However it’s use is limited because this story could have been told to him by someone else, therefore the account of the story may be exaggerated or taken out of context.
Stalin writes “it seems to me that the lack of concern our leaders show towards their people is the same as the attitudes I met in far-off Siberia” this was at a time when he was already leader but he needed the people to trust him, to support him so he’s saying he will be different from the general apathy shown by other leaders.
He is also involuntary pointing a finger at himself for in this written account, Stalin criticizes the way individuals were treated in Siberia. Saying they didn’t care for one man because he was just one man, but Stalin didn’t care for many men. He is also contradicting himself, as at the time was doing purges, ruthlessly sending people to exile in Siberia.
In my opinion this source is not very useful since it is not all that reliable because it is a personal account of one man, who at the time, was trying to get the public to empathise with him and the words written contradict his actions at the time.
3. Study Sources E and F.
Which of these two sources is the more reliable? Explain your answer.
Both sources E and F are personal accounts, extremely opposed personal accounts. Source E is extremely embellished towards Stalin and source F is the contrary, exaggerated against Stalin.
Some may argue that source E is the more reliable source because it is so vigorously pro Stalin it may be accurate and reflect on the personal feelings of the rest of the Russian population.
However most historians would prefer to trust source F because it was a speech made in Paris in 1936 which was a anti-communist city and the speaker had freedom of speech, unlike source E which was published in the communist paper, therefore it was indefinitely controlled by Stalin. The speaker in source F was also a personal victim of Stalin’s purges so he knew and had experienced what most members of the Soviet at the time hadn’t; Stalin’s brutality and mercilessness.
Neither source’s are particularly reliable as both are influenced by personal feelings. The speaker of source F says “(Stalin) was not a man, but a devil” this is tremendously profound, he also had freedom of speech unlike the writer of source E “when the woman I love presents me with a child the first word it shall utter will be: Stalin” this is an over-the-top comment, in my view.
Both use their language to convey their opinions to the public.
4. Sources G and H.
Do you trust Krushchev’s assessments of Stalin? Use your knowledge of Stalin to explain your answer.
Both these sources are one man’s views , therefore it is plausible weather what is written, what was said, is historical fact because different people have different views and different ways of interpreting events and people’s words. Another reason why it is plausible is that Krushchev had a personal interest in being neither pro nor anti Stalin, as he wanted to become Stalin’s successor so he had to win over both those who loved and admired Stalin and those who detested Stalin.
Another plausible reason is that both source G and H are extracts from speeches therefore it is impossible to know what came before or after the extract and weather the context is positive or negative towards Stalin.
Krushchev was a very ambitious man and had great aspirations for the Soviet; he later used vicious and brutal methods to fulfil his dreams for the Soviet. This means he probably actually agreed with Stalin’s methods although he does not say this in the sources, and it is even likely that he learned from Stalin.
In this source Krushchev suggests that Stalin is a man who wanted the best for his country, in a way that was completely selfless “…in the interest of the Party and the working masses…”
However in source F, Krushchev is speaking to the public rather than to the Soviet Communist Party so he shows no interest in agreeing with what Stalin did or disagreeing with his actions. It was in his interest to be accepted by both those who had supported Stalin and those who did not. Krushchev wanted to become leader after Stalin so he is careful not to say anything specific about Stalin, neither good nor bad.
The use of these two sources is limited because, first and foremost, it is the view of only one man; secondly it is the view of a man who has a personal interest in winning over his audiences.
5. Study Sources I and J.
How far do these two sources agree about Stalin’s ‘show trail’? Explain your answer.
These two sources, for the most part, have the same view on Stalinist Russia.
Source I is an American cartoon mocking Stalin and his show trails. At the time America was particularly against the Soviet Union, and there was an increasing fear of the rise of communism in America.
This cartoon, among others, was a definite attempt to diminish communism in America. The cartoon is, in a way, intimidating because it is obvious that the men on trail have been put under some sort of pressure to admit they are guilty of whatever crime Stalin accused them of.
Source J is another, more obvious mockery of Stalin. This source is a cartoon published in France in the late 1930’s. At this time, France was very heavily opposed to communism even more so than America. There were also many Russians living in exile in France from Stalin’s Russia, these people were strongly opposed to Stalin.
The source shows Stalin as judge, jury and lawyer, portraying Stalin in complete control in the courtroom which represents justice.
Both these sources agree that Stalin’s show trails were an extremely pathetic and ruthless attempt to have control over everything and everyone.
6. Study Sources L and M.
Compare what these two sources say about Stalin.
These two sources are very different yet both, important, mainly because of the time they are from. Source M is from a biography of Stalin published in Britain in 1974, at the height of the cold war. This is significant because at this time there was complete distrust between the Capitalists (USA, Britain, and France) and the Communists (Soviet Union) so it is understandable that this source would be completely anti Stalin. It could even be said that the source is too harsh because it is utterly biased towards the Capitalists. Another reason that this time was significant is because it is at the height of the cold war; the Soviet Union was blocked off from the rest of the world, ultimately Europe and the USA. This meant that historians could not discover things for themselves and had to trust evidence from the only people who had seen it first hand; people who had been exiled by Stalin.
Source L was also published in a biography of Stalin in Britain, but in 1983. This source is not biased to any one particular “side” – anti Stalin or pro Stalin. Although, by this time, Stalin had died so there was no control over what was published so therefore it is more genuine. It was also towards the end of the cold war, and relations were improving, yet still fragile, between the opposed Soviet Union and Britain hence the fact that it wouldn’t be a time to print the faults, just facts, of the Soviet Union.
7. Using the sources in this paper and your knowledge of Stalin to explain whether or not you think he was a man or a monster.
In conclusion of most of the sources it would be my opinion that Stalin was a monster.
He was manipulative, as we see in sources I and J, he was cruel as was shown in sources A, F and M.
Stalin proves to be a monster in many ways, although in the productivity, growth and modernization of his country he was a great contributor and even the founder. What makes him a monster is that he did not care that the cost of improving his country would mean that the country would lose many lives. Power controlled him and his deeds, it overruled all, as it is written in source M “…he (Stalin) was corrupted by absolute power. Absolute power turned a ruthless politician into a monstrous tyrant”.
8. Use the sources and your knowledge of Stalin and Soviet history to explain why there has been disagreement about Stalin.
Many of these sources praise Stalin and make him out to be godly. Stalin was the main influence for the productivity and modernization of the Soviet. Stalin did achieve some great things, this led people to believe that he was their ‘saviour’ because of the change he brought to their country. Stalin was the one who allowed the media to print only what he approved of and everything that his people knew was up to what he wanted them to know.
People who were opposed to Stalin were the people who were exiled because of him so they were aware of the real Stalin. Another reason why people could not disagree with Stalin is because he threatened anyone and everyone who were against him, and he actually carried out his threats.
No-one actually under Stalin’s rule, knew Stalin’s true nature until after he died, and those who did could not voice their opinions.
People outside the Soviet Union had no influence on those in the Soviet Union.
