How Useful Is Source D?
This document is an anecdote, which was written by Stalin in 1945. Stalin is recalling an incident that occurred thirty years before, between 1900 and before the Bolshevik revolution, when he was exiled in Siberia. This was written at a time when the Russians were drawing to a close the Second World War and the cold war was beginning to set in. This was not a war as such but a period of hostile relations between the Capitalist Western countries and the communist Russians.
This source was written to portray Stalin as a caring and compassionate man. We know this because Stalin shows concern for comrade who was swept away by the river to his death. This could be to show the Americans and the rest of the Capitalist World that Communism was not bad and that Stalin cared for his people, despite what other sources that people might have heard to the contrary.
Stalin mentions how he was in exile in Siberia. It may seem strange that Stalin would want to disclose a fact as it might seem to tarnish his ‘god-like’ reputation that he was once an ‘enemy’ of Russia. This is not the case because he was in exile for his communist views and so it depicts him as a person who is dedicated to communism and determined to stick to his communist views, whatever the penalty.
The source portrays the people beneath Stalin as not caring about the people. We know this because the source says, ‘Why should we be concerned about men? We can always make another man’. This could be to blame them for the problems of Russia and make them scapegoats. Stalin might also want to use this source to say to the Capitalist nations of the world that any stories that they may have heard about Russia were not his fault, but the people beneath him. This could be to portray a positive image of communism at the start if the cold war and so gain support with countries occupied by the Red Army, after pushing back the Germans to Germany. It could also be a ‘reason’ as to why he purged members of the communist party. It may be to counteract the atrocities that the Red Army performed, especially to the German population during and after the Second World War.
Although this source is partly reliable as Stalin was indeed exiled to Siberia, we know that Stalin was not so compassionate to his people because he purged between eight and fourteen million Russians so there is an element of hypocrisy as Stalin portrayed one image but was in fact a very different person.
This source was written over thirty years since the event occurred and is subjective as there is no evidence to confirm that this event actually took place apart from Stalin’s word. Stalin often lied to the Russian public, such as in the show trials of Kamenev, Zinoviev and numerous other members of the communist party where he claimed that they had committed many acts against the State when in truth this is extremely unlikely. This means that Stalin may have written this source simply to make himself seem like a caring and compassionate man when he in fact ordered many Russians to their deaths, such as On 12th December 1938 Stalin signed the death sentence of 3182 innocent people and then went to watch a film in the evening.
This source is useful as an example of Russian propaganda and an example of the cult of personality that Stalin built up to secured his position. He tried to make himself seem like a hero by placing statues in various urban areas and renaming many towns and cities after him.
Which of the two sources is the more reliable?
Source E was written about Stalin by a writer who used it in a speech to the congress of Soviets in 1935. The speech was published in the official newspaper of the communist party, Pravda (which ironically translates as truth as it was censored by the ‘socialist realism’ policy).
This source was spoken just after the first five-year plan (1928-32) had been completed. The aim of the plan was to set high industrial targets to modernise Russia from a backward peasant society to a modern industrial state, able to withstand the treat of a foreign invasion.
This source tells us that Stalin was very popular and that meeting him was seen as a great honour, it also tells us that he would be regarded in history as a great man.
The writer is speaking to the congress of Soviets in 1935 and so, in order to not become a victim of the purges, he would only compliment Stalin and would not say anything that Stalin might find offensive. The author’s speech would have to conform to the ‘socialist realism’ policy, which censored all music lyrics, journalistic pieces, books and paintings to ensure that nothing offensive about Stalin was written. The fact that it was published in the official paper of the communist party, ‘Pravda’ means that it is likely that the source is simply another piece of Soviet propaganda, designed to convince the Russian people that Stalin was to be looked upon as a god. The author exaggerates several times in the source, ‘Thy name is engraved on every factory, every machine, every place on earth, and in the hearts of all men’. ‘I am so well and joyful’ could be untruthful as a great many Russian lived in fear of their lives and living conditions were poor. This is a subjective source and so cannot be believed fully.
In this source, there are many points, which can be backed up by facts. We know that there were a great number of people who genuinely liked Stalin for he achieved in five years what had taken the industrialised nations in the West (i.e. the Capitalist countries) fifty to one hundred years. Although many parts of the source are exaggerated, there is an element of truth in them. For instance, ‘Thy name is engraved on every factory, every machine, every place on earth, and in the hearts of all men’ may seem to be a great exaggeration, but it does contain a great deal of truth in it. Most factories had a picture of Stalin and many inventions were also named after Stalin. The reference to, ‘and in the hearts of all men’ and ‘every place on earth’, could be showing that Stalin tried to make himself seem like a hero by placing statues in various urban areas and renaming many towns and cities after him. The hearts of all men could also include the fact that Russians were bombarded by propaganda telling them how great Stalin was and how much better off they were than they had been under the Tsar. The reference to, ‘and in the hearts of all men’ could mean that everybody feared Stalin as he purged between eight to fourteen million Russians. He inflicted fear to motivate the Russia people; therefore, whenever they were performing a task, Stalin would be in their minds, and their hearts as members of their family might have been purged. In the first line, ‘I am so well and joyful’, implies that he was happy under Stalin’s reign. This could be true as a great many people were happy as Literacy doubled, what had taken the Western countries fifty to one hundred years took Russia only 10. Production rose, suppressing Germany; projects such as the Moscow underground and the Dneiper Dam were constructed and new cities were built.
Bukharin, who supported Stalin against Trotsy as Lenin’s successor, spoke in Paris in 1936. Source F is an extract from this speech.
This source was spoken just after the first five-year plan (1928-32) had been completed. The aim of the plan was to set high industrial targets to modernise Russia from a backward peasant society to a modern industrial state, able to withstand the treat of a foreign invasion.
This source tells us that Stalin was paranoid and that he tries to make himself believe that he is the greatest man who ever lived. It also claims that he is a ‘devil’ which is in stark contrast to source E.
Source F was created from a speech in Paris in 1936. At this time, Paris was a democratic country and so allowed freedom of speech. This means that the speech that Bukharin gave would not have been censored. He also refers to the assassination of Kirov as he says, ‘If anyone speaks better than he does, that man is for it! Stalin will not let him live’. Kirov was a rival of Stalin and Stalin’s N.K.B.D. trained Nikolayev to shoot him. Stalin organised Kirov’s murder and then covered his tracks and Kirov’s bodyguard was clubbed to death. The assassination of Kirov gave Stalin an excuse to issue a decree sanctioning the death penalty for acts of terror. Bukharin himself has had first hand experience of Stalin and Stalin’s personality and has not had to rely on secondary information. The fact that Bukharin was purged also suggests that Stalin was indeed paranoid, as he could have purged Bukharin for speaking negatively of him, proving Bukharin’s point that Stalin disapproved of anybody who did not speak highly of Stalin.
In general, Bukharin is saying that Stalin’s propaganda machine convinces everyone, including Stalin himself that he is a great man who is worthy of a god-like status. Stalin’s insecurity is highlighted by historical facts; such as he purged 3/5 Marshals and 50,000 troops, even though this weakened the army as it contained inexperienced commanders who had simply won favour with Stalin. Stalin also purged eight to fourteen million people, most of whom were innocent of the ‘crimes’ that they were accused of.
Although Bukharin has had first hand experience of Stalin and Stalin’s personality and has not had to rely on secondary information, this does not mean that what he is saying is accurate. This is because the source states that Bukharin ‘fell into disgrace in 1929’ and so may bear a grudge against Stalin and want to criticise him. He is also speaking in Paris, which is the Capital city of France, a capitalist nation. Due to his surroundings, he may have been influenced to criticise Stalin, as Russia was communist and was allied with Germany, to whom France and Britain were at war with. He has injected emotion into the source as he claims that Stalin was a ‘devil’. This means that the source is subjective and that it is his own personal opinion and there are few historical facts to endorse this and so it could be simply an enraged speaker criticising a leader of a communist country, after falling into disgrace from being a close advisor of Stalin.
From this essay, I have demonstrated that both of the sources contain sections that are reliable, and sections, which are unreliable. Both sources are reliable, but not fully as they are both subjective and so cannot be relied upon completely. Although Stalin did not censor one source, it does not necessarily mean that this is more reliable than the one that has undergone censorship. Therefore I can conclude that neither source is unreliable as they both contain inaccuracies and valuable evidence.
Do You Trust Khrushchev’s Assessments Of Stalin?
Source G was taken from a speech by Khrushchev, the leader of Russia after Stalin’s death. Khrushchev was a member of the communist party and so would not have to rely on secondary sources. At the time of this speech, Khrushchev would have been beginning a process of ‘destalinisation’. The worst excesses of Stalinism that Solzhenitsym had called a gulag archipelago (a chain of labour camp islands) were being removed. Places were renamed which had had their names changed under the disaster. Statues were destroyed and pictures of Stalin were destroyed. The scene of one of the most horrific battles of the Second World War was renamed from Stalingrad to Volgograd.
Source G contains several inaccuracies. At the time that Khrushchev spoke to the Soviet Communist Party in 1956, Khrushchev was not sure as to whether Stalin’s policies still had supporters who were prepared to continue purging. Khrushchev was from the same political party as Stalin (probably because Russia was at that time a one party state). This means that he would have to agree, at least initially with the policies that Stalin introduced during his reign because otherwise he would look like a hypocrite. Khrushchev perhaps thought that, although Russia needed ‘destalinising’ and that it was better to do it gradually so as to ‘test the water’ and ensure that no supporters of Stalin disposed of Khrushchev.
Source G gives us reasons for the actions of Stalin. Khrushchev says that ‘this should be done in the interests of the party and of the working masses’. This was true because although Stalin purged between 8-14 million people during his reign of power. Many great achievements were created. Production of steel, iron, electricity and coal rose by vast amounts. What had taken the Capitalist nations of the West fifty to one hundred years took Russia just ten years. Projects such as the Moscow underground and the Dneiper dam were created. Literacy doubled in urban areas and new cities were created. Out of a population of one hundred and twenty five million, eight to fourteen million people were purged. This is a relatively small percentage, about ten percent. It could be said that ten percent of the population of the population suffered to benefit the ‘masses’ (the other ninety percent) as well as future generations. Khrushchev claims in this source that Stalin was a utilitarianist, who purged a minority, so that the majority and future generations might benefit from Stalin’s policies. The source is interesting as Khrushchev mentions, publicly although it was a supposedly secret speech, about the ‘terror and executions’. This suggests that the policy of ‘socialist realism’ has been relaxed to allow the ‘covered up’ aspects of Stalin’s regime to be released. This means that the source could be more accurate than it would have been under the reign of Stalin as there was no censorship. Khrushchev does not say in this source anything of his own opinions of Stalin, excluding ‘we cannot say that these were the deeds of a mad despot’. Khrushchev simply states Stalin’s justifications of the results of Stalin’s reign of power. This means that the source is probably true because he does not include his own opinion and so the source is objective.
Source H is an extract from a speech at the same event as source G. Khrushchev was a member of the communist party and so would not have to rely on secondary sources. At the time of this speech, Khrushchev would have been beginning a process of ‘destalinisation’. The worst excesses of Stalinism that Solzhenitsym had called a gulag archipelago (a chain of labour camp islands) were being removed. Places were renamed which had had their names changed under the disaster. Statues were destroyed and pictures of Stalin were destroyed. The scene of one of the most horrific battles of the Second World War was renamed from Stalingrad to Volgograd.
Source H describes Stalin as being very distrustful of people, almost to the point of paranoia. This is true because Stalin purged thirteen out of fifteen generals and in 1934, there were one thousand, nine hundred and sixty-six delegates at the party congress, by 1936 only eight hundred and fifty eight remained. This evidence supports Khrushchev’s statement that ‘this suspicion created in him a general distrust towards party members he had known for years’. Another piece of evidence that we can use here is the assassination of Kirov. On 1st December 1934 Nikolayev, who bore a grudge against Kirov entered Kirov’s building and shot Kirov. Nikolayev had been trained by the N.K.B.D., which was lead by Yagoda. Kirov was awarded a full state funeral but Stalin’s response was to issue a decree sanctioning the death penalty against acts of terror. Stalin organised Kirov’s murder and then covered his tracks. Nikolayev was shot and Kirov’s bodyguard was clubbed to death.
Khrushchev also says that ‘everywhere he saw enemies, ‘double dealers’ and spies’. This is probably a reference to the show trials of the high ranking party members – in 1934, there were one thousand, nine hundred and sixty-six delegates at the party congress, by 1936 only eight hundred and fifty eight remained. Stalin believed that Trotsky had too much power and so had him deported and then killed him in 1940. This source agrees with the fact that Stalin was deeply distrustful of foreigners because he thought that they were capitalist spies. This is true because the ‘commitern’ that Trotsky set up to export communism worldwide was disbanded because Stalin did not trust foreigners.
The words of Khrushchev state that Stalin was ‘a very distrustful man, very suspicious’. This was true because to have somebody sent to the gulags, all that one had to do was to denounce the person as a traitor or claim that they were an enemy of Stalin. This source is quite reliable as it is an objective source as it uses words spoken by Stalin. Although this source is in stark contract to source F, this is probably because in the source F, Khrushchev thought that, although Russia needed ‘destalinising’ and that it was better to do it gradually so as to ‘test the water’ and ensure that no supporters of Stalin disposed of Khrushchev.
I think that both of the sources are accurate but source F contains several points that could be classed as unreliable. Despite this, my conclusion is that the sources can be trusted.