Evidence which proves that his version of what occured is false, is the fact of having winning a war previously against Germany were he killed thousands of men, so I really don´t think he would care about one single person. The damage caused by the war was devasting. In fact the large number of men killed during the war left millions of women without husbands and millions of children without fathers.
3: Study Sources E and F.
Which of these two Sources is the more reliable? Explain your answer.
In first place, we might think if the sources are reliable or not? Both of these Sources give two different points of views about Stalin, both of them could be correct, but I think that Source F gives a much more clear view about Stalin, although others may desagreee with my opinion. From my point of view, Source E is the most unreliable because it is written by one member of the communist party, which means that he believes in Stalins good proposes (or not) or the one who wrote this Source was committed to do so, if he didn´t want some major problems with Stalin. To be a bit realistic, it seems to me that this person was frightened by maybe something Stalin could have said to him, or if he didn´t make public this information, he could be expelled from the post or have direct problems with Stalin.Source F (for me ) is much more reliable than Source E. It is a propaganda campaign of cult of personality.It is trying to glorify Stalin as an almost good like super-being.
If we compare (for example)Source B with Source E, both of them want to give a false image of Stalin, they are very similar. Whereas Sources A and F, agree that Stalin didn´t choose the better way or solving problems, he has acted with no sense. He is described as a´´ narrow -minded and a malicious man.´´ This description has a lot of truth in it because Stalin himself gave us that evidence when he decided to introduce collectivisation, knowing that many peasants refused the idea. Source F is written by Bukharin, if we go back and remember the different discussions Stalin had with Bukharin, we deduce that they weren´t very good friends. Evidence to support my idea is that Bukharin knew lota of information about the revolution, so he could have more supporters and Stalin could be dismissed if the people voted him to go, so Stalin had to apparent a good leader. Bukharin meant a threat for Stalin, so Stalin was nervous about of Bukharin talking about what ha knew. Bukharin was a clear opponent of Stalin. Bukharin apart from having one of the best brains in the party he was in my opinion the perfect candidate to occupy the post. He was also an old bolshevik, which meant that he knew a lot more than Stalin could know.When Stalin in 1936 set about purging the Communist Party to get rid of all the people who might oppose hom, particularly Bolsheviks who had been important in the past, such as Zinoviev and Kemenev. Stalin planned it so well that they were accused of organising the murder of Kirov and planning to assassinate Stalin. They were all executed. We also have to think that the day we have a child we won´t call him Stalin, it seems to me that the person who wrote this or either was so devoted to Stalin to say such things or he was forced to do so.
Whereas source F has more reliable information because it is true that Stalin wasn´t able to convince everyone, it is also true that if someone spoke better than he did,´´that man is for it, ´´ Stalin believes he is the first and the best and that he has the total control over everyone. This source is telling us the truth, we know that Stalin thought like that, although we can´t believe every word because this comes from Bukharin, a clear opponent of Stalin. In my opinion source F is much more reliable than source E.
When Bukharin says: ´´Stalin is unhappy at not being able to convince everyone.´´ This is true because he wanted to control everything and everyone, no matter its consequences.. Evidence which proves this statement is the collectivisation policy he introduced in which millions of people died and others were totally opposed to that policy but Stalin didn´t mind what the peasants thought about this policy or how it could affect them. So that is why I believe this Source is more reliable, I think that Source E has been written to help Stalin appear as a good man. I am totally sure that the purpose of this source was to undermine Stalin, in one way or the other.
4: Study Sources G and H.
Do you trust Khrushchev´s assements of Stalin? Use your own knwledge of Stalin to explain your
answer.
One thing we have to bear in mind, is that both these Sources come from Khrushchev´s Destalinisation speech, where he wanted to undermine Stalin´s supporters. Source G can give us without doubt the evidence that Khrushchev was meaning what he was saying, he was(probably) totally conscious of the meaning of each of his words. He did it intentionally to undermine Stalin´s qualities as a leader as he wanted to be his successor. Despite the fact that Khrushchev wanted to undermine Stalin´s policies, he used the speech and took advantage of the publication of his speech to gain some points over the Russian people. I think this Source is totally false because the only thing these words were transmiting is the desperate situation Khrushchev was to become Stalin´s succesor, so it is possible that Stalin blackmailed Khrushchev by telling him that if he told good things about him, Stalin could consider the possibility of becoming the new leader of Russia when he dies hence Khrushchev didn´t lose the proposal Stalin made to him. Instantly this source spots that Khrushchev was deliberately attacking Stalin because he said: ´´Stalin was convinced that the use of terror and executions was necessary for the defence of Socialism and Communism.´´ We know that the executions were something it was badly done. The purges and the show trials are a good evidence of Stalin´s needs to use terror to control Russia, it was his very method he used against the people. So then he said: ´´We can not say that these were deeds of a mad despot,´´ by saying this words he was indirectly accusing Stalin of being mad. Although he then justified his accusation that doesn´t mean that Khrushchev really was attacking Stalin and making the russian people know what did Stalin did. In Source H, Khrushchev wants to undermine Stalin and his policies. This is because Khrushchev wanted to occupy Stalin´s post in order to become his next succesor, so he undermined him in order to achieve his proposals. he accusses Stalin of being ´´ a distrutful man, very suspicious.´´ From my point of view, there is a contadiction between the two Sources, because Khrushchev also talks about coexistence, that they could coexist peacefully.
I think that Source G is totally a montage between Stalin and Khrushchev in order to come to an agreement which will benefit both of them or only a stategy Khrushchev used to try and undermine him. Both sources have an indirect agreement because they both come to the conclusion that Stalin was a violent man and that he used the terror to kill those people who were a threat for him.
In Source H Stalin accusses him about killing Kirov, by saying: ´´This suspicious created in him a general distrust towards Party workers he had known for years.´´ I only see the clear contradition between the two Sources, and that none of them can be useful information but in case of choosing which can be the most reliable I lean to think that Source H can be trusted.
5: Study sources I and J
How far do these two sources agree about
Stalin´s show trials? Explain your answer.
Both these sources agree in demonstrating that Stalin´s show trials were introduced with persuassion and terror. Although source I shows it in black humour, source J indirectly shows the show trials, it reflects what the terror and purges led to. They both agree in reflecting what the show trials consequences were. These consequences have been reflected in source I were all these men are declaring themselves guilty of a crime they probably haven´t committed and as the hangman´s noose shows they are gaining to be executed for it.
Source I is a typical scarstic American Cartoon, which shows what the show trials were and it´s consequences. I suppose that those confessions were made under pressure and torture, sometimes they even implicate others who I deduce Stalin told them what names to give, who were probably the ones who Stalin hated and wanted to take out of his way, so they would then be arrested in their return. Whereas source J doesn´t show so clearly the show trials, it spots how Stalin has been able of expell the members of the Supreme Soviet in order to have complete control, therefore thats why he wanted to ´´kill´´ all those Bolsheviks who appear in source I laughing. The link between this two sources is: if Stalin managed to get rid of all the Bolsheviks to replace them by his supporters who do what he says, which is why everyone is shown as Stalin in Source B. instead therefore he will have the absolute control and power, if he managed to do so he then won´t have opposition and will benefit his policies.
So from these sources we can spot out the differences ( source I shows the show trials whereas source J doesn´t) similarities( both of them reflect the consequences of these show trials), and a link between the two( if Stalin managed to get rid of the Bolsheviks he would then be able to occupy their posts ( source J) ). They both show the extent Stalin had control by being the judge in the show trials and dominating the Supreme Soviet in the other. Basically these two Sources are different because Source I shows the real show trials whereas Source J shows the consequences of it. If the executions hadn´t had occured then what Source J wouldn´t have been able to occur because is the next step Stalin took after these brutal executions. Apparently these two sources aren´t showing the same view about the show trials of Stalin because Source I is reflecting into what degree those people were sommitted to and how far did Stalin was able to reach to until he achieved the absolute power and control over everything. Whereas Source J is demonstrating what Stalin obtained after the show trials, it is basically its consequences. The thing is that if Stalin wouldn´t have hanged those people he would not be replacing those empty posts by their strong and loyal supporters. Source J is the actual consequences of the show trials. Stalin is trying to demonstrate that he has power enough to do what he wanted and when he wanted, Stalin was too stubborn to recognise his errors and to admit what he did wrong while he was the leader and responsable of Russia. These cartoons are shown in a scartisc way in order to make it simpler, and the most important, to get the audience attention. The reason that I find why it is done with some humour is because they want to make the people think that Stalin didn´t did so bad when he decided to hand all his opponents in order to make his life easier.
6: Study sources L and M.
Compare what these two sources say about Stalin.
We can distinguish some clear differences between the two sources because, although both come from the biography of Stalin, one was written in 1983(source L) and source M was written in 1974 which means that the person who wrote it 8source M) lack of information because it only presents the negative side about Stalin. He has calified Stalin both as a person and as a politician. I base this information from the fact that he has recognised Stalin(in his opinion)´´ was a very skilled, indeed grifted politician and one of the greatest political figures of the twentieth century,´´ however, ´´ this does not mean that he was a good man.´´ With this words he has clearly been able to separate both the Stalin as a politician and a man, this source gives us two basic facts with which Stalin was characterised, whereas source the person who wrote source M has only highlited the bad things about Stalin. Evidence to prove this idea is that Source M says that ´´ corruptit by absolute power absolute power tents a ruthless politician into a monstrous tyrant.´´This shows that Stalin was too ambicious to gain the absolute power, and that, that power turned Stalin into a monster. I strongly believe that he was a monster due to his way of acting towards the people. I do think he was a monster. Source M has highlited Stalin´s negative side both as a human being and as a politician in order to make a faire judjement about someone you have always have to recognise thie qualities and criticise his defects.
I do agree what source M has mentioned about Stalin, that he only used terror to convince almost everyone he wanted to committ them to torture, in order to make them confess. Overall thse two sources are quite similar because although source L has had the ability of giving both negative and positive aspects of Stalin, these two sources agree that Stalin used terror and violence to achieve his proposals and that Stalin would do everything what its in his hands to meet his aims and that he won´t stop until he achieves them. Both these sources give a similar view in agreeing that Stalin was too ambicious and that terror and persuassion were the two very methods to try and control Russia as a country and the Russians.
7: Using the sources in this paper and your knowledge of Stalin explain whether or not you think he was a monster.
If we look back and analyse all the previous sources, we can spot out that in the vast majority of them they are all accusing or criticising Stalin.
In source A, it was shown the blood thirsty and cruelty in which he introduced the policies and the devasting results. He knew from the start it was going to be a disaster, or at least he knew that some peasants would refuse to the idea of collectivisation. This is represented with some skulls, which means that in general the results of his policies were a complete failure. This is good evdence because it shows what it really happens so it gives us reliable information but not on its own.
Sources B and C makes Stalin stand out, and being the focus of both pictures, this is what I denominate false propaganda. We can link both sources to the campaign he began, the cult of personality and Socialist Realism. In source B he is shown to as maintaining a conversation with the workers, which means that Stalin refused to be seen with people of a lower class than him, so this lacks reliability. Whereas source D is written by Stalin, it contains unrealistic + inaccurate information. It is considered as a biased source. Stalin is a hypocrite man not only because he lies continuosly in order to take advantage of it, also because he knows he is doing wrong and he isn´t brave enough to admit his mistakes, adding to this the possibility that Stalin thought more than ever, that loosing a comrade wasn´t fact of worry. I strongly believe that Stalin was a monster by the odd way he had of doing things, he was too ambicious to
If we continue analysing the following sources, overall, they are all against Stalin, and saying negative things about him, except Sources E, I, J , L and M. Source E, in my opinion is a bit excessive because, we have to admit that no one would call his son; Stalin. Source K is in favour of Stalin, and once more they are trying to prove the ´´good man´´ he was. Sources I is showing the consequences of the show trials and hoe they were admiting their gulitness under pressure and torture, whereas source J is reflecting what did this show trials led to, to have Stalin occupying their posts in order to have even more power. Source L gives both negative and positive sides of Stalin, but source M is criticising Stalin´s methods of ruling the country. Despite the fact that the question is asking to give a general descripition about Stalin, the thing is: for the russian people or for Russia. There is a great difference, he acted as a monster in terms of politician and as a human being because he did not see much further than his greed to demand more and more and to achieve the complete power of both Russia and the russian people. Although we have to spot out that as a politician he sometimes acted as an intelligent man.
As a politician he succeded with his industrial policy, but he brought loads of problems both to Russia ´s economy and to the people. With the collectivisation he had not solved food shortages. I do not disagree in admiting that he had capability to do better than he did his job and that he was an intelligent man, so intelligent that he made Lenin belief( at the beginning) he was an organised man. In 1912 he manged to become one of the six memebers of the Central Committee, the policy making body of the Bolshevik Party. Stalin was loyal to lenin, in order to become his successor. His power was beginnig to increase when he became the Bolshevik organisor for the whole of the Caucasus Region during the civil war (from 1918 - 1921). This position entitled him to exercise military authority. When the disputes between him and Trotsky were constant, Lenin became to distrust Stalin´s capabilities for being Russia´s next leader. Lenin expressed his anger towards Stalin in a written testament which became known as ´´Lenin´s testament.´´ Stalin refused the idea of making public this testament because in here he accused him of concentating too much power in his hands, which was exactly what he was doing. We can deduce that Stalin didn´t lack ability. Stalin was a unique person to monitor the Party´s policy and the Party´s personnel.
I think that Stalin was totally an opportunist, who beause of his willingness to seize power the moment found power coming within his grasp. The posts which gave him the power of patronage were the link he had in the chain of Communist Party and the Soviet Government Command. He used this authority to place his own supporters in key positions, therefore he could always out vote and hence out-manoeuvre them. To the individuals or groups they opposed him or the strengh of his arguments. From all this information as Stalin as a politician we know that he was able to convine everuone in order to achive his proposals, so I think he wasn´t much different as a person.
As a politician he not only failed, he also won some vistories we must recognise; eg, Stalin´s triumph over both left and right was complete. We can also argue that the fragmentation and disruption of Soviet Society, caused by the massive upheavals of collectivisation + industrialisation, encouraged Party and Government officuials to resort the most extremes meaures.
As a man towards the Russian people and the Bolsheviks, he acted with measures of the terror and fright he was causing. Stalin introduced the purges for his security but he also cared about the people who were in favour of him. Stalin´s only aim was to have the absolute power, without taking in account he was risking other peoples lives, and therefore he would destroy thousnds of families. For the workers he implemented strict discipline, and punished or send to prison those who arrived late to work. Evidence which proves the idea of Stalin being a paranoyic and a monster is when he introduced the Stakhanovites, which included:
low wages, and were usually accordinh to how much you produced, and how where they supposed to feed their families.
Punishments: Not all workers responded to the propagande campaings and measures were introduced to deal with slackers. The fear of being accused by sabotage and sent to the gulags encouraged workers to carry out their task obediently. There was also a strict code of labour discipline with tough punishments. More evidence which proves how Stalin acted towards the people therefore acting as a monster, is the theory he used towards the workers which was that if thingd went wrong he would blame them so he would get away with the problems.
In conclusion, from the information and reliability of some sources and my own knowledge I totally agree that Stalin could have acted with sense toknow that killing people or missing a comrade is state of worry, but the behaviour towards both as a politician and to the people he acted as a complete monster who knew when and where to be in the important events, so I am on the line for those who think Stalin was a monster. I base this information of the fact that Stalin´s negative behaviour on the whole was carrying Russia to the disaster, specially that state of ambition he developed of wanting more and more each time. So I think that although he could have acted in some ways as a politican, he was a selfish man who only thought in his own benefits.
8: Use the sources and your knowledge of Stalin and Soviet history to explain why there has been been disagreements about Stalin.
Stalin became the leader of Russia in 1928, from this date until 1942, when he stopped carrying out this activity, mant important events did occur along the history of Russia which have been historical during this period of time.
In the vast majority of sources we´ve been analysing they have been totally against Stalin and his policies for ruling the country. Source A is clearly reflecting Stalin´s poor results of the policies he introduced in Russia as the leader, but overall they have brought to the country many deaths , food shortages and other problems. This source wants to illustrate the blood thirsty, cruelty and evilness he had demonstrated to have. Whereas sources B and C are totally in favour of Stalin because they both agree in proving the good man he was. They have been part of the false propaganda campaign, which wanted to rise even more Stalin´s popularity.
Source D has been written by Stalin, which means that he would never tell bad things about himself. This source is biased because it lacks of reliable information which proves what did Stalin say in the incident happened in Siberia. We have enogh arguments to distrust Stalin´s statement because we know that winning the war against Germany with Hitler ahead, caused the lives of thousands of people and that the purges he introduced did also killed a lot of people therefore, why worrying about a single person? Source E makes Stalin appear as a noble and good man, by confirming that we should all be proud of what having had Stalin to represent Russia in all the social and important events, this man seems to have a lot of devotion and admiration towards Stalin. Whereas sources F,G and H give a negative view about him. For instance, source F is written by Bukharin, which we know he was a clear opponent of Stalin, though this source contains a lot of reliablity. Evidence to prove this fact, is that we know that believed there was no man in earth able to be better that him. Sources G and H are opposing Stalin, despite the fact that this speech comes from the destalinisation speech and that he wanted to undermine him, we also know that Stalin did use the terror to encourage workers to carry out their task obediently, and he did also see enemys around him.
Further on, sources I and J are showing what the purges consequences were, although source I is the one who highlights this, it shows it with some evidence, who are the Bolsheviks who later were going to be executed. Source J doesn´t actually show the consequences, it is showing that Stalin wouldn´t be occupying the posts of the Bolsheviks if he hadn´t killed them, so it is reflecting the consequences of having killed the Bolsheviks.
Finally source K is the last one who manages to sell false propaganda to the russian people, in order to make them think ´´devoted´´ Stalin was to both the Paty and the workers and that his interests were to benefit Russia in all aspects. Hoever sources L and M are opposing Stalin´s methods of taking control,although source L gives both negative and positive views about Stalin. Source M is against him because this historian is in total desagree with the methods he implemented in the russian Society which affected directly to the Russians.There are problems with the sources against him as well.
Under his rule Russia saw temendous economic expansion but at the same time many russians suffered the consequences of collectivisation and his purges. Nowadays, historians haven´t got an exact overviewabout Stalin. Some see him as an evil monster, some as a troubled and insecure human being, others see greatness in him. I agree that Stalin was a monster and a terrible human being. The simple fact of turning Russia to a totalitarian state and be a mass murdere proves that he was an evil monster. I can support this information from the fact that he was responsible of 30 years of terror and fear which the russians seemed the most affected with. However he also brought satisfaction and triumphs to Russia. If we compare the positive and negative things he did, the negative side wins. Despite this fact, we can´t criticise him to be a monster or not, we can teel he was a monster by the togh, cruelty and evilness hedismissed the Bolsheviks and how he took revenge from people who knew too much about could destroy him. The only people who might defend Stalin, were his supporters who seemed to benefit from loads of situations, after Stalin, of course.
There were many people who were against Stalin because: Stalin caused the deaths of millions of people during the collectivisation and the purges, in order to be more powerful, in fact collectivisation was not succesful despite the terrible upheavel. Furthemore, livind standars did not improve much, housing remaind poor and workers were receiving low wages with strict discipline and severe punishments. Stalin got rid of some of the Soviet Union´s best brains, thinkers, writers, artists, who could have produced explendid work in many fields. Stalin did also destory the Communist Party, turning it into an organisation for carrying out his orders and having the authority of putting his supporters in key positions. All these events can make everyone think he was a monster.
Whereas others were in favour of Stalin because: He turned Russia in to a powerful modern industrial nation in 30 years. Also there were advances in medicine and education, enormous numbers of people learned to read and write. We also know that his policy of forced industrialisation saved Russia in the second World War. Adding t othis that his strong leadership helped the Soviet Union to win the Second World War.
Despite these triumphs he brought, the number of deaths during Collectivisation and his purges were such as large that no one could compensate those families destroyed, the harm he had caused and had to pay a high price due to the greedness Stalin had demonstrated to have, in order to become even more powerful. In general, I think Stalin was a monster by the way he treated the lower working classes and members of the Party he hated, which some of them ended in a coffin. I will never defend the method he used to control the Russians and obtain his reward. He didn´t only mind sacrifying others people´s lives, he also blamed workers in case of trouble, so he would get away with problems. This absolute power Stalin was aiming for, turned a ruthless politician into a montrous tyrant. Despite the fact that Stalin showed to be a skilled, indeed gifted politician, he had a dark evil side to his nature which is why there is so much disagreement about him.
BY: PAULA VALLÉS DURÁN.
