This is the definitive source for an unbiased account of the Russian Revolution. Volume one of a three volume series, it covers the origins of the Bolshevik party to and through the taking of power in 1917. The most immediately apparent attribute to this work is its even handedness; this is the place to go if you want an account of what really happened, not the traditional right-wing or left-wing spin.

Much of the appeal of realism stems from a belief that it's more grounded in reality and pragmatism. In this way, it's often the bias of choice for academics simply because it makes one's ideas appear more legitimate. Here's a case in point: Carr spends nearly the entire book ripping apart utopianism and pluralism, as any "good realist" would be apt to do, only to reach the last chapter where he declares liberalism is the only hope for mankind. So it's clear that he wasn't really a true Realist, but used it for improving his career prospects. It obviously worked, because The Twenty Years' Crisis is considered a classic work in realism. Nonetheless, Carr comes up with some great insights. He correctly predicts the rise of nonstate actors. Though he is wrong in thinking colonization would continue for the long haul in its current form, yet he predicts the move away from expansionism in favor of interchangeable puppet governments and international subversion. Carr has great advice when he says war will continue until nations begin sacrificing for one another, something that U.S. actions in Latin America and the United Fruit Company fiasco chose to disregard. My favorite point is when he says absolute peace is only possible when there is a larger, common threat that subunits can mobilize against. Earth cannot unite against the impending threat from the Planet Mars, for instance. Well, maybe there are no Martians, but perhaps there's someone else out there...

When we talk about realism, we often think about Kissinger or Morgenthau, both of which are awfully boring when one really tries to keep focused on their work.

But E.H. Carr preceded both these fine gentlemen, and Carr is at his finest here displaying a sarcastic wit and overall nasty tone in ripping apart the overly idealistic liberal position adopted by Wilson, Kellogg or Briand, who really thought that world peace could be had through ineffectual action via international organizations and lots of talking between nations.

Carr, in true realist guise (pre-Morgenthau, at least), doesn't elaborate on any principles that could be used to form a coherent theory. But the strengths of this book are in helping those who don't fully appreciate why WW2 came about understand the failure of liberalism, and in entertaining those of us in IR who are bored with the standard IR readings. This book is hilarious, and is certainly worth reading. Just don't expect it to be terribly profound.

I had to read this book for an International Relations class and it was excellant. I found myself deeply engrossed in Carr's depiction of the twenty years between 1919 and 1939

What is really amazing is the fact that he wrote it before World War II and yet he predicted what would happen so well. I would recomend this book to everyone.

This is the definitive 1937 biography of the great anarchist revolutionary, Michael Bakunin written by the British historian E.H. Carr. The book is very effective in illuminating the chaotic life of of the secretive Bakunin.

Born into a family of the Russian nobility in 1814, Michael Bakunin rebelled and became a political activist and refugee travelling around Europe. He played an active role rabble-rousing in the streets during the revolutionay upsurges of 1848-49. He also played a leading role in the uprising in Lyons, France in 1870.

During the years in between he joined the International Working Men's Association (First International) then in a dispute with Marx was expelled from the First International. It is his conflict with Marx that makes the tenets of his anarchism come into sharp definition. The book is important not only for the history of anarchism but as a counterpoint for the study of Marxism.

For a book on historiography, it's not gonna get any better. It really makes a big difference on how you see other historical writings and such. I don't know if this will help, but it's part of a report I did on the book:
The study of history offers new interpretations to the historian and the scholar, because it helps the historian understand his job and how to overcome problems, and it teaches the scholar to read history with a greater understanding. Just by reading Edward Carr's book, the student learns that when reading a history book, he shouldn't be concerned with just the facts in the book, but also the author and the time period in which the book was written. To fully grasp the work of the historian, he must first understand the circumstances under which the work was written. It is also beneficial to the historian himself, as Carr says, "the historian who is most conscious of his own situation is also more capable of transcending it, and more capable of appreciating the essential nature of the differences between his own society and outlook and those of other periods and other countries, than the historian who loudly protests that he is an individual and not a social phenomenon."

Carr does not delve into ways to approach history, except for simply and sporadically. He seems to feel that history should always be studied in the same way. The only "new method" he mentioned was time itself, changing peoples perspectives and expectations of history. New historians can base their studies off of the evidence and materials of the old, and in this way, history can progress. Carr says that over time, "Nothing...occurred to alter the inductive view of historical method...first collect your facts, then interpret them."

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the book. While I wouldn't read it again, I would recommend it to any history student, because it changes the perspective on history. The book started out very strong- everything pointed to the one looming question, what is history?, but as the book progressed, Carr seemed to lose track of the point, and focus more on whether history is a science or not, rather than defining the word. The book was easy to read, and was full of examples- sometimes humorous- that made Carr's ideas understandable. Carr constantly quoted other historians, or used simple sayings, like "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" At first Carr was convincing, but as he lost track, I lost interest, and his later points did not convince me at all. Even so, the book was readable, informative, and recommendable.

In order to appreciate and understand Carr's work, his two interdependent and conflicting aims should be taken into account. On the one hand Carr is trying to promote articulations of philosophy of history, which are remarkably absent among the works of most historians. On the other,Carr is trying to validate his own view of history. For his first aim Carr is delibarately provocative and speaks rather loosely. For his second aim he needs to be systematic and consistent, which he obviously is not. It is not so much what Carr says but his style in saying it that disturbs the serious readers of philosophy and of history. Few would doubt that history is neither merely a diachronic compilation of objective facts, nor fiction (ch I). Yet his way of coming to this conclusion, through asserting that historical facts are products of repitition in historiography cannot be accepted without rejecting historicism. For Carr history is a dialogue "between the soicety of today and the society of yesterday(ch II)." I think this is one of the best relativist expressions of history. Nevertheless, why should individual motivations and intentions not count as the subject of history, since they will, from the relativist perspective,also be manifestations of the effect of social forces on the individual? For the student of philosophy of history, his first two chapters merit attention. The other chapters, are definitely of interest, but only to those who are at once fascinated by and fear the boldness and vivacity of Carr's ideology. Carr simplifies perspectives in opposition to his own to the extent that they appear to be ridiculous. The sympathetic reader will try to fill in the gaps in his logic and the critical reader will destroy him. Yet in the "final analysis" his work, despite its prominent shortcomings, is of immense heuristic value.

Carr's work has endurance. For the more simply oriented historians, who just want to tell their story and are not interested in political agendas, you will come away from this book gratified and inspired. Carr gives meaning to the study of history, and he does it in an entertaining way. There is little leftist trapping -- although I was initally put off by the fact that Karl Marx has more entries in the index than "truth." I gave him a chance, and I was not disappointed.

Perhaps the greatest test is that of the three books I had to buy to study historiography, I kept this one and sold the other two.