Lefebvre published his book in the 1930s, and it deals with one of the most historiographically active topics any historian can engage with, so it would be pretty astonishing if it was still considered essentially up-to-date. Nonetheless, there are still substantial reasons or considering Lefebvre's work vitally important, and the book itself a useful one. Opinions differ, naturally, but when I published a short book on this work a few years ago, the author, Tom Stammers of Durham University, was of the opinion it still ranks as one of the best, if not the best, books on the Revolution. Stammers's take was as follows – excerpted from his An Analysis of Georges Lefebvre's The Coming of the French Revolution (2017):

The Coming of the French Revolution asks a simple question: why did the strongest monarchy on the European continent collapse so dramatically in 1789? Lefebvre’s work matters because it helps the reader to understand the social and economic issues that led to the revolution. It also pushes readers to think about the way ideas and psychology affect behavior. In that way, it underlines a number of motives, people, and pressures that came together in unexpected ways to bring about the revolution.

The book gives a clear description of the events of 1789. It helps readers understand how an event that had seemed unthinkable actually came to pass. It also provides a powerful account of what the French Revolution meant for contemporaries and later generations. Even today in France the attitude a person has towards the revolution defines many of their political beliefs. Lefebvre’s book provides a classic socialist account of why the revolution was a profound historical turning point, not only for France, but for all humanity. It is important to note that Lefebvre’s arguments had someweaknesses. The work was a product of its time, written under the influence of Marxist ideas and with the aim of defending France’s republican political system on the brink of World War II. Later scholars who looked back at what had happened disagreed with the description Lefebvre gives of the four distinct social classes (the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, the urban workers, and the peasants). Lefebvre’s work sparked a debate about continuity and change, suggesting that 1789 marked the start of the modern world by ending feudalism and bringing in capitalism (today, the dominant economic and social model in the Western world). Other scholars from the 1950s and 1960s said this was a simplistic view; capitalism was a force in French society before the revolution, they argued, and what was more, the nobility had already given up many of theirpowers before 1789.

According to the French historian François Furet, the French Revolution mainly transformed how people thought about politics rather than transforming social structures. The disputes between Lefebvre, his pupils, and his critics were heavily influenced by the Cold War (a period when tensions ran high between the United States and the Soviet Union,and the nations aligned to each country, between 1945 and 1991). Reading Lefebvre encourages the reader to think critically about the way long-term, medium-term, and short-term factors influence world events, and how historiography has developed against changing political contexts...

The Coming of the French Revolution remains an indispensable book about the French Revolution. The shrewd balance of detailed historical evidence and passionate personal commitment from its author shows not just why the French Revolution broke out, but why it still matters two centuries later. The appeal of Lefebvre’s account came from his interest in the large number of factors that led to the revolution, taking into account the actions of the masses as well as the actions of the elite. The complex notion of four interconnected but independent revolutions happening at the same time explained why even the men who thought they were its leaders in 1789 soon found events spinning out of their control. Even revisionist historians who disagreed with Lefebvre, such as William Doyle, acknowledged that The Coming of the French Revolution was “subtle and skillfully written,” and could not be easily summarized: “To appreciate its full flavor there is no substitute for reading the book itself.” Those aspects of Lefebvre’s ideas about class relations that were considered less convincing came under heavy attack from revisionists in the 1960s and 1970s. However, Lefebvre’s emphasis on the way that political, ideological, and economic factors all came together to ignite popular protest was still inspirational. His work will continue to invite further research. The Coming of the French Revolution is also an idealistic book. In recent years historians have focused on the dark side of the revolutionaries, their intolerance towards perceived enemies such as traitorous aristocrats, renegade priests, conquered populations, colonial slaves or even “irrational” women. Writing at a time when the French Republic’s founding values were in danger—the German occupation of World War II—Lefebvre chose to celebrate the achievements of 1789. He believed that by teaching his fellow citizens the origins of the French Revolution, and what it was fighting against, he could also help people in the future to achieve some of its unfulfilled aspirations.