the struggle my sympathies were not neutral. But in telling the story of those great days I have tried to see events with the eye of a conscientious reporter, interested in setting down the truth.'3 Thus (self-admittedly) there is an uncontrollable bias, where the author realises that his natural emotion at the events taking place around him will be reflected in his work.
             Reed believed that the workers in Petrograd emerged triumphant largely because they depended only on themselves. He describes how the Bolsheviks faced opposition from the bureaucracy, the army, the diplomatic community, the bourgeoisie, and even the peasants as they tried to govern a divided country. Yet Ten Days ends on a jubilant note when a hastily elected Peasants Congress supports the revolution in late November 1917. Now the industrial workers and peasants are united, symbolically joined in mass support for their own revolution. This is the general argument in Ten Days and his emotions as an observer make this argument come to life convincingly. Lawson recognises this as Reed saw the world being changed, and he committed himself, not to an ideal or a dream, but to the classes which were engaged in changing the world, and proving, that the task could be accomplished.4
             When analysing the importance of the source historically, many historians have praised Reed's work uncompromisingly. Historian George Kennan writes: 'Reed's account of the events of that time rises above every other contemporary record for its literary power, its penetration, and its command of detail. It will be remembered when all the others are forgotten.'5 Hicks also writes of the insight Reed is able to achieve in his time in Petrograd. The details Reed goes into give a presence to his writing. Everywhere, the Bolsheviks, at great popular meetings, at little gatherings in factories and barracks, in secret sessi
             ...