“It seems to me that the lack of concern our leaders show towards the people is the same attitude I met in far-off Siberia”.
This statement is hypocritical as the actions of Stalin at the time did neither seem just or concerned for the wellbeing of the people. From this ironic source we can gather that Stalin possessed great political and propaganda skills as he was able to maintain his tyrannical rule and warped popularity by blaming those around him for the problems in Russia. So although an example of propaganda, this source together with my own knowledge does provide useful information.
- Study Sources D and E
Which of the two sources is the more reliable? Explain your answer with reference to the sources and your own knowledge. [8]
Source D and E are conflicting opinions of Stalin, as opinions they therefore have issues of bias; neither source can be totally reliable although perhaps one tallies with my own knowledge and other source evidence more than the other.
Source D was an article published in Pravda, a communist newspaper. Immediately I would know to approach this source with caution. It is quite clearly an example of controlled propaganda and is therefore not surprising that it is full of praise for the “beautiful wise and marvellous” Stalin. Everything in the source is exaggerated;
“Every time I have found myself in his presence I am overcome by his strength, his charm, his greatness.”
Repetition is also used in the source and this can only be the result of a clever propaganda trick to drive the points into the reader. The whole passage is full of compliments and admiration for Stalin and I do not doubt that many people did believe he was the great leader of Russia especially since propaganda such as this and sources B and H were ploughed constantly into the citizens. However, source E proves that people were aware of the negatives to Stalin’s rule, yet nothing negative could be written in Source D as I know that it would be censored or of course not said at all. Anyone who was known to oppose Stalin was most likely to end as a victim of his purges which resulted in the execution of millions of Russians. It is obvious that the author of this source was under the intense influence of Stalin and probably wrote it out of fear or true ignorance. This source can therefore not offer a reliable view of Stalin, although it does show what people were forced to believe.
In contrast, source E is written by an opponent of Stalin in Paris. France at the time was a democratic country and therefore allowed freedom of speech. This meant the Bukharin was able to speak his mind without censorship of fear of being arrested. Despite the fact that Bukharin opposed Stalin, this source can still be reliable as my own knowledge and some other sources reinforce his statements. Source I states that “He had a dark and evil side to his nature”. Although Bukharin describes him with more exaggeration; “He is a narrow-minded, malicious man – no, not a man, but a devil” the same aspect of Stalin’s evil personality is shown. Bukharin had good reason for his derogatory attitude to Stalin. They were once allied in the Communist Party and together had expelled Trotsky from the party. However Stalin soon turned on Bukharin and forced him too out of the Politburo. Since he had worked so closely with Stalin and then been betrayed it was bound to leave him bitter which can account for the resentment and exaggeration in this source.
Source E also mentions Stalin’s ability as leader and insecurity; “Stalin is unhappy at not being able to convince everyone, himself included, that he is greater than everyone else.” There is proof that Stalin was terribly insecure, in that he purged anyone who posed a threat to him, including those like Bukharin who fought for the same beliefs.
I would suggest that Source E is the more reliable of the two in reference to Stalin. It was not published under the threat of the Communist Government and tallies more with my own knowledge. However, it is not to be completely trusted as the author was opposed to Stalin. Source D provides reliable evidence of what was produced by the government as propaganda; it shows of what the public were expected to believe.
- Study Sources F and G
How similar are the messages of these two cartoons? Explain your answer with reference to the details of the cartoons [8]
Sources F and G are both cartoon satires of the ‘show trials’ held in Russia. The most evident similarity of the two is their shared message of criticism in referring to the trials. I know that no form of justice was offered to the accused and this is made clear in both sources as Stalin is shown to be the Judge in the courtroom. Although this was most probably not true, it shows the trials were in fact a sham with a predetermined judgment. Stalin did have complete control of Russia’s judicial system and this is quite obviously reflected in source G, in which he is shown as the Judge, Jury, Clerk and Prosecution of the trial. This certainly puts the message across that everyone in the courtroom was controlled by Stalin.
There is clearly a lot of agreement between the two sources although this is hardly surprising as they were both produced by countries in opposition to the Stalinist regime; America and France where freedom of speech existed.
Although the sources convey the same message, there are slight differences in the way that they do this. Firstly, the predetermined fate of the defendants is simply shown in G by Stalin being everywhere. The accused are not shown in this source as the verdict is inevitably whatever Stalin decides. Source F, however, shows the defendants freely admitting their crimes.
“Yes, I’m guilty!”; “Of course I’m a traitor!”
The tone is purely sarcastic and the joking manner in which they confess backs up the absurdity of the trials. They do not attempt to defend themselves and this could have been because they had been tortured, had threats put on their family and most likely as this source shows, their guilt had already been decided; at the back of the courtroom, a gallows is shown, indicating that guilt and death was inevitable for whomever was put on trial.
The other slight difference is of course that everyone in the courtroom of source G is Stalin, including the Clerk. This brings about the issue of propaganda and censorship in Russia at the time. During Stalin’s rule he had complete control over everything that was published in Russia. The fact that he is writing out the proceedings of the trial demonstrates this. Source G therefore shows that Stalin had influence over more than just the judicial system. This point is not shown in source F, as an unknown man behind Stalin is taking notes on the trial; the issue of propaganda is not evident.
In conclusion, both of the sources give the same overall message of the farcical nature of the trials and predetermined verdict, however the way that this message is conveyed is slightly different. Small details such as F making the point that the accused admitted openly and that they would eventually be executed are not mentioned in G. Instead G shows how everyone in the courtroom was under Stalin’s tyrannous control.
- Study Source H
How far does Source H prove that Stalin was a ‘brilliant leader’? [9]
Upon first glance this source does give the impression of Stalin being a brilliant leader, in fact the first line states; ‘Stalin is the brilliant leader.’ And this was not an uncommon view in Russia at this time. I know that under Stalin’s rule industry flourished and the country prospered. In his lifetime he was able to turn the vast country which had been left behind during the industrial revolution and turn it into a major world power. He was indeed an excellent politician in that respect. The source backs this up by describing his “clarity of mind” and stating his roles as “military commander”; “teacher” and “guide of the Soviet state”. The source certainly gives the impression that Stalin was a skilled leader able to lead wisely. This coupled with his “love for the people” are no doubt qualities of an excellent strong yet compassionate leader.
Source H uses clever phrases such as “Everybody is familiar with…” This makes the source seem more believable as if Stalin’s brilliance was a well known incontrovertible fact. It is the content of this source that without doubt verifies Stalin was a brilliant leader.
However, the reasons that the source was written have a great impact on the reliability of the source and consequently how far it can go to prove Stalin’s brilliance. It is an extract from a biography of Stalin published in his lifetime in Russia. It is therefore most likely to be biased. I know that propaganda was released to make Stalin appear great, such as source D, which describes equally “his strength, his charm, his greatness”. Using similar compliments, Source H therefore was also used as propaganda to rouse support for Stalin. During Stalin’s reign, if anything that was disrespectful to him was published, it was sure that the author would be killed along with the millions who were victim to Stalin’s ruthlessness. This source could thus have been written simply out of fear so does not give us a reliable view of Stalin from ‘his people’.
No one source is able to categorically prove something and although on the surface this source seems to prove Stalin was a brilliant leader, it is the fact that the source was written under Stalin’s influence that lowers its reliability. I would say therefore that because it is an example of biased propaganda, it does not prove very far that Stalin was a brilliant leader. However, I do not doubt that he had excellent political skills and there were Russians at the time and indeed historians today who believe he was a great leader; Source I for example, demonstrates this.
- Study all the sources
Do these sources support the view that Stalin was a ‘monstrous tyrant’? [12]
There are clearly two types of sources in this paper, those that consider Stalin to be as the question states; “a monstrous tyrant” and those that carry only positive views on him. The reliability of each source will determine whether or not its content can be trusted as evidence for or against Stalin.
The first source of the paper quite obviously does not give a very complimentary opinion of Stalin. He is shown to be proud of the great pyramids of skulls in the source. They are his marvel, his contribution to the development of Russia and they represent the millions of people who perished under Stalin’s regime so that he could industrialise Russia. The message of this source is quite reliable as although it was produced by an opposition to Stalin and the Communist system, I know that Stalin did have tens of millions of people killed through his harsh rulings.
Source B provides a very different picture of Stalin. This painting shows Stalin to be a very good figure of strong leadership and success for Russia. He is friendly with the workers who evidently revere him and the setting represents Stalin’s achievement in the growth of Russia. Based simply on the facts we are provided from this Source, it is hard to imagine that the same caring successful man could be responsible for so much death and destruction and therefore branded ‘a monstrous tyrant’. However, the reason for this source’s distinct complementation of Stalin is because it is a piece of propaganda aimed to demolish any argument against Stalin; it is therefore not reliable in its message.
Similarly Source C gives the general message that Stalin cared for his people. The absurdity of the story, in which Stalin is the only man bothered with his ‘comrades’ death can only be accounted for the fact that it was propaganda from Stalin to show that he did in fact care for the wellbeing of his people. If taken on face value, this source dismisses the statement that Stalin was a tyrannical leader; however, combined with historical information, this source is quite hypocritical. I know that the last statement is ironic;
“It seems to me that the lack of concern our leaders show towards the people is the same attitude I met in far-off Siberia”.
If Stalin had himself really been concerned why would he have implemented policies that had such devastating consequences on his people, such as the famine and purges? As this source is propaganda, it was not intended to show the reality of Stalin’s regime and so its message should not be trusted.
Source D and H are also part of the propaganda strategy in Russia; to brainwash its citizens into believing in the “beautiful wise and marvellous” persona of Stalin. This need for praise and obedience is a quality found in tyrants and the fact that Stalin tried to cover up his monstrous acts with propaganda such as these sources adds to this. Source H also does not tally with historical evidence in stating that Stalin had faith and love for his people. He did not have ‘ardent faith’ as he was very paranoid about even his own colleagues posing a threat to him. He had all his original close colleagues purged for fear they would oppose him. As I mentioned previously, it seems very strange that Stalin could really have ‘love for the people” if he put them through such anguish. He implemented policies that would help the country rather than its people.
Source E is the first to back up source A. He is described as “narrow-minded, malicious” and this certainly agrees with source A’s reference to his horrific acts of mass murder. It contradicts B and C which tried to show that he cared for his people. Although the content of Source E should be regarded with caution as it was written by Bukharin, an opponent of Stalin, I know that he was insecure as the source says and that his ruling was ruthless. This source is therefore quite reliable, although fuelled by acrimony.
Sources F and G both convey the same critical message that the show trials were a farce to provide Stalin with grounds for the purges. As they were produced by countries opposing Stalin it is foreseeable that they will be negative towards Stalin. Nevertheless, the issues that these sources raise are very near to the truth. Source G makes the point that everyone in the courtroom was under the influence of Stalin. Stalin’s tyrannical rule was such that the people would have lived in fear and dared not contradict him.
Source I gives a well balanced judgement of Stalin. It describes him as a ‘skilled, indeed gifted politician’ which is quite true; He was able to survive Lenin’s Testament and take and maintain power. The source then goes on to say that ‘he had a dark and evil side to his nature’, this must certainly be true to account for the suffering he brought to the Russian people.
Source J deals specifically with Stalin’s ‘dark side’. He is described as a monstrous tyrant and explains that this was necessary in order for him to maintain power. It suggests that without his use of terror, Stalin was not a good politician. Both sources I and J are more likely to be reliable as they were published long after Stalin’s death in Britain, where there was no threat of censorship or disciplinary action. They were written by historians who have had the chance to study Stalin’s rule, they are therefore less susceptible to propaganda and have been able to create balanced opinions. This does not mean that these sources are completely reliable though as it depends on the authors views. Source I provides us with both points of view; that Stalin was a ‘gifted politician’ while he still had a ‘dark and evil side’ to him. It is a good trustworthy deduction and can be backed up with historical facts. Source J presents only the message that Stalin was a ‘monstrous tyrant’ which is a reliable enough judgment but does not provide as fair an argument as source I.
After studying each source I can identify that some agree that Stalin was a monstrous tyrant and others contradict this. Every source which was produced during Stalin’s lifetime in Russia is full of praise for the ‘brilliant leader’. This is because they were produced under conditions of censorship and fear of disciplinary action. Sources that were created outside of the USSR or well after Stalin’s death deal with much more of the truth about his rule as freedom of speech existed.
I believe that the statement that Stalin was a monstrous tyrant is quite valid as many of the sources show. Source A’s indication of the death and destruction caused by his rule is certainly legitimate. Throughout all of history, no other leader has killed his own people to the same extent as Stalin. Some 30 million people were victim to him. Millions were killed through collectivisation, the purges and deliberate famine. What is more frightful is that Stalin appeared to show no remorse for his atrocities. He brainwashed through propaganda and stirred terror with the NKVD secret police to allow his rule to continue. I would certainly warrant these acts of cruelness evidence for him being a monstrous tyrant.
However, as some of the sources point out, Stalin did do a great deal to modernise the country. Source B shows one of many new industries that he was able to introduce. He brought wealth to the Soviet Union and many people truly idolised him as the hero of Russia. Sources D and H in particular show this. Although it is highly probable that these sources were propaganda or censored, I suggest that the reality behind theses sources, for example the consequence of death following the 5 year plans; the irony of some sources such as C, and the blatant atrocities shown in A, substantiate that Stalin was indeed as a monstrous tyrant.
