Historians also disagree about Stalin because although he did some bad things for Russia such as the purges and the show trials, he also did a lot of good things for Russia such as the Five-Year Plans and helping to fight off the German Army during World War II. Historians argue which of these out weigh the other to decide whether or not in general terms Stalin helped or hindered Russia. For example if historians were to look at sources such as ‘A’ and ‘H’ regarding the purges they may say Stalin did not help Russia because of the amount of people he killed. However the background of both of these sources can be questioned. Source ‘A’ was published in Paris where it is unlikely they would give a fair review of Stalin because he ran almost a complete opposite regime as in France, which was a democratic, capitalist country. Source ‘H’ writes; ‘the human cost of the achievement was so high that not even Stalin’s successors could openly accept it’. This, like source ‘A’ is telling us just how many people died because of Stalin, and source ‘A’ goes as far to say that Stalin is proud of the people he killed, inviting people to look at the pyramids of skulls he had created. However source ‘H’ was written so long after Stalin rule that the writer would not really have known what it was like at the time in Russia or the mood of the people towards Stalin. Also if historians were to look at sources such as ‘I’ and ‘J’, which have reference to the ‘show trials’, they would again question whether Stalin helped Russia. Source ‘I’ gives the impression that Stalin himself was very unfair and the ‘show trails’ were not fair and were a mockery, simply people being ‘puppets’ (as source ‘J’ puts it) who would admit to anything because of the pressure they were put under. Many historians believe these sorts of things out weigh the good things Stalin did for Russia.
However many historians believe things such as the five year plans out-weigh the bad things he did for Russia. Sources such as source ‘B’ support this idea that under Stalin, Russia, in such a short period of time, was turned around industrially and was able to build such a huge industrial empire, mainly due to Stalin himself. This source shows what is probably the Dneiper Dam in the background, one of Russia’s most significant achievements that they were very willing to show off. It also shows Stalin with the workers, which gives the impression that Stalin genuinely cared about the Russian workers and was a man of the people. Also sources like source ‘G’, which were written at the time, tell us how much of a great leader he was and tell us about his ‘love for the people’. This source also supports the idea that Stalin did help Russia during his reign and that he was a ‘brilliant leader’ to have.
Due to these things that Stalin engineered at different times throughout his reign it now appears as though Stalin was a better leader at different times, which is another reason why historians argue about him. For example, like source ‘C’ shows, Stalin was very good at reaching out to the people, and getting them to love him. Source ‘C’ shows numbers of women reaching out towards Stalin just to get touched by him. He was also a very good leader during World War II and helped to fill the Russian people with confidence. The writer of source ‘K’ was probably thinking of this, and the devious but still clever way Stalin got to power when he wrote; ‘it is my belief that Stalin was a very skilled politician, and one of the greatest political figures of the twentieth century’. Many people may say Russia would not have won the war if it were not for the Five-Year Plans, which was again another time when Stalin was a good leader and better ruler. As source ‘H’ puts it; ‘Stalin engineered one of the most monumental achievements of the twentieth century’. By carry out the Five-Year Plans Stalin did what many people thought was impossible and he almost certainly did help Russia by getting Russia’s industries running. However this same source also goes onto talk about the Purges, which was a time period when Stalin was not such a great leader for Russia, in the late 1930’s. By this time Stalin was at the top and was dictator but was very isolated at the top and was anxious and apprehensive about plots to overthrow him. It was during this time, the late 1930’s, that many historians believe Stalin was not particularly helpful to Russia. Sources like ‘F’ support this. Source ‘F’ was written in 1936 and tells us how Stalin was ‘a devil’ and reminds us how Stalin was not concerned to kill anybody that he thought was a threat to him; ‘if someone speaks better than he does, that man is for it!’. However the reliability of this source can be questioned as it was written by Bukharin, one of Stalin’s enemies who tried to gain power after Lenin’s death. It is sources like this one that encouraged historians to later write sources similar after Stalin’s death. Sources such as ‘L’, which was written in 1974 and is similar to source ‘F’ in the way that it criticises Stalin’s leadership; ‘absolute power turned a ruthless politician into a monstrous tyrant’. However like source ‘F’ this source is probably referring to his mid years in charge when the Purges were on. It is very unlikely that this historian could write the same thing with reference to his leadership during World War II, as it was him who helped to guide Russia through it.
Although Stalin may have been a nice person, due to the regime that he ran and also that he did not let anybody get close to him during his life, historians now speculate that he was a very evil, even criminal man simply because of how he ran Russia.
