Status Updates From Comprendre la Révolution ru...

This complete failure of liberalism in 1905 had dramatic consequences because by 1917 there was no longer any credible liberal solution either at hand, or in reserve for the future (after, say, the failure of leninism had become apparent) -- so Malia.

1905 was a revolution of the liberals, but it failed because they did not and could not use force against the monarchy. But the monarchy likewise failed to set up an intelligent and dynamic conservative solution a la Bismarck (during the years 1905-14). Hence, the situation was blocked and nothing had been accomplished by the time the catastrophe of the Great War arrived.

The revolution of 1905 was a revolution of liberals and was in the european mold, and was not social-democratic or socialist in any real way. It's failure, however, paved the way for a radicalization.

Excellent, analytical...a grand view (in very condensed form) of revolutionary history in the occidental West and its impact on the Russian Revolution...not ideological or strident...insightful...impressive book

A brilliant and illuminating passage (30) on Bonapartism and Hegel's conception of the State. It is clear from this that Mussolini must have thought of himself, during the 1920's, at least, as a Bonapartist..."la synthèse de l'Ancien Regime et de la Révolution...l'idéal du 'despote éclairé', souverain guidé par la Raison..."

Quite fascinating...the Introduction is a sober review of the different historiographical approaches to the Russian Revolution: liberal, marxist, and cyclical -- all of which Malia faults on various grounds. Intelligent writer.

(Btw, for GR Librarians, if any are out there, the book has 239 pages)