This essay tries to survey the history of interpretations on the Russian Revolution of 1917, commemorating its 90th anniversary. There are already many historiographical surveys including James Billington’s typological research. In many cases however it was to be desired to consider more on elements related with the sociology of knowledge. This article grouped interpreters into various categories according to the circumstances under which their interpretations appeared. The groups and people I considered are as follows: 1) witnesses and persons directly involved in the revolution - Trotsky, John Reed, Sukhanov, Kerensky; 2) historians of the Soviet historiography before Perestroika and the pro-Soviet émigré Russians - Istpart, M. N. Pokrovsky, Yakovlev, authors of History of Civil War in the USSR, authors of the so-called Short Course(including Stalin), the Smenovekhovtsy group and the revisionist historians of the de-stalinization era; 3) the interpreters in the West - W. H. Chamberlin, A. Mathiez, I. Deutscher, E. H. Carr, Th. von Laue, Anti-communists like R. Pipes, revisionist historians in the West such as Fitzpatrick; 4) Soviet interpreters during the Perestroika era (including Mikhail S. Gorbachev). Interpretations on the Russian Revolution diverged many times in diametrically opposite directions. They were affected by the political views and positions of the interpreters. Everybody has his/her own interpretation on this revolution. Nowadays people seem to be disinterested in the Russian revolution and very few academic studies appeared commemorating its 90th anniversary. But the Russian Revolution should receive its due and appropriate attention. The new paradigm of its interpretation should pay more attention to the international relationships and meanings of this revolution, for example, in the context of the world system. The new era of study and interpretation of the Russian Revolution should now begin

This essay tries to survey the history of interpretations on the Russian Revolution of 1917, commemorating its 90th anniversary. There are already many historiographical surveys including James Billington’s typological research. In many cases however it was to be desired to consider more on elements related with the sociology of knowledge. This article grouped interpreters into various categories according to the circumstances under which their interpretations appeared. The groups and people I considered are as follows: 1) witnesses and persons directly involved in the revolution - Trotsky, John Reed, Sukhanov, Kerensky; 2) historians of the Soviet historiography before Perestroika and the pro-Soviet émigré Russians - Istpart, M. N. Pokrovsky, Yakovlev, authors of History of Civil War in the USSR, authors of the so-called Short Course(including Stalin), the Smenovekhovtsy group and the revisionist historians of the de-stalinization era; 3) the interpreters in the West - W. H. Chamberlin, A. Mathiez, I. Deutscher, E. H. Carr, Th. von Laue, Anti-communists like R. Pipes, revisionist historians in the West such as Fitzpatrick; 4) Soviet interpreters during the Perestroika era (including Mikhail S. Gorbachev). Interpretations on the Russian Revolution diverged many times in diametrically opposite directions. They were affected by the political views and positions of the interpreters. Everybody has his/her own interpretation on this revolution. Nowadays people seem to be disinterested in the Russian revolution and very few academic studies appeared commemorating its 90th anniversary. But the Russian Revolution should receive its due and appropriate attention. The new paradigm of its interpretation should pay more attention to the international relationships and meanings of this revolution, for example, in the context of the world system. The new era of study and interpretation of the Russian Revolution should now begin

The Russian Revolution, Soviet Historiography, Revisionism in Historical Studies - Soviet Union, the West, Perestroika, Comparative Studies of Revolution