Talk:Ten Days That Shook the World

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles This article has been marked as needing an infobox. Socialism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Soviet Union: Russia / History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

good, very helpful and informative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.227.177 (talk) 19:10, April 17, 2007

I am a marxist, and I have a great interest in the history of the bolshevik revolution. I read this book and I think it to be for the most part and accurate and tribute to what the people were trying to do in Russia. However, for the sake of neutrality I am surprised there is no a criticism section for this book. I remember reading somewhere about how this book has been considered a dramatization that is biased for the reds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.222.182 (talk) 08:33, April 19, 2007

The only substantive criticism I'm aware of is Bertram Wolfe's introduction to the 1960 Modern Library edition of the book, but even he argues that nonetheless "[Reed's] book is crammed with precious material" and "is the finest piece of eyewitness reporting the revolution produced." I do intend to insert it into the article at a later date. Reed writes as an open and enthusiastic supporter of the Bolsheviks, so it's a bit difficult to criticize him merely for being biased. --Ismail (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have just seen a 4 part film with this title made in England, c. 1967, with Soviet participation from newsreels of the time narrated principally by Orson Welles. Deserves some place here and am trying to figure out how much of it was real and how much reennactment. Lycurgus (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it looked like Eisenstein and apparently what I saw was a Granada Television production with a very few real newsclips combined with a lot of footage from the film of the same name [http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=2391 1}. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.162.229 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Ten Days that Shook the World#Publication: is there anybody who could give a reference for G. Orwell's claim in the introduction of the Animal Farm?? Thanks, -jkb- (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One author puts it somewhat differently: "When the News Chronicle asked for permission to serialise John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World in 1938, they were told by the Communist Party, which held the copyright, that this would only be possible if all references to Trotsky were deleted." (Newsinger, Orwell's Politics, p. 145) In other words, no censored version was actually published. So Orwell is either referring to a different incident or misremembered. --Ismail (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell was absolutely right. In fact, the free version of the book available on Project Gutenberg is the censored version. Trotsky's name appears only once, and only as the name of the holder of the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs; and Lenin's introduction to the book (referred to in the article) has been eliminated, exactly as stated by Orwell. Longitude2 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this version, its mentions of Trotsky are unaltered from the original, it's just that the spelling is "Trotzky" (a common way of rendering his name in English back when Reed was writing his book.) The introduction by Lenin is indeed missing, but there is no indication that the eBook was based off of a version put out by the Communist Party of Great Britain. If one can actually pinpoint the exact edition Orwell claims the CPGB put out, what year it was published and what publisher, that would be sufficient. --Ismail (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Penguin Classic edition (1977) actually shows Nikolai Lenin's in the Introduction as does the original Modern Library edition. The use of this name would have been in accordance with the name he was known as at the time of his death in his obit in the New York Times and other Western papers. It can also be traced back to, at least 1908, in the New York Times. The denial of this historic name first appeared in Louis Fischer's biography of Lenin in 1964. Fischer's claim has never been substantiated historically but accepted as a matter of faith. To show any edition as V. Lenin is an alteration of a historical fact that the books were published as using Nikolai Lenin regardless of the merits of Fischer's claim who was a famine denier, and slandered Gareth Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diosprometheus (talk • contribs) 06:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem Fischer was wrong; in the original Russian Lenin signed his endorsement as "N. Lenin" which at least some English-language translations, including the Moscow-based Progress Publishers, turned into "Nikolai Lenin" for the benefit of foreign readers. Having said that, bringing up Fischer's articles on the Ukrainian famine 30 years prior is nonsensical, not only because they're two completely different subjects but because Fischer's politics had changed from admirer to opponent of the USSR. --Ismail (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

". . . as both Lenin and Trotsky were internationally known, whereas the activities of other Bolshevik militants were virtually unknown." Reed's book repeatedly mentions Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, and other Bolshevik militants. Stalin was indeed virtually unknown to the Western world until some years after the revolution, but the text as it stood seemed to imply the book essentially ignored every Bolshevik who wasn't Lenin or Trotsky (or that no other Bolshevik was known abroad in 1917-18), which would be false. Hence why I removed it. --Ismail (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why are there two identical quote boxes in this article (with identical notes)? Pbergerd (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and what is

V. LENIN.

End of 1919

about? Pbergerd (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh, that's supposed to represent a signature. it looks awkward. Pbergerd (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]