This book's utility is far less than apparent due to its almost complete focus on internal reasons for the USSR's collapse. Bluntly, Mr. Kotkin doesn't admit that American policy had anything to do with it. It is fair to compare Armageddon Averted to a coroner's report that a subject, with an obvious bullet wound to the heart, died of heart failure while entirely omitting any mention of the wound. Maybe the latter wasn't responsible for the subject's death, but a complete failure to mention the bullet wound renders the report's credibility suspect.

Which is too bad here as Mr. Klotkin does an otherwise excellent job of presenting many complicated themes, with supporting evidence, in a readable and even entertaining fashion. I learned much from it. Armageddon Averted will be an excellent source for later works on the subject by more objective writers. Other readers should avoid it unless they are familiar enough with the subject to compensate for Mr. Kotkin's biases.

In Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, historian Stephen Kotkin demonstrates a profound knowledge of the political and economic structures and institutions that have shaped Soviet and post-Soviet history over the past several decades. This excellent little book makes two provocative arguments that contradict the conventional wisdom concerning the demise of the Soviet regime and its aftermath.

Kotkin's first argument is that what has passed for "reform" since 1991 has been the ongoing structural and institutional decay of the old system. Obsolete, inefficient factories are no more productive now than they were during Soviet times; government officials, well-connected insiders, and factory managers continue to bilk the country of its treasure; and presidential perquisites rival those of former politiboro members. With no rule of law, no system of credit, a weak legal system, and a national bank that speculates on its own currency and hides funds in offshore accounts, the reforms of the post-Soviet era are a myth. Indeed, in a de facto sense, the old system is still in its death throes.

The second part of Kotkin's argument concerns the end of Soviet rule in 1991. Kotkin believes that the Soviet regime could have muddled along for several years after 1991 without imploding. It still had a large and powerful military with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons at its disposal. It wasn't the brilliance of American foreign policy or economic decline that caused the regime to fall when it did. Instead, in a paradoxical sense, it was Gorbachev's belief in the humanistic nature of socialism that did in the system. Socialism was supposed to be fair and just, ensuring a decent quality of life for the Soviet people, a dream that Gorbachev tried to deliver. His ideological convictions led him to try to reform a system that could not be reformed. His policy of "glasnost" or openness made even more apparent to the public the failings of the system. And, because he believed that socialism was based on humanistic principles, he refused to resort to violence on a large scale to hold the Union together.

While this is a brilliant little book, some important issues could have been more extensively explored. A greater exploration of the influences underpinning Gorbachev's ideological convictions would have been helpful. What books did he read? Why did he see the good in the system when so many others did not? Other than believing in the inherent goodness of socialism, were there additional factors that fueled Gorbachev's decision to allow the Soviet Union to disintegrate relatively peacefully? For example, some may argue that Gorbachev, keenly aware of his place in history, knew that he would be viewed as a villain had he butchered his own people to save the regime. Indeed, Gorbachev just may have been too decent a human being to preside over a bloodbath, regardless of his ideological convictions. Moreover, from a geopolitical standpoint, it would have been dangerous for Gorbachev to use overwhelming force internally. The United States and the rest of the world were keeping a close watch on him. Gorbachev had no assurances that the West wouldn't support independence movements in the Republics had he moved decisively to suppress them.

In his concluding remarks, Kotkin indicates that Russia's best bet for the future might be to join the euro. While this might be a great idea in theory, one wonders when Russia will be able to meet the economic criteria required to do so.

The author provides a rare and insightful look into the unsavoury world of the Soviet political/robber class, but I believe he overstates their impact.

An economy as fully mobilized as that of the USSR was far more resilient to skimming than most people realize (what people don't take into account when they hear that some huge sum was stolen, is that that money is subsequently spent, thus returning to the economy. The only net loss is therefore the money they 1)Smuggle out of the country or 2)Don't spend. The autocratic government made the former difficult, and poverty made the second impractical).

Very important to the collapse were the rise of the Solidarity movement (and the support it enjoyed abroad), and the expense of maintaining a huge military, intelligence complex and the lofty space program.

The failure of the USSR to move against the increasing gall of the upstart democratic movements in the central European satellite states, the lack of decisive political leadership and the increased tolerance of political dissent. This led to a weakening of the republic, but more importantly, the people's fear of the state evaporated. As the grip over the population loosened, harsh reality came to bear and the system collapsed.

In Sugarball, Klein examines the role of baseball in the Dominican Republic with all its cultural and economic importance, and specifically the part it plays in the hegemony and cultural resistance of the Dominicans in relation to the United States. Not only are there extensive arguments for these cultural implications, but Klein also focuses greatly on the history and culture of Dominican baseball by itself. He gives a clear picture of what baseball means there through extensive research and observations of life in the Dominican Republic. Filled with quotes and interviews of various people, as well as statistics and historical facts about Dominican baseball, this study clearly reflects the sociology and anthropology of sport as an emerging legitimate field.
Although he did give a well studied background of the Dominican baseball situation, Klein attempts to prescribe many other ideas to his findings, and only partially succeeds. Even he admits in his book that many of his preconceived notions of what he was going to find were clearly not there, from overt cultural resistance with baseball among certain groups to the pinning of all the social problems of Dominicans to the United States. The neo-Marxist interpretations of his findings bogged down his observations with jargon and implications that are not clearly there, and his admitted failures at finding certain schemas leads his readers to question the other aspects of his interpretation. However, his observations of this phenomenon should not be disregarded. His research alone provides a very valuable tool for the understanding of United States cultural influence in Latin America in general, and in the Dominican Republic in particular.
In all, Sugarball provides a very in depth look into the meaning of baseball in the Dominican culture. Whether or not it can be used for an argument in such a way as he implies it does remains a question, but his basic point of its incredible importance is well taken. This book will be a valuable tool for those who are interested in baseball and the culture of Latin America.

This book, Sugarball, dives in and explores the relation that the people of the Dominican Republic have with United States in the context of baseball. The author, Alan Klein, argues that the Dominican Republic is a country underdeveloped, exploited, abused, ravaged in poverty, destitution, and most importantly inundated with American culture; but yet still finds a way to express their independence and nationality through baseball. He further argues that Dominican Baseball, though an American game with American influences has managed to survive with a distinctly Dominican feel; and this feeling is a source of resistance to American hegemony.
How does one prove cultural resistance against cultural hegemony? Klein attempts it through insightful historical investigation and related to personal observations of behavior with in the culture. However, his premise is inherently intangible. His evidence lies not in overt actions, but in the passive behaviors of the Dominican fan. Behaviors that seen like conscious efforts to behave un-American. If one were to point out any of form of resistance one would not see resistance, it is only when taken in the cultural construct as a whole that one begins to see Klein's point.
Because of the inherently intangibly nature of culture, Klein fails to prove clear cultural resistance, rather he succeeds in establishing the conflict that Dominicans have as both needing to assimilate with American culture in order to gain a better life, and their need for a since of national superiority, and independence free from American dominance. Klein essentially establishes the existence of a love-hate relationship through the game of baseball in the Dominican Republic.

In Sugarball, author Alan Klein attempts to draw on the complicated relationship between baseball in the United States and the Dominican Republic by equating it to that of a neocolonial power to its subordinate nation. In the same way that all the resources are tapped from the underdeveloped nation and utilized by the parent, the United States has exploited the Dominican Republic's most lucrative export, baseball players. The exchange has become institutionalized and the top players from the Dominican leagues major aim is to move into the Major League Baseball system, leaving the economic desolation of home and depleting the nation's culture.

The relationship is both revered and abhorred by the people of the nation. As most boys in the Dominican Republic have few choices of employment after their minimal education, baseball is seen as a way out of the poverty that pervades the country. The Dominican attitude toward the Americans is typical of the aforementioned neocolonial relationships; we are loathed and imitated all at once. In a show against US control, the game has been altered by Dominicans to showcase their own culture and values, thereby serving to stamp their own mark on the sport in the most public fashion.

Though Klein's reasoning is mostly sound throughout, he does make some stretches in his interpretation of the hegemonic behavior exhibited by the Dominican people. It would have been beneficial to have more in-depth information about how the Dominican players feel about the choices they make in leaving their homeland. Additionally, further discussion into how the purported baseball resistance is making a difference throughout the country would have been of interest. Overall however, Sugarball is a valuable look into how the economic state of the Dominican economy lead to its virtual rule by American industry and how the all-time American game, baseball, has been used and altered by the Dominican people into a game with their own flair and culture stamped on it.

There is no doubt that Goodwin's walk must have been an interesting. Walking the length of Eastern Europe in early 1990 must have been a daring and exhillarating experience.

However, it is perhaps because of the high expectations that I had for this book that I was so thoroughly dissapointed by it. Having read much about the Balkans in particular, and having lived and traveled extensively throughout the region, I was rather dissapointed in Goodwin's approach. Very early in the book, one notices how Goodwin sees all the countries he walks through with a very Northern European viewpoint.

Despite his implicit acknowledgement that he really has not spent much time with Romanians, Goodwin is quick to denounce the nation's claims to Transylvania and everything else. Goodwin makes it clear that in his view, Romanians are the scum of the earth -- a people without culture, class, or civilization. Staying throughout with Hungarians and Saxons, Goodwin makes very little effort to interact with Romanians, and thus shows the prejudices of his hosts in his writing. Even in the titles of his chapters, he uses Hungarian and German names -- names not commonly used anymore -- instead of Romanian names for various towns he visits. Most disturbing is Goodwin's complete disregard for Romania's third great region, Moldavia -- a region many consider to be the cultural heart of Romania; a land of immesnse beauty, world-class wine, and hospitable -- Romanian -- people. While Goodwin understandably did not make a detour in this region, his utter contempt for Romanians -- blaming the people themselves for the brutality of Ceausescu -- is reprehensible.

This book had a lot of potential, and could have been a wonderful read. However, it is clear from reading it that Goodwin made his journey with a closed and prejudiced mind -- something that denied both him and the reader a true picture of a very rich and beautiful region. The one reedeeming factor is that despite all his biases, Goodwin's descriptive powers are immense. Many of the spots where both he and I stood are depicted with great authenticity in the book. All in all, a book worth reading -- albeit with a large grain of salt.

In this day and age when everything has been discovered, and every person on this small world has been touched by the conquests of another country or the speed of technology, there comes a long the travel log of Jason Goodwin.

The written details are enough to put you on the path with Goodwin and his two close friends. From the lands they visit, to the hardships they encounter, you really feel as if you're on the path to Instanbul with them! And yet somehow, he still has room to focus on the people of these regions, during a hard and confusing time in eastern Europe. While people struggle to find their identites and find the freedoms they may have missed, these three British travelers are welcomed in to their homes and barns, as if they were long lost friends. Goodwin notes all aspects of these people they visit, and doesn't sugar coat a thing!

The sheer amazement of walking from Poland to Turkey, in a time when they could easily fly over it without so much of a glance or concern, truely opens the history of the iron curtain to all of us.

Again, these countries Goodwin and his companions walked through, no longer exsist as he saw them. But with this novel, the split second time of change for the Eastern Block, is immortalized.

Jason Goodwin has produced a wonderfully inventive travel book, one in which Istanbul is the ultimate goal. Wanting to have some sort of experience of what was it was like to visit such a distant goal in the past, as well as to tour Central Europe, he and two friends walk there! They journey on foot (only very rarely accepting short rides) from the northern Polish port city of Gdansk all the way through the rest of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria into Turkey. An incredible journey, he describes it vividly, with worries about bandits, wolves, bears, the weather, hostile customs officials, dogs, and most of all finding food and a place to sleep at night. They meet an interesting and diverse group of people along the road, many of whom befriend them, taking them into their homes, sharing part of their lives with the travelers.

Perhaps somewhat dated, published as it was in the early 1990s, Goodwin does provide an interesting portrait of Central Europe. The book spends quite a bit of time in Poland, a land shaped by the rise and fall of empires, shaped by the northern crusades of the Teutonic Knights, the Hanseatic League, of various powers that had over the centuries coveted and eventually gobbled sections or all of Poland, the broad flat plains of the country providing little obstacle to invading armies. Indeed Goodwin finds that the Poles often go to great pains to make it clear that they are distinctly Polish; though often that is simply making it clear that they are not German. As part of the country was once part of Germany, their concern is perhaps understandable.

Though Goodwin's journey never takes him into Germany, he often encountered German cultural influence and odd outposts of Germans, even well into Romania. German settlers had been invited by many rulers in Central Europe, and for centuries German merchants, craftsmen, and guilds dominated town life, the towns in essence becoming German, the main language in Gdansk or Cracow or Buda German. Many of these Germans though Goodwin finds have left, those few remaining either thinking of leaving, stubbornly clinging to old ways in isolated Saxon settlements, or slowly assimilating with the larger majority.

Hungary Goodwin finds is seemingly more stable and prosperous than the others he went through on his trip, particularly when contrasted with Romania. Though a third the size of Poland, its people took pride in regional names and differences, making the country seem larger than it was. One area that was interesting was Silvasvarod, noted for the famed Lippizaner horses it supplies to the Viennese Riding School.

Much of the book is spent in Romania, particularly in the region of Transylvania, an area once part of Hungary, its loss still keenly felt by many in Hungary as well as the substantial Hungarian minority in Transylvania itself. Goodwin found a number of people who held strong opinions on the matter, and it appears to remain a bone of contention with many. The only undisputed inhabitants of Transylvania are the once nomadic Szekely, Hungarian speakers, though not Hungarian. Famed for fighting on horseback, noted for their light cavalry even after they ended their nomadic ways, once proudly cherished by the Hungarians as defenders of the realm, they are still found in eastern Transylvania, a region known as Szekelyfold, where Goodwin observed their nearly pagan "totem poles" that marked graves and the massive palisade gates they erect at the entrance to their farms.

Gypsies Goodwin found played a major role in the life and economy of Central Europe, particularly in Romania. Sometimes feared (many warned Goodwin that they were thieves and cutthroats), sometimes hated (they were very poorly treated by Ceausescu in Romania), sometimes even admired (Goodwin did find some who pointed out that they fulfilled a vital economic function in many areas), he found them more diverse and interesting than he imagined, a people who are not tied down to cities and have more in common with their ancestral Indian homeland than Europe.

Goodwin did not like Romania, feeling it more like the Third World than Europe. He found it a land that had suffered greatly under Ceausescu, his legacy still looming large in everyday life. Romania seemed alone in Central Europe in lagging behind economically and in pursuing democracy, even in basic services. Goodwin visited an orphanage in Romania, making for heartbreaking reading, children barely cared for, virtually unable to speak as they haven't had enough human contact, having to be shown how to play with toys! What disgusted Goodwin the most though was the "gang mentality of ordinary Romanians," how the days of mob rule from the past still existed, present everywhere from the unfriendly "leering beer-garden swillers" that were present in many Romanian bars to the rioting peasant farmers that had recently fought ugly street battles in Tirgu Mures. When leaving Romania, Goodwin suffers from food poisoning, the poison of which he compares to his trip through the country, which had been administered "from the moment we crossed its border," beginning in the border town of Oradea, where the "first black depression" settled upon him, abating only upon leaving.

Goodwin was glad to enter Bulgaria, a land he found far different, a land perhaps of opposites. Country homes he found were often surrounded by trash, rather than extremely clean as they were often elsewhere in Central Europe, a holdover from traditions of not displaying wealth to Turkish overlords. In Bulgaria they nodded to show no, shook their heads to say yes, again legacies of confusing Ottoman rule perhaps. Drier and emptier than any of the previous lands, Goodwin was glad to enter it; clearly feeling his next stop was in Istanbul.

If I had any complaint to offer about the book, it was that we never get to see Istanbul; the book is all about the journey, and really about Central Europe. Having said that though, it was still great to read.

I just returned from Bolivia with this book as my only guide. I nearly threw it out the bus window in frustration. Although much of the out of date information is due to the fact that the book is five years old, there is no excuse for the scores of addresses for museums and the like that are completely wrong. There is also a major lack of basic info like the location of bus terminals. I also heard from many people who got lost for days trying to follow the book's directions on treks. Best to pay a little extra and hire a reputable guide who knows the area. Also be aware that because of changes in the Bolivian phone company, virtually none of the telephone numbers in the book are correct. It's definately time for a new edition, hopefully done with a little more care.

I just returned from my 4th visit to Bolivia, using my 3rd Lonely Planet guide. During one month in 4 cities, I became increasingly frustrated with the same dead ends that other reviewers have mentioned...incorrect phone info, little e-info, disappearing restaurants, etc., due to the guide's 1996 date. I have never appreciated Swaney's arrogant and condescending attitude toward one of my favorite nations and its people, and found it even more annoying each time I had to cross out another bit of her outdated information. Having whined and complained, I still must admit that this guide is by far the best for leading me to the specific kinds of hotels and eating places I'm always looking for, and giving me just the amount of historic and cultural detail I'm seeking. Lonely Planet is by far the most thorough and comprehensive guide to all of Bolivia (--others focus mainly on the Andes--), and I long for a new edition....hopefully penned by someone with more respect for the country than Swaney seems to have.

As always, this is a piece of lullage well worth its price and its weight. It contains unparalleled advice on how to get around in this wonderful land, from the heights bordering Peru to the low lands of Cochabamba and Santa Cruz. The advice is clear, well-writte, useful, and entertaining at the same time. Its only problem is that it dates back to 1996, and lots of things have changed since then.

Russia Under Western Eyes is actually a right-wing history of "European thought.". Malia is an Idealist, which is to say that like many professors he is convinced that the world turns on the opinions of professors. Specifically, he joins Peter Gay in what he calls "the party of humanity"--which actually means, "the party of grumpy old professors who are convinced the world falling apart when they stopped requiring ties in the Faculty Club."

Malia sees himself as a great healer, preparing Russia, like the dishonored daughter of a respectable family, for eventual readmission to Europe. Malia's hope for Russia is that, after fifty years of penance, Russia may at long last be allowed to "converge" with Central Europe, and after another 50 years, be fit to walk beside that most glorious corner of the globe, Western Europe. Russians themselves don't seem to have been consulted on the matter; in proper Victorian manner, Malia diagrams Russia's salvation without asking the mere natives for their opinion.

Most of us have had arguments like the one that occupies Malia: "Is Russia actually part of Europe?" But we've had them in the traditional context: in the dorms, after taking a first-year survey course titled something like "Modern Europe: Robespierre to Raskolnikov," or "Moliere to Madonna" or "...Nationalism, Rationalism and that Other One"--a course invariably taught by one embittered rightwing professor and twelve sullen underpaid TA's.

When you try to take this kind of argument seriously under any other circumstances (outside the dorms, past the age of 18), the question of Russia's inclusion in Europe tends to devolve into pointless arguments about the definition of "Europe." Either the term refers simply to that part of Eurasia west of the Urals--in which case we can settle the whole question with a simple road map--or "Europe" is forced to carry an insupportable load of normative baggage about "the essence of the European character." And such questions are better left unasked, because they lead either to massive bloody world wars or, even worse, to Dutch hippies bragging about how bravely they resist Fascism by pinstriping German tourists' BMWs when nobody's looking.

On those rare occasions when Malia actually discusses in detail the history of shifts in the perception of Russia by Europe, he makes some very interesting points, notably that Russia has often been most feared when it was least aggressive and powerful (as in the latter half of the nineteenth century), and most trusted when it was at its most expansionist (especially under Peter I and Catherine the Great).

But there's far too little detail on the history of Western images of Russia, and far too much of the old Daniel Mornet, Lester Crocker potted, tendentious intellectual histories, all focusing on Europe, not Russia. When you reach the end of this odd book, you wonder: Honestly, Professor-Emeritus Malia, what does Russia have to do with this faculty-club spat ? Russia, in your book, has been dragged, as so many times before, into a European war she could well have been spared.

Why I bought this book:

I was reading The Bathhouse at Midnight, which is about magic in Russia. Malia's book was cited lots. I didn't have it, and was starting to feel that "I'm missing something" sensation. So I went on a bookstore crawl and found Russia Under Western Eyes.

This is a good book.

I enter this rather tentatively. I don't usually comment on what I call "real books" even though I read them, feeling that I don't have the qualifications. Ye Olde BA doesn't seem to mean much, anymore.

On the other hand, if you are an educated person who generally flees at high speed from "intellectual history", read this.

Malia is not a socialist. He may or may not deconstruct in other books, for all I know he is a firm believer in what Kelly Neff refers to as literary donatism (which is all I believe deconstruction is in the end). In this book he writes as if you were meant to read it, which makes a nice change.

He chooses to bounce Western intellectual history off dreams of Russia. Is there anything new in it? No. His point is simple and (if you bothered to pay any attention to pre-Revolutionary Russia) glaringly obvious. On the other hand, we are so enamoured of the disaffected intelligent from the 1860's on that we ignore what they were painfully aware of - their ideas were adapted from the West. It irritated them, but there it was. The West has consistently shown a tendency to bounce its ideals and its nightmares off Russia; as a point for guidance in a sea of material, it's not a bad one.

Malia doesn't like what communism did to Russia. Neither do I. Anyone who stands up and says communism was a bad thing tends to get a "good boy!" from me. Good little socialists, beware: he handles hard and soft versions of the ideal briskly. The reviewer who wants to make him an embittered right-winger needs to do a re-think, and maybe a re-read without the blinkers; Malia mentions that Europe asked if Russia was part of it, he never questions it. Malia points up a pattern - Russia tends to hit similar points of politics and economics about 50 years after the West. OK, but this doesn't mean Russia is out of the modern world, and Malia says so. That, in fact, was part of the problem.

Ask the average Russian if he'd like to live like an American without having to be one. He'd probably say "Bring it on!" We're still letting the disaffected intelligentsia form our opinions - oh, suburbia, too boring, such ennui, oh, the deadening of our souls by wealth! Our souls are our personal responsibility, and poverty in my view is miserable, not enlightening. Sharing the wealth is a fine thing, provided that we remember that the point is to have no more poor, not reduce everyone to an identical level of penury.

Malia gets it right, the book is interesting if not new, and it remembers that the question the socialists never ask is, in your new society of fulfillment, who handles the garbage?

It is difficult to explain this book in the space of a few sentences, because the scope of its topic is breathtaking, and its depth considerable. This is not a book about Russia per se; rather, it is about the symbiosis of Russia and Europe over the last 300 years. For as Malia clearly demonstrates, Russia - in all her iterations - cannot be considered without taking into account the philosophical (and hence ideological and political) influences of Europe. Russia is Europe, and very much the product of evolving European movements spawned by the Enlightenment - such rationalism, romanticism, and socialism.

In this reader's analysis, a central theme in Russia Under Western Eyes is how efforts to rationalize human society culminated in the dark experiment launched in the Red October of 1917. Malia demonstrates how Lenin perverted Marx by making the proletariat subservient to the Party, and how sheer folly was maintained through a jettisoning of principles and reliance on 'the Method' through the successive stewardship of Stalin, Khruschev, Breshnev, and ending with Gorbachev.

My only complaint: while Malia is right in asserting that the planned economy of the USSR was decaying on its own from the end of World War II, Ronald Reagan's appearance on the world stage, and the effect his policy of confrontation had on bringing the Cold War to its omega point, deserves a more considered treatment. This is mitigated, however, by Malia's excellent treatment of the dissidents and their contribution to exposing the Soviet lie.

This is a tome of erudition, written by a scholar who has an amazing grasp of the 'big picture.' One will draw from it a good understanding of the philosophical development of Europe, the ideas that changed the face of the Continent, and their effect on Russia through the centuries.

Like the Marquis de Custine, Malia has peeked through the sometimes brocaded, sometimes iron curtains of Russia and recorded poignant observations for posterity. Unlike Custine, however, Malia has produced a balanced work that will be ranked as indispensable to an understanding of Russia and Europe.

This is a book which was written in 1927 and is very dated. The author has no foot notes and the book does not have a bibliography. It is a folksy anecdotal telling of the career of the Roman dictator Lucius Cornelious Sulla which is replete with the the prejudices of the author.

For example Mithradates VI King of Pontus is described at one point as "every much a Turk". At another point he is described as a "typical Asiatic" despite the fact that the concept was invented after the conquests of the Ottoman Empire. Throughout the book concepts more at home with Victorian England than ancient Rome are continually introduced. He thus talks of the influence of "Capatalists" in what was basically a land owning society.

The book seems to be based on Plutarch with the author providing his own gloss. The historical accuracy is not great. Baker accepts on face value ancient accounts of battles which had been called into question by both Dodge and Delbruck prior to the writing of this book in 1927.

This is popular and opinionated history at its worse. I am surprised that the book is still in print.

This book is old, outdated and very naive in its approach to the subject matter.

It is about time to see a new book about Sulla the dictator, a book which shall present all the recent research material to the modern reader.

Amazon should warn the customers that this book is not a new creation but a re-print of an old book.

On the other hand, although being useless for the student of ancient history, it is fluent and interesting.

While this is not an exhaustingly researched book replete with facts and figures on Sulla, it was never meant to be such as the author himself says in the foreword. It was always meant to be a brief history of Sulla and his times, and a subjective analysis of his life, character and actions. Sometimes the historian must use imagination and not just facts and figures. I found the insights in this book fascinating and would recommend it for someone who wants a grasp of the essentials of Sulla and what made him tick if not the details.

I agree with both Mr. Yin and Leonides. The premise of the book was good, but the book is heavily biased and ultimately unsatisfying if you are a serious student of this and related conflicts. The author admits that the Chenchens are proud, but somewhat thuggish, then goes on to praise how they cherish their knives while at the same time castigating the Russians for acting war-like. War is murderous and both sides in this book play at savagery. The author cannot praise one side and castigate the other - and contradicting himself on many pages - for the same characteristics; he loses all credibility.

And, let us not forget that Chechens are supporting Al-Qaida and related extremist,Islamic groups.

I highly recommend this book as a moving account of the wars in Chechnya and the only book to explore all the remote North Caucasus nations. Smith travels deeply among these little known, ancient peoples and in Chechnya he seems to have witnessed just about every major turning point in the first war.

Having enjoyed this book so much and also having read several others on Chechnya(Anatol Lieven, Carlotta Gall, Anna Politkovskaya) I was amazed by the uninformed review already on this site by a previous reader.

This reviewer says Smith is way too pro-Chechen and never shows the Chechens in a bad light, only the Russians. I found Smith was certainly showing sympathy for this people. But then as a people they are the ones hurting. Their capital Grozny, large parts of other towns, and many of the villages have been flattened by aerial bombardment and artillery. Maybe 100,000 people, probably far more (no one bothers counting anymore) have been killed out of the tiny population. Smith points out early on that the entire Chechen ethnic group is smaller than the Russian armed forces alone. Just think about that.

By concentrating on travels with the Chechen guerrillas, not Russian troops, Smith was able to see the frontlines and feel the same effects of war as the people living in the republic. Any journalist knows that trying to get information from a regular army, especially one committing war crimes, is unlikely to result in anything but lies. If Smith is wrong in believing the Chechen side to be suffering by far the greatest, then so is MSF, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and the other western journalists who spent time there and wrote books about it (Lieven, Gall etc), not to mention the incredibly brave Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who is one of the very few to dare contradict her government's propaganda.

What has happened in Chechnya makes Kosovo pale in comparison and Milosovic is on trial for war crimes. Even in Bosnia the Serbs did not inflict such massive destruction - they didn't have half the Russian weaponry, after all. If Smith shows admiration for the Chechen guerrillas, then you do have to think about what he says he saw: a few thousand fighters with light infantry weapons tying down up to 100,000 Russian troops armed with helicopters, planes, tanks, artillery etc for several years.

I wonder if that reviewer even read the book. He/she says that the Chechens are not criticised, but on the first page I read Basayev was a terrorist and criminal AS WELL as being a hero to his own entourage. I read of a Chechen father trying to bury his son during a Russian air raid but cursing the Chechen guerrillas who had dragged him into the war. Etc, etc;

And as for there being no irony in writing about Aslan Maskhadov trying to prove he had a "regular" army by obstinately putting his men in unfavourable terrain against the Russian weapons, then that reviewer just doesn't get irony! What I read was just as he had announced this "apocalyptic" policy to Smith, an attack by Russian artillery started and Maskhadov (and Smith we suppose)had to run for their lives. Seems ironic to me.

Then there was some idea that history is given too much play in Allah's Mountains, the reviewer saying that to compare past Chechen-Russian relations so often to the present is like "comparing modern US-Mexican relations to US attempts to kill Pancho Villa".

Now this really IS ludicrous! Surely the whole point Smith was making, and it is one of the main points of the book, was that in a place like Chechnya the past really does sit very heavily on the present.

First you had brutal and long colonial conquest in the 19th century (Chechnya was about the hardest place to conquer in the whole Russian empire); then you moved straight into Soviet repression and Stalin's genocide in the 20th; then you went straight into the chaos and war of the post Soviet period. In other words there was never a moment when people might put the past behind or have any incentive to change their way of thinking. Conflict, conflict, that's all they know in Chechnya.

The reason it's important to understand this is that then you might have an inkling as to why against such ridiculous odds and at such a high price there are still today Chechens going out and blowing up Russian tanks.

Smith's book is excellent, extremely well written, Allah's mountains is an extraodinary moving report on an oppressed nation by a ruthless state

I though this was George W's gaffes, but it turns out his father mispoke quite a bit himself. A little bit too politically motivated, these people obviously had no idea how much worse things could get when his son would be elected, er, annointed, or ah, democratically- you know what I mean!

Is intelligence learned or inherited? It's a question that has puzzled scientists and philosophers since the beginning of time. On the one hand, you can argue that this book proves the latter conviction, since it's obvious that Papa Bush is as grammatically challenged as baby Bush, but on the other hand, who taught Baby to speak? Seriously though, this book is hilarious, a welcome companion piece to more recent versions attacking the more recent Bush. I've owned it since it came out and it still makes me laugh. If you can find it, buy it.

If you are looking for symbolism or imagery I might suggest a different book, but for some of the funniest quotes this side of Yogi Berra I definitly recommed "Bushisms". (Of course if you are a big Bush/Republican fan AND have NO sense of humor this one may not be for you.)

What is this book about? The writing is so poor, it's difficult to say. This author needs to go back and learn basic grammar and sentence structure before trying his hand at some very compex issues.

Perhaps the reason a scant handful of reviewers here do not appreciate this book, saying that it says nothing new, is because Mr. Szporluk himself is the founder of the way modern historians and political scientists view and analyze Eastern Europe. If this book reads familiar, it is because Mr. Szporluk's theories are the foundation upon which other work has been based. A brilliant readand a keystone in Eastern European history.

This is an uncommonly fine set of essays. Their subjects are some of the more important contemporary and historical connections and relationships in Eastern Europe, and the essays leave the reader's understanding of that part of the world much enriched. Among the connections and relationships Szporluk explores are: Ukraine-Russia; Poland-Ukraine; Russia-Poland; and Czarist Russia-the USSR. The essays, wirtten over the last 25 or 30 years, are marked by: an encyclopedic familiarity with all of the types of literature that have bearing on his subjects; a healthy respect for facts--particularly some that were long obscure to most observers--and where they lead (in the sense of not treating facts as mere fodder to be crammed into some favorite theoretical framework); and, a highly thoughtful and perceptive analysis that interrelates facts with facts, and facts with theory. If you're interested in Eastern Europe, a book not to be missed.

Richard Pipes' presentation of archival material concerning Lenin is of great value to anyone interested in the paper trail leading from the millions of corpses scattered across Soviet history to the feet of comrade Lenin. The reviews of this book are interesting since, speaking literally, Pipes did not write the book: Lenin et. al did. Lenin himself and his various murderer flunkies, wrote the documents that comprise the book. So those that squeal like a stuck pig over this book do so in the face of the fact that Pipes did not write it -- Lenin and his accomplices are the authors of most of the material. Pipes selected documents that demonstrate Lenin's hand in various murderous terror campaigns (the persecution of the Orthodox Church), his creation of a police-terror state, and his subversive work with the Germans. This is Lenin, these are the things he did. Others suggest that somehow Pipes' selection is 'unbalanced.' Hmmm . . . Does that mean that somewhere in all the archival material there is something like an order taken by Lenin's assistant asking that flowers be sent to his wife; a photograph of Lenin passing out candy to children; a letter where the diligent Lenin promises to come over to a common prole's house to roll up his sleeves himself and fix his leaking pipes? Better yet, perhaps in the Soviet archives there is a heartwarming birthday greeting Lenin sent to Dzhirnsky: 'Happy birthday! Don't gas too many peasants in the woods on this, your special day!" Did Pipes select only those documents that portray Lenin in a bad light? It is nonsense to suggest that Pipes purposely left out documents that allow a kind, gentle, loving, zany Lenin to come through. This book testifies to the fact that Lenin was simply a nihilist, someone who did not believe in anything and simply wanted to destroy out of hatred. There is no intellectual substance to communism. It is nihilism pure and simple and thrives on darkness. Read the book for yourself and don't let those who condone murder and destruction try and make it sound as if this book is somehow 'biased.' Lies beget lies and this is what nihilists live for.

A review in simple words. The book reveals a Lenin like I have not read in any other book. The Lenin history should remember is the Lenin studied through his personal documents as the book shows. Although as the book explains, an even darker side of Lenin is still to be revealed as soon as more historian access the presidential archives in Russia. Lenin through his own documents reveals himself as man who scorned his own people, an opportunist, a murder and a master of terror and manipulation. I would also like to add that thanks to historians such as Richard Pipes, history will always reveal the true face of the master of the first terror state of this century. My admiration for Richard Pipes.

This book shows genuine documents, notes and other documents signed or sent to Lenin through out his life. This book is a good starting place for any history student doing a biographical essay of Lenin's life. Lenin is portrayed here as he really was. The documents show Lenin, ordering mass executions, conspirations and many other acts of terror which truly award him as the genuine creator of 'totalitarism'in the 20th century. Through the documents in the book one can see the pattern from which future communist and nazi dictators adopted Lenin's model of a totalitarian regime. After reading the book one can truly say that either Hitler, Stalin, Castro and many other dictators were only followers of Lenin's model of a totalitarian regime (in the domestic sphere and in the international area as well).