During the 1990s, historians began to show an increasing interest in the study of the Third International, and, in addition to the dominant traditionalist approach to the subject, the revisionist approach which had been developed in the previous decades finally gained a foothold in Western historiography. A significant number of studies on the Comintern were published during this period by British scholars, who were lived not only in the UK, and these publications widened the scope of the issues under study. Monographs and articles appeared on the Comintern and its foreign sections, as well as on related issues of the history of Communism and various left-wing forces, international relations of Soviet Russia, the Communist movement in individual countries. Interest in the topic of the Comintern in foreign historical scholarship was due to the need to resolve a number of controversial questions, little-studied or requiring reconsideration, mainly concerning the activities of foreign sections: the infl uence of the Comintern’s policy on the tactical line of the Communist parties in different countries, their ability/inability to pursue an independent policy, “Stalinization” of the Comintern, its chronological framework. Most of the 1990s’ studies, whose authors employed the traditionalist approach, are based on much earlier works, but thanks to the opening of some Russian archives and involvement of a signifi - cant number of archival materials, objectivity increased, even if the studies were conducted using opposing concepts. The historiographic tradition of the research on the Comintern, which existed until the early 1990s, underwent changes: the increase in the number of representatives of the revisionist approach entailed a change of emphasis and a revision of some established points of view. The authors who adhered to this concept began to rely on more recent literature (including Russian literature) and a broader source base, represented by documents from both foreign archives and the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History. According to the logic of the article, the opinions of “traditionalists” for each of the issues under consideration are presented first, and then the views of “revisionists”