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

Stalin was a necessary evil for the Soviet Union With regard to this statement evaluate the rule of Stalin from 1924 to 1953

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Stalin was a necessary evil for the Soviet Union" With regard to this statement evaluate the rule of Stalin from 1924 to 1953 "Stalin was a necessary evil for the Soviet Union", I disagree with this statement. Stalin was an unstable and corrupt leader who maintained his rule by provoking fear in the masses. Despite this he still achieved little when compared to the massacre in which he had caused. This essay will justify my beliefs regarding my hypothesis through the evaluation of key events throughout Stalin's reign. These events are collectivisation, industrialisation and the purges In 1928, in comparison to the rest of the world, Russia was a very underdeveloped state, it was essential for the nation to advance economically as war was imminent in Europe at the time. Russia would need to industrialize rapidly in order to survive in a modern war. Hence Stalin's main economic goal was to bridge the 50 year economic gap between Russia and the more advanced countries at the time in a short 5 year period. Stalin was obsessed with the industrial situation and was prepared to make the people of Russia suffer to increase industry. He planned to do this with a 5 Year Plan. The first year of the 5 Year Plan focused on forcing collectivisation on forcing collectivisation on the nation's peasants. ...read more.

Middle

Stalin's collectivisation defiantly had more drastic effects though due to how it was strictly forced on so many people with such harsh regulations (death penalties, camps) resulting in millions of deaths. Of The Five Year Plan initiated by Stalin the key focus was on another sector, industrialisation. Industrialisation was the course of transforming an economy reliant on farming and agriculture into an industrial one which produced heavy industrial goods such as metals and oils. Historian Timothy Snyder argues that the workers who held down the industry were to be exterminated provoking a sense of fear within the workers, for again, like collectivisation, not fulfilling their quotas set by the government. This could be recognised as a social disadvantage as killing to provoke fear in the people is an unmoral, harsh and essentially evil act. Stalin tried to avoid this though by encouraging the people with propaganda campaigns in order to encourage workers to strive for their privileges and warp their minds to think what they are doing is correct. Both Stalin and Hitler were skilled users of propaganda they both used it as a tool to spread their ideas and to help them gain support from the people in their country. That is not to say there weren't differences in their propaganda though. The Soviet Union was a communist state and therefore tends to place Stalin amongst military, workers and children as if he were to be offering support for their needs. ...read more.

Conclusion

All the fear and killings in the country also reduced the economic development, this was due to the fact that many industrial workers were killed and the general worker moral decreased and with so their productivity. To conclude the purges contained no significant advantages for the Soviet Union. To restate the hypothesis Stalin was not a necessary evil for the Soviet Union. The extermination of the millions opposing his policies was an extremely unmoral and unjustifiable act. Through these awful actions he did not even manage to fulfil his goals set by The 5 Year Policy proving himself to be unsuccessful as a leader. Despite this is not entirely fair to say that Stalin was a complete failure. His industrialisation programme may have not achieved the output he set, yet it did still increase the good produced massively. The result of this was that it brought the Soviet Union to the modern world, however not as quickly as he wanted. Without this though the Soviet Union wouldn't have coped in World War 2 as well as it did and more would have died in the war if the country did not become more advanced. However this is still not justifiable considering that millions more where lost through Stalin's abysmal reign than what would have been lost in the war. Therefore proving Stalin was not a necessary evil for the Soviet Union. ?? ?? ?? ?? Karl Al-Omar ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate History 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 International Baccalaureate History essays

  1. Rwanda Genocide

    by giving them weapons and used their international power to let Hutus enter Tutsi refuge camps that were set by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) (newyorker, 8.Jan.2010), to murder them all. Within the refuge camps, another 50 thousand people have lost their lives.

  2. To what extent was the Soviet Union under Stalin a totalitarian state?

    Thus, the widespread use of terror in the Purges helped Stalin gain total control over the society in the Soviet Union. Moreover, he also strengthened his power by creating a new constitution for the Soviet Union in 1936. It was seen as an "illusion of democracy" (Lowe 327)

  1. To what extent, if any, did the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster contribute to the fall ...

    Both sources were very close to the time of the catastrophe and thus does not capture the broader perspective of historical context and impact of the disaster but rather foreshadows the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. D. Analysis According to Soviet press releases, the country's nuclear industry was

  2. Rise of Castro and Stalin

    Lee writes how similarly the Bolshevik party's promises of 'peace, bread and land' held appeal for the Russian people, who were impoverished by the continuation of involvement within the war. Cachan writes of how Stalin's 'Revolution in one country' stance of communism also was of great appeal to Russians who

  1. In what ways, and with what results had Stalin developed the Soviet Union into ...

    There was a drop in the number of animals, as many people decided to kill their animals as a means of rebelling against the state. For example, from 70.5 million of cattle in 1928, the number dropped to 49.3 in 1935.

  2. History questions on Soviet Russia and its relations with the rest of the World.

    What has happened to democracy, national self-determination, and the individual since the invention of more sophisticated weapons? Do you agree or disagree w/Orwell?s conclusions? Why? As stated above in the last question, more sophisticated weapons have only been made for the state and for industrialized countries, and I do agree with this.

  1. How successful was Khrushchev as Soviet Leader?

    The extent of this scheme cannot be underestimated; almost 30 million hectares were involved in it; as McCauley states ?it truly was a nationwide plan?. However, although he should have delegated far more effectively, the administrators behind the scenes let Khrushchev down by failing to organise adequate facilities such as

  2. Explain the effects of the purges in the Soviet Union in the 1930s

    Stalin put the Soviet Union in a weaker position. This forces him to sign a treaty with Germany, which was his enemy, to avoid dealing with them because the army was inexperienced and they were not ready to war.

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