Trotsky's “History of the Russian Revolution” is the fundamental work of one of the founders of the Bolshevik movement, which was first published in 1930. It explores the connection between the February and October Revolutions. All researchers note that the book is politically colored and has a pronounced anti-Stalinist orientation. It was first published in Russia only in 1997.
Work on the book
Trotsky began working on the “History of the Russian Revolution” during his first deportation to Istanbul. He was expelled from the USSR in 1929, after another three years he was officially deprived of Soviet citizenship.
Abroad, he had to wander around the world. Trotsky lived in France, then in Norway. The Scandinavian country was afraid of deteriorating relations with the USSR, therefore, by all means sought to get rid of the unwanted political immigrant. In Norway, he was placed under house arrest and threatened with extradition to the Soviet Union, in fact forcing him to leave. As a result, in 1936 he moved to Mexico. There he lived with the famous artist Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera.
Great help in writing the "History of the Russian Revolution" to Trotsky was provided by his secretaries and assistants. The author himself admitted that without the library and archival research that his son Lev Sedov supplied him, he would not have written any of his books, especially the “History of the Russian Revolution”. Trotsky published the book as a series of articles in American magazines. In total, I received 45 thousand dollars for it.
The fate of the book
Volume 1 of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution is devoted to episodes of domestic political history. First of all, the February Revolution. In Volume 2 of the History of the Russian Revolution, Trotsky talks about the October Revolution.
The author himself in the preface to the publication noted that the key conclusion to be drawn from this work is that the 1905 revolution was only a shell in which the true core of the October Revolution was hidden.
Currently, the manuscript of this book is stored in America, at the Hoover Institute. It remains the main rarity of the entire archive of the famous Bolshevik.
In the Soviet Union, the History of the Russian Revolution by Leo Davidovich Trotsky, of course, was not published. It became available to the Russian reader only in 1997, when the 80th anniversary of the revolution in Petrograd was celebrated.
The famous historian Yuri Emelyanov justified the prohibitions on reading Trotsky’s works. The Soviet leadership allegedly believed that if you read Trotsky, then you become infected with his ideas and become a Trotskyist yourself. The current government could not allow such a thing.
Criticism of the History of the Russian Revolution
Many researchers were ambivalent about this work of Trotsky. For example, ex-Foreign Minister Pavel Milyukov, having familiarized himself with this two-volume work, was very surprised. He noted that in this book he agrees with Trotsky in the general assessment of the events of the February Revolution, as well as in the role played by the moderate socialist center in this.
At the same time, he believed that the conflict between Stalin and Trotsky was mainly connected with the envy of the Generalissimo to the mind of his former party comrade.
Another authoritative researcher, Soltan Dzasarov, called this book of Trotsky, as well as the work "Faithful Revolution," a work that deserves special attention. In his opinion, this is a large-scale epic canvas describing one of the greatest events in world history.
Features of Trotsky's research
When the Russian edition appeared in the 90s, it was accompanied by a foreword by Professor Nikolai Vasetsky. In it, the scientist notes that the main value of the book lies in the fact that it was written by an active and direct participant in revolutionary events, who knows everything not from documents, but from his personal experience.
In addition, Vassetsky notes that the author made an attempt to become in this book not only a publicist and memoirist, but also a deep researcher, tried to give an objective picture of one of the greatest events of the entire 20th century. At the same time, the preface noted that the book has enough overexposure, as well as suppression of certain historical events in favor of the political situation.
The pages of the History of the Russian Revolution clearly show how Trotsky hates Stalin without hiding this attitude towards the leader of the USSR. At that time, he most of all dreamed of the overthrow of the Soviet leader.
Therefore, researchers with great regret have to admit that the work turned out to be too subjective, much of what Trotsky writes about is half-truth.
The theory of permanent revolution has a strong influence . This is the theory according to which revolutionary processes are developing in underdeveloped and peripheral countries.
History of revolution
Trotsky uses the analysis of the history of the February and October Revolution to provide additional arguments in favor of his theory of the uneven development of certain backward countries. At the same time, at the beginning of the 20th century, he attributes the Russian Empire to the backward states.
The statements about this work of Trotsky by the famous Polish-English biographer politician Isaac Deutscher are interesting. In his opinion, the author deliberately belittles his role in this work, bringing to the fore the figure of Vladimir Lenin. In many ways, this is done in order to later contrast it with the figure of Stalin.
Domestic researcher Vasetsky strongly disagrees with him. On the contrary, he believes that Trotsky’s role in the events described is unduly exaggerated. Vasetsky was convinced that with the help of this book, Trotsky, who suffered a crushing defeat in the internal party struggle at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s, tried to replay his past.
Fundamental work
Many foreign Trotskyists called this book the fundamental work. For example, the American David North, who only regretted that he could not read it in the original language. Many biographers of the leader of the Bolshevik party - George Chernyavsky, Yuri Felshtinsky, agree with his assessment. They consider it the most significant work of the author on historical issues. At the same time, the book did not lose its historiographic significance even at the beginning of the XXI century, because so far there has been much debate about the assessment of those events. At the same time, they accuse Vassetsky of bias, although they agree that the book is overly politically colored.
The British-American scientist Perry Anderson writes about the book History of the Russian Revolution as a vivid example of Marxist historical analysis, as well as the unity of reproduction of the past, in which the skill of the historian is intertwined with the experience of the political leader and organizer of Trotsky.
Trotsky's best work
That is how the “History of the Russian Revolution” was estimated by Dmitry Volkogonov, Russian biographer of Leon Trotsky . He believed that even if the exile didn’t write anything more, his name would forever remain among the important historical writers.
Also interesting is the opinion of the American astrophysicist Carl Sagan, who always brought copies of this book to the USSR in order to acquaint his colleagues with the hushed up aspects of their history. It is important that the popularity of this work does not fade to this day. The socialist press regularly reviews new publications. After all, in it, the author spoke most frankly about the February Revolution. Trotsky formulated many problems about which for decades he was simply afraid to speak.
Stalin's reaction
In response to the publication of the History of the Russian Revolution, Joseph Stalin published a response article in the journal Proletarian Revolution in 1931. She came out under the title "On some questions of the history of Bolshevism."
Many scholars see it as a response from the generalissimo to this and other Trotsky books that appeared during that period. The meaning of his article, Stalin reduces to the need to stop any discussion on the problems of the history of the revolution and the party. And in conclusion, he urges by no means to allow a literary discussion with the Trotskyists.