Editing October Revolution (section)

===Western historiography===
{{see also|Soviet and communist studies|Totalitarianism#Politics of historical interpretation}}
==== "Totalitarian" historians ====
During the [[Cold War]], Western historiography of the October Revolution developed in direct response to the assertions of the Soviet view. As a result, Western historians exposed what they believed were flaws in the Soviet view, thereby undermining the Bolsheviks' original legitimacy, as well as the precepts of Marxism.{{Sfn|Acton|1997|pp=6–7}} The view which originated in the early years of the Cold War became known as "traditionalist" and "totalitarian" as well as "Cold War" historians for relying on concepts and interpretations rooted in the early years of the Cold War and even in the sphere Russian [[White émigré]]s of the 1920s.{{Sfn|Acton|1997|pp=4–13}}<ref name="mawdsley">{{Cite book |last=Mawdsley |first=Evan |author-link=Evan Mawdsley |title=The Russian Civil War|year=2011|publisher=Birlinn |isbn=9780857901231}}</ref>

These "traditionalist" historians described the revolution as the result of a chain of contingent accidents. Examples of these accidental and contingent factors they say precipitated the Revolution included [[World War&nbsp;I]]'s timing, chance, and the poor leadership of Tsar Nicholas&nbsp;II as well as that of liberal and moderate socialists.{{Sfn|Acton|1997|p=7}} According to "totalitarian" historians, it was not popular support, but rather a manipulation of the masses, ruthlessness, and the party discipline of the Bolsheviks that enabled their triumph. For these historians, the Bolsheviks' defeat in the [[1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election|Constituent Assembly elections]] of November–December 1917 demonstrated popular opposition to the Bolsheviks' revolution, as did the scale and breadth of the Civil War.{{Sfn|Acton|1997|pp=7–9}}

"Totalitarian" historians saw the organization of the Bolshevik party as totalitarian. Their interpretation of the October Revolution as a violent coup organized by a totalitarian party which aborted Russia's experiment in democracy.<ref>{{Cite journal |first=Norbert |last=Francis |url=http://www.ijors.net/issue6_2_2017/pdf/__www.ijors.net_issue6_2_2017_article_2_francis.pdf |title=Revolution in Russia and China: 100 Years |journal=International Journal of Russian Studies |volume=6 |issue=July 2017 |pp=130–143}}</ref> Thus, Stalinist totalitarianism developed as a natural progression from [[Leninism]] and the Bolshevik party's tactics and organization.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hanson |first=Stephen E. |title=Time and Revolution: Marxism and the Design of Soviet Institutions |date=1997 |publisher=University of North Carolina Press |isbn=978-0-8078-4615-5 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=wSaLSRHnoygC&pg=PA130 130]}}</ref> To these historians, Soviet Russia in 1917 was as totalitarian as the USSR under Joseph Stalin in 1930s.<ref name="mawdsley"/> More to it, such historians have blamed Lenin and the Bolsheviks for inventing policies further implemented by totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, such as the [[Holocaust]]: for example, according to [[Richard Pipes]], a prominent "totalitarian", "The Stalinist and Nazi holocausts" stemmed from Lenin's [[Red Terror]] and had "much greater decorum" than the latter.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Suny |first=Ronald Grigor |author-link=Ronald Grigor Suny |title=Red Flag Unfurled: History, Historians and the Russian Revolution |date=2017 |publisher= Verso Books}}</ref>

==== "Revisionist" historians ====
The 1960s-1970s saw a rise of a young historians who opposed the "totalitarian" historians and began challenging, revising and refuting the dominant and accepted conceptions, as well as criticizing the bias towards the USSR and the Left in general; they lacked a full-fledged doctrine or philosophy of history, but were distinguished as "revisionists"; in contrast with the focus of "totalitarian" historians on "politics" "from above" and on personalities of the leaders of political movements, "the one man", the revisionists have produced "history from below" and put attention on social history.{{Sfn|Acton|1997|pp=4–13}}<ref name="mawdsley"/> These historians tend to see a rupture between Stalinist totalitarianism and Leninism and refute the definition of the Revolution as a totalitarian coup carried out by a minority group; the 'revisionists' stress the genuinely 'popular' nature of the Bolshevik Revolution. According to [[Evan Mawdsley]], "the 'revisionist’ school had been dominant from the 1970s" in academic circles, and achieved "some success" in challenging the traditionalists;<ref name="mawdsley"/> however, they continued to be criticized by "totalitarians" who accused them of "Marxism" and failing to see the primary reason of political events, the personality of the leaders. During the rise of the "revisionists", "totalitarians" retained popularity and influence outside academic circles, especially in politics and public spheres of the [[United States]], where they supported harder policies towards the USSR: for example, [[Zbigniew Brzezinski]] served as National Security Advisor to President [[Jimmy Carter]], while Richard Pipes headed the CIA group [[Team B]]; after 1991, their views have found popularity not only in the West, but also in the former USSR.<ref name="suny2011"/>