Customer Reviews

The World on Fire: 1919 and the Battle with Bolshevism

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

 

 

This well-written book should be read in conjunction with "Savage Peace" by Ann Hagedorn, which I reviewed on June 28, 2007. They both offer insights into what was happening in the U.S. right after the end of World War I, and particularly the hysteria caused by the Russian Revolution. There are some of the same incidents in both books, but this latest one goes beyond happenings in the U.S., and gives us views of events in Europe, where the fear of a Communist take-over was much more reality-based. This was a very nervous time, and the author captures that feeling quite well. I learned many things that I did not know, not only about my own country, but about European events and countries. It only goes to show that one's education is never complete, particularly as it applies to history. I don't think that I will ever stop learning something new until I am, for one reason or another, unable to read anymore.

I disagree strongly with some of the other reviewers of this fascinating book; I find Read's writing both skillful and full of dry understated ironies and humor. It has real literary value as well as historical analysis. I found it hard to put down and in fact went out and purchased another of his books, the 2004 Devil's Disciples, on the immediate circle of Hitler's advisers. So much for the claim that the author is only a writer of children's literature. Perhaps that experience is why his writing is so much better than academic writers or political theorists. Do we critique E.B. White's essays because he wrote Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little? I think not.

Previous reviewers have largely missed the point (and the theme) of this book: it is not about the Russian Revolution. It does cover that event in a marvelously brief and powerful Prologue. And it goes on with an overview of the Civil War. But what Read really does show -- did the reviewers read the entire book? -- how the hysteria Bolshevism produced played out in many other parts of the world. While this global perspective may include some mistakes (I am not a European historian so I cannot comment on that), it does provide a truly global comparative view, and it is full of interesting gems that those trained in national histories might miss. And while there is little detail beyond 1919 -- a common fault in "pivotal year" books -- he does indeed mention in passing later developments. I found the brief reference to post 9/11 hysteria relevant. As Twain said, history does not repeat itself, but it echoes. I suppose one could also use 1949, the year of Communist China, as another catalyst of political hysteria, evidenced by McCarthyism in the United States.

I do wish he had used Japan as another example. After all, Japanese troops did stay in Siberia for a disastrous three years in hopes that the revolution would fail. Few nations had a greater fear of communism in that era than Japan, and it blinded them to danger from the right. The Tokyo urban riots of 1919 scared the leadership so much they imposed rice price controls that impoverished farmers.

Still, the book is an excellent read and frequently provocative. Readers should judge for themselves if the reviewers have a political axe to grind or are fair to this book. I think you will enjoy reading it.

I thought I was somewhat familiar with events in America in 1919, but this book put a lot of information in perspective... really gave me an understanding of the collapse of the German government and the unceratin foundations of the new central European countries> iwas a bit disappointed by the limted information about the Russian Civil War, but all in all, a good book about particulars in a period that most works have omitted.

There are many books available on World War I and on the Russian Revolution. Books on the immediate aftermath of the war outside of Russia are much scarcer -- at least, as a non-specialist, I'm not familiar with many. Anthony Read fills this hole with a well-written account of the revolutions in Germany and Hungary during 1919 and the labor unrest in many other countries. He does a good job of showing the effects of the Bolshevik successes in Russia on the war-weary soldiers and workers of Europe. One of his themes is the difficulty the public had in distinguishing between Bolshevik agitation and legitimate labor unrest that only had the economic goal of securing higher wages to keep pace with wartime inflation and allowing workers to retain some of the gains with respect to hours and working conditions that governments had granted them during the war. It seems that workers in many countries were unsure themselves during the disordered conditions of 1919 as to which of the two they were aiming for. The result of this confusion was a "Red Scare" in a number of countries, notably the United States, that involved thuggish behavior against people who were far from being revolutionaries.

I have a few caveats: Although Read has done some reading in the secondary literature and in newspapers of the time, he has done no archival research or even consulted academic journals. So, this is clearly a popular history and not a scholarly one. Here and there his views seem to be based largely on one or two secondary sources and a cursory canvassing of newspapers. I have a suspicion that a close reading by a specialist would reveal a number of errors. One I spotted was his confusion of J.P. Morgan with his son J.P. ("Jack") Morgan, Jr. J.P. Morgan, Sr. died in 1913, yet Read mentions him being engaged in various activities after that date -- presumably, it was actually Jack Morgan. Although the book I read was labeled the "American edition" it appears to be a straight reprinting of the original British edition, complete with British spellings and, sometimes obscure Britishisms, such as the following from the beginning of Chapter 9: "While Rosa Luxemburg's murderers were cocking a snook at world opinion at the beginning of May, ...." My one substantive objection is that having decided to include strikes and other labor unrest -- even when unconnected to revolutionary activity -- in his narrative, he ends up plowing through a large number of strikes in the U.S., England, and France that get a bit tedious.

Overall, though, these are minor quibbles. If you are looking for a short and well-written account of this period, this book is for you.

Read is not a professional historian and that much is obvious immediately upon taking up his new book. On the 2nd page he compares the world reaction to Bolshevism to that towards al-qaeda, a comparison that many may differ with and not to be made so fleetingly. The book mostly consists of a chronicle of events that took place immediately following the Bolshevik revolution. Unfortunately it concentrates solely on 1919, which has the twin effect of making it inconclusive, as many events rolled on for a few more years (the Russian civil war) and very dull. Even an anti-communist as myself finds his tone a little strident at times and I question some of his conclusions. The books generally lacks any theme or central theory; however it is useful as a reference of industrial actions that took place around the western world in 1919 following the end of WWI. Beyond that narrow point of reference I see no further value to this book.

There is a lot of valuable information in THE WORLD ON FIRE, but it's so poorly written that it deteriorates into a mass of interchangeable massacres.
I did not finish it. I'll read a better book on the pivotal year of 1919.

For a British book on the Russian Revolution and its international wake to be written by other than a crank Tory or Trotskyite? For the former you'll find scarcely better than this work By Anthony Read.

The author is a popularizer and childrens' writer, and it shows in the rigid moralism with which he (literally) attacks his subject. He writes of Bolshevik contempt for such "Western bourgeois niceties" as "truth, humanity, and honour," which fact may be true in itself but only puts Lenin and Trotsky in good company with Churchill and Clemenceau and Wilhelm II. In the name of Western Civilization these worthies tore Europe apart in the yet-worst war in human history, signed secret treaties disposing of other peoples' countries, and supported rearguard terrorism (Freikorps, Back & Tans) to keep their postwar remnants of "Western bourgeois niceties" intact. The affected condemnation of Bolshevik horrors struck many in 1918-19 as hollow and hypocritical coming from these worthies, even when the criticisms were factually true. The irony yet remains and is underscored unintentionally in Read's book.

I give it a second star, however, for its attention to sources and narratives. It will provide the general reader with a good introductory overview of this period - if s/he can avoid the moralistic sandtraps lining the author's course. Just be sure you're not paying full retail price for it! The best history of the early Bolshevik-era "Specter of Communism" haunting the post WWI-world is still David Mitchell's "1919: Red Mirage." Peter Hopkirk's "Setting the East Ablaze" is also good but focuses exclusively on Asia.

For a guy with only a casual interest in history, I must say this was a dull and difficult book to read. I had thought it would clarify how Bolshevism came to be so feared. However, in spite of whatever facts within might be true, I was lulled to sleep all too often and had some difficulty keeping the trend going. Hard to recommend. Charles A. Reap, Jr., author, "Devil's Game," and "My Friend Sam."

I was so dissappointed with this book.I thought it was going to be a juicy thriller timelining the Russian Revolution to vivid life.The author has no concept of the writings and philosophy of Vladimer Lenin.What the author has done is read a bunch of quasi-biographies of Lenin,and then rehashes them into this concise book.This book is for newspaper historians,who enjoy the sensational aspects of history.This is not intellectual reading for real thinkers.Now,if you're doing a grade school project for history class,this book may help you out.But,I feel the budding intellectual is really getting short-changed here.The best book about the Oktober Revolution crisis is still John Reed's ,'Ten Days that Shook the World'.That book is a historical gem,that still is enchanting reading today.This book,'The World on Fire',fails to explain why Lenin lumed the Soviet-Labour torch ,enlightening the peasant masses,all from Marx's revolutionary spark.And sheds no light,on why Lenin's fight for Bolshevik equality,was dashed by hard-line totalitarian stalwarts.

While I can surely appreciate a biased yet well-written account of the turbulent years of revolution after WW1, this one is very poorly written and researched.

The author writes mostly works for children and other non-historical works, and boy does it show!

As a serious sholar of Russian history, I found a multitude of falsehoods:

1) February revolution 1917-Read claims that the February revolution was not a revolution but merely the collapse of tsarism. Every historian knows that the collapse of tsarism only occurred because hundreds of thousands came into the streets and were willing to lie down their lives for democracy.
2) Rosa Luxemburg Her actions and deeds are terribly misrepresented here. She is categorized as a Bolshevik intent on replicating Soviet Russia. In fact, she was very seriously opposed to many methods of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. She was a determined revolutionary set on overthrowing Germany's republic but only by full support of the masses. Moreover, she was also clearly opposed to the foolhardy, premature efforts of Karl Liebknecht and his premature, unplanned eforts to foment revolution. However,she was unable to forestall events much like the Bolsheviks in July 1917.
3)The Brest-Litovsk treaty is portrayed as a shameful peace forced through by Lenin. On one page he claims that Trotsky was forced by lenin to vote for it. This is complete nonsense. All documentation and historian accounts record that Lenin was in a minority over supporting the peace. Only after, the party opted for Trotsky's no war-no-peace solution and this failed, did Trotsky(by prior consent with Lenin) change his vote. The vote in favor of the peace squeaked through my his 1 vote.
4) Invasion of British Embassy by Bolsheviks in 1918. Read makes this sound as some diabolical anti-Western, arbitrary gesture made by Lenin. In fact, Lockhart, British diplomat, was arrested for actively arming and supporting uprisings and assassinations. The embassy was raided to arest him. Surely no othergovernment inclusing US would tolerate this as well.
In terms of viewpoints, te author is so biased against anything socialist or Marxist, that he paints the Western governments as utterly righteous. In fact, they blockaded the Soviet Union fom receiving food or medicine, fomented revolt among the Czech armies.

In summary, anyone pro-Marxist or anti-marxist wishing to read a historian's account of events is recommended to stay away from this poorly documented, emotional account.