- Study source D. Does this source provide any useful evidence about Stalin? Explain your answer. (7)
Source D is a written account by Stalin in the year of 1945. The source is based on a recollection by Stalin in the past when he was living in exile in Siberia. The source is a portrayal of a time when one of Stalin’s comrade went missing where Stalin asks for the mans disappearance where his friends answer without any empathy for the mans death.
The source depicts Stalin as a reasonable and compassionate man who had a strong will for equality and justice. However the reader should also keep in mind the fact the source is biased as it was an autobiography and hence written by Stalin himself, who could have deciphered crucial information and in addition to this no other witness is there to confirm the story.
The words Stalin uses and the style this source is written portrays him as an empathetic considerate man. Stalin firstly addresses the man as a “comrade” this is an informal way of addressing a Bolshevik person, which in communism means brother. This first word immediately captivates the reader with the idea of Stalin being a humane person who feels to be a brother to the people of his country and wants equality between people regardless of their class or race; this is the seen as the basic ideology of communism. The words “He drowned of course” suggests that this is a routine occurrence and thus de-values humans and makes them sound replaceable and insignificant.
Astonished and horrified by the “lack of concern” portrayed towards his fellow “comrade” where the other men where emotionless and with “no interest” that he had drowned, after which they ran to give water to the Maine. Stalin was left with a quandary at the fact that they seemed to have “more concern for animals than for men”. This is useful to know as it portrays to the reader that Stalin is the only sane being between his comrades possessing qualities such as compassion and mercifulness. This will intern bring about support within his countries where people will view him as a considerate man fighting for a just cause.
This extract is effective for a variety of different ways, firstly he is able to vilify and criticise people as they had more care for the animals then human beings portraying the egoism these people possessed. He could also use this story to show how previous communist leaders treated their people and thus he uses this to reinstate that he was not an oppressor, but was a true communist.
Reading the source it is clear that there is ambiguity and a double meaning behind it and could be referred to an allegory where moral and conscience issues are embedded deep into the source. Here we could say that Stalin has a sense of self awareness and understands the evil and suffering people go through and the difference between right and wrong. This understanding could be reflected in his good education. He was a strong believer of equality.
This clearly portrays and symbolises Stalin’s compassionate and caring nature. The source shows Stalin to have qualities of a good leader. He seems like a leader who will listen to his peoples needs and provide for them. However, this source is unreliable about providing any useful information about Stalin as he wrote the extract himself and it therefore makes it misleading. Stalin may have written this just simply to gain popularity amongst his people and to show them that he is going to be a caring leader. The source was written by him in 1945, long after the deaths that were caused under his control, this may be his way of trying to win back public support. This indicates that Stalin may simply have written this in order to gain support, and turn them against other leaders. Stalin had previously used many methods of bribery, threats and censorship of media, to gain more public support, this could just be another approach of gaining support. Over all, the fact that Stalin had written the sources proves that it can not provide any useful evidence of Stalin at all, thus it is untrustworthy.
Concluding this source we learn many things about Stalin; the first of Stalin being a considerate and positive person it also shows Stalin’s state of mind of being conscience of the world around him and using people’s emotions to see things through his eyes and to support him Stalin uses this story to try and illustrate that the lack of concern these men had was down to “our” government policies, “It seems to me that the lack of concern our leaders show towards the people is the same attitude I met in far-off Siberia”. However it is important to remember that source D was written by Stalin in 1945. This means the source will give good representation of how he sees himself eliminating all the harsh policies he implemented in later life, the he portrays himself as the only sane being also could be a parallelism as how he sees himself as a leader where the most of his citizens where executed thus reinforcing the idea that the source is biased. Thus I believe the intentions of this source would be for Stalin trying to improve his public image after the measures he had taken during his reign. The evidence suggests that Stalin wasn’t at all how he portrays himself in the source. The source shows some interesting things that we learn about Stalin, the source portrays that Stalin would do anything to gain public support this includes playing with peoples emotions it also shows that Stalin had the means to broadcast these kinds of stories about his past and to make them sound convincing and compassionate.
- Study sources E and F. which of these two sources is the more reliable? Explain your answer. (8)
Source E is from a speech by a writer to the Congress of Soviets in 1935 and was published in Pravda, the paper of the Communist Party. Pravda is a pro-communist magazine and was heavily censored, so it will be expected that the source would be part of propaganda portraying communism as the elite group and bring motivation to the communist population. It not only ensured that the communists where portrayed in good light but that they also played an integral part in helping the people. It could also be used to show unity and solidarity between the communist nations to the allies.
Source F is a speech made by Bukharin in Paris in 1936. Bukharin was a backer of Stalin against Trotsky. This was because Trotsky wanted world wide Communism whereas Stalin and Bukharin wanted one country Communism. He fell into dishonour and humiliation in 1929 where he was purged an executed in the purges. This source is biased as it is based on how Bukharin saw Stalin, and as they did not get on with one another it is likely that Bukharin is attempting to make Stalin seem like an evil unforgiving person.
The person who wrote the speech in source E is clearly a supporter of Stalin for a variety of different reasons. Firstly Stalin’s personality is described in an exaggerated way. This portrays Stalin as a remarkable and inspirational person, and most of all a genuinely caring leader. In the source, the man is showing much gratitude to Stalin for making them “the happiest of people”. The man praises Stalin for his work “on every factory, every machine” and for being such an “inspired leader”. The man expresses his feelings of being “privileged to see Stalin”The source is full of monomaniacal statements and uses words and statements that only praise Stalin which are too embroidered to illustrate anybody examples and explanation of some of these statements are shown below.
“When the woman I love presents me with a child the first word it shall utter will be: Stalin.” This statement is very strong, as the writer suggests in an indirect manner that he regards Stalin to be more superior to his child compared to his child’s mother, as “mum” is the first word usually uttered by a baby. This personalizes the statement and allows others to connect to his thoughts and feelings. “Generations to come will regard us as the happiest of people because we lived in the same century as Stalin,” this quote portrays the happiness of people living within the same time frame as Stalin as though he was some kind of religious figure. Stalin is shown to be some what of a hero and a fine leader through source E. The aim of the source is most likely to gain more public support for Stalin.
Concluding the credibility of Source E it is clear the source is biased and it could have been made by the NKVD where they usually bribed or threatened people into saying good things about him. The person who produced the source could have been bribed or threatened. The other leaders mainly felt that Stalin was best suited to droning administrative work or party secretary. Despite this, Stalin strongly disagreed and therefore set about appointing his own supporters to positions of influence in the party. The people he appointed and promoted felt indebted and thereby supported Stalin and his policies. However at the time the majority of the soviet citizens admired Stalin’s rule if people asked about the purges. People would say that they were nothing to do with Stalin himself. For most people Stalin wasn’t a tyrant dominating an oppressed country. He and his style of government were popular. The communist party saw him as a winner and soviet citizens saw him as a “dictator of people.” The soviet people sincerely believed in Stalin and this belief was built up deliberately by communist leaders and by Stalin himself. It has developed in the cult of personality which the source clearly shows.
However source F has a divergent view of Stalin. The source is a speech made by Bukharin in 1936. Bukharin disliked Stalin for a number of reasons, firstly he too sides with Bukharin on the NEP in order to get help in getting rid of Trotsky, once Trotsky was gone Stalin opposed Bukharin using the same arguments as Trotsky used before. The remarks made in the source are disparaging towards Stalin. The source is an endeavor at revealing Stalin’s true wickedness however it also describes the character of Stalin
“Stalin is unhappy at not being able to convince everyone, himself included, that he is greater than everyone else.” This suggests that Stalin was incredibly insecure about anyone being better than he. This is proven in his actions during the Purges where he slaughtered people for no reason without any concrete evidence just because of suspicion. The quote also reinforces the idea that Stalin is a person fighting within his conscience unsure of decisions he takes. He is depicted as an incalculably apprehensive and insecure about the lack of support that he is receiving. This makes him feel “unhappy” and he felt constantly threatened by other communist leaders. He would not recognize any person who is against his policies is a better person who “if someone speaks better than he does…….Stalin will not let him live” this is because “he is greater than everyone else”. This reinforces Stalin as a “narrow minded” person, eliminating anyone he suspects of being better to him.
Concluding the credibility of Source F the fact it was published in Paris, is significant as France was a capitalist country that opposed communism, and thus was against Stalin and his communist policies. One can say the source is biased however, it is much more reliable then source E for a number of reason. Firstly Stalin did really eliminate people he saw as a threat and that was in the purges. Stalin made great “show trials” accusing and sentencing people to their death with no evidence. The source is almost a prophecy of Bukharin’s fate, as he was executed in 1938. The fact he was executed reinforces to the reader that if Stalin wasn’t a “malicious man … and a devil” why would he want to kill Bukharin. Both these sources are unreliable because they are both very dogmatic. However source F is more reliable because it wasn’t published under the influence of the government. Fact written by supporter “two days ago reinforces the fact the writer doesn’t know Stalin too much and refers to Stalin in the first person using words such as “I” which are personal words based on personal opinions.
- Study Sources G and H. Do you trust Khrushchev’s assessments of Stalin? Use your knowledge of Stalin to explain your answer. (8)
Sources G and H are both speeches made by Khrushchev, the next president of the USSR. Both sources are published in 1956 however both give the reader a different outlook on Stalin’s character. In this essay I will analyse the two sources by Khrushchev and reflect on the statements he made about Stalin and discuss whether Khrushchev’s assessment of Stalin are accurate.
In Source G Stalin is described as a person that was “convinced that the use of terror and execution was necessary for the survival of the Soviet Union”. This suggests that Stalin was personally certain that what he was doing was to save and stabilise the Soviet Union. This statement was partly true, as if he didn’t take this stand, quoted as being a “mad deposit”, then Stalin wouldn’t of introduced policies such as industrialisation, where it was an advantage to the “party and the working masses”. Even his policies such collectivisation which where initially regarded as awful where introduced not to terrorise peasants but to end forced exploitation of peasants by greedy landlords and get rid of the greedy and troublesome Kulaks. It helped peasants work together and provided large scale organisation of food production for the farms where perks and other offerings where offered. However, there were darker sides to those policies, such as collectivisation which was forced and the Kulaks were scapegoats for inefficient food production. The policy led to the murder and deportation of millions of people to prisons and labour camps, this resulted with kulaks destroying crops and animals caused by famine killing more people. Also industrialisation and other severe problems such as the five year plans, here industrial zones were set up provided workers with very poor housing and amnesties. Long hours were worked for low pay, most of the targets where unrealistic and much of the work was done by the inmates of forced labour camps, criminals and political prisoners.
Source H portrays Khrushchev portraying Stalin as a “distrustful man” and very a “suspicious” person. This is true as it is also reflected in his policies well known for killing millions of peoples such as the purges, where millions where taken to gulags and sentenced to death because of suspicion this “general distrust” he saw in people was why he began to purge people after the death of Kirov. Loyal Bolsheviks such as Bukharin and Kamenev were sent to the gulags and killed because of suspicion that they where being traitors of state. The gulags were a place of torture where inmates would eventually “confess” to anything. This deception he had in people led to him being a deceiving person himself where he deceived Trotsky at Lenin’s funeral. Because of Stalin’s suspicion, everything was censored in the NKVD and Stalin’s opponents would be deleted from pictures history books etc. Techniques of doctoring pictures became far more sophisticated to create the impression his enemies had never existed. Propaganda praising Stalin would be seen everywhere such as posters and poems, all would be praising Stalin. Every town and village would have a Stalin square with a statue of Stalin. This cult of personality made religious worship of any kind banned. Stalin did not want the people to have loyalty with anyone else but him. Instead people where encouraged to worship Stalin. Belief in God and the words of priests had to be replaced by belief in communism and the words of its leader. Source G portrays Stalin as a cruel leader that resorts mainly to execution as the means of solving all his problems.
Analysing both sources in my opinion has made me doubtful of the authenticity of these two sources as they are both contradictory to each other however both of the sources have a similar ambiguity both sources portray that Stalin did use terror however one may say that Khrushchev criticized everything that Stalin did as part of his policy of destalinisation he introduced this After had died in March The new leadership declared an amnesty for some serving prison sentences for criminal offences, announced price cuts, and relaxed the restrictions on private plots. De-Stalinization also spelled an end to the rolelarge-scale in the economy.
During a period of collective leadership, Khrushchev gradually consolidated power, and at a speech in , Khrushchev shocked his listeners by denouncing Stalin's dictatorial rule and . He also attacked the crimes committed by Stalin's closest associates. One may ask that why did Khrushchev make these speeches? There is a strong possibility that Khrushchev did it for propaganda, to try and prove that he is better then Stalin and to establish to the Russians that he had their paramount interests and concern at heart and thus he had to sturdily deviate with some of Stalin’s policies. In addition, by denouncing some of Stalin’s policies, it enhanced relations with the others, and hence becoming more popular between his citizens and abroad. This may mean that the two assessments that Khrushchev made are untrustworthy and are mainly for him to gain popularity amongst people. However, I prefer to think it was a combination of both of these factors. Nevertheless, the sources do reflect eras in Stalin’s legacy and fit the description of Stalin as he was a very suspicious person where he purged suspects with no evidence. Khrushchev eased the fighting arbitrary brutality of the Stalinist era, and some parts of the law were changed, for example you couldn’t be charged for being a relative of a convicted person. Hence one could say that these two sources are honest opinions of Stalin who to an extent disagreed many of Stalin’s policies. Thus I conclude that the two sources are trust worthy as Khrushchev’s statements do reflect Stalin’s personality and actions during that time in history, giving historical authenticity. However, it is important to remember that the sources are biased.
5) Study Sources I and J. How far do these Sources agree about Stalin’s ‘show trials? Explain your answer. (8)
Sources I and J are sources drawn by France and the other by America, about Stalin’s show trials. In this essay I will discuss the agreements and disagreements of the two sources and analyse to what extent these two sources agree about Stalin’s “show trials.” Both sources are very similar with the views they are presenting about the show trials. However in order to understand them clearly, it is necessary to understand the historical context behind the two sources.
The first signs of the purges began in the early 1930’s where a number of the former Mensheviks were put on trial on charges that where fabricated. However these false accusations escalated when Kirov, a communist leader he was murdered thus Stalin used this as an excuse to “purge” his enemies. In show trials loyal Bolsheviks such Kamenev Zinoviev and Bukharin confessed to crimes and were sent to the gulags to be executed.
Source I, is an American source and is clearly biased as they were against communism. Thus is would be very obvious that they would want to criticise the Soviet Union’s methods. The source portrays the courtroom at Stalin’s show trails. It shows Stalin as the judge and the defendants appear to be Yagoda, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin. These people were all executed during the purges of the 1930´s. Yagoda was in the NKVD and was accused of spying for Japan and Germany and plotting to murder Lenin. Zinoviev and Kamenev helped with Stalin’s rise to power but also were used by Stalin to do this. Zinoviev was accused of plotting with Trotsky against Stalin and Kamenev was accused of the murder of Kirov and plotting to murder Stalin. Bukharin was responsible, along with Lenin for the NEP and also allied with Stalin over One Country Communism during his leadership campaign when Trotsky wanted Worldwide Communism. Stalin then turned on Bukharin and expelled him from the Communist party. Stalin is shown to be the judge in the trial and he is shown to be reading a paper with the convictions on it. Stalin looks very tired and jaded when reading the paper. This could reflect that this event has happened so frequently it has become the “norm” and was routine as the outcome was predictable and death was inevitable no matter whether they where innocent or guilty.
The accused are all confessing very openly and in a sarcastic manner. “Yes, I’m guilty!” “Sure, I tried to betray my country!” “Of course I’m a traitor!” “There’s no doubt about my guilt!” When you look closely at the picture the defendants are standing in a joyful manner and look frantic, this could reflect the torture they had undergone which lead to the convicts loosing a grip of reality and admitting anything.
The effect of this sarcastic manner is that it reflects the absurdity of these crimes they are being accused off and that they were forced to confess. The facial expression of the defendants looks as though they are all happy and enjoying themselves. The words such as “sure …of course” are extremely effective reflecting as though it was too obvious for them to be guilty. The words are in capitals and explanation marks also implement the sarcastic manner. When you look closer at the source it could clearly be seen in the back round of the drawing the gallows this reflects their immanent decided fate with no way to turn it around.
Source J is very similar to the previous Source as it also shows how in control Stalin was of his people, and how manipulative he was and determined to get his own way. The cartoon is of a courtroom, and everyone in it is Stalin; the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, and the defendant. This Source shows how Stalin had everything in his own hands and only what he wanted and thought was what would be carried out, Stalin is everything in the Source, and he’s shown to be in total control which is again similar to Source I, this again reinforces the injustice of these trials. It also goes to show that these trials were fake, a sham, and showed how Stalin could justify the killing of his own people. There was also no point in these trials, as the outcomes where clear before the trial even starts.
The two sources have a variety of different agreements, both agree on the fact that Stalin used to host show trials to send innocent people to prison with false pretences, however the extent of this differs from each source. In source I the extent of the show trials is shown by the fact the defendants are given the chance to protest even though they are sarcastic comments, whereas in source J Stalin is not only the judge but is everything this symbolizes that there wasn’t even one hope or chance. Other agreements of two sources include the idea of Stalin being the judge however the extent of this differs in the source J where Stalin is not only the judge but everything including their lawyers. Source J doesn’t portray any defendants nor does it portray the destiny of the defendants unlike source I where the executor could be seen in the distance. Other agreements of this source include the fact of promoting capitalism by criticizing the leader of the soviet union who removed any independent thinking to his citizens, and again the extent of this differs from source to source where in source I there are other judges however, in source J Stalin couldn’t even trust people from his own party as he is everything, it also portrays how government used to brainwash their own citizens.
To conclude this essay Both Sources are obviously very biased, as both nations were capitalist nations and totally against communism and had to make Stalin’s policies look bad compared to their western ways. The main aim of these cartoons was to portray a negative, manipulative and hatred side to Stalin. However, despite them being exaggerated, the Sources in my opinion are accurate and do show the true side of Stalin as the reality was very similar to what the cartoons show. He used these trials mainly to kill the Bolsheviks and justify his actions by doing it publicly. The trials lived up to their name ‘show trials’ as this was what they were, no one could be guaranteed a fair trial with Stalin. Thus these sources illustrate Stalin’s strong political influence which seemed to be superior to the judicial system in place.
- Using the sources in this paper and your knowledge of Stalin explain whether or not you think he was a monster. (12)
Whether Stalin was a man or a monster has been a debated and is a controversial question that has left people in a quandary throughout history, with varieties of different interpretations and theories on this matter. Interpretations of Stalin’s era are still in conflict with historians differing views. In this essay I will consider all these sources and discuss the historical context behind Stalin’s disturbing life.
Born in1879 in the republic of Georgia, his real name is Joseph Jughavilli. His father was an alcoholic shoe maker who was very violent against him and his wife where he often would beat them. One of Stalin's friends from childhood wrote, "Those undeserved and fearful beatings made the boy as hard and heartless as his father." Stalin's father gave him the hatred of authority. He also said that anyone with power over others reminded Stalin of his father's cruelty. After this Stalin had studied to become a priest, but became a Bolshevik. He changed his name to Stalin (“man of steel”) when he was imprisoned as a revolutionary. The fact Stalin changed his name to “man of steel” portrays to us the way he viewed himself and wants people to view him. It portrays to us the characteristics of a determined and arrogant man. He was an organizer who began by making speeches, and organizing strikes and bank raids to aid the Bolshevik funds. He then rose to power in the communist government and eventually became leader deceiving opponents and become known for his policies such as the five year plans and the purges.
The sources in this paper have very conflicting interpretations of what person Stalin is. However the majority of the sources in this paper are biased sources published in the USSR or biased because they are produced by the allies.
Some people may agree to the idea that Stalin is a monster as this is shown in source A, F, H, I, J, and M. Even though the five year plan was a time for the USSR to start afresh where industries where being revitalized with Russia becoming a great new power again - as shown in source B - this happened with a great deal of human evil suffering. Workers where paid low wages in deplorable accommodation where they suffered from basic amenities such as hot water and electricity, working hours where also unpredictable and lateness was punishable by the “sack” this discipline caused many to die in health and safety related situations. Yet the government of the USSR was a communist country where every individual was equal and part of one body Stalin used to give extra luxuries to those he worked close called “apparatchiks” who were members of Stalin- received privileges like holidays , flats etc Most people lived in fear but were unable to speak out This contradicts the underlying ideology of communist thus corrupting the social belief leaving citizens in a quandary to whether they lived in a communist country or in country where the dictator is using communism as a pretence to live a life of luxury.
His policies of collectivization and purges have lead to the hundreds of thousands of people being sent to the gulags – the extent of this epidemic is shown in source A- where they awaited their death sentences. The policy of collectivization was dominated with the idea of the government taking the produce of peasants he was faced with lots of tasks to try to get the kulaks to agree to this where at the end he used force. He slaughtered the demonstrators where requisition parties formed in response to this kulaks burnt their land where there was a famine because of a shortage of food.
The purges took place in the 1930 where Kirov was assassinated many historians agree that Stalin plotted Kirov murder as a pretext to wage war on his own enemies. The purges first started with the Stalin’s own “comrades” in high positions of the governments ending to normal factory workers and teachers where they simple “disappeared” from their family home never to return. There was no point of victims of the purges fighting for their rights in court this is because Stalin didn’t base his decisions on evidence but on suspicion as source J illustrate. Many of the most gifted and able citizens had disappeared. The army and navy were seriously weakened by the loss of most senior officers. Industrial and technical progress was hampered by the loss of top scientists and engineers. In 1936 a new constitution was brought in – every 4 years there were elections and only official party candidates were allowed to stand
These policies of collectivization, purging and his “show trials” are echoed in sources A , J and I which even though it is a biased source by either Britain France or America the essences of these sources is sincere portraying the enormity of millions of people who where being slaughtered in the soviet union. Source A does not only compare the deaths of people to a tourist attraction, it also portrays Stalin as the proud host of this attraction he has invented. Sources J, I also portray the ignorance and one sidedness of Stalin’s character being the sole figure in the courtroom.
Stalin has a very complicated personality, he is a man surrounded in paranoia ever since the death of Lenin Trotsky (who was his most likely successor). However, through a combination of political scheming and working against the mistakes of his opponents Stalin raised his profile from an insignificant person to the leader of the USSR.
His character of deception is clearly shown when he deceived Trotsky at the time of Lenin’s funeral and informed him to come on a different day to the funeral. This made Stalin look as the dominant mourner at Lenin’s funeral and the closest friend to Lenin. In addition to Stalin’s deception is the time when he opposed Trotsky’s theories to get rid of Trotsky then use the same theories as Trotsky to get rid of his opponents. However it can be argued that this deception that Stalin had wasn’t part of a personality that made him a monster. Deception is a human characteristic that some people have, and Stalin being suppressed not only in his childhood but by Lenin himself it would be very understanding to see why he deceived Trotsky why he elected his own supporters, he new it was that or he would be axed out of the communist party where Trotsky calls him “the party’s most eminent mediocrity” Stalin wanted power and the only way he could get it is through deception.
However this deception in Stalin grew to a point that he was surrounded by paranoia that other people are deceiving him and also wanted power. Stalin could have got this view from that he was unliked by the majority of high ranked communist people and there is a possibility that Kirov was murdered. Stalin’s unstable mind took exaggerated actions in purging people for no reason; sources F and H portray this extent by mentioning how Stalin saw “double dealers…spies” and where his suspicions have made him see “enemies.” These sources are close accounts of Stalin by his colleagues who have worked with him thus to is meant to be authentic, however source F is produced by Khrushchev after Stalin’s death and it would be clear the Khrushchev would want to do anything to criticize Stalin’s rule to make himself sound better. Due to the extent of this paranoia Stalin had in him he wanted to be the greatest he wanted to play the role of God thus introduced propaganda by decorating photos, eliminating famous people from history books and wanting to be idolized by people to get the feeling of security. He achieved this by building statues of himself and naming streets after him. The propaganda he used included from people commenting admiration to Stalin comparing him to take a place of a mother “when the women….presents me with a child….the first word it will utter will be: Stalin” this is shown in source E.
However at the time the majority of the soviet citizens admired Stalin’s rule if people asked about the purges. People would say that they were nothing to do with Stalin himself. Sources B, C, E and K supported this view. Even though these sources may be biased and exaggerated the essence of these sources portray that some people did like Stalin. For most people Stalin wasn’t a tyrant dominating an oppressed country. He and his style of government were popular this is shown in source C being idolized by the wife’s of army officers which is highly unlikely to be biased as it is a real life photograph. The communist party saw him as a winner and soviet citizens saw him as a “dictator of people.” Where many where willing to dedicate themselves to the policies of collectivisation and the five year plans. Source B shows this view portraying army workers with Stalin, however this is highly unlikely of taken place as it is painting envisaged by a painters mind thus biased however the source still portray that there where some who did support Stalin such as the painter who painted the portrait. The soviet people sincerely believed in Stalin and this belief was built up deliberately by communist leaders and by Stalin himself examples of people’s obsession are in source E where it is suggested that the first word children would utter is Stalin rather then “mother” this symbolises that Stalin has even taken the role of a mum. It has developed in the cult of personality which source K clearly shows. Source K shows a reflection of Stalin’s character as a “teacher” and “guide” to the communist state where his “iron will” “devotion to his party” and “love of people” helped build a solid foundation for a communist government. However this source is biased as it is published in the Soviet Union and at the time of Stalin being alive. However some of these qualities are true the fact he is devoted to his party and his iron will has contributed to communism.
However Stalin and his policies are contradictory to a certain extent making his communist government corrupt an example of this is his policy of unifying his citizens by removing ethnic minorities and banning religion. However, this is a strong contradiction because he done quite the opposite by dividing society into different social groups such as the peasants, industrial workers and social elite. This corruption in communism gradually accumulation leading to its inevitable disintegration which happened gradually in the late 20th century which was because of the injustice people felt that Stalin was trying to do.
Reaching an agreement on if Stalin was a man or monster I believe in my opinion that there are too many gaps in evidence and contradiction within most of the sources, where many are biased and because of this fact and the lack of more sources it is impossible to reach a conclusion. All the sources are published by the USSR, Briton, or America all with a negative view about Stalin and his policies. The ones by the USSR are all exaggerated with many contradictions such as in source D Stalin talks about the need to care and be more considerate to one another, nonetheless in Source F where Bukharin who was also a supporter of Stalin calls Stalin “a narrow minded malicious man.” Also the sources reflecting on Stalin’s legacies are biased, as they are either by Russia like in source K where everything about Stalin is “brilliant” and is described as a “teacher (and) leader” however this then drastically differs in source M, where Stalin is criticized in sarcastic manner. To reach a neutral conclusion about whether Stalin was a monster or not a fair investigation must take place where the majority of the sources published are neutral, thus countries that are neither capitalist nor communist. However, it is significant for me to analyse sources produced by both communist and capitalist nations as it will increase my insight into their ideologies.
After discussing the various views of whether Stalin was a man or monster I have reached a decision where I believe he is neither. Some would think that it would be out of balance to call Stalin a blood thirsty monster, as the slaughtering of people in his mind was because he was consciously convinced what he was doing the best for his country. As he also introduced the five year plans where it was an advantage to the Soviet Union as a whole and his policy of collectivisation was in essence bringing together the unity of people together. Yet at the same time the methods he implemented this was in vile and vicious way. In addition to this, he was corrupt giving party “apparatchiks” the easy way out.
However calling Stalin a monster would indicate that he done no good to his country and was a person who slaughtered people for fun thus I believe that Stalin is a man deluded and paranoid because of the people he was surrounded by influenced in the childhood he grew up in. Thus I would agree to source M which in my opinion the most accurate and fairest source in the paper as it portrays both the good and the bad Stalin has done and the “darker side” to his personality. Even though the source was published by the allies the fact it was published five years before the collapse of communism has made the editor become more neutral giving more justice to Stalin rather then the exaggerated accounts of Stalin being a beast or an idol.
Concluding this essay I believe that Stalin was neither a man nor a monster. Comparing Stalin to dictators like Hitler and Mussolini all these three leaders had a common theme between each other. Each leader was surrounded by paranoia of creating a perfect world where their enemies didn’t exist. A dream neither of them could fulfill.