- Source E is a speech by a writer to the congress of soviets in 1935. It was then published in Pravda, the paper of the communist party. The contents of the passage are an opinion about Stalin. Usually, speeches made in public had to be approved ideas before they were spoken. Aspects of society are dominated by the party and its beliefs i.e. young pioneers and communist party members. This means the source cannot possibly be reliable, as it was written by a man Stalin had influence over or was living in fear of what might happen to him. Some people were brainwashed into thinking Stalin was wonderful. This shows how Stalin wants to be seen.
Source F is a speech by Buhkarin in Paris in 1936. Buhkarin was a former politburo leader and an ally of Stalin, so he should be one of the people who knew Stalin best. The source focuses on Stalin's bad points and who he was, rather than any of his achievements. Buhkarin did not really like Stalin, as he became a victim of Stalin's purges in 1938, which means we cannot rely totally on this source. It states that if someone has better ideas or does not agree with his, he will kill them because it reminds him that it is not only him that can come up with good ideas. He is trying to say that Stalin is a rash, ruthless and narrow-minded man. Buhkarin did not really like Stalin, so he would not say anything good about him. Source F is more reliable, as it has not been censored. Source E was produced under censorship, portraying Stalin as a good man, whereas source F shows someone's beliefs. It is also more reliable as it talks of Stalin as an individual.
I think source F is more reliable, as it tells us what he thinks of Stalin and his flaws. This is more reliable, as he worked closely with Stalin, so he would know what he was like. Source E is a view of a Russian who has only seen Stalin's good side. He did not express any bad points in his speech, either through fear or complete ignorance of who Stalin really was.
4. Source G is a speech made by Khruschev in 1956 to the soviet communist party. The speech was in secret because he wanted to avoid weakening the leadership status of the communist party. He blames Stalin for most things that happened in the 1930s, criticising the murders of loyal communists. However, he does not condemn Stalin for what he did, nor does he make excuses for his actions. Stalin's actions were justified, as he was acting in the interests of the working class and the communist party.
Source H was another speech by Khruschev in 1956. It tells us of a different side to Stalin. He states that Stalin was a paranoid man, believing that everyone was an enemy and no one could be trusted. He suggests that although killing them was wrong, the brutality of collectivisation was justified. He criticises Stalin's actions, but wants to keep the unity of the party. He blames all the things that went wrong on Stalin, but not the party, as he is the leader. Now Stalin is dead, he does not have to be afraid of what could happen to him. Khruschev knew Stalin well, so it is possible that he is portraying Stalin as trustworthy.
The sources were both written in the same year, but are different. It is hard to say if they are reliable assessments of Stalin, but I am more inclined to believe khruschev's assessment of him. However, Khruschev does not talk of the 5 year plans and whether they were achieved, so he may want people to forget so they think he is a better leader.
5. Source I is an American cartoon, mocking Stalin's show trials. It suggests that the trials are a fraud. The trial is pre-determined, and the people in the dock are behaving ironically as they are laughing whilst admitting to being guilty. The purpose for this trial is to convince the soviet public of the guilt of the accused party, who will be executed as a result.
This is a contrast to source J, as it shows France's perception of the show trials. The cartoon published in the late 1930s is not censored, so it shows what Stalin's show trials are like. It focuses on the pre-determined nature of the trial. Source J shows the trial being taken seriously, but all the men in the source look like Stalin, possibly illustrating that everyone shares his beliefs and would carry out the same actions.
These sources do not really agree about Stalin's show trials, but source J shows the trial being taken more seriously, whereas source I is a farce, it cannot be taken seriously.
- Source L is from a biography of Stalin, published in 1983 in Britain. It shows Stalin as being a great man, but also a wicked one. Source M was also from a biography of Stalin's published in 1974 in Britain. It says that Stalin was corrupted by "absolute power". He was a ruthless man who was corrupted. This source criticises his achievements.
Source K is also from a biography published in 1947 in Russia. It shows Stalin as a great man who would do anything for his people. This source is different to sources L and M in that it has been produced under censorship, suggesting that Stalin is a hero. It is a reliable source as it shows the image Stalin wants to project.
Source L portrays Stalin as a good man who was corrupted by his power. 'M' portrays him as a monster who did not care about murdering people, he just wanted to exert his power and prove he had it.
7. Sources A, F, G and M portray Stalin as a monster, who did not care about killing anyone. He wanted them to know he was in charge and could do whatever he wanted to. He is threatened by anyone who was a different opinion. He was insecure and probably killed to prove his power and that he was better than they were. This is shown especially in sources A and M, as they show Stalin looking smug at the mountains of skulls, and the word 'tyrant' in source M.
Sources B, D, E, C and K portray him as a caring leader who would do anything for his people. His 5 year plans are being carried out successfully as shown by source B, in which he is surrounded by happy workers. The wives of army officers adore him and think he is a great man. Source D shows he cares for the welfare of other people, which makes a good quality in a leader. He portrays himself as a wonderful and caring man, making people believe that he would not do anything to harm them. Source K shows Stalin's devotion and dedication to his people. He would do anything for them. However, we cannot be sure that this is the truth, as it may have been censored to make people believe he was a wonderful man.
Sources H, I, J and L are a mix of Stalin being a man and a monster. Source H shows Stalin as an insecure, distrustful man, but not one who does anything about it. Source I shows his show trials being a mockery and 'J' being serious. No one really knows how Stalin acts in his 'show trials' except the people in them, so he may act like a tyrant or a man who takes pity on the people in it and gives them a second chance. Source L tells of Stalin's good and bad points. He is not perfect, but human, we cannot be sure whether to believe that Stalin is a man or a monster, but from what we have from people after his death, it seems that he did everything for personal gain. Practically all the positive writing about Stalin were written by Russians or Stalin himself. This leaves the sources being biased and we do not know what to believe. This leads people to disagree about his real character.
8. There has been a disagreement about Stalin, due to his taking control of Russia, the way it was run, his character and his extreme methods of controlling the people. The most common question people ask is 'did Stalin feel it necessary to do what he did? Stalin used extreme methods of control, but we do not know whether it was because he was a man corrupted by power or because they were necessary. Some sources describe Stalin as the greatest man that ever lived and some describe him as a tyrant. Some historians think he was a very bad politician whereas some think he was a superb one. Some think he was a monster while some think he was not.
The sources are good examples of this. Soviet history shows that Stalin's polices changed the USSR beyond all recognition; this was a positive thing as before Stalin came to power the USSR was very disordered. Stalin is believed, by some to be a very poor politician who used terror and fear to cover up his lack of ability.
Source M shows a mans personal opinion of how he saw Stalin as a ruler.
He agrees that he was corrupted by absolute power. After a person has experienced extreme power, they do not want to lose it and will go to all lengths to retain it. In source G, however, Khrushchev tries to justify Stalin's methods explaining them as necessary. He claims that Stalin's deeds were not that of a 'mad monster'.
Sources H and F emphasise Stalin's power. They are both negative views.
Source F tells us of Stalin's desire to always be the best. It describes him as being a narrow-minded, malevolent man. Source H tells us that Stalin was a distrustful and paranoid man. If we look at source K, the views we are given regarding his character are positive and different to other sources. Source D written by Stalin, gives us a sense that did indeed have a caring side for other people. We have seen many different sides to him.
We cannot forget that these positive sources have been written by Stalin himself or Russians. Therefore, these sources cannot be reliable, leading to people disagreeing about Stalin's real character. If we look at the purges there has been arguments to whether they were or were not necessary. Many people argue that Stalin committed mass murder through the elimination of millions of innocent people, just to maintain his power over the country. If someone posed a threat, he simply killed them.
It is difficult to know the truth about Stalin, the use of censoring and propaganda in the USSR. When he was in power, the sources came from the USSR, so the reliability is questionable. Sources that came out of France are also questionable, as they are mostly written by exiled Russians, who would have been bitter and therefore their accounts cannot be reliable.
The sources convey that the disagreements were due to differing accounts during Stalin's time in power. Some portray him as a monster whereas some portray him as the hero. He did many amoral things but also a few good things for the USSR. He was a good politician and changed the USSR, but was also very paranoid and felt the need to kill anyone who posed to be a threat.
