• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12

These three sources do not all give the same impression of Stalin. Source A is definitely not conveying a good image of Stalin, but sources B and C are.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Question 1 These three sources do not all give the same impression of Stalin. Source A is definitely not conveying a good image of Stalin, but sources B and C are. Source A is a cartoon published in Paris in the 1930's. It shows Stalin and the results of his policies- the results being death. The source shows Stalin pointing at the pyramids of skulls and laughing whilst doing so. The pyramids represent the pyramids in Egypt. Stalin did great things for Russia but at a terrible price, like in Egypt- Pharoh did great things for Egypt but at a terrible price. We know the cartoon is French because written in big words is "visitez l'U.S.S.R ses pyramides!"- visit the pyramids. The French opposed Stalin and Russia and Stalin also did not trust the French for one second. This has partly to do with the Treaty of Versailles and knowing the French were a part of that making. The skulls suggest the deaths of all the victims of Stalin's evil purges and to see Stalin laughing at them does not portray a good vision of him. It is definitely a piece of propaganda against Stalin and his works. Unlike source A, source B and C show Stalin to be a good, successful and liked man. In source B, it shows Stalin standing, smiling with the workers of the newly opened hydroelectric power station in the 1930's. This shows an example of the great things Stalin did for Russia. The men standing with him are the workers and they are smiling, hence showing they are happy with their work and with what Stalin has achieved for them. This portrays a very good vision of Stalin, it shows that he cares about his workers and has a good relationship with them. He is wearing white, which makes him stand out, suggests that he's "angelic" which is what he wants his public image to be. ...read more.

Middle

Source L, written in 1974, states that Stalin was a good politician- "Stalin was very skilled, indeed gifted politician, and one of the greatest political figures of the twentieth century." The source then carries on to say how he was a good politician, but had an evil dark side- "he had a dark and evil side to his nature". This source therefore concludes that Stalin was a great politician, but had a dark evil side to him. It "does not make him a good man", according to the source. Stalin did do great things for Russia. He developed it into a great powerful state, but at a great cost of many innocent lives, which is definitely the wrong way to go about developing a country. Source M does not contradict source L, but it does not agree that Stalin was a good politician. It states that he was simply pure evil and that "power turned a ruthless politician into a monstrous tyrant (dictator)". This source says that he was a power hungry dictator, which is true. During the show trials, Stalin was basically the only person who had a say in anyone's case. Stalin controlled the people of Russia. He dictated them. Unlike source L, this source clearly agrees that Stalin was a good politician. "the terror was necessary, not only to keep men obedient, but even more so to make them believe in him". This is true because we know that from the show trials, people were frightened of Stalin, and if they were to even think about putting a foot out of line, they would be killed. People had to "obey" Stalin otherwise they would have to face death. This source talks about how evil Stalin was. The second source that says Stalin was a great politician but a bad person was written in 1983. The source that states that Stalin was pure evil was published in 1974. ...read more.

Conclusion

He's saying that the bad things he did was only for the good of the country in a very polite way so that he won't offend the party members who Stalin worked so closely with Stalin. This source is quite balanced. It is saying that Stalin did use terror, but it was for the good of the country. Source L is also quite balanced. It begins by saying that Stalin was a "skilled, indeed gifted politician, and one of the greatest political figures of the twentieth century", but then says that all of this "does not make him a good man". So this source recognises all of Stalin's achievements and good qualities, but then says it can't justify his evil nature. The end of the source says "He had a dark and evil side to his nature". The beginning of the source suggests he's a man, but the end says he's a monster". This source is balanced. It was a biography published in 1983 in Britain. This source is probably the most genuine, because it doesn't take a biased approach, there was no threat of communism and there was freedom of speech in 1983 in Britain. Stalin can be perceived as a man or a monster or a combination of the two. From using my own knowledge and by studying these sources, I have come to the conclusion that he was more of a monster than a man but was a great political leader and did great things for Russia, just the way he went about doing them were absurd. The sources against Stalin were mainly French and American which isn't reliable at all because they were both strongly against communism and Stalin. The sources which was biased for Stalin even in some way leaned towards the monster category in some way. By using my own knowledge on Stalin's purges along with the great things he did for Russia, I think that Stalin did great things for Russia but they way he went about it was immoral and inhumane. Question 8 ?? ?? ?? ?? Sophie Truman Coursework 2 Stalin: Man or Monster? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Assess The Impact Of Stalin On Russia And The Russian People.

    4 star(s)

    Stalin also had different effects on different sections of society. One if these were ethnic minorities. In Stalin reign the non-Russian nationalities of the soviet-union were at first allowed to preserve their own cultural traditions and identities. But this policy was then replaced in 1934 with the policy of russification.

  2. 'The Five Year Plans brought glory to Stalin and misery to his people.' How ...

    They were treated more like slaves than workers. Anything that went wrong was blamed on the workers. The Shakhty trial was an accusation of fifty-three workers who supposedly conspired to wreck the soviet coal-mining industry. In fact, the coal mines in the Donbass region had fallen behind target but the system could not be seen as a failure so workers were blamed.

  1. How did Stalin control Russia from 1924-1953?

    The practice of mass arrest, torture, and imprisonment or execution, without fair trial, of anyone suspected by the Stalin's Secret Police of opposing Stalin's regime became commonplace. People were encouraged to betray on each other, and constantly lived in fear of not being able to trust anyone.

  2. How did Stalin transform the economy of the USSR in the 1930s?

    Another factor, which encouraged the party to support more rapid industrialisation, was the fear of invasion. By 1927, relations with France and Poland were vastly deteriorating, Britain had broken off diplomatic relations and there were suspicions about Japanese intentions. * The USSR needed an industrial base to build up their armaments.

  1. How did the rule of Stalin affect the Soviet Union?

    During the NEP there was a reduction of attacks on religious organisations, but the government tried to split up the Orthodox Church and arrested priests who didn't obey the government. In 1929 a new law was passed, it was now illegal to engage in religious activities outside the religious buildings, only licensed people were allowed to meet for worship.

  2. Assess the Impact Stalin Had On Russia and Its People Stalin came to ...

    These people became known as Stackonovites. These were the top quality workers who helped Russia to meet their high production targets. To help encourage more workers to work as hard as the Stackonovites, the government gave the Stackonovites high publicity and rewards for there hard work.

  1. The Policies of Joseph Stalin 1928 1953

    Source E was published in 1974; when communism was still around but had lost its influence. Source E hints the power Stalin had made him who he was because he abused his power, "the terror was necessary, not only to keep men obedient, but even more to make them believe in him."

  2. 'The Five Year Plans brought glory to Stalin and misery to his people' - ...

    They could little point in sharing their resources with others to increase production for feeding the hungry town workers when they had enough to eat. Even though Stalin tried to entice them into accepting collectivisation by offering free seed and perks to sow, the farmers were still concerned over the

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work