Stalin - Source based work

.Jocelyn White

HISTORY COURSEWORK STALIN

1. The sources portray Stalin in very different ways. Source A shows three pyramids built completely from human skulls. Stalin stands at the right of the picture smiling and inviting the French to visit the USSR and her pyramids as though they are a tourist attraction like the famous pyramids in Egypt. The cartoon was published in Paris and shows that there was a view of Stalin at that time, 1930, as a cynical and cruel controller who was proud of the devastation and huge loss of life, which were a result of his rule of terror. Stalin had introduced his first five-year plan in 1928, which concentrated on the modernisation of heavy industry: coal, iron oil and electricity giving quotas to be aimed for in each area. The unrealistic production quotas of the first five-year plan resulted in huge pressure on the industrial workers. Safety was minimal and many died or were injured, and punishments were extremely harsh for those who made mistakes. They were accused of being ‘saboteurs’ or ‘wreckers’ and were sent to prison camps, or executed. He had also introduced ‘collectivism’ in agricultural production in which was intended to bring the scattered peasant farms into large collectives where peasants would work together. The policy was resisted by the richer farmers, or ‘Kulaks,’ who were treated harshly. Their farms were taken from them by force, and they were sent to labour camps, or made to work on very poor land. Many were murdered. Although the precise numbers of deaths is unknown, there was knowledge outside the country that many were dying as a result of Stalin's policies for rapid industrialisation. At the same time set amounts of the harvest were being given to the state causing shortages amongst the peasants themselves many of who died of starvation.

Source B is an official painting of Stalin talking with peasants and workers in front of a newly built dam. It was probably intended to impress visitors to the USSR. The men standing beside him appear to be happy, well fed and well clothed, and relaxed with him. The impression it gives is of a man who is popular with his workforce, who visits them at their place of work and who has a good and personal relationship with them. Although this picture was painted at the time of Stalin's rule it is not an accurate portrayal of life at that time. Stalin never actually went on trips around the countryside. He stayed in Moscow speaking only to his dedicated followers and supporters. The painting is an example of Stalinist art where censorship was imposed on all art forms, which were obliged to serve the state and now had no true freedom of expression. The painting is useful as showing the type of propaganda Stalin was using, but is not reliable as a factual record.

The third source is a photograph of Stalin being greeted and honoured by the civilian wives of his officers. They clearly love him and are keen to touch him. This source shows Stalin to have been popular at one time with at least one group of the population, the army, who were valued by Stalin and treated better than some other groups such as the peasants whose lives were changing dramatically. Without a date it is impossible to tell if this photograph was used as propaganda or not. It is likely to have been taken before 1937 when Stalin purged the Red Army senior officers many of whom, including Marshal Tukhachevsky, were tried and shot. Although it is a primary source it is not reliable in its information without knowing the date it was taken.

Source D is an extract of writing written by Stalin himself in 1945. It describes a particular event that happened during a period he had spent in exile after being arrested by the Tsarist secret police. The event he describes is a horrifying story of some workers appearing to be completely indifferent to the death of one of their colleagues. Stalin expresses himself in a way that shows him to be critical of this attitude, and to liken it to the then current attitude of the world leaders. Stalin was motivated by a desire to make the USSR safe from invasion by Europe at all costs. He wanted the outside world to be seen as threatening and uncaring so that his people would be content to cut themselves off. The story was probably an example of propaganda in which Stalin was trying to appear as a caring and inspirational person with higher beliefs and ideals. This is in direct contrast to his own inhumane dealing with opposition during the implementation of his Five-Year Plans. His plans had certainly resulted in the transformation of the Soviet Union to one of the major world economies, but with terrible consequences among the people, many of who died as a result of the harsh implementation. He wanted to maintain his role as the sole guide and leader of his people, who had become more aware of the rest of Europe through the country’s involvement in the Second World War. All the evidence in this source comes from Stalin himself and is just a story that cannot be checked to see if it is true.

This is a preview of the whole essay

3. The author of Source F Bukharin was a popular right-wing thinker and leader at the time of the Bolshevik revolution. He had originally supported Stalin over Trotsky as successor at Lenin. Once in a position of power Stalin removed all possible rivals, first the left-wingers including Trotsky and then the right-wingers which included Bukharin. This speech was given in 1936 during the “purges” (1934 - 38) when Stalin was arresting and imprisoning his political opponents. These purges were initiated by the assassination of Sergei Kirov who was the leader of the administration in Leningrad. It has never been clear who was behind the killing but it has been suggested that Stalin may have been involved. In any case Stalin used the event as an excuse to get rid of his opponents. In the first stage only minor figures were arrested and imprisoned, but in 1936 a second stage began in which more important figures such as Kamenev and Zinoviev were arrested, charged with plotting terrorist activities including the death of Kirov, and executed. In 1936 Bukharin had been acquitted of being implicated in the earlier crimes, but the fact that many were not so lucky and were executed led him to his view, given in this speech in Paris in 1936, of Stalin as ‘not a man, but a devil.’ He was also angry at having been manipulated by Stalin and removed from a position of power, so his views in this speech may be less reliable as they are affected by his own disappointments. The trials and executions continued, and Bukharin became a victim for the second time in 1938. On this occasion he was not so lucky and was executed. It seems likely that Bukharin’s outspoken behaviour after his original acquittal meant that he could not survive the second accusation of plotting and treason.

Source E written in 1935 is just an outpouring of praise of the kind normally found in religious writings. It was published in a communist paper and seems to have no aspects at all of critical thought. Although it is reliable as a primary source in the sense that it appeared in a published newspaper of the time, that newspaper was controlled by the communist party who could choose to publish what they wanted to suit their own viewpoint. The press, radio, cinema and publishing were all heavily controlled at that time. Only successes and achievements were publicised, never any criticism. Written during the purges people within the party were wondering why the purges were happening and were keen to be seen to be supporting Stalin. This was also the time of the second of the five-year plans. Many peasants who had not lost their land during the early introduction of collectivism had died during the famine caused by the diversion of grain from the country to the industrialised areas, and others had left the land to join the workers on the factories. Most citizens were prevented from travelling and so could not make comparisons with other countries. Against this background it seems unlikely that the views expressed were those of the majority, and source F is therefore more reliable than source E.

Both source G and source H. were written by Khrushchev in 1956. He had taken over as premier of the USSR in 1955 two years after Stalin's death in 1953 following a struggle for power. Source G describes Stalin as using “terror and executions as necessary for the defence of Socialism and Communism”, while source H. describes him as a neurotic and paranoid man who saw ‘enemies’, ‘double dealers’ and ‘spies’ everywhere. Although in source G Khrushchev makes some attempt to justify Stalin’s actions as being ‘in the interests of the Party and the working masses’, source H indicates that he believed them to be the results of a suspicious and distrustful man.

Khrushchev had worked alongside Stalin since the purges, and his assessments seem to be accurate and reliable as they fit in with what is already known. The purges, the ‘show trials’, and the labour camps are all well documented as examples of a man using terror as a means of control. His extreme control of all media for use only for propaganda, to praise him and his ideas, and his extreme reaction to any hint of criticism certainly point to a paranoid personality. The speech shows us that Khruschev wanted to expose a negative side to Stalin without being seen to criticise him too much. However the account cannot be seen as being totally reliable because Khruschev had his own desire to say what he thought people wanted to hear to gain popularity for himself as the new leader.

Sources I and J are cartoons of Stalin’s ‘show trials’. Opposition had been growing within the party when in March 1933 Trotsky wrote from exile, ‘the slogan “Down with Stalin” is heard more and more widely.” On 1st December 1934 Sergei Kirov was assassinated in his office and the ‘purges’ began. At first only minor figures were arrested for opposition, but in August 1936 sixteen people were arrested for plotting and terrorist activities. Their trials became the first of the ‘show trials’. In court the men stood up and openly confessed their guilt, which was surprising as the penalty was death. The cartoon in source I shows Stalin as the ‘judge’ faced by his former colleagues in the dock. All of them are happily admitting to being traitors, plotting, and betraying their country. The cartoon shows the Americans thought it was ridiculous that men would stand and offer no defence to such serious accusations (for which the sentence was execution) without being threatened and/or tortured. The laughing faces of the men in the dock set against a backdrop of a hangman’s noose gives a sense of chilling unreality to the scene.

The second cartoon appeared in a French paper, and shows the absurdity of the ‘show trials’ from a different aspect. In source J Stalin is shown as having total control in the courtroom. He is drawn as judge, jury, prosecutor and recorder. The absence of the accused, or anyone defending them, shows that the cartoonist to show that only Stalin’s views were relevant to these shams of trials.

Both cartoons imply a lack of justice to the accused that would have been unacceptable to the western world in which they were published. They certainly agree in the view that the show trials were ‘set up’ and did not show true justice, the first because of the unreal appearance of joking amongst the accused, and the second by showing Stalin as an all-powerful figure who controlled all the people in the courtroom.

6. Sources K, L, and M are all taken from biographies written about Stalin at different times. Source K was written in Russia and published in 1947 during Stalin’s lifetime and while Stalin was leading his country. We already know that there was strict control and censorship of anything being published at that time so it is not surprising to read the words of excessive praise in this piece. Stalin is described as ‘a brilliant leader’ who had ‘ardent faith in his people’. While the first comment may be true, the second does not fit well into the picture that has emerged of a suspicious and distrustful man. The period it was written and published in do not make it a piece that one could rely on as factual. Both sources L, published in 1983, and M, published in 1974, agree that he was an unpleasant and unkind man, ‘He had a dark and evil nature; (source L), ‘a monstrous tyrant’ (source M). Source L describes Stalin as an excellent politician, ‘Stalin was a very skilled, indeed gifted politician, and one of the greatest political figures of the twentieth century’. Source M, however, is more guarded in its description. It does not say that his political skills were bad, but it describes him as a ‘ruthless politician’ who was ‘corrupted by absolute power’. These statements imply that his political judgement was affected by his personal identification with his role which may have had a detrimental effect on his policies. The truth is probably a mixture of both L and M. He certainly ruled by dictatorship using unpleasant and cruel methods. The secret police sought out critics, all media were under strict control, spreading religious ideas was banned and millions died in cruel labour camps. In spite of all these horrors he did achieve some of his communist ideals. His political leadership did result in a free health service with more doctors per head than Britain, improved education and free leisure and cultural facilities. There is little doubt that whether good or bad he was certainly ‘one of the greatest political figures of the twentieth century’.

7. It is my opinion that Stalin was indeed a monster as can be seen immediately from the very way in which he became leader of the communist party. He first built up a following within the party, and then set out to out-manoeuvre his rivals by devious and ruthless methods. He made himself out to be Lenin’s greatest follower to gain support, and then began to systematically isolate Trotsky who in spite of being the most well-known Bolshevik after Lenin had made no effort to build up support himself. Stalin was the man in charge of arranging Lenin's funeral. He told Trotsky the wrong day so he would not turn up, and then made a great show of being Lenin's keenest follower. When Trotsky put forward a policy of ‘World Revolution’ saying that communism in the USSR would only surviving other countries became communist too, he put forward and opposing policy of ‘Socialism in one country’ which intended to develop communism in the USSR first. He managed to out-vote Trotsky by using the support he had been carefully building up within the party, and Trotsky was overruled. In 1925 Trotsky was removed from his post as Commissar for War. Stalin then sided with the right-wing faction within the party who wanted a slow progression towards industrialisation, opposing the left-wing Communists who wanted rapid industrialisation and to force the peasants to join collective farms. In 1927 the left-wingers (among them Trotsky) and their supporters were expelled from the Communist Party. Stalin then showed his devious nature, turned on the right-wing and began to force through collectivism and the first of his five year plans designed to result in rapid industrialisation, the very thing he had got rid of the left-wing for wanting! All the right-wingers were now removed from important positions, and by 1929 Stalin was surrounded only by his own supporters. Taking no chances Stalin's ruthlessness was demonstrated by his treatment of Trotsky who was sent to Siberia in 1928, expelled for the USSR in 1929 and murdered by one of Stalin’s agents in Mexico in 1940.

Many of Stalin’s policies resulted in suffering and hardship for the citizens of the USSR. His reasons for rapid industrialisation were because his own paranoid and suspicious nature made him afraid of invasion (which was unlikely), and because he wanted to reduce the power the peasants had over food prices. Rapid industrialisation would result in massive changes in agriculture and this would break the power the richer peasants (Kulaks) had. He introduced the collective farm or Kolkhoz to farm the land in larger units. Tools and animals would be pooled and the peasants would work the land together. The kulaks hated the idea of collectivism and opposed it. Stalin’s response was immediate and cruel. He drove resisters from their farms and homes, and put them into forced labour camps or onto poor land. Most of the wealthier peasants died as a result of their treatment while the poorer ones worked reluctantly .The disruption to the farming resulted in poor outputs, and when the government took its share the result was a famine in the countryside in which at least five million died. This was indeed the act of a dictator who cared little for his people but was prepared to sacrifice millions of lives in order to achieve what he wanted which was control over agriculture. These deaths are caricatured in source A where the mountains of skulls represent the millions dying under Stalin’s monstrous regime.

Stalin demonstrated the same ruthlessness he showed towards the farmers in the way he treated his political opponents, and the senior army officers. His suspicious nature made him afraid of all opposition and meant that people were sent to labour and prison camps for opposing him or making mistakes. Sources I and J draw a picture of his supreme power to send people into exile or to their deaths without reference to true justice.

Stalin deliberately used propaganda to manipulate the opinions of others. Source B is an example of the successful and approachable way he wanted to be seen, and Source E is an example of the excessive and uncritical praise published about him to raise a positive view amongst the people, and to squash any critical thoughts. Those who dared to speak out against him, like Bukharin in source F paid a severe penalty. Bukharin became a victim of the purges. Even Khruschev who had supported Stalin when he worked with him wanted to distance himself from Stalin after his death, as can be seen in the guarded criticism in sources G and H.

Stalin was a skilled organiser and clever thinker, but he was also an arrogant and ruthless monster who showed little respect for human life or human feelings. He was manipulative as can be seen by his use of propaganda and the way he played the right and left wings against each other, and paranoid as can be seen in the way he ruthlessly removed opponents, and also the way he emphasised the ‘danger from abroad’ even though there was no real threat to the USSR until the second world war. Although the USSR did become an industrial giant during his time, it was at too great a cost to the Russian people. It is my opinion that he was indeed a monster who exploited his country for personal recognition.