What do you think?
Rate this book
Longman History of Russia
The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union
'An expert in probing mafia-type relationships in present-day Russia, Martin McCauley here offers a vigorously written scrutiny of Soviet politics and society since the days of Lenin and Stalin.' John Keep, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto. The birth of the Soviet Union surprised many; its demise amazed the whole world. How did imperial Russia give way to the Soviet Union in 1917, and why did the USSR collapse so quickly in 1991? Marxism promised paradise on earth, but the Communist Party never had true power, instead allowing Lenin and Stalin to become dictators who ruled in its name. The failure of the planned economy to live up to expectations led to a boom in the unplanned economy, in particular the black market. In turn, this led to the growth of organised crime and corruption within the government. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union examines the strengths, weaknesses, and contradictions of the first Marxist state, and reassesses the role of power, authority and legitimacy in Soviet politics. Including first-person accounts, anecdotes, illustrations and diagrams to illustrate key concepts, McCauley provides a seminal history of twentieth-century Russia.
522 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
10 people are currently reading
74 people want to read
About the author
Martin McCauley
34 books3 followersMartin McCauley is author, senior lecturer at the university of London on Eastern Europe, China and the new terrorism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 27, 2020
I technically had to read this for school, but I personally really enjoyed it. I was impressed with McCauley's writing style and pacing. While no non-fiction book could ever compare with Vietnam: A History since reading it last fall, I got just as much information and knowledge from The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union as Vietnam. I really appreciated learning about the years leading up to the formation of the Soviet Union as well as a more in-depth look into each Soviet leader, especially Stalin. I also really enjoyed McCauley's dry humor when writing about communism, socialism, fascism and its many failings. Understanding these ideologies, how they influenced Soviet leaders and what decisions they led the leaders to make was so helpful for me to truly comprehend the times and Russia a thousand times more than I did before. It really opened my eyes to the evils of communism and socialism and everything in between. I did not walk away from this book the same person I was before reading it.
May 21, 2022
It should be noted that this book was written as an overview for university students of history, and is not primarily intended for mere reading: every chapter closes with a number of tasks for the reader, such as a definition (eg "Define what is meant by 'newspeak' or 'Bolshevik speak'.") an open question or an - often provocative - hypothesis to discuss (eg "'Stalin was a military genius.' Discuss.")
As someone who is merely personally interested, I did not take (or have) the time to complete any of these tasks - beyond off-the-cuff answers such as, "Well, no, it certainly does not seem so to me." I can reasssure other lay readers that this was perfectly fine: It is stimulating to at least read the tasks, but you do not have to do them to benefit from this book.
My impression is that McCauley has studied and travelled the USSR for decades (he has an impressive list of publications and relates a number of anecdotes from apparently numerous visits from very different eras) and definitely has an intimate knowledge of his subject. I also think he tries to do full justice to the title (Why did the Soviet Union come into being in 1917? How did it stay afloat through all the various phases in its history? Why did it finally crumble after 84 years?), to avoid oversimplied answers and still keep the amount of running text manageable. To that end, he regulary disrupts the running text by key questions (eg "Why was Stalin surprised by Hitler's invasion?") followed by an - often quite long - list of possible answers. In one chapter, the running text is even fully replaced by a side-by-side table (Stalin compared to Hitler and Mao). He also keeps the running text of chapters and sections strikingly succinct (or, perhaps, "short and sweet"), uses original sources sparingly (relatively short quotes or passages, yes, but never whole letters or the like) and regularly lightens up the text with on-topic Soviet-era jokes.
The result is an account of, and a relentlessly inquisitive look at, the workings of the Soviet Union throughout its complete history in about 500 pages, which is definitely an impressive feat. I would estimate that the average reader might need a week or two or so to digest it (without doing the end-of-chapter tasks). That time is absolutely worth it (as is the price of the book); in other words, I would recommend this book to anyone whishing to get a grasp on what the Soviet Union actually was.
Having praised this opus like that, I have a few minor reservations: I needed getting used to McCauley's style of writing, which might be described as fast-paced, impatient and punchy, which is both a good and a bad thing: While it contributes to making the first chapter truly jaw-dropping, it goes on through the whole book and becomes, frankly, inelegant. Short main clauses are used much more often than one is used to (Sample: "The plan was forever changing. The imperative was to meet the plan."), there are strinkingly few connectives (eg when he repeats something, which happens a few times, he makes no reference such as, “as said above”) which does sometimes make orientation difficult. Many, if not most things, are also dealt with quite curtly. (McCauley virtually never dwells on anything.) This felt like figuratively rolling down cobblestoned streets for miles on end, ie I could never simply indulge in reading, but felt more like I was continually rattled by successions of short statements. Then again, maybe that simply suits his (supposed) goal: not making his readers indulge, but instead pause and think often.
I also suspect his presentation is sometimes too merciless and then almost tantamount to a polemic: For example, when he (as usual, curtly) describes Gorbachev’s anti-alcohol campaign, he makes no mention that (as I happen to have read elsewhere) life expectancy rose (very plausibly, as a result), only that the campaign destroyed many age-old vineyards, encouraged organised crime and had to be abandoned. Thus, I cannot judge or weigh the facts, but would not necessarily take everything in the book as the very last word on a particular topic. (Which, of course, I never do with any book on history anyway.)
Presumably because it’s the first edition, the opus also seems a bit rough around the edges here and there: The one-sentence biographies in the appendix could include more people and could be cross-referenced to the text directly (sometimes, you do wonder who comrade XY was). Given the density of the text, the general index should be far more exhaustive and probably be split into a person and a subject index (resp every person mentioned simply be included in the biographies, with page references). At least one picture, of revolutionary Alexandra Kollontai, is included without any reference to, let alone explanation of, the particular way she is portrayed in it. Finally, the last chapter, the one on the Yelzin years, feels off-topic and should simply be left out.
On balance, I think the author has set himself a gargantuan task and fulfilled it admirably in just 500 pages. Definitely recommended even for those who do not study history at the university – but don’t expect light reading.
As someone who is merely personally interested, I did not take (or have) the time to complete any of these tasks - beyond off-the-cuff answers such as, "Well, no, it certainly does not seem so to me." I can reasssure other lay readers that this was perfectly fine: It is stimulating to at least read the tasks, but you do not have to do them to benefit from this book.
My impression is that McCauley has studied and travelled the USSR for decades (he has an impressive list of publications and relates a number of anecdotes from apparently numerous visits from very different eras) and definitely has an intimate knowledge of his subject. I also think he tries to do full justice to the title (Why did the Soviet Union come into being in 1917? How did it stay afloat through all the various phases in its history? Why did it finally crumble after 84 years?), to avoid oversimplied answers and still keep the amount of running text manageable. To that end, he regulary disrupts the running text by key questions (eg "Why was Stalin surprised by Hitler's invasion?") followed by an - often quite long - list of possible answers. In one chapter, the running text is even fully replaced by a side-by-side table (Stalin compared to Hitler and Mao). He also keeps the running text of chapters and sections strikingly succinct (or, perhaps, "short and sweet"), uses original sources sparingly (relatively short quotes or passages, yes, but never whole letters or the like) and regularly lightens up the text with on-topic Soviet-era jokes.
The result is an account of, and a relentlessly inquisitive look at, the workings of the Soviet Union throughout its complete history in about 500 pages, which is definitely an impressive feat. I would estimate that the average reader might need a week or two or so to digest it (without doing the end-of-chapter tasks). That time is absolutely worth it (as is the price of the book); in other words, I would recommend this book to anyone whishing to get a grasp on what the Soviet Union actually was.
Having praised this opus like that, I have a few minor reservations: I needed getting used to McCauley's style of writing, which might be described as fast-paced, impatient and punchy, which is both a good and a bad thing: While it contributes to making the first chapter truly jaw-dropping, it goes on through the whole book and becomes, frankly, inelegant. Short main clauses are used much more often than one is used to (Sample: "The plan was forever changing. The imperative was to meet the plan."), there are strinkingly few connectives (eg when he repeats something, which happens a few times, he makes no reference such as, “as said above”) which does sometimes make orientation difficult. Many, if not most things, are also dealt with quite curtly. (McCauley virtually never dwells on anything.) This felt like figuratively rolling down cobblestoned streets for miles on end, ie I could never simply indulge in reading, but felt more like I was continually rattled by successions of short statements. Then again, maybe that simply suits his (supposed) goal: not making his readers indulge, but instead pause and think often.
I also suspect his presentation is sometimes too merciless and then almost tantamount to a polemic: For example, when he (as usual, curtly) describes Gorbachev’s anti-alcohol campaign, he makes no mention that (as I happen to have read elsewhere) life expectancy rose (very plausibly, as a result), only that the campaign destroyed many age-old vineyards, encouraged organised crime and had to be abandoned. Thus, I cannot judge or weigh the facts, but would not necessarily take everything in the book as the very last word on a particular topic. (Which, of course, I never do with any book on history anyway.)
Presumably because it’s the first edition, the opus also seems a bit rough around the edges here and there: The one-sentence biographies in the appendix could include more people and could be cross-referenced to the text directly (sometimes, you do wonder who comrade XY was). Given the density of the text, the general index should be far more exhaustive and probably be split into a person and a subject index (resp every person mentioned simply be included in the biographies, with page references). At least one picture, of revolutionary Alexandra Kollontai, is included without any reference to, let alone explanation of, the particular way she is portrayed in it. Finally, the last chapter, the one on the Yelzin years, feels off-topic and should simply be left out.
On balance, I think the author has set himself a gargantuan task and fulfilled it admirably in just 500 pages. Definitely recommended even for those who do not study history at the university – but don’t expect light reading.
Want to read
December 24, 2011Recommended by Spellbound
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews