One of the most important arguments he contends with comes from the last major synthesis on the topic 40 years ago, by Norman Stone (no relation). The result is an eminently reasonable and convincing narrative that confirms some established interpretations and challenges others. While quite different in approach and topic, the two books show how far scholarship on the war has come and give a snapshot of a new narrative of the war that is emerging.ĭavid Stone’s audience is broad and his stated intent is to “present a clear and brief synthesis of scholarly research on Russia’s experience in fighting the First World War” (10). Aleksandr Astashov draws on extensive work in RGVIA for his exhaustive study of soldiers’ daily life, motivations, attitudes, and interactions with civilians, painting an incredibly detailed and nuanced portrait of the lived experiences of the war. David Stone takes stock of the new literature and presents an excellent synthesis and interpretation of the military-operational history of Russia’s war effort. 1 This essay reviews two new fundamental contributions on the Russian army in the war. First a trickle, and now a steady stream, of monographs, dissertations, and articles grounded in archival work has brought much new source material to light and has challenged much of the received wisdom about World War I. It has been more than 20 years since the Russian Military Historical Archive (RGVIA) ended the restrictions of the Soviet era and opened its inventories and collections to scholars for free exploration.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |