The Russian Moment in World History Kindle Edition

Poe's controversial short book (more like a monograph) on the origins, character, and history of Russia and its people reminds me of A.J.P. Taylor's revisionist and highly controversial book on The Origins of World War II. If nothing else, it gives one much food for thought. In the end, one may draw the conclusion that Russia is neither European nor Asian. - but both. Its once Imperial flag with a double-headed eagle clearly indicated the two-directional view that the empire took of itself. But what does that mean? Poe uses the word Eurasian quite frequently. The question at hand and the focus that Poe raises in his book has to do with the essential political and social structure that Russia possessed (and arguably still does to a considerable extent) for the greater part of its history. The architecture of Russia is certainly both European and Asiatic depending upon its locale. Russia, even today, is enormous geographically speaking. It is as large if not larger than all of North America. Yet, its population is paltry for its size and in decline. Part of Poe's thesis regarding Russian society has to do with Russia's geographical location and its overall climate. One would think that Russia became Russia because no one else but the original Slavs and others who settled there were the only ones willing to do so. Certainly, climate and geography affect history and the people who live there. But Poe turns this situation on its head and presents Russia as a quasi-isolationist polity whose main preoccupation is to protect itself from European aggression and internal revolt. He fails to examine Asiatic aggression and its influence on Russia (aside from the Mongols and Tatars) in greater depth. The threat of Japan is almost treated as an after thought, not to mention the problem of Central Asiatic Islamic countries that stretch over most of its southern border.

The fact that the first recorded act in Russian history was its assault on Constantinople is telling. That is hardly the position and attitude one would expect from an infant nation which prefers "to be alone and left alone" as a key basis of its existence. The desire to the present day to obtain warm water outlets and to be respected as a world power and not just a regional one says it all. However, if it were not for its nuclear arsenal, Russia would be a Third World country in every sense of the word. Its GDP is 1/16th that of the United States and is less than that of Italy or Brazil. And what of its manufacturing base? When was the last time any nation bought anything from Russia that wasn't related to either oil or military equipment? Where are the Russian autos, microwaves, TVs, cell phones, major appliances, etc.? It is outdone by little South Korea (a half country) and Japan, among others. Its vast size and resources do command attention, however. Yet, its very size has determined what type of government it has had and basically still has - autocratic. Even Putin has said that Russia is too big to be ruled by a Democracy. While Russia today is no longer considered to be "agrarian", its industry is noteworthy only for its military and outer space equipment and assets. Russia's defeats (in its different incarnations) or near defeats in the Napoleonic wars, Japanese encounters, World War I, and World War II, and Afghanistan are revealing. Had the US Congress given Gorbachev the financial aid that he requested, there most likely never would have been a Yeltsin and certainly no Putin; and today Russia might truly be a flourishing democracy standing shoulder to shoulder with the US. Instead, it has reverted to the basic autocracy that it has been for centuries, still worried about Europe in the form of NATO and the US.

For all that, I still found Marshall Poe's book to be provocative in its own way and a lively read - and isn't that reason enough to read a particular book?

A very comprehensive overview of the Russian history from the time of its inception up to the modern days. It has a sound theory at its basis, but the book's limited length inevitably leads to some simplifications that could potentially mislead a less informed reader. But still, the book is great for introducing students into the subject of Russian history.

into a hundred pages of text, one has to have a strong thesis. Poe does: once the Muscovite state collected itself in the sixteenth century, he says, Russia embarked on an alternative path to modernity. Unlike Europe, Russia combined autocracy, "control of the public sphere," state-controlled economy, and "state-sponsored militarism." This mix, moreover, made Russia the only "sustainable society capable of resisting the challenge of Europe." With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 400-year "Russian moment" ended -- that is, the Russian path to modernity expired, and something else now awaits the country. Much of Poe's general description will not be contested, except by those who consider Russia to be historically a part of Europe. His analysis -- that Russia had no other choice, given its location, lack of resources, and weak society -- will be. If those who disagree can offer a counterargument as compact, vigorous, and accessible as Poe's, the rest of us will greatly benefit.

I feel a little strange writing a review of this book, as I got it as a present and feel that holiday pleasure-reads should not require academic work. However, the other reviews are so glowingly positive that a contrary view needs to be presented, to point out the book's many flaws. I actually came to the review section to laugh along at the other critical reviews of this book that I was sure would exist.

I found the arguments in this book to be lazy, poorly substantiated, and inconsistent. He makes flippant statements about 700 years of history, explains how his two points (geography of Russian territory and autocratic nature of Russian state) explain how history unfolded, and say that the result is a unique victory for the Russian tradition over European Imperialism. He points out that if Russia were really a part of Europe, it would look a lot more like Sweden. But it doesn't, so this is proof that Russia has a historical developent outside of the European tradition. Meanwhile, autocracy is behind the success of Russia, because it has remained independent since the 1600's, and other countries were not able to withstand the challenge posed by European imperialism - autocracy must have been the reason for that. He neglects to mention that Russia is the largest country in Europe and had a population much greater than any of the other empires there, and that its military sucesses relied on adopting European technology and administrative methods, and that it's military defeats throughout the last 70 years of its existence were probably avoidable. He never also explains how other nations that had roots outside of the European tradition (which I think means the Roman era, but I can't be sure because he doens't state it very clearly) managed to become succesful. All those Vikings he talks about early in the book...how did they end up as Scandinavian kingdoms, and a member of the Russian community? As with so many things in this book, he brings up elements of history only to discard them when they don't fit into his chosen narrative.

Another example of Poe's confusing reasoning is that the Bolshevik revolution is really a continuation of the Russian "moment in history," yet the revolution caused by the end of the Cold War signals an end to it. Why these revolutions had such conflicting impacts on Russia's role in the world is not explained - we're supposed to just accept these truths to be self-evident. The role of ideology is ignored, and his explanation for popular support of communist government changes from an understanding that autocracy was obsolete, to a belief that property rightfully belonged to all people, to the fact that there wasn't popular support for communism (pg. 75-79) His argument is so simplistic and poorly articulated that I found it really surprising to find it in print.

As for the provocative nature of the book alluded to by other reviewers...Poe's comments reach for bombasticism in their comment about the errors and "mystical politico-religious beliefs" of essentially every other author to write about Russia's relationship with Europe, but his venom is weakly substantiated - again, we're so simply go along with the story he's spinning, without support from such minor details such as critical analysis of facts.

I wish I'd made notes as I read through this, I could have made a note every page or two if I'd bothered to collect every nitwit comment, confusing statement or self-righteous blather in this book. My opposition to this book is not based on my disagreement over certain parts of his argument - I don't disagree with everything he says, and the themes of autocracy and Russian involvement in European affairs are definitely important topics in this subject. It's really the quality of the writing and of the reasoning that irks me. At 140 pages it's a fast read, but not a worthwhile one. I'm fairly confident most people would agree with my analysis of the shabbiness of this work; if you like, read it for yourself and find out. But I'd prefer it if you just didn't ever bother in the first place, because it's a waste of time and money.

First off, the quick and shallow overview of Russian history skips over many facts and developments. The only part of this condensed history that I found decent was the early ethnography of the Slavs, which is also the era of history I'm least familiar with. Perhaps it's as filled with lazy