Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

. Last Updated: 07/27/2016

Let History Judge Russia's Revolutions

To Our Readers

The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number.
Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters.

Email the Opinion Page Editor

A plethora of anniversaries is arriving in Russia. This month commemorates the 90th anniversary of the October Revolution and the 25th anniversary of the death of Leonid Brezhnev. Next month will see the 16th anniversary of the Soviet Union's disintegration. Only by understanding that first event, however, can we understand the others.

The October Revolution has always had many critics. The philosopher Ivan Shmelev named it "the great beating of Russia." Pre-Revolutionary writer Vasily Rozanov called it "The Massacre of Russia." Countless authors view it as a tragedy that broke the flow of history and destroyed the country's best people.

But the Revolution also has its apologists, for whom it marked the beginning of a new era in history, a breakthrough to freedom from a world of slavery and oppression, a salvation for Russia and Europe and a source of hope for Asia and Africa. According to this view, there was no conspiracy but a great social revolution that, by virtue of a powerful internal logic, brought to power workers, peasants, and the Bolshevik Party, which represented their will.

For the majority of Russians who grew up in the Soviet system, there is truth in both views, but no place for ultraradical criticism of the Revolution and other aspects of socialist life in 20th-century Soviet Union. The Revolution is not only history for many people, it is also a part of life and consciousness. Of course, this does not excuse those who refuse to listen to reasoned analysis about our country's past, but Russians won't accept glib rants.

Studying the Revolution is almost as old as the Revolution itself and has yielded a massive amount of research both at home and abroad. But, even today, we are still far from understanding many important factors, connections, motives, reasons and consequences of what happened in 1917 and the first years of Soviet power. Few events in history have generated so many concepts and theories for their explanation and assessment -- or so many falsifications, both crude and sophisticated.

Both the Bolsheviks and their opponents were involved in these falsifications, concealing, distorting, and concocting facts and circumstances, whether referring to the real role of Stalin or Trotsky in the Revolution or to the behavior of peasants and Cossacks. Thousands of names fell out of the history, people's deeds were passed to others, and the nature, motives, and activities of parties, groups, national movements and classes were distorted.

The Revolution and its leaders were idolized, and falsified reputations and biographies were created. The real course of events was simplified and "straightened," with each stage of the Revolution made into the natural continuation of the previous one. Nobody talked about the mistakes, doubts, hesitations and ignorance of the Revolution's leaders. The most important archives were inaccessible, and some documents were destroyed.

The situation started to change from 1988 to 1991, when the history of the Soviet Union and the Russian revolutions moved to the center of public attention. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party opened new horizons -- and almost all archives -- for historians. Masses of documents and other sources related to the beginnings of Soviet power became accessible for survey and analysis. Today, no matter what people say of President Vladimir Putin's administration, we are free from political and strict ideological censorship. Although today's new political reality is creating its own new myths and falsifications, this has not extended to historians' work. So the impartial history of the Revolution that has not been written may yet be.

Putin rarely talks about the problems of Russia's 20th-century history, once replying to a direct question about his attitude toward the events of 1917 by saying that he considered it to be "the country's natural reaction to defeat in the World War I." When he visited the Russian cemetery near Paris -- where many central figures of the "White" movement and Russian emigrants are buried -- Putin placed wreaths on the graves of poet Ivan Bunin and Vika Obolenskaya, a hero of the French resistance.

Putin also stopped near the common gravestone of generals and officers of the White Army. "We are children of the same mother -- Russia," said Putin, "and it's time for us all to unite." The remains of Andrei Denikin, a White Army general, have recently been moved to Moscow, and the remains of Vladimir Karpel, another White Army general, to Irkutsk.

A monument to Admiral Alexander Kolchak, who led the White Army against the Bolsheviks, has been erected in Irkutsk, and a monument to Nicholas II has been built in Moscow. Indeed, the Orthodox Church has consecrated Nicholas II a saint. These are steps toward the unification of a state and nation and not attempts to gain revenge or break up the country. Today, good conditions exist for calm and unbiased examination of Russia's past, from the Revolution to the days of stagnation under Brezhnev.

It is a moment that historians must seize.

Roy Medvedev, a historian and former Soviet dissident, is the author of "The October Revolution" and "Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism." This comment appears © Project Syndicate.