Stalin; Man Or Monster Sources Questions
Stalin; Man Or Monster
History Course Work 2001
) The three sources all show Stalin. 'A' is very different to 'B' and 'C' in many aspects, but there are also some similarities.
Source 'A' is a cartoon written in the 1930's and published in Paris, meaning it is uncensored and written at the time suggesting a knowledge of the period. The cartoon is basically showing the people the results of Stalin's policies; uncountable numbers of skulls representing the millions of dead, the crows and pyramids stretching into the distance adding to the sinister feeling of the cartoon. Stalin himself stands at the foot of the skulls a smug look on his face, almost 'showing off' his achievement. This sense of pride is mirrored in source 'B', the only similarity between the two sources, where Stalin is showing off a very different achievement, the building of a new hydroelectric power plant - a totally different view, one a monster, one of a good leader bringing life into the country.
Sources 'B' and 'C' are both in many ways similar to each other and different to source 'A'. 'B' a definite propaganda picture and 'C' a photo show Stalin as the 'peoples leader'; smiles and a comfortable air shown in both. Source 'B', notably an 'official' picture portraying Stalin's desired image for propaganda purposes show him as the caring leader of his people, laughing and looking relaxed with the lower classes. This is also seen in Source 'C', where he is, once again totally at ease with the people, smiling and shaking the hands of officer's wives. Both these sources show a friendly air to Stalin as opposed to the sinister Stalin in source 'A'. In both source 'B' and 'C' Stalin is shown with the people, yet still above them. In source 'B' he stands out in his 'gleaming' clothes, and in source 'B' he is literally above the people on a platform, the people reaching for him, showing no fear or apprehension. However there are some differences in 'B' and 'C'. In 'B' the viewer is given a very 'sterile' view of Stalin. The picture looks very 'set up' with a smug Stalin in a prearranged picture. Source 'C' however, Stalin looks very natural and approachable.
Source 'A' is almost in every aspect different to 'B' and 'C', the friendly approachable Stalin non-existent a sense of evil its replacement in showing off his death.
2) Source 'D(I)' is written by Stalin in 1945. At this time Stalin would still be in power, and regarded as somewhat of a hero to his people as winning the war. It doesn't give us a very good insight into the person Stalin was, as written by himself and obviously for propaganda purposes. He writes of his disgust of people's disregard for life; in definite contrast to source 'A', where he seems almost proud of this disregard for life. He comes across as a great leader, forever worrying and caring for his people. Source 'D(ii)' however disagrees with this, the image of people 'walking in disgust through the pools of their comrades and friends blood' very strong and vivid. However, if not a useful insight to how people saw Stalin, it is defiantly a good example of how he wants the people to see him. It was written by Stalin for the people to read as a piece of propaganda. If any piece of propaganda would put across a leaders desired image it would be the one written by the leader himself. His words put across is believe that he is not like the 'other leaders', but persecuted by the 'common enemy', talking about his exile. He also wants to be seen as 'the peoples leader'.
3) Sources 'E' and 'F' are very different in opinion, suggesting that both can not be correct as at two extremes of opinion. Source 'E' talks of an 'inspired leader', who is 'strong', 'beautiful', 'wise' and 'marvellous'. 'F' on the other hand, talks of an 'unhappy', 'narrow minded', 'malicious man' and is also described as a 'devil'. Therefore there must be reasons for the difference in written opinion.
A writer for a public speech wrote source 'E' in 1935. As we know, people had to be careful what was said as people were often subject to terror ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
3) Sources 'E' and 'F' are very different in opinion, suggesting that both can not be correct as at two extremes of opinion. Source 'E' talks of an 'inspired leader', who is 'strong', 'beautiful', 'wise' and 'marvellous'. 'F' on the other hand, talks of an 'unhappy', 'narrow minded', 'malicious man' and is also described as a 'devil'. Therefore there must be reasons for the difference in written opinion.
A writer for a public speech wrote source 'E' in 1935. As we know, people had to be careful what was said as people were often subject to terror if speaking against Stalin. This idea is backed up in Source ' D (ii)' when the writer talks of 'no one feeling safe'. The writer of 'D(ii)' incidentally committed suicide, suggesting far worse was to come due to his stand against Stalin. Therefore if the writer of 'E' did have negative feelings towards Stalin he, perhaps, would not have told his audience for fear of punishment. This is backed up by the 'flowery', over-elaborate language used by the writer, obviously trying to impress. However, we can not write this source off just because some people disliked Stalin and didn't say so. Many people would have believed the propaganda put to them and been amazed by the sudden changes in cities such as cinemas, libraries and other things not heard of before. Russia itself was rapidly industrialising and was doing well. Many people directly involved with Stalin may not have known about some of his actions, or believed in the 'Communist ideal' so much they overlooked the consequences.
Source 'F' on the other hand is almost in complete contrast. He writes of a paranoid, unconfident and weak leader. The most notable difference between the two sources is the circumstance and writer of the speech. Bukharin, the writer, was notably an ex-supporter of Stalin who fell into disgrace. This could mean that Bukharin holds a form of grudge against Stalin and would obviously exaggerate their leader faults. It also means that Bukharin was in a position to know exactly what was happening, and know Stalin. The fact that an obviously loyal supporter of Stalin has changed his opinion so much and writes with such disdain, means he must have had very strong reasons to deem him 'a devil'. Also important is the fact that he is now in Paris; he is out of Stalin reach while speaking and there is no censorship as opposed to source 'E' where any negative opinions would not be seen. The content of source 'G' is perhaps more to the tune of historical knowledge.
Neither source is completely reliable or completely unreliable. Source 'E' seems exaggerated and perhaps out of fear while 'F' could be written due to a grudge. However in balance I feel source 'F' is the more reliable of the two. The lack of censorship and fact that the writer is out of Russia, so safe from Stalin, suggests that he can speak more freely from a position of knowledge.
4) Kruschev took over the Communist Party after Stalin. Sources 'G' and 'H' from the same speech to the rest of the Communist Party. In these sources he proceeds to assess Stalin and his 'reign'. It is unlikely that he would be exactly speaking his mind due to the audience he was speaking to. He says; 'Stalin was convinced that the use of terror and executions was necessary for the defence of Socialism and Communism', 'He considered this should be done in the interests of the party and of the working masses'. His words seem to suggest that he doesn't believe in Stalin's actions but they were in many ways justified. This seems to be a case of appeasement. He is speaking to very important people- the people he leads, people he needs to follow him. In this cabinet, there would be many who didn't like Stalin and his action, but also those who believed in Stalin. He therefore would not want to cause controversy and split his followers so try's to keep everyone happy. The words 'convinced' and 'necessary' make him sound almost like a 'victim' trying to help the people. This is then backed up by the description of 'his interests of the working masses'. The second extract follows this appeasing tone. He says the suspicion in Stalin 'created in him a general distrust towards Party workers he had known for years. Everywhere he saw 'enemies', 'double dealers' and spies'. This again shows he did not believe that Stalin's actions were correct to appease those who did not like Stalin but suggests again that he was not evil but misguided and a victim of his suspicion.
It is therefore very hard to trust his assessment of Stalin, as this very important audience seems to be influencing his words; being neither condoning or condemning. However he was in a very good position to judge Stalin as knew him so the source has some value.
5) Sources 'I' and 'J' are both cartoon satires of the 'show trials' in Russia. The cartoons both show Stalin as the judge, the focusing point of both sources. However in source 'J' Stalin is the only person in the picture, shown as judge, jury, clerk and prosecutor, while in 'I' the victims are apparent, and behind Stalin there appears to be some official in the picture. This puts across a different message to 'I'. In 'J' the victims are faceless and we are given no impression of any chance for them to defend themselves, their fate decided. This feeling of their fate being decided is also seen in 'I' with the gallows in the background making the idea of death inevitable. The lack of a defence is seen differently in both sources. In 'I' the victims put up no defence, putting across the point that every one is guilty with sarcastic admittance's of guilt; 'of course I'm a traitor' suggesting that there was no point of defence, the gallows and soldiers waiting in the background. Source 'J' suggests that there was no defence.
Both sources seem to agree that the trials were unfair. However in 'I' because the result is inevitable, while in 'J' the result is unfair because there is no chance for the victims to defend themselves.
6) Both sources 'L' and 'M' are from biographies on Stalin. They both write with very different opinions of Stalin. Source 'L' talks of a 'gifted politician' and 'one of the greatest political figures of the twentieth century, but also a man with 'an evil side'. A very different opinion is given in source 'M', where he is described as simply a 'monstrous tyrant'. Source 'L', the more favourable towards Stalin, tells us that Stalin was a great politician and we know he did great good for the country in modernising the country, as seen in source 'B' where he stands by a newly built hydroelectric power station. This is balanced out with a statement that he was, although a 'gifted politician' he had a 'dark and evil side'. Source 'M' calls him a 'ruthless politician', the only slight appraisal of Stalin. The rest of the source seems to 'mock' Stalin's rule, claiming that 'without terror, who would have failed to notice the clear absurdity of Stalin's rule?'. The writer is saying that Stalin had little political skill and the use of terror kept him in power, a very different opinion to source 'L'. However they both agree on the fact that Stalin was not always a great leader. However their opinion also differs on this, one describing a darkside, that is 'evil', while source 'M' tells us of a 'tyrant', but there is no hint of evil.
7) There is a great deal of diversity in the opinion of Stalin. Sources 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'K' all deem Stalin a good man and leader. However, an important point to make is that all these sources are from Russia, which suggests that they might not be reliable due to censorship. In source 'B' Stalin stands infront of a newly built hydroelectric power plant. The fact that Stalin made vast improvements to the country in indisputable, there were many plants as seen in the source as well as vast expansion in towns and cities. Unemployment became almost non-existent; many people had well-paid skilled jobs and got bonuses for meeting targets. Stalin also launched his five-year plans, which made a huge difference to his country, a sign of great leadership and love of his country. This idea is continued in source 'E' where his people are described as seeing him as a hero a man with 'strength', 'charm' and 'greatness'. This source however, can by no means be seen as totally reliable (as discussed before), due to censorship and fear of punishment. Source 'C' is another picture source. In this source we see the wives of officers reaching for Stalin with no sign of fear. However Source 'C' is also not overly reliable due to the lack of date and location, especially significant due to purges in the Red Army in the mid 1930's and the war starting in 1939, all of which would change public opinion. The fact that these people are reaching for Stalin shows perhaps he is no monster but indeed a great leader. Stalin himself writes in source D(I) of his love of man suggesting perhaps he was no monster. However we have to question the reliability of his words as obviously being used for propaganda.
We also know however he did much, that could be deemed as evil. . He had millions of people killed and was responsible for the deaths of many more. Many western sources depict a mad, evil leader. Source 'M', in particular describes a monster. The unknown writer claims that Stalin used terror to 'keep men obedient' and 'make them believe in him', otherwise his rule would have been seen as 'absurd'. This is in direct contradiction to sources like 'E'. Reasons for this include censorship in Russia and the fear of Stalin's 'wrath'. However it is not that one-sided; Source 'M' has no disclosed author, which means anyone with a grudge could have written it. People in the west at that time (1774) regarded Russia as the enemy and there was a fear of communism, perhaps making it biased. This is perhaps reflected when another biography written almost ten years later who perhaps more fairly saying that Stalin was a 'gifted politician' yet had a 'dark and evil side'. Interesting sources are ones written by Russians speaking out against Stalin. Source 'D(ii)' creates an extremely vivid picture. A communist supporter is speaking against Stalin as a person, not the beliefs of communism like many westerners. He talks of 'an epoch of terror' and men who 'walk with disgust through pools of blood'. This source as with others is flawed by the fact that the writer's mental state must be questioned as he soon afterwards commits suicide. Notably he talks of 'no one feeling safe', which we no to be an exaggeration due to the vastness of the country. However these sources are still interesting, as these people believe in Communism just not Stalin.
It is argued that much of the terror was done in the belief of the good that would come from it. Source 'K', written by a Russian near the time of his rule talks of 'his devotion to the party' suggesting he believed the 'terror' was for the good of the party and the people. This idea is also apparent in sources 'G' and 'H' written by the next leader of Russia after Stalin who knew what he was talking about. He writes that Stalin's terror campaigns were carried out as 'he considered this should be done in the interests of the Party and the working masses'. He also writes that his actions were not really of evil, but more out of insecurity and paranoia- 'Stalin was a very distrustful man', 'everywhere he saw enemies'
In conclusion, I feel that Stalin was indeed a great politician, who did great good for Russia, but seemed to find anything acceptable to achieve this goal (a good example collectivisation). He seems remorseless and ruthless, but more than anything very insecure, explaining purges in the army and throughout the country. I do not however see him as an evil monster, though he certainly had an 'evil streak'.
8) As seen in the above answer there is a varying degree of opinions on Stalin. This opinion varies from a great leader who changed a backward country into a modern great power who repelled Germany against the odds to a more damming opinion that he was simply evil and a poor leader, his only asset; the use of terror.
This 'disagreement' arises for many reasons. It is impossible to find a reliable source on Stalin. Russian sources from the time are unlikely to be completely honest. Censorship was used in all published sources and people speaking or writing for an audience would, for of fear of being 'purged', would not feel confortable in speaking their mind, informers everywhere. The use of propaganda in Russia is also a great problem. Using the 'cult of personality' People were 'brainwashed' into seeing Stalin as a hero and would not have known about much of the terror being afflicted on people, only seeing the great changes to their country. Posters and advertisements showing 'the great Stalin' were everywhere. Sources form Russians speaking outside Russia seem to be mostly by exiled Russians speaking out of a grudge making them unreliable.
Russia itself historically has always been isolationist, so accurate information would have always been hard to get. Also, partly due to this isolationist stance the Western world has never really trusted Russia and has feared communism, making many western sources biased.
