Stalin proved that he was far more interested in making industry better than keeping people alive, so in truth, Stalin would represent the men “hurrying away to water the mare” whereas the people of Russia were Stalin in Stalin’s story. Stalin reversed the roles to gain support of people.
I don’t think this source provides any useful information other than showing what a two faced man Stalin was, not only was he causing the deaths of millions of people he was also getting support from those same people. He was making them think he was a good man and the other leaders were to blame, this giving him reason to exile them too. He ordered the deaths of anyone who said a bad word about him; anyone he didn’t like was tortured into admitting crimes they never committed.
- Study Sources E and F. Which of these two sources is the more reliable? Explain your answer.
Although I wouldn’t class either source as very reliable, I think Source F is more reliable than E.
Because Bukharin used to be a supporter of Stalin he had seen both the good and the bad side of Stalin, but Stalin had exiled him and had every reason to exaggerate everything he said to make Stalin seem worse. Bukharin talks about Stalin the same way two friends talk about each other after an argument, source F seems like Bukharin is just looking for ways to show everyone he’s brave enough to face Stalin. Bukharin sounds like a hurt schoolboy who lost a conker fight to Stalin, and it makes it difficult to take this source seriously because it doesn’t really make any realistic points or explain what it does say.
Source E is very over the top and I think that the man that wrote this was probably so scared of Stalin that he wanted to keep on the good side of him to avoid being exiled like many other innocent men. The lengths this source goes to I would think that the man that wrote it doesn’t like Stalin and is being very fearful and sarcastic, or he is out of his mind. I don’t think a sane man could right something like this, therefore making it unreliable.
Both sources are purely opinion and have no facts in them to back up anything said, so I wouldn’t think either of them were reliable. Bukharin is less exaggerated and I can understand why he has said some of what he said, for instance “Stalin will not let him live, because that man is a constant reminder that he, Stalin, is not the first and best.” This is believable because every opponent Stalin had was exiled or killed, as if Stalin wanted to avoid any confrontation with competition, he was so afraid of losing that he made sure there was no one to lose to.
- Study sources G and H. Do you trust Khrushchev’s assessments of Stalin? Use your knowledge of Stalin to explain your answer.
Both sources G and H are from Khrushchev’s speeches, both in 1956, after Stalin’s death, and when Khrushchev was the Russian leader. Khrushchev didn’t need to lie about Stalin as there was no threat from him any more, but if people had thought Stalin was great while he started abusing him then he may have lost support.
Source G is making excuses for Stalin. He is saying that Stalin’s intentions were good, but his actions were evil. He is saying that Stalin didn’t use terror and execution for the sake of communism but he dismissed able politicians and army officers because they had different opinions to his. This was done in the interests of Stalin instead of the interests of his people. If Stalin had wanted to help his people then he wouldn’t have purged the good army officers. Trotsky and Bukharin for example, were purged because they disagreed with Stalin.
Source G could be looked at in 2 ways; it could indicate that Stalin is mad, saying that he was convinced terror and murder were good things. You could also see it as Khrushchev making excuses for Stalin, saying the Stalin thought it was the only way. Although Khrushchev is making excuses for Stalin he only mentions the terror he bought to the country, he mentions nothing of the way Stalin brought industry into the twentieth century.
Source H is from the same year as source G, but Khrushchev has become a lot more negative towards Stalin than he was in source G. In source H, Khrushkev is very open, possibly trying to put the point across that he isn’t Stalin’s heir, and he will do things differently. Source H suggests that everyone that came close to Stalin died. “This suspicion created him a general distrust towards party workers he had known for years” This happened to Bukharin, who was turned upon even after helping Stalin win over Trotsky.
From my knowledge I know that there was terror and executions in Russia. Stalin had secret police (NKVD) and there were purges and labour camps.
I don’t totally trust Khrushchev’s assessment of Stalin because his view changes so dramatically within one year, and he contradicts himself. Source G says Stalin considers terror and executions should be done in the interests of the party and the working masses.
- Study sources I and J. How far do these sources agree about Stalin’s ‘show trials’? Explain your answer.
Source I shows four men in wild poses claiming happily that they’re guilty of all charges and that they’re traitors. The four men look insane, and I believe this is because Stalin tortured people past the point of insanity to make them admit to crimes they didn’t commit. Source J shows how Stalin controls everything, he is everyone and he is everywhere. This source makes no mention of the insanity caused on the accused, so I think that the sources agree that if you’re at the trial because Stalin wants you there, nothing is going to stop Stalin from getting his way in the end because he has ultimate control over everyone. I think source I has stronger opinions against Stalin, because it shows how he corrupted the minds on the innocent and sane, suggesting he had total power, whereas source J gives the obvious that he has power, with nothing else mentioned.
- Study sources L and M. Compare what these two sources say about Stalin.
Source L is a balanced source, giving two sides to Stalin’s character. It is quite reliable as it was published in 1983, well after Stalin’s death and in Britain, where there was no point to prove to anyone by lying. The author is putting his/her opinion across “It is my belief….”
He isn’t stating things that may or may not be true, he is stating his opinion and making it clear that it isn’t fact.
Source M is more negative about Stalin. It is saying that Stalin was corrupted by absolute power, which means that he wasn’t always evil but too much power and pressure made him crack. The writer of source L would have had more information available do him when he wrote the source, because it was later after Stalin’s death than source M was, so he could have had a more balanced view.
Source L describes Stalin as a skilled and gifted politician, a great political figure whereas source M describes him as a ruthless politician and that his rule was absurd.
Both sources agree on the fact that Stalin had evil in his blood, even if they think it got there in different ways. Source L talks about the skill Stalin possessed, and how he used it the wrong way because of his attitude and thoughts. Source M concentrates on how Stalin was evil and corrupt, and ignores all the skills and talents he so clearly had.
- Using the sources in this paper and your knowledge of Stalin explain whether or not you think he was a monster.
Stalin was a very gifted politician; he had the skill needed to rule a country like the Soviet Union. He devised the five-year plans, which brought Russia into the twentieth century when it had previously backward. He also modernised agriculture through collectivisation.
Source B shows Stalin standing by a new hydroelectric power station with some of the workers. It shows him as happy and relaxed, being looked upon to be a man of the people but still being clearly superior because of the white suit and posture.
Source D shows Stalin as a caring person, who was not always a leader but he was one of the people before he entered power. He is shown to value individuals highly and is seen as a saviour.
Source E gives the impression Stalin was adored and thought of as a God figure, using the phrase “thy name” and describing Stalin as beautiful, wise, marvellous, strong, charming, and great.
Although Stalin was gifted he had a very bad side to him. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions of Kulaks (rich peasants) with no right to trial, the purges, labour camps, executions, show trials, NKVD, and censorship. He destroyed all his competition and kept to power by scaring people so much that they couldn’t speak out or object in any way for fear of death.
Source A pictures Stalin as a monster, emphasising the point that Stalin causes death and that is what the USSR will be famous for.
Source H describes Stalin as distrustful and suspicious of everyone. Khrushchev says how Stalin turns against people he worked with and known for years. Bukharin being purged was a perfect example of this.
Source M says Stalin was corrupt, a ruthless politician and a monstrous tyrant. Stalin is said to have gone from bad to worse, using fear to hide his weaknesses.
Overall most of the sources are saying that Stalin was a monster. The reliability of the sources must be taken into consideration, especially seeing as it was in the time of the censorship. Also, any foreign sources were from countries afraid of communism that they would show anything to make their people see capitalism was better, for example sources A, I and J.
Sources B, C, E and K are sources written at the time of Stalin, in Russia, and so were subjected to censorship. They had to be complimentary towards Stalin because of this, and they were scared of what Stalin would do to them, e.g. purge them or send them to labour camps.
Source F is a speech from Bukharin at the time of Stalin, but in France so there was no fear of censorship. This is an unreliable source because Stalin turned upon Bukharin after he helped Stalin against Trotsky. He had a reason to seek revenge on Stalin.
Source D is a speech written by Stalin so is going to be biased towards himself, as he wouldn’t want to put the message across that he was a monster Stalin was trying to promote himself.
Taking the sources at face value my conclusion would be that Stalin was a monster, as the majority of them seem to suggest this is true. However, given that almost all of the sources are unreliable I have decided that Stalin had a mixed character. He was a gifted politician but had very cruel and heartless methods of improving the country.
- Use the sources and your knowledge of Stalin and Soviet history to explain why there has been disagreement about Stalin.
The sources all convey a different picture of Stalin. Although most of them are unreliable they still show that Stalin was viewed in many different ways.
There are many reasons for this, it was partly because everyone has a slightly different opinion of things to each other, and, as there are so many sources, opinions are bound to differ to quite an extent. The sources were written for many different reasons, and for each different reason there would be a different way of portraying the opinions.
The Western countries feared communism and tried to make it look bad. There was lots of propaganda and censorship around this making the majority of the sources unreliable. A good example of propaganda is D, where Stalin is promoting himself as being caring and attentive to detail. This could be a lie, or it could be true, or it could be totally exaggerated out of proportion to make himself look good.
There is disagreement about Stalin because everyone had such strong opinions that were different to everyone else’s. Because everyone thought differently to each other, people began to exaggerate their reasons for their own opinions, making lots of information we have today very unreliable.
Stalin scared people, he urged them on, and by doing this he made Russia what it is today. The price Russia paid for that was the lives of millions. Without the fear Stalin gave people Russia would not be nearly as advanced today, for that Stalin was a great man.
It is a matter of whether the freedom of the individual was more important that the freedom of the nation. In the end the USSR was brought into the twentieth century, and equality was provided, but Russia’s sacrifices were huge.
