How does John Reed's eye-witness account help the historian to understand the Russian Revolution?

        John Reed’s neglect to properly take account of causality is not limited to the time period prior to the November Revolution. The book proffers a “record” of his experiences without actually taking sufficient account of the “how” involved in the Bolshevik seizure of power. While there are several differing views put forward on this question of “how”, the relation of events does not fully examine these motivating forces. Though military power is obviously the main reason that the Bolshevik party was able to gain control there were other connected factors, such as the Kornilov attack and the radicalization and politicization of the masses. While the book does mention the Kornilov march on Petrograd, it fails to adequately evaluate the significant role this offensive played in building the Bolshevik numbers and arming the workers. As a direct result of this move by the Commander-in-Chief of the Kerensky administration the already floundering Provisional Government was further undermined creating a political power vacuum. With the Bolshevik party being the only clear opposition, precipitated by the Provisional Governments public hostility toward them after the July insurrection for which they were blamed, the malcontented people of Petrograd naturally turned favor to the Bolsheviks. This shift in support vastly increased their numbers. Thus, whilst the Kornilov attack sought to destroy the very foundation of the Bolsheviks ideals, the result was in fact conducive to the subsequent Bolshevik success. The attempt Kornilov coup also served to further enable the Bolsheviks with the armament of the workers, who rose up in opposition to this dictatorial endeavor.  Hence, when the Bolshevik party mounted a call-to-arms the militancy of the workers was extremely advantageous. While Reed’s account of the November Revolution, recognises the radicalization and politicization of the masses with its detailed record of the propaganda bombardment, it disregards the reasons for the propagandas success. Certainly the bombardment would not have been so successful had the rapid modernization of Russia not occurred. This industrialization for military gain required taxation which caused a strain on the economy; there was also an increase in literacy and wide-spread urbanization. In this tense economic atmosphere the tide of discontent was able to swell. The concentration in urban areas such as Petrograd, and literacy of the malcontented workers made for a proliferation of revolutionary ideas and zeal. Thus modernization can be seen to be a major factor in the ability of the Bolshevik party to influence the masses, attain support and then ultimately political power. Reed’s account however, does not scrutinize the aforementioned causality and hence limits the help this document may provide to the historian.  

        This eye-witness account is also limited in its ability to help the historian to understand the Russian Revolution by the author, John Reed’s ideological bearing. John Reed was a Communist and although he purports to provide an objective description of the November Revolution there are instances when his natural predispositions become very apparent. He, at times, uses inflammatory language and clearly biased sentences, which he attempts to conceal in a shroud of factuality. He writes “in this atmosphere of corruption, of monstrous half-truths, one clear note sounded day after day, the deepening chorus of the Bolsheviki”. This sentence plainly demonstrates his support of the Bolshevik Party and serves to undermine the credibility the book by evidencing his favored reportage of events. Reed then goes on to further call into question his accuracy with “I suddenly realised that the devout Russian people no longer needed priests to pray them into heaven. On earth they were building a kingdom more bright than any heaven had to offer, and for which it was a glory to die” This statement again illustrates his political persuasion and ultimately discredits his account of events. As a Communist in Russia during the November Revolution he witnessed the real life manifestation of his political ideal, the triumph of what appeared to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and thus it is understandable that he sought to portray the coup in the most favorable light. However this strong ideological mindset does prove problematic when the account is accepted at face value and taken to be a historically accurate document. When considering the precision of this account it must be noted that John Reed was involved in many socialist organisations and an active advocate of revolutionary politics. He wrote for a radical magazine called the Masses, covered the Pancho Villa Revolution, was involved in the Communist Labor Party and was indicted for sedition in 1919. Thus, while all reporters, due to language and unavoidable subjectivity, cannot help but infuse, at least in part, their beliefs and values into their writing in this instance the historian must be particularly wary on account of the vested political interest John Reed had in making the Revolution appear admirable. Additionally, Lenin’s introduction to the book which claims that “it [Ten Days That Shook the World] gives a truthful…exposition of events” highlights the underlying purpose of revolutionary promotion; the book obviously sufficiently promotes the Bolshevik philosophy. Furthermore, the text, while professing to be an accurate account of the period occasionally makes some dubious claims, such as “the city was quiet – probably never so quiet in its history; on that night not a single hold-up occurred, not a single robbery”. Though this assertion appears to be factual in nature, and seems to support the capability of the Red Guard in keeping public order, Reed’s ability to “know” this is questionable. The likely authenticity of such statistics is negated due to the amount of propaganda circulating at the time. Thus these doubtful claims, like the biased language, which recur throughout the book, limit the assistance provided to historian by Reed’s eye-witness relation of the Russian Revolution.

        The geographically restricted nature of this account also serves to obscure the historians understanding of the Russian Revolution. The revolutionary movements that occurred in the cities, in particular Petrograd, vastly differs from those that occurred in the country. Reed’s account of the November Revolution is primarily confined to Petrograd with a small portion dedicated to Moscow and whilst Petrograd created the core of the insurrection, there was revolutionary movement in the countryside too. However there were regional discrepancies in party support and thus the nature of coup. Ten Days That Shook the World contends that the Revolution was a seizure of power by the Soviets’ who sought to create a “dictatorship of the proletariat” nevertheless in actuality this was a dictatorship of the Bolsheviks. The reality of the situation comes into contention when it is noted that the peasantry did not, on the whole, support the Bolsheviks instead support was predominantly given to the Socialist Revolutionaries. Therefore, when the book asserts that “behind Smolny was only the will of the vast, unorganised popular masses” it suggests that there was wide-spread support and that the will of the “masses” was being carried out. While this may have been true in Petrograd it certainly was not true amongst the peasantry and so the Bolshevik party may be seen to have forced their will onto the countryside, as opposed to Reed’s claim that they merely represented the popular will of the Russian people. Thus in failing to recognise the contrasting party support due to the geographical constraints of the book, Ten Days That Shook the World can only provide the historian with a limited understanding of the Russian Revolution.

        John Reed’s eye-witness account is useful to the historian in two related aspects. Firstly, the book presents the historian with a strong impression of the bombardment of propaganda experienced by the Russian people, particularly those living in the cities, during this period. And secondly the book highlights the vastly differing political views that were prevalent. The book includes many of the proclamations issued, speeches given and newspaper articles published, and in doing so demonstrates the constant stream of ideas and debate that were critical to the revolutionary movement. Thus, in these regards Ten Days That Shook the World is able to aid the historians’ understanding of the Revolution.

        Although John Reed’s eye-witness account of the November Revolution does have some positive aspects, these do not negate the overall problems the book presents. The limited time frame and lack of causative information combined with Reed’s strong Communist sympathies and geographically inadequate examination mean that Ten Days That Shook the World is not sufficiently useful to the historians’ understanding of the Russian Revolution.

Bibliography

Acton, Edward. Rethinking the Russian Revolution. London: Edward Arnold, 1990.

Fitzpatrick, Shelia. The Russian Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

‘Reed, John’, Encyclopedia.com, [Online]. Sixth Edition. Columbia: Columbia Encyclopedia, 2004. Available:  [Accessed: 7th May 2004]

Reed John. Ten Days That Shook the World. New York: Boni & Liveright, 1922; Bartleby.com, 2000. . [Accessed: 7th May 2004].

---