Stalin: Man or monster?

reliable.   Source E is part of a speech written by a writer to the congress of Soviets in 1935. It was published in the communist party paper. This means that is very likely to be supporting Stalin due to the strict censoring of critical propaganda. This means it will be biased to an extent. However, it is the writer's personal opinion of Stalin and the speech praises him as a great leader. These feelings of appreciation and gratitude would’ve been true, but at the same time, very exaggerated. The basic message of the source, that the writer was privileged to be a part of Stalin's reign, can be taken as reliable, but the magnitude of these emotions would’ve been ‘enhanced’.   Source F is also a speech. It is from Nikolai Bukharin speaking in Paris in 1936. It is deeply critical of Stalin. It states: “He is a narrow-minded malicious man.” Bukharin would’ve felt this way because of his personal experiences with Stalin. He was a supporter and political ally of Stalin during the fight for power after Lenin's death. He fell out of favour in 1929 and was a victim of the purges in 1938. He would’ve felt this way because he appeared to be stabbed in the back by Stalin. This leads me to believe that the source will be extremely biased against Stalin.   It is difficult to evaluate the reliability of these sources, as they are both personal opinions based upon experiences of Stalin, very opposite experiences. Despite this, I believe that source F is more reliable. This is because source E would have been completely ‘manufactured’ by the communist government in order to give the best possible impression of Stalin. There is also evidence to support source F. Stalin exiled many politicians, such as Trotsky or Kamenev, who were in the same situation as Bukharin. Stalin is also shown being “malicious” during the purges when he ordered millions of deaths and exiles, not to mention the millions of Kulaks who suffered from collectivisation. I would also distrust source E as the majority of Russians would not have benefited from increased standards of living.Khrushchev is being anti-Stalin. The official Communist view of the purges backs up Khrushchev’s reasons for the terror used by Stalin. Khrushchev says, “Stalin was convinced that the use of terror and executions were necessary for the defence of Socialism and Communism.” These can be seen in action during the purges when millions of people were killed or exiled because of Stalin's suspicions of involvement with Trotsky. “Trotsky and his contemptible friends organised in the USSR gangs of murderers, wreckers and spies,” (taken from the official Soviet history textbook). This Soviet view is likely to be biased in favour of Stalin. They would be trying to explain away the events of the purges to make people believe that it was for the good of the USSR. They would try therefore to vindicate Stalin. However, Khrushchev goes on to criticise Stalin's nature. “Stalin was a very distrustful man, very suspicious.” The evidence backs this up; politicians that he had known for years were being exiled, Bukharin and Zinoviev for example, and it appeared as if he was persecuting a random cross-section of society because he believed they were working with Trotsky.   Stalin's suspicions were not the only reason for the purges. He had to make examples of people in order to scare any potential critics from standing up to him. This was a way of defending Socialism and Communism, and also an example of the “terror and execution” that Stalin used.   This source is deeply critical of Stalin, and it does not make any mention of the good that Stalin did for Russia, such as improving the economy to the second best in the world and consequently protecting Russia from Nazi invasion in 1941. It can be argued that the methods used (terror and execution) were necessary for this to happen.   I do trust what Khrushchev has said, however much of it could be exaggerated in order for him to win support from critics of Stalin now that he has taken over. I also believe that we have to evaluate the successes of Stalin's rule when we are making an accurate evaluation of Stalin and his reign in Russia.Source I is a cartoon published in America. It is about the ‘show trials’ which took place in Russia in the 1930s. It depicts four leading politicians, possibly Bukharin, Zinoviev, Rykov and Kamenev, answering charges put to them by Stalin and his chief prosecutor Vyshinsky. This is a ‘show trial’. These trials took place in the 1930s in Russia. There was a pre-decided verdict of guilty to charges such as sabotage and treachery. The trials ended in execution or exile for the defendant. There were three main trials: Zinoviev and Kamenev in 1936, another in 1937 and the trial of Rykov and Bukharin in 1938.  In the cartoon, all of the defendants are cheekily grinning and admitting to their crimes. It is an American source so it will be anti-Stalin, and consequently I think that this implies that the show trials were a farce and the confessions were blatantly false and forced.   I believe that this cartoon is saying that Stalin is able to put anyone on a false trial and can execute anyone he wants. It also shows him having no regard for his fellow Communists.   Source J shows a government consisting only of multiple Stalins. The title is: “The Stalinist constitution,” and the caption reads: “New seating arrangements in the Supreme Soviet.” It was published by Russian exiles in France in 1936. Therefore, it is very critical of Stalin and is saying that he is able to run Russia how he likes and that he is the sole decision-maker of the USSR.   Both of these sources are anti-Stalin and they agree that he is in charge and can manipulate Russia however he likes. However, they are both criticising different parts of his reign. Source I is critical of the way he treats people and the way he executed so many millions of people, whereas source J is pointing out that he is in the position of dictator and it is critical of the general way Stalin runs Russia, on his own.Source L says that Stalin was a great politician but goes on to say: “this does not mean he was a good man.” It also says he had a “dark and evil side”. This refers to the millions of deaths he ordered in the purges because of his suspicions that people were in league with Trotsky. It is likely to be a reliable source as it was from a biography of Stalin published in 1983 Britain. This meant that the historian had the benefit of hindsight and could look back over all the events, which he was not involved in.   Source M goes on to criticise him further. It says: “he was corrupted by absolute power.” It then goes on to say that the terror of his reign was necessary in order to “keep men obedient” and “to make them believe in him.” This source is also from a biography, this time from 1973 and is likely to be reliable.   Both sources agree that Stalin was a good politician, “greatest political figures of the twentieth century,” (source L) and “a ruthless politician,” (source M). However, they differ in the way they treat the bad side to his nature. Source L implies to me that the “dark and evil” side to his nature was not necessary for a successful reign whereas source M justifies him being a "“monstrous tyrant”. It says: “The terror was necessary, not only to keep men obedient, but even more to make them believe in him.” This means that without the terror of the reign, Stalin would not have been able to improve Russia in the ways that he did (economically and militarily).Joseph Stalin was definitely a ruthless politician and this came across in the way that he ruled Russia. However, can we really call him a monster?   It can be argued that he was a monster and a tyrant because of the millions of deaths he ordered during the purges and because of his “very suspicious mind” (source G). There is no doubt that he did order the purges, but there is question over the extent to which he can be held solely responsible. It is claimed that the secret police ‘got out of control’. There is also some justification for the many millions of deaths as explained in source G: “He considered this should be done in the interests of the party and the working masses,” in other words, to protect Russia from the democracy of the West. Source M also argues that the use of “terror and executions was necessary to keep men obedient and to make them believe in him.”   His policy of forced collectivisation also caused millions of deaths for the Kulaks, rich peasants, who refused to hand over their land to the state. This land was needed to produce food and raw materials needed for the policy of industrialisation. This was a policy that did work. Russia's economic standing improved from having only a five- percent share of the world economy to having about twenty percent in 1929. By this time Russia was also the second largest economic power in the world, second only to the USA. This enabled the Russians to defeat the Nazis in 1941. They were able to do this because of the power produced, from many stations like the one in source B, and also because of the mass production of tanks and weaponry in the factories. These factories were so successful because many people flocked from the country (seventeen million people, ten percent of the total population of the USSR at the time) to the factories in order to help their country. This is the major argument in favour of Stalin.   There were also advances in medicine and education, which became free and compulsory. This meant many people were able to read and write. This also helped Russia to become a modernised nation. However, despite this, living standards did not increase by much for the majority of the people. The popularity of the factories led to overcrowding in many city houses. Only six percent of houses in Moscow had more than one room. Harsh factory discipline also meant loss of lodgings for many people who were sacked for such crimes as being late or missing a deadline. You could also be put on trial for sabotage and exiled if you fell behind in production or missed a target set for you.   These people were joined in exile by many of Russia's politicians and great intellects such as Trotsky and Bukharin. Trotsky wrote source D whilst in Mexico in 1939, “characteristic of Stalin is personal physical cruelty,” and Bukharin wrote in Paris in 1936, ”he is a narrow-minded malicious man,” (source F). Stalin has been widely criticised for the extent to which he used these methods but it is also argued that it was necessary to do so to keep control over the Russian people.   The main criticism of Stalin is that he was responsible for thirty years of fear and terror, causing many millions of deaths in that time. The main defence of him being that he improved Russia's international standing to the extent that they were able to defeat a Nazi invasion in 1941. I believe that his strong style of leadership and forced policies were necessary to make people work for Russia and to believe in Stalin. I believe that the end result justified his methods. Therefore, I think that Stalin was not a monster, just a ruthless leader who was needed to realise the size and potential of Russia and also to get the best out of the people.I believe that there has been much disagreement about Stalin because of the extremities of his successes and failures, but also because of the way he ruled Russia.   The main argument against Stalin is that he caused the deaths of around ten million people. There is going to be doubt and controversy over any leader who causes so many deaths via execution without any substantial evidence against the victims. He also exiled many leading politicians and intellects, such as Bukharin (source F) and Trotsky (source D). If Stalin had not improved Russia's economy, by building factories and power stations (as in source B), to the extent that he did, and so they could fend off a Nazi invasion in 1941, we would all be condemning him as a monster and an awful successor to Lenin. However, he did. Many people argue that the human cost was too large, but conversely it is argued that the status of a world superpower is to be reached at all cost.   There is also much doubt over whether or not he was a true Communist. One of the aspects of Communism is to re-distribute the wealth of the nation amongst the people. In Stalinist Russia, this did not happen. Many people could not afford to eat or farm. This is shown by a quarter of the population of Kazakstan perishing due to starvation.   The Bolshevik revolution of 1917, led by Lenin, brought Communism to Russia, and got rid of the autocratic Tsarist system. One of the reasons why Stalin won the power struggle over Trotsky was his close association with Lenin. For this he was greatly respected. However, twenty years on, Stalin had only succeeded in bringing back an autocratic rule to Russia (as demonstrated in the cartoon of source J that shows a government session consisting only of many Stalins). He had killed ten million Russians but he had improved the Russian economy to a great extent. Because of these extreme differences between his weaknesses and successes there has been a high level of disagreement about whether Stalin really was a good thing to happen to Russia. There is also doubt over whether his style of rule was consistent with what Lenin and the 1917 revolution had strived to achieve. They got rid of autocracy, but for many people, Stalin only succeeded in bringing it back. This makes me unsure if Stalin was good for the people of Russia, as claimed in source K: “…ardent faith in the people.”