This essay is an account of the revisionists' approaches and the traditionalists' comments in relation to interpretations of the Russian Revolution in the American historiography. The 'revisionism' movement, which emerged in the 1960s, has criticized the so-called totalitarian model in the views of the Russian Revolution. It rested on the following propositions : 1) the late czarist regime would have collapsed even without the catastrophic effects of the World War I, as it had been weakened by the internal conflicts. 2) the Bolsheviks under the leadership of V. I. Lenin correctly understood what masses wanted in the historic year of 1917, which made them come to power. 3) the one-party dictatorship which sprung up immediately after the October Revolution was an unwelcome deviation from the democratic Revolution. In a word, the revisionists concluded that the Russian Revolution was a social revolution ‘from below’, that is, from the industrial workers. Richard Pipes, who could be considered as a representative of traditionalists and is famous for his strict anti-communism, rejected the revisionists' arguments and proposed his own answers. First of all, according to R. Pipes, the strikes increased in the western countries as well as in Russia in the early 20 century. It was Bolsheviks who used the anarchy in Russia and made the situation worsen by the repeated instigations for the overturn of Provisional Government. The industrial workers, who supported Bolsheviks and took part in the October's putsch, he explained, were a minority in the 1917 events. In his opinion, the abrupt emergence of the one-party dictatorship confirmed his proposition that Bolsheviks did not come to power in the democratic way. The revisionist historians made a counterargument to R. Pipes' critical comments in turn. First of all, they pointed out that R. Pipes' extreme dislike of the revolutionaries prevented him from understanding the complicated social context in the Russian Revolution and made him make some errors in the interpretations of revolutionary processes and even ignore some remarkable historical materials. After the Soviet Union had disintegrated in 1991, post-revisionists who criticized both traditionalists and revisionists proposed to pay attention to cultural theory in the interpretations of Russian Revolution. Based on these researches, I come to the following conclusions. First of all, the revisionist historians in the USA succeeded in finding out the new themes of the Russian Revolution which made them attract more Sovietologists than the traditionalists did. However, in my opinion, the political explanations proposed by the traditionalists would be still effective for those who want to understand the Russian Revolution. The differences in the interpretations of the Russian Revolution between the traditionalists and the revisionists seem to have derived from the academic background. For now, it would be the best way to discuss the topics of the Russian Revolution on the academic level rather than on the political level.