What do you think?
Rate this book
Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements
The rise of Islamic Fundamentalist revolutionary movements, the conflict in Iraq, the surge of leftist political movements in Latin America led by Venezuela's example, and updates of the chapters on Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and South Africa are some of the main features of this updated edition of Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements . With crucial insights and indispensable information concerning modern-day political upheavals, the third edition of this widely used book provides a representative cross section of many of the most significant revolutions of the modern era. Students can trace the historical development of eight revolutions using a five-factor analytical framework. Attention is devoted to clearly explaining all relevant concepts and events, the roles of key leaders, and the interrelation of each revolutionary movement with international economic and political developments and conflicts, including World Wars I and II, the Cold War, and the War on Terror; ten orienting maps are provided, and summary and analysis sections, suggested readings, chronologies, and updated lists of documentary resources with purchase or rental sources complete each presentation.
456 pages, Paperback
First published August 4, 1991
30 people are currently reading
154 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
November 25, 2017
I assigned this to my students and then read it, which isn’t very professional. Great way to grab some twentieth century history. Lots of detail but the five part theory of revolutions at the beginning helps hold it all together. Defronzo clearly assigns the success of failure of revolutions to outside powers, and for the last 25 years it’s been US power that has decided whether a revolution succeeds or fails. Clear perspective in favor of socialist revolutions but otherwise a useful and scholarly book.
December 6, 2018
Good for a basic theoretical understanding and historical knowledge of revolutions in the twentieth century.
August 10, 2019
This book provides a really interesting perspective for an overview of 20th century history. It's an intense, dense read, building a theoretical framework then analyzing the deep-rooted historical, cultural, and economic factors that contributed to the development and progression of various revolutions throughout the world.
October 7, 2015
Works well for a more advanced undergraduate course. His analytical framework is easy to grasp and apply to the different case studies. I just wish he had included the Mexican Revolution.
July 10, 2025
Simply put, this is not history. It has a high review score because it's well-written, and the phenomena which Defronzo views in an unbiased way are well-analysed. But it takes such an unbalanced view of historical events, omits so much essential information, and flirts enough with the border of outright lying that the only credible rating for this is one star.
On my Goodreads, the history books I've reviewed which I've given 1 star are those which have crossed the border from history to political polemic as a result of conservative bias. An unfortunate fact which I see all too often in historical discourse is that conservatives omit, brush over or deny the ubiquitous brutality present in history (e.g. slavery, feudalism, castes, mass-repression and -exploitation, colonial violence, genocide, and eugenics). these are, of course, the same atrocities that conservatives of previous generations sought to justify and maintain. A touchy subject which no conservative historian I have read has ever addressed is that if conservatism, in its most basic definition, is a political philosophy dedicated to maintaining the status quo, then if said status quo was rather grim (as is invariably the case in history), conservatives do not come out looking good. For example, it is no accident that the Tories/Conservative Party in Britain voted against the abolition of slavery, democracy, the right for women to own things, a reduction of the working day from 16 to 8 hours, etc.
But it would be a reductionist (and partisan) view of human nature to say that only one side of the political spectrum monopolises this wilful ignorance of unpleasantness. In an admirable effort to reduce political polarisation, Defronzo here does much the same thing- but due to leftist bias, rather than the reverse. He describes the endemic injustice of pre-revolutionary societies with great accuracy and insight, but then singularly fails to give any balanced accounts of the moral greyness of revolutionaries themselves. Far-left revolutionary governments are not portrayed accurately; Defronzo waxes about their positives whilst omitting much to the contrary.
Hence the Bolshevik coup of October 1917 that brought Russia from council democracy to Stalinism is brushed over, incredibly, as just a sudden, passionate movement of Red Army troops; and then never at all addressed after. For reference, Lenin held one election, lost, and then established a secret police (the Cheka, which evolved into the NKVD -> KGB).
Even more ludicrous is how Defronzo depicts the entire bloody reign of Mao, who killed 60 million people- and the spectacularly brutal 'Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution', where far-left paramilitary troops roamed around China slaughtering people. Defronzo tells you about NONE of this. He only stops to depict the Cultural Revolution as some minor rumblings of disaffected students; this was one of the most violent episodes of the post-war era. I'm not sure I can emphasise enough how frankly unhistorical Defronzo's portrayal is.
In fact, for no communist regime of the 1900s does Defronzo bother to inform us at all, really, of the massive human rights abuses involved. This is not an angry rant from a disgruntled conservative; there is a massive vein of Marxist, communist, anarchist, and other far-left scholarship which frankly calls this out. In fact, to have any affiliation at all with these ideologies is to understand their fundamental emphasis on democracy, individual dignity, and human rights.
It is an intellectual tragedy for people in these schools to suck up to the dictatorships of the 1900s just because they draped themselves in this tradition- and credible far-left historians (e.g. Hobsbawm) refuse to do it. The first job of a historian is to accurately convey what is actually happening. The moment one's political sympathies prevent you from doing that, you have not written history.
On my Goodreads, the history books I've reviewed which I've given 1 star are those which have crossed the border from history to political polemic as a result of conservative bias. An unfortunate fact which I see all too often in historical discourse is that conservatives omit, brush over or deny the ubiquitous brutality present in history (e.g. slavery, feudalism, castes, mass-repression and -exploitation, colonial violence, genocide, and eugenics). these are, of course, the same atrocities that conservatives of previous generations sought to justify and maintain. A touchy subject which no conservative historian I have read has ever addressed is that if conservatism, in its most basic definition, is a political philosophy dedicated to maintaining the status quo, then if said status quo was rather grim (as is invariably the case in history), conservatives do not come out looking good. For example, it is no accident that the Tories/Conservative Party in Britain voted against the abolition of slavery, democracy, the right for women to own things, a reduction of the working day from 16 to 8 hours, etc.
But it would be a reductionist (and partisan) view of human nature to say that only one side of the political spectrum monopolises this wilful ignorance of unpleasantness. In an admirable effort to reduce political polarisation, Defronzo here does much the same thing- but due to leftist bias, rather than the reverse. He describes the endemic injustice of pre-revolutionary societies with great accuracy and insight, but then singularly fails to give any balanced accounts of the moral greyness of revolutionaries themselves. Far-left revolutionary governments are not portrayed accurately; Defronzo waxes about their positives whilst omitting much to the contrary.
Hence the Bolshevik coup of October 1917 that brought Russia from council democracy to Stalinism is brushed over, incredibly, as just a sudden, passionate movement of Red Army troops; and then never at all addressed after. For reference, Lenin held one election, lost, and then established a secret police (the Cheka, which evolved into the NKVD -> KGB).
Even more ludicrous is how Defronzo depicts the entire bloody reign of Mao, who killed 60 million people- and the spectacularly brutal 'Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution', where far-left paramilitary troops roamed around China slaughtering people. Defronzo tells you about NONE of this. He only stops to depict the Cultural Revolution as some minor rumblings of disaffected students; this was one of the most violent episodes of the post-war era. I'm not sure I can emphasise enough how frankly unhistorical Defronzo's portrayal is.
In fact, for no communist regime of the 1900s does Defronzo bother to inform us at all, really, of the massive human rights abuses involved. This is not an angry rant from a disgruntled conservative; there is a massive vein of Marxist, communist, anarchist, and other far-left scholarship which frankly calls this out. In fact, to have any affiliation at all with these ideologies is to understand their fundamental emphasis on democracy, individual dignity, and human rights.
It is an intellectual tragedy for people in these schools to suck up to the dictatorships of the 1900s just because they draped themselves in this tradition- and credible far-left historians (e.g. Hobsbawm) refuse to do it. The first job of a historian is to accurately convey what is actually happening. The moment one's political sympathies prevent you from doing that, you have not written history.
December 11, 2024
Genuinely I am so glad that I read this book. Defronzo gives such in-depth dives into various revolutions across the world and in various eras. From talking about the Bolshevik revolution and movements in China, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, South Africa, Iran, Libya, and many more, not only is history contextualized but it gives tremendous insight into current world developments thanks to the newness of this edition. I think that even when taking a pretty neutral stance on these topics, Defronzo does show tremendous empathy towards people impacted by controversial movements. It is clear that people around the world who have continuously been neglected by their regime, especially when that regime prioritizes foreign financial interests, will seek to support groups who are able to provide (the hope of) essential resources. It also pushes force through the misconceptions and propaganda we often are faced with, adding question to who really in recent years is the group defending itself or responding to attacks. I went into this novel with very little understanding of our world and these various revolutions. I finish this novel with a developed, stable view of the international sector and what needs to be done to provide a world where liberty is a possibility. While Defronzo cannot offer all answers within these ~40 page revolution summaries, he points one into the right direction for further research.
My main critique is how Defronzo incorporates the sections in each chapter regarding women in the revolution. Instead of incorporating the revolutionary acts of women throughout the narrative, every chapter just has a small subsection at the end discussing briefly discussing one or two women involved. However, i think it is more vital to develop the stories of these women in the actual narratives themselves of these revolutions. For instance, in the cuban revolution, Vilma Espin was an essential person involved with the landing of Gramma in the M-26-7 movement. Yet, her significance is nowhere mentioned when we are discussing Gramma, rather she is pushed to the back of the chapter. I just wish more of these women’s significance could be integrated, rather than seemingly just a later comment.
My main critique is how Defronzo incorporates the sections in each chapter regarding women in the revolution. Instead of incorporating the revolutionary acts of women throughout the narrative, every chapter just has a small subsection at the end discussing briefly discussing one or two women involved. However, i think it is more vital to develop the stories of these women in the actual narratives themselves of these revolutions. For instance, in the cuban revolution, Vilma Espin was an essential person involved with the landing of Gramma in the M-26-7 movement. Yet, her significance is nowhere mentioned when we are discussing Gramma, rather she is pushed to the back of the chapter. I just wish more of these women’s significance could be integrated, rather than seemingly just a later comment.
July 29, 2024
DeFronzo’s work here is thorough and great. His theoretical framework for explaining revolutionary success is fascinating, and his historical information is presented solidly. This is a great historical/political survey textbook. However, it is a VERY dry read, and it’s information-dense. I spent a while on this one.
August 18, 2017
Information that we all need to know about
May 7, 2021
good book, very smart
February 28, 2017
While it is an easy read and I didn't feel like the author was trying to impress me with his vocabulary like most college level books, this author is extremely friendly towards communism and gives a very biased perspective that makes look like sunshine and roses. 20 million people died during the Great Leap Forward but you would never know that reading this book...
October 5, 2012
The author's insistence on separating revolutions into 3 categories is tiresome, If you can get past his attempt to be noteworthy, this is an excellent resource to learn all that has occurred in the world since Hitler took himself out of the gene pool and opened the door for the U.S. and now China to overtake Europe as chief exploiters and corruptors of all that is good in the third world.
January 23, 2017
Book gives a brief history and context to many revolutions around the world. People who would like to gain a great understanding of recent history would find this book very helpful in understanding the world as it is today. As mentioned in the description it covers China, Iran, etc. The book can be easily read one chapter at a time, each one covering a different revolution.
July 29, 2008
One of the best books I read in college classes.
May 21, 2010
This book surveys 16 modern revolutions and puts them in historical and sociological context. Very insightful read.
March 2, 2013
Interesting analysis and a very good read.
August 29, 2014
Accomplishes its mission -- summarizing 20th century revolutionary movements -- but details are scarce and it won't teach much to people already acquainted with the material.
April 13, 2017
Interesting material
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews