Stalin is a Good Leader

Source A is a cartoon drawn by David Lowe and was published in the London Evening Standard on the 27th November 1930. David Lowe was a British illustrator who had no remorse for Stalin. As David Lowe lived in Britain, he was able to write negatively about Stalin and get away with it. Had he have done this cartoon in Russia, there would be no doubt that David Lowe would have been murdered. The cartoon shows Stalin standing in a prison with a gun set up to kill him if he pulls a string. The cartoon was drawn in the 1930’s and in the bottom right corner says ‘prophecies for the future’.

Therefore, you get the idea that David Lowe has drawn what he expects to happen in the future. David Lowe has also written ‘Old Low’s almanac’ in the bottom left corner. This adds humour, as people who viewed the cartoon would have heard of ‘Old Mow’s Almanac’, a book released every year telling people of prophecies for the following year. ‘Old Low’s Almanac’ is David Lowe’s prophecies for the future and is also a play on words. As well as having Stalin in a prison cell with a contraption set up to kill himself, there are also two ministers dead in the corner.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

To add to that, there is also a group of 3 reporters, looking terrified as they report on what they are viewing. Behind the gun Stalin has set up, there is a stool with books on top and a statue of Karl Marx on top of them. The statue has been set up in such a way that it seems as though Marx is killing Stalin. Finally, there is a caption to the cartoon at the bottom of the picture in the centre. I know that Stalin is the man in the picture as the moustache symbolises him. To add to that, Stalin has got a hunch back and a deformity. The deformity is shown physically, but is referring to Stalin’s mental deformity.

The mental deformity is not Stalins mind, but the way his policies worked in Russia. Stalin’s hunch back resembles the hunch back of Richard III. Richard III was a very evil man, and I believe that the reason David Lowe drew Stalin with a hunch was because he wanted people to think Stalin was an evil man. The public would all have already known about Richard III being evil and having a hunch back. In David Lowe’s cartoon, there are 2 men who are dead, as I have already mentioned. I presume the two men are politicians, but in fact one of the men was Stalin’s foreign secretary.

It was not against the norm for Stalin to kill people close to him, as he had previously made allies with Trotsky, until the time came when Stalin did not need him and had him exiled and then murdered. Litvingee (Stalin’s foreign secretary) was not actually murdered, but as the cartoon was prophecies for the future, it shows that David Lowe expected Litvingee to be murdered. As well as having Trotsky killed, many people in the USSR suspected him of killing his wife, although nobody was willing enough to come out in public with their thoughts.

Nadezhda (Stalin’s wife) was behind him all the way in whatever he did. In 1931, she attended The Institute of Commerce, and it was there when she discovered that people were terrified of Stalin. After this, the relationship between Stalin and Nadezhda disappeared and in 1932, Nadezhda was either murdered or committed suicide, with nobody sure of what happened. Many people believed that Stalin murdered his wife. Relating back to the cartoon, this shows that it was Stalin who had the 2 politicians murdered in the bottom right corner of the cartoon.

To add to that, to clarify just how cold hearted Stalin really was, Stalin will forever be remember3ed for this quote. ‘One death is a tragedy; a million is just a statistic’. As a result of this quote, Stalin maybe trying to say that if he kills himself, it will be a tragedy. David Lowe may be referring to the prison as the loss of freedom fort the public of the USSR. The public were afraid to behave or speak their mind in case they were not seen as supporting Stalin. Not supporting Stalin would lead to the death of who ever was against him.

To add to that, the only way Stalin would like a member of the public was if denounced citizens whose behaviour was anti soviet. They feared Stalin immensely and had no freedom of speech, which is represented by the prison in the cartoon. Life was very hard for civilians of the USSR around this period, as new cities were being built to manufacture goods and try to get USSR to become a powerful force once more. Magnitogorsk was a steel city which was built. People who worked on the sites were often volunteers or peasants who needed money and gladly offered to work. Other people who offered to work were prisoners, slaves and kulaks.

Many people died as they froze and were over worked, as they had to meet five year plans which were ludicrous and unrealistic. People would have to live off scraps and lived in poor housing. To add to that, the air around them was heavily polluted and there was no coal or wood to start fired. The only reason many people put up with the conditions was because they had no other choice and were thinking to themselves that everything would be alright the next day, even though they knew it was unlikely. It was in truth their only hope and gave them an incentive to work towards.

To add to the living conditions and jibs, previous to Stalins reign, each family was given a plot of land to grow food for their family from, but once Stalin took over they lost this land as Stalin wanted to adopt the collectivisation approach. This mean all land was collected in and made into huge farms in a bid to improve the amount of food grown. As a result of losing land, millions of people died of starvation, although the production of food did increase. From this, you can gather what live was like for many people of the USSR. They had to do as they were told and did not get a say in anything at all.

This is represented by the prison as it shows Stalins mind. Stalin is closed to any new ideas and changing his policies. Stalin loved to be in control of everything and did not like being told what to do. Therefore, he did not take any advice and ran the country the way he wanted to. Although Stalin was a very lazy leader, he was very clever in the way he did things. Stalin used his position as secretary general (before he became leader) to appoint people in party positions who would support him. To add to that, Stalin stopped the publication of Lenin’s will, in which he said that Stalin was ‘rude’.

Stalin was also very clever in the way that he gave Trotsky the wrong date for Lenin’s funeral. Trotsky and Stalin were both fighting to become the new leader after Lenin’s death, and the fact that Stalin was at Lenin’s funeral and Trotsky was not ultimately meant that the public favoured Stalin already. When Stalin took over from Lenin, he had a one track mind, and this is shown in the cartoon as Stalin blanked out everyone else and did as he pleased. Stalins aim once he took over was to allow for the USSR to catch up with the capitalist world in 10 years. In order to do this, he created farcical 5 year plans.

The plans were so precise that they were narrowed down to how much one worker should achieve in a shift. If they did not achieve what they were supposed to, they would be murdered, showing just how ruthless Stalin was. In order to keep control over the public, Stalin would use the following methods. He would use fear, as the public would not dare to say anything about Stalin as it would probably have led to them being murdered. To add to that, he would use propaganda. History books glorified Stalin’s contribution in the revolution and posters and leaflets were made to portray Stalin as a kind and successful leader.

To add to that, streets and town squares were named in his honour and he also had songs written about him. The final piece of propaganda he used was censorship. Stalin would only allow for books to be published if they were approved by some of his officials. Another method he used was indoctrination. All religions were not allowed to be worshipped to, and everyone had to worship to Stalin. Teachers who were not good communists were also sacked. His final method was repression. He would use the MKVD to spy on people and had opponents executed or exiled for crimes they had not committed.

From all of the above, you can understand the kind of leader Stalin was, and how he had no feelings for anyone but himself. You can see this in the cartoon as he killed two politicians. Stalin was in his own world, and David Lowe has done well as he has represented the prison and what it contains, as Stalins own little world. There is also a statue of Karl Marx in the cartoon set up as if it is Karl Marx who is shooting Stalin. Marx is famous for setting the ideas regarding socialism and communism. As Marx is set up to shoot Stalin, you almost get the feeling that communism is wrong and is destroying Stalin.

At this period in time, most of Europe was anti-communist and Stalin strongly agreed with this idea. He has twisted communism so that it will fail. The journalists in the bottom left of the cartoon are very interesting. There are three on looking journalists, with one from the United Kingdom, another from USA and the third from the USSR. I know this, as the hats the three of them are wearing are common in the countries that they came from. The United Kingdom journalist has got his back to us, but on his paper you can see the word rumours.

This tells you what the British public is thinking, as they have not got any concrete information out of the USSR, therefore anything they hear is rumours. The USA reporter has got ‘truthful reports?! ‘ written on his paper. This suggests that they are also not sure about what they hear and whether it is true or not. Finally, the reporter from the USSR has got ‘reliarble news’ written on his paper. This heading is used in such a way that it emphasises the word liar. This tells you that the public are not hearing the truth. From this, I can gather that information about the way people in the USSR are being treated stays in the USSR.

This refers back to the prison again as it is all enclosed and does not leak any information out. Finally, to conclude and refer back to the essay title, I believe that David Lowe does not think Stalin is a good leader. I have based this decision on the fact that David Lowe does not once show Stalin in a positive light. To add to that, the writing in the cartoon suggests has an unstable mind is paranoid as well as stupid. It seems Stalin had run out of people to kill, which in itself suggests that David Lowe thinks Stalin is not a good leader of the Soviet Union. Study Sources B and C.

Both Give Different Opinions of Joseph Stalin’s Rule. Why Do You Think These Interpretations are Different? Explain Your Answer Using Sources B and C and Your Own Knowledge. Source B is an extract from ‘The Socialist Sixth of the World’. The book was written in 1939 by Dr Hewlett Johnson, who was Dean of Canterbury Cathedral. The source is fairly reliable, as it is a primary source, but is Dr Hewlett Johnson’s own opinion so it is likely to be biased. Dr Hewlett Johnson was a devoted Christian and a socialist. As a result of this, he and Stalin and Dr Johnson had something in common.

In terms of how Hewlett Johnson got the information to come to the conclusion he has come to, his sources were very limited. Either Dr Hewlett Johnson had previously visited the USSR, or he has received second hand information from others. However, if Dr Hewlett Johnson visited the USSR, he would not have come into contact with the USSR which the public were used to. This was due to censorship and propaganda. In terms of censorship, the press were only allowed to release certain articles and only approved books were published.

To add to that, Stalin would definitely not have allowed for foreigners such as Dr Hewlett Johnson to go and visit Magnitogorsk, where living conditions were horrendous. At this time, the United Kingdom, most of Europe and also the USA were going through a depression due to the Wall Street crash. John Scott had even decided to move from America to the Soviet Union as he believed it was a society a step ahead of his own. In due course he would be proved wrong, as he was later forced out of the USSR as he was a foreigner. Dr Hewlett Johnson would not have all known all that John Scott knew, as he would have been given a narrow view on things.

Dr Johnson would also have not known the full details of what was going on, and this is shown by the number of times he repeats the phrase ‘no fear’. The public of the Soviet Union had everything to fear. Life for civilians of the USSR was horrendous. Any opinions they had, they had to keep to themselves or else they would risk being sent to gulags and dieing. Gulags were concentration camps which were used by Stalin in order to mass murder. People would have been sent into these camps were an intoxicating gas was released, killing anyone inside the camp.

Life was also hard, as Stalin had the KNVD (secret police), who would arrest people for the pettiest crimes. To add to that there was indoctrination, in which the only thing people had to make themselves different from the rest was lost. People had to change their beliefs and cultures in order to follow and worship Stalin. Money was also very scarce as Stalin was a firm believer in cheap labour. So when Dr Hewlett Johnson claims people had money to pay for university fees, it just goes to show how little information he had and how little information he received.

To add to that, Dr Johnson also claims the public had not to worry about money when they had their children, but they had to as money was in short supply. Dr Hewlett Johnson also claimed there was ‘no fear of overwork’, but there was, as Stalin had set ludicrous 5 year plans which workers had to meet, so many workers had to work extra hours in order to achieve the 5 year plan. To add to that, many workers died due to the working conditions, such as at Magnitogorsk, and this meant other workers would have to make up for the work of those who died.

This article also lacks vital information as it does not tell us of how Stalin used people and then killed them or exiled them. Trotsky for example was close to Stalin when Lenin was alive, but as soon as he died and Stalin received some authority he had Trotsky exiled and then murdered. We are also not told of the labour camps as well as the starvation of millions due to collectivisation. Whilst Lenin was in control, he gave each family a plot of land in order to grow food for their family, but as soon as Stalin came into power, he took land away from everyone in order to make huge state farms.

Therefore, many lost land which they grew food on and starved. Dr Hewlett Johnson is also lacking information, as he claims the public had no fear, but I have evidence of that not being so. Nadezhda was Stalin’s wife and was a good communist and idealist. In 1931, she joined the Institute of Commerce and once there she discovered that people were terrified of her husband. In fact, some of her friends told her what everybody thought of her husband and Stalin had them killed. People had everything to fear. Source C is an extract by H Ward, from the GCSE textbook ‘World Powers in the 20th Century’.

This text is written with hindsight; therefore the author knew what had happened previously. It is also an overview, and H War can write whatever she wants, as she will not face any repercussions. This text is also written to inform people, and lacks detail due to that and the fact that it is a secondary source and is a summary of events. Source C tells us that Stalin did well and the economic revolution he had created had given the Soviet Union the strength to beat the German army. The txt starts with this good point, but from then on the authors point of view changes into a more negative view about Stalin.

Therefore, the text is balanced, giving both sides of the story. After the point about Stalin giving the USSR the strength to beat Germany, the author talks of the bad policies Stalin made, such as collectivisation. The author is trying to say that the USSR had won the war, but it was no thanks to Stalin’s policies, as they made things harder for the Soviet Union. Source C does not really show the same information as source B, as source C talks about the war and Stalins policies, whereas source B talks about how the public a fearless.

Source B is very biased, whereas source C gives a slightly more balanced approach. H Ward does not have any reason to lie or hide the truth, as she will not face any repercussions. A difference between the two sources is that source B gives a positive view of Stalin’s policies (the 5 year plan) whereas source C tries to give a more balanced view of Stalin’s policies. A reason for the difference is that Dr Hewlett Johnson, the author of Source B had limited resources and as a result of this was unable to give the full story.

However H Ward knows what happened and can give a balanced account as a result of this. To add to that, it could also have been due to circumstances. Dr Hewlett Johnson agreed with Stalins idea of communism and was going to be in favour of Stalin as a result of it, where as this is not likely with H Ward. Another difference is the fact that source b does not mention Stalin, whereas source c does not mention him. A reason for this could be due to the repercussions Dr Hewlett Johnson may face if he published Stalins name. Also, Stalin may have used censorship to get his name out of the article.

Source C uses his name, as the author will not face any repercussions and can write what she wants without having to worry about any censorship issues. Another difference is that source B is a primary source and source C is a secondary source. Therefore, the author of source B would receive limited information, where as the author of source C can write looking in hindsight. Finally, to conclude and referring back to the essay title, I believe the interpretation of events is different as the author of Source c had more information to work with compared to the author of source B. o add to that, they both gave different interpretations as the author of source B may have been biased. Finally, I believe that the authors of the two sources gave different views, as the author of source B had to be careful about what he wrote, whereas the author of source C has not got to worry about that as Stalin had long since died. Source D is a Photograph from 1933 Source E is a Photograph From the 1930’s Both Sources Show The Effects of the Collectivisation of Agriculture. What are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Photographs as Sources of Evidence?

Answer Using Sources D and E and Your Own Knowledge. One advantage of using photographs as sources of evidence for the historian is that you get an actual picture, there and then. To add to that, photographs can be used as evidence in certain circumstances, but they must be backed up with another type of evidence as they are not very reliable on their own. Another advantage is that a photograph gives you an insight into what life was like at that time. You may be able to see things in the background such as transport and the clothing people have on. Finally, a photograph is not an interpretation.

A painter can modify his painting so the public can see what the painter wants the public to see, where as a photograph is an on the spot image. The problems with the use of photographs as evidence are that they do not give the full story. For example, in source D, you do not know everything about Stalin and have to make assumptions. To add to that, you cannot be sure if the photograph is telling the truth. By this I mean that the picture could have been planned and people were told to act in a certain way. The quality of the photograph can also be very poor and that is a disadvantage as you may not be able to vital things.

Another disadvantage is that photographs can be edited. A good example of this is the photograph of Lenin and Stalin smiling at each other. In truth, the two of them hated each other, but during the picture they were both smiling at Trotsky, who had been edited out of the photograph. The final two disadvantages are that photographs can be misleading and can show what the photographer wants you to see. An example of this is during Source D, as you only see people smiling at Stalin, but on the sides and out of the way of the photograph, members of Stalin’s secret police may be pointing guns at the people.

Source D is a photograph taken from the Russian Information Agency in 1933. The photograph shows Stalin among other delegates at a meeting regarding collectivisation. Source D may have been used in propaganda as people hated the idea of collectivisation and therefore this would persuade them to think again. The photograph was taken by the Russian Information Agency and is very likely to have been commissioned by Stalin. It is also likely to have been used in propaganda as it portrays Stalin as a good leader, but from my knowledge I know that he is the complete opposite. To add to that, Stalin is made to stand out in the photograph.

He is made to stand out as he is wearing white clothes, which incidentally symbolise peace, purity and goodness, al the ideas Stalin is trying to get across to whoever views the photograph. Stalin is also in the centre of the photograph in order to stand out. As this photo is an example of propaganda, it is most likely to have been set up. The problems with this source are that you have got to have your interpretation of what is occurring; therefore this makes the photo unreliable. To add to that, this photo does not show collectivisation and is a photograph of a conference, not a photograph of a farm.

Another problem with this source is that it does not fit in with my own knowledge. Collectivisation killed millions of peasants and so you would not expect people to be happy about it like they are in the photograph. Stalin is also shown as a good leader which does not fit in with my own knowledge of Stalin as a leader. Source E is a photograph of children in a village who have been hit with the famine. This source lacks some of the important information such as when it was taken, who took it and where did they take it. Source E shows that collectivisation is not working because there are starving, unhappy children in the photograph.

Source E may have been used against Stalin as it is showing the side of collectivisation that Stalin did not want anyone to see. Stalin wanted people to see graphs of how production has increased due to collectivisation and not the suffering and agony the peasants had to get through. This photo may have been used in other countries around the world so people are aware of what is really happening in the Soviet Union. I do not think this photo would have been used in the USSR, as it would have been censored. You can understand why the photographer of Source E did not put his name down, as he would have been sent to a gulag.

The problems with source C are that there is no evidence to prove that the famine these children are suffering from is a result of collectivisation. To add to that, there is also no evidence to suggest that the children are unhappy as they may have been told to look sad for the photograph. Therefore, on its own this photograph is not reliable, but it does fit in with my other knowledge. The final problem with this source is that it is only one farm at one point in time. Therefore, the photo does not show how wide spread the problem regarding collectivisation is.

To sum up, photographs are not very reliable on their own, but with they are backed up with other types of evidence they become a lot more reliable as they have got information to back up the points made in the photograph. Overall, photographs have their advantages and disadvantages, but on the whole I believe they are reliable in certain circumstances. Compare Sources F and G. Which Source Provides a More Reliable Account of Stalins USSR? Explain Your Answer Using Sources F, G and Your Own Knowledge. Source F was written by A Solzhenitsyn in 1975.

Therefore the book (Gulag Archipelago) from which this extract is from was written a long time after Stalins death. The extract is a primary source, as A Solzhenitsyn was actually imprisoned and exiled by Stalin. I believe that the author wrote the source because he wanted to get back at Stalin and the USSR for imprisoning him and exiling him. To add to that, A Solzhenitsyn would not face any repercussion as Stalin has already died. The source tells us about the inhumane conditions of the gulags and the savage way in which people were being treated. Source F is quite reliable as it fits in with the information from the John Scott video.

John Scott told us of how people would freeze to death on the worksite at Magnitogorsk. However, source f s likely to be biased as A Solzhenitsyn won a noble peace prize through literature, therefore suggesting that he is an expert with words. As he was one of the best authors around at that time, he would manipulate language to make the gulag seem more horrendous than it really was. Source F fits in with my knowledge of USSR at the time as I found out that many people died due to the cold conditions at their workplace and this is mentioned by A Solzhenitsyn in the extract from his book. Source G was written by E Roberts in 1986.

E Roberts is a British historian who is writing with hindsight. The source is a secondary source as it is E Roberts interpretation of what had occurred. I believe that the author wrote the source in order to inform people and give them statistics. He also wrote the source because he did not have to worry about any repercussions he may have faced had he written the source whilst Stalin was still in power. The source basically concentrates on collectivisation. E Roberts talks of how many peasants lost their lives as a result of collectivisation, but the production levels increased dramatically.

Previous to the introduction of collectivisation, the industrialisation method was used. This consisted of each family having their own plot of land to feed themselves. When collectivisation was introduced, people lost their land and huge state farms were formed. This meant that a lot more crops were produced, but the families who had lived off their own little plot of land starved. Millions died due to starvation. Source G is reliable as it fits in with my own knowledge. Source D in the ‘Socialism in One Country’ booklet shows that there was mass production of valuable resources.

During the second five year plan, the amount of steel produced increased from 5. 9 million tonnes to 17. 7 million tonnes. This is nearly three times the amount of steel produced at the start of the five years and shows how reliable source G was. However, Source G is biased as it only concentrates on production increase and improvements due to collectivisation. E Roberts briefly touches the point that there was a huge loss of life due to collectivisation, but he counters this statement with a positive statement about collectivisation making us immediately forget about the loss of human life.

To conclude, I believe that these sources are not very reliable on their own, but if you have other evidence to back up the sources, they become very reliable. They are very much like photographs in that sense, but both of these sources are very useful in their own ways. Source F is very useful as it is first hand experience of the gulags and source g is useful is an overall summary of collectivisation. The two sources are very useful individually, but they are not reliable individually. If you consider the two sources together, they are reliable as they both talk about the death of soviet citizens.

Both sources agree about the death, but they do not agree about anything else and so if you put the two sources together, they are not very useful as they are both talking about different parts of Stalins reign. Referring back to the essay title, I believe that Source G provides a more reliable account of Stalins USSR, as it is more balanced and is written in hindsight. I believe that Source F is not as reliable as A Solzhenitsyn is anti-Stalin and is very clever and would manipulate language and exaggerate things to make them seem a lot worse than they really are.

However A Solzhenitsyn has had first hand experience of what life was like under Stalin and so his account can also be seen as reliable. I believe that the two sources are reliable in their own ways, but overall I would say that Source G provides a more reliable account of Stalins reign as it talks of how he was evil in his killing of peasants yet successful as he just about achieved his 5 year plan targets. ‘Stalin was an Evil Dictator Whose Rule did nothing to Improve Russia. ‘ Do You Agree With This Statement? Explain Your Answer Using All the Sources and Your Own Knowledge.

Some of the sources support the idea that Stalin was an evil dictator who did nothing to improve the USSR. For example, Source A shows Stalin as an evil dictator, as he is shown as having a hunch back, like Richard III who was an evil dictator. The cartoonist who drew Source A also shows Stalin as a man who brought about destruction. The cartoonist shows Stalin with two dead people next to him, who Stalin had murdered. The cartoonist also shows that Stalin’s policies were al wrong and all he did was destroy the lives of ordinary soviet citizens and also in the end destroy himself.

Source C shows how Stalin’s policies did not work and turned the public against him. One of Stalin’s main policies was collectivisation. Collectivisation was the recapturing of land which was given to peasants in order to grow crops and feed their families. As a result of collectivisation, millions of peasants starved and this made the public hate Stalin and his government so much, that they were willing to work with the Germans, Stalin’s main enemy. Many people believe that Stalin’s policies did not improve the USSR but in fact weakened it.

Stalin also used people, before exiling them or killing them. When he killed politicians who worked for him, this created gaps in the government and Stalin would fill these gaps with some of his close friends as knew they would support him and so his job was not at risk. Source E shows that Stalin did nothing for the USSR, as there are little children starving as a result of him. It shows how Stalin’s collectivisation policy caused starvation for millions of people. It also shows how Stalin’s policies caused death as well as untold suffering.

Source F shows how Stalin had no remorse and was ruthless whilst he was in control. It also shows that in order to mass murder, Stalin would gulags (concentration camps). Source F also shows another ludicrous policy which Stalin had, which was the 5 year plan. Stalin would set industries ridiculous targets to meet within a 5 year period. As a result of these targets, men had to work long hours often extending into the night. During these nights, many men died due to the cold conditions. Whilst in power, Stalin said ‘One death is tragedy; a million is just a statistic’.

This shows how cold hearted Stalin was. I have also studied many other examples which show Stalin to have been an evil dictator. During the John Scott video, John Scott talks about how living conditions were horrendous. Food was scarce, the air was polluted and there was also bad housing. This shows the little care that Stalin had for the people. Another example which backs up the idea of Stalin being an evil dictator was the way he treated his wife. Nadezhda (Stalin’s wife) fully supported Stalin in anything he did, but in return Stalin treated her like dirt.

Stalins wife slowly began to find out who Stalin really was and the public attitudes towards her husband. Consequently, the relationship between the two began to deteriorate and there came a point when she was either murdered or had committed suicide. People came under the assumption that Stalin had her murdered, but her death was released to the public as a natural cause. Another example to back up this case is that Stalin and Trotsky became good allies. However, there came a time when Stalin did not need Trotsky anymore and had him exiled to Mexico before being murdered by some of Stalin’s agents. Before Stalin was in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

x

Hi!
I'm Gilbert!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out