Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Gorbachev?: The Rise and Fall of the Soviet System

by Theodore H. Von Laue

This interpretive essay puts the rise and fall of the Soviet system into global perspective and offers the most inclusive overview available of the course of events from the collapse of the tsarist regime to the dissolution under Gorbachev of the empire built by tsars and soviets. @CONTENTSBEG

Genres: History, Russia, Nonfiction, Russian History, Politics, Sociology, College

194 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1964

Reviews

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book published in 1964 by Theodore H. Von Laue (1916-2000), who was a Professor of History at Washington University, St. Louis, at the time the book was published. I first read it in high school in the 1960s. I had an interest in Russian Studies and took and aced a Russian History course while in high school ( however, I did not take Russian, which was offered by my high school at that time). Anyway, this book is an excellent summary and analysis of the Russian Revolution. It begins in 1900, as Czarist Russia is pushing an industrialization progam, which was derailed by the disaster of the First World War. The book deals with the March Revolution, which deposed the Czar and established a weak provisional government, and, then, the November Revolution, the Bolshevik takeover. The culminating revolution is the one von Laue calls "the Stalinist Revolution of 1924-1930." Stalin was able to take complete control of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet Union and then push through his Five-Year Plans to industrialize the USSR. It was done at high cost in human lives and suffering as the Soviet people were called upon-and coerced-to sacrifice for the state. And, yet, as von Laue makes clear in his conclusion, Stalin was successful. To quote from the book, "In 1943, during the battle of Stalingrad, Soviet Russia did show that... it was able to defend itself by its own resources. Massive American aid arrived only subsequently, permitting the quick rebound of the Soviet armies ( pg.220)."
At the end, von Laue predicts ( this is in 1964), that the Soviet Union will not overtake "the West." As he states, "The tragedy of modern Russian history lies in the fatal incompatibility of spontaneity and political discipline...(pg. 222)." The ruthless discipline did not allow for the creativity and innovation that have been strengths of the Western system. I would add that a further tragedy of Russia is that even with the fall of Communism, Russia has been unable to build a viable democracy. Putin, very sadly, has been been rebuilding autocracy in that great immense land area we call "Russia."

[Aletheia · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm 📢 the host🎙️with the most 🔥🧯 glasnost, 💯🥶 assholes made a mess 👺😡 and the war got cold 🥶🧊🔫 Shook 🤝 hands 🤝 with both Ronald 🔥💯 🇺🇲 Reagan 👔 and 🍔 McDonalds🤡 no doubt 🧐☝️if your name end📛 🔚 with "in" 🥸ℹ️ time to 🙄🥱 get out 🤪🥴

[Daniel Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this book was an excellent survey of the Revolution in Russia, encompassing the decades preceding and succeeding 1905, it is completely biased toward Western ideals. Von Laue gives an account of the rise of Lenin and Stalin that explains them by external and internal factors which were beyond anyone's control, but he is so in love with America and anti-communism that he comes across narrow-minded and frankly, unacademic.

[Jim Gallen · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Why Lenin? Why Stalin?” is a history of the Russian Revolutionary era from 1900-1930. It begins with an analysis of conditions in the world and Russia in which the revolution arose. It then moves into the crisis of 1905 that accompanied defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and followed by the gradual collapse of the aristocracy in the years leading up to 1917. The development of socialist opposition groups in and out of country, the sudden abdication of the Tsar, the attempts of the Provisional government to establish a stable succession, the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks and their rocky path to consolidation are all examined in turn.

I think that author Theodore VonLaue has done a good job in presenting the facts of the Russian situation in ways that enable the reader to relate facts that in other works appear to be more random. Readers come away with an understanding of that the monarchy more collapsed than was pushed and followed by a period of chaos among forces competing to take advantage of the chaos. The Bolsheviks’ superiority in organization and appeal to the masses is shown as the explanation for their success. While reading this book I obtained a greater understanding of the flow of the Russian Revolution than I have in several other books. Though its 1971 predictions of the future of Soviet Communism are dated and it lacks the benefit of more recently opened Soviet archives “Why Lenin? Why Stalin?” remains a valuable resource.

[Michael A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Honestly a decent read, however the constant scare quoting of "capitalism" because the term has "lost all meaning" didn't make sense to me and could have used some further justification. Otherwise though this seems like a relatively fair and balanced look at the Russian Revolution. Probably outdated now though, as my copy is from 1971.

[Al Wright · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published in 1971, the book holds up well. Given I read this in June 2022, the numerous references to Ukraine ring true in todays circumstances. Russia Ukraine is just not that into you. Better to let her set her own destiny. Peace.

[Marian · Rating 5 out of 5]

During the Cold War, Americanism was Capitalism to the Max. Curriculum emphasized the American Dream and an unsustainable, perhaps even unattainable, target for civilization. The enemy was communism, or socialism, and the United States promoted the demise of a dream gone awry. The application of ideals from more naïve times and social philosophers became disasters of death, destruction, and societal harms. The carrot of the idealism was lost in the rabbit hutch of survival against the enemies within countries (USSR, China) that was also worsened by the targeting of the best parts of the wishes and dreams of these countries and movements (Vietnam and worldwide). The net of this cold, warm, and hot conflict was negativity; how much did capitalism precipitate the insecurities of leadership in the social experiments of so much pain and reorganization? So, as a student who grew up during the Cold War, my exposure to the utopian ideals was castigatory towards anything socialist. It was a dramatic breath of details to read this von Laue book in about 1983-1984. I recall how earth-shaking the content was - - -details about the evolution of socialism from a primarily historic viewpoint but with intelligence and with a presentation that caused me to think for the first time about socialist values. This book, decades later, I can finger as an important book to my personal growth. I have thought about it often over the years. Bearing that in mind, a larger lesson here - - when people provide an absolute set of facts to learners, consider venturing into exploration of the details from another point of view, even if it is an unpopular and shunned perspective. Now that we are decades removed from the Cold War, can we revisit the best of socialist ideals and use the processed errors with awful outcomes to inform better results? I do not know if this book will still serve to grow the understandings of current students of politics and society, but I am grateful I read it. Understanding hegemony, revolution, struggle, and misdirections are of timeless importance, so I do think it is still relevant.

[Alex · Rating 1 out of 5]

Incredibly inaccurate book

[Julian Munoz · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little bit of a tougher read but still awesome

[Ani · Rating 4 out of 5]

A straightforward and organized account of revolutionary Russia, from its birth to its death— although not without its occasional misspellings and syntax errors. Nonetheless, Von Laue delivers a solid update on post-Soviet Russia, one which I enjoyed reading. I’d give it 3.8 stars.

The final paragraph of Chapter 13 was very powerful:

To end this essay with a moral plea: Let the privileged Westernizers rise to a compassionate understanding of the human adversities caused in Eurasia by climate, geography, and history— by factors beyond human control. Let them treat with sympathy all experimental efforts to cope with these adversities. In this manner they will not only promote respect in the Eurasian lands for human rights and individual freedom, but also contribute to building common ground for peaceful cooperation in our globally interdependent world.

[Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sets the Russian Revolution in the context of revolutions against hereditary monarchies all around the world in the first quarter of the 20th century and shows what was different about Russia's situation. Russian society and economy had barely changed since the Middle Ages. The peasants who formed the vast majority of the population did not want revolution. Lenin concluded it could only be established by force. Stalin, who was almost 50 when he succeeded Lenin, continued the direction Lenin set.

[Marie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Doesn't go into as much depth as I would like, and largely intriguing as an artifact of the cold war - he gives a good overview of the Russian revolution that adds much-needed understanding of the complexity of the situation, rather than the simple "Bolsheviks seized power, the end" we mostly got in high school.

But the author has some bewildering statements here and there, which are only explained by the time in which he was writing.

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

VonLaue writes with clarity and purpose. He wonders how Russia could have otherwise overcome its profound backwardness to join the ranks of truly great powers. I found the question compelling.