What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #207
The Soviet Union: A Very Short Introduction
The Soviet Union at its height occupied one sixth of the world's land mass, encompassed fifteen republics, and stretched across eleven different time zones. More than twice the size of the United States, it was the great threat of the Cold War until it suddenly collapsed in 1991. Now, almost twenty years after the dissolution of this vast empire, what are we to make of its existence? Was it a heroic experiment, an unmitigated disaster, or a viable if flawed response to the modern world? Taking a fresh approach to the study of the Soviet Union, this Very Short Introduction blends political history with an investigation into Soviet society and culture from 1917 to 1991. Stephen Lovell examines aspects of patriotism, political violence, poverty, and ideology, and provides answers to some of the big questions about the Soviet experience. Throughout, the book takes a refreshing thematic approach to the history of the Soviet Union and it provides an up-to-date consideration of the
Soviet Union's impact and what we have learnt since its end.
About the Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.
Soviet Union's impact and what we have learnt since its end.
About the Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.
176 pages, Paperback
First published July 23, 2009
74 people are currently reading
1100 people want to read
About the author
Stephen Lovell
22 books6 followersStephen Lovell is professor of modern history at the King's College, London. He received his MA and PhD from the School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES), University of London, after studying for his BA at King’s College, Cambridge.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
March 2, 2017
This is exactly what the title says it is; it's a really good introduction, seemingly unbiased and informative. There is also a helpful section at the back with further reading resources - which gives specific recommendations depending on which aspect you wish to explore further.
December 4, 2023
The Soviet Union : A Very Short Introduction (2009) by Stephen Lovell is an interesting tour of the Soviet Union. Lovell is a professor of Modern History. Lovell points out that Soviet archives became much more open and by 2009 there was much more access to material for historians.
The book examines the Soviet Union thematically rather than in historical stages. There is a chapter called ‘Future and Past’ that describes how the Soviets saw themselves in history and the way in which they saw themselves in a movement that would result in utopia. There is a chapter on how Soviet people participated in the regime. Poverty and wealth in the Marxist society is also described. There is a chapter on the Soviet elites and the masses. How Soviets were patriotic but the nations within the union is also outlined. The way the Soviets saw the West is also described.
Surprisingly Lovell writes about how the Soviets may not have lost the Cold War entirely due to their impact in the developing world.
The Soviet Union : A Very Short Introduction is well worth reading. The Soviet Union had a huge impact on the history of the twentieth century and the book provides an insight into it.
The book examines the Soviet Union thematically rather than in historical stages. There is a chapter called ‘Future and Past’ that describes how the Soviets saw themselves in history and the way in which they saw themselves in a movement that would result in utopia. There is a chapter on how Soviet people participated in the regime. Poverty and wealth in the Marxist society is also described. There is a chapter on the Soviet elites and the masses. How Soviets were patriotic but the nations within the union is also outlined. The way the Soviets saw the West is also described.
Surprisingly Lovell writes about how the Soviets may not have lost the Cold War entirely due to their impact in the developing world.
The Soviet Union : A Very Short Introduction is well worth reading. The Soviet Union had a huge impact on the history of the twentieth century and the book provides an insight into it.
July 16, 2014
For people growing up in my generation, the USSR just _was_. You didn't need to read books on it - it was everywhere. This book is was wonderful because it took the reader behind the monolith. The organization is a bit different than other history books, as it is organized around themes and repeats the same timeline several times, each from a different perspective. I highly recommend this multifaceted look at a society that is still with us, even though the labels have changed.
July 7, 2014
While far from complete at a mere 151 pages, Lovell crams an impressive degree of analysis and understanding into his very short introduction. Rather than a chronological narrative, he uses a series of dichotomies in Soviet society - future and past; coercion and participation; poverty and wealth; elite and masses; patriotism and multinationalism; and West and East - to explain the rise, functioning, and fall of the Soviet Union. Well worth a read for experts or new initiates.
March 10, 2022
I’m rapidly becoming addicted to these easily digestible Very Short Introduction books. I’ve particularly liked dipping into Russian-themed books in this series. I’m teaching a course in the Russian Revolution this semester and read the books on comparative revolutions, socialism, and the Russian Revolution to help me to provide students with some context for the great event. (Previously, I read and liked the book on Russian literature, and the books on the Russian economy and the Cold War are next up). I think this overview of the whole Soviet experiment was particularly helpful to me. It very nicely sets up a series of binary oppositions or paradoxes about the Soviet Union that are really thought provoking. For instance, was the Soviet Union egalitarian or elitist, nationalist or internationalist, eastern or western, etc. The chapters provide excellent short summaries of the USSR, but each offers an entirely new perspective on the meaning of this enormously important historical actor and popular experience.
January 4, 2015
While short and certainly not comprehensive, the book does a good job of taking a dispassionate view of the Soviet Union. In a half dozen quick chapters, the author gives a better introduction to the Soviet Union than you could have found during the cold war. I'd recommend the book to anyone who likes history or who remembers the cold war era.
February 1, 2021
Read this book for a class I’m taking this year and, as someone who hasn’t had many opportunities to study this region this was very helpful in learning some of the key themes that were happening in that area over time. The author organizes the chapters into contradicting ideas that were at play, rather than a chronology of events, which was helpful to me for my class discussions.
August 28, 2022
Concise but successfully thematically explains all aspects necessary to have a good understanding of what went on in the SU.
Read
July 5, 2023thank you for our time together stephen
February 15, 2016
In his book, The Soviet Union: A Very Short Introduction, Stephen Lovell outlines exactly what the title suggests- a brief history of the Soviet Union. Lovell has written multiple works on Russian history and is currently a part of the faculty of King’s College London. His expertise on Soviet history allowed him to create a book that gives a look into the complex, often misunderstood workings of the Soviet Union. Throughout his work, he demonstrates an intimate knowledge of the Soviet Union, it’s characters, and it’s history.
Lovell bases his entire work on one argument. He argues that the Soviet Union was full of paradoxes, and oftentimes because of these paradoxes people studying it can create a biased or unfair view of the Soviet Union. He states that “these paradoxes are not impediments to a true understanding of the Soviet Union: to recognize them, as [his] book will attempt to show, is a first step towards that understanding.” (14) Another main theme in the book is that he “want(s) to characterize the Soviet Union, not pronounce a sentence on it.” (4) He makes it very clear that the point of this book is not to say whether or not the Soviet experiment succeeded or failed, but “to explain the workings of a society, economy, and political system very alien to Britons or Americans in the early 21st century.” (4)
In order to explain the paradoxes in Soviet society in a way that doesn’t make judgment on the society as a whole, Lovell organizes the book into chapters of the paradoxes he deems important to understanding the Soviet Union. For example, one of the chapters discusses the aspects of coercion and participation within the state. On one hand, it is easy to see how the government coerced its citizens into being involved politically, economically, and socially in party ideals. But on the other, when coercion was no longer used as often, almost as many citizens participated willingly in party activities. And this system of coercion and participation helped to build the Soviet state. Many think of the state as being extremely coercive (often thinking of terror tactics), but also one can think about how excited people were to join the party and follow its rules and ideology. He uses many examples found in the Soviet Union to make these points, and through this he reveals a brief history of the state. This example gives good insight into how Lovell uses various paradoxes within the Soviet society to characterize it and allow readers to learn about the state with little to no bias involved.
Overall, I had mixed feelings about the book. It remains true to the title and does give brief, well-written history of the Soviet Union. However, as a person with limited knowledge of the Soviet Union and many of its main players and policies I found the organization to be a struggle. His argument is that the best way to learn Soviet history is through the study of the paradoxes, although it is hard to learn about the paradoxes when the reader doesn’t know many of the basics about the state to begin with. It was difficult to keep the names of major individuals straight as well as understand what their ideology and ideas about running the state were. By deciding to leave out a more in depth chronology and introduction to important historical figures (he does have an extremely brief chronology in the introduction) it leaves those who don’t know much about the Soviet Union struggling to keep up. However, I did think he successfully managed to give an objective overview of the Soviet Union. I appreciated the fact that he discussed the various paradoxes as I do think that it is an important part of studying the state.
In conclusion, this book definitely sparked my interest in learning more about the Soviet Union but I don’t believe that Lovell effectively gave a straightforward history of the entire state. I would recommend this book to anybody with prior knowledge of the Soviet Union. I feel that individuals that already have a good working knowledge of the Soviet Union and want to delve deeper into the complex inner workings of the state would best receive Lovell’s work. After I learn more about the basic information about the Soviet Union, I would love to come back and read this book again to further broaden my understanding of the complex society that it was.
Lovell bases his entire work on one argument. He argues that the Soviet Union was full of paradoxes, and oftentimes because of these paradoxes people studying it can create a biased or unfair view of the Soviet Union. He states that “these paradoxes are not impediments to a true understanding of the Soviet Union: to recognize them, as [his] book will attempt to show, is a first step towards that understanding.” (14) Another main theme in the book is that he “want(s) to characterize the Soviet Union, not pronounce a sentence on it.” (4) He makes it very clear that the point of this book is not to say whether or not the Soviet experiment succeeded or failed, but “to explain the workings of a society, economy, and political system very alien to Britons or Americans in the early 21st century.” (4)
In order to explain the paradoxes in Soviet society in a way that doesn’t make judgment on the society as a whole, Lovell organizes the book into chapters of the paradoxes he deems important to understanding the Soviet Union. For example, one of the chapters discusses the aspects of coercion and participation within the state. On one hand, it is easy to see how the government coerced its citizens into being involved politically, economically, and socially in party ideals. But on the other, when coercion was no longer used as often, almost as many citizens participated willingly in party activities. And this system of coercion and participation helped to build the Soviet state. Many think of the state as being extremely coercive (often thinking of terror tactics), but also one can think about how excited people were to join the party and follow its rules and ideology. He uses many examples found in the Soviet Union to make these points, and through this he reveals a brief history of the state. This example gives good insight into how Lovell uses various paradoxes within the Soviet society to characterize it and allow readers to learn about the state with little to no bias involved.
Overall, I had mixed feelings about the book. It remains true to the title and does give brief, well-written history of the Soviet Union. However, as a person with limited knowledge of the Soviet Union and many of its main players and policies I found the organization to be a struggle. His argument is that the best way to learn Soviet history is through the study of the paradoxes, although it is hard to learn about the paradoxes when the reader doesn’t know many of the basics about the state to begin with. It was difficult to keep the names of major individuals straight as well as understand what their ideology and ideas about running the state were. By deciding to leave out a more in depth chronology and introduction to important historical figures (he does have an extremely brief chronology in the introduction) it leaves those who don’t know much about the Soviet Union struggling to keep up. However, I did think he successfully managed to give an objective overview of the Soviet Union. I appreciated the fact that he discussed the various paradoxes as I do think that it is an important part of studying the state.
In conclusion, this book definitely sparked my interest in learning more about the Soviet Union but I don’t believe that Lovell effectively gave a straightforward history of the entire state. I would recommend this book to anybody with prior knowledge of the Soviet Union. I feel that individuals that already have a good working knowledge of the Soviet Union and want to delve deeper into the complex inner workings of the state would best receive Lovell’s work. After I learn more about the basic information about the Soviet Union, I would love to come back and read this book again to further broaden my understanding of the complex society that it was.
June 2, 2011
There are few countries that loomed as large over the history of twentieth century as did Soviet Union, and none had done more to maintain a sustained threat to the Western countries and institutions. However, during most of its history, Soviet Union was largely a mystery for all those who wanted to know more about this vast country. This was due mostly to its own system of secrecy and disinformation, with tight control over the information that it permitted to get out to the public. Now, almost two decades after its collapse, we are finally starting to get a much more detailed and nuanced picture of this state. Thanks to this, scholars like Stephen Lovell have been able to produce very frank and detailed accounts, and this very short introduction is certainly one of the best on the subject. The chapters of this book are grouped thematically rather historically, along dichotomous topic. The author is very frank about the brutality of the Soviet regime, and almost every page mentions some of the more outrageous aspects of the Soviet life. This, however, is not the product of any anti-communist ideological bias - Lovell merely reports the facts as they are. In fact, there is hardly any mention and explanation of the communism and Lovell certainly doesn't try to make an apology for the Soviet regime along the lines that Marxism was a good theory that had been poorly implemented in practice.
No single book on such a vast subject can ever hope to do it full justice, and certainly not one that purports to be a very short introduction. However, as far as introductions go, this one is as good as they come. It will keep readers interest and provide a well-flowing narrative. It can also serve as a guide to further study on the topic, thanks to the well organized bibliography at the end.
No single book on such a vast subject can ever hope to do it full justice, and certainly not one that purports to be a very short introduction. However, as far as introductions go, this one is as good as they come. It will keep readers interest and provide a well-flowing narrative. It can also serve as a guide to further study on the topic, thanks to the well organized bibliography at the end.
January 18, 2011
Кто кого?
Time, forward!
Time, forward!
February 27, 2022
Lovell states that the Soviet Union’s “history has an obvious narrative shape: revolutionary upsurge, bloody rise of dictatorship, victory and partial vindication in World War II, followed by attenuated liberalization and slide into late industrial obsolescence.” There’s not much point in telling that rise-and-fall story again, so the author helpfully decides to structure this short book along a number of dichotomies: coercion and participation, elite and masses, patriotism and multinationalism, etc. This format allows us to see the various tensions at work within this unique political system.
Lovell begins by discussing the ways in which various historians have dated the Russian Revolution. The consensus is that trouble was long in coming for the Russian empire of the tsars. Orlando Figes, for instance, begins his study of the revolution (A People’s Tragedy) in 1891, when a widespread famine politicized a good portion of the citizenry. The Bolsheviks seized power during WWI and fought a vicious civil war, instilling the party with a war mentality it clung to for decades.
Once external enemies were done away with, fifth columnists needed to be addressed. Lovell distinguishes Soviet suppression of its citizenry from Nazi terror, though—the Nazis sought to profit from the labor of their undesirables before eliminating them entirely, while the Soviets, at least theoretically, sought to politically rehabilitate those they sent to the Gulag. In Nazi Germany it was relatively easy to determine who was “us” and who “them,” as the lines were drawn according to race, but the enemy was always difficult to smoke out in the Soviet Union, one of the reasons why so much of their propaganda features the unmasking of a villain, not unlike an episode of Scooby Doo.
The enemy could be anywhere, so everyone was suspect. Participation in mass politics, thus, was a form of self-exoneration. Society required active engagement in a way that’s hard to fathom as a modern, atomized American. (Illiberal) democracy was a key component of the political system, with Western-style liberal democracy painted as a system corrupted by special interests.
Even the violence was democratic, to a certain extent. While the state security rooted out dissidents, the regime relied on the citizenry to police one another. The state became something like a referee amid a Hobbesian war.
Some other interesting points—
The rationale for socialist realism: since societal progress is inevitable, art must depict life as better than it actually is, because to do otherwise would be to depict an arcing tennis ball as some static object. Portraying reality is a deception, by this logic.
“For an ideology purportedly based on the values of Enlightenment rationalism, Soviet socialism made surprisingly extensive use of irrational sources of authority: leader cults, quasi-religious rituals, oracular pronouncements, public confession and recantation. In the interwar period, it resembled the Taliban or the Inquisition more than non-authoritarian socialist counterparts.”
The Soviet Union had a complicated relationship with the West, hating it to various degrees across the years but often competing on its terms. Stalin, for instance, oversaw a vast increase in the production of champagne. Later, it was radios and home décor that was in demand. Never, though, were the leaders and citizenry able to simply say We don’t want what they have.
I found this surprising: “As much as one-fifth of the industrial workforce, and almost one-third of workers in the construction sector, left their jobs or were fired on disciplinary grounds each year. For comparison, labour turnover in the USA in the 1960s and 1970s averaged well below 5% annually.”
“Well-heeled Soviet youth adopted an Americanized slang to refer to the accessories necessary for a decent life: shoozy for the feet, a voch for the wrist, a beg over the shoulder – all accompanied by the requisite leibel.”
I had some trouble following the history of nationalism among the various republics, but all in all, this is an illuminating, historical analysis of the Soviet Union, considering the book runs well under 200 pages.
Lovell begins by discussing the ways in which various historians have dated the Russian Revolution. The consensus is that trouble was long in coming for the Russian empire of the tsars. Orlando Figes, for instance, begins his study of the revolution (A People’s Tragedy) in 1891, when a widespread famine politicized a good portion of the citizenry. The Bolsheviks seized power during WWI and fought a vicious civil war, instilling the party with a war mentality it clung to for decades.
Once external enemies were done away with, fifth columnists needed to be addressed. Lovell distinguishes Soviet suppression of its citizenry from Nazi terror, though—the Nazis sought to profit from the labor of their undesirables before eliminating them entirely, while the Soviets, at least theoretically, sought to politically rehabilitate those they sent to the Gulag. In Nazi Germany it was relatively easy to determine who was “us” and who “them,” as the lines were drawn according to race, but the enemy was always difficult to smoke out in the Soviet Union, one of the reasons why so much of their propaganda features the unmasking of a villain, not unlike an episode of Scooby Doo.
The enemy could be anywhere, so everyone was suspect. Participation in mass politics, thus, was a form of self-exoneration. Society required active engagement in a way that’s hard to fathom as a modern, atomized American. (Illiberal) democracy was a key component of the political system, with Western-style liberal democracy painted as a system corrupted by special interests.
Even the violence was democratic, to a certain extent. While the state security rooted out dissidents, the regime relied on the citizenry to police one another. The state became something like a referee amid a Hobbesian war.
Some other interesting points—
The rationale for socialist realism: since societal progress is inevitable, art must depict life as better than it actually is, because to do otherwise would be to depict an arcing tennis ball as some static object. Portraying reality is a deception, by this logic.
“For an ideology purportedly based on the values of Enlightenment rationalism, Soviet socialism made surprisingly extensive use of irrational sources of authority: leader cults, quasi-religious rituals, oracular pronouncements, public confession and recantation. In the interwar period, it resembled the Taliban or the Inquisition more than non-authoritarian socialist counterparts.”
The Soviet Union had a complicated relationship with the West, hating it to various degrees across the years but often competing on its terms. Stalin, for instance, oversaw a vast increase in the production of champagne. Later, it was radios and home décor that was in demand. Never, though, were the leaders and citizenry able to simply say We don’t want what they have.
I found this surprising: “As much as one-fifth of the industrial workforce, and almost one-third of workers in the construction sector, left their jobs or were fired on disciplinary grounds each year. For comparison, labour turnover in the USA in the 1960s and 1970s averaged well below 5% annually.”
“Well-heeled Soviet youth adopted an Americanized slang to refer to the accessories necessary for a decent life: shoozy for the feet, a voch for the wrist, a beg over the shoulder – all accompanied by the requisite leibel.”
I had some trouble following the history of nationalism among the various republics, but all in all, this is an illuminating, historical analysis of the Soviet Union, considering the book runs well under 200 pages.
January 2, 2023
I am also reading Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. He mentions that Soviet Union and Western world have one thing in common: A goal it the happiness of the population. The means was very different: Was it the far distant future happiness or the freedom to pursue your own happiness? This is opposed to Nazi Germany (ever on Russell’s mind on the time of writing). It seems to me that todays Russia and Western world does not even agree on this.
A good book to read given the state of the world today. It may be that The Soviet Union is history, but the people in power grew up here.
A good book to read given the state of the world today. It may be that The Soviet Union is history, but the people in power grew up here.
February 1, 2020
There’s no easy way to describe the history of the Soviet Union, much less to do it in 142 pages. The author’s approach is to lean heavily into thematic and era-based analysis. Each chapter presents a theme (ethnic expression within the USSR, interactions with the “West” etc) and then examines how those themes reflected in different eras. This helps the reader distinguish early Bolshevik, interwar Stalinist, post-war Stalinist, Khruschev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev eras (to lump generously).
More than anything, the text helps provide the reader with a general framework by which to contextualize more detailed, period-specific Soviet material. Well worth the short time it takes to read.
More than anything, the text helps provide the reader with a general framework by which to contextualize more detailed, period-specific Soviet material. Well worth the short time it takes to read.
May 27, 2019
Engagingly written by a distinguished social historian, this book is both a very fine example of exactly what the title claims and a cri de coeur for less ideological analyses of "the Soviet contribution to world history."
The thematic organization allows the author to cover an especially impressive amount of material (aided somewhat by the book's small typeface) in only 150 pages and its further reading section is particularly highly recommended.
The thematic organization allows the author to cover an especially impressive amount of material (aided somewhat by the book's small typeface) in only 150 pages and its further reading section is particularly highly recommended.
February 27, 2025
Overall, i think it's a great read that helps provide some context for the current perspective of Russia. This text, though brief, had a lot of moving parts and ideas at play so I imagine my retention will be lackluster. However, if the goal was to simple introduce one to the soviet union at a broad scale, I think this did a fine job. Will be keeping it on the shelf for future reference when possible!
September 11, 2023
Not as engaging as some of the other series. Seemed to be written to an audience that already engaged with some form of USSR history and was offering a new perspective.
Would have preferred a consistent timeline with highlights from over the years rather than the list of paradoxes he went with to structure the book.
Oh well, at least it is short!
Would have preferred a consistent timeline with highlights from over the years rather than the list of paradoxes he went with to structure the book.
Oh well, at least it is short!
March 5, 2025
Many times I was lost, it's very dense at times and good amount of jargon to absorb. I think the East vs. West chapter was clear enough. I found it alarming that he states the Soviets "encouraged German resentment at the postwar Versailles settlement as a way of finding themselves an ally in hostile Europe", "the Comintern played its part in the rise of Nazism."
January 5, 2019
Lovell conducts a brief overview of Soviet history, all the while examining the Soviet Union in terms of its internal contradictions – an interesting analysis that provides some insight into the complex Soviet beast.
December 2, 2024
It's fine. Not sure about the structure, but understand why he chose it to be that way. I think sometimes the Very Short Introductions probably aren't ideal for some topics. This might be one of them.
January 24, 2025
Very good - goes about exploring the Soviet Union in an interesting way, focusing on binaries. I feel it suffers though in its brevity - this format of introduction would suit a longer book, which of course defeats the purpose of the series. But anyway well worth reading.
July 10, 2018
Good, informative, gave me what I wanted to learn, particularly about its beginnings.
January 16, 2020
Accessible introduction to the 70ish years of the Soviet Union. Great insightful little book!
October 28, 2020
Barely mentions foreign policy and no discussion of how/why the USSR failed
April 16, 2021
Decent introduction with concise language and wonderful insight into each of the topics it works with.
February 27, 2022
A great introduction to the USSR if you’re short on time.
May 13, 2024
tbh not sad that ussr is over
September 6, 2024
interesting to learn about the soviet union
October 26, 2024
A very interesting look at the rise and fall of the USSR, and for its brevity is very good for giving a brief overview of many aspects of Soviet life over the 8 decades of the USSR’s existence.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews