In-Depth Review: Richard Pipes' Perspective on Russian Revolution

This essay provides a comprehensive review of Richard Pipes' book 'Three Whys of Russian Revolution,' critically analyzing the author's perspective on the causes and consequences of the Russian Revolution. It delves into Pipes' arguments regarding the fall of the Tsarist regime, the success of the Bolsheviks, and the reasons for Stalin's succession, comparing his views with mainstream historical narratives. The review examines Pipes' sympathetic portrayal of the Romanovs and his critique of the communist regime, highlighting his alternative interpretation of the revolution as a conspiracy rather than a popular uprising. While acknowledging the novelty of Pipes' viewpoint, the essay also presents counterarguments and alternative interpretations of key events, offering a balanced assessment of the book's contribution to understanding the Russian Revolution. Desklib offers a variety of study tools and resources for students.

Running head: REVIEW
REVIEW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1REVIEW
Introduction
Historical events have down the history been a subject matter which authors have mixed
their imaginations and produced literary masterpieces. Though such pieces of literary
masterpieces are supposed of fictional constructs but they are replete with the images of reality
that have prevailed in the history. Such pieces of literary masterpieces can justifiably be termed
as alternative narration of the historical events and the novelty of such literary masterpieces are
that they provide an insight into the historical events, a viewpoint which is very different from
the account which one finds in the history books which are essentially having the essence of
politics in it. The literary masterpieces based against the background of historical events are
rather the observations and the effects of the political events on the lives of the people, which is
devoid of the political bias in it and is more concerned with the showcasing the views and
experiences incurred by the people at the grassroot level. Thus the background of the historical
events and the imaginative contemplation of the authors both combined together provides a
profound viewpoint to interpret and critically analyze the inherent message of a political event.
Statement of Purpose
In this particular essay, the aim is to provide a review of the book ' Three Whys of
Russian Revolution' by Richard Pipes. The aim herein is to analyze the viewpoint which has
been used to portray the Russian Revolution by the author. In the following sections the
discussion shall be focusing upon providing a synoptic or summarized view of the entire novel
and a section shall be devoted to explaining the way the author has projected the Russian
Revolution. The focus of the analysis of the book with particular reference to the Russian

2REVIEW
Revolution shall be focusing on not just the political event but also on the conditions that had
precipitated to the catastrophic event, thereby providing a profound viewpoint to judge the way
the event had finally been caused.
Synoptic view of the Book
As it becomes very much evident from the title of the chosen book, ' Three Whys of
Russian Revolution' by Richard Pipes, the book deals with three vital questions about the
outbreak of the Russian Revolution, the time span of the contents of the book spans from the pre
revolutionary period in Russia to the post revolutionary marked by the successive regimes of
Lenin, the Founding Father of the Communist regime in Russia and that of his immediate
successor, Stalin. The three questions which Richard Pipes seeks to provide answer to are; the
reasons why the Tsarist rule had fallen in Russia; the reasons which had led to the success of the
Bolsheviks and the reasons which had led to Stalin being the successor. These are the three
issues which have been dealt with at detail by Richard Pipes. The book tends to provide an
alternative image of the Russian Revolution which has the element of being sympathetic towards
the Romanov Family and highly critical of the rule of the communists in Russia. The Bolshevik
Revolution, and the fall of the Romanovs being a result of the popular uprising has been
disagreed upon by Richard Pipes and his opposition towards the inevitability of the advent of
Communism in Russia and the regime of Lenin has been quite strongly advocated in the book
(Pipes 1995). In the following section, a critical assessment and review of the chosen book
'Three Whys of Russian Revolution' by Richard Pipes shall be provided.

3REVIEW
Relation of the book 'Three Whys of Russian Revolution' by Richard Pipes to the
Russian Revolution: in depth critical analysis of the contents of the book
The first question as discussed by Richard Pipes, ‘Why did the Tsarist regime fall’ seeks
to argue that the fall of the Romanov Family, the ruling royal family was not inevitable and was
an orchestrated affair. Richard Pipes argues that it was possible for the Romanovs to remain in
power had incendiary elements within the royal circle not betrayed the Royal Family. Thus
according to Richard Pipes, the Romanovs were victims of vicious conspiracy and that had led to
their downfall. Pipes had painted a very rosy picture of the Tsarist rule which said that the rule
was marked by peace and prosperity and that the alleviating poverty being the reason behind the
downfall of the Romanovs was but a propaganda by the Communists of the nation to create a
hegemony and win over the masses over to their side. Richard Pipes had quoted Lenin to
substantiate his argument that Lenin had said that he would not live to witness the revolution
(Pipes 1995). This claim of Richard Pipes goes contrary to the generic narrative, as argued by
Chulos and Piirainen (2017) which hold the Romanovs responsible for their own downfall,
attributing widespread poverty, unemployment, hunger, income inequality, the widespread
corruption, neglect of the administration and the violent suppression of the 1905 revolution by
the empoverished sections of the society to the catastrophe (Chulos and Piirainen 2017). The
Romanovs had abdicated due to the pressure from the violent uprisings and the failure of the
Duma to tackle the situations had worsened the situations. The basic problem that lies in the
claim of Richard Pipes that the fall of the Tsar was not inevitable is that he had tended to
synonymize the fall of the Romanovs from power with that of the assassination of the Royal
Family. As opined by Sewell (1996) the Romanovs had abdicated and that was inevitable as their
growing incapacity and the rising opposition from the dissatisfied sections of the society had

4REVIEW
caused it, however their assassination could have been avoided as they were already powerless
and under the captivity of Lenin after abdication (Sewell 1996).
The second question dealing with the reasons of the success of the Bolsheviks have also
been critically dealt with by Richard Pipes challenging its inevitability. Richard Pipes opines that
the victory of Lenin was not inevitable as he had waged a coup d’etat against the Royal Family
and not as a result of the popular uprising. Richard Pipes uses the Marxian justification that a
proletarian revolution was likely to break out in a nation where capitalism was at its peak, like in
Germany or England. Pipes was reluctant to acknowledge the Bolshevik Revolution as a
Proletarian Revolution since Russia was not as industrialized as the Western Europe (Pipes
1995). Such an interpretation is possible only by a narrow comprehension of the Marxian
concept of Proletariat, as it need not always mean a factory worker, it can also be used to mean
the oppressed section in general according to Nimtz (2017). The Bolshevik Revolution was
definitely a popular uprising as it was marked by mass demonstrations under the banner of
Communist ideology, while the assassination of the Romanovs was a side effect of the
revolution, and must not be synonymized with the entire revolution (Nimtz 2017).
The third question, the reasons behind Stalin being the successor of Lenin as inevitable
owing to his closeness to Lenin as opined by Pipes is agreeable as Stalin had been the
mastermind behind several communist expeditions both within Russia and outside, especially in
Georgia had earned him the admiration within the communist party cadres (Pipes 1995). Lenin’s
permanent health damage as result of the heart attack and his support for Stalin to take over
proves that Stalin was the inevitable successor of Lenin as said by Lenin and Zizek (2017).

5REVIEW
Conclusion
At the concluding section it can be said that the views of Richard Pipes varies greatly
from the popular narrative but the novelty lies in the fact that he had provided an alternative
template for scrutinizing the historic event of the Russian Revolution.

6REVIEW
References
Chulos, C.J. and Piirainen, T., 2017. The Fall of an Empire, the Birth of a Nation: National
Identities in Russia: National Identities in Russia. Routledge.
Lenin, V.I. and Zizek, S., 2017. Lenin 2017: Remembering, Repeating, and Working Through.
Verso Books.
Nimtz, A.H., 2017. “The Bolsheviks Come to Power”: A New Interpretation. Science & Society,
81(4), pp.478-500.
Pipes, R., 1995. Three" whys" of the Russian Revolution. Vintage Canada.
Sewell, W.H., 1996. Three temporalities: Toward an eventful sociology. The historic turn in the
human sciences, 98, pp.245-280.