Stalin- an Evil Dictator?

Stalin Man or dickens 1. quotation A shows Stalin as a man intent on destroying the prosperity of Russia and destroying its salutary deal. In contrast, start B is showing the opposite. ejaculate A shows Stalin proudly presending the USSRs pyramids do of the skulls of the concourse. He has a enlarged grin on his face. Meanwhile, name and address point B shows Stalin talking with the track downers at a new power station. He is give birthed as wanting to connect with this mess and caring by how he is taking with what is regarded as the working-class when he is regarded as the most important person in Russia. germ C presents Stalin as the spirit of Russia and the symbolism of power of Russia by how he is truly(prenominal) large in comparison to e realthing around him which emphasises his power and military posture as does the huge phalanx around him. In comparison, radical A shows Stalin as the symbol of the demolition of Russia because of the large quantities of hu man skulls with Stalin presenting them with a smile show how he is planning to destroy Russia which is the exact antithesis of consultation C. first B and etymon C both show Stalin as pro the development of Russia. author B shows Stalin in front of a brand new power station which shows that he is unflagging and tone out for the mass of Russia by improving their lives. antecedent C as well as shows Stalin lead-in the Russians to victory in the war and he is the subject of the poster which directly links him to all Russian success and power. both(prenominal) of these ejaculates put Stalin in a positive light. 2. Source D presents Stalin as a caring and courageous man who is the only man in a position of power who cares for others because he dialogue near how he saved a man from drowning when others did non care.Although Stalin wrote it and therefore it is probably not featureual precisely just propaganda, it still is useful as it says a lot most him. If this was made public hence it can be argued that Source D was used as propaganda in order to win the wagon of the sight later on the war. It was written in 1945 so just aft(prenominal) the war and the last decry indicates that it was possibly used to get muckle on his aspect. Stalin says that it seemed to me that the lack of concern our attracters show towards the people is the same as I met in far-off Asia.The fact that he uses the word our in comparison to the leaders indicates that he was distancing the himself from the mistakes made and trying to say that he is just like anyone else. overly 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 sympathise with them after galore(postnominal) millions of Russians died. merely this last sentence could also be Stalin apologising for his mistakes with The Great Purges when 18 million people were sent to labour camps called Gulags of which 10 million died.This serious ly weakened the USSR as some able people were taken away. Also he is trying to claim that he is very caring by using the story about a comrade 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 very caring person and dear leader which can be argued as very arrogant as he never unfeignedly showed this to his people when he was in power.In conclusion, Source D, although it is un seeming 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 governance and also because he thinks he is caring when from historical evidence he was not. Also, if it was published which seems almost certain, it shows that he was a determined man as he tried to make sure his position was in effect(p) 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 writer of Source F is anti-Stalin whilst Source E is pro-Stalin therefore not very reliable . Having utter this, Bukharins view of Stalin is more likely to be correct as he was taken advantage of when Stalin was a candidate 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 air to oppose Bukharin. This there for means that Bukharin has seen, firsthand, what Stalins actual 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 lusus naturae. Again based on historical fact, Source F is more likely to be correct as history shows that Stalin was an evil man. For example the purges when 10 million people died. Source F is also very immaculate in its exposition of Stalins feelings to others who are better than him. It says that if someone speaks better than he doesStalin will not let him live. This is very accurate as Kirov, who got more applause than Stalin at the Seventeenth 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 construct him murdered and also he sent galore(postnominal) other leading communists to labour camps because he felt they were a threat. However Source F does have its limitations because it does not chase 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 slightly overdone.Stalin got the Russian industry at its peak and his Five-year final causes, although they had disadvantages, were very successful. copper color iron production in 1927 was 3. 3 million tons except 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 not bad(p)est 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 century as Stalin.This is actually very reliable as many people did believe he was a great leader and in terms of statistics he successfully industrialised Russia. Source E also talks about his strength as a leader. This is also very accurat e 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 said should be leader instead of him.Having said this, Source F portrays Stalin as only pure evil 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 bit melodramatic about it. 4. A leader of a sphere can be a strong and great leader and a erroneous tyrant. Stalin was a man who people had different views on and many felt feel into this category. Although he modernised Russian agriculture and successfully industrialised Russia he was also responsible for the death of millions of innocent Russians. Source B presents all that was good about Stalin in his rule.Its sh ows 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 supported by historical evidence. He had many new flats buildings built for the working-class and from 1927-1937 electrical energy production went from 5. 05 thousand million kilowatt hours to 36. 2 thousand million kilowatt hours. This shows how he amend 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 trick lenient.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 Stalin as the most important man in Russia and the leader of the Russian army as in the picture he is bigger than the whole army. This presents in a positive manner a no t a abominable tyrant but more of a militaristic leader. This is backed by the fact that when he was in power Russian won World War 2 for the affiliate with the final push into Berlin.The writing in the source is translated as using the spirit of Stalin our army and domain are faithful and strong. This is very true as in the time of Stalin Russia were the biggest threat to the the States as the biggest power in the world. He also did become regarded as the symbol of Russian king 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 unspeakable tyrant at all.Source E emphatically praises Stalin as inspired and tells everyone that they were the happiest of people because 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 mi llion of them were in Gulags, for a lot of his rule only good things happened to Russia. Industry improved speedily and Russia won a war in his time. Many regarded him as the great leader in Russias history. However it was written by a writer in the congress of soviets and therefore was closely tie in 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 ludicrous 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 and and then a good leader and was always clear 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 in spite of this, what source H is saying 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 wrong. 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 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 missing comrade in the story. This source is not however rattling 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 indic ates 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 sort of 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 gifted pol. 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 brainiac and intelligence to outwit even the best politicians. Source I then concludes that Stalin was a not a good man 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 never 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 freewill in Russia.This can only be the work of someone who is soulless 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 c ountry 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 due 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 turn a ruthless politician into a monstrous tyrant.This gives another idea about Stalins personality. There was no doubt that he was a ruthless politician. For example, after using Bukharins lineage to defeat Trotsky, he then turned it round on Bukharin and used that argument to disgrace him. However after Stalins decisions do not really show politics in them but more him being paranoid 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 venomous 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 description of Stalin as he was rumoured to have had Kirov, a communist who became very popular and some people thought should replace 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 pretended, 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 disgraced 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 poisonous and as the devil. Source G points the finger at Stalin by accusing him of using terror to subscribe 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 Confe rence in August 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 Eastern 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. However, 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 twenty 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 soon enough 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 to his nature. This summarises perfectly Stalins life he was a great leader of a country however he was still a very evil man and a monstrous tyrant.