Both source ‘b’ and ‘c’ give different opinions on Stalin’s rule. The two sources are opinions but have facts in them.
Source ‘b’ says that communist Russia is a wonderful place to live. It also mentions that citizens receive free health care and education. Dr Hewlett Johnson created the information, the dean of Canterbury cathedral. The source expresses his opinion of Russia after his tour (most likely to have been selective). The book was created after the deans trip to Russia. He feels it is a beautifully structured country and totally opposite to the media’s interpretation. It is biased and gives a positive opinion. It was created in 1939 and therefore is a primary source. Source ‘b’ is an extract from a book written by Dr Hewlett Johnson. The author says that Russia is a good country and he says that Stalin has provided good services for his citizens; therefore it is only the media portraying a unjust image of the country.
Source ‘c’ says that Stalin was very lucky to win the war. The source was a biased opinion, even though the opinion has a very good argument. Its author was H Ward and this information can be found in a GCSE textbook, which was intended for the use in schools. The source however is a secondary opinion and the author most likely to have found the information from other primary accounts. It was created with the intention to help students studying GCSE history. The book, which contains this information, is called ‘World Powers in the 20th century’ and the book was created in the United Kingdom
Source ‘d’ and ‘e’ are both photographs. There are many advantages and disadvantages in using a photograph as a source. Advantages include giving a visual picture so we can see whether it was like how they describe it to be. Also a photograph is a primary source of information. Disadvantages are that the image that you see could have been a selected image, staged or even faked.
Source ‘d’ is a photograph that shows the communist leader sitting and talking with his public. The photograph was created and published by the Russian Information agency, which means it was selected and most likely to be used as propaganda.
The image shows Stalin with his citizens (farm workers) and it shows how pleased they were at the fact of collectivisation.
As the photo was created by the Russian Information agency it was intended for propaganda use and it message was that Stalin was sympathetic to the Russian public and was not a evil dictator but a dictator for the people.
The image was captured on a farm in Moscow in 1933, it is a photograph which is official basically meaning that it was propaganda.
Source ‘e’ shows the real farm workers suffering from starvation and famine. The photographer has not given a name because whoever took the photo, would have been executed by the NKVD (secret police) for betraying the state. The image was intended to show the world how the real Russian lived and how they had been treated under the rule of Stalin. The picture shows what a real Russian village looked like. The image was taken in a village, where Stalin’s government probably took over the local farms (collectivisation).
The picture was produced during Stalin’s rule over the country and most likely to have been taken in the 1930s when the nation suffered from famine.
The image is a privately taken photograph, so it is likely that it isn’t a propaganda picture as it shows Russian children suffering. I feel that it is more reliable than source ‘d’ as it not taken by the Russian information agency. This source is also a primary source, which makes it even more reliable.
Source ‘f’ shows that in Russia they had no regard for human life. It gives a reference to a human corpse left at the work site of the lock at Belomorsk. A prisoner sent to the Gulags witnessed this corpse being shovelled into a concrete mixer. The piece of text was a eye witness account and was published to share his experience with the rest of the world. The article was made in a concentration camp (gulag) in 1925. It portrays a negative view on Stalin’s rule. The article is very trust worthy, as we know this from background research done previously. It is a article containing fact but mainly opinion as it is very biased.
Source ‘g’ tells us that Stalin’s plan for collectivisation was not all a success but it did revolutionise Russian farming. The year the book was written suggest that it is a negative source of information.
E Roberts created the source and he is a well-known British historian. It was created to show that Stalin’s rule wasn’t all a failure. The source was published in a book titled “Stalin Man of Steel” and it is based on fact. However the source of information is a secondary piece as the book was written in 1986.
Looking at all the sources it is difficult to decide whether Stalin’s dictatorship did anything to improve Russia. In Stalin’s dictatorship, the area most highlighted was the number of murders throughout his rule. The evil dictator had the right idea (to revolutionise Russia and bring it into the modern world) but did go about it the wrong way. Now I need to look at each source and other knowledge to reach a conclusion.
Source ‘A’ agrees with the view that Stalin was an evil dictator. It is a cartoon showing Stalin committing suicide as he has killed everyone else and now has to kill himself because he has taken away the right of freedom of speech. The source is biased but reliable as we know from other sources that Stalin was a evil dictator. The cartoonist, David Lowe is drawing from a British point of view.
The next source of information is the opinion of a British doctors journey to the Russian capital, Moscow. He feels that Russia, during Stalin’s rule, is a very public friendly dictatorship. During the times of Stalin’s rule, the majority of the public agreed with Stalin’s methods of making Russia a better place. The public at the time felt that Stalin was a great leader and only he could have achieved this success of revolutionising the country. However this source is not reliable as the doctor’s tour was most probably very selective and limited.
Source ‘C’ is another source that agrees with the statement. It is written by Ward and is extract from a textbook. The extract gives a negative insight on the dictatorship. It says that Stalin weakened the country, so much that they were lucky to win the war. The source is very reliable, as we know from other research that Stalin’s plan for collectivisation weakened the country by famine and the farm owners (kulaks) were co-operating with the Germans to over throw Stalin’s rule. In addition Stalin also went after the Russian army, and dismissed many members of it (25,000), including the supreme commander Marshal Tuchachevsky.
This source is an official photograph from the Russian Information agency. Source ‘d’ shows the dictator with the farm worker. It contradicts the statement, as it shows Stalin sitting with citizens of Moscow. This is not a very reliable source as it was most likely to be a propaganda image. It is not a reliable source, as from other information we know that Stalin was an evil dictator. In 1936 Stalin created a new constitution in the USSR, which gave citizens the right to freedom of speech and free elections. This was solely for cosmetic purposes. He gave citizens freedom of speech but his secret police were everywhere and would take away any citizens they believed would do Stalin’s rule wrong. Also on member of the communist party could be ‘elected’ by the public.
‘E’ shows the real Russian villages, it shows famine struck villagers. It strongly agrees with the statement and was a photograph taken in the times of collectivisation. It is a reliable image, as we know that many Russian villages suffered from famine. It is very useful as we get a visual on how terrible life was when Stalin reigned.
Source ‘F’ is a extract from a book and agrees with the statement. It shows the total disregard for human life. The source is useful as it is reliable. We know it is reliable as from other information we know under Stalin’s rule death and murder occurred regularly.
Source ‘G’ gives a positive view on Stalin’s rule. It says that despite the loss of human life, Stalin revolutionised Russia. This secondary source was written by E Roberts and is a extract from a book called Stalin man of steel. It is a reliable secondary source and gives as positive insight on Stalin’s Dictatorship
I would like to conclude by pointing out the following:
From my own knowledge, Stalin was evil because he abused his powers to put fear into the public so they wouldn’t rebel against his dictatorship. He just took away citizen owned farms and made them government property (collectivisation) using power. Also he sent many loyal citizens away to gulags.
However he also improved the country by building rail tracks and better transport. Also his citizens enjoyed free water supply; electricity and near to nothing rent. Further more he provided free health care and education.
To conclude, I feel that Stalin improved Russia but at a great cost and disregard for human life. Throughout his regime the countries economy grew vastly and standard of life. I feel that because of his vision of the revolution, it makes Russia the world power it is today. Also I feel that he could have had more regard for the citizens whilst revolutionising the nation. His 5-year plans improved the country and in many ways made it what it is today (production of coal, steel, electricity, oil etc). Having said that weakened the country and nearly cost the nation a war. So in conclusion I have to say that Stalin was a evil dictator but without him Russia would not be a industrialised country. Therefore I do not fully agree with the statement “ Stalin was an evil dictator whose rule did nothing to improve Russia”.
