Do these sources give similar or different impressions of Stalin? Explain your answer with references to the sources.
. Study sources A, B and C.
Do these sources give similar or different impressions of Stalin? Explain your answer with references to the sources.
These three sources are very different but they do have some similarities in the impressions they give of Stalin.
Source A is a cartoon published in Paris in the 1930's, it pictures Stalin showing three pyramids of skulls as if he was a tour guide and the results of his policies as if they were a tourist attraction. The cartoon is comparing piles of skulls of Stalin's pyramids to one of the seven wonders. An anti-Stalinist in exile could have drawn the cartoon so it is probably supposed to be against Stalin and his policies. This source clearly gives a negative view of Stalin.
Source B also pictures Stalin, but this time it gives a very good impression of Stalin. The source shows Stalin standing with workers at a newly opened hydroelectric power station in the 1930's. They all seem very proud and happy. This source is an official soviet painting, therefore likely to be biased, and used for propaganda by the government. This source is clearly trying to show the good results of industrialization, but it pictures Stalin meeting workers when he hardly left the Kremlin.
Source C is a photo of Stalin meeting the wives of army officers. The women seem desperate to touch Stalin who is smiling happily at them. The authenticity of this source is questionable as there is no author or date attached to it. During the purges Stalin killed leading army officers therefore it is likely that this photograph was either taken before the purges or doctored. This source is not very reliable but it does give a good impression of Stalin.
The sources show different views of Stalin but source A describes Stalin as a monster responsible for the deaths of millions of Russians. Source B shows Stalin to be a good man who improved the Russian industry. He did make it a very successful industrial country. In source C, Stalin is again seen as a caring and good man congratulating the wives of his army officers. In this source he is put in a hero position.
These sources are not totally reliable. However, B and C are similar in some ways as he is shown to be a great man who cared about his people and was prepared to talk to them.
In conclusion, the sources express different views and neither of them are one hundred percent reliable. Sources B and C do share some similarities. These sources show the different views of the people. Some idolized him whilst others thought he was an evil dictator.
2. Study source D.
Does this source provide any useful evidence about Stalin? Explain your answer.
Source D is an account written by Stalin in 1945. This article will surely give a good representation of how Stalin portrayed himself within the USSR in 1945. He used this story to make him look good and the old leaders look like tyrants.
In the passage, Stalin shows deep concern for the drowned man who was left back by his 'comrades'. Stalin uses the story to say that the lack of concern these men had was like that of the Russian leaders, though Stalin proves to be a different leader. Stalin is trying to put across that he cares about his people, even after the millions of Russians he had murdered during his purges.
This passage is similar to a parable, it has a moral meaning behind it. I believe that Stalin also used this story to justify the hard measures he had taken during his reign, like the purges. For instance, that the traitors like the ones in the passage needed to be abolished.
This source doesn't give very much useful evidence about Stalin. The passage was written by him so it will surely be biased and we can never know if it is a true story. Stalin used to tell lies and using the media for his propaganda. If this story happened to be true it shows us that may be Stalin was a caring man and that he thought his purges were the only way in which Russia could succeed to become a powerful country in the world. However, this thought cannot be proved true.
I think that the only useful evidence about Stalin that can be seriously taken from this source is that Stalin comes from the peasants and that he lived in the countryside. Therefore, he understands the Russian peasants as he was one of them, so it is easier for him to lead his people.
By writing this account, Stalin is showing to his people that he was a peasant once therefore he understands his 'comrades' and has a special care for them. Stalin had all means to broadcast these kinds of stories; he had the power to make people believe in these things.
3. Study sources E and F.
Which of these two sources is the more reliable? Explain your answer.
Source E is from a speech by a writer to the congress of Soviets in 1932. The speech was published in Pravda, the paper of the communist party. The newspaper Pravda (which means 'truth) was heavily censored so the source will be as well, only positive comments about the party and its leaders would be read in this newspaper. It was also written by a communist to the communists therefore it may be a biased source.
Source F is from a speech made by Bukharin in Paris in 1936. Bukharin became a supporter of Stalin against Trotsky as Lenin's successor. In 1929, he fell into disgrace and was one of the victims of the purges in 193. Stalin led Bukharin to disgrace after using him, therefore, in this source, it is likely that Bukharin would be trying to show everyone Stalin's evilness.
Unlike source F, source E praises Stalin in a much exaggerated manner. The writer claims Stalin to be the greatest man that ever lived. The source has many repetitions alliterations ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Source F is from a speech made by Bukharin in Paris in 1936. Bukharin became a supporter of Stalin against Trotsky as Lenin's successor. In 1929, he fell into disgrace and was one of the victims of the purges in 193. Stalin led Bukharin to disgrace after using him, therefore, in this source, it is likely that Bukharin would be trying to show everyone Stalin's evilness.
Unlike source F, source E praises Stalin in a much exaggerated manner. The writer claims Stalin to be the greatest man that ever lived. The source has many repetitions alliterations like:"every..., every..., every..." which is an effective way of putting across a point especially in a newspaper. The writer fills the speech with many compliments about Stalin, very exaggerated ways to describe a man and fanatical statements:"... [his name] which is strong, beautiful, wise and marvellous..."
However, source F has a contrasting view of Stalin. Bukharin disliked Stalin because he had used him to become the leader and then had turned on him.
Bukharin was expelled of the party in 1929, leaving him bitter because of how he'd been used. He was executed during the purges in 1938. Therefore this source only mentions Stalin's bad side as Bukharin wrote it at the time of his disgrace, two years before his execution. Bukharin tells us that Stalin has always to be the best and anyone that becomes better must then die.
Bukharin knew what Lenin really thought of Stalin, as he was friends with Lenin and responsible for the NEP, this surely scared Stalin. The source is an attempt at unmasking Stalin's true evilness. Bukharin shows that Stalin was incredibly insecure about anyone speaking, or being at some point, better than he is. This can be proven by Stalin's actions during the purges.
Bukharin also speaks openly about Stalin, especially knowing that this could be extremely dangerous to him as he is insulting the leader of Russia: "He is a narrow-minded, malicious man..."
In conclusion, both sources are unreliable because they are both very opinionated. However, Source F can be definitely more reliable because it wasn't published under the influence of the government. On the other hand, Bukharin must have been very sure of what he was saying as he knew Stalin well and worked with him for a long time and suddenly started hating him. He was expelled from the party and said all this openly against the most dangerous and powerful man in the USSR. He was putting himself in great danger by saying all this, therefore he must have had his very strong reasons.
Source E is too much of propaganda with far too many exaggerating statements praising Stalin. But although, both sources are unreliable and not trustworthy, I think that source F isn't totally reliable but certainly more reliable that source E.
4. Study sources G and H.
Do you trust Khrushchev's assessments of Stalin? Use your knowledge about Stalin to explain your answer.
These two sources come from the speech that Nikita Khrushchev gave to the soviet communist party in 1956. It is known as the "Secret Speech", three years after Stalin's death. Khrushchev was a Stalinist member of the communist party, he worked together with Stalin for many years.
In this speech Khrushchev talked a lot about Stalin and in which ways he was going to be different from Stalin, talked about peaceful co-existence and claimed that Stalin was guilty of crimes such as the murder of Kirov, rigging ballot at the 17th congress and execution and imprisonment of innocent.
Source G seems to be justifying what Stalin accomplished in the past. In this extract from his speech, Khrushchev defends Stalin. We also have to take in consideration that Khrushchev would not have wanted to disrespect Stalin in anyway because the speech was given to Stalin's former party, of which Khrushchev was now in charge, and he knew that the Soviet communist party looked up to Stalin even though he was gone. However, even though Khrushchev had the same ideals as Stalin, I don't think he agreed with many of Stalin's actions, such as the purges and the execution of innocent.
In source H, Khrushchev gives a very different view point he had of Stalin. He describes Stalin as a distrustful man, may be somehow paranoid by seeing everyone as his spy or enemy. He so suspicious that he even distrusted people he had known for years, like members of his party.
I think that these two sources prove that Khrushchev knew Stalin quite well. He worked closely with Stalin while Stalin was in power. He is, therefore, a firsthand witness to Stalin's acts, thoughts and possibly might have even given some advice to Stalin. If, in these sources, Khrushchev comments about Stalin's bad side and wrong actions that means he didn't agree with many of Stalin's acts. However, Khrushchev didn't do anything about it nor opposed to any of Stalin's ideals at that time. This could mean that Khrushchev was fearful of what Stalin could have done to him, as he had witnessed many of Stalin's actions.
In my opinion, Khrushchev's assessments are trustworthy in a way. Firstly, because Khrushchev worked closely with Stalin and surely knew him well. Secondly, Khrushchev, in his speech, talked about Stalin's dark side without necessarily disrespecting him. This means, therefore, that Khrushchev sensibly described Stalin, trying not to use exaggerating compliments or negative comments about the former leader, not to risk his position as Stalin's successor.
Khrushchev also would have wanted to give a good image of himself to all the members of the party, of which he was going to be in charge. Therefore, he might have given different views of Stalin in his speech so that he could get everyone in the party to agree with him, in one way or another.
Using my own knowledge of Stalin, I would agree with Khrushchev's view in source G, and partly with source H. I would say that Stalin was far too distrustful, suspicious and paranoid. However, there are many more negative points about Stalin that Khrushchev did not mention in his speech. This was either because he didn't want to disrespect the former leader, due to his high position within the party, or because he may have agreed with some of Stalin's earlier actions for the defence of the principles of communism, which I suspect.
In conclusion, I see these two sources as trustworthy and I could relate them to the character of Stalin that I know of. However we must not forget that there are many more characteristics about Stalin that Khrushchev did not mention, especially negative ones. Despite this, these assessments of Stalin are quite accurate in what they say but, indeed, they leave many things to be said about this man's character.
5. Study sources I and J.
How far do these two sources agree about Stalin's 'show trials'? Explain your answer.
Source I has been published in America under the theme of Stalin's show trials. Source J has been published in France in the late 1930's also under the same theme.
In source I, we can see a courtroom where Stalin stands as the judge and the accused seem drunk or somehow drugged as they are all confessing openly in a sarcastic manner like: "OF COURSE, I'M A TRAITOR!" or "YES, I?M GUILTY". The accused admit to these crimes smiling and happier than ever, they seem to joking about their guilt. The cartoon is used to show the absurdity of the confessions as they confess so openly. They should try to at least defend themselves. The source shows that the men were somehow forced into confessing. In the background of the cartoon, there are some gallows already prepared, therefore it means that the trial was pointless as the outcome had already been decided. The Stalinist trials were very absurd because the accused would be executed no matter what, according to the source.
Source J also pictures a courtroom at a show trial where, at this time, Stalin seems to be everyone that has any kind of authority in a trial, namely the judge, the prosecutor, the clerk of the court and the jury. The source, again, shows that Stalin had total control on the outcome and that means that the show trials were a complete farce.
Both sources agree that these show trials were a sham, completely controlled by Stalin and that the outcome was predetermined. Source I shows this by having the gallows drawn in the background and source J shows this as every member of the court is Stalin.
Both these sources put the same point across, they reflect the influence that Stalin had in Russia's judicial system especially in the show trials. The sources do agree quite a lot with each other, they both mock the show trials by its injustice and Stalin's influence, using different view points.
6. Study sources L and M.
Compare what these sources say about Stalin.
Source L was published in 1983 in Britain and its author is unknown, source M was also published in Britain but in 1974 and its author is also unknown.
These sources were published in Britain, therefore it is unlikely to be a product of propaganda but still its reliability is doubtful as the author is unknown. The sources were published much later after Stalin's death therefore Russia wasn't in pressure and fear of Stalin's discipline so more information was being released from Russian sources. Sources L and M may have been influenced by the information that was coming out of Russia at this time. The sources are different in a way, but they have a similar view point.
Source L portrays Stalin as a good politician that had ah evil side to his nature:"...Stalin was a very skilled,...gifted politician." The source also points out Stalin's dark side:"...dark and evil side to his nature. ".
Source M describes how Stalin was affected by power:" Absolute power turned a ruthless politician into a monstrous tyrant." The source tries to justify Stalin's measures by saying that the use of terror was necessary. The author even goes further to a very good point which I totally agree with, he claims that if Stalin hadn't used terror everyone, at that time, would have noticed Stalin's bad an absurd leadership.
"Without terror, who could have failed to notice the clear absurdity of Stalin's rule?"
Overall the sources differ in the opinions they express about Stalin as source L tells us that he was a good politician despite his evil side, whilst source M doesn't mention any positive point about Stalin. Source M says that he only kept power due to his terrific use of terror.
Source L still recognises Stalin as a good political leader whereas source M is totally against Stalin's rule, this shows that both writers have different points of view. However, they both agree that Stalin had a dark side and did evil things during his reign.
7. Using the sources in this paper and your knowledge of Stalin explain whether or not you think he was a monster.
From this paper I have learnt that Stalin could have been everything. He could have been an evil monster, a troubled and insecure human being and he could have had greatness in him. Stalin ruled Russian through his extremely ruthless dictatorship. However, there are various opinions about this way in which he ruled Russia.
Stalin's true name is Iosif Dzhugashvili which he later changed it to Stalin, which means man of steel. During his childhood in school he was said to be naturally intelligent as he always got high marks and was even regarded as the "best student". He started working in the communist party by accepting insignificant jobs until he made it to general secretary. He eventually made his way into power and soon started to develop a darker and arrogant personality. In the battle against Trotsky, to see who would succeed Lenin, Stalin did everything to lower Trotsky's chances of becoming Lenin's successor. He even lied to Trotsky about the date of Lenin's funeral to make Trotsky look bad as he wasn't present in the funeral of the great leader. At this time we can see that Stalin was developing and showing a corrupt and vicious side of his character.
Stalin used many tactics to get rid of people within the party. He used Kamenev and Zinoviev to cut-off Trotsky and Bukharin, and later allied with Bukharin to get rid of Kamenev and Zinoviev. A tricky man.
Later Stalin started to modernise Russia as he set out the Five-Year plans. These were set out to improve USSR's internal structure and the living conditions of the people. It did improve some problems in the USSR. There was almost no unemployment, many people were well paid for their jobs and medical treatment improved. Source B shows a success of Stalin's industrialisation as Stalin and the workers are talking happily at a new hydroelectric power station. Though, this painting was just probably used for propaganda. However, life was very hard at this time as any mistake in the factories would lead to severe punishments.
Stalin ruled Russia through fear and propaganda.
In 1934, Kirov was murdered and the Purges started. Millions of people were executed, died in labour camps or in prison. Source A shows pyramids of skulls that represent the millions of people Stalin killed, many of them were just killed because they opposed to Stalin's political views. Stalin now seems more like an evil tyrant that just a corrupt, ruthless and arrogant politician.
Stalin was a very paranoid man, always aware that his position as a leader could be at risk any time. "Stalin was a very distrustful man, very suspicious." Source H.
However, Stalin was much admired by many Russians and he even became the " Cult of the Individual" for many people. "The men of all ages will call thy name, which is strong, beautiful, wise and marvellous." Source E.
On the other hand, if we loom carefully at each source in this paper it can be seen that every source that mentions positive things about Stalin is very unreliable. Source B is a painting probably used for propaganda that dates 1930's, while Stalin was alive and there was very strict censorship. Source C could have been easily doctored and it's not dated. Source E is complete propaganda that was even published in "Pravda", so it is obvious that it could only praise Stalin. Source K was written in Russia, just after the world war finished, while Stalin was alive so censorship was still very strict and its author is also unknown.
Therefore, in this paper there isn't one Russian source from Stalin's time that says negative things about the leader. All the sources from his time praise him. This means, therefore, that even if any Russian citizen disliked Stalin he couldn't open his mouth
due to the hard censorship. The only person that actually attacks Stalin is Bukharin in source F. He was later killed in 1938 during the Purges.
In this paper, there is no reliable evidence that Stalin was a good leader, neither that he was a monster. However, the most reliable evidence proves that Stalin ruled Russia through terror, and through terror it is a fact that he killed millions of his own people. Therefore the use of censoring and propaganda covered up many useful negative facts about Stalin.
I have no doubts that Stalin was an intelligent man even an excellent politician that recognised the problems of his country and did something about it. However, he did it through complete terror.
But, it is a fact, that through his hard and evil measures, Stalin did improve the industry and technology in the USSR.
Overall, I think it is impossible to know the whole truth about Stalin due to the use of censoring and propaganda which makes most sources unreliable. Some still see him as a monster, others as the hero of the USSR. Stalin was a very complex character. The lack of reliable sources makes it even more difficult to unmask the true personality of this man.
In conclusion, I think that Stalin could have been a good politician, as it is a fact that he was very intelligent, if it wasn't for all the evil actions he carried out by being very paranoid. Furthermore, I think that the tyranny of this Man of Steel was based on the ambition to ensure the success of his party and the love he had for his country. Stalin did make a backward nation become an industrial world power. However, he did use terror and his horrific evilness ant that is what makes Stalin a "Monstrous Man".
8. Use the sources and your knowledge of Stalin and soviet history to explain why there has been disagreement about Stalin.
Today, I asked my father: "Who was Stalin exactly?" Without hesitating, he simply answered: "A very evil man and a strong Russian communist leader who killed millions of his own people." This is the view of millions of people in the world. Others think that Stalin, through his hard measures, did improve industry in the USSR.
The disagreement comes mainly because both of these views are true, Stalin killed millions of people but he also improved the USSR as an industrial country. But what causes even more disagreement is Stalin's true character.
There are still various opinions about Stalin and I think that the lack of reliable sources is one of its main causes. The sources in this paper are a very good example of it as they give different views about Stalin, but none of them is sufficiently trustworthy so that one could base his opinion about Stalin on it. Stalin will always be a figure in history that causes conflicting opinions. He was a very complex character.
As we can see from the sources in this paper there are various opinions about Stalin, he was either a great politician, an evil monster or he was corrupted by absolute power as he was an insecure human being. All three of them can be said to be correct, I don't think there is any right answer about this man's character.
It is a fact that Stalin killed millions of people but it is also a fact that he improved the USSR in many ways. This is what confuses many historians and the lack of reliability in the few sources from that time makes it very difficult to get a trustworthy right-answer about Stalin's character.
Stalin killed millions of people, especially those who opposed his political views or that posed a threat to him. However, some people believe that without the Purges Stalin could have never led Russia to become as powerful as it did.
These days, when people call out the name "Stalin" it brings to mind brutal terrorism and ruthless oppression. But we cannot forget that through these extreme hard measures, Stalin improved Russia both industrially and technically.
No one will ever know the real truth about this man, the sources don't allow it neither the real facts.
TOMAS SAMPAIO PAGE 4
STALIN: MAN OR MONSTER? Q. 4
