Prof. Hamburg Randomly Picked Topics

Would you try another book from The Great Courses and/or Professor Gary Hamburg?

I may pick other Great Courses but I will be more careful to see when the actual date that the lectures were taped. Bill Clinton was still president of the United States and Yeltsin was President of Russia when these lectures were taped. Professor Hamburg was given his predictions on what would happen in Russia after the fall of Communism. More than 14 years have gone by since they lecture were taped and much has happen. As a result, the last lecture was very out of date and gave no preceptive what Russia has actually become under Putin. The "release date" stated 2013 but this is obviously meaningless because it has no relation to when the lectures was actually taped.

What could The Great Courses have done to make this a more enjoyable book for you?

Discussed the date that the lectures were given.

What character would you cut from The Rise and Fall of Soviet Communism: A History of 20th-Century Russia?

N/A

Any additional comments?

It does not appear that the professor actually tried to explain why the USSR fell. He randomly picked topics to include but skipped crucial events. He did not include Poland and East Germany's efforts and final success in breaking away from the USSR and the USSR's decision not to send in troops to stop them from breaking away as a prellude to the USSR republics also seeking to break with it. He did not even discuss the USSR's defeat in Afghanistan as a factor in the eventual breakup of the USSR. Not really a good effort.

Merci. Votre vote a été pris en compte.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation !

45 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

What happened to Brezhnev!?!?!

The 20 or so years that Brezhnev was in power accounts for about 27% of soviet history and almost half the Cold War but he scarcely got 15 minutes of the total lecture! If you blinked you would have missed him!

Merci. Votre vote a été pris en compte.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation !

12 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Great introduction but leaves lots of questions

I really enjoyed the professor and the course. It is a very historical overview of the forces that drove acceptance of Soviet communism, an overview of its decline, and some background behind where it may be headed.

Highly recommended as an introduction to this material.

Reasons why I dropped a star. I didn't get a sense as to what the people did, who the people were, who the people became as they progressed throughout what was about a 100 year window of Russian history. I get that Communism minimizes individual contributions and thus this is not necessarily noteworthy, but I would have liked to see a more systematic analysis of how the culture of the country changed as the years progressed. Another reason is the course seemed to stop somewhere in the 1990s. Ok, great but I feel like I need to read alot more about Yeltsin and Putin to understand where Russia is today and what its prospects are. The professor I think could have accommodated more discussion about the Russian people and culture but sometimes gets sidetracked on points that were interesting but somewhat academic. Great I know and get that he is a teacher but for an intro course, I'd rather be focused on some key themes and keep the the academic / pedantic stuff to a minimum.

Loved the course. Really liked the teacher. This is highly recommended for those looking for an introduction to the rise and fall of Soviet Communism. There may be better intros out there but this worked well for me.

Merci. Votre vote a été pris en compte.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation !

10 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Biased but good

What made the experience of listening to The Rise and Fall of Soviet Communism: A History of 20th-Century Russia the most enjoyable?

I was expected an unbiased report on communism and Russia but what I got is a professor that makes jokes at communism and people laughing in the audience.

If it wasn't for slight biases it would have been better.

Merci. Votre vote a été pris en compte.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation !

7 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

why PO-land, not Poland?

Once again, for some reason, when it comes to soviet history or history of any person in soviet power, Western historians cannot simply tell the history. I've gone through countless histories on audible, covering great plagues, imperial crimes on vast scales, murder, slavery, genocide, but for some reason all of those histories are told as histories, as in here are things that happened. Whenever I get to any one of these books or courses that deals with any communist country and their history, there's nonstop editorializing placed on top of the history. This many people died (and that's very bad, and communism is bad, and communist people are bad), and then this horrible event happened (because communism bad, people bad, these are particularly evil people), and then they won this war (and that's bad, very bad, because communism bad). The cold war's all consuming propaganda efforts seems to have broken people's brains. They seem to be completely incapable of discussing this history without needing to provide their bona fides as a full-blooded European imperialist first, as if to say "Look, I'm a historian, and I'm going to cover this subject, but I want everyone to know I'm on the righteous side of good and against communism every single chance I get." It reads like people with a gun to their head. It's pathetic and sad, but something you come to expect from western histories poisoned by the cold war and anti-communist mind viruses.

However, the truly unforgivable thing is that Gary Hamburg pronounces Poland as "PO-land". Why?

Merci. Votre vote a été pris en compte.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation !

4 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Good, but a little incomplete

Professor Hamburg's work is engaging, in conversation with the scholarship around him, and is a fine example of the historian's task. This latter is by virtue both of his willingness to offer insightful assessments where he can, and by being modest where information is lacking. There are two drawbacks. The lectures, recorded and published around 1997/1998, are now (September 2016) feeling a little dated in not continuing on to the Putin years, which are a continuation of the aftermath of the Soviet story. The other drawback is the feeling of disproportion in the series. Out of sixteen lectures, twelve are devoted to the period of the Revolution through the end of Stalin's reign in 1953. That leaves three lectures for the post-1953 Soviet Union, and one for the post-Soviet era, thus four lectures covering 43 years, after having had twelve lectures covering a comparable stretch of time. The Cold War is therefore treated hastily, more attention to internal Soviet life in the later period would be welcome, and details of the complex Soviet relationship to Europe are lacking. (For example, there is no mention of the Solidarity movement or the rise of John Paul II in Poland.) If the Teaching Company can give Dr. Hamburg the opportunity to add to and revise the latter part of these lectures, that would be an easy and welcome fix.

Merci. Votre vote a été pris en compte.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation !

4 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Usual Cold War story

It is interesting to hear this same old story, but nothing new here. 30 years after the disappearance of the USSR there does not seem to be any attempt to explain how this could have happened. The criticism of who we are now is not even perceived. Sometimes the lecturer is being cynical and doesn’t seem to have any empathy for the communists as if they were not humans. When he mentioned that the bread that the people of the Soviet Union had to eat during WWII, would contain saw dust, I almost expected him to say that they could have eaten cake instead. It was almost as if Marie Antoinette was telling us about the history of humanity.

Merci. Votre vote a été pris en compte.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation !

3 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Bias

Anti-market sentiments, no mention of Cuban missile crisis. No mention of German conspiracy to export Lenin to Russia.

Merci. Votre vote a été pris en compte.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation !

2 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Gloss Over

Many important events and people were quickly glossed over or completely left out of the narrative.

Merci. Votre vote a été pris en compte.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation !

1 personne a trouvé cela utile

Great

My dad has a master degree in Russian history and we talk about it at dinner time, when I tell him what I learn from the Great Courses.

It's very detail. Some people think this course should talk about Putin. It doesn't need to. Putin has nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. Soviet Union collapse was happen because of Gorbachev's decision.

This course doesn't need to talk about Communist Germany or Cuba, or North or South Korea as some suggested because it has nothing to do with Soviet Union.

This course is about how Russia became the Soviet Russia and how it collapse. I don't know why some think this course has to go off topic This course talks about the poor choices of Nicholas the Second, because of his choices Russia became the Soviet Union.

Now, I know why my Russian friend who is now an American tells me nothing in Russia has change. The Russians haven't learned their lesson. And you will understand why. From the politics during Nicolas's time.

I suggest people after getting done listening to this course to do more reading on the Soviet Russia if they want more information.

Merci. Votre vote a été pris en compte.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation !

1 personne a trouvé cela utile