Russian Revisionism: Double Standards

In his review of Bertrand M Patenaude's new work on Trotsky's latter years in exile, Robert Service praises the work, but criticises an overly sympathetic portrait of Trotsky as a human being. Using the analogy of the fox, Service highlights Trotsky as canine killer, mouth coloured with the blood of hen's, chickens etc. This represents a broader trend within the work of modern British historians (Simon Sebag Montefiore similarly) that have written up Stalin, contending the view of the grey blur, and seeing him as a romantic anti-hero, gangster and revolutionary intellectual. These works obviously continue to highlight the crimes of this pathological monster, but embolden his story with a series of energetically written books. Equally, in a previous review of a work by Beria's son, Service similarly attacked Khrushchev, and discounted his attempts at reform, whilst highlighting Beria as the potential great reformer of the Soviet system. In this work Service complains that he cannot highlight this aspect of Beria, without people accusing him of ignoring Beria's sadistic crimes. Yet, in his attitude to Trotsky is he not doing the same? Surely it is possible to recognise the nature of the Soviet regime, and not massacre the reputations of all the figures of the time equally. The difference in the writing of different figures also suggests a tactic of these modern Western historians. The figures that some writers still hold a more balanced view for (i.e. the oppositionist Trotsky, limited reformer Khrushchev, or Soviet-Marketer Bukharin) are targeted to eradicate all sympathy for any communist figures whilst the ultimately evil monsters of the regime are re-evaluated to meet the markets demand for revisionist biography, safe in the knowledge no-one could feel anything but hatred for these men. Equally, this market demand is a big problem for history and biography. The need to keep producing books on topics already covered requires a new look at the subject. This means that even if the established position on a persons life; positive, negative or somewhere in between, is the correct one, it has to be questioned because all works must take the contrary view. Ultimately, Trotsky did incorrectly regret his early break with Lenin and side with excessive centralism, and has to be held to account for what went on in the early Soviet Union. However, authors annoyance that he remains highly regarded should not colour the tone of their work to such an extent that anyone reading or listening to them, would presume that Trotsky was equally as culpable and evil as Stalin.