Arno J. Mayer (1926–2023)

I didn't finish this book, not because it wasn't interesting but because it was from the library and I didn't have enough time to read it at leisure. The parts I read were very interesting. Mayer is understanding of the Zionist cause in the early 20th century while recognising that from the beginning the Arab people living in what became Israel were not seen as legitimate citizens of the place they were living in. This colonial attitude tainted the otherwise impressive achievements of the early settlers. A defensive, militaristic ideology was dominant from the beginning of the settlements, and carried over into the foundation of the state. Mayer didn't gloss over Arab atrocities either, from the parts I read anyway, so the account felt balanced. I hadn't heard of advocates of the one-state solution like Martin Buber; he was an interesting figure. Shame that such a solution, or any satisfactory solution, seems pretty much impossible now. I hope to come back to this book in more detail when I have more time.… (more)

An exciting work of comparative history, this book, as its subtitle tells us, analyses the violence and terror in the two most important revolutions in history: the French 18th Century revolution and the Russian's October one. In part one, Mayer states the conceptual signposts used later on in the book (Revolution, Counterrevolution, Violence, Terror, Vengence, and Religion). Then he proceeds in the remaining four parts, with a comparative study of both revolutions (usually in a first chapter on the French, followed by another one on the Russian) analysing the events in light of the conceptual signposts of part one: the terror (both "red" and "white"), the peasent resistance (Vendée in France, the Ukraine and Tambov in Russia), the resistance of the churches, and the revolutionary wars (external in France, with Napoleon; internal in Russia, with Stalin). Overall, this is a book filled up with brilliant explanantions and insights that, in the apt words of Tariq Ali quoted in the back cover, "is the first serious attempt to answer the revisionist historians, many of whom insist on viewing the past through a prism of present-day requirements". Very impressive.… (more)