The source does not seem a clear indication that this is a source we can draw a conclusion about Stalin from. I do not believe the events explained I believe that this was a way for Stalin to express a comparison to the leadership of USSR. The way he uses language such as “comrade”, a word that in Russian means brother, is suspicious as this is indicating that Stalin thought of him as an equal although Stalin was clearly even then an important man who thought himself above others as he later reprimands the men’s attitude.
Stalin has clearly written this account to simply show his view of the way the leadership of the USSR treats the people and also to help the people understand his point of view. I think that this demonstrates that Stalin was desperate for the people to share his view and clearly understand his thoughts and see how they could be correct.
The only information we can truly draw from this source about Stalin is that he was dedicated to telling the people his views in a way they could share and adopt them.
- Study sources E and F.
Which of these two sources is more reliable? Explain your answer.
Both sources have had a degree of influence from people and items that could make them quite unreliable. Both sources are unreliable to a degree and so it is hard to make a distinction.
Source E was published in the paper of the communist party and so would not want to print anything that was not in praise of their ‘inspired leader’. Source F is written by a victim of Stalin’s purges and so is bound to be negative of the leader. Each source has its own inconsistencies. Source E is written by a writer who must speak to the congress of Soviets and so must be conformist and very much a patriot to the ‘great’ Stalin. H e must be emotive and joyous about such a powerful man, as after all, Stalin could order his death. On the other hand many citizens of the country felt very strongly about Stalin and the government. Many millions of people worshipped him as a god and so, perhaps, did this writer. This writer could simply be speaking from the heart about his ‘privilege’ to see such a great and powerful man. He could also just be shocked at meeting such a powerful and influential figure and was shocked into such an emotional piece.
However we cannot be sure if he was one of the many who worshipped Stalin as a God and this piece could have been staged or edited to find only praise for Stalin.
As with source E, source F has many contributing factors that could make it unreliable. Bukharin had been an enthusiast for Stalin but became very sceptical of him only after falling into disgrace in 1929. After being disgraced Bukharin is hardly going to praise Stalin but he did approve of him beforehand. H every much supported Stalin over Trotsky for leadership of the party. From this we can say that either Bukharin realised Stalin’s ‘malicious’ and ‘devil’ like character before his disgrace or came to this conclusion as a result of them. He could have had this opinion of him beforehand and simply thought worse of Trotsky but his disgrace would be a larger influence. The simple fact that he is being so sharp and revengeful in his language for example “narrow minded, malicious man”, “not the first and best”, would also show that perhaps Bukharin is simply being vengeful. He can say and do as he pleases now and to join a movement of hate against Stalin would be fitting after his experience of him.
Overall I have concluded that both sources are quite unreliable as each carries and element of bias. Although each is unreliable in its own way I believe that source F would be a little more useful as evidence as source E seems more of a spur of the moment piece written by an uninformed citizen who was kept in the dark of all of Stalin’s intentions.
- Study sources G and H.
Do you trust Khrushchev’s assessments of Stalin? Use your own knowledge of Stalin to explain your answer.
Khrushchev’s analysis of Stalin is very excusing. He is a new leader controlling a massive country after the death of probably its most important leader and dictator ever. Khrushchev had a lot to live up to and had to be frank and truthful in his accounts of the leader or at least had to tell the crowds what they wanted to hear.
Khrushchev’s analysis of Stalin seems quite accurate in relation to some opinions of him for example those that believed he was a ruthless and harsh dictator. Khrushchev must account for the mistakes and mishaps that Stalin encountered but cannot be too critical as, after all Khrushchev is still a communist and must protect the interests of the party. Also Khrushchev knows that Stalin was such a powerful and respected leader that his influence was still amongst the people, and would be for a long time. Khrushchev’s speech is a way for him to get the business of Stalin and any bad feeling and knowledge of his actions out of the way early in so that the country and party could move on and forget the mistakes of the earlier years.
By facing the reality that Stalin was only a man and was an extremely powerful figure that perhaps was corrupted by this, gave Khrushchev the opportunity to make excuses for this and explain that Stalin did what he did in the interests of the party and the people. Khrushchev manages to convince us that Stalin was a heavily burdened leader that had no choice but to rule unconventionally at least some times. He makes us feel sorry for Stalin and the pressures he had and so is successful in inciting forgiveness from which his reign can begin.
There are several viewpoints from which Khrushchev’s analysis can be scrutinised. Khrushchev was, after all, a member of the great USSR when Stalin was leader and may have been another of those who worshipped him as a God. Stalin had a great affect on many millions of people Khrushchev may be another example of a devoted follower. Khrushchev may have played down Stalin’s failures and flaws as he was a supporter and would not want to see Stalin in a negative way. There was probably a lot more criticism of Stalin that Khrushchev could have made mention of as Stalin as only a human being and was capable of a lot worse in his position of power.
Khrushchev had been brave and bold to begin his reign with criticism of Stalin. In recent years any such talk would be met with the death penalty and there must be some truth in his statements, as if there was no need to put down his former worshipped leader why would Khrushchev risk the repercussions. He has at least made some criticism of Stalin and possibly this could be the worst we can find on such a respected leader as Stalin was. He may have been an oppressor and tyrant but Stalin won the hearts of his people and possibly they do not want to criticise a leader that they so faithfully trusted. Khrushchev had made an analysis of his former leader that could not be too harsh or too praised after all his reign had only just ended and Stalin was very much still a figure in many peoples lives.
- Study sources I and J.
How far do these sources agree about Stalin’s “show trials”? Explain your answer.
Each of the sources is a depiction of Stalin’s ‘show trials’ and each source shows that Stalin was the major influence in these. Source I shows a trial that was clearly quite pointless as outside the gallows had already been prepared and each defendant is laughably happy to admit their guilt. Each source was published in countries free to express their opinion; I was published in America and J in France. I again shows Stalin as the judge in a case he has set up to show his power. Each source has a clear distinction in their opinion of the show trials, each seems positive that the ‘show trials’ were set up and closely controlled by Stalin himself. There would be no mercy or verdict of not guilty and in no circumstance was Stalin to bad in a bad light.
Source I shows that even those on trial were not allowed to spoil Stalin’s so called justified purges. The way that each defendant is so lack in their admitting of guilt with no thought for the consequence and eventually their own death. It is highly suspicious that clearly important men, dressed smartly in suits, should simply admit guilt and die without even a defensive word. Each source outlines the highly suspicious nature of the ‘show trials’ and the way that Stalin’s domination of them left all involved with no alternative but to think like Stalin and deliver the verdict he wanted, guilty with no doubt. Stalin has overall power in each source showing that this is how the cartoonists in each country viewed the unfairness of the trials.
Although there are some differences between each cartoon they both seem to be trying to show the unfair and deeply suspicious nature of the trials and the way that Stalin controlled them unregulated.
Source J is much more focused on Stalin’s involvement; it does not show any of the other figures involved such as his associates or even the types of people being accused and their reaction to this. Source I covers a range of factors and addresses many different contributing features of the trials. I goes into more depth over Stalin’s involvement and J shows a wider scope over the trials. They show a go into detail over the same topic and focus often on the same matters but each covers a different feature of the trials.
- Study sources L and M.
Compare what these two sources say about Stalin.
“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” is a popular view on Stalin. In each source the writer comments on Stalin’s progression from a person who was not necessarily a saint to an evil corrupt powerful figure.
Both sources are written in Britain and so it is likely that they are bias, but as they were impartial witnesses to the progression of Stalin’s character.
Source L’s account of his character is quite praising. Even though there is a free environment to say as he wishes, the writer has chosen to praise Stalin’s skills and positive aspects as a successful politician and leader.
Source M is less willing to praise Stalin’s qualities but is more inclined to look past any successes and only to the tyranny and oppression that was his leadership and power. Source M makes excuses for some of Stalin’s terror but makes a blunt statement that there was no illustrious power but only Stalin’s ability to rule through intimidation and power.
Each source deals with Stalin’s terror in different ways. Source L comments on his attributes as a skilled competitive politician but that the other side to his ruthlessness is his dark and evil character. Source M explains that his tyranny was a necessary evil to rule and be respected the way he was.
- Using the sources in this paper and your knowledge of Stalin explain whether or not you think he was a monster.
The many opinions of Stalin cover a wide spectrum from respect and admiration to pure hate and distrust. As much as Stalin disliked it he was a mere human being who, in time, became one of the most powerful men in the world. Stalin had a passion for communism and for the people he represented, if he didn’t then why would he go to such immense trouble to become leader and dictator of USSR. Stalin ultimate aim was to build an USSR worthy of its size and potential strength. With a succession of five-year plans and the success of many policies Stalin turned the USSR around. It was transformed into an industrially successful country by the knowledge and genius of Stalin.
Stalin was a harsh and malicious dictator but he also wanted the best for his country, he wanted to prove to the world the might of the Soviet State and what it was capable of. I think that Stalin was a leader who thought that disciplining and treating his people harshly would get results. Stalin wanted a successful nation at a cost he was willing to bare and if that cost meant millions of lives to achieve his dream of a super power in the USSR then Stalin was willing to go to any length.
I do not believe Stalin was a monster, I believe he was a very sly and manipulative politician who got to where he did by being clever and sneaky. I also believe that he was passionate about communism and he wanted to see the USSR as a great money-maker and a country that did not need to depend on others. He wanted to make the USSR self-sufficient so that they could prove there own worth and place in the world. I believe Stalin was a devoted leader who was corrupted by the power he held and paranoid man it made him.
8. Use the sources and your knowledge of Stalin and Soviet history to explain why
There has been disagreement about Stalin.
Stalin was the leader of one of the largest and important countries in the world in a time when the relations between the countries of the world were at their most fragile. There is always going to be much speculation on such a powerful and interesting figure. Stalin managed to not only bring the USSR through the war but helped it emerge as a superpower at an immense cost and suffering to his own people. He was also responsible for the purge of every one of his opposition in 1936-38. Stalin did all that he could to stop any negative press on him an also emerged as a paranoid and suspicious man so it is difficult to know what sort of a person Stalin really was. Being such an interesting and important character in history means that there are going to be thousands of opinions and theories based on him and that he was such a an unknown personality only makes the thirst for knowledge and interest in him greater.
There is so much to know and find out about this great leader and the character that drove him to such decisions. There are many interpretations of Stalin and his policies and leadership. There was a whole country of people who worshipped him as a god and other allied countries that believed him to be a malicious tyrant. There is bound to be much disagreement over the person everyone thought that Stalin was and what his real intentions were, was he acting in pursuit of greatness for his people or to being an evil and malicious man? There are many different sides to the story and many angry, hurt and deeply affected people with their own interpretation of Stalin. There is a lot to be said of this man and so disagreement and differing opinion will occur as we will never truly know the mind of such a man and all powerful leader as Stalin is part of history and we will never know the whole truth about him.