Source D (2) is a letter from Stalin to his daughter it shows Stalin to be a caring and loving Father on the other hand we could interpret the letter as illustrating how his relationship with his daughter was not very good. In the letter it says
‘You don’t write to your little papa, I think you have forgotten
him’
The very fact that he is writing to his daughter suggests that he is away from home for along time. The letter shows how he has little time for his family and is often away. His daughter has not written for a long time showing perhaps she doesn’t miss him or he isn’t a significant part of her life. On the over hand it could show Stalin to be a caring father after all he does ask a lot of questions after her
‘What are you up to? How old are your dolls?’
Overall this extract could either be portraying Stalin has a good father who worries about his child or a man who spends little time with his child and cares more for the future of Russia.
In conclusion I would say that these two sources provide us with some useful information about Stalin. The first source tells us that Stalin cares what people think of him and wants to be seen has a caring and moral man. The second Source tells us that Stalin’s relationship with his daughter isn’t great and he doesn’t spend much time with her however he does seem to care for her. From these sources we can tell Stalin’s main priority is to stay in power of Russia and ensure his people like him.
1c.
After looking at both the sources we can see that they give very different views of Stalin. There are quite a few reasons why these sources give a different view of Stalin. To decide why I need to look at the text and take into account background information that I already know. Also I need to review all the information about the writers of the sources.
Firstly if we look at source E we can see that it is from a speech written to Congress of Soviets in 1935 and that it was published in Pravda, a Communist Party newspaper. It is a passage thanking Stalin and praising him for what he has done for Russia. He evens goes, as far to say that the first word he will say when his child is born will be, Stalin. It is recited with such honour and respect as if he is referring to a god not a politician. This is a Russian's view and therefore it would appear to be biased. It is also published in a communist paper backing up the previous point even more. It was good propaganda for Stalin. It was written by a man Stalin had obvious influence over, a Russian citizen most likely living in fear and was forced to believe that what Stalin was doing was right. We cannot totally rely on this passage for an accurate view of Stalin and what the people thought of him.
A man called Bukharin, a former supporter of Stalin, writes the second source. This man fell into disgrace in 1929 and became a victim of Stalin's purges in 1938. Stalin allied with Bukharin during his power struggle against Karmanez and Zinoviev. After this he turned on Bukharin to become the supreme leader of the country. This source is Bukharin's view on Stalin. It is a speech made in Paris in 1936.The passage tells a completely different story compared with the source E. He tells us of Stalin's bad points. We are told that Stalin has to always be best and if someone becomes better then they must die. It tries to put across the point that Stalin is a ruthless man and that he is narrow-minded. He states at the end of his speech that,
'He is not a man, but a devil'.
This appears to be the view of someone who has seen a different side to Stalin, a side that the writer has experienced by working with the man. He has worked with Stalin and knows what he is like. What we are told about Stalin matches his actions while he was in power. For example Bukharin tells us in this speech that Stalin cannot stand to be second best. This would explain his purges and his attempts to keep power.
Overall there are possible reasons that I can see for these two sources being different to do with the people writing them and where they were written and for what reason. Source E is a Russian citizen's view of Stalin and the writer has probably only seen the good sides of Stalin and what he had done for the country. He did not put any bad points into his speech maybe through fear or ignorance of what his great leader was doing to the people of Russia. Source F on the other hand seems to give a negative view of Stalin. The reason Source F gives a negative view of Stalin is because Bukharin who was a supporter of Stalin wrote it. Bukharin was a victim of the Purges. This probably meant he was angry with Stalin and hated him; this source is an extract from a speech by Bukharin in Paris where Stalin was hated. In conclusion the two sources where different because the writers had been exposed to different sides of Stalin and were influenced by where they were.
1d.
To decide whether or not to trust Khrushchev’s assessment of Stalin I need to look at a number of things. Firstly I must look at who Khrushchev was, the content of the text and if it matches what I already know of Stalin and lastly I must put the text into context and ask why it has been written, what it is supposed to achieve?
Khrushchev was a leading figure in the communist party when Stalin was the main leader, Khrushchev survived the purges and became the leader of the communist party after Stalin died. Khrushchev wrote both sources G and H when he was in power. They were part of a speech made by Khrushchev to the Soviet communist party in 1956. Khrushchev didn’t have a fall out with Stalin and stayed in his good books because of this the sources probably are not bias against Stalin but what he was really like. In this respect I trust that Khrushchev’s assessment is not aimed to put Stalin down but the truth from Khrushchev’s eyes.
Source G seems to be justifying what Stalin had done over the past years and what he did was necessary to accomplish his goals. We get the impression Khrushchev thinks that what Stalin did was necessary for the defence of socialism and communism. In my opinion Khrushchev is attempting to defend Stalin in this speech. Perhaps the reason Khrushchev supports Stalin’s actions is because he had just taken over as leader of the Soviet communist party and maybe did not want to lose his party's support, as he knew that the Soviet communist party held Stalin highly. From source G we can tell that Khrushchev held Stalin highly and respected the fact that he was a great leader, however I don’t think that Khrushchev agreed with how Stalin choose to run the country and enforce his rule. I get this impression from the extract which says
‘Stalin was convinced that the use of terror and executions was
was necessary for the defence of Socialism and communism.’
I find this analysis of Stalin believable as Khrushchev was close to Stalin and was exposed to what he was like. Source G is very similar to the view I have of Stalin and think that Source G is an accurate account of Stalin.
Khrushchev displays a different view of Stalin in Source H; he is described as a distrustful man with a bad case of paranoia. He saw everyone as a threat to his reign of power an enemy, even people he had known for years. I find this source acceptable as it matches my view of Stalin and would explain the purges of many which he had known for years. The purges where Stalin’s way of keeping power and order in the country as a result ending in the deaths of many people. It was not only leading figures that where purged it was also party members, an estimated 500,000 where either put in labour camps or executed. Stalin also concentrated on the army officers for example the red army leader, Marshal Tukhachevsky. The reason for the purges in the army was because Stalin was terrified of the red army rising against him so he had to make sure the officers didn’t become to powerful. I think source H is an accurate account and would explain the purges.
Overall I can conclude that I do trust both of Khrushchev assessments of Stalin. I think they are near the truth because Khrushchev worked closely with Stalin through his time in power he saw firsthand Stalin's acts and thoughts. Also I believe the sources because of the views I have of Stalin and the things I know about him such as the Purges and the deceitful way he came to power. Of course these accounts wont be entirely true because Khrushchev had to consider his party and their views but overall I would say these sources are reliable.
1e.
Sources I and J are cartoons both about Stalin’s show trials. In my opinion these two sources are very similar and both put forward the same ideas about Stalin’s show trials. The impressions I get from these two sources are that the trials were bias and unfair. These trials were a result of Stalin being so suspicious, they were the trials of all those he had purged throughout the 1930’s. Source I has been published in America and source J in France and yet they are still very similar.
Source I is a cartoon of a courtroom, there is four people on trial presumably politicians who Stalin is suspicious of. The four on trial are all happily accepting their charges and admitting crimes. They seem to be saying it with smiling faces this to me implies that they are mad, there are accounts that say that Stalin would have them tortured which either made them mad or killed them. The source is showing that these cases were very unfair the fact that Stalin is the judge shows the influence he has over the punishment system. They may be readily admitting their crimes because they see themselves as already been judged and sentenced. This idea is enforced even more by the fact that there is a picture of the gallows in the background; this indicates that the cases were done very quickly and the outcome had already been decided before the hearing took place. In summary this source satirises the unfairness and bias of Stalin’s show trials.
Source J is very similar in the view it is portraying of the show trials. The cartoon shows a full courtroom each person in the courtroom is Stalin. It shows Stalin as the judge, jury and the prosecution this shows the influence Stalin had on Russia’s penal system and especially the show trials. The cartoon is trying to put across the point that anyone who may be a threat to Stalin will be put on trial and the trial is unlikely to be fair. This illustration would give us the impression that Stalin was paranoid and scared of losing his place of leader. By putting Stalin as all three sections of the court the cartoon shows us that he is in total control and the jury will do as he wishes.
Overall in conclusion my view is that these two sources agree completely with each other. The main message from these sources is that Stalin is willing to execute and exile anyone who stands in his way or posses as a threat to his control. The impression given is Stalin’s show trials are unfair and bias, the majority of people who went on trial were innocent but due to torture before the trial were either mad or had had enough.
1f.
The sources on this paper either claim Stalin was a monster or that he was a talented politician who was loved by the Russian people. To answer the question how far do the sources support the phrase ‘Stalin was a monster’ I need to put together all the different sources and come to a suitable conclusion based on my own opinion and the information from the sources.
From studying all the sources the view I have of Stalin is that he was a ruthless man and very suspicious, despite this I get the impression that he as a skilled politician and leader. I think source A really backs up the statement ‘Stalin was a monster’. Source a shows Stalin as a cruel man willing to sacrifice lives to achieve his goals, it portrays Stalin as a ruthless man and yes a monster. Source D (2) doesn’t show Stalin as a monster but it does show he neglected his child and put Russia before his daughter. This puts forward the opinion that Stalin was a bad father but it doesn’t show him as a monster. I think source E is very strongly against Stalin and if believed word for word shows Stalin as a monster or worse a devil. Source F tells us that Stalin was a narrowed minded malicious man. Source F was written by Bukharin who was against Stalin completely so this source like a few others cannot be taken word for word of course there is truth in it and whether completely true or not definitely agrees that Stalin was a monster. Source shows us that Stalin hated being second best and is jealous and scheming towards those who are better. Both sources J and I show Stalin as a monster I think this because the impression I receive from the two cartoons is negative. They show that Stalin was ruthless and had little regard for human life. The picture they paint of Stalin is a power hungry monster that will stop at nothing to rid himself of his enemies.
On the other hand we can receive a positive message from some of the sources about Stalin’s character. Firstly source B shows a very different Stalin to the monster we heard of above. From source B we get the impression that Stalin is a caring man who is concerned for the workers and the dangers they face at the power station also it shows Stalin as a man who is interested in Russia’s industry and wants to improve it for the good of the Russian people. Another positive thing we can withdraw from this source is he was friendly and mixed with common workers; it makes him look more like a friend f the Russians than a ruler. Source D shows us a human side to his nature. It shows us that Stalin actually cared about people. However this source may have only been made for the reason of propaganda, we do not know. If it was just for the purpose of propaganda than it tells us that Stalin was an insecure leader and it tells us that Stalin was a clever man who could manipulate the Russian people using propaganda. A source, which disagrees completely with the phrase Stalin, was a monster is source E. Source E seems to be written a bit like a prayer. This shows us that his people idolised him and maybe thought him as a God They do not see him as any kind of monster. Of course this speech was done by a writer who was under the influence of the congress of Soviets. He seems to be a person the Russian people look up to, not a person they hate for what he has done. This source describes Stalin as strong, beautiful, wise and marvellous not any of the characteristics of a monster. Source G and H are not positive views of Stalin but neither do they accuse him of being evil. These sources justify Stalin’s actions, source G says
‘We cannot say that these were deeds of a mad deposit.
He considered this should be done in the interest of the
party and the working masses.
This is saying that Stalin was not a monster but just confused, he thought he was helping the Russian people. These sources are in my opinion accurate accounts of what Stalin was really like. Source K is from a biography Stalin published in 1947 this gives the impression that it may not be entirely accurate and the truth could have been distorted. The source shows Stalin as a brilliant leader and teacher, it described Stalin as a man with an iron will, clarity of mind and a devotion to his party. In my opinion not all these are true I think however Stalin did have an iron will and there can be no doubt he was devoted to his party.
Overall I can conclude that none of the sources succeed in capturing Stalin’s character completely. There are quite a few sources which do support the statement Stalin was a monster, but many other sources suggest he wasn’t evil. In my opinion source L sums up Stalin’ character the best; it says Stalin was a skilled politician and one of the greatest politicians of the twentieth century. However it then goes on to say that he wasn’t a good man and had a dark side to his nature. In conclusion I don’t think that these sources supported the view that Stalin was a monster that much, although most sources agree Stalin did have a dark side to his nature.
