- Both these sources should be read objectively. Source E is blatant soviet propaganda, as it was published in Pravda, the communist newspaper. It glorifies Stalin in order to make him seem like a better man to the people: ‘and when the woman that I love presents me with a child the first word it shall utter will be: Stalin.’
Source F was written by Bukharin, a disgraced soviet official who was still bitter about being a victim of Stalin’s purges. He told the crowd that Stalin was ‘a narrow minded, malicious man – no, not a man, but a devil.’ Because of this, the source will not have been written objectively, as Bukharin was obvious feeling both disgruntled and vengeful towards Stalin when it was written.
Out of the two sources, source F would be more reliable, simply because it was not written to glorify Stalin, but only marginally so.
- Both these sources came from the same speech, the ‘de-Stalinization’ speech that Khrushchev made in 1956, after Stalin had left power. The purpose of the speech was to distance Russia from the harsh rule that Stalin had had. For this reason, the speech is likely to be biased against Stalin, as Khrushchev had an agenda. He felt that the people should now put Stalin’s rule behind them, and the best way to do this was to portray him as a ‘very distrustful man.’ However, the points raised in the speech do have some elements of truth, from what we know today of Stalin – for instance the horrific purges that he enacted on the Russian peasants.
- These two sources both agree strongly about Stalin’s ‘show trials’. When looking at them, however, it must be borne in mind that they both originate from western, capitalist countries (France and the US) and so will be strongly biased against Stalin and communism in general. The sources agree that the trials were, in essence, meaningless. The American cartoon implies that the defence in these trials had no hope, and whatever they said they would still be punished. The men are saying things to Stalin such as ‘Sure, I tried to betray my country!’ The French one, in which the entire courtroom is filled with Stalins, shows the power that Stalin had over the courts. The sources agree that the defence, and the courts themselves, were completely controlled by Stalin.
- Both these sources are very objective, as they were written well after the fact, in Britain, a fairly neutral country in regards to Stalin. Source L claims that Stalin was ‘a gifted politician’, but does concede that he had ‘a dark and evil side to his nature’. Source M is more concentrated on this ‘dark side’, and tells us that Stalin was ‘corrupted by absolute power’. I feel that source L is more objective than source M, as it does admit that Stalin was not completely evil, and that he was ‘a gifted politician.’
- Stalin is often portrayed as a monster, a purely evil man who delighted in cruelty to others. Although Stalin did horrific things to his people, I feel I must disagree with Bukharin in his statement that Stalin is ‘a devil.’ It is more tempting to agree with source M, in that Stalin was ‘corrupted by absolute power.’ When Stalin took power in 1929, he took control of a very underdeveloped country. In twenty years, he completely changed the face of the USSR, and made it into one of the worlds foremost industrial powers.
However, Stalin definitely had a ‘dark and evil side to his nature’. The barbaric way in which he executed his purges is concrete evidence to this effect. Stalin used propaganda and scare tactics to his advantage, to cover the atrocities he was committing. As was said in a British biography of Stalin: ‘Without terror, who would have failed to notice the clear absurdity of Stalin’s rule?’
It is unsure how far people in Russia actually believed propaganda such as ‘Everybody is familiar with [Stalin’s] love for the people’ (from a Russian biography of Stalin.) However, Russia has had a history of very strong leaders, such as Peter the Great, who revolutionized Russia in the late 17th and early 18th centuries with his harsh tactics. They have always worked well in Russia.
I therefore believe that Stalin was neither a monster, nor an inherently good leader. He was simply a man who used monstrous tactics to try and achieve his goals.
- The one major source of disagreement and confusion of Stalin has been the amount of blatant propaganda, both for and against him. All the sources in the paper have their own agenda, as at the time, no one was impartial towards Stalin.
Stalin used every method possible to force the Russian people into believing in him and his policies. There was the constant bombardment of propaganda from the media, and the secret police, watching every person to make sure they agreed with Stalin. The ‘iron curtain’ that surrounded Russia at the time, as well as the constant threat of the secret police, makes it almost impossible to determine what the Russian people really thought of Stalin and his rule. Viewpoints from other countries, both the west and other communist states, were either overly critical or overly respectful of his regime, such as ‘generations to come will regard us as the happiest of people, because we were privileged to see Stalin, our inspired leader.’ from a communist newspaper.
All this leads to serious ambiguity about Stalin’s personality, and the intentions behind the regime he inflicted on Russia.
Bibliography:
Stalin and the Soviet Union – Josh Brooman (Longman)
From Romanov to Gorbachev – Peter Mantin and Colin Lankester (Hutchinson)
Modern World History to GSCE – James Mason (OUP)
Chloe Cangardel 5/3/2007
Page of
