The Russian Moment in World History

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.

Marshall Poe has achieved prominence as one of the finest empiricists studying early modern Russian history. In the current essay, weighing in at a mere one hundred and thirty breezy pages, Poe finds the seeds of the modern Russian crisis in the early modern period he knows so well. It is a fascinating premise which is certain to draw fire from many quarters. But what separates Poe's book from the myriad "explanations" of the demise of the Russian empire is that this meticulously crafted essay is the work of a first-rate (and sometimes brilliant) scholar. Highly recommended.