 1, 2025
Given its size, this is a surprisingly readable 5-part history of Russia as it oscillates between iron-fist autocracy and some semblance of liberal order. Here’s the TL;DR:
Part 1: Kiev and Proto-democracy
Russia’s origin myth involves Vikings (Rus) invited to arbitrate, eventually settling in Kiev and trading with Byzantium. Christianity was adopted in 988. Novgorod featured early proto-democracy through merchant assemblies (Veches). Mongol invasions introduced autocratic structures. Moscow rose by collaborating with Mongols. Novgorod’s defeat ended local independence, beginning centralized empire-building.
Part 2: Expansion and Empire
Ivan the Terrible expanded Russia and ruled with fear (e.g., creating a secret police and killing his own son in a rage). Later rulers like Peter the Great westernized Russia, while Catherine the Great fostered culture. Liberal hopes under Alexander I collapsed into Nicholas I’s harsh autocracy after the failed Decembrist revolt of 1825.
Part 3: Rise of Revolution
Tolstoy criticized imperial wars; serfdom shaped Russian collectivist attitudes. Emancipation in 1861 brought economic burden, not freedom. Nicholas II faced assassinations, military defeat, and unrest. The 1905 revolution briefly led to parliamentary reforms, but repression returned. In 1917, protests over food turned into revolution, forcing the Tsar to abdicate. The Bolsheviks seized power amid chaos.
Part 4: Dictatorship (of the People?)
The Bolsheviks crushed dissent and made peace with Germany. While Lenin has adopted NEP (new economic policy), Stalin launched brutal collectivization and purges. Industrial gains came at great human cost. WWII devastated Russia but affirmed its power. Stalin’s paranoia led to widespread persecution. After his death in 1953, it was estimated that he managed to kill 20-50 millions.
Part 5: Democrats with Cold Feet
Khrushchev was less dictatorial but was eventually ousted by a coup. Brezhnev’s 18-year rule brought stagnation. Gorbachev was not a liberal from the get go. His glasnost wasn’t meant to be radical but let things out of control. Yeltsin rose during the 1991 coup, banned the Communist Party in Russia. In turn he would gather more power for himself. The public grew disillusioned. Putin emerged as a strongman returning Russian rule to autocracy.
Part 1: Kiev and Proto-democracy
Russia’s origin myth involves Vikings (Rus) invited to arbitrate, eventually settling in Kiev and trading with Byzantium. Christianity was adopted in 988. Novgorod featured early proto-democracy through merchant assemblies (Veches). Mongol invasions introduced autocratic structures. Moscow rose by collaborating with Mongols. Novgorod’s defeat ended local independence, beginning centralized empire-building.
Part 2: Expansion and Empire
Ivan the Terrible expanded Russia and ruled with fear (e.g., creating a secret police and killing his own son in a rage). Later rulers like Peter the Great westernized Russia, while Catherine the Great fostered culture. Liberal hopes under Alexander I collapsed into Nicholas I’s harsh autocracy after the failed Decembrist revolt of 1825.
Part 3: Rise of Revolution
Tolstoy criticized imperial wars; serfdom shaped Russian collectivist attitudes. Emancipation in 1861 brought economic burden, not freedom. Nicholas II faced assassinations, military defeat, and unrest. The 1905 revolution briefly led to parliamentary reforms, but repression returned. In 1917, protests over food turned into revolution, forcing the Tsar to abdicate. The Bolsheviks seized power amid chaos.
Part 4: Dictatorship (of the People?)
The Bolsheviks crushed dissent and made peace with Germany. While Lenin has adopted NEP (new economic policy), Stalin launched brutal collectivization and purges. Industrial gains came at great human cost. WWII devastated Russia but affirmed its power. Stalin’s paranoia led to widespread persecution. After his death in 1953, it was estimated that he managed to kill 20-50 millions.
Part 5: Democrats with Cold Feet
Khrushchev was less dictatorial but was eventually ousted by a coup. Brezhnev’s 18-year rule brought stagnation. Gorbachev was not a liberal from the get go. His glasnost wasn’t meant to be radical but let things out of control. Yeltsin rose during the 1991 coup, banned the Communist Party in Russia. In turn he would gather more power for himself. The public grew disillusioned. Putin emerged as a strongman returning Russian rule to autocracy.
February 14, 2025
It is evident, almost immediately, that the author of this book is a journalist and not a historian; and this is not just because he announces it (though he does), rather it's due to his prose style--it is written from start to finish in a relaxed journalese. He also inserts himself in the history, as a kind of TV travel host (which I gather he may have been once upon a time), but mostly sticks to the telling of Russia's tale.
I wish he had dwelled on the early history of Russia a bit more. Russia's first thousand or so years--from 862 to the end of the nineteenth century--comprise, roughly, 160 pages of the book's 530 pages: all the rest is devoted to the past 110 years. But I suspect that the lack of early resources and his own area of Russian expertise accounts for his choice of focus.
He tends to highlight piquant anecdotes and incidents to make his general point: Russia has two forces that shape its identity, Asiatic despotism, and European liberalism. However, the former almost always wins out, and for every small urge towards any sort of liberalizing reform there is always a larger and reactionary return to despotism or autocracy.
I wish he had dwelled on the early history of Russia a bit more. Russia's first thousand or so years--from 862 to the end of the nineteenth century--comprise, roughly, 160 pages of the book's 530 pages: all the rest is devoted to the past 110 years. But I suspect that the lack of early resources and his own area of Russian expertise accounts for his choice of focus.
He tends to highlight piquant anecdotes and incidents to make his general point: Russia has two forces that shape its identity, Asiatic despotism, and European liberalism. However, the former almost always wins out, and for every small urge towards any sort of liberalizing reform there is always a larger and reactionary return to despotism or autocracy.
June 23, 2012
Very engaging, but the pacing was strange. In a thousand year history, almost half the book is spent on the years between 1900 and 1960. I would have liked more early history and more modern history.
August 24, 2021
On the one hand it is the call of Europe and on the other it is the retention of Asia. Where does Russia go? Difficulty in determining their national identity is not just a problem facing Russia at the moment. As a historian who has worked deeply in Russia's core departments, BBC reporter Martin Siksmith said that it is not his duty to predict the future, he only provides clues to the past. "BBC Watching Russia: A Thousand Year History of the Iron and Blood Country" presents to readers a great country that has been entangled for a thousand years. Should I go left or right? It is difficult to say farewell to the ancient Rus, Romanov dynasty, Soviet Russia, and the Russian Federation. Dilemmas always exist.
The entanglement of Russia is in the blood of the nation. Historian LS Stavrianos used a comparison of multi-ethnic Russia and the United States in the "Global History", thinking that the former is a "ethnic mosaic" and the latter is a "ethnic melting pot". The combination of mosaics is obviously inferior to the melting pot. Come solidly and thoroughly. But on the other hand, the "collectivist spirit of giving up a small family for everyone" is a deep-rooted part of the Russian national culture. This spirit is strong enough to make the people willingly accept dictatorship and give up their lives at a critical moment. This starts from the geographical environment of Russia. The long and long boundary line lacks natural barriers such as oceans and mountains, which makes it too fragile. For a long time, the Russian people have been harassed by foreigners. For this reason, they chose to expand outward-"it seems that only the hinterland of Europe and Asia can be put into the bag to feel a little at ease." Fighting the enemy bravely is commonplace in the military. Even the old, weak, women and children would rather burn their homes without compromise when they are defeated. It really deserves the word "iron and blood". The internal division and integration can be seen from a distance and easily broken like a mosaic, so the rulers of different personalities and different positions tend to more or less tend to the extreme of iron and blood-dictatorship.
Although much criticized, there is no shortage of talented rulers in Russia's history. They have ambitious goals, at least when they were in power, they really wanted to work hard. For example, Ivan IV tried to establish a parliament in the early days of his reign, but died due to the war. Ekaterina II, who was once a Maverick with Voltaire, was more aggressive than the rulers of other European countries at that time. Unfortunately, he chose the same path after careful consideration, and even destroyed old letters to show his goodbye. Peter the Great consolidated the dictatorship in the name of reform. A series of gentle policies bound the interests of the people and the country, and the tsar was still the tsar.
After the October Revolution, Russia seems to have gotten rid of the dictatorship. However, just like the factors that restrained the tsar’s reforms, the subsequent rulers were not only unable to delegate power to others, but were eager to shape their own authority. In Seak Smith's view, ideals are full and reality is very skinny. The people were attracted by the pie-like promises and spontaneously invested in patriotic enthusiasm. In the end, they did not reflect the reality and only consolidated the authority of a few people. Although Siksmith relentlessly exposed the faults of several modern Russian rulers, he also admitted that they were slowly helping Russia to decide whether to go left or go right. The history is long, like the slow motion of a giant. The slow motion brought the leap of the October Revolution, and the slow motion will also bring the next step. For example, Khrushchev’s failed promises and over-confidence did not obliterate his realization of a new society that was "more open and less panic-suppressed by autocracy." Gorbachev took another step forward and realized "quasi-democratic freedom The state is the “irregular market capitalism” and the “centripetal body composed of competing quasi-states”; Putin brought the “illusion” of restoring Russia’s status as a power and the “illusion” of restoring peace and security.
As close neighbors of Russia, we are not intimate enough to be familiar with it, and our understanding of it is like a shadowy veil. Or because of its vast territory, it cannot be overstated, as China’s southernmost and northernmost regions also have very different regional cultures; or because the difference between it and ours is not something common in history can eliminate, just like blonde and blue eyes. The European-style appearance of Russia is played in minutes; but the most important thing is because of its own swings and contradictions, stubbornness and variables, iron-bloodedness and constraints, Russia itself does not fully understand their eulogized motherland. Only the straightforward history can give a glimpse of the case: Adjacent to the traditions of the East and yearning for the prosperity of the West, there should be a third road to Russia’s future, which is a road that does not need to be criticized or envied.
The entanglement of Russia is in the blood of the nation. Historian LS Stavrianos used a comparison of multi-ethnic Russia and the United States in the "Global History", thinking that the former is a "ethnic mosaic" and the latter is a "ethnic melting pot". The combination of mosaics is obviously inferior to the melting pot. Come solidly and thoroughly. But on the other hand, the "collectivist spirit of giving up a small family for everyone" is a deep-rooted part of the Russian national culture. This spirit is strong enough to make the people willingly accept dictatorship and give up their lives at a critical moment. This starts from the geographical environment of Russia. The long and long boundary line lacks natural barriers such as oceans and mountains, which makes it too fragile. For a long time, the Russian people have been harassed by foreigners. For this reason, they chose to expand outward-"it seems that only the hinterland of Europe and Asia can be put into the bag to feel a little at ease." Fighting the enemy bravely is commonplace in the military. Even the old, weak, women and children would rather burn their homes without compromise when they are defeated. It really deserves the word "iron and blood". The internal division and integration can be seen from a distance and easily broken like a mosaic, so the rulers of different personalities and different positions tend to more or less tend to the extreme of iron and blood-dictatorship.
Although much criticized, there is no shortage of talented rulers in Russia's history. They have ambitious goals, at least when they were in power, they really wanted to work hard. For example, Ivan IV tried to establish a parliament in the early days of his reign, but died due to the war. Ekaterina II, who was once a Maverick with Voltaire, was more aggressive than the rulers of other European countries at that time. Unfortunately, he chose the same path after careful consideration, and even destroyed old letters to show his goodbye. Peter the Great consolidated the dictatorship in the name of reform. A series of gentle policies bound the interests of the people and the country, and the tsar was still the tsar.
After the October Revolution, Russia seems to have gotten rid of the dictatorship. However, just like the factors that restrained the tsar’s reforms, the subsequent rulers were not only unable to delegate power to others, but were eager to shape their own authority. In Seak Smith's view, ideals are full and reality is very skinny. The people were attracted by the pie-like promises and spontaneously invested in patriotic enthusiasm. In the end, they did not reflect the reality and only consolidated the authority of a few people. Although Siksmith relentlessly exposed the faults of several modern Russian rulers, he also admitted that they were slowly helping Russia to decide whether to go left or go right. The history is long, like the slow motion of a giant. The slow motion brought the leap of the October Revolution, and the slow motion will also bring the next step. For example, Khrushchev’s failed promises and over-confidence did not obliterate his realization of a new society that was "more open and less panic-suppressed by autocracy." Gorbachev took another step forward and realized "quasi-democratic freedom The state is the “irregular market capitalism” and the “centripetal body composed of competing quasi-states”; Putin brought the “illusion” of restoring Russia’s status as a power and the “illusion” of restoring peace and security.
As close neighbors of Russia, we are not intimate enough to be familiar with it, and our understanding of it is like a shadowy veil. Or because of its vast territory, it cannot be overstated, as China’s southernmost and northernmost regions also have very different regional cultures; or because the difference between it and ours is not something common in history can eliminate, just like blonde and blue eyes. The European-style appearance of Russia is played in minutes; but the most important thing is because of its own swings and contradictions, stubbornness and variables, iron-bloodedness and constraints, Russia itself does not fully understand their eulogized motherland. Only the straightforward history can give a glimpse of the case: Adjacent to the traditions of the East and yearning for the prosperity of the West, there should be a third road to Russia’s future, which is a road that does not need to be criticized or envied.
February 7, 2017
This book is deeply biased but a very interesting read nonetheless. Its central thesis is that Russian national identity is split between "European liberty" and "Asiatic tyranny", and Russians had forever embraced a statist ideology after the Mongol rule. The failure of Kiev to fend off invaders hardened that view in the Russian psyche.
The bias runs deep throughout the book. The author laments every event and every turn in medieval and early Modern Russia as a failure to embrace European values, and to bring Russia into the Western fold. It is definitely not for the lack of the knowledge on the part of the author. Martin Sixsmith wrote his postgraduate thesis on Russian poetry. Perhaps it was his years in the BBC and the British civil service that compelled him to fall into the official line of the Western worldview.
As many reviewers have pointed out, the book is heavily lop-sided. More than half of it is devoted to the events after 1917. The author's bias actually served him well in the second half, as he described how liberalism failed after 1917 and how it failed again after 1991. He had first hand knowledge of the matters as a BBC correspondent, and personally knew many of the actors in the unfolding drama. It is a much more interesting read than the first half.
Nonetheless Martin Sixsmith writes lucidly and masterfully interweaves his personal anecdotes in Russia into the grand narrative. The chronology, maps and photographs also help to guide the reader. It is a good broad introduction to Russian history despite its flaws. For those who would like to delve into the depths of the Russian character from a Russian perspective, I recommend the historical works of George Vernadsky.
The bias runs deep throughout the book. The author laments every event and every turn in medieval and early Modern Russia as a failure to embrace European values, and to bring Russia into the Western fold. It is definitely not for the lack of the knowledge on the part of the author. Martin Sixsmith wrote his postgraduate thesis on Russian poetry. Perhaps it was his years in the BBC and the British civil service that compelled him to fall into the official line of the Western worldview.
As many reviewers have pointed out, the book is heavily lop-sided. More than half of it is devoted to the events after 1917. The author's bias actually served him well in the second half, as he described how liberalism failed after 1917 and how it failed again after 1991. He had first hand knowledge of the matters as a BBC correspondent, and personally knew many of the actors in the unfolding drama. It is a much more interesting read than the first half.
Nonetheless Martin Sixsmith writes lucidly and masterfully interweaves his personal anecdotes in Russia into the grand narrative. The chronology, maps and photographs also help to guide the reader. It is a good broad introduction to Russian history despite its flaws. For those who would like to delve into the depths of the Russian character from a Russian perspective, I recommend the historical works of George Vernadsky.
August 24, 2012
Outstanding, impressive monumental chronicle of Russian history, from the princes of medieval Rus to the presidency of Vladimir Putin. Well edited and gripping, especially from the years of Nicholas II to the end of the Breznehv era, with heavy emphasis on the Russian Revolution and the crimes of Stalin and Lenin. After reading this it's hard to understand how anyone ever survived living in Russia beyond the age of one. A truly great book, the best of the year that I've read, by British journalist Martin Sixsmith who lived in the Soviet Union as a child and later became a BBC correspondent there in the waning days of communist rule.
May 6, 2020
Shame on this author, editor, and publisher for selling this book as something that it's not. Out of the 530 pages, only 150 pages covered Russia from 1000 AD all the way to 1917, and the other 350 pages (the bulk of the book by a WIDE margin) were on the 20th century. If I had wanted to read a book about post-tsarist/modern Russia, I would have read any of the many, MANY books on that. This book is sold as claiming to be a deeper look at farther back history of Russia, which it completely glosses over and speeds through. False advertising.
Read
August 28, 2021Excellently written, compelling and informative. A bit of false advertising in the title, as 2/3 of the book focuses on the period following the 1917 revolution. So if you (like me) are looking specifically for information about the 18th and 19th centuries, this may be more of a starting place than a definitive source. But nonetheless, an excellent foundation and a relatively quick read, given its length.
June 5, 2016
Very compact and readable. Sixsmith keeps the narrative interesting, though the book leans too much on the recent past of Russia. And while, he quotes widely from the great Russian writers, often using their words as a mirror of history, it would have been great had he dwelt a bit more on their own lives. Nevertheless, a good reference for a lay reader.
August 2, 2018
Very comprehensive without being didactic or textbook-like. Somewhat disappointed with the abrupt ending, but definitely worth a read otherwise.
March 24, 2022
Cartea de istorie a Rusiei, de Martin Sixsmith este exact ce trebuie pentru a înțelege mileniul de zbateri intense prin care poporul rus a trecut și și-a format un mental colectiv sedus de autoritarism. Este o carte de istorie care nu se pierde în detalii și oferă o imagine ușor de urmărit presărată în dese momente de reflectarea evenimentelor în gândirea și trăirea scriitorilor, pictorilor și compozitorilor care au reușit să înalțe Rusia dincolo de barbaria în care se cufunda iar și iar. Sixsmith reușete să nu te plictisească deloc când te transportă în timp, în secolul al IX-lea până în epoca modernă, iar la final rămâi cu un gust amar înțelegând ambivalența în care istoria a format poporul rus, pe de-o parte tânjind la libertate, pe de alta, la o autoritate care să le insufle o mândrie imperială.
Conform desfășurării cronologice a faptelor, Rusia de azi este victima unui abuz copleșitor care a transformat o societate, acea a Rusiei Kievene, cu oarece tente democratice destul de revoluționare în evul mediu chiar și pentru occident dar prea puțin unită, într-un imperiu care a ingerat mai multe popoare și a reușit uneori să determine un răspuns unitar din partea lor. Invazia mongolă din 1240 a distrus modul de viață kievean și timp de 280 de ani a transformat mentalul colectiv opac la valorile Iluminismului, gata să se supună autorității unui stat opresiv. Secole la rând, încercările de democratizare s-au finalizat cu eșecuri lamentabile încununate nefast cu vărsare de sânge. Succesiunea puterii de-a lungul timpului ne apare astfel tulburătoare și cutremurătoare. Istoria Rusie este neiertătoare cu indivizii. Speranța de mai bine se estompează direct într-o resemnare, care uneori irupe în revolte sângeroase ca mai apoi să se confunde în aceleași conformism supus. După secole de autoritarism țarist, mentalul colectiv a fost pregătit pentru culmea nefastă a istoriei, totalitarismul bolșevic când speranța unei vieți mai bune s-a înecat în sânge și minciună decenii la rând individul rus pierzându-și orice reper al libertății.
Conform desfășurării cronologice a faptelor, Rusia de azi este victima unui abuz copleșitor care a transformat o societate, acea a Rusiei Kievene, cu oarece tente democratice destul de revoluționare în evul mediu chiar și pentru occident dar prea puțin unită, într-un imperiu care a ingerat mai multe popoare și a reușit uneori să determine un răspuns unitar din partea lor. Invazia mongolă din 1240 a distrus modul de viață kievean și timp de 280 de ani a transformat mentalul colectiv opac la valorile Iluminismului, gata să se supună autorității unui stat opresiv. Secole la rând, încercările de democratizare s-au finalizat cu eșecuri lamentabile încununate nefast cu vărsare de sânge. Succesiunea puterii de-a lungul timpului ne apare astfel tulburătoare și cutremurătoare. Istoria Rusie este neiertătoare cu indivizii. Speranța de mai bine se estompează direct într-o resemnare, care uneori irupe în revolte sângeroase ca mai apoi să se confunde în aceleași conformism supus. După secole de autoritarism țarist, mentalul colectiv a fost pregătit pentru culmea nefastă a istoriei, totalitarismul bolșevic când speranța unei vieți mai bune s-a înecat în sânge și minciună decenii la rând individul rus pierzându-și orice reper al libertății.
April 17, 2021
Good. However you only get about 150 pages on pre soviet russia and then the other 400 on soviet to modern russia. Still felt like I got a decent rundown on the place.
September 19, 2025
3.75
Love the chronology, the difference in source materials and overall flow of the text. Nice and informative, but nothing too groundbreaking for me.
Love the chronology, the difference in source materials and overall flow of the text. Nice and informative, but nothing too groundbreaking for me.
July 18, 2019
Interesting portrayal of the Russian ethos and how their history and sociology permeates the modern political landscape. The era from 1890s-1920s is particularly captivating, capturing the interplay between Trotskyism and Leninism and the decline of the Tsars.
January 6, 2018
I appreciated the work Martin Sixsmith put into writing this, which was also a book accompanying a radio series. Naturally, as authored by a journalist, and covering such a long period, it's not going to have the same detail as something written by an academic historian (see the superb trilogy on The Third Reich by Richard J Evans), but nevertheless it's a great introduction, for me, to Russian history. It's a bit like getting one of those Big Red Bus tours of a city: you get an overall picture of the main sights and where they relate geographically, then you can go back and take a longer, closer, more detailed look at the bits that interested you. I remember Martin Sixsmith on the news when I was younger - always good to listen to.
I feel it was really well worth reading this, especially for the clarification of the Gorbachev/Yeltsin period. Will be reading more about Russia! (I've lent a friend my book on Putin's Russia by the late lamented Anna Politkovskaya, as he has a very Russia Today influenced view of Putin, which perhaps needs some information written from an alternative point of view).
I feel it was really well worth reading this, especially for the clarification of the Gorbachev/Yeltsin period. Will be reading more about Russia! (I've lent a friend my book on Putin's Russia by the late lamented Anna Politkovskaya, as he has a very Russia Today influenced view of Putin, which perhaps needs some information written from an alternative point of view).
December 26, 2021
This was a decent informative book but I have a glaring issue. At first the author states we are getting history from certain sources so we have to work with what we have, but then proceeds to place his own bias judgements on certain aspects. Also felt like it was bouncing around in time which didn’t make for a very linier history book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 203 reviews