Letter: Baffled by 1917? Just ask Trotsky
Your support helps us to tell the story
This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.
Sir: As a research historian I am very much in favour of Andrew Marr's suggestion that we "should honour the people in disorganised archives who burrow through individual life stories" ("Makers of their own tragedy", 26 March). I am less happy however at his implication that Orlando Figes has somehow written the history of the Russian Revolution according to Tony Blair.
What Figes has done is to uncover a number of interesting new details about the revolution while adding very little to our overall understanding of it. This is mainly because Figes, focusing on what the Russian people themselves did, misses the huge significance of the Western attack on the revolution from 1918. The revolution survived, but most of those who made it were killed in the misnamed Civil War with the White armies.
For a general understanding of 1917 and after, John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World and Trotsky's mammoth History of the Russian Revolution remain by far the best guides. To these it is the task of the research historian, I'm afraid, merely to add footnotes of qualification or embellishment.
KEITH FLETT
Convenor, London Socialist Historians Group
London N17
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments