1. Document Exercise Views Of Lenin

2. Historians’ Bias Historians’ views of Lenin’s regime are fundamentally determined by their sympathy, or lack of it, with Lenin’s aims and motives.

3. Historians’ Bias Those who share his aims tend to excuse his methods as being necessary of the difficult times he faced. Therefore, Christopher Hill, author of Source A and a Marxist historian, writes in glowing terms of Lenin’s regime.

4. Historians’ Bias On the other hand, those who find his methods and aims unacceptable would disagree with Hill. Pipes (Source B) clearly is of the second view.

5. Period Context The time in which the sources are written is key to understanding the opinion given. Since the collapse of the Communist system, Russian historians have been more critical of Lenin.

6. Period Context Many western historians hold him responsible for the creating all the features of the regime, which brought millions to death, imprisonment and transportation under Stalin.

7. Period Context They argue that under Lenin all the components for later Stalinism were put in place. For example, Lenin demanded one-party government, Lenin set up the Cheka, he ended party debate and set in place a centralised and all- powerful bureaucracy. It was Lenin who promoted Stalin to all his posts.

8. Contradictory Factual Evidence A further reason for the extent of historical debate surrounding Lenin is the fact that so many of Lenin’s own statements and policies seem contradictory.

9. Contradictory Factual Evidence The ‘strategic retreat’ he made following War Communism is just one example. Furthermore, Lenin actually only directed party policy for a short period of time as his illness had left him completely incapacitated by the end 1922.

10. Contradictory Factual Evidence The documents he issued after his strokes tend to conflict the message of his earlier writings.