How many peasants died in World War I when the Tsar and his advisors did not give them guns, coats, or shoes?
The Tsar sent millions to die with improper equipment to protect his privileges. The Tsar was a micro-manager. If that is not murder laid at the Tsar's feet, then what was it? A slight miscalculation?
There was no way out of Tsarist rule without a revolution, and no one knows for sure what a revolution will bring when it starts. At some point you have to roll the dice because things cannot get worse, and the people are ready for a change.
Lenin died in 1924. He was incapacitated in late 1922. One of his last acts while still functioning was to ask the Central Committee to do something about Stalin. Stalin offered his resignation, but the Central Committee declined it.
Doesn't that break the chain of responsibility leading to Lenin and put it on the Central Committee? Lenin did what he could to get rid of the monster in waiting.
What more should he have done? Have him executed? He couldn't do that without the Central Committee behind him, and you don't believe in executions anyway. He did what he could to get rid of the monster in waiting.
The debate about where the revolution went astray has been going on for decades. It will take more than deaths of millions in the 30s to put the blame on someone who had been dead for ten years and who wanted the man in power deposed years earlier anyway.
Unless of course your position is that any revolution that brings about a violent change in regime ends in disaster for the people, which is where you are coming from I think.
Then you have to distinguish the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Cuban Revolution.
Most people in the west consider them good revolutions, except in the United States where we condemn the Cuban Revolution, mostly because U.S. corporations and their owners were the big losers, can't have that. So that's what our media feeds us: Castro bad, U.S. good,
The French Revolution resulted in a dictatorship leading to the deaths of millions. Does that make it good or bad? As Zhou Enlai said, "It is too early to tell."
Many on the right now claim that the French Revolution was a failure, see Simon Schama and others. They say it went to far, but really they would prefer the kind of state that existed before the Enlightenment -- rule by the rich and the church.
The recent attitude of the a faction of Republicans, of course they would deny it, seems to be that the American Revolution was a failure because too many common people got rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of press, something the Tea Party would like to see changed.
Where is it that you draw the line as to good and bad revolutions? How many Russian soldiers would have died in World War II if the Tsar or Alexi had been leading the war effort?
The modern industrial society that came out of the Bolshevik Revolution produced a modern army. That army was the deciding factor in defeating fascism, by taking terrible losses on the Eastern Front. Would that kind of military success been possible without a revolution in 1917?
Who knows? And that is the point.
We can discuss these endlessly, but to put the deaths in the thirties on Lenin and not credit him with our victory in World War II isn't logical.
Or least it isn't logical on evidence that you have produced or that anyone else has produced.