The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States

by Ronald Grigor Suny

Now thoroughly revised in its second edition, The Soviet Experiment examines the complex themes of Soviet history, ranging from the last tsar of the Russian empire to the first president of the Russian republic. Author Ronald Grigor Suny, one of the most eminent Soviet historians of our time, examines the legacies left by former Soviet leaders and explores successor states and the challenges they now face. He captures familiar as well as little-known events--the crowds on the streets during the February Revolution, Stalin's collapse into a near-catatonic state after Hitler's invasion, and Yeltsin's political maneuvering and public grandstanding--combining gripping detail with insightful analysis.

Genres: History, Russia, Nonfiction, Politics, Russian History, Soviet History, Soviet Union

588 pages, Paperback

First published November 13, 1997

About the author

Ronald Grigor Suny is the William H. Sewell Jr. Distinguished University Professor of History at the University of Michigan and professor emeritus of political science and history at the University of Chicago.

Reviews

[ok · Rating 1 out of 5]

Beyond disappointing book, considering how much the author is lauded for his "neutral" stance towards the USSR and his supposed expertise on the subject matter.

The book started off well enough, the descriptions of the geography and the peoples of the future Soviet Union are often neglected and provided some necessary background info. However, afterwards it was just disappointing. The author presupposes a basic understanding of Marxism and communist theory, but keeps on getting details wrong and misinterprets a whole lot, which then make Lenin's points and decisions seem absurd and irrational. The author's understanding of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is just laughable and the culmination of his dire misinterpretation and superficial understanding of Marxism. Most obvious mistake I remember is his quoting of Marx's "religion is the opium of the masses" - a mistake that would be understandable if the author wasn't a professor of history and political science.

The whole section on Stalin is a joke. Stalin was supposedly the most incompetent idiot on the planet, and cartoonishly evil on top of that. Nowhere in this book can the reader understand how a backward nation at the beginning of the 20th suddenly turned into the second biggest economy a few decades later; for which Stalin's contributions were essential. If one were to just believe the author it would be just 100% luck - Stalin's agricultural policies were absurd and comically evil and his approach to labor was horrible bla bla bla - and somehow at the end of his regime the Soviet Union was better off... how does that work? The author is completely unable to give a nuanced retelling - Stalin can be bad, but he still had some essential and sensible policies, that's not a contradiction. The wilfull misrepresentation of what the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was, is also a bit questionable.

The sections on Khrushev and Brezhnev were at best alright. However, the sections on Gorbachev and Yeltsin were just laughably wrong and left out quite a few important details, that just highlighted the main gripe I had with this piece of work - which was the American centric approach. The author's characterisation of America in this book can be summed as "America is the bastion of democracy and human rights. If the US was involved in anything related to the Cold War, it was for the best of the people, because they wanted to spread democracy." The USSR's involvement in Eastern European countries was anti-democratic and horrible, the States' involvement in Vietnam and South Korea and Cuba? Not noteworthy, they did everything correctly. Why didn't the US like the USSR? Because the US loves democracy and the only gripe they had with the USSR was that they were anti-democratic, which the US just doesn't like. Why did the West support Gorbachev and Yeltsin? Oh, it's just because they LOVE democracy, and Yeltsin also only ever wanted democracy (nevermind the illegal dissolution of the parliament and the congress). The author also fails to mention Yeltsin's approval rating in 1996 (2 year prior to the book's release) - a whooping 6%. Yeltsin and his clique are shown to be just democratic loving people who make mistakes, Stalin is an evil dictator - the approval ratings at the end of their terms paint a completely different picture. I also find it interesting how the author failed to mention the Clintons' deep involvement with Yeltsin and his presidential campaign (notably the money donated) - just a mention of how the Clintons supported Yeltsin. But why did they?

All in all the book just regurgitate common talking points of the USSR from the perspective of an American - all the cold war era propaganda included. It attempts to understand Russian culture and mentality but just falls back on lazy American talking points. At the end the reader is left wondering how the USSR managed to become the second biggest economy in the 20th century, because the author spent 500+ pages making Lenin, Stalin, Khrushev, Brezhnev, etc. and everyone related to be the most incompetent idiots who just happened to have luck (whilst their population 100% detested them). Lazy.

[tara bomp · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are lots of points where I'm desperately wanting him to explain further where he glosses over something that seems very major in terms of the development of Soviet politics/culture/economics in a sentence or two but it's hard to complain too much about that in a 1 volume history of the whole USSR.

I feel like this is a very subjective thing but although he's not vitriolically hostile to the Bolsheviks and the Soviet state, it feels like even the more mundane things his starting point is that the Bolsheviks were usually doing things for no good reason with a nonsensical ideology behind it.

So for example to be pedantic he talks about class in the NEP-era and says things like "In some ways such party ideologues thought of class as racists think of race, as an essential characteristic that determines consciousness, loyalty, identity, and activity." and "Though many scholars reject entirely the concept of class, it is useful to employ a more fluid, historically contingent, and less economically determined idea of class." In fact, this introduction to the chapter includes no discussion at all of class as an economic relation, something both objectively important and ideologically important in Marxism. Suny only talks about class as an identity, treating the Soviet attempts to identify people with a class as essentially arbitrary.

There's a paragraph then discussing the class situation among peasants that's worth quoting in full because it illustrates my issue here

The poor peasants were seen by the Communists as true “rural proletarians.” They were either paid agricultural laborers, peasants without land, or those with so little land that they were forced to work for others to supplement their income. Perhaps as many as one-third of Russian peasants
were poor, without livestock or even a horse, unable to support their families from their farms. Middle peasants made up the majority of the peasantry, or about 60 percent. They were able to eke out a bare subsistence on their farms and usually had some livestock. At the top of peasant society were the kulaks, the richer peasants who possessed livestock, perhaps even some farm machinery, and were able to hire labor. While they were the best-off peasants materially, they had certain disadvantages. In Soviet Marxist theory they were class enemies of the working class and the poor peasants. From 1918 until 1936 they were denied the right to vote and burdened with special taxes. Poor peasants, on the other hand, received various privileges, and like urban workers were freed from most taxes. The 90 percent or more of the peasantry labeled poor or middle produced three-quarters of the marketable grain, while the kulaks made up about 3 to 5 percent of the peasantry and produced fully one-quarter of all the marketable grain.

After discussing how poor peasants were unable to eke out a subsistence living, he describes how their being freed from most taxes is a "privilege" while kulaks being taxed extra due to producing proportionately far more marketable grain is a "burden". It speaks to a failure to take the Soviets seriously in terms of their ability to understand objective reality and even in terms of being able to administrate things in the same way as a Western state. In Western society describing someone who can pay more paying more taxes as being "burdened" and those who have nothing paying less taxes as "privileged" is the sort of thing that could only come out of mask-off right wing capitalist ideologues. In this context it may only be a small thing but is reflective of a broader issue that rarely comes across so blatantly but is a constant subtext and reflects how he describes Soviet society.

In a different way his discussion of Collectivisation is surprisingly short given how massive a role it plays in the image of the USSR in the West and in Ukrainian histography. It's given a total of 15 pages. The section "famine in Ukraine" is 1 and a half. "the per-capita population loss in Kazakhstan, where the government forcibly settled nomadic tribes, exceeded that in Ukraine" is a half sentence that's not expanded on. He gives the 5 million dead figure for Ukrainians who died in the famine but skims over 3 whole years of issues with grain requisition in half a page. It just strikes me as a really strange choice.

In general the book is heavily weighted in page count to the time of the actual revolution and then gets scantier and scantier as it moves forward. There's a decent "afterword" sort of section on the years of Yeltsin but it receives about the same amount of text as the whole of the Brezhnev era. It's again understandable given that it's such a broad scope and it's an introductory text but so much of the why and how and broad changes get skimmed over or referenced and unexplained.

Overall I'd say it's a decent introductory text for the USSR and its immediate before and after but the issues of omission are consistently frustrating. It's not constantly gratingly hostile to communism even though it's also not supportive and outside of omissions most of my issues with tone can be read past - and it's certainly better in this respect than many, many other writings on the USSR. I'd also consider it pretty accessible and there's clearly thought in making it readable relatively easy at a sort of first year college student minimal context level.

I sort of wavered between 3 and 4 because like I say it IS a useful introduction just with some frustrations. Call it a 3.5 I guess haha. I'm not sure that there's really any other books that fill the niche of "introductory book to the history of the USSR that fit academic consensus but without being cold warrior style" so if you're looking for a book like that you may as well go for it. The other annoyance is no footnotes for any of his claims which limits its usefulness but it does have a very broad bibliography with a survey of the subject from all the major perspectives at the end of each chapter which is cool.

[Brendan James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent and accessible introduction. Didn't realize it was a basically textbook, but I'm not ashamed. I'm not.

[Victor Lopez · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is an okay book. If one wants a survey of Soviet history, this is a decent starting point for exploring the wider history of the USSR. The author's viewpoint is clearly that the Soviet experience was for the large part quite negative. This is an acceptable view given the state of research at the time of the immediate collapse of the Soviet Union. Regardless, Suny was breaking ground and carrying forward the revisionist tradition of Soviet history (along with other big names like Sheila Fitzpatrick and Alexander Rabinowitch) that challenged the 'Totalitarianism' Model that was dominant. However, I would disagree on some specifics given some new information that has come out that would revise some arguments elaborated by later scholarship such as the work of Samantha Lomb, Geoffrey Roberts, James Ryan, etc. in recent years.

Given the scope of the work, some things would inevitably be glossed over and minutia would have to be deferred to more specialized works that were to be found in the 'Further Reading' section of each chapter. I took issue with the structure of the work, since whenever Suny would claim something, quote someone, etc. there were no footnotes or citations which would be very disorienting for someone wanting to dip their toes in the expansive literature referenced to craft the narrative of each chapter.

The first few chapters mostly remained 'neutral', there was a more or less objective assessment of the conditions of the Bolshevik accession to power (though there was a glossing over of important events such as the June 1917 Petrograd Municipal elections (which are mentioned in Rabinowitch's The Bolsheviks Come to Power), which were used as a gauge by the Bosheviks to assess their overall popularity in the capital). He remains equivocal in his presentation of a lot of key moments.

The coverage of the Stalin period is mostly negative, some positives such as industrialization are briefly discussed. Khrushchev is given a balanced assessment, though Suny likes to dwell on his personal psychology a little too much (this section could have used some more 'meat' given that Stalin was given a whole section of the book to himself and his tenure is the most deeply analyzed). SImilarly, Brezhnev, whose tenure was the longest of any Soviet leader and where a lot of big foreign policy (such as another round of 'turning up the heat' against the West in the Middle East) and domestic events such as the "Cotton Scandal' that rocked confidence in political leaders in Central Asian Republics like Uzbekistan and the infamous Sablin Mutiny.

Nitpicks and my political disagreements with the author aside, reading a summary like this will give the curious reader more good than ill (Some of the Reccos Suny drops are definitely worthwhile reads in themselves and add important context that his overview does not mention or glosses over).

[Irene · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was required reading for my Modern Russia course. For someone completely uninformed about the formation of the USSR, it is an interesting read, and I enjoyed it. Of course, my background is English, so perhaps the more thematic approach to issues that The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States took maybe be confusing to some. By that I mean, although Suny did go chronologically, using a timeline of events from the Tsars' actions that influenced the eventual revolution to Putin, but he also sets each chapter up in themes. So things will be lumped together into themes in the book (like, say, what the peasants were doing in 1922 v. what the workers were doing in 1922, or how different sets of areas reacted to becoming soviet states), all while still maintaining the core timeline.

For some people, that may be confusing.

I personally enjoyed that set up. It made sense to me, and the development of the Soviet Union was also interesting because (again) I had no real understanding of Modern Russia. This definitely helped me form an opinion. It also helped me see how Stalin managed a reign of terror for so long over his people. "How did people not notice?" Easy. He got really good press. And he locked up people who disagreed with him.

Regardless, I would say that, as Suny approached the Putin era, his resources did seem to thin. Admittedly, he was then working with events that were still unfolding, and that's always difficult for a historian. Still, I hope he continues to update his book.

So for an overarching look at the development of Modern Russia, with a broad eye and with as much objectivity as he could muster, I recommend this book. Again, I had no background prior to this book, but I felt well served by the information I was provided.

[Thomas Wachtel · Rating 5 out of 5]

a really good overview of the full history of the soviet union, think it makes a great start for someone who’s going in more or less uninformed. not a ton of detail on any single thing, which is to be expected when you’re covering a century of political, economic, social, and military history in 500 pages. but definitely exactly what i was looking for to start learning (and the suggested further reading that closes each section is a great springboard for more detailed learning).

[Nicolas Muza · Rating 5 out of 5]

La mejor introducción existente sobre la Unión Soviética, su historia, su cultura y su sociedad, desde los últimos años del imperio zarista hasta la Guerra Ruso-Georgiana de 2008; imprescindible.

La Revolución Rusa fue, quizás, el acontecimiento más trascendental e importante de la historia contemporánea, equiparable quizás a la Gran Guerra que ayudó a ocasionarla; en un abrir y cerrar de ojos, un imperio de 300 años de existencia continua colapsó bajo las presiones múltiples de la ineficiencia interna, una autocracia torpe y rígida que no supo ni quiso modernizarse, una sociedad extremadamente diversa y dividida en múltiples disputas y una guerra que ayudó a exponer todas sus falencias. De las cenizas de aquél imperio, uno nuevo, guiado bajo estandartes y proclamas distintos, le reemplazó, un estado que nació aproblemado y enfrentando desafíos casi imposibles que resolver, más guiado por la ingenuidad, la ideología y cuotas importantes de terror político y social logró salir adelante y persistir durante 70 años, sobrepasando desafíos tales como una violenta guerra civil; una difícil situación económica local e internacional; las profundas divisiones culturales y sociales al interior de las antiguas fronteras imperiales; la violencia estatal en masa; y una guerra apocalíptica como nunca antes se había visto (y por suerte no hemos vuelto a ver).

Ronal Grigor Suny, un prolífico y célebre historiador de origen armenio, especializado en la historia rusa y la historia de su propio pueblo (que tantas conexiones comparte con el gigante del norte), ya tenía un lugar especial en mi interior por su obra dedicada a exponer el genocidio sufrido por los armenios a manos del Imperio Otomano. En este libro, actualizado al 2011, Suny propone sumergirse a profundidad en la historia de la Unión de Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas (URSS) dejando de lado los grandes discursos propagandísticos y los ataques ideológicos, para ejecutar lo que a juicio personal es un magistral análisis de los altos y bajos de la nación soviética en tanto intentó (y logró) consolidar su existencia, a pesar de los duros sacrificios y el reprochable actuar incurrido en dicha misión. Es así que, al terminar la lectura, uno adquiere una visión holística y comprensiva de lo que fue el “Experimento Soviético” con sus luces y sombras.

Impresiones Generales

- El autor logra un retrato acabado de los principales acontecimientos históricos, culturales, sociales, artísticos, económicos, de política exterior y demáses ocurridos en el transcurso de los 70 años de existencia de la Unión Soviética. En particular, iluminan bastante sus capítulos sobre la Era NEP y el periodo de consolidación inicial de la URSS, su largo recorrido por los años estalinistas y la Gran Guerra Patriótica (la Segunda Guerra Mundial desde el lado soviético), y la descripción de la Era Brezhnev y los sinsabores del intento de Gorbachov por salvar al titán soviético agonizante. Para cerrar, el autor ilustra con lujos de detalle lo ocurrido durante el gobierno de Boris Yeltsin y cómo el breve experimento “democrático” ruso decantó en la autocracia de Putin.

- El autor hace un juicio categórico y sin reparos sobre los horrores más condenables de la represión soviética, sobretodo el terrible periodo de las Grandes Purgas y los crímenes cometidos por Stalin y sus secuaces contra distintas categorías de “enemigos del pueblo”. Mención especial merece el retrato de las purgas contra el Ejército y la limpieza étnica contra las minorías del Cáucaso y Europa Oriental, algo que Suny logra retratar a su vez en el contexto del esfuerzo titánico de las autoridades del Kremlin por modernizar al Estado y orientar a la totalidad de la nación a la uniformidad ideológica y el máximo sacrificio en la producción económica. Muchas veces Suny reflexiona sobre el camino distinto que podría haber tomado la Unión Soviética de haber tomado un rumbo más liberal, una reflexión que se agradece como una briza refrescante que ayuda a observar los hechos desde distintas perspectivas.

- El único comentario “negativo” que le podría dar al texto es que hace falta una edición más actualizada que mencione y contextualice los últimos acontecimientos acaecidos en Rusia (tales como la anexión de Crimea y la guerra contra Ucrania), pues, querámoslo o no, los sucesos de la Rusia actual siguen teniendo una conexión estrecha con las consecuencias del pasado soviético y el traumático colapso del “Imperio Rojo”.


Una entretenida, fascinante y conmovedora historia general, útil para el estudiante y el amateur, el académico profesional y el lector ocasional, que ayuda a comprender mejor la realidad del otrora Segundo Mundo.

[Liāna · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book, as many have mentioned, is a great start for people who don’t have much understanding about the USSR, especially how it started. The author goes in great detail about Lenins and Stalins policies, though at times seeming to judge or sympathize with some of the decisions made which did seem a bit annoying when reading a history text, but maybe that’s just me who saw it.
I feel like the policies of Khruschov and later Brezhnev and Gorbochov seemed a bit too fast paced compared to Lenin and Stalin parts. A lot of things were barely mentiond which to me was weird, the Afghanistan war was just briefly mentioned as happening somewhere in the background as well.
I would also like to mention that the horrific parts of soviet history should have been a bit more elaborated on, like the deportation of Baltic people, Ukrainian famine, Babi yaar ect.,
But overall, still think it’s a great book, giving context to a lot of events that happened and also making me want to do even deeper research.

[Donovan Messer · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a book I needed for a Soviet history class in my senior year of college. I feel like this book attempts to do too much all at once. The book feels a bit rushed at certain points, but overall does a good job getting you most of the essential information you need. But, there are also details that other authors and publications have covered that this book needs for context, further analysis, etc.

Granted, this book was published a fresh 6 years after the fall of the Soviet Union and they had less information available to them than what is available to researchers now, but it doesn't excuse Suny's tendencies to gloss over details, leave something too open to interpretation, or not allow any interpretation on something that is pretty subjective.

This book left a bit to be desired but is definitely passable as a baseline of information to go off of. There are better one-stop-shops on Soviet history as well.

[j3z7Gt · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب آزمایش شوروی، نوشته رونالد گریگوری سانی، تاریخدان ارمنی و استاد بازنشسته دانشگاه میشیگان است. این کتاب که به عنوان کتاب درسی هم در کلاسهای مرتبط استفادده میشود، به تاریخ شوروی از ابتدای انقلاب بولشویکی تا چند سال بعد از فروپاشی آن میپردازد. به دلیل اینکه کتاب زمان خیلی زیادی را پوشش میدهد،‌ طبیعتا خیلی از اتفاقات بسیار مهم، سهمی در حد یک خط یا پاراگراف دارند. این کتاب، مقدمه‌ایست برای آشنایی با تاریخ شوروی که در آن ارجاعات خیلی زیادی برای مطالعه بیشتر درباره هریک از اتفاقات و یا موضوعات مورد نظر داده شده. بنابراین این کتاب یک نقطه شروع خیلی خوبی میتواند برای مطالعه تاریخ شوروی باشد.

[Barry Smirnoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This an extensive study of all aspects of the Soviet Union. I is a concise narrative of the state of Soviet studies when written, by one of the masters. It provides extraordinary references to previous studies and makes fair judgements of the many disputes. It is a huge work, but it is worth the effort. I read it on Amazon Unlimited for no cost. Suny is an expert on Soviet Nationalities and their history, His other bibliographical works, Red Flag unfurled and Red Flag Wounded deal more deeply into the controversies over the Revolution and Stalin. I highly recommend these books for both the general reader and the student,

[Jungi Hong · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this for my Soviet history uni course. I highly recommend the book if you're interested in the Soviet Union. I'm from the US, so the first thought of the USSR is some homogeneous looming machine, but being able to learn about the people's lives and events of the USSR gave me a better understanding of what went on.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great overview of Soviet history by one of the best historians in the field. I feel like it would be pretty accessible for a beginner, although it’s also definitely worth reading even if you already know something about the USSR. The further reading sections at the end of each chapter are also helpful.

[Ariston · Rating 4 out of 5]

A refreshingly objective inspection of a highly fraught and controversial subject matter. I would recommend treating it like a textbook, and read sections of interest rather than reading linearly start to finish. It may be personal preference, but I would have preferred to see more analysis, although I admit this may have been hard to achieve while maintaining adequate objectivity.

[Liam Carey · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good overall survey of Soviet history, but lacking in detail from the 1970s onward. A left-liberal summary that gently pushes against simplistic anti-communism but never leaves the acceptable confines of western academic consensus.

[Rikki · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read for school. Very dry for a book, the author chose odd ways to say things.

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

A heavy, fascinating read. So many stories and events only got a single line.

[Geoffrey Cowling · Rating 3 out of 5]

good textbook

[Liam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Originally had this book for my undergraduate history degree. Found it under my bed several years later and read it in full, very good overview of the Soviet Union.

[Alexey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I believe this is a great introductory text to the history of the Soviet Union. I would recommend it!

[Jake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ronald Grigor Suny is a name alot of folks flock to for information on the Soviet Union, particularly its pre-revolutionary scope and design post-revolution. Russia has always been a curious phenomenon to those of us here in the West, since its history and motives are so alien to our own that sheer curiousity can't help but erupt.

Soviet Russia was a curiousity of mine during college, and I spent a good chunk of my courses on Russian history, from the Medieval period to the Imperialist era, to the Soviet era. The roots of totalitarianism are not secluded entirely to the Soviet era, those roots run very far back, back before the foundations of most Western philosophies as we know it, and certainly beyond the concept of Marxism. Of course, the phenomenon in Russia was not a pure adaptation of Marxist ideology, the author makes this case in the beginning and continues to allude to it all throughout the book. I'm guessing the author doesn't care much for that ideology, since he often refers to Marx's writings as "contradictory."

This book is a rather heavy read, and I can't imagine anyone who couldn't care less about Russian history even liking it. Its taxing on the patience of anyone who can't stand historical non-fiction, and no, this isn't some fancy code word for a Tom Clancy suspense novel. What it is, however, is an interesting look into the Soviet system as an impure, but somehow more practical adaptation of Marxist ideology. If you are interested in this and looking to analyze two separate viewpoints on this era of history, read Malia's "The Soviet Tragedy" as well. The two men are covering the same topics, but doing so in two very different manners similar to Goldenhagen and Brown's analysis of "Ordinary Germans" and "Ordinary Men."

There's even eye opening trivia to be found here. I mean, who knew Lenin proposed paying the better educated fringes of society more money than the common worker? One can't help but hypothesize where Soviet Russia might have headed if Lenin had had a more ideologically similar successor replace him than the totalitarian and mass murderer known as Joseph Stalin.

[SWC · Rating 4 out of 5]

Writing a historical survey must be like trying to fit an elephant in a jar . It's an impossible feat but Suny does a pretty great job in pulling it off. Suny emphasizes a number of different lenses for approaching Soviet history, including economic, political, cultural, social and gender. In the introduction, Suny mentions how he wishes to take an objective approach to Soviet history and he pretty consistently adheres to objectivity. (He stumbles during the absurdity of early Stalinisms push for industrialization). I appreciated his attempts at objectivity, to often in non-academic approaches to Soviet history, I find the idea that the USSR was doomed to fail because it was communist and that cynicism often drips into the author's narrative.

One of the books greatest strengths is the focus on the non-Russian Soviet republics of the Soviet Union. The author's research is in the Transcaucasia region and his knowledge of regional trends is apparent. He also mentions the historical developments of the Muslim and Baltic Soviet republics.

Some issues that I had with the book includes a weak discussion on Soviet historiography and he often generalizes the differences between the different approaches to Soviet history. With polarizing figures such as Robert Conquest, and controversial subjects such as the Ukrainian genocide and the purges, the work could have used a better introduction to the subject in the further readings. Sheila Fitzpatrick and Stephen Kotkin are often mentioned simultaneously in further readings, and represent different periods in Soviet Historiography. (Kotkin had wider access to the archives after the fall of the Soviet Union and Fitzpatrick is one of the most important figures in a revisionist approach to Soviet historiography.). Despite my criticism, Suny offers an excellent introduction to Soviet history.

[Alyza Grijalva · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had read this for a class back in 2021 but hadn't really engaged with it until now. It's an interesting look at the last tsarist period of Russia, the troubled history of the Soviet Union and some of its leaders, and how some of the things in there can be applied to the world today. There are some things that need to be updated for sure. For example, the current President of Russia as we all know is Vladimir Putin, whereas in the book it ended with Dimitri Medvedev as the Russian President. He hasn't been President for many, many years. But overall, the history is fascinating to look at. It also makes you think about some of these policies and how they worked in the Soviet Union and how those same policies are being enacted under different names and different circumstances here in the U.S. One of the things that I agree with in the book is what Vladimir Putin said about the U.S., intervening and expanding their might all around the world, trying to be the dominant voice in anything having to do with the world's economy, and how it seems a bit hypocritical of the U.S. to do that and call Russia the expansionists. While that last part is most definitely true now, given what has been going on between Russia and Ukraine, Putin did make a decent point about American politics and the desire to seem like the dominant, freedom-loving, independence driven country that has all the answers to the world's problems.

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

A nearly exhaustive and mostly balanced overview of the Soviet Union, good enough that it has made me read it 3 times. The fact that there are plenty of reviews saying this is either too soft or too hard on the Soviets is always a good indicator. As a Soviet Armenian-American, Suny also brings the all too often missing perspectives of the non-Russian republics of the USSR. As a textbook that doesn't really feel like a textbook, there is also discussion on historiography and recent scholarly developments (as of 1998), such as the essential boon of the post-glasnost opening of the Soviet archives.

Nit-picks:

- Due to the confines of fitting the whole Soviet era into one book, there is a tendency to casually mention ambiguous sentences and gloss over certain details that beg for elaboration, but there is also paradoxically a tendency for Suny to repeat himself.

- Due to the aforementioned confines the book is weighted towards the earlier (and probably more interesting and important) history of the USSR, with 8 chapters on the revolutionary era, 8 chapters on Stalinism, but only a mere 2 chapters for Khrushchev, 1 for Brezhnev, 2 for Gorbachev, and 1 for Yeltsin, with no real conclusion.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably the definitive modern account of Russian and Soviet history from just before the fall of the Tsar to the era of Dimtri Medvedev.

I read this book for an exam but would have happily have read for pleasure, it is that good.

It is written in a way that feels like a grand narrative, but it does require your attention to overcome some of the more academic parts that can make the work loose some it its momentum.

This book is also fairly easy to dip in an out of. The the chapters are short can can easily be read and hour a piece. I read this book in about 20 or so day, but I would recommend taking more time over it to enjoy it better.

If you have an interest in this type of history and want the 'complete package' on your book shelf, go for.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

I learned a lot about Russian history from this book. I would want to consult multiple versions of Russian history before coming to too many conclusions though. My favorite quote, "I declare war to the death on domination chauvinism. I shall eat it with all my healthy teeth as soon as I get rid of this accursed bad tooth." Lenin the year 1922

[Kimberly · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a Soviet Historian, this text along with "The Russian Revolution" by Sheila Fitzpatrick are my go-to reference works for secondary research material. Not only does Suny seamlessly present a complex history, he references many helpful and authoritative texts in the footnotes of the work that are invaluable for students starting research on the USSR and its historiography.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Autopsy for an Empire is a great insider look into the seven leaders of the Soviet Union. There is a great amount of information presented by the author, it really is more like seven short biographies in one book.

[Katie Holem · Rating 3 out of 5]

The other book for my Government and Politics of Russia class. Again, some chapters were more interesting than others, but the chapter lengths in this book was a lot better than the other book I had to read for class.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very heavy read, but if you are interested in Soviet history it's a great source.