Scan barcode
A review by socraticgadfly
1917: Lenin, Wilson, and the Birth of the New World Disorder by Arthur Herman
2.0
I wanted to read this because Herman had written a very good dual biography of Churchill and Gandhi.
That said, dual biographies have a certain conceit, that there must be some sort of frisson between the two subjects for it to be m ore than two parallel bios. Churchill and Gandhi certainly had that. Luther and Erasmus, subjects of another dual bio I've read, did to a fair degree. Abraham Lincoln and John Brown, subjects of a phone-in dual bio by H.W. Brands, really did not.
And, neither do Wilson and Lenin. Per another reviewer, I think a backgrounded issue was that Herman thinks Wilson, racism and all, was some sort of leftist.
Given that Herman works for a winger think tank, this shouldn't be surprising. His Conclusion badly jumps the shark. Had he not written it, he'd still have three stars for sure, maybe four.
The following is notes I took about the book while reading, the bad stuff first, followed by the interesting stuff, some of which is good, some speculative but yet somewhat good. Anyway, it couldn't offset the bad stuff.
Problems:
1. Kind of superficial on run-up to American entry vis-à-vis illegality under naval law of both sub warfare and blockade by extension plus food as blockade weapon.
2. Almost seems to accept Wilson’s POV on causes of the Civil War
3. Claims Alexander II was still a progressive at time of assassination. Not so much.
4. The phrase “white supremacist dogmas and Darwinism” was the tipping point that dropped Herman to 4 stars. He had enough very good stuff elsewhere, but calling “social Darwinism” as “Darwinism” (and I’m assuming it’s deliberate, not a mistake) was too much. After all, he works at the wingnut Hudson Institute as a senior fellow.
5. As for his claim that Lenin had booted out Stravinsky and Chagall along with Rachmaninov? Stravinsky had been living abroad in 1918; Chagall left the USSR freely in 1923.
6. Says that Harding and Coolidge needed to turn Wilson’s Progressivism around. From there, the rest of the Conclusion descends even further into political hackery.
Interesting notes
1. Kerensky’s dad was headmaster at Lenin’s gymnasium. Why doesn’t any history of the two revolutions mention that?
2. Both Lenin and Wilson strongly influenced by Hegel. Marxism is based, of course, on a materialistic reinterpretation of Hegelian dialectic, though the core of that is actually Fichte, not Hegel. Herman says that Wilson hugely studied Hegel in college, and implies he was the greatest influence on Wilson’s political science outside of Walter Bagehot (who, weirdly, is not mentioned by Herman). The reality is that Bagehot was certainly more of an influence than Hegel. As for Hegel? Any good academic in the US, after Johns Hopkins and other institutions brought the “Humboldt model” of higher education to the US, would have read Hegel.
3. The Provisional Govt shot itself in the foot with Order No. 1 on March 14. Directed only to the Petrograd garrison, but assumed to apply to all the military, it included ordering officers not to use honorific titles and said that soldiers off duty didn’t have to salute officers, etc. Again, NOT Lenin doing this. (And yet, Herman spin-polishes Kerensky.)
4. Very good on just how much was known to Kerensky about Lenin taking German money. Related? His coverage of the July Days and Lenin’s loss of nerve, though brief, is interesting. (If it was a loss of nerve, rather than tactical smarts by Lenin realizing that he couldn’t pull off a successful revolution yet.)
5. Claims that Kerensky didn’t want “Entente terms” but did want something like “peace with honor” before ending the war. What if Germany had said “Independent Finland, Independent Poland (maybe with boundaries shoved east a bit)” but hadn’t sought land itself, other than maybe at the western edge of Poland? Back to the point at hand? It’s unclear WHAT Kerensky wanted. Even Pipes, treated as a semi-guru by Herman, admits this.
6. Reminds us that the worst acts out West against the “Wobbies” happened after US entry into the war.
7. Notes Wilson helped stoke the fires against German-Americans and did nothing to dampen them. Among those hit the worst? Mennonites, since they were also pacefists. Notes that Wilson and AGs Gregory, then Palmer “highlight the curious self-righteousness of the American Progressive mind.” Then goes to Wilson’s Hegelian background and him … ascending to the mark of a world-historical leader. Already in 1890, Wilson wrote “such as will not be convinced are crushed.” Notes that Wilson and AGs Gregory, then Palmer “highlight the curious self-righteousness of the American Progressive mind.”
Head-scratchers
1. I have NO idea who these supposed "Radical Free Churchers" are that David Lloyd George supposedly belonged to. He was a Liberal Party member. Wiki and other online encyclopedias don't even have a listing by that name. He did seek the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales, but that was a religious movement, not a political party, and I don't think was organized by name as such. Weirdly, it's not listed in the index.
That said, dual biographies have a certain conceit, that there must be some sort of frisson between the two subjects for it to be m ore than two parallel bios. Churchill and Gandhi certainly had that. Luther and Erasmus, subjects of another dual bio I've read, did to a fair degree. Abraham Lincoln and John Brown, subjects of a phone-in dual bio by H.W. Brands, really did not.
And, neither do Wilson and Lenin. Per another reviewer, I think a backgrounded issue was that Herman thinks Wilson, racism and all, was some sort of leftist.
Given that Herman works for a winger think tank, this shouldn't be surprising. His Conclusion badly jumps the shark. Had he not written it, he'd still have three stars for sure, maybe four.
The following is notes I took about the book while reading, the bad stuff first, followed by the interesting stuff, some of which is good, some speculative but yet somewhat good. Anyway, it couldn't offset the bad stuff.
Problems:
1. Kind of superficial on run-up to American entry vis-à-vis illegality under naval law of both sub warfare and blockade by extension plus food as blockade weapon.
2. Almost seems to accept Wilson’s POV on causes of the Civil War
3. Claims Alexander II was still a progressive at time of assassination. Not so much.
4. The phrase “white supremacist dogmas and Darwinism” was the tipping point that dropped Herman to 4 stars. He had enough very good stuff elsewhere, but calling “social Darwinism” as “Darwinism” (and I’m assuming it’s deliberate, not a mistake) was too much. After all, he works at the wingnut Hudson Institute as a senior fellow.
5. As for his claim that Lenin had booted out Stravinsky and Chagall along with Rachmaninov? Stravinsky had been living abroad in 1918; Chagall left the USSR freely in 1923.
6. Says that Harding and Coolidge needed to turn Wilson’s Progressivism around. From there, the rest of the Conclusion descends even further into political hackery.
Interesting notes
1. Kerensky’s dad was headmaster at Lenin’s gymnasium. Why doesn’t any history of the two revolutions mention that?
2. Both Lenin and Wilson strongly influenced by Hegel. Marxism is based, of course, on a materialistic reinterpretation of Hegelian dialectic, though the core of that is actually Fichte, not Hegel. Herman says that Wilson hugely studied Hegel in college, and implies he was the greatest influence on Wilson’s political science outside of Walter Bagehot (who, weirdly, is not mentioned by Herman). The reality is that Bagehot was certainly more of an influence than Hegel. As for Hegel? Any good academic in the US, after Johns Hopkins and other institutions brought the “Humboldt model” of higher education to the US, would have read Hegel.
3. The Provisional Govt shot itself in the foot with Order No. 1 on March 14. Directed only to the Petrograd garrison, but assumed to apply to all the military, it included ordering officers not to use honorific titles and said that soldiers off duty didn’t have to salute officers, etc. Again, NOT Lenin doing this. (And yet, Herman spin-polishes Kerensky.)
4. Very good on just how much was known to Kerensky about Lenin taking German money. Related? His coverage of the July Days and Lenin’s loss of nerve, though brief, is interesting. (If it was a loss of nerve, rather than tactical smarts by Lenin realizing that he couldn’t pull off a successful revolution yet.)
5. Claims that Kerensky didn’t want “Entente terms” but did want something like “peace with honor” before ending the war. What if Germany had said “Independent Finland, Independent Poland (maybe with boundaries shoved east a bit)” but hadn’t sought land itself, other than maybe at the western edge of Poland? Back to the point at hand? It’s unclear WHAT Kerensky wanted. Even Pipes, treated as a semi-guru by Herman, admits this.
6. Reminds us that the worst acts out West against the “Wobbies” happened after US entry into the war.
7. Notes Wilson helped stoke the fires against German-Americans and did nothing to dampen them. Among those hit the worst? Mennonites, since they were also pacefists. Notes that Wilson and AGs Gregory, then Palmer “highlight the curious self-righteousness of the American Progressive mind.” Then goes to Wilson’s Hegelian background and him … ascending to the mark of a world-historical leader. Already in 1890, Wilson wrote “such as will not be convinced are crushed.” Notes that Wilson and AGs Gregory, then Palmer “highlight the curious self-righteousness of the American Progressive mind.”
Head-scratchers
1. I have NO idea who these supposed "Radical Free Churchers" are that David Lloyd George supposedly belonged to. He was a Liberal Party member. Wiki and other online encyclopedias don't even have a listing by that name. He did seek the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales, but that was a religious movement, not a political party, and I don't think was organized by name as such. Weirdly, it's not listed in the index.