From bookstores

My family's gone to Moscow for some days and I feel a little bit lost and forgotten :). Probably, this is why I decided to take a walk to a nearby bookstore. It's been quite some time since I was there. Could be six or seven months, I think. The reason for this neglect was not that I quit reading. Quite the contrary. In April, I received a gift from my wife. It was an electronic book, called LBook. LBook is, actually, yet another brand name for the device generally known as Hanlin eReader. LBook is distributed by the Ukrainian company MUK. In some other countries the device is known under other names: Walkbook, papyre, BeBook, EZ Reader or just Hanlin eReader. To see how it works, check this video at YouTube. My LBook works even better, because it runs firmware, modified by some Russian enthusiasts, so, unlike the original Hanlin, it renders HTML, CHM and Epub in a quite readable way.

So, back to the story. I came to the bookstore, hoping to find some synoptic history of Germany and Italy. I did find a couple of books, Histoire de l'Italie by Katherine Brice and Kleine Deutshe Geschichte by Ulrich Herrmann, Andreas Gestrich, Ulf Dirlemeier et al. I had a look at the prices and put the books back to the shelf. $13-16 for a book is a little bit more that what I hoped to spend. Then I found another great book. It was La civilisation de L'europe des Lumieres by Pierre Chaunu. I checked the table of content, browsed through some pages and was ready to run for the cashdesk, when I saw the price. I used to buy the books from this series, like The Byzantine Civilization by Andre Guillou (I wrote about the book before) or the Civilization of Renaissance by Jean Delumeau or The Civilization of the Classic Islam by Dominique and Janine Sourdel and they cost me about $10 (250 rubles). But that last book costs 650 rubles! Even now that RUR/USD rate has plunged from 24 to 27 rubles, it's still 24 dollars, which is more than 3% of my monthly salary. So, I had to place it back ruefully.

No, I didn't just go away empty-handed. I bought a copy of The course of Russian history of 19th century by Alexander Kornilov. He was another historian from those last free thinkers who worked in the early 20th century, like Sergey Platonov or Dmitri Ilovaisky or Vasily Klyuchevsky. A great book. I'm afraid that we won't see a comparable work on 20th century for a very long time. Not from the Russian historians, sorry.

Now, some conclusions. Firstly, Russian business is Russian business, the prices go only one way, up and up. In the 1990s the sellers used to say: "Of course, the prices grow. You know, the dollar's rising", or "Of course, the prices grow. You know, the dollar's falling". No matter what, they said it with the most sincere faces and the expression of deepest conviction. I'm sure that now they will tell us: "Of course, the prices grow. You know, deflation..."

Secondly, once again I thank the Ukrainian sellers of that ebook device, my wife and so called "pirates", who scan books and make them available to those who can't catch up with the prices. Taking into account the digits I saw today, my LBook has already payed off its cost in six months.

Update: (2008-12-02 11:28:42) Follow-up: En passant: answer to Larussophobe

Disappointed by Richard Pipes

Sorry for this long break. I am still trying to translate a little excerpt from a novel by N. Leskov, but I'm coming to the conclusion that I just can't. I will have to simply retell the story and it'll take some more time.

In the meanwhile, I'd like to post another article I was writing some months ago, when I finished reading Richard Pipes. The article is not finished. I wanted to write a concept of Russian history alternative to the one offered by Pipes, but it seems to be more than I can do. So, here it is. A self-righteous critique of Richard Pipes.

Pipes, Richard. The Russian revolution

Some time ago I promised to some of my readers that I will write on my impressions from the monumental history of Russian revolution written by Richard Pipes. The time has come to do so.

I have to say in the first place that I read the Russian edition of the book, which means that the phrases marked by quotation signs below are not real quotations from Pipes, but from the Russian translation. Also, the Russian three-volume edition includes "The Russian revolution" in two volumes and a separate volume of "Russia under the bolshevik regime". Hence, I will speak of the two books as one.

In the foreword to the first Russian edition, Pipes says: “The book will disappoint two categories of the readers: those who think that the events of 1917 were inevitable and positive, and those who see them as an unnatural deviation from the Russia's true historic way. But it will be accepted by those whose thinking is not constrained by the fetters of the socialist or nationalist orientation. For many years of the work at this book I was convinced that the described events were not inevitable, but the sentiments behind these events could not remain without consequences.”

Least of all I would like to think of myself as of a socialist or, even less, a nationalist, but, paradoxically, I tend to belong to both categories of Pipes' readers who are supposed to disagree with him. I will explain my view on Russia, her history and some patterns behind the history a bit later. Now, I will concentrate on the book.

When Pipes explains the concept of the "patrimonial" state which becomes the basis of his "theory of Russia", he makes some characteristic errors.

In Pipes' opinion, “Muscovy was ruled as a private patrimony: its population, territories and everything upon it were the property of the throne.” This is wrong. S.F.Platonov, whose course in Russian history I translate and post at this blog, describes the state system of the Muscovite Russia and, in particular, the freedoms of the Russian peasants:

“All other people living in the knyaz's appanage, were called simply "Christians" (hence the Russian word "krestyánin", the peasant) and were not knyaz's subjects. In the posads (towns) and in villages they organized communities. The peasants' community was called mir. So, if the knyaz knew that some krestyáne (peasants) live in a certain region of his appanage, say, in a valley of a river, he ordered to count the number of the peasants' houses and obliged them to pay tallage. On a certain day (on Christmas or on St.Peter's day) the pesants had to bring the tallage. People came to this region and left it without the knyaz's permission. The local mir accepted them and let them go, it also defined their part in the mir's tallage. The elected elders gathered the tallage and took it to the knyaz. And so it went on, year after year, till the knyaz noticed that the number of peasants in this region increased or decreased. Then, after the new census the knyaz changed the amount of tallage. The peasants didn't even know their knyaz and the knyaz did not have to worry when some peasants left his lands. The krestyáne had the same freedom also on the boyars' lands. When they came to the new landlord, they signed the contract where their duties and payments were determined. When they wanted to leave, they renounced the land by an established procedure. According to the law and the tradition the usual day for leavin the landlord was the autumn St.Yuri's day (Yuriev day, 26 November). If we say also that the transfer from one social group to another (from peasants to the town's population, or to kholops and back) was easyly available for anyone, we'll understand how weakly delimited the society was.”

Beg your pardon for this long quotation, but it should explain why I think Pipes was wrong here.

A similar error was made when Pipes enumerated the features of the Russian absolutism, mentioning among them "the monopoly on economic resources and wholesale trade". While in some areas of the economy the control of the state was more or less firm (depending on the epoch in history, of course), in most industries the merchants and entrepreneurs were quite free. In the medieval period they were even more free than their European colleagues, whose activity was strictly watched and limited by guilds.

Another group of errors made by Pipes is explained by the false assumption that the shape of the European society was "correct" and that the needs typical for the Europeans were also typical for other societies: “How do we reconcile high level of industry and culture with the political system that deems its own citizen incapable of self-government? Why do Serbs, and Finns, and Turks have both the constitution and the parliament, and Russians don't?”, asks Pipes. The assumed answer is because the absolutism didn't let them. But, probably, because they didn't need it? Exactly because the self-government on the local level was so efficient. “Outside the cities, the central government relied on only 1582 pristavs and 6874 gorodovois for 90 million people of rural population,” writes Pipes. How could the police forces that small manage the country, had it not been for the self-government? “The power of the imperial government affected only 89 cities,” confirms Pipes. "In 1763 in Prussia there were 100 times more officials per sq.km. than in Russia. By 1900 the number of officials per capita in Russia was 3 times less than in France and 2 times less than in Germany." And no self-government? Of course, there was, and Pipes even says: "As a matter of fact, the village was governed autonomously by the rural communities, who carried collective responsibility for the collection of taxes and the draft of recruits, and by volosts, which performed simplest judicial and administrative functions."

When Pipes declares his political position in the foreword, he says that had he lived in 1917 Russia, he would be an "oktyabrist". It seems to me that he goes so far that he even adopts the prejudices typical for this circle of people, especially in his description of Russian intelligentsia, “usually defined as a category of educated urban citizens, mostly from upper and middle classes, who are always in opposition to the monarchy.” And then Pipes blames intelligentsia for the revolution and all the crimes committed in the course of the Civil war. As a matter of fact, he repeats Lenin's erroneous idea that the workers who are not led by a group of intellectuals are unable to revolt. On the other hand, Pipes is too eager to accuse the intelligentsia. Intelligentsia formed also the most active part of the supporters of liberalism. Pipes gives many examples of the university opposition to the bolsheviks, among both students and teachers.

I think Pipes did not really understand what intelligentsia is. He defined it as "a category of educated people, usually from upper and middle classes, in permanent opposition to the tsarism". He was mistaking. A noble, no matter how well educated, like Bakunin or Tolstoy, would never be called "intelligentsia". It was a privilege of middle and lower classes. Which means that the revolution was not led by the forces foreign to the Russian peasants and workers, but by those of them who managed to receive a more or less good education.

Another, and the most annoying, group of errors made by Pipes may be properly called "cheating". They appear when Pipes gives way to his personal feelings, which leads to absolutely anecdotical situations. So, in chapter 10 of the second volume (The Red terror), Pipes colorfully describes Lenin's fears:

“Not a single tsar, even in the periods of the revolutionary terrorism – was not afraid for his life, and didn't possess the guard so strong as Lenin did… Lenin sat behind the brick walls of Kremlin, guarded by the Latvian riflemen day and night. When from time to time he dared to go to the city, it was never announced. Since he moved to Moscow in March 1918 till his death in January 1924 he visited Petrograd, the stage of his revolutionary triumph, only twice, and never made any trips to see the country or to talk to the people. His boldest voyages were rare trips to Gorky near Moscow in his Rolls-Royce.”

And then, only one page later, Pipes writes: “The bolshevist leaders, including Lenin, used to participate in meetings in various places of Moscow in front of workers and party members every Friday afternoon. Lenin's arrival was not usually known in advance. On 30 August, Friday, he intended to visit two meetings (my emphasis, DM)… Worried (by the murder of Uritsky), his kins asked Lenin to cancel the meeting, but, unnaturally for him, he refused.” This controversy is one of the best examples of the Pipes' bias.

Another example where Pipes' antipathy is seen too clearly is in Chapter 4 of "Russia under the bolshevik regime". “The suspicion (that Lenin wanted to establish the hegemony of Moscow over the Western socialist parties) is substantiated by the letter written by Stalin in 1924 to a German communist publisher: ‘The victory of the German proletariat will doubtlessly shift the centre of the world revolution from Moscow to Berlin.’” How does this sentence substantiate the suspicion, may I ask?

In the end of chapter 5 of "Russia under the bolshevik regime", Pipes says: "We have mentioned the high estimations given by Mussolini to Lenin and his praise to Stalin." I paged back through the chapter, but the only words of Mussolini about Lenin I could find are: "I reject all forms of bolshevism, but if I had to choose, I would choose the bolshevism of Moscow and Lenin, for its giant, barbarian, universal scale." Is this what Pipes calls "high estimations"? I would say that this chapter, "Communism, fascism and national-socialism", is one of the worst and least convincing parts of the book, and the third volume in general, "Russia under the bolshevik regime", is the weakest one.

In the same chapter Pipes makes a really outstanding claim, saying that Hitler had plans to make Stalin his deputy after the conquest of the USSR. He even gives the source of this information: an article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. I tried to find this article, but could not. Still, I'm very skeptical about this sensational bit and I'm inclined to think that Pipes made this unsubstantiated claim just because he wanted so much to equal Stalin and Hitler.

Sometimes the choice of words itself demonstrates the intentions of the author. When Pipes tells about the Soviet propaganda art, he says that the enemies of the Soviets were represented as worms and the workers and the Red Army soldiers had "Aryan" facial features. This word, "Aryan", is an awkward attempt to produce an impression of deeper links between bolshevism and nazism.

And the fourth group of errors is simply the repetition of some old myths still popular among the Western specialists. One of them is illustrated by the phrase written by Pipes in the first chapter of "Russia under the bolshevik regime": “A Don cossack who sympathised the Russians…” Clearly, Pipes assumes (or wants his readers to assume) that Cossacks were not Russians. This assumption was refuted by Cossack Gregory Tschebotarioff in a brilliant book of memoirs written especially for the Western audience, "My native land".

The books of Pipes are an amazingly well written and thrilling piece of literature. I enjoyed reading them. But those interested in Russian history definitely need a better reading, not as illogical and incoherent as this monumental

Books I Read: Victor Chernov. The Great Russian Revolution.

1 DONE [#6] Чернов, Виктор. Великая русская революция. (Victor Chernov. The Great Russian Revolution)    nonfiction science history

• State "DONE" 2008-01-11 Fri 19:57
  Contents:
  • The collapse of the dynasty
  • The followers of Rasputin and the separate peace
  • Opposition in Duma
  • Duma against the revolution
  • The Soviet democracy
  • Position of socialist parties
  • Revolution and the workers
  • Peasants and revolution
  • Tragedy of the Russian army
  • Provisional government
  • Foreign policy of Provisional government
  • Conflict in industry
  • Government and the agrarian conflict
  • Dead-end in national politics
  • Dead-end in foreign politics
  • Army and revolution
  • Counter-revolution and general Kornilov
  • Mutiny and its corollaries
  • Party of socialists-revolutionaries
  • Slipping to bolshevism
  • Spirit of Russian revolution

  Before getting to the great undertaking of reading Richard Pipes, I decided to read the memoirs of some of the participants of the events of 1917. Viktor Chernov was a leader of the party of SRs (socialist-revolutionaries). The party had strong support among peasants and had the majority in the first Soviet and in the Constituent Assembly. Chernov was the minister of agriculture in the Provisional government and the chairman of the Constituent Assembly.

  The book begins with the chapter about the royal couple -- Nikolay II and his wife Alexandra Fyodorovna. In Chernov's opinion, Nikolay was weak and flabby. Alexandra, says Chernov, on the contrary, attempted to interfere and manipulate Nikolay. Then he talks about Rasputin, accusing him of pro-German sentiments and attempting to influence the war through Alexandra and, indirectly, Nikolay. Chernov quickly paces through the events of 1914-1916, noting the inability of the government to solve the growing problems caused by the war. The largest part of the book is about 1917, starting with the abdication of Nikolay. Chernov blames the first Provisional government formed mostly of constitutional democrats for the attempts to continue the work as if the revolution never happened. The second coalitional Provisional government was simply unable to do anything, being torn apart by the party interests, Chernov says. The third socialist Provisional government, in his opinion, was just insufficiently socialist. And of course, general Kornilov was for Chernov a potential dictator obsessed with power, who strived to destroy the achievements of the revolution and to become a Russian Napoleon. Basically, Chernov accuses everyone of not thinking like he does.

  Before you get annoyed by this style, not too uncommon among politicians, the book looks rather interesting. Some facts about the family of Romanovs and the political struggle in the years before the revolution are really interesting.

  However, the position of Chernov himself doesn't seem to be impeccable. Chernov describes Kerensky as a clown, a maniacal conceited poseur. And then he talk of himself in the third person: "Chernov was rather a theoretician, speaker, journalist, lecturer and scientist than a professional politician. He reconciled his really Slav broad nature, softness and eagerness for compromise with the tendency to escape to the ideal world of social forecasts and diagnoses, creative imagination and to leave the real work to the others." On the one hand, he criticizes himself, but on the other hand, how lovingly he does it!

  The weaknesses of the position of the SR are clearly seen in Chernov's perception of the French revolution: "Kropotkin told that the real history of the fourteen revolutionary months, since June 1793 till July 1794, was not yet written; the historians studied the external side of the events, the kingdom of terror, while the gist of these events is not the terror, but the mass redistribution of land, the agrarian revolution. The abolition of the feudal privileges without any compensation was the final point of the revolution." Chernov separates the terror from the revolution, failing to notice the obvious mutual links between the terror and the revolution and wishing to get the benefits without paying the price.

  Another dubious part of the book is when he talks about the episodes when peasants occupied the lands and captured the agricultural tools and machines of the pomeshchiks (landlords) from the permission of self-proclaimed village councils (Soviets). Chernov says that the only way to deal with these squatters was to officially recognize them; attempts to bring them under control would lead to mass disorders. It's like legalizing robbery because you can't stop it. Chernov justifies his position by quoting the letters and telegrams he received from the rural areas where the village councils refused to comply with the old legislation and threatened with rebellions, but he is so clearly biased that I would like to see a more balanced view of these events. By the way, R.Pipes notes that disorders began only after Chernov became the minister of agriculture in the Provisional government.

  Chernov tries to defend the famous Order #1, issued by the Soviets and which caused the collapse of the army:

  "For the commandment this order became the worst evil, the bomb thrown into the army intentionally, which destroyed the army discipline. However, the people who were familiar with the military discipline of the modern foreign countries, did not see anything scary in this order. The idea was simple: the strict discipline is only obligatory as long as the soldiers are on duty; outside the trenches and barracks the privates excercise the same rights as the officers. The revision of the purely superficial signs of discipline (like forbidding officers to be rude to the privates or introduction of new address "citizen general" instead of the pompous "your excellency", etc.) could not frighten anyone. Slightly more important was the abolition of saluting when off duty.

  Three articles defined the interaction of the privates with the political organizations they elected -- the Soviets and committees. Of course, from the point of view of the principle of the apolitical army it was herecy, but the army that has just accomplished the revolution could not remain apolitical. Moreover, the officers who demanded that their soldiers should stay away from politics, participated in the political events.

  One more article proclaimed that only those orders of the military commission of Duma must be obeyed which do not contradict the orders of the Soviet of soldiers' deputies. But this commission was just as political and self-styled as the Soviets.

  And the fifth, main, article would be impossible in the army. All weapons must remain at the disposal of the battallion committees and cannot be given out to the officers even under their requests. Worst of all was that this article was fair."

  Sorry for this huge quotation, but note how Chernov begins with really innocent articles of this order and justifies essence of this order, the articles that eventually ruined the army.

  And yet, this one-sided book is an interesting document that gives a chance to understand the position of the SRs, the party with the largest support in the pre-bolshevik Russia.

• State "READING" 2008-01-01 Tue 02:53
• State "TOREAD" 2008-01-01 Tue 02:52

  ISBN: 978-5-9524-2710-5
  BBK: 63.3(2)5
  

• Великая русская революция. Воспоминания председателя Учредительного собрания. 1905-1920 / Пер. с англ. Е.А. Каца. - М.: ЗАО Центрполиграф, 2007. - 430 с.

The books for the next year

Today my wife sent me to the bookstore to buy books that will be her New Year present to me. A common and very comfortable practice in our family :).

I spent about three hours in the bookstore and here's my choice:

First, the three volumes of "The Russian Revolution" by Richard Pipes. I've heard a lot about Pipes and read some interviews with him, but never read his books. If what I read is true, I strongly disagree with the Pipes' views of Russia and Russian history. Moreover, I think that our concepts of democracy are irreconcilable. Okay, I know, I am not a specialist in political studies, nor in the history of democracy and he, probably, knows better. This way or the other, his book on the Russian revolution is one of the most authoritative studies in this area. Russian historians have not produced anything comparable with this book yet and I am sure it will provide a lot of information to think about.

Second, there are two books from a new series "The witnesses of the epoch". The first one is the recollections of Katerina Breshko-Breshkovskaya, a participant of the early revolutionary movement. The book was published in English under the title "The Hidden Springs of the Russian Revolution". It covers the period from 1873 till 1920. She tells the story of her own life and analyzes the failures and achievements of the socialist movement in Russia.

The second book from the same series is "The Great Russian Revolution" by Victor Chernov, a minister in the Provisional Government and the chairman of the Constituent Assembly. I hope this book will help me understand the causes of the revolution better.

And, finally, "The Medieval Venice" (Venise au Moyen Age) by Jean-Claude Hocquet. About a year ago I tried to find books about the Italian "maritime republics" and, at last, here's one of such books. I am very curious about these formations — how did they function, were they really republics, what was the role of the educated people in these countries?

Unfortunately, I will have to wait till the New Year before I manage to peek into these books :).

Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it and those who don't!

Books I Read: Marcus Aurelius, by François Fontaine

1.26 DONE [#4] Marcus Aurelius by François Fontaine. (François Fontaine. Marc Auréle. 1991)    nonfiction history

• State "DONE" 2007-10-19 Fri 17:13
  

  This book was not written by a historian, but by a politician. François Fontaine is a EU official and an amateur in history. To a certain degree, this only makes the book more interesting. So, traditional historians compare the Aurelius' Roman empire with the Roman republic and with the Athenian democracy and conclude that Rome was ruled by despotism. Fontaine, on the other hand, compares the empire with the modern democracies and from his point of view the empire was rather liberal and open. Freedom of speech, local self-government, etc. So, for Fontaine, Aurelius is an ancient analog of a president. Life-long, but why not?

  Talking about the Roman "colonialism", Fontaine quotes Aelius Aristides: "The world has become a common motherland for all people. Barbarians and Greeks can travel safely wherever they want. You [Romans] have enhanced life, brought law and order." He describes Roman Gallia as a calm peaceful land protected by Rome. "The image of a province crucified and tortured by the conquerors is a myth," says he.

  These views are quite common among the lovers of the Roman history (including myself), and they are not completely wrong. Fontaine makes some factual errors, like saying that Aristotle and Plato were teachers of monarchs, or when he talks about the deification of the emperors: "The deification was almost automatical and only the emperors like Nero or Domitian were not proclaimed divine." These errors are, however, few.

  What is worse is that Fontaine does not reach his goal. He fails to show Marcus Aurelius. We learn about historical events of this epoch, some rumors about Cassius Avidius and Faustina, some basic facts about the Roman culture, but every time the author attempts to describe Aurelius as an emperor, as a man or as a philosopher, he miserably fails. He doesn't attempt to analyze whether the politics of Aurelius was a direct consequence of his philosophy (as, for example, P. Noyen wrote in his Marcus Aurelius, the Greatest Practician of Stoicism) or there is a gap between them (as G. R. Stanton wrote in Marcus Aurelius, Emperor and Philosopher). He says nothing on the specific features of the Aurelius' stoicism or on the influence of Epicurus on Aurelius. He finds the time for a professional diatribe against Russia (?!), saying: "May this fruit of the Byzantine reincarnation of the empire searches for its roots wherever they want: lack of measure is their hereditary problem, not ours," but not for the specific lexicon of stoicism, knowledge of which is a must for any reader of Aurelius.

  And finally, when the author attempts to make conclusions, he at last throws away the historian's hat and returns to the politician's self-righteous tone. He makes a great discovery stating that he has found the root cause of the fall of Rome: the Roman society did not believe in the "spirit of changes" and technology, while our civilization followed this way and developed a new culture, based on unlimited (sic!) expansion. He has also discovered the only true heir of the magnificent Rome. Of course, it's ex-Gallia.

  I give this book 4 stars out of 9. It's an easy reading with a moderate number of errors. By no means a "must read", but might be interesting for a relaxing dilettante. Like me.

• State "READING" 2007-10-07 Sun 17:10
• State "TOREAD" 2007-09-21 Fri 13:59

  ISBN: 5-235-02787-6
  DDC: 94(37)(092)
  BBK: 63.3(0)32-8
  

• Марк Аврелий / пер. с фр. Н. Н. Зубкова; Вступ. ст. Т. А. Бобровниковой. - М.: Молодая гвардия, 2005. - 319[1] с.: ил. - (Жизнь замечательных людей: Сер. биогр.; Вып. 942).

Books I Read: The Byzantine Civilization, by Andre Guillou

1.11 DONE [#4] Andre Guillou, The Byzantine Civilisation (Andre Guillou, La civilisation Byzantine)    nonfiction history

• State "DONE" 2007-10-07 Sun 01:43
• State "READING" 2007-08-28 Tue 16:24
  This is book was worse than other books from this series that I have read: The Civilisation of the Medieval Europe by Jacques Le Goff and the Civilisation of the Renaissance by Jean Delumeau. It starts with a geographical description of the Byzantine empire: a long list of names and very little information about the features of the regions, about links between geography and economics and culture. Then goes just as boring list of the titles of the imperial officials and very little on the functioning of the state. Speakin of the foreign politics, Guillou mentions marital ties with foreign rulers, and then goes a page and a half of examples and names. The list of the treasures of the church of St. Sophia takes five pages. However, the chapters on diplomacy, science and education are good and raise the final grade to 4 points.

  ISBN: 5-9709-0114-8
  BBK: 63.3(4) Г 51
  

• State "TOREAD" 2007-06-19 Tue 12:40

• Византийская цивилизация/пер. с франц. Д.Лоевского; предисл Р.Блока. - Екатеринбург: У-Фактория, 2005. - 552 с. (Серия "Великие цивилизации")
• Andre Guillou, La civilisation Byzantine, Arthaud 1974.

Books I read: To kill the führer, by Oleg Kurylev

I thought I might post short reviews of the books I read. Most of the are more or less history-related, anyway :). Here's the last one.

I keep my reading diary in Emacs and export the data from org-mode to HTML, hence that probably strange look of the article below. Let me know if you don't like the way it looks.

1.30 DONE [#6] Курылев, Олег. Убить фюрера.    fiction scifi

• State "DONE" 2007-09-27 Thu 00:55
  This was the third book of Oleg Kurylev that I've read. The first two books were rather simple sci-fi stories about travels in time. Both were set in the Third Reich shortly before and during the war. I wasn't sure if I wanted to read anything else by this author. The most attractive feature of those two books was the author's amazing familiarity with the details of life in the Nazi Germany. The especially conspicous was his brilliant knowledge of the German awards, uniforms, titles and all that. I am almost sure that Kurylev is a historian and specializes on the history of the Central and Eastern Europe in the first half of the XX century.

  A week ago I saw his new book on the shelves. I glanced at the annotation... and bought it. And I'm not sorry about it. The book starts with time travel again. A worker of the Institute of Historical Explorations in Novosibirsk is sent to 1911 to copy some books in a Prague library. Due to some peculiarities of the temporal physics, the time travel is actuall a travel to a parallel universe. So, the paradox of the killed grandfather is avoided. But the time travellers must return home before the link to the target period closes, because every parallel universe can be contacted only once. Savva becomes a defector. He has prepared his escape well and has a computer with a lot of data about the events of the 1910-1950 in Germany and nearby. He does not return in time and goes to Berlin where he begins making money by playing in casinos (the computer supplies him with newspaper articles where the rulette winning numbers are mentioned) and on horse races (once again -- the computer). Then, quite of a sudden, a man pays visit to him. He turns out to be his colleague, Vadim Nizhegorodsky, who was sent to the past through the same "window" when Savva missed the deadline to see if he's around and fetch him, but the window closes and Vadim finds himself unprepared, unlike Savva, in Prague of 1911. He manages to find Savva and they begin joint operations.

  They are two opposites. Savva is a phlegmatic planner, and Vadim is a lively man of action. Savva is careful not to change too many events in the history so that he would use his advantages as long as possible. Vadim, on the other hand, is impulsive and emotional. Among other things, he finds young painter named Hitler, lies about a sudden death of Hitler's kin in USA who leaves thousands of dollars to Adolf, and sends him across the Atlantic. On April 1912. You guess the name of ship ;). Yeah, right. However, Hitler survives. Savva doesn't know about these experiments of Vadim. He is torn between the desire to save the people who would die during the world wars or on Titanic, but prefers to remain a passive observer. Vadim finds Hitler once again and advices him to pass a test on racial purity in a Berlin clinic. Then he gives Hitler fake results saying that Adi is a Jew and the disappointed not-yet-führer commits suicide. Savva learns of the fact, understands that the hopes of keeping the history intact as long as possible are lost and joins Vadim in the attempts to stop the first world war.

  First, they depart to Sarajevo and save archduke Ferdinand. The European politicians, however, behave just as they did in our history, and the war is getting closer. Savva prints a book on the history of the WWI written by someone John Smartgun in early XXI century, publishes it in huge numbers and sends copies to the most important politicians and military leaders. They are frightened by the depth of knowledge of the mysterious author and by the prospectives of the 4-year long war and stop the war preparations.

  Once again, sometimes insufficiently original plot is compensated with the brilliant details. The author knows everything: topography of Prague, Berlin and Münich, biography of the Nazi predecessors, names of German companies, ships and newspapers of that epoch and many, many more. These details give the book an amazing credibility and I will wait for the sequel with impatience. And the sequel is definitely planned: on the last pages of the book the two adventurers go to Russia and meet a funny little man named Ulyanov in a train. The book ends with the Vadim's words: "I've got a fabulous idea!" :)

• State "READING" 2007-09-23 Sun 00:02
• State "TOREAD" 2007-09-21 Fri 13:59

  ISBN:     978-5-699-22771-6
  DDC:      82-312.9
  BBK:      84(2Рос-Рус)6-4 К93
  

• Убить фюрера: Фантастический роман / Олег Курылев. - М.: Эксмо, 2007. - 544 с. - (Русская фантастика).

Book: Death of the empire by Yegor Gaidar

I have finished reading a book written by ex-prime minister of Russia, Yegor Gaidar. The book is titled "Death of the Empire". Being a good economist, Gaidar explains the fall of the USSR by economic reasons. Some key quotations are:

"The dependence of wheat harvests on the weather, caused by the developing of virgin lands in the 1950s and the low oil prices made the situation catastrophic. This was the reason of the fall of the Soviet economic system."

"The Soviet government was absolutely convinced that the state can use unlimited violence to suppress the discontent. Such states are fragile since they do not include flexible adaptive mechanisms which would allow for the adaptation to the changing world."

"[The actions of the current Russian government] form a way to the system which may be called a closed (or managed) democracy, or soft authoritarianism. This system has little common features with the Soviet totalitarian system, but it begins to show weaknesses and elements of instability typical for such systems... However, the remaining elements of freedom and flexibility still give some hope for Russia. "

While reading the book, I made some short (well, not so short, as it turned out :)) notes and I plan to translate them into English and post here. Below is the table of contents of the book.

• 1 Foreword
  • 1.1 Post-imperial syndrome in Russia.
• 2 Greatness and fall of the empires.
  • 2.1 Empires of the past
  • 2.2 Crisis of the overseas empires
  • 2.3 Problems of the dissolution of integrated empires
  • 2.4 The Yugoslav tragedy
• 3 Causes of the instability of authoritarian regimes
  • 3.1 Instability
  • 3.2 Mechanisms of the fall of authoritarianism
• 4 The oil curse.
  • 4.1 Resource wealth and economic development.
  • 4.2 Specific features of the oil market
  • 4.3 Regulation of the oil market in the XX century
  • 4.4 Challenges linked with the fall of the raw materials prices: Mexico and Venezuela.
  • 4.5 Response to the threats of the prices volatility
• 5 Crevices in the foundation. USSR in early 1980s
  • 5.1 Ineffectiveness in stability
  • 5.2 Growing problems and wrong solutions
  • 5.3 Problems of the food supply
  • 5.4 Food shortage: strategic challenge
  • 5.5 USSR as the largest food importer
  • 5.6 Oil of the West Siberia. Illusion of rescue
  • 5.7 Falling oil prices: the last strike
  • 5.8 Dissolution of the USSR: unexpected regularity
• 6 Political economy of external shocks
  • 6.1 USSR and the falling oil prices. The gist of the choice.
  • 6.2 Chain of mistakes
  • 6.3 Growing problems of the Soviet economy
  • 6.4 Currency crisis
  • 6.5 Economical and political liberalization against the background of financial problems
• 7 Developing crisis of the socialist economical and political systems
  • 7.1 Problems of the oil industry
  • 7.2 Political credits
  • 7.3 Price of the compromises
  • 7.4 Crisis of the empire and the national question
  • 7.5 Loss of control
  • 7.6 From crisis to catastrophe
  • 7.7 "Extraordinary efforts" instead of reforms
  • 7.8 On the edge of default
• 8 On the road to the state bankruptcy
  • 8.1 Currency crisis. 1991
  • 8.2 Grain problem
  • 8.3 Prices fly upwards
  • 8.4 Money and the fate of the empire
• 9 The end
  • 9.1 Political economy of the failed coup
  • 9.2 Political agony
  • 9.3 Political desintegration: political consequences
  • 9.4 Civilized divorce
• 10 Afterword