1917 war ein bedeutendes Jahr des historischen Umbruchs im Weltmaßstab, in dem der Grundstein für prägende Strukturen des 20. Jahrhunderts gelegt wurde. Den Zeitgenossen waren diese globalen Zusammenhänge bewusst; doch in der auf nationale Belange beschränkten Geschichtswissenschaft spielten sie jahrzehntelang kaum eine Rolle. Dieser Band vereint neue Forschungen, die die transnationalen Verbindungen der unzähligen Aufstände, Rebellionen und Revolutionen sowie der gewaltsamen Reaktionen darauf in den Jahren zwischen 1917 und 1920 in allen Weltteilen aufzeigen.

Stefan Rinke ist Professor für Geschichte Lateinamerikas an der FU Berlin. Michael Wildt ist Professor für Deutsche Geschichte im 20. Jahrhundert mit Schwerpunkt Nationalsozialismus an der HU Berlin.

Revolutions and Counter-Revolutions: An Introduction Stefan Rinke and Michael Wildt Revolution is a concept of modernity. As Reinhart Koselleck informs us, "revolution" in the pre-modern era meant "recurring crisis". In keeping with the times, Copernicus thus called his book on the movement of the stars, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. The North American and especially the French Revolution forged a new understanding of the term. Since then, revolution has marked a break in the continuity of history, a political and social upheaval and reorganization of social relations, and a radical opening of the historical horizon. At the same time, it is associated with the notion of progress toward a better world. "Revolutions are the locomotives of history", Karl Marx remarked, aptly formulating this historico-philosophical narrative framework. But who are the locomotive drivers, the stokers, or the passengers of the "revolutionary train"? Who are its conductors? Theorists have been quick to identify the carriers of the revolution. Traditionally, it has been the people, the lower class, the oppressed. But rarely has it been recounted whether the people, the lower class, the oppressed actually participated in the uprising against their oppressors. The urban masses in Paris who stormed the Bastille and killed the commanders did not represent the French people. And, as the elections to the Constituent Assembly showed, the small group of Russian Bolsheviks could not even unite the majority of the Russian working-class behind them. In Mexico, the various factions were so at odds with each other that they fought a protracted civil war which claimed more victims per capita than the First World War in all the belligerent countries of Europe. Who, then, are the "stokers"? The actual revolutionary actors who make sure in the various phases of the uprising that the course of events does not come to an abrupt halt? The ones who see to it that the king, the tsar, the president are overthrown, the existing political institutions are destroyed, and new representational systems are established? To fully grasp what a revolution is, a careful, nuanced look at its actors, their heterogeneity, and their fluidity, is indispensable. Those who believe in the legitimate advance of history have no qualms about interfering with it. Indeed, they "organize" the revolution, as Lenin demanded, without the passengers knowing about it or even asking where they are headed. In this case, it is the avant-garde-those at the front of the locomotive holding the levers of power-that determines the timing and the legitimacy of the revolution. If the uprising succeeds, and the old regime collapses as in Paris in 1789, Mexico in 1911, or St. Petersburg and Moscow in 1917, then the revolution's favorable outcome comes as a vindication to the revolutionaries. This by no means settles the issue of legitimacy, however. It is precisely because the success cannot last and difficulties, setbacks, and threats inevitably arise that the victory at the seizure of power is not enough. Revolutionaries are measured by whether they manage to sustain the power they have acquired, to give lasting form to the upheaval. Increasingly, the revolutionary violence directed against the oppressors is turned against those who were themselves oppressed. In France and Mexico, as well as in Russia, the revolutionaries stood with their backs to the wall. In order to hold on to power, they resisted by applying excessive force. This terror against the counter-revolutionaries, the "enemies of the people", is inherent to revolution. Critical to its analysis, then, is an attentive and differentiated, not just an essentialist, study of violence. Such a study includes its forms, actors, perpetrators, victims, bystanders, locations, circumstances, and dynamics, as well as its radicalization. While the revolutionaries prefer to blame foreign powers for the counter-revolution and to eliminate them as "enem