What's the best book on the history of the Russian Revolution?

>>9438417
>I read Animal Farm recently
>I want to learn more
Um what?

>>9438421
Animal Farm was based on the Russian Revolution

File: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcEBWu3OIebf1ra0s9zC_45nKqdsmcDP-wyMyMs2zJsbhlAs2I.jpg (93KB, 700x1080px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 700x1080px

>>9438417

File: 51LK7ojwcvL.jpg (56KB, 342x500px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 342x500px

>>9438426

File: 187562.jpg (33KB, 331x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 331x500px

>>9438435

Figes' People's Tragedy is bretty good.

File: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIh9isJ43vSqIixWCmEZJC7dXZ8qG8b--T3EgD18VQuixAoUkJ.jpg (49KB, 471x720px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 471x720px

>>9438440

File: 13161745.jpg (15KB, 193x280px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 193x280px

>>9438447

So Richard Pipes is /ourguy/?

>>9438476
not if you are anti-polish or a leftist. But he makes the consensus as the most cited scholar on oxfordbibliography on the material at hand.

>Criticism of Pipes's interpretation of the events of 1917 has come mostly from "revisionist" Soviet historians, who under the influence of the French Annales school, have tended since the 1970s to center their interpretation of the Russian Revolution on social movements from below in preference to parties and their leaders and interpreted political movements as responding to pressures from below rather than directing them.[26] Among members of this school, Lynne Viola and Sheila Fitzpatrick claim that Pipes has focused too narrowly on intellectuals as causal agents. Peter Kenez (a one-time PhD student of Pipes') argued that Pipes has approached Soviet History as a prosecutor, intent solely on proving the criminal intent of the "defendant" to the exclusion of anything else.[27] Pipes' critics argued that his historical writings perpetuated the Soviet Union as "evil empire" narrative in an attempt "to put the clock back a few decades to the times when Cold War demonology was the norm".[28][29]
>Other critics have written that Pipes writes at length about what Pipes describes as Lenin's "unspoken" assumptions and conclusions, while neglecting what Lenin actually said.[30] Alexander Rabinowitch writes that whenever a document can serve Pipes' long-standing crusade to demonize Lenin, Pipes will comment on it at length; if the document allows Lenin to be seen in a less negative light, Pipes passes over it without comment.[23]
>Pipes, in his turn – following the demise of the USSR – has charged the revisionists with skewing their research, by means of statistics, to support their preconceived ideological interpretation of events, which made the results of their research "as unreadable as they were irrelevant for the understanding of the subject"[31] to provide intellectual cover for Soviet terror and acting as simpletons and /or Communist dupes.[32] He has also stated that their attempt at "history from below" only obfuscated the fact that "Soviet citizens were the helpless victims of a totalitarian regime driven primarily by a lust for power".[33]

>>9438482
so the arguments against him are by soviet apologists, seems like a pretty good source to me then desu

>>9438499
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Fitzpatrick

This is his biggest critic.

>>9438417
E.H. Carr's Bolshevik Revolution

>>9438417
Ten Days That Shook the World. Also Zizek is apparently working on one called "Lenin 2017"