Even so, holes can still be picked in Source F. Bukharin fell into disgrace in 1929. His speech in Paris could be a man just trying to hurt Stalin because of a grudge. His speech could contain no truth at all and this was the first opportunity he had to get back at Stalin and still be safe. This is because there would have been no chance to do this back in Russia as Bukharin said, "Stalin will not let him live".
4.
The points that Khrushchev make, do explain many things about Stalin. Firstly about his method of leadership. He says "Stalin was convinced that the use of terror and executionswas necessary for the defence of socialism and communism." He's saying that is impossible to tell if he was mad as well but Stalin doing this for the good of the party. This could be true but to keep his country in fear so he could control them is one thing, but the extent that Stalin went to is another. For all of his purges to be justified as completely necessary and for the good of the party, is very unbelievable.
Khrushchev probably knows this, but he is just about top become the leader of Stalin's old party. Many people in this party are still believers that Stalin was a great ruler. If Khrushchev started contradicting everything Stalin stood for and fought for, then he wouldn't last very long. When Khrushchev feels safer that the party has confidence in him he begins to doubt and to question Stalin. "Stalin was a very distrustful man, very suspicious" Khrushchev is saying that the party wasn't safe with Stalin as ruler. He is saying he is better than Stalin was, more stable and trusting.
Personally I don't think these two sources are trustworthy. Khrushchev is using this speech and the assessments of Stalin to convince the party that he will prove to be a good leader. The things he was saying in the sources don't have to be true. Source G is telling the party that Stalin wasn't perfect but he did everything in the name of the party. Khrushchev was just trying to put doubt in the minds about Stalin. Source H was to finish off the thought of Stalin and all of the unstableness that went with him. Also to set the party up for its new leader this happened to be the one writing the speech, Khrushchev.
5.
Source I shows a "song and dance" routine where everyone knows what is going to happen. The men in the dock are very happy to admit their guilt. They make no effort to defend themselves. This shows that this can't be a real trial. Any man would try and defend themselves better than these are doing. "Yes. I'm guilty!" and "Sure, I tried to betray my country!" are examples of sarcastic mocking. Another detail to show this trial is a farce is that the gallows is set up already just outside the courtroom. The outcome has already been decided.
Source I has been drawn up by a very anti-communist country which means it will not be sympathetic to Russia and especially Stalin at all. The trial is still under the control of Stalin just like in source J. Here, not only is the Judge Stalin but also the Barrister, Clerk and jury is as well. This agrees with source I about the trials being a complete farce but doesn't go into as much detail. There is no clue to what the verdict might be; apart from it will be completely Stalin's decision. This cartoon doesn't show the defendants because they don't matter in these trials, their only there to be hanged:
The two sources agree that the show trials were false and under the complete control of Stalin. They both agree that the outcome could have been whatever Stalin decided. Sources I and J both define the trials as a travesty of justice. Where they differ is the little details. The gallows in the background of I to symbolise that the defendant's fate has already been decided. Also the defendants know this and have no problem with it. They are unbelievably happy with it proving that this trial is a sham. Source J decides that it is such a false trial that the defendant need not to be there.
6.
Both sources are from biographies of Stalin along time after he died. They are done by historians, which means there's a lot more chance of them being reliable and balanced and unlikely to be a product of propaganda. However these sources can still be biased as its reliability depends on the person who wrote it. Source L says that Stalin was a gifted man with a dark side. This is clearly stated, "Stalin was a very skilled, indeed gifted politician" he contradicts this at the end by saying "He had a dark and evil side to his nature." This source is well balanced in its self but strongly contradicts source M. Source does not believe that Stalin was a "gifted politician". In this source it says "Absolute power turned a ruthless politician into a monstrous tyrant." So he was not a man with a "dark side" but just a ruthless politician who was changed by the power he was given which caused him to flaunt it. This source goes on to talk about how poor Stalin was as a politician. "Without terror, who would have failed to notice the clear absurdity of Stalin's rule?" He says that Stalin wouldn't have been able to do anything by himself and could only convince people to believe in him by force. By saying this, the source sounds like it is trying to justify the terror.
The major contradiction between these two sources is the credibility of Stalin. Source L as I have said, says he was a very talented politician and he had a dark side because he was only human. Source M says that Stalin had no skill in being a politician using terror to make people believe in him and shouldn't have made leader. A reason why these sources differ could be that when Source M was written Communism was still around. Source M could have been helping to get rid of Communism.
7.
Stalin didn't have the best start in life. His father was an alcoholic shoemaker who left him with his mother when he was very young. He started making his name by robbing banks to fund his political exploits. He was exiled to Siberia twice from which he escaped both times.
From then on he made his way up the ranks of using skulduggery, manipulation and just plain deceit. When he finally became leader of the Soviet union some people believed that Stalin was warped by absolute power. Before he was in power he could have cared for human life.
Source D (i) shows this. In this source Stalin seems very different to the other men mentioned, but in a peculiar way. In this source, Stalin seems the only one who cares for the dead man. This of coarse can be propaganda as it is written by Stalin. However this "man of the people" idea is echoed in sources B and C.
In source C Stalin is shown in a friendly/ relaxed environment. Woman are reaching up with genuine enthusiasm. No fear is portrayed in this source at all. Source B goes even further , and has Stalin on the same level as his people, laughing and joking. This source is very pro Stalin which was probably part of propaganda. Even still it shows a hydroelectric dam. Hydro electricity was one of the things that Stalin gave to Russia.
Hydro electricity and propaganda could have easily made people believe deeply in Stalin. Source E is a classis example of this. "The men of all ages will call thy name, which is strong, beautiful, wise and marvellous." In some parts of Russia, news of the purges might not have spread that far. So in this man's eyes Stalin could be this incredibly great ruler. However this source is too sickly to be true. Also it was a speech to the congress of soviets and also it was published in Pravda. So this source is very censored. Source K delivers a very similar message but untrustworthy as a source for a different reason. It is censored not to offend Stalin, but also it is a great weapon in propaganda. Biographies are normally read to find the truth about the person they feature. If the biography is full of praise then people will honestly believe he is a great man.
Another conflict of opinions on Stalin was about his skill as a politician. As I have mentioned source K is unreliable to say he was a good politician but also source L mentions it. "It is my belief that Stalin was a skilled, indeed gifted politician." This was written in a biography of Stalin well after his influence had perished. This very believable source says he was a skilled very skilled politician with a dark side whereas source F says he was a poor politician who was turned into a monster by absolute power.
Another source with a similar view is source M. Here it quite clearly states that Stalin was a poor politician to start with and changed for the worse. "Absolute power turned a ruthless politician into a monstrous tyrant. " This source is from another biography and goes on to attack Stalin. "Without terror, who would have failed to notice the absurdity of Stalin's rule." More evidence of dislike towards Stalin. However this source was written at a time where the western world was desperately trying to get rid of communism and this would be used as propaganda.
Along side his political abilities is his method of leadership. Stalin was strange in the way he showed unbelievable cruelty to his people. Source G tries to justify this by saying "terror and executions was necessary for the defence of socialism" The terrible acts committed at the hands of Stalin cannot be justified under any aim. This was the dark side to Stalin that I talked about earlier and appears in the majority of sources.
As he thought that some of the purges he did were necessary he must have felt insecure. This is highlighted by Source H by the words "Stalin was a very distrustful man, very suspicious." This source goes on to say how this could have been affecting him "Everywhere he saw enemies double dealers and spies." This could be the reason why he was so paranoid and unable to stop the purges.
