Stalin: Man or Monster - Sources Questions
HISTORY COURSEWORK
STALIN: MAN OR MONSTER
) Source A gives us the impression of Stalin being a murderer, as there are pyramids of human skulls. This could represent the huge amounts of people he had killed, through labour or work camps. I know from my own knowledge and after studying Russia under Stalin's rule that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Therefore this source gives us a pretty good overview of what Stalin was like. Also we can sense a satisfaction or pride that Stalin has from himself after looking at source A. This can be sensed as Stalin is pointing to all the skulls as if it was a thing to be proud of. There is also a caption in the source saying "Visitez L'U.R.S.S. ses pyramides!" Which is another thing that the author uses to show us, Stalin's pride.
Source B on the other hand gives us a completely different impression of Stalin.
We see him in this source as a good leader that takes interest in his workers. The people shown (who are probably lower class workers) and Stalin are happy on the picture and it gives an impression of a happy, well ruled Russia. The picture is saying that Stalin is a carrying ruler and that he takes interest in even the low class people.
Source C seems to give a more similar impression to source B. It seems to show Stalin yet again as a man in a good relationship with his people; even a gentleman. In source C Stalin is shaking hands with the wives of the soldiers, the woman are happy and yet again we get a similar impression to source B of Stalin loving his people and them loving him.
Sources B and C give a very different impression about Stalin to source A, but tend to give a rather similar impression of the USSR leader between themselves. They both give the impression of Stalin as a good man, in good relations with his people while source A gives a totally different impression of Stalin; an evil man, perhaps even a monster.
2) Source D is written by Stalin himself, and therefore it is bound to provide at least some evidence about Stalin for example the way he thought. However, as it is written by Stalin himself it is bound to be biased- and so not fully reliable. Even though this source is mainly a story with a moral in it, told by Stalin probably for propaganda usage it does provide some useful evidence about Stalin and the type of a man he was.
Based on this source, one can assume that Stalin was a paranoid man; constantly worried about what people think of him and therefore trying to present himself as a nice and caring leader while at the same time giving the message that the other leaders are 'bad' and do not care for the ordinary Russian people.
As well as being paranoid, the source provides evidence as to the fact that Stalin was as well a manipulative man. Through telling what may seem as a simple story he is trying to get the ordinary average people to think he is a nice man, as he cares for them; this is proven by him in his story when he alone cares for the drowned man. The source is written in 1945; which is during the time that Stalin wanted to be popular amongst the Russian people, to be able to stay firmly in power, and therefore we see he used manipulation as a tool.
The source also provides evidence about the attitude that Stalin had towards the other leaders, it certainly would have to be negative in order for him to write in a way that portrays them in a bad light. He says they don't truly care about ordinary people and their lives. Which of course is true; as the communist leaders usually didn't care for non important members of the society and dealt with them ruthlessly; but what Stalin does not mention and in fact says the exact opposite is that neither did he really care for anyone apart from himself. (This could be seen as deep irony)
In other words he is trying to gain positive feelings from the people for himself alone.
As well he could be trying to create a society that likes him and sees him as the only good leader, and also a society that is good to one another. This Stalin might want to achieve in order so people will be good and not rebellious and cause problems in the country
Maybe not as important but the source also provides some useful evidence on Stalin and his background.
We can learn from the source that Stalin is was in exile in Siberia; this is a reliable piece of information as I know from my own knowledge on Stalin that he in fact did spend some time in Siberia in exile.
In conclusion I think that if one looks deep in the source, one will be able to find useful evidence about Stalin that matches with historical facts. Even though Stalin wrote it and the actual content is biased if one looks properly and studies the source carefully one can find a lot of evidence about the type of man Stalin was.
3) 'Pravda' was the communist party paper. Therefore we can not fully count on the reliability of source E which appeared in this paper, it is also biased. The published speech which source E is, could have been just part of Russian manipulation and propaganda. In fact it seems that way after reading it; the description of Stalin is very much exaggerated and "over the top". I know from my own studies that Stalin was a murderer 5,000,000 people starved to death because of him and his policies; he was a killer and not "wise and marvellous" as the writer describes him. This source is not particularly reliable, as we know that what it says about Stalin lies away from the truth. As well the speech was to the Congress of Soviets and therefore the man was in a way under pressure to say what he said, as for anything else he would have been imprisoned or killed, as were many men that tried to speak against Stalin. This makes it less reliable as we can not be at all sure whether the man means it and says what he thinks is the truth.
However, on the other hand we can not exclude a possibility that the source could hold some truth in it. The author of this speech could really believe in what he is saying, people were being brainwashed and indoctrinated all the time, leading to a belief that is expressed in the speech. Due to the heavy propaganda thousands of people actually truly believed in Stalin's greatness and that he is an inspired leader as we read in the source. Therefore the source could hold some reliability and it could be seen as a representative of what some Russians thought of Stalin at that time.
Also source E can be seen as reliable as it holds some truth about Stalin; twice in the source we come across the fact that Stalin was a strong man, this I think is quite true as you have to be strong to remain a leader of such a huge country till you die, and achieve what he did. Other single details in this source are also true such as the name carving on machines and factories; these little details that are true make the source seem at least a little reliable.
Source F certainly has some truth in it, or at least it shares a view that myself and many others hold about Stalin;
that he was paranoid, always worried whether there is someone better then him. In fact this view is also supported in source D an extract from Stalin where we can see that he is paranoid. I think that many historians and other sources support this view, which makes source F quite reliable, as well it written by somebody that would have known Stalin quite well. Bukharin at one time was close to Stalin ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Source F certainly has some truth in it, or at least it shares a view that myself and many others hold about Stalin;
that he was paranoid, always worried whether there is someone better then him. In fact this view is also supported in source D an extract from Stalin where we can see that he is paranoid. I think that many historians and other sources support this view, which makes source F quite reliable, as well it written by somebody that would have known Stalin quite well. Bukharin at one time was close to Stalin and would certainly know him well which adds to the reliability. As well alike to source E it has some single detail that I know from my historical knowledge that is true, such as that Stalin was not able to convince everyone that he is greater then everyone else; this is certainly true as after all he had opposition. We read in the source by Bukharin that Stalin got rid of anyone that was better then him-opposition. This anyone that studied Stalin Russia would know is true.
The opposition was not legal, and usually consisted of individual people, such as writers, doctors etc. These however were quickly removed.
On the other hand the source may not be fully reliable as we can sense almost anger and exaggeration; this would probably be because of the way Stalin treated Bukharin. He was a victim of Stalin's purges in 1938.
The words used are very strong and one would wonder how much truth is there and how much anger and seeking revenge. As well the author is speaking not in Russia but in Paris where he has nothing to fear; and probably wants to turn people against Stalin in his revenge.
In conclusion to the question which source is more reliable, I think that both hold some truth in them and are in a way important and both hold words of exaggeration caused by either fear or anger. Source E is certainly propaganda and therefore can never be fully reliable. Source F I think is the one that is slightly more reliable.
It does not cover much facts only talks about Stalin's personality; but what it says seems to match with historical facts and knowledge of Stalin. However, this may be argued by people but in my opinion I think is F.
4) Khrushchev became the leader of Russia after Stalin's death, and therefore it is not surprising he spoke out about Stalin. Sources G and H are examples of this
After reading the two sources G and H, we see some contradiction in Khrushchev's assessment of Stalin and different points being made, and therefore I can not trust his overall assessment as it is hard to say what he though of him.
However, even though both his judgements on Stalin are different from one another they both hold some truth in themselves and mustn't be ignored. Source H tells us that Stalin was very paranoid, this assessment of Stalin from Khrushchev I trust as it matches not only with my own knowledge of Stalin, but it also agrees with source M and what Bukharin said in source F. Both men (Bukharin and Khrushchev) knew Stalin quite well and had a chance to see him at work and how he handled things and his behaviour, therefore I trust Khrushchev's judgement of Stalin in source H as it is backed up with another reliable source. I can also trust this because I know he was a distrustful and suspicious and paranoid because of they way he dealt with opposition such as Trotsky or Bukharin. He had them either killed or imprisoned, worrying that they might be better then he himself.
Unfortunately I can not trust this assessment fully even though it seems to match up with my own knowledge as it is said by Khrushchev in a speech. We do not know to whom and for what purpose he was speaking for, for all we know he might have been trying to brainwash people to hate Stalin and to try and show them that he is the 'good guy', as in the time of the speech it is he who is in power, and therefore would want people to approve of him.
As for source G I think it is less trustful then source H. From studying Stalin and his rule, it was clear many times that he wanted the best for him self and for him to stay in power, and the uses of terror and executions that source G mentions I think were mainly used for him to stay in power and have no opposition. We saw that he got rid of any form of opposition or anyone that could take his place many times. For this reason I partly do not agree with Khrushchev's assessment, that the usage of terror and executions were for defensive purposes of communism and Socialism as I believe that they were used for defensive purposes of himself.
Khrushchev might be making this point in order to excuse Stalin, and more himself for the future. He might suspect that sometimes he might have to carry out the same actions as Stalin did, and therefore he is telling the people before hand that sometimes such actions need to be taken to protect things like communism.
This makes the assessment less trustworthy as he is really focusing on doing good for himself rather then on Stalin.
I also do not trust Khrushchev's judgement in this source as he says that Stalin was not "a mad despot".
It is a known fact amongst not only historians that Stalin committed crimes against the human race and killed over 30 million people, in my opinion I think that a man that can do such things has to classify as a mad despot, and therefore I do not trust Khrushchev's judgement in this source as it does not line up with facts. Even thought this is personal judgement many people I think would agree with me, that a person that can kill with cold blood must be a 'mad despot'
Also it is quite hard for me to trust Khrushchev's judgement, as I am not sure whether he means what he is saying. He is speaking to people that were brain washed and led to believe that Stalin was great and marvellous and who lived under fear of Stalin and would never dare to speak about him in a bad manner. Khrushchev may be just saying what he says not to get on the bad side of the party, and fears to say the truth which seems to come out in source H. In case the Congress would build up negative attitudes towards him; in other words this source is not fully reliable and therefore hard for me to trust what is said in it.
On the other hand this judgement of Khrushchev's on Stalin found in source G should not be totally not trusted.
This is because the policy's of terror and executions had worked to protect communism and Socialism as even thought there was opposition, the system stayed in place, and therefore Stalin's actions may be see as not actions of a mad man that just wants to kill people but of a man that desperately is trying to protect something he deeply believes in. And we know that he believed in Communism and Socialism as he spend his whole life devoted to these systems, keeping them in place and making them work. However one may say that the only reason he deafened it so hard is not cause he was only devoted to communism but because it guaranteed him the position of the man in power. Which he was greedy for and proved by taking over Europe.
In conclusion I think that each of the two sources holds some truth in it, and should not be ignored but neither should fully be trusted as both are from the same man who in a way contradicts himself, and therefore we can not know what he really thought and felt. His assessment in different places in both sources leads me to trust him to a certain point but in other places I can not, as well neither of the two sources is fully reliable making it all harder to trust. However Khrushchev did work with Stalin and lived under his rule and probably know a fair bit meaning that what he says must hold some truth in it and therefore making me trust some not all but some of hiss assessments.
5) As to the answer about whether sources I and J agree far about Stalin's 'show trials' one would have to say not very far as source J is not about Stalin's show trials and says nothing about them. However, both sources give an impression that Stalin is in control of everything. In source I he is in control of what happens to the lives of what may be innocent man, in source J we see that Stalin is in control of basically everything such as people's lives, matters of life and death, what laws are past, how much money who gets etc. and that he carries out all functions. The picture shows him in every position in parliament, and no one else. Which can translate as no one else had any say in the way things were run.
There is also another link between the two sources, the impression of the show trials form I is that they are fake and unfair, the man look as thought they are just admitting to the crimes to perhaps escape death or because they have been told to act in this way by Stalin. The cartoon is done in a sarcastic way, to stress its point. The man are admitting to things with smiles on their faces and enthusiasm. In source J we also sense unfairness, this is because Stalin is in control of everything and other people with other ideas are not given a chance in any job to say what they think as Stalin does everything. He is the main man that makes the final decisions as well as the smaller man that that give advice or give ideas. Source I shows us that what happens to the people on the show trial is totally up to Stalin who is sitting in the judges chair, and source I shows us that what happens to Russia is also totally up to Stalin who is once again sitting in the main chair.
The two sources do not agree about show trials as simply one of them does not cover this topic, but they agree far on how things were run in the Soviet Union. By Stalin only with no opposition. They both also give a similar impression. I know from studding Stalin Russia that Stalin actually never or very rarely attended the show trials and it is obvious that he wasn't everything in the Supreme Soviet like shown in J. The two sources are telling us that even thought Stalin was not present in person he and his ideas and way of running was around everywhere and the people where like puppets did everything Stalin wanted them to. Even though the two sources do not agree far on show trials they give us a similar overview, and we can guess that the show trials were from Stalin's orders and probably fake and unfair; as many things were in Russia at that time.
6) Source L says about Stalin that he was a skilled and a gifted politician while source M agrees that he was a politician but a ruthless politician that turned into a monstrous tyrant due to the corruption of power.
Even though the two sources are both from biographies of Stalin, they have differences in them. Source L points out to us that Stalin was one of the greatest political figures of the twentieth century, while we read in source M that he was a ruthless politician a tyrant that terrorised men to keep obedient and for people to believe in him. These words are not words to describe one of the greatest political figures, but to describe an evil man that could not hold on to power with out using normal methods but only by using terror.
However, in saying that, that source M tells us about the wrong's of Stalin "he was corrupted by absolute power. Absolute power turned a ruthless politician into a monstrous tyrant." We see this also said in source L where it tells us that Stalin "had a dark and evil side to his nature".
Therefore from reading both sources one can see that Stalin was not an average type of man but evil and disliked. That is a similarity on Stalin between the two sources.
Although the two sources are very short, L in particular, once comparing them one can discover the differences about what they say on Stalin and the type of politician he was but one can also find agreement on the evil person he was. But, there is a main difference between the two sources. Source L tells us that even thought Stalin was horrid he was a good politician "...Stalin was very skilled, indeed gifted politician". While source M totally disagrees with that " Without terror, who would have failed to notice the clear absurdity of Stalin's rule"
However, one must also look at the reliability of these sources, in order to compare what they say about Stalin. Source L very definitely would have to be the more reliable of the two as it provides us with both points of view. Therefore it is not biased and when comparing it with historical knowledge it can be seen as true by some people. Source M on the other hand gives us only one point of view, it also only covers one topic and is exaggerated in the way it s written. However, depending on a person's point of view and even a historians this source may be seen as reliable as it agrees with facts. Stalin did have a lot of power and used terror for the purposes mentioned.
7) Stalin can be seen as both a man who brought wealth to the Soviet Union as well as a tyrant that manipulated people and brought nothing but pain and suffering.
Some call him Uncle Joe while others call him the monster.
In my eyes Stalin's character had broader boundaries then purely a monster. His mentality was complex and not one of an average man.
By just looking at his actions and nothing deeper one can label him with the word 'monster' this is because in the whole history he killed the biggest number of people; about 30 million, and in 1932-33 he deliberately created a famine in the Ukraine which destroyed about six million men, women and children.
For many people a man that can commit such crimes must be inhuman, without a heart- a monster. Source A very definitely backs this up, we see Stalin standing in front of pyramids of skulls of people that probably died as a result of Stalin's policys, the expression on his face and his hand gesture leads us to believe that he is not ashamed or sorry for what he did but proud. This source tilts to the statement that Stalin had to be a monster in order to do such things, as anyone else would not be able to do such things, as simply it is evil. The source is quite reliable as it matches with historical knowledge that Stalin did kill many people about 30 million, and must not have felt guilty if he went on doing horrible things. For example sending people that 'got in his way' to labour camps were they most likely ended up dying as a result to poor conditions and lack of food.
Bukharin also backs up this source in F, he was a man that worked with Stalin and probably knew him quite well; we read that Stalin was a devil, narrow-minded and malicious. This certainly would agree with the description of Stalin being a monster. This source one must bear in mind may be seen as not fully reliable as Bukharin probably full of hatred and anger for Stalin after what Stalin did to him is speaking in an exaggerated way to portray Stalin in a bad light. Although in my opinion this source tells the truth as I know from my own studies of Stalin that he in fact did kill people that got in his way. For example Kirov; he was not a capitalist, but he opposed Stalin and what he was forcing upon the Soviet people. Kirov was murdered by a young assassin called Leonid Nikolaev on Stalins orders.
As well this source is backed up with source H by Khrushchev which we also know is quite true (as proved in earlier questions) and can imagine what id described actually happening after studying Stalin and his actions.
Source M is a reliable source as it comes from a book published in Britain in 1974, where there was freedom of speech, as well what it says can be matched up with my knowledge of Stalin once studying him. Although one must bear in mind that source M is slightly 'over the top'; however this does not mean it does not hold truth in it. Source M clearly agrees with the statement that Stalin was a Monster, is tells us that with time he turned in to a monstrous tyrant. As well it tells us that Stalin used terror to keep things under control and the men obedient, this policy may also be seen as one used only by a monster. Hitler used this policy and he certainly by many is labelled as some sort of a monster for what he did. The fact that Stalin used terror is also proved to us in source G.
Stalin may be seen as well as monster because of his show trials, he killed people that were not usually guilty in order to improve his own image. Source I shows us this, it is quite reliable as we know things like that really did take place. In August 1936 Zinoviev and Kamenev were forced into confessions, and after a 'trial' they were shot. In June 1937, Marshal Tukhachevsky, and other generals were court-martialed on charges of treason and killed.
A man that killed, used terror, purged people because they looked at him in the wrong way (source H); this is what Stalin was and for some this sort of a person that does not show any signs of having kidness or anything good must be a monster.
However, in the world there are also those type of people that consider Stalin a great and smart leader that improved Russia and would not call him a monster.
It mustn't be ignored that Stalin didn't only kill people he did a large amount of work and predicted things well.
Such as world war II, how people will behave and how long it will take to bring Russia back on its feet. He then introduced five year plans to sort out Russia's problems.
When came to power he predicted that soon Russia would face a war and therefore he needed more equipment tanks and weapons. Within a few years the army was better trained and better equipped. As well Stalin made industrialisation happen in Russia, he made it become one of the world's greatest industrial powers at the time. This was a huge success that Stalin achieved as before USSR's industry was very poor. Stalin also led to the increase of production of coal, steel and oil to 50%. As we see Stalin certainly fulfilled one of the major tasks that a leaders has, which is to improve the country. Many man and woman were extremely grateful to Stalin for what he did for Russia, as not only did he improve the economy at the same time he gave people jobs. Source E although not fully reliable as we can see it as propaganda of some type shows us that some people loved Stalin for what he did. And thought of him as a great man and certainly not a monster as he did so much good. Even thought we can not fully trust this source we can see it as what people though back then.
Source K also tells us that Stalin was a "brilliant leader and teacher of the party, military commander, and guide of the Soviet state" we can see clearly that this source is slightly exaggerated and not fully reliable as it is from a biography of Stalin published in 1947 in Russia and there is no way that this source could have said anything bad about Stalin, however one must not forget that there actually were people who thought that way. This one knows after reading other sources about Stalin from people in history textbooks.
Source L is a very reliable source as it gives us two points of view and it is not any sort of propaganda. It supports the point of view that Stalin was a great leader and a gifted politician. Which he quite was, as he managed to achieve so much and centennially knew how a human mind works as he was able to always get what he wanted. He knew what people would do and why they would do it, even it meant using terror. (Although some may say he wasn't as because he used terror)
Sources B and C also show Stalin as a kind great leader that cares for his people and takes interest in them. However neither of these sources can be seen as fully reliable as we don't know much about them and who are the sources by and for what purpose. Source D is written by Stalin himself and therefore can not be really considered as obviously it porteys him in a good light showing him as a good leader and not a monster. Stalin was only one man but managed to do more for Russia then a lot of the Russian leaders put together , and although he killed many people, some say he did it achieve what's good and are thankful to Stalin for bringing Russia back to a certain prosperity. This group of people would not call Stalin a monster as how can they after all that he did for them and as they might think cared so much for them wanting what's the best and trying to give the best. However this does not necessarily have to be true and Stalin could have had other motivations then to make the people happy, like build a strong country which communism could lean on. However, an ordinary Russian person would have not necessarily know this, or noticed it.
In my opinion it is hard to say whether Stalin was a man or a monster, on one side he killed millions of people with what we can say cold blood, and on the other he did a lot of good for Russia, trying to improve it.
What I can definitely say is that Stalin was a determinant leader trying to achieve his aims, this is a very good quality in a leader but it may get out of hand leading to deaths of others as it happened in Stalin's case.
In conclusion I would have to say that Stalin's actions towards humans were ones certainly of a monster, but Stalin himself was a Paranoid as proven in sources H, J (controlled everything himself didn't let others rule in case they were better then himself) and F, and over fanatic about his beliefs about communism and most of all focused on having total power and control above people.
These qualities and corruption by power (source M) led him to be a monster with time and terrorise people.
His own beliefs and the determinations to achieve everything and to be the best overcame him and prevented him from thinking of others but only of himself; he did not seem to mind how many deaths it took and how many horrible things such as famine in Ukraine did it take to stay in power and achieve what he wanted-his aims. Which at the same time helped people, making Russia better.
Stalin was a monster with time, not from the beginning but he himself and his paranoia led him to be one.
However he was also a man, that significantly improved his country, even if it was done only with he aim to stay in power. But in my eyes a man that can kill so many and make so many people sad and deprived of basic goods such as food and water and say "The death of one man is a tragedy; The death of a million is a statistic" must have a monster lie somewhere in him.
8) Sources E and F are a perfect example of the disagreement there is about Stalin. One says that Stalin was a great person while the other tells us he was a devil. Up until now there have been disagreements about Stalin. Why is that, after all he was just one man; well there are a few reasons to explain the reason why sources and people disagree about Stalin so much.
Firstly when talking about sources they certainly differ on their points of view depending on who wrote them and why the were written. If it was a Russian person that lived under Stalin's rule then obviously the source would be positive about Stalin saying nothing wrong about him. This would be as either it was the influence of under the heavy propaganda or indoctrination. The person would have believed that Stalin was great and almighty, or it was that the person was scared to write anything bad as then he/she would be killed or imprisoned. A good example of this is source E.
However if it was a person writing in a different part of the world non communist or simply at a different time the source may say that Stalin was a monster as this person would not be influenced by propaganda nor would he/she have fear of the consequences that might come once written a negative source on Stalin. A good example of this is I, an American cartoon, that show us how fake Stalin's show trials were. Since the author is American he had nothing to fear as there was freedom of speech.
Depending on what people consider good and bad, and what they think about Stalin's achievements, will also influence their point of view on Stalin, and since different people think different things there is disagreement.
Another reason for the disagreements on Stalin is that people have different views; one may think that since Stalin did some good for Russia he is 'alright', while another may think the fact that he killed so many people makes him a monster and whatever good he did does not count because of the means he used to achieve his goals.
People are taught differently in schools when they are young, some may be taught by a teacher that has total hatred for Stalin while others may be taught that Stalin was just trying to achieve his goals. In general and the way they are taught or what they read influences their views. As well the different views on politics make disagreements. Some people that are supporters of communism might hold one set of views on Stalin which may be positive, while a democracy supporter is more likely not to approve of Stalin.
One of the main reasons why there is so much disagreement is because the sources are so different on Stalin that people deal with and get their information from. The reason why the sources are so different is because some of them are propaganda like sources B and C, some are biased like source H, some sources are unreliable like source D which is written by Stalin himself and some are written by people that had a purpose to say what they say. A good example of this is source J showing that Stalin was dictator in control of everything, it is a French cartoon from the 1930s and therefore its main purpose is to show the people how communism is bad and to laugh at the Soviet system.
There is also disagreement because Stalin was such a complex person; on one side we see him wanting the best for Russia and making it a better country, like sources K and L show us while on the other hand we see him as a tyrant that terrorised people and killed to achieve what he wanted; this we can see in sources A and M.
However is does not end there, we also see another side where Stalin is not a monster nor a brilliant leader but a paranoid man and perhaps even with mental disorders. This we can learn from sources F and H.
So, as we see Stalin can be seen differ depending on what side of him you look at. Not everyone looks at the same or all sides and therefore we get disagreement.
A matter that influences the reason for disagreement is the fact that we get new evidence all the time which is more up to date and correct; those who have not yet seen the new evidence would disagree with those that have.
For example source M from 1947 just informs us how evil Stalin is leading people to believe that, but then we see source L from1983 that gives us two points of view. Agreeing that Stalin was evil but also pointing out he was a skilled politician. As well there is the issue of writing in the cold war, some sources were written in the cold war, were there was a lot of tension among nations. If a source is from America or any other allies country such as Britain or France then obviously it will be harsh towards Stalin such as source J published in the 1930's in France, saying that Stalin is all selfish and doe snot allow opposition. If the source is from Russia then obviously it will be positive towards Stalin.
Of course simple things like how you were brought up or what you once heard influence the people, which later causes disagreement with those who were brought up otherwise or taught differently.
In conclusion the reason for such huge disagreement about Stalin, is because people deal with different sources, they hear different things, people have different views. And mainly because Stalin and Russia had so many different angles to it, and everyone sees a different Russia at that time.