History

vs. Lenin Transcript

Narrator: He was one of the most influential figures of the 20th century forever changing the course of one of the
world's largest countries but was he a hero who toppled an oppressive tyranny or a villain or replaced it with
another? Its time to put Lenin on the stand in history vs. Lenin.

Judge: order order was it not your fault that the band broke up?

Prosecution: your honor this is Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov aka Lenin the rabble-rouser who helped overthrow the
Russian Tsar Nicholas the second in 1917 and founded the Soviet Union one of the worst dictatorship of the 20th
century.

Defense: The tsar was a bloody tyrant, under whom the masses toiled in slavery.

Prosecution: This is rubbish. Serfdom had already been abolished in 1861.

Defense: And replaced with something worse. The factory bosses treated the people far worse than the former
feudal landlords and unlike the landlords they were always there. Russian workers toiled for 11 hours a day and
were the lowest paid in all of Europe.

Prosecution: But Tsar Nicholas made laws to protect the workers.

Defense: He reluctantly did the bare minimum to avert revolution and even there he failed. Remember what
happened in 1905 after his troops fired on peaceful petitioners?

Prosecution: Yes and the tsar ended the rebellion by introducing a constitution and an elected parliament the
Duma.

Defense: While still retaining absolute power and dissolving them whenever he wanted.

Prosecution: Perhaps there would have been more reforms in due time if radicals like Lenin weren't always
stirring up trouble

Defense: Your honor, Lenin had seen his older brother Alexander executed by the previous Tsar for revolutionary
activity and even after the reforms Nicholas continued the same mass repression and executions as well as the
unpopular involvement in World War One that cost Russia so many lives and resources.

Judge: Hmm, this tsar doesn't sound like such a capital fellow.

Prosecution: Your honor, maybe Nicholas the second did doom himself with bad decisions but Lenin deserves no
credit for this. When the February 1917 uprisings finally forced the tsar to abdicate, Lenin was still exiled in
Switzerland.

Judge: Hmm, so who came to power?

Defense: the duma formed a provisional government led by alexander Kerensky, an incompetent bourgeois failure.
He even launched another failed offensive in the war when Russia had already lost so much instead of ending it like
the people wanted.

Prosecution: It was a constitutional social democratic government. The most progressive of its time and it could
have succeeded eventually if Lenin hadn't returned in April... sent by the Germans to undermine the Russian war
effort and instigate riots.

Defense: Such slander! The July days were a spontaneous and justified reaction against the governments failures
and Kerensky showed his true colors when he blamed Lenin and arrested and outlawed his Bolshevik party.
Forcing him into exile again. Some democracy. Its a good thing the government collapsed under their own
incompetence and greed. When they tried to stage a military coup, they had to ask the Bolsheviks for help when it
backfired. After that, all Lenin had to do was return in October and take charge. The government was peacefully
overthrown overnight

Prosecution: But what the Bolsheviks did after gaining power wasn't very peaceful. How many people did they
execute without trial? And was it really necessary to murder the czars entire family, even the children?

Defense: Russia was being attacked by foreign imperialists trying to restore the tsar. Any royal heir that was
rescued would be recognized as a ruler by foreign governments. It would have been the end of everything the
people had fought so hard to achieve. Besides, Lenin may not have given the order.

Prosecution: But it was not only imperialists that the Bolsheviks killed. What about the purges and executions of
other socialist and anarchist parties, their old allies? What about the Tambov rebellion where peasants resisting
grain confiscation were killed with poison gas? Or sending the army to crush the workers in Kroonstad who were
demanding democratic self-management. Was this still fighting for the people?

Defense: Yes! The measures were difficult but it was a difficult time. The new government needed to secure itself
while being attacked from all sides so that the socialist order could be established.

Prosecution: And what good came of this socialist order? Even after the Civil War was won there were famines,
repression, and millions executed or sent to die in camps while Lenin's successor Stalin established a cult of
personality and absolute power

Defense: That wasn't the plan. Lenin never cared for personal gains. Even his enemies admitted that he fully
believed in his cause. Living modestly and working tirelessly from his student days until his too early death. He saw
how power hungry Stalin was and tried to warn the party. But it was too late

Prosecution: And the decades of totalitarianism that followed after?

Defense: You can call it that, but it was Lenins efforts that changed Russia in a few decades from a backward and
undeveloped monarchy full of illiterate peasants to a modern, industrial superpower. With one of the worlds best
educated populations, unprecedented opportunities for woman, and some of the most important scientific
advancements of the century. Life might not have been luxurious, but everyone had a roof over their head, and food
on their plate. Which few countries have achieved.

Prosecution: Yes but these advances could still happen even without Lenin and the repressive regimes he
established

Judge: Yes and I could have been a famous rock and roll singer, but how would I have sounded?

Narrator: We can never be sure how things could have unfolded if different people were in power or different
decisions were made but to avoid the mistakes of the past we must always be willing to put historical figures on
trial.