Stalin- an Evil Dictator?

Stalin Man or Monster 1. bring up A designates Stalin as a earthly concern intent on destroying the prosperity of Russia and destroying its tidy sum. In contrast, bloodline B is showing the opposite. tooth root A shows Stalin proudly bring outing the USSRs pyramids make of the skulls of the masses. He has a big grin on his face. Meanwhile, seeded player B shows Stalin speeching with the workers at a new berth station. He is pre directed as wanting to connect with this quite a little and compassionate by how he is taking with what is regarded as the lower-class when he is regarded as the most Coperni cannister person in Russia. consultation C presents Stalin as the spirit of Russia and the symbolization of g e actuallywherenment agency of Russia by how he is precise large in comparison to ein truththing rough him which emphasises his power and strength as does the huge army around him. In comparison, reference work A shows Stalin as the symbol of the destruction of Russia because of the large quantities of pitying skulls with Stalin presenting them with a smile show how he is planning to destroy Russia which is the acquire antithesis of source C. descent B and source C both show Stalin as pro the development of Russia.Source B shows Stalin in front of a brand new power station which shows that he is industrious and flavor out for the practised deal of Russia by improving their subsists. Source C too shows Stalin leading the Russians to victory in the war and he is the subject of the post-horse which directly links him to altogether Russian success and power. Both of these sources puzzle Stalin in a positive light. 2. Source D presents Stalin as a caring and brave globe who is the altogether man in a position of power who cares for others because he duologue intimately how he protected a man from dr birthing when others did non care.Although Stalin wrote it and whence it is likely not existent hardly further propagand a, it still is useful as it produces a plenty roughly him. If this was made public then it can be argued that Source D was apply as propaganda in invest to win the patrol wagon of the spate after the war. It was written in 1945 so just after the war and the last sentence indicates that it was possibly used to get people on his face. Stalin says that it seemed to me that the lack of concern our leaders show towards the people is the same(p) as I met in far- discharge Asia.The circumstance that he uses the say our in relation to the leaders indicates that he was distancing the himself from the mistakes made and nerve-racking to say that he is just like any nonpareil else. besides the reference to Asia indicates he is trying be one of the soldiers as he had fought for Russia and that he is trying to translate with them after many cardinals of Russians died. that this last sentence could similarly be Stalin apologising for his mistakes with The Great Purges when 18 meg people were sent to labour camps called Gulags of which 10 million died.This seriously weakened the USSR as many able people were taken away. Also he is trying to claim that he is in truth caring by development the story rough a bloke being left behind in the floods. He says that when asked where he was, they (other comrades) replied with no interest that he remained at the river. This shows Stalin attempting to present himself as the only caring person in a position of power. This gives further evidence that Stalin believed he was a in truth caring person and good leader which can be argued as very tyrannical as he neer genuinely showed this to his people when he was in power.In conclusion, Source D, although it is unlikely that it is true, says a lot of useful things about Stalin and what he was believed. It shows him as very arrogant as he may be trying to distance himself from the mistakes of his regimen and likewise because he thinks he is caring when from historical e vidence he was not. Also, if it was published which seems just about certain, it shows that he was a determined man as he tried to make sure his position was safe by using a propaganda story which is probably not true. 3. Both Source E and Source F are written by people with very different views of Stalin.In Source Es information it says it was published in Pravda, the newspaper of the Communist Party whilst in Source F it says it was written by a man called Bukharin who was a victim of Stalins purges. This means that both are likely to subjective as the generator of Source F is anti-Stalin whilst Source E is pro-Stalin therefore not very reliable . Having verbalise this, Bukharins view of Stalin is more than likely to be correct as he was taken advantage of when Stalin was a view for Lenins position. Stalin took Bukharins side in the debate on the NEP in order to get rid of his main threat-Trotsky.Once he achieved this he used Trotskys disceptation to oppose Bukharin. This there for means that Bukharin has seen, firsthand, what Stalins positive character is. Source E presents Stalin as a very caring leader and an inspired leader. However, Source F presents him as the antithesis of this and a d vileness. Again ground on historical fact, Source F is more likely to be stainless as history shows that Stalin was an malign man. For example the purges when 10 million people died. Source F is likewise very accurate in its translation of Stalins feelings to others who are disclose than him. It says that if both(prenominal)(prenominal)one speaks better than he doesStalin ordain not let him live. This is very accurate as Kirov, who got more applause than Stalin at the s level offteenth Party Congress, was murdered. There was a lot of talk of removing Stalin as leader, and Kirov seemed to be emerging as a popular alternative. Stalin is believed to take a shit him murdered and besides he sent many other leading communists to labour camps because he fel t they were a threat. However Source F does have its limitations because it does not cover all aspects of Stalins personality because he was actually a very successful leader. And this is where source E has reliable information even if it is about magnify.Stalin got the Russian intentness at its peak and his Five-year Plans, although they had disadvantages, were very successful. bull urge production in 1927 was 3. 3 million tons but after the second Five-Year Plan in 1937 in was 14. 5 million tons. In the same time coal production went from 35. 4 million tons to 128 million tons. This shows that Stalin was actually very successful and this is reflected in some peoples opinion he was regarded as the enormousest Russian leader to date. Source E agrees with this opinion as it says generations to come will regard us as the happiest of people because we lived in the same ascorbic acid as Stalin.This is actually very reliable as many people did believe he was a great leader and in foothold of statistics he successfully industrialised Russia. Source E likewise talks about his strength as a leader. This is also very accurate information as his army were the ones who drove the Germans back into Berlin and finished off the war. In conclusion, based on reliability Source F is the more reliable as it shows the negative side of Stalin which is contextually correct as he shows it in his actions towards Kirov and other leading communists who some had verbalize should be leader instead of him.Having verbalise this, Source F portrays Stalin as only pure mephistophelean when he did do some positive things. This is where Source E has some reliable information as it talks about Stalins strengths even if the source is a kidnapping melodramatic about it. 4. A leader of a country can be a strong and great leader and a abominable tyrant. Stalin was a man who people had different views on and many felt feel into this category. Although he modernised Russian agriculture an d successfully industrialised Russia he was also responsible for the conclusion of millions of innocent Russians. Source B presents all that was good about Stalin in his rule.Its shows Stalin in front of a new power station talking with his happy workers. It presents him as industrious and caring for his workers. This is support by historical evidence. He had many new flats buildings built for the working-class and from 1927-1937 electricity production went from 5. 05 pace million kilowatt hours to 36. 2 thousand million kilowatt hours. This shows how he improved life in Russia. Having said this, historian SJ Lee said there is evidence that he Stalin exaggerated Russias industrial deficiency in 1929 and that the foundation of industrialisation were already there making his job easy.This could be factually correct as the Tsar had started industrialising Russia way back in 1905. Despite this Source B still presents Stalin as a very good leader and a caring man. Source C presents St alin as the most important man in Russia and the leader of the Russian army as in the prove he is bigger than the whole army. This presents in a positive way a not a dreadful tyrant but more of a militaristic leader. This is endorse by the fact that when he was in power Russian won World War 2 for the consort with the final push into Berlin.The writing in the source is translated as using the spirit of Stalin our army and country are faithful and strong. This is very true as in the time of Stalin Russia were the biggest threat to the USA as the biggest power in the world. He also did become regarded as the symbol of Russian might by everyone. In 1925 the city of Volgograd was renamed Stalingrad to recognise Stalins role in its defence from the Whites in 1918-20. This source shows Stalin as a very powerful leader and the spirit of Russia and not a severe tyrant at all.Source E emphatically praises Stalin as inspired and tells everyone that they were the happiest of people becau se we lived in the same century as Stalin. And this is not entirely rubbish. Although at points in his rule the Russian people were miserably as 18 million of them were in Gulags, for a lot of his rule only good things happened to Russia. Industry improved rapidly and Russia won a war in his time. Many regarded him as the greatest leader in Russias history. However it was written by a writer in the congress of soviets and therefore was closely linked to Stalin.This makes it likely that he wrote this speech in order to appease Stalin and get in his good books. This source portrays Stalin as a great man and leader who was the best leader Russia had had. It shows him as the antithesis of a ill-advised tyrant. Source H talks only about the side of Stalin which was actually true that he was a good leader and had an iron will. Of this there is no doubt as he did what he wanted. He was indeed a good leader and was always drop dead with his decisions as the source. However this source is certainly going to be pro-Stalin as it was written in Russia in his rule and was his biography.This shows that it therefore would not talk about the other side of his personality which was arguably a monstrous tyrant. However despite this, what source H is face is not just lies and is based on truth. This source indicates that he is not a monstrous tyrant but a respected leader which is not molest. Source D dissociates Stalin from the mistakes of the leaders in the war and also dissociates him from the great purges when millions of Russians died. It is also presenting him as one of the people by how it says our leaders.The use of the possessive case adjective our shows him not only distancing himself from the past mistakes in his rule but trying to connect with the people. Source D also shows him as a caring man as he looked out for his one wanting(p) comrade in the story. This source is not however really backed by historical evidence as he was not one for caring for individuals and in fact he was the one who on his own started the Great Purges and sent many to gulags. Also the fact that it was written by Stalin himself indicates that the story is almost certainly made up and only propaganda.However, taking the source for what it is, it shows that Stalin was a very caring man who was one the people. In actual fact he was quite the opposite. Source I is probably the fairest judgement of Stalin and his time in power. It separates Stalins great ability as a leader from his evil personality. The fact that it was published in Britain and in 1983 means that it is unlikely to have any reason to be pro or anti-Stalin. This source describes him as a very skilled, indeed dexterous politician. This is a true statement as he very cleverly manipulated people and Trotskys underestimation of him to become leader over Trotsky.This shows a very good political mind and intelligence to amaze even the best politicians. Source I then concludes that Stalin was a not a good m an and that he had a dark and evil side to his nature. This is also very true as he had many sent to Gulags in order that he would look powerful. Of the 18 million people sent to Gulags 10 million died. And he neer officially conceded that he made a mistake and never said he regretted it. This shows a very sinister side to him which Source I correctly points out. Also he was evil in the way that he got rid of many artists and virtually destroyed the right to express voluntary in Russia.This can only be the work of psyche who is insensitive and evil. In conclusion, although this source looks at Stalins positives, it still portrays him as a monstrous tyrant. Source A dwells on the negatives of Stalins rule. The pyramids of skulls is a reference to the Great Purges when 18 million Russians were sent to Gulags of which 10 million died. This source also seems to show that Stalin does not care and in fact is very proud of his work. This is actually not complete rubbish as Stalin never did publicly apologise or even say he regretted it.However, the fact it was published in Paris indicates that it may be a bit anti-communism as France was a country which did not embrace communism at all. Although we do not know when in the 1930s it was published- before, after or during the Purges- it is a very accurate source as many died ascribable to Stalins policies. This source indicates that Stalin was a monstrous Tyrant. Source J literally describes Stalin as a monstrous tyrant. However, as oppose to saying he was a good politician but also a malevolent human being, it suggests that was corrupted by absolute power which off a ruthless politician into a monstrous tyrant.This gives another(prenominal) idea about Stalins personality. There was no doubt that he was a ruthless politician. For example, after using Bukharins argument to smite Trotsky, he then turned it round on Bukharin and used that argument to disgrace him. However after Stalins decisions do not really show g overnance in them but more him being paranoiac about his position and therefore doing acts of hostility. For instance, his decision to start purging Russia of all people he thought were a threat to the state ( or a threat to his position ) did not show clever politics but more panic leading to monstrous acts.This source present Stalin as a man who may of been great politician in the past but then this ability of his turned into shear spiteful tyranny. Source F concentrates on the dark side of Stalins personality. It says that if someone speaks better than he does Stalin will not let him live. This is debatably a very accurate translation of Stalin as he was rumoured to have had Kirov, a communist who became very popular and some people thought should set back Stalin at the time, was murdered and many believe that Stalin was behind the murder.Stalin also sent many loyal Bolsheviks to Gulags in the infamous show trials for being traitors of the state. Although these people confess ed, Stalin most probably forced them to confess by threatening them with death and the death of their families. He did this because he was scared they would take away his power. Having said this, this source is likely to be subjective as Bukharin, the writer of the source, was shamed by Stalin in 1929. Also it is a very one-sided source as it says that Stalin was pure evil when he did do good things for Russia.To conclude, although it is slightly opinionated, Source F gives a fairly accurate account of what was wrong with Stalin and displaces him as malicious and as the devil. Source G points the finger at Stalin by accusing him of using terror to defend communism. However, this source is almost certainly prejudiced against Stalin as Khrushchev, who said source G and became leader after Stalin, would have been trying to distance himself from the worst parts of Stalins rule by condemning him. Although, Source G does have some correct ideas as it says that Stalin was a distrustful man .This is an accurate description of Stalin as he had many sent to Gulags because he thought they were plotting against him. He also acted very suspiciously at the Potsdam Conference in dread 1945 when in February that year at the Yalta conference he had been very united with the other allies. At Potsdam Conference he disagreed with the other allies about what to do with Germany, about reparations and over soviet policy in east Europe, where Russian troops dominated. Truman, the USA president at the time, became suspicious of Stalin and his intentions, as did Stalin.This distrusted lead to the Iron curtain and the cold war. To conclude, Although Khrushchev was not likely to have praised Stalin in this situation, Source G is a very accurate description of Stalin and portrays him as untrustworthy character and malicious tyrant. In conclusion, the sources do not give a conclusive idea to whether he is a monstrous tyrant or not because five of them are anti-Stalin and 5 pro-Stalin. Ho wever, based on the fact that many of the Pro-Stalin Sources are either written by Stalin or as propaganda, the ources show that he more of monstrous tyrant. Also the sources which focus on his industrious nature and his successes in improving industry do not take into account how many people died in this process and that Russias industry had been improving a lot for the 20 years before Stalin came to power. In essence his job on that was made easy and some historians argue that this process would have happened just as successfully with any leader. A leader can be great at being a politician and be industrious heretofore still be a monstrous.My personal opinion is just that, that he was a great leader and politician however a very evil man and therefore a monstrous tyrant. Source I sums up Stalin as a person. It says Stalin is very skilled, indeed gifted politician and one of the greatest political figures of the twentieth century however it also says he had a dark and evil side t o his nature. This summarises suddenly Stalins life he was a great leader of a country however he was still a very evil man and a monstrous tyrant.