What do you think?
Rate this book
Red Victory: A History of the Russian Civil War
Shortly after withdrawing from WWI, Russia descended into a bitter civil war unprecedented for its savagery: epidemics, battles, mass executions, forced labor & famine claimed millions of lives. From 1918 to 1921, thru great cities & tiny villages, across untouched forests & vast frozen wasteland, the Bolshevik Reds fought the anti-Communist Whites & their Allies (14 foreign countries contributed weapons, money & troops--including 20,000 US soldiers). This landmark history recreates the epic conflict that transformed Russia from the Empire of the Tsars into the Empire of the Commissars, while never losing sight of the horrifying human cost.
Preface
Major Characters
1 1918: Prologue
The hungry spring
The fighting begins
"The expropriation of the expropriators"
First days of terror
The allies intervene
2 1919: Denikin & the Cossacks
Siberia's supreme ruler
The Petrograd front
The Ukraine in ferment
In the red heart of Russia
3 1920: The struggle to survive
"Give us Warsaw!"
The end of the Whites
Victory's bitter fruit
The Kronstadt uprising
Epilogue: The revolution consumes its makers
Notes
Works & Sources Cited
Index
Preface
Major Characters
1 1918: Prologue
The hungry spring
The fighting begins
"The expropriation of the expropriators"
First days of terror
The allies intervene
2 1919: Denikin & the Cossacks
Siberia's supreme ruler
The Petrograd front
The Ukraine in ferment
In the red heart of Russia
3 1920: The struggle to survive
"Give us Warsaw!"
The end of the Whites
Victory's bitter fruit
The Kronstadt uprising
Epilogue: The revolution consumes its makers
Notes
Works & Sources Cited
Index
600 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1959
9 people are currently reading
611 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 - 28 of 28 reviews
June 10, 2025
I have no time to write much now. My main feeling concerning this history of the Russian Civil War is that history seems to be mainly an ongoing story of war, crusades, massacres, genocide, famine, disease, and disaster on top of terrible hardship and suffering--and the loss of all hope. After reading this book, I feel there's no chapter of history that can be worse than this one. The Russian Civil War from 1918 to 1921 left seven million dead and led to the victory of the Communist Party--the culminating disaster of all...
October 8, 2016
An engaging and sweeping narrative of the Russian “Civil War,” which, in reality, was a series of civil wars and series of international wars all fought at more or less the same time. Lincoln has a good command of the subject matter and does a great job telling the story of the war through the stories of people like Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky, as well as ordinary people stuck in these chaotic events. Lincoln deftly describes the period’s complicated politics.
Lincoln’s book is a great narrative history, and his analysis is careful and reasoned. He thoroughly describes the immense political, military, and social obstacles that stood in the way of the Reds and the Whites. The Civil War was very chaotic but Lincoln does a great job making sense out of it in a thorough, readable way.
Lincoln describes how a nation already spent by world war endured an even more savage conflict, with all of the accompanying famine, butchery, and chaos. Lincoln argues that the Civil War originated in the class warfare already taking place around the countryside, which in turn had its origins in the Bolsheviks’ food requisitions. When this or that peasant was suspected of hoarding, Bolshevized workers took a look in the peasant’s soup pot. If there was meat, the peasant was declared an enemy of the people and promptly shot. This kind of law soon prevailed. As Lincoln shows, neither side enjoyed popular support, but unlike the Whites, the Reds rarely threw away any opportunities, providing repression with reform on Communist lines, while the Whites had no real defined political agenda. Eventually, the Reds won a degree of tolerance, if not support.
Informative and enjoyable, although Lincoln could have spent more time discussing the history of the various anti-Bolshevik armies, or even the foreign armies dispatched to Russia. And curiously, the book is divided into sections based on years, but none of these sections actually deal with those specific years and jump around quite a bit.
Lincoln’s book is a great narrative history, and his analysis is careful and reasoned. He thoroughly describes the immense political, military, and social obstacles that stood in the way of the Reds and the Whites. The Civil War was very chaotic but Lincoln does a great job making sense out of it in a thorough, readable way.
Lincoln describes how a nation already spent by world war endured an even more savage conflict, with all of the accompanying famine, butchery, and chaos. Lincoln argues that the Civil War originated in the class warfare already taking place around the countryside, which in turn had its origins in the Bolsheviks’ food requisitions. When this or that peasant was suspected of hoarding, Bolshevized workers took a look in the peasant’s soup pot. If there was meat, the peasant was declared an enemy of the people and promptly shot. This kind of law soon prevailed. As Lincoln shows, neither side enjoyed popular support, but unlike the Whites, the Reds rarely threw away any opportunities, providing repression with reform on Communist lines, while the Whites had no real defined political agenda. Eventually, the Reds won a degree of tolerance, if not support.
Informative and enjoyable, although Lincoln could have spent more time discussing the history of the various anti-Bolshevik armies, or even the foreign armies dispatched to Russia. And curiously, the book is divided into sections based on years, but none of these sections actually deal with those specific years and jump around quite a bit.
February 28, 2023
Very thorough. Huge list of references. Made me live those years in all their fervor and desperation. Started to read at least ten other books related to this period, from his references. Massive and masterful. I did skip at some point the details of the battles. I read for the first time the clear account of the Kronstadt revolt in 1920, and saw clearly, again, how power corrupts, absolutely. The bolsheviks fought for democracy and equality and freedom, but when arriving in power, all ideas and ideals were swept away by the naked “necessity” to hold on to that power, by any means. It was not Stalin who perverted the “Revolution”, it was the Revolution itself, exactly as in the French one before.
October 26, 2017
Lincoln’s history details the power grabs, the bloodshed, and the horrific events that follow “the euphoria of 1917, when the Revolution had flourished and men and women had worked in common to build a world free of bureaucracy, coercion, and state control" (504). The book does a good job situating the various battles and portraying the army commanders without losing sight of the scope of the war or for what is being fought.
My main quibble, which has been pointed out by other commentators, is the lack of maps. Despite this shortcoming, it’s a thorough, and highly readable, account of the fighting as well as the political machinations that eventually lead to the power originally promised to the proletariat instead being transferred to "the monolithic, intolerant, highly centralized Communist Party"(514-5).
Recommended to anyone interested in Russian and/or 20th Century history.
My main quibble, which has been pointed out by other commentators, is the lack of maps. Despite this shortcoming, it’s a thorough, and highly readable, account of the fighting as well as the political machinations that eventually lead to the power originally promised to the proletariat instead being transferred to "the monolithic, intolerant, highly centralized Communist Party"(514-5).
Recommended to anyone interested in Russian and/or 20th Century history.
July 11, 2023
Quite good. This is the concluding volume of a trilogy by the same author, which documents the transition from Tsarist Russia to the Soviet Union; the other volumes being In war's dark shadow: The Russians before the Great War and Passage Through Armageddon: The Russians in War & Revolution 1914-18. As in those books, Lincoln demonstrates a command of his subject, and his treatment thereof is thorough.
Lincoln's attitudes towards his principals seems to have hardened, relative to the two prior books. While there aren't exactly heroes in the prior two volumes, in this brutalizing, fratricidal civil war, he seems to find few to admire. He's honest about the strengths and weaknesses of the figures he documents, and their popular appeal (or lack thereof), but he doesn't seem to really sympathize with any party or class per se, holding himself aloof. The Bolsheviks are men of steel, but lacking experience and prone to cruelty; their opponents on the left are unrealistic and easily marginalized; the right is both loathsome (witness the repeated pogroms) and ultimately incoherent in ideology and appeal, led by a succession of second-raters; the foreign powers are nakedly self-interested, and struggle to justify their unpopular interventions. The figures who come across best are thus those who are, simply, competent, and effective at achieving their goals- Lenin and Trotsky, naturally, but also Wrangel.
(The negative review here on Goodreads claiming that Lincoln's sympathies lie with the Russian middle class and nobility is frankly bizarre, and I suspect the reviewer didn't actually read the whole book- there's no substantial coverage of the middle class or nobility per se after the first three chapters (of fifteen), and the rest of the book is mostly dry military/political/diplomatic history.)
Having been written in the 80s, this is inevitably a bit dated, though I'm not aware of any major interpretational shifts that have come about as a result of the fall of the USSR. We now know, for example, that the central government didn't order the execution of the Romanovs, but that doesn't really change a whole lot interpretationally, and Lincoln only says the government probably okayed the execution, anyway. There are newer books on the Revolution(s) and Civil War, naturally, though I think Lincoln's are still valuable, being the work of a scholar specializing in Imperial Russia writing about the death of that era, rather than being the work of a scholar specializing on the Soviet era writing about the era's birth.
Lincoln's attitudes towards his principals seems to have hardened, relative to the two prior books. While there aren't exactly heroes in the prior two volumes, in this brutalizing, fratricidal civil war, he seems to find few to admire. He's honest about the strengths and weaknesses of the figures he documents, and their popular appeal (or lack thereof), but he doesn't seem to really sympathize with any party or class per se, holding himself aloof. The Bolsheviks are men of steel, but lacking experience and prone to cruelty; their opponents on the left are unrealistic and easily marginalized; the right is both loathsome (witness the repeated pogroms) and ultimately incoherent in ideology and appeal, led by a succession of second-raters; the foreign powers are nakedly self-interested, and struggle to justify their unpopular interventions. The figures who come across best are thus those who are, simply, competent, and effective at achieving their goals- Lenin and Trotsky, naturally, but also Wrangel.
(The negative review here on Goodreads claiming that Lincoln's sympathies lie with the Russian middle class and nobility is frankly bizarre, and I suspect the reviewer didn't actually read the whole book- there's no substantial coverage of the middle class or nobility per se after the first three chapters (of fifteen), and the rest of the book is mostly dry military/political/diplomatic history.)
Having been written in the 80s, this is inevitably a bit dated, though I'm not aware of any major interpretational shifts that have come about as a result of the fall of the USSR. We now know, for example, that the central government didn't order the execution of the Romanovs, but that doesn't really change a whole lot interpretationally, and Lincoln only says the government probably okayed the execution, anyway. There are newer books on the Revolution(s) and Civil War, naturally, though I think Lincoln's are still valuable, being the work of a scholar specializing in Imperial Russia writing about the death of that era, rather than being the work of a scholar specializing on the Soviet era writing about the era's birth.
July 28, 2022
This sucked! I want some good history on the Russian Civil War. You can get tons and tons of stuff on the Revolution- the Civil War that came after, which arguably shaped the Soviet Union much more than the revolution did, is much harder to find books about. This one is supposed to be a standard, so I picked it up when I found it at a used place in Portland.
Listen- I don’t expect, or need, thoroughgoing sympathy with the left, especially from historians tied to the Hoover Institution, as Bruce Lincoln was. But this… it’s less a problem that Lincoln is critical of the Bolsheviks. It’s a civil war, no one is going to “behave well,” if that even has anything like the same meaning in a brutal internecine conflict as it does in an office or a daycare. And it’s not that he’s especially sympathetic towards their White adversaries. If nothing else, this dude is canny enough to get that the likes of Denikin, Kolchak etc do not for heroes make, and the closer you look at them — essentially, any look other than a still photograph, looking stern in fancy dress uniform (which is good enough for many, depressingly enough) — the less impressive they are. They were creepy reactionaries, and above all else, losers. Like Borges said of the Cossacks, who made up much of the White forces, “no one in the history of the universe has been defeated more often” than these “blustering and useless warriors.”
So where do Lincoln’s sympathies lie? With the people of Russia? It’s the people, people trying to live their lives without killing or being killed, that suffer the most in these situations. But no. Lincoln’s sympathies are entirely with anyone who can wring pathos from him, and, typical dumbass Anglo, that means, basically, what there was of a Russian middle class, and the nobility. Objectively, this puts him on the side of the Whites, though again, he gets that their actual forces sucked too bad, morally and militarily, to get behind. And this could be a decent platform for a narrative history! Maybe not one I’d agree with, but potentially one worth reading. But instead, you get comparatively short shrift on the process or politics of the war as Lincoln instead wallows in such indignities as… bourgeois inhabitants of revolutionary St. Petersburg made to do work! And pawn their jewels! There’s bloodier stuff, too, but when Lincoln bothers to discuss it, he only dramatizes what happens to rich people and never bothers with any other kind of human suffering. It’s sickening, but beyond that, it’s just shitty history. Hard pass. *
Listen- I don’t expect, or need, thoroughgoing sympathy with the left, especially from historians tied to the Hoover Institution, as Bruce Lincoln was. But this… it’s less a problem that Lincoln is critical of the Bolsheviks. It’s a civil war, no one is going to “behave well,” if that even has anything like the same meaning in a brutal internecine conflict as it does in an office or a daycare. And it’s not that he’s especially sympathetic towards their White adversaries. If nothing else, this dude is canny enough to get that the likes of Denikin, Kolchak etc do not for heroes make, and the closer you look at them — essentially, any look other than a still photograph, looking stern in fancy dress uniform (which is good enough for many, depressingly enough) — the less impressive they are. They were creepy reactionaries, and above all else, losers. Like Borges said of the Cossacks, who made up much of the White forces, “no one in the history of the universe has been defeated more often” than these “blustering and useless warriors.”
So where do Lincoln’s sympathies lie? With the people of Russia? It’s the people, people trying to live their lives without killing or being killed, that suffer the most in these situations. But no. Lincoln’s sympathies are entirely with anyone who can wring pathos from him, and, typical dumbass Anglo, that means, basically, what there was of a Russian middle class, and the nobility. Objectively, this puts him on the side of the Whites, though again, he gets that their actual forces sucked too bad, morally and militarily, to get behind. And this could be a decent platform for a narrative history! Maybe not one I’d agree with, but potentially one worth reading. But instead, you get comparatively short shrift on the process or politics of the war as Lincoln instead wallows in such indignities as… bourgeois inhabitants of revolutionary St. Petersburg made to do work! And pawn their jewels! There’s bloodier stuff, too, but when Lincoln bothers to discuss it, he only dramatizes what happens to rich people and never bothers with any other kind of human suffering. It’s sickening, but beyond that, it’s just shitty history. Hard pass. *
August 16, 2022
In a word: dazzling. Fuller review soon.
November 23, 2024
Very good with what he had to work with. Better works exist now simply because more sources have been made available since the fall of the USSR.
November 24, 2021
Soviet Russia history is my jam. Particularly the early Bolshevik stuff. The tactics, the politics, drama, it all comes together into an interesting soup that’s as exciting as it is disheartening. But, what I’m not as well-versed on is the Russian Civil war. I’m aware it happened, and was aware of some of the policies involved, but my hopes for this Bruce Lincoln book was that it would put the policies of the Bolsheviks and the outcome into perspective. I certainly got that.
To give a brief background (of a topic where entire books have been written on just 10 days) the Bolshevik party, led by Lenin and Trotsky overthrew the provisional government in Russia in 1917 with the purpose of establishing a socialist government. Almost immediately, an infighting began, and the outcasts began to rally against the Bolsheviks. According to Lincoln, the main drive of each side (Red and White) was total annihilation of the opponent: kill or be killed. When the stakes are so high, it puts the sacrifices and misery involved into perspective. The brutality inflicted was mutual on each side, it had to be.
Spoiler alert, the Reds won and throughout this book, it becomes clear that the main reason was because the fragmented Whites couldn’t unite behind their cause: they had the support of other countries, and the money, but there were disagreements on what kind of government should replace the Bolsheviks, who would be in charge, and what the main drive should be. The Bolsheviks’ vision was a new Russia, the Whites’ vision was “we don’t know what, but not the Bolsheviks.” The Bolsheviks also inspired the masses at every battle no matter how small, while the Whites couldn’t generate excitement no matter now close they got to victory. And they got VERY close. Worse, even though people were unhappy with the Bolsheviks, the Whites didn’t provide a better alternative with their widespread corruption and exploitation. Fueled by their vision of a socialist Russia, the Bolsheviks would stop at nothing to achieve that end, even if it meant the starvation of its citizens and widespread misery. They knew they are being attacked on all sides and diverted their entire attention, efforts, and scant resources to the fronts. The picture Lincoln paints here is squalid and grim: mass starvation and brutal oppression of the citizens in an effort to purge it of “counterrevolutionaries” (which was defined so loosely that it basically meant anyone who had food). The ends justified the means no matter what suffering was involved.
As the walls started closing in on them the Bolsheviks found the only way to survive to be proclaiming themselves the sole protectors of the revolution and banishing any and all opposition or criticism. Anyone against the policies of the Bolsheviks would be labeled a counter-revolutionary and be subject to terror inflicted by the state police. Behind the scenes, the drama between Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin played out and the outcome of Stalin’s victory becomes a little easier to understand. Lenin had incredible foresight and perspective on what the problems were they were facing but would only address them through an orthodox Marxist approach. The Bolsheviks, in their infinite wisdom, couldn’t see that stifling all opposition and creating a homogenous party would bring a mob mentality with it. At least, not until it was too late and Lenin was dying and Trotsky had no friends left in the party.
Red Victory is an important book that puts the events of the Civil War into grim perspective. There was nothing romantic about the struggle of the Bolsheviks to victory. It was oppressive, brutal, bloody and completely terrorizing. Part of it was due to the circumstances they were in, but part of it was also by their own design. The Bolsheviks’ mission was to liberate the masses from the oppression of capitalists, but weren’t the masses better off with them?
To give a brief background (of a topic where entire books have been written on just 10 days) the Bolshevik party, led by Lenin and Trotsky overthrew the provisional government in Russia in 1917 with the purpose of establishing a socialist government. Almost immediately, an infighting began, and the outcasts began to rally against the Bolsheviks. According to Lincoln, the main drive of each side (Red and White) was total annihilation of the opponent: kill or be killed. When the stakes are so high, it puts the sacrifices and misery involved into perspective. The brutality inflicted was mutual on each side, it had to be.
Spoiler alert, the Reds won and throughout this book, it becomes clear that the main reason was because the fragmented Whites couldn’t unite behind their cause: they had the support of other countries, and the money, but there were disagreements on what kind of government should replace the Bolsheviks, who would be in charge, and what the main drive should be. The Bolsheviks’ vision was a new Russia, the Whites’ vision was “we don’t know what, but not the Bolsheviks.” The Bolsheviks also inspired the masses at every battle no matter how small, while the Whites couldn’t generate excitement no matter now close they got to victory. And they got VERY close. Worse, even though people were unhappy with the Bolsheviks, the Whites didn’t provide a better alternative with their widespread corruption and exploitation. Fueled by their vision of a socialist Russia, the Bolsheviks would stop at nothing to achieve that end, even if it meant the starvation of its citizens and widespread misery. They knew they are being attacked on all sides and diverted their entire attention, efforts, and scant resources to the fronts. The picture Lincoln paints here is squalid and grim: mass starvation and brutal oppression of the citizens in an effort to purge it of “counterrevolutionaries” (which was defined so loosely that it basically meant anyone who had food). The ends justified the means no matter what suffering was involved.
As the walls started closing in on them the Bolsheviks found the only way to survive to be proclaiming themselves the sole protectors of the revolution and banishing any and all opposition or criticism. Anyone against the policies of the Bolsheviks would be labeled a counter-revolutionary and be subject to terror inflicted by the state police. Behind the scenes, the drama between Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin played out and the outcome of Stalin’s victory becomes a little easier to understand. Lenin had incredible foresight and perspective on what the problems were they were facing but would only address them through an orthodox Marxist approach. The Bolsheviks, in their infinite wisdom, couldn’t see that stifling all opposition and creating a homogenous party would bring a mob mentality with it. At least, not until it was too late and Lenin was dying and Trotsky had no friends left in the party.
Red Victory is an important book that puts the events of the Civil War into grim perspective. There was nothing romantic about the struggle of the Bolsheviks to victory. It was oppressive, brutal, bloody and completely terrorizing. Part of it was due to the circumstances they were in, but part of it was also by their own design. The Bolsheviks’ mission was to liberate the masses from the oppression of capitalists, but weren’t the masses better off with them?
April 28, 2019
This book is a good history of a complicated subject. The Russian Civil War was a complex conflict that was fought on many fronts with little coordination between the various White forces. To make the situation more complicated were the various wars for national independence from Russia. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland,Ukraine are jus a few of the nationalist movements try to break away from the Russian Empire. The White forced were a catch all group of anyone who disliked the Bolsheviks. Politically they could never develop a cohesive plan that appealed to the masses and satisfied all the different factions. The Whites also never had the forces and military equipment needed to fight the war. Various attempts were made to get foreign help from the Allies were largely unsuccessful.
The Bolsheviks had several advantages. The territory the rule was contiguous and contained most of the manufacturing plants. They had more manpower and weapons but lacked food especially. They also face a lot of internal strife not only in the party but among the workers and peasants, who wanted an end to war and the better times promised by the new government.
All these factors lead up to a complicated story, but the author sorts it out well and helps the reader follow all the different scenarios that unfold.
The Bolsheviks had several advantages. The territory the rule was contiguous and contained most of the manufacturing plants. They had more manpower and weapons but lacked food especially. They also face a lot of internal strife not only in the party but among the workers and peasants, who wanted an end to war and the better times promised by the new government.
All these factors lead up to a complicated story, but the author sorts it out well and helps the reader follow all the different scenarios that unfold.
January 24, 2021
A very solid history of the Russian Civil War and its many parts and issues. Across Red and White alike, atrocities were committed and the author does a great job in not picking a morally correct side. The history is well constructed by year and overarching issues of these years. Overall, a very good read and very engaging. The only issue I see with the book is that it could possible be outdated. Published in 1989, the author discusses the prospect of gathering more information from Soviet archives and hopes to get a chance one day. With the fall of the Soviet Union, it is likely more information is now available. Nonetheless, this book is very fun and very informative.
Read
February 15, 2024When I started this (very long) book, I comforted myself with the fact that by the time I finished it, it would probably be early spring. Well, it's a testament to how readable this book is that it only took me three weeks to read. It's very much still winter outside.
I got hooked on reading memoirs from revolutionary/civil war-era Russia last year, and now I just want to read everything ever written about that time period, ever. This books extensive bibliography didn't help shorten my reading list.
I got hooked on reading memoirs from revolutionary/civil war-era Russia last year, and now I just want to read everything ever written about that time period, ever. This books extensive bibliography didn't help shorten my reading list.
October 6, 2020
If you want to understand the Russian Civil War from soup to nuts, from beginning to end and everything in between, this is the book for you. It covers every counterrevolutionary thrust, the foreign efforts to undermine the Bolsheviks, and how closely the Bolsheviks came on several occasions to losing the civil war.
July 28, 2022
Great read. Makes this distant and incredibly complex historical event really come to life in a very readable narrative.
Paints the revolution as a truly enormous and grim event that upended the lives of everyone within the Russian empire as different sides challenged the Bolsheviks after the October revolution.
Paints the revolution as a truly enormous and grim event that upended the lives of everyone within the Russian empire as different sides challenged the Bolsheviks after the October revolution.
August 21, 2022
A well researched, older history (subject to great man historiography) that is at times delightfully descriptive and fun to read. Lincoln is heavily biased towards Trotsky, and makes no attempt to conceal that. In any case, it’s a strong, relatively clear narrative history of a very confusing event.
August 18, 2024
too simple for people looking for specific aspects of the russian civil war, but it is still very good, unlike other books about the civil war this one does not end after the white's flight from Crimea, having an epilogue is very nice
the language is a bit though to understand sometimes but I guess that is a problem of the times
the language is a bit though to understand sometimes but I guess that is a problem of the times
August 23, 2021
This book is a sweeping and detailed survey of the Russian Revolutions of 1917, the Russian Civil War, the Polish-Soviet War of 1920, and the evolution of these events into the totalitarian Soviet Russian state that emerged in the 1920s.
December 23, 2022
written very well and descriptively, makes things come to life. since it was written before the fall of the USSR, it’s missing all the documents that came out since then, which does hurt its value as a history book.
August 5, 2019
I struggled a lot to find a good book on the Russian Civil War, that was informative, well-written, and as even-handed as possible. This managed to tick all three boxes.
September 5, 2022
One could do worse than to learn modern Russian history from Bruce Lincoln, who wrote beautifully.
December 18, 2023
Thorough history
February 26, 2017
If you like political histories this is a must read to understand what happened between 1917 and 1922 in Russia. If, like myself, you prefer more action and adventure, it's a interesting yet not exciting read. Red Victory does give a great understanding of what happened politically and with that understanding one can see why Russia is doing what it is currently doing. Putin is an heir to Lenin just as much as Stalin, Brezhnev, and Gorbachove. Trying to understand Lenin's legacy as it applies to 2017 starts in 1917 thru 1922. Red Victory will go a long way to understanding what that communist legacy is and how it applies to the modern Russian state. A must read for that understanding but a slog if you aren't a political junkie.
May 1, 2018
This is a good book. My only major criticism is that it lacks maps, which makes it hard to follow what is going on.
There may be 2 minor errors as well. One is in Chapter Eight where the author discusses a naval raid on the Russian position of Kronstadt. It says, "Agar and his Finnish smugglers sank the battleships Andrei Pervozannya and Petropavlovsk in less than half an hour." According to other sources, Petropavlovsk was attacked but not even damaged. Chapter Ten has the other questionable fact. It states "One of the anarchists whom the U.S. government deported to the Soviet Union in 1919". I find no record of Alexandra Kollontai, the named anarchist, being deported from the U.S. although she did go on a speech tour in the U.S. She was deported from Germany around 1914.
Another is some of the information is dated. For example, the beginning of the book has a section on major characters. It basically has a person's dates of birth and death as well as a few biographical sentences. A few of the these characters have unknown dates but I've seen on the internet updated information which does include such dates. Also, given that Russian is transliterated into English and can be subjective, many of the spellings the author used are different from most other sources so it makes reaserching some characters a bit difficult.
Nevertheless, I immensely enjoyed this book.
There may be 2 minor errors as well. One is in Chapter Eight where the author discusses a naval raid on the Russian position of Kronstadt. It says, "Agar and his Finnish smugglers sank the battleships Andrei Pervozannya and Petropavlovsk in less than half an hour." According to other sources, Petropavlovsk was attacked but not even damaged. Chapter Ten has the other questionable fact. It states "One of the anarchists whom the U.S. government deported to the Soviet Union in 1919". I find no record of Alexandra Kollontai, the named anarchist, being deported from the U.S. although she did go on a speech tour in the U.S. She was deported from Germany around 1914.
Another is some of the information is dated. For example, the beginning of the book has a section on major characters. It basically has a person's dates of birth and death as well as a few biographical sentences. A few of the these characters have unknown dates but I've seen on the internet updated information which does include such dates. Also, given that Russian is transliterated into English and can be subjective, many of the spellings the author used are different from most other sources so it makes reaserching some characters a bit difficult.
Nevertheless, I immensely enjoyed this book.
March 7, 2015
En väldigt bra och omfattande bok om ryska inbördeskriget. Efter att ha läst "Red Victory" framgår det tydligt hur och varför Bolshjevikerna lyckades ta och behålla makten trots motstånd och vad man i modern tid tycker är en fruktansvärd hård och brutal regim.
Även de vita styrkorna, ententens och centralmaktens inverventioner samt bonde och vänsterupprors kamp skilldras ingående på ett väldigt intressant sätt.
Det enda negativa som jag kan föra fram, är att för mig som framförallt har ett militärhistoriskt intresse, så blir de rödas förtjustning för kommitéer, kongresser, församlingar, delegationer, deklarationer, kommunikeér mm. blir ganska långrandigt. Likså beskrivningen av kulturlivet i St:Petersburg, som iof är intressant, men som har förlagts mellan två kapitel där striden mellan de vita och de röda står på sin spets.
Även de vita styrkorna, ententens och centralmaktens inverventioner samt bonde och vänsterupprors kamp skilldras ingående på ett väldigt intressant sätt.
Det enda negativa som jag kan föra fram, är att för mig som framförallt har ett militärhistoriskt intresse, så blir de rödas förtjustning för kommitéer, kongresser, församlingar, delegationer, deklarationer, kommunikeér mm. blir ganska långrandigt. Likså beskrivningen av kulturlivet i St:Petersburg, som iof är intressant, men som har förlagts mellan två kapitel där striden mellan de vita och de röda står på sin spets.
January 1, 2012
A useful corrective for those who may think that Stalin corrupted/perverted/destroyed the Marxist-Leninist purity of the 1918 Revolution and the Bolshevik victory in the Civil War...more information than the casual reader wants or needs but it's still worthwhile...
April 28, 2015
Contained virtually nothing on the war and entirely too much on arts and culture. The history is also entirely one-sided from the Reds, with next to no information about the Whites during the war, nor the various intervention movements against the Reds.
January 27, 2013
Engaging and well written, but I thought the chapter on the artistic side of the Russians didn't fit with the rest of the book.
August 1, 2013
Excellent book on a forgotten holocaust. Probably one of the bloodiest civil conflicts in human history mostly ignored. The book is excellently written and researched.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews