Customer Reviews

Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is subtitled "the fall of the Sovjet empire"- which may sound a bit melodramatic. But it is, in fact, hard to overstate the magnitude and drama of the change that occurred in the pivotal year of 1989 when the six countries of eastern Europe in the Sovjet block one by one replaced their single-party communist systems with multi-party democracy, cut their allegiances to Moscow and the Warsaw pact, and embraced western style market-capitalism, social democracy, the European Union, and NATO.

In this book, Viktor Sebestyen, known from the acclaimed "Twelve Days" about the Hungarian uprising of 1956, takes us through the decade and a half preceding the year 1989. Chapter by chapter the book moves back and forth through the six countries under Sovjet dominion: Eastern Germany, Poland, Chechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria, providing us glimpses of those countries' unique histories and the manner in which they ended up being Sovjet vassals, the pivotal events in each of these countries that would have major repercussions - sometimes years later - such as the election of Polish pope John Paul II, and up until when, finally, the actual mostly peaceful overthrow of the communists' reign took place. Naturally, there is attention for the events in the Sovjet Union, where the succession of Leonid Brezhnev by Mikail Gorbachov (with two other leaders briefly in-between) led to sweeping changes in its policies and goals. However, that is not the focus of this particular book (I rather suspect Mr. Sebestyen is working on a separate book on that story) and here it is only given to the extent it helps us understand the events in the six East-block countries. The book does not describe paralel events in Yugoslavia or Albania, either.

Mr. Sebestyen is a very good writer in the tradition of British journalism, and this book is an easy and pleasant read. The chapters are all rather short and infuse the story with excitement and not rarely a cliff-hanger of sorts. As best I can tell the facts are presented in a balanced way and the research seems to have been done well - although I am sure some may find details that are incorrect (I found one: the Nobel prize for peace is given out in Oslo, not in Stockholm). There are some photographs in the book that illustrate and enliven the story - but more would have been better.

In some places Mr. Sebestyen provides us with a glimpse of how history research can discover only later what dramatic events were taking place without most of us realizing. One example of that, described in this book, is how in December of 1983 the world came closer to nuclear war than ever before. This is chilling reading, a reminder how differently things could have turned out... And, unexpectedly, Mr. Sebestyen provides us with a view of then-president Reagan that casts him in a more favorable light than many other sources have done.

The book is not edited well. There are sometimes gaps in the story lines, and some things are left hanging in the air. In some instances it is impossible to figure out when a specific event was supposed to have happened. But those are minor flaws in an otherwise impressive book.

All in all, this is a very good book on events that for many of us occurred during own lifetimes but we may nonetheless have missed some of the key ingredients. For those who were not around or too small to remember, this book is an absolute must-read. And maybe this book, or one similar in scope, should be required reading for all, lest we should forget how only very recently a major change in our world took place, in mostly a peaceful manner, forever changing the course of history.

This is one of a handful of books published on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. Unlike some others, REVOLUTION 1989 does not focus solely on the events of 1989. Two-thirds of the book cover background developments, going back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the occupation strike at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk and formation of Solidarity in 1980.

Author Sebestyen reported on the events of 1989 for the London "Evening Standard", and the book has a distinct journalistic feel. Its 400 pages are divided into 48 chapters, which jump back and forth among the Soviet Union and the six countries that broke free of Soviet domination in 1989 -- Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.

REVOLUTION 1989 is rich in anecdotes and so-so in analysis. Perhaps the most idiosyncratic angle of the book is to give so much causative significance to the Soviet excursion into Afghanistan for the crumbling of the Soviet empire in Europe. "The Soviets' disastrous military campaign in Afghanistan made them reluctant to send troops into battle anywhere else. Without the implied threat of force, they were in no position to hold on to their empire in Europe." The other principal factor, according to Sebestyen, was the crippling foreign debts run up by the Eastern Bloc countries, which the USSR no longer was able, or willing, to underwrite. To put it in a nutshell, "The USSR lost its will to run an empire."

Sebestyen is generally critical of Gorbachev and he is surprisingly complimentary of Ronald Reagan, whom he presents as a visionary of peace and a closet nuclear disarmer. George H.W. Bush, on the other hand, comes off badly. The book includes useful brief biographical sketches of other principal figures, including Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Erich Honecker, Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu, Yuri Andropov, Alexander Yakovlev, and Eduard Shevardnadze.

Due to the demands of work, I personally did not follow as closely as I would have liked the events of 1989 as they unfolded. REVOLUTION 1989 proved to be a satisfactory, and eminently readable, summary of what has turned out to be one of the more significant chapters of history in my life.

I am by no means an authoritative figure on the subject of the Soviet Union, or its collapse. However, I did write a 100 page thesis titled "The Soviet Military and the Collapse of the USSR." I spent a year writing it, most of it on just researching both primary and secondary sources. I read dozens of books, Eastern European journals, and Russian reports. I also went to the National Security Archives in Washington D.C. and examined thousands of 1980s CIA documents on the USSR and cables between diplomats of those countries and the US.

Sebestyen's comparison between the West's war in the Middle East and the USSR's struggle against the Mujahideen is a poor attempt at making his work seem more relevant in our current time. That is unfortunate, because the collapse of the USSR is an exceedingly interesting topic on its own. It certainly does not need to be propped up by current affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The differences between now and then are stark and dramatic. There are many reasons for the Soviet military failure in Afghanistan: drug use, hazing, corruption, alcoholism, and a disjointed and divided armed forces. The need for drugs and alcohol was so bad that the Soviet troops routinely sold arms and ammunition to the Mujahideen in exchange for them. Many of the troops in Afghanistan were sent there for bad behavior of some sort, and there was always a divide in the Soviet military due to the language barrier. The military was made up of all the republics, but Russian was the official language. A huge percentage spoke little or no Russian, which added to an already strong ethnic divide.

Sebestyen claims, "Almost nobody predicted the sudden and speedy collapse of Communism--and its defeat was the last war that the West won. Almost nobody in politics, diplomacy, the military, the media or academia saw it coming. Least of all was it predicted by the intelligence agencies." This is an outright falsehood. As early as 1988 the CIA had predicted almost the exact scenario that ended up happening all the way down to the failed Coup in August 1991. What ended up happening was one of several possible outcomes outlined years earlier in CIA intelligence reports. Sebestyen clearly did not thoroughly examine any U.S. Intelligence records, because if I could easily locate and use these files, he certainly could have. He clearly makes assumptions that are wrong just to promote his agenda.

He claims, "The CIA consistently over-emphasized the strength of the Soviet bloc." Wrong again. The CIA was well aware of the deteriorating conditions in the Soviet Union as early as 1984, and aware of the poor state of the Soviet Military in the early 1980s. After Gorbachev came to power the Soviet military was increasing worse off, as public pressure over the percentage of the GDP that was devoted to the military increased. The CIA knew the poor state of the Soviet Armed Forces would only get worse, and this was well before 1989.

Sebestyen also claims, "Even in the Spring of 1989 the then Director of the CIA, Robert Gates, said the Soviets would use force to keep their hold on the East Europe states and, amongst other wrong calls, said the Kremlin would "never" let the Berlin Wall come down. Robert Gates is now US Secretary for Defense." He is right that the Kremlin would "never" let the Berlin Wall come down, and anyone who knows even a little bit of Soviet history knows that the entire occurrence was a mistake which infuriated Moscow when it happened. Sebestyen plays on American ignorance of Soviet events again here. He also, again, shows his agenda trying to downplay events that happened in the USSR. The Soviet Union DID use force to try and maintain the USSR, and it was in and around the years he is writing about.

I could go on and on with his revisionist history, outright falsehoods, and hopes to dupe those who aren't as well versed in Soviet history. There are huge gaps in his "storyline" and it is overall a poor editing job. Sebestyen hopes to legitimize his book by linking it to the current situation in the Middle East, but there really aren't many similarities to draw from if you know anything about the Soviet Union and its military during that time.

Further, how he could leave out the events in Latvia and Estonia is unbelievable and is a HUGE hole in this work. Proper peer review would have pointed out this glaring omission and a true academic would acknowledge them. But I guess more instances of the Soviet Union using force, (which he claims did not happen) to maintain its stranglehold on Eastern Europe wouldn't quite fit into his agenda.

I gave this two stars because there is good work here, but his private agenda seeps through it, and he intentionally, (or far worse, unintentionally) puts forth information as facts that are not, and are easily refutable by anyone who chooses to do so. I feel almost compelled to send him my copies of CIA declassified documents from my research which prove him wrong. There are other, far better written and researched books on the fall of the Soviet Union out there, especially regarding Eastern Europe, and I suggest you look elsewhere before reading Sebestyen's.

The West was had. For decades, we believed that the USSR and it's Communist bloc countries were a powerful behemoth that could crush its enemies at will. 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Czechoslovakia only heightened that belief. Certainly, the satellite states were ruled by dictators who shared ruthlessness (if not competence). But what we didn't know- and what only select Party members knew- was that their economies were propped up by loans from Western banks. Without them, the "empire" would have been insolvent in the 1970s, if not before. The USSR's economy was not as weak, but they were plagued with leaders who, as Reagan famously quipped, kept dying on us. By the time Gorbachev assumed power in 1985, he was desperate to improve relations with the West. Why? Because the military and defense budget were draining the Soviet economy.

As feted as glasnost and perestroika were, there was, shockingly, no plan covering how they should be implemented. Many in the West and bloc countries did not at first take him seriously; Gorbachev was the last in a long line of Soviet dictators who called for "reforms" before continuing the same policies of his predecessors.

As important as those policies were, they alone did not signal the beginning of the end of Communist dictatorships in Europe. Poland and Afghanistan were the first two fatal challenges to the regime. Poland had always been more difficult to control than the rest of the bloc, and the charismatic labor leader Lech Walesa began making trouble for the Party as early as 1980. Even earlier than that, the appointment of the Polish Karol Wojtyla, better known as Pope John Paul II, energized the Polish population and encouraged hopes of reform.

The war in Afghanistan, initiated the same year as the Pope's election, was the real drain on the USSR's economy. In fairness, the Soviets did not start the war; however, they did nothing to prevent it. Even though the leadership received advice from their military that victory would be difficult, they entered anyway. The shame is that they stayed, despite the high cost to their troops. Had they not been fighting that war, they might have been willing to send troops into Poland to crush the Solidarity movement.

It is shocking, even 25 years later, to read how long it took for the bloc countries to take advantage of Gorbachev's policies and exploit them to their fullest potential. However, it becomes understandable as the author paints a picture of millions of people battered not only by low standards of living- for example, the elderly in Romania frequently died of hypothermia in their own homes because they had no heat- but the sense that they had all collaborated with farcical regimes merely to survive. While we in the 21st century may wonder why more people didn't more openly resist earlier, when we read about the resources the governments were willing to spend to follow and track the activities of "dissidents"- and the brutality with which they would crack down on them- it is easier to understand the culture of fear that was perpetuated in the Soviet empire. (It's also easy to understand why they were so bankrupt when they spent so much money on the surveillance of their own people.)

Sebestyen does an excellent job of capturing the mood of the country, the empire and the world while at the same time providing brief biographies of the important players which put their actions into context. Sebesteyen does provide a balanced view of what was happening and when, but you can still practically see him shaking his head as he describes certain events, particularly the strange tale of the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia and the convoluted role played by Martin Smid aka Ludvik Zifcak. The truth is stranger than fiction, especially when people are desperate to hold onto power.

A must read not only for those who want to understand the end of the Soviet Empire but also current events.

'Revolution 1989' is superb recounting of the rapidly moving events of 1989. Like the events themselves, author Victor Sebestyen writes briskly, providing punchy three- to 19-page chapters that circle from Romania to Poland to East Germany to Hungary to Czechoslovakia to Bulgaria to Moscow, back to Poland, back to East Germany, back again to Moscow. You get the idea. Despite leaping between six capitals and their rapidly moving events, you as the reader never feel out of place. Sebestyen's masterful command of narrative and storytelling skill maintains control throughout...even as the pace of the revolutions speeds from 10 years (Poland) to 10 weeks (East Germany) and, ultimately, 10 days (Czechoslovakia).

The book is divided into three major sections: "Cold War" sets the stage (lots of Poland here); "The Thaw" describes the turn (Gorbachev takes his place on stage here, his presence crucial to what follows); and "Revolution" is the denouement. Though the contagion spread quickly from country to country, each revolution unfolded with its own personality and sense of country. Of Czechoslovakia, for example, Sebestyen says "[t]his is where the...Revolution enters the murky, looking-glass world of Kafka, spiced with a hint of John le Carre."

'Revolution 1989' interweaves thoughts assembled from the memoirs of the events' participants, the author's own reporting at the time, and his recent interviews with scores of individuals who played seminal roles in these historic events. The result is history that surpasses any novel that would dare to suggest something as bold as five like-minded governments falling in the span of a few short months. 'Revolution 1989' is not to be missed.

I had enjoyed his earlier book, 12 Days about the 1956 Hungarian Uprising, so I was expecting an excellent product.
The author weaves together stories of the collapse of Communism in six eastern block countries and maintains a context with what was going on in the Soviet Union and the West, mostly US, UK and West Germany.
He paints a picture of decline and rigidity in the Soviet Union that is compelling, and of some context (the massive debt that most of the Eastern block owed), belief that the US might launch a first strike nuclear attack as a context for the shoot down of KAL 007, and the profound impact this had on Ronald Reagan going forward.
His stories of aged party player coups in Communist counties and the inability of EE governments to crack down on local opposition without Soviet help and direction is interesting. The sudden freedom at the top for local decision making in a Communist system helped cause the sytem to crash, and did the illness of the top man in critical periods (e.g. GDR)and the inabiity of the long term bosses to give up power and positions.
The author follows events and people in different countries over the period and ends with the last (and bloodiest) collapse, that of Romania.
Readers will remain engaged throughout, and learn aspects of the fall they may not have known. I was a junior naval officer then professor at the time, and events certainly unfolded quickly, like a crack in the dam rapidly followed by a flood.
Wisely, the book ends as the last regime changes, and he has allowed for the presepective of time and information to write an informed, wonderful book.

Boy, did this book take me back! I remember at that time wondering what this Gorbachev fellow was up to and later, how it was all going to end. The stories, the quotes just kept returning to memory. Which brings me to the fact that most of the information presented in the book was readily available, but the author brings out several pieces of information that we were not privy to at the time, such as the reason for shooting down the Korean civilian airline (ironically numbered 007) and how Andropov almost started WW III through his obsession that America was about to launch a first strike. Gone also is the myth that General Jaruzelsky of Poland imposed martial law in order to prevent a Soviet invasion; indeed, he repeatedly asked the Soviet Union to invade but Gorbachev vetoed the idea. The most bizarre revelation was that President Bush wanted several of the countries in Eastern Europe to remain ruled by the Communists and considering the stupidity of his son as a later president, one can see that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Unfortunately, the book suffers from gaps in information. In a way, it is understandable since it shifts constantly from one Eastern European country to another as the Soviet Empire begins to collapse, but that is no excuse if he is going to write about the topic. He totally omits the coup against Gorbachev, doesn't mention Yeltsin or the Lithuanian president. It should have had details about the Russian atrocities in Afghanistan, which was the cause for galvanizing the Western world against the Soviet Union after decades of believing that the Soviet Union was just interested in preventing an invasion of the Warsaw Pact by NATO, as the propaganda had fostered. In short, the book should have been much bigger and therefore more thorough. Even so, it was a good read.

Apart from whatever I may have learned in middle school history classes (and subsequently forgotten), this was my first exposure to Soviet history. At first, I was overwhelmed by the number of unfamiliar names and by vague (vague in the sense that the author referred to the events without explaining what happened) references to historical events that I knew little or nothing about (for example, the Hungarian uprising, Prague Spring, etc). As it turns out, you don't need any background in Soviet or Eastern European history to enjoy and benefit from this book. The author quickly makes the unfamiliar familiar. The book reads like a novel; I could hardly put it down. In fact, I ended up purchasing the audiobook and the hard copy so that I could listen in the car and then come home and continue reading. I'm looking forward to reading the author's other works and to doing further reading on Eastern European history. A fascinating read!

This is an excellent overview of the satellite countries of the Soviet Union and there fall. The task of writing the history and events that led to regime change in so many countries would seem daunting but the author does it in remarkable depth and at the same time it is an entertaining read. As a political liberal my only quibble would be with his portrayal of Reagan as a peacenik and devout anti-nuke dove. But his arguments are interesting if not totally convincing to me and I leave it to the reader to decide. The author also seems to portray Gorbachev's relationship with Reagan as a closer one than it was with George Bush senior. Michael Beschloss's excellent book on the relationship between Bush and Gorbachev would seem to contradict that but perhaps most of that relationship was built after this time period. Quibbles aside (and they actually make for interesting reading as well) this is really a remarkable work that is a must read if you want to get an understanding of what happened to he Soviet Union and why. I carried this book with me everywhere for several days and when I had to put it down to do something it was with great regrett. It is one of those books that when you finish the last page you wish there were more.

Victor Sebestyen's gripping masterpiece in what transpired in Eastern Europe culminating in the startling events of 1989 makes us realize that it just didn't happen. This remarkable treatise provides us with only the beginnings of understanding these historical events. Sebestyen explains the Warsaw Pact relationships of the old guard and how these countries operated under the careful auspices of "Mother Russia". In doing this, we see the basic structure and dependency of these satellite Communistic states of the USSR.
Sebestyen goes into detail about the basic failures and flaws of these totalitarian states and that the events played out in 1989 just didn't happen. The Author summarizes the life and times of Mikhail Gorbachev and his rise to leadership and his introduction of glasnost and perestroika. In essence he shows the USSR at an economic and political crossroads. The old regime of Leonid Brezhnev et al was tired, ineffective and no longer could "sell the big lie". It took three generations, but when Gorbachev came into power the USSR was totally bankrupt economically and politically.
With this in mind Sebestyen weaves an excellent historical perspective of all the iron curtain countries and shows their similarities and also their differences. His narrative explains these events that seem spontaneous but in reality were actions which were bottled up for decades within these countries which have experienced a "long hard winter".
This study will enlighten all who read it. I would highly recommend this as a general outline study for these historical events. One thing I was surprised about in this scholarly study was that the editing was not good. Sebestyen's writing is very good, however on more than one instance words were missing and sentences were fragmentized.

In all this was a remarkable read. Hopefully the editing will be better for future editions