• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Was Stalin Necessary

Extracts from this document...


Was Stalin Necessary? Kate Ashton To answer the question 'was Stalin really necessary?' it is important to look at what he achieved in his 24 years from 1929 as leader of the Communist Party in the then USSR. Stalin was responsible for many good ideas. He wanted to modernize the USSR and as most of the industry was squeezed into just a few cities leaving the rest of this huge country in the same backward state it had been in a hundred years earlier, he realised that to be powerful he had to have more successful farming and industry as well as military power. ...read more.


It was almost definitely that fact that saved it from defeat when Hitler invaded during the Second World War By the end of the 1930's most Soviet workers had very much improved conditions and were well educated and skilled. There was almost no un-employment, unlike the West. 'Collectivisation' was Stalin's idea to put all the agriculture into the hands of the local Communist Party leaders and away from the farmers. The farmers did not like this as they were being asked to stop producing grain to feed their families and instead to produce crops for industry. The Kulaks, who owned their own land, refused to even hand it over and a long battle started. ...read more.


He ruled as a dictator and kept the Soviet Union apart from most of the rest of the world, keeping all foreigners out. He created a system of government based entirely on fear felt by every living citizen and his policies created a privileged class that took advantage of all of the rest of the people. Stalin was responsible for millions of deaths during the battles of the collectives; through the forced labour camps, the mistakes he made in the Second World War and just his personal campaign of violence and vengeance. So was Stalin 'necessary'? Could his modernisation/industrial revolution and military success have happened without the use of his violent and brutal Stalinist methods? It is equally as arguable both ways and possibly would have happened without Stalin but maybe not as quickly. ...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. How Successful Was Roosevelt’s New Deal?

    It is enough to say that the Constitution does not provide for it. We are of the opinion that such an attempt to fix the hours and wages of workers was not a lawful use of government power." Franklin D.

  2. Purges and Hysteria in the Soviet Union

    He recognised Stalin as the Party's foremost leader, but he had a mind of his own, and Stalin's personality annoyed him. He might argue with Stalin - as friends sometimes do. And Stalin, being the politician that he was, remained friendly with Kirov.

  1. What happened to the Romanov Family? Sourcework

    it says, 'see whether anyone's there and if the shots will be heard'. Guns are also mentioned in Sources A, B, C, E, G, I and J. This practically confirms that Medvedev is being truthful when he says that the Romanov's were shot.

  2. Source based work on Impressions of Stalin?

    drowned man; this was a very clever way for him to separate himself from the blame of the purges. He uses the story to show how the lack of concern of men was like that of the other leaders in Russia.

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