Stalin: Man Or Monster Essay Example

a formidable figure. In contrast, Source D, authored by Stalin himself, provides insights into an earlier phase of his life.

During his exile in Siberia, Stalin observed people's indifference towards the deaths of others. He criticized these individuals and encouraged them to show more concern for their fellow men. Stalin then compared "our leaders" to the people he encountered in Siberia, drawing a striking parallel. It is possible that Stalin wrote this text to present himself as caring and compassionate, while portraying the mentioned "leaders" as heartless. However, it is uncertain whether this source accurately represents historical events. Nevertheless, it can be confirmed that Stalin did experience exile in Siberia at an earlier stage of his life.

It is uncertain whether the specific story he tells is true, but given what we know about Stalin, it seems unlikely that he truly cared about one person's death. However, whether the source is accurate or not doesn't matter. Its value lies in offering glimpses into Stalin's character and his attempts to appear compassionate and empathetic. He wanted to present himself in this way to strengthen his power and continue promoting the 'Cult of Stalin'.

Stalin displayed anxiety and apprehension about being toppled, causing him to incessantly implore people to back him even though he already possessed complete authority. Moreover, he strove to undermine individuals whom he saw as competitors in order to discourage others from supporting them. These individuals are labeled as "our leaders" in the given sources. However, the reliability of Stalin's version cannot be determined due to insufficient information provided by the source. Nevertheless, what we primarily gather from this source relates to Stalin's personal traits rather than

his history.

The target of Stalin's reference to "our enemies" is not specified in the source. It is unclear if he is referring to his political rivals within the USSR or leaders from other nations. However, regardless of their identity, Stalin expressed concern about these enemies and tried to undermine them. Therefore, the source does not provide substantial evidence about its content but gives valuable insight into its writing style and intended purpose. In relation to question 3, Source E consists of a speech given at the Congress of Soviets in 1935 and later published in Pravda, a Communist Party newspaper. The author shows admiration for Stalin, portraying him as a great man and praising his contributions to the USSR. This passage resembles a form of idolization called 'the Cult of Stalin'. Additionally, it is likely that the author lived in the USSR during Stalin's regime and may have had personal familiarity with him.

This text suggests that understanding Stalin and sharing that understanding with others would have been beneficial. The writer's passionate language indicates their strong belief in their message, despite the fact that Stalin was responsible for numerous killings and atrocities. Nevertheless, the source's reliability may be questionable as it was published by someone affected by Stalin's dictatorship. It is evident that Stalin had a significant impact on the writer's life. This source can be interpreted in two ways: either the writer genuinely believes their words and disregards the negative aspects of Stalin's personality, or they purposely overlook those dark characteristics.

During the period when the purges and show trials were beginning, it is difficult to fathom how anyone who truly grasped the horror of

Stalin's actions would express themselves in a manner as this man did. It is evident that Stalin employed numerous propaganda tactics, such as resources B and D, in an attempt to cultivate admiration from his citizens. It is plausible that this individual was influenced by this propaganda and genuinely believed in what they were expressing. Conversely, it is also possible that this writing was a result of necessity. If anyone dared to criticize Stalin during that time, they would likely face execution. The writer may have been compelled to compose something praising Stalin out of fear for their life and the safety of their loved ones.

The reliability of the source is questionable as we may never know the truth. The writer either dismisses or lacks knowledge about Stalin's terrible actions in one instance, while in another instance, the writer fabricates their admiration for Stalin to protect themselves. Source F, written by Bukharin who used to support Stalin, reflects this uncertainty. However, Bukharin's perspective was likely influenced by Stalin's betrayal. This source is a speech delivered by Bukharin in Paris in 1936 and presents a completely different portrayal of Stalin compared to source E. It examines Stalin closely and claims that he cannot tolerate being second best and is willing to kill in order to be recognized as the best.

The text concludes with the emotional statement "He is a narrow-minded, malicious man - no, not a man, but a devil". Bukharin had previously worked closely with Stalin, which allowed him to witness both his positive and negative traits. This is in contrast to the writer of source E, who seems to only perceive the positive aspects

of Stalin. The notion that Stalin always aimed to present himself as the best and harbored great distrust and paranoia is supported by sources B and H. This also aligns with our existing knowledge regarding the purges and show trials. Conversely, Bukharin may harbor bitterness due to being betrayed and exiled by Stalin.

Based on the given information, we can conclude that the speaker in Source F has a negative view of Stalin, which may cause them to speak unfavorably about him and exaggerate his faults. The emotional tone of the source indicates a strong dislike for Stalin and a possible intention to persuade others to share the same negative opinion. It is unclear who the intended audience of the speech was, but it is suggested that Bukharin may have been trying to counteract the betrayal he experienced by emphasizing Stalin's evil deeds. In comparison, Source E appears to present a biased view, focusing only on the positive aspects of Stalin while disregarding his various acts of wrongdoing, such as the purges. In Question 4, both Source I and Source J are cartoons depicting Stalin's show trials. Although no specific publication date is provided for Source I, it is likely published around the same time as Source J.

Both sources were likely published in newspapers and focus on current events. The first source was published in America, a capitalist country and the USSR's adversary at that time. It is expected for this source to criticize the show trials, which it does. The audience would also have this expectation, as people tend to purchase newspapers that reinforce their existing opinions rather than challenge them. In the source, one

of Stalin's show trials is depicted. It shows four individuals standing before Stalin, openly admitting their guilt. Notably, there is no jury or defense lawyer present to represent the accused. The sole authority lies with Stalin himself, who acts as the judge while a loyal subordinate stands behind him (possibly a caricature of a political ally of Stalin during that period).

In the background we can see soldiers standing around a gallows, with the four men appearing to smile and ironically admit their guilt. They likely do this because they understand that their fate is already predetermined, regardless of their words. This can be further grasped from the presence of Stalin as the judge and the gallows themselves, suggesting that he has already made up his mind regarding their punishment. It is evident that these so-called show trials were just a facade to provide legitimacy to Stalin's political executions.

Source J, published in France, depicts Stalin in various roles within a courtroom. Despite France not being a significant adversary to the USSR, it is known that many of Stalin's political adversaries sought refuge there, using the platform to voice their opposition. The cartoon emphasizes the simplicity of its message by portraying Stalin as the judge, prosecutor, jurors, and even the one recording the transcript. It underscores the idea that Stalin acted as an all-encompassing authority figure, serving as the "Judge, Jury, and Executioner."

Stalin's control over the show trials makes a fair trial impossible as he manipulates the proceedings and alters the transcript to portray himself in a favorable light. Both cartoons depict Stalin as the sole wielder of power in the courtroom, revealing their agreement

on his dominance over the trials, which were far from genuine. While source J only highlights Stalin's control, source I provides additional details, such as false confessions and a backdrop of gallows symbolizing his predetermined judgment. Nevertheless, both sources concur on the show trials being manipulated by Stalin. Assessing whether Stalin is a man or a monster requires defining the term "monster." This definition involves lacking compassion and perpetrating inhuman or immoral acts without remorse on a large scale, causing immense suffering.

Although some may argue that Stalin's inhuman actions were justified by his accomplishments, the question of whether the ends truly justified the means will be evaluated through examining sources and personal knowledge. The initial step to ascertain if Stalin was a monster is to search for evidence. And indeed, abundant evidence exists indicating that Stalin was a monster. For example, source A presents visual evidence in the form of piles of skulls belonging to individuals who were killed under Stalin's regime.

It is a chilling thought to imagine that if there truly existed pyramids of skulls of all the victims murdered by Stalin, the piles depicted in the picture would represent only a small fraction. Stalin was responsible for the death of tens of millions of individuals, either directly or through policies such as the artificial famine. He displayed a complete disregard for human life and showed no hesitation in destroying countless lives to achieve his personal objectives. This unfathomable cruelty unquestionably qualifies him as a monster in my perspective. Another piece of evidence portraying Stalin as a monster can be found in source F, where Bukharin, someone who knew Stalin personally, stated that he

would rather kill a man than acknowledge him as superior in any aspect.

This further demonstrates Stalin's disregard for the suffering he inflicts on others. Both sources I and J illustrate how Stalin distorted the concept of justice to ensure his own safety and relentlessly pursued absolute power. His insatiable thirst for power, even at the expense of others, can be considered another aspect that defines him as a monster.

Source L affirms that Stalin was recognized for his exceptional political skills, but also reveals a dark side to his character. This reinforces our current knowledge that while leading the USSR, Stalin committed many acts of brutality. In his pursuit of power, he employed deceitful strategies and crafty political maneuvers, ultimately betraying most of his allies.

During Stalin's reign, he deliberately eliminated a large number of his own people in order to achieve 'collectivization'. His focus was on more than 300,000 Kulaks, innocent individuals who owned property before the revolution. Moreover, Stalin caused an artificial famine by exporting substantial quantities of grain and food produced by the USSR to other nations, resulting in an estimated six million deaths. This exemplifies his disregard for human suffering in pursuit of personal goals. Additionally, Stalin exhibited paranoia as he suspected everyone of conspiring against him. After Kirov's assassination, he intensified purges both within the country and even within his own government.

Approximately one third of all army officers were executed without sufficient justification. Individuals who criticized Stalin or his actions would be immediately detained and likely executed. The show trials, initiated by Stalin in 1936, served to satisfy his desire to demonstrate his correctness before eliminating his enemies.

During the war years, Stalin

invaded several countries and implemented similar actions there. It appears that he was a monstrous figure, responsible for the deaths of countless individuals without displaying any visible remorse. He possessed exceptional skills in deceit and propaganda, to the extent that he even convinced himself of his own falsehoods during the show trials. Stalin can arguably be regarded as the individual who inflicted the greatest amount of pain, suffering, and loss of life in the twentieth century.

Many individuals argue that despite the evil deeds committed by Stalin, his accomplishments outweigh them. Stalin was undeniably a skilled politician and at times appeared to genuinely believe that his actions were in the best interest of the state. It is possible that achievements like the ones mentioned in source B would not have been possible without Stalin's influence. These achievements played a significant role in modernizing a struggling Russia, ultimately restoring its status as one of the world's leading powers. Some argue that the happiness brought about by Stalin's five-year plans in the lives of ordinary workers surpasses the pain and suffering that were necessary for their success.

Source D offers a glimpse into the more humane aspect of Stalin's character. While this source could potentially serve as propaganda, it suggests that Stalin's behavior at the end of his reign was not always indicative of his true self. Perhaps source M is correct in asserting that absolute power corrupted Stalin entirely, absolving him of complete blame. It is conceivable that anyone in his position would have acted similarly in their efforts to restore stability to the USSR.

Source G offers forgiveness to him in a comparable manner by stating that

his actions were driven by what he believed was best for the country. Meanwhile, Source E showcases how certain individuals within the USSR perceived Stalin in a highly positive light, almost as if they were praying to or worshiping him. While many may dismiss this as mere propaganda, there could potentially be validity in the writer's sentiments.

He definitely appears to strongly believe it. Source K is another source that some may dismiss as propaganda, but there may be some truth to it. Stalin certainly demonstrated a deep commitment to the ideals of the party and undertook actions that he believed were in the best interest of the people. Does his flawed judgment automatically make him a monster? We recognize that Stalin undeniably accomplished a great deal. When he assumed power, the USSR was a devastated nation in need of reconstruction. The implementation of the five-year plans played a significant role in this endeavor.

During the Second World War, Russia emerged as a modern superpower, and many individuals in the USSR reaped the benefits of Stalin's policies. The ordinary citizens of Russia may have significantly improved their quality of life due to these policies. Stalin may argue that the needs of the majority should take precedence over those of a few. Moreover, we must not overlook the formidable contributions made by the newly developed USSR in the war. Some argue that if the USSR had not developed to the extent it did and fortified its armed forces to combat Germany, the war might have prolonged, resulting in a higher death toll than what occurred under Stalin's rule. However, on the whole, my perspective on Stalin remains unchanged

- I consider him to be a monster.

Despite any good that he may have done, he is ultimately one of the greatest mass murderers in history for which no amount of good can truly justify the extent of evil he perpetrated.