Instructions: Take a look at the following examples of the ways the Russian Revolution

was recorded and analysed. Answer the questions at the bottom of this document.

Historiography: Example 1 - The Russian Revolution

Historical topic: the Russian Revolution

Historical knowledge claim: Lenin ruled Soviet Russia from 1917 to 1924, and the Soviet
Union from 1922 to 1924

Historiography: historians take different views of the event when he took power - known as the
October Revolution

Karl Marx argued that history was a series of progressive steps towards communism. He
thought that historical development was based on a pattern of class conflict between the ‘ruling
classes’ who controlled society’s resources, and an exploited ‘under-class’ of workers. Marx
argued that only a revolution of the working class in an industrialised country could challenge
and overthrow the ruling classes, and bring about socialism and then communism. Lenin
followed Marx’s ideas and he led a political party - the Bolsheviks - who would seize power
during the revolution. In February 1917, the Russian middle-class or bourgeoisie sought to
overthrow the autocratic rule of Tsar Nicholas II. They did not actively seek to overthrow the
Tsar, but the provisional government accepted his abdication, and the actions of both
bourgeoise and the people led to the collapse of the Romanov dynasty.

Lenin and Stalin

In October 1917, Lenin and the Bolsheviks hijacked this revolution to set up communism in a
revolution ‘from below’. Following Lenin’s death in 1924, Joseph Stalin became the communist
leader in Russia, and planned the ‘revolution from above’, whereby he forced policies of rapid
economic social development. This revolution resulted in a huge amount of suffering, including
the suffering and deaths of millions of people, including leaders in the Bolshevik party.

Communism continued in Russia, which was known as the Soviet Union from 1922 until 1991. It
spread globally to central and eastern Europe, China, North Korea and later, Cuba. Historians
are interested to explain the role of individuals, and how and why Lenin and Stalin were able to
have such a deep and widespread impact on Russia and beyond. However, historians are also
interested to understand the origins and the broader social, economic, technological and cultural
causes of these global developments. The Cold War which followed for decades was
characterised by a global and mutual distrust between communist and capitalist countries.
The October Revolution

Historians disagree about the nature of the October 1917 Revolution, and the extent to which it
was a ‘popular’ uprising. The differences in historical interpretation could be explained by the
fact that it is difficult to know the level of support for the Bolsheviks from the sources. There are
a number of issues that make it complicated. It is difficult to establish who and what the Russian
people were supporting - and therefore the nature of the popular element. The historian Beryl
Williams (1987-) pointed out that people who supported the October 1917 Revolution and voted
for the Bolsheviks in elections did not necessarily agree with all Bolshevik policies once they
were known, nor the idea of one-party rule. The following secondary sources are extracts taken
from historians writing after the Russian Revolution and the activity that follows invites you to
read the extracts carefully, and try to answer the questions that follow, using evidence from the
sources.

Source 1

The Russian Revolution of October 1917 is arguably the most important event in the 20th
century, since it led to the creation of the world’s first Communist state, which lasted over 70
years and had a huge impact on world affairs for the greater part of the 20th century ... The
Communist model was exported to Eastern Europe, China, south-east Asia, parts of Africa and
the Caribbean.
Chris Corin and Terry Fiehn, 2002

Source 2

The working class led the struggle of the whole people against the autocracy and against the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
B.N. Pomomarev, 1960

Source 3

October was not a revolution but a classic coup d’etat... Eyewitnesses, including the best
chronicler of 1917, the Menshevik Nicholas Sukhanov, are virtually unanimous in depicting
October as a coup d’etat, so too are such historians as S.P. Melgunov, who had lived through it.

R. Pipes, 1992

Perspective: The Soviet view (1917-1991) - it was a popular revolution

This perspective views the October 1917 Revolution as a popular uprising of the people, led and
carried out by the working class (Source 2). The communist regime grew out of this popular
revolution. This view makes sense in relation to a narrative of the birth of communism. The
October 1917 Revolution is the turning point which puts Lenin as communist leader centre
stage.
This was the prescribed view of the Soviet leadership and under communism, writers were not
allowed to challenge this view. Social and economic reasons are the agents of change. This is
the Marxist or communist view, which makes a value judgement in support of communism.
KEY WORD

Perspective: The main western view after 1945 - it was a coup d'etat

This perspective views the October 1917 Revolution as the action as a coup d’etat, where a
minority of people seized power for their own purposes. The communist government that grew
out of this event was an autocratic and tyrannical regime which imposed its will against the
Russian people. With hindsight, the October Revolution can be interpreted as the turning point
that led to Bolshevism, the rise of communism, Stalin’s totalitarian government and the global
spread of communism. Lenin also appears as the unchallenged dictator who is the agent of
change. This is the western school of thought, or so-called orthodox view, which makes a value
judgement that opposes communism.

Perspective: The revisionists - 1970s

The Cold War was an era when the USA and Russia understood each other as having
conflicting ideologies and interests - under capitalism and communism respectively.

This school of thought recognised that a negative view of communism informed the traditional
western view. While Stalin was in power and communism was the form of government in
Russia, historians could identify the October Revolution as a decisive event that led eventually
to the rise of communism. This view looks at both ‘history from above’ and ‘history from below’,
and recognises that according to the latter, the ordinary people played a significant part in the
October Revolution. Sheila Fitzpatrick (1941—) argued that the people created the conditions in
which Lenin and the Bolsheviks could act. This view questions the assumption that Lenin was a
dictator in total control of the Bolsheviks; instead, this may be a misunderstanding of hindsight
bias.

Questions:

1. What are the merits of these interpretations of the October Revolution? Is one
interpretation more convincing or more justified than the others, and if so, in what ways?

These interpretations provide different perspectives or ways of approaching a single

event. The first interpretation is effective because it is simple, but since it is too simple it
is not very convincing. The most convincing interpretation is the last one since it provides
context from more than once perspective, synthesizes general ideas and uses quotes
that portray a counterargument or opposing perspective.

2. 'Historiography tells us a great deal about the constant development of historical

knowledge, its transient nature and power of bias.' Using the example of the different
 interpretations of the October Revolution of 1917, explain how you think this could be
justified, and whether you agree.

“The communist regime grew out of this popular revolution.” (The Soviet view (1917-1991))
“the people created the conditions in which Lenin and the Bolsheviks could act.” (The
revisionists - 1970s)
These claims from two different perspectives show slight changes that can then attribute a lot of
importance to how this knowledge is interpreted and understood. It shows how the constant
development of history requires interpretation and makes bias inevitable. These biases can be
created by simple wording (framing bias). In this example the second claim is more direct even
though it is essentially saying the same thing. This shows how changing the framing of historical
knowledge through time can provide different insights.

Consider the following ten knowledge claims.

1. Karl Marx (1818-1883) with the assistance of Friedrich Engles (1820-1895) published
The Communist Manifesto in 1848, which encouraged workers to seize power.
2. In 1903, Lenin (1870-1924) and his followers founded the Bolshevik party.
3. The 1905 Revolution failed to overthrow the autocratic rule of Tsar Nicholas II.
4. Communism is a form of government which sets out to eliminate social and economic
class divisions and private ownership of property.
5. The course of history is shaped by individuals whose actions have a profound impact,
such as those of Lenin and Stalin.
6. The real agents of change are not individuals but long-term social and economic trends.
7. The first Russian revolution of 1917 (23 February) destroyed the government of the
Tsars.
8. In the second revolution of 1917 (25 October), the Bolsheviks led by Lenin seized power.
9. Lenin led a popular revolt supported by the people.
10. Lenin imposed the will of the Bolsheviks on an unwilling people.

Classify those that are facts and those that are interpretations. Select the most interesting claim,
and the most certain claim.

most interesting claim: The real agents of change are not individuals but long-term social and
economic trends.
most certain claim: In the second revolution of 1917 (25 October), the Bolsheviks led by Lenin
seized power.

Peer-assessment

Share your classifications with a partner.

1. Did you come up with the same answers? Where your answers differ, justify your
arguments. Most of our answers were pretty similar. They only differed in small details
 that either me or my partner didn’t notice, for example the effect of biases that can come
from the wording of a claim. We agreed on all the general points each of us made.

2. What reasons did each of you give for your choice of the most interesting claim
and the most certain claim? Explain these reasons to each other.

I said that the most interesting claim was “The real agents of change are not individuals
but long-term social and economic trends.” because it provides a non traditional
perspective and opens a lot of room for discussion. My partner also thought that this was
the most interesting claim since it can be seen as sort of controversial.
I said the most certain claim was “In the second revolution of 1917 (25 October), the
Bolsheviks led by Lenin seized power.” because it is a very simple, direct fact that
doesn't include any interpretation.
My partner said that the most certain claim was “Communism is a form of government
which sets out to eliminate social and economic class divisions and private ownership of
property.” since it is a direct definition that is only objective and only states fact.

3. From the justification that you have given, how well did your partner feel that you
have understood the reasons why historians might interpret the same event in
different ways?

We concluded that we both had a good understanding of why different interpretations

are used in history and the strengths and limitations that this provides the area of
knowledge.

Questions:

1. Why might disagreement between historians help or hinder the pursuit of

historical knowledge?

Disagreement between historians can help the pursuit of knowledge since different
perspectives, ideas and takes on a single event can make information available more rich.
However disagreement can also hinder it since agreements and concise ideas have to be
settled in order to be determined as knowledge.

2. How might disagreements in the sciences or the arts help or hinder in the same
ways?
In the sciences disagreements help because new ways to find knowledge can make it possible
to find solutions that maybe wouldn’t have been found if only agreements had been made. The
disagreement in science however can be extremely hindering because science needs facts in
order to continue progressing. In the arts I believe that disagreements only help the area of
knowledge because they make it broader and more interesting to continue developing more
information.
Reflection:

Think about an event in your life, it could be a family holiday, a school trip or even a memorable
class. If you wanted to write about it for future generations, how would you go about it? What
would you include and what would you leave out? How would you portray each of the people
involved? To what extent is it possible to write an- objective account even if you wanted to?

If I were to write about my favorite vacations I would include visual descriptions as much as I
could since they were the most relevant thing for me and the thing that I remember most vividly.
I would also include feelings and what I learned during this holiday, what it meant to me. Even
though this may not be that relevant or objective to future generations as facts or descriptions it
had a lot of personal importance that could eventually become relevant for someone else. I
would live out details that I don’t remember that well in order to not corrupt the clear memories
that I do have. I would portray the people involved with as much of an objective perspective as I
could since I am aware that my biases would create descriptions that maybe aren’t that
accurate. I would talk a lot about their actions rather than how I perceived them. As objective as
I tried to be, the objectivity of my writing would be very low since personal experiences are
always biased and it is even more biased because it is a memory.