Stalin’s regime was a reign of fear and terror for most, and for others smooth-sailing and peaceful. Stalin’s decisions and policies indeed made a huge impact on the Soviet Union. However, whether or not his rule is beneficial to the Soviet Union, is debtable.
Stalin’s rule does not benefit the Soviet Union.
Stalin also purged people for the slightest and most bewildering reasons. From the article, “the Georgian-born leader is mostly known for overseeing a reign of terror in which millions of people were murdered or forced to work in labor camps.” This shows that Stalin was infamous for inflicting terror on the Russians, to coerce them to comply to his policies and commands. Otherwise, they would either be killed or thrown into a labor
…show more content…
From the article, “Russian industry grew rapidly under Stalin, who ruled the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953.” Over 12 years, coal production increased by 5 times, steel production increased by 6 times and oil output had doubled up. The electricity generation had quintupled. Also from the article, “No matter how badly the figures may have been rigged at the time, the first FYP was an extraordinary achievement overall. Coal, iron and electrical power supply all increased in huge proportions. The production of steel and chemicals was less impressive, while output of finished textiles actually declined.” This shows that the Soviet Union had actually benefitted economically from its production of coal, iron, steel and chemicals. This enabled the Soviet Union to be able to purchase products needed for other aspects such as defence. The ability to be able to purchase military products to defend the Soviet Union from Germany, resulted in the defeat of Germany, hence ensuring the safety of all Russians. Thus, this shows that the Soviet Union’s economy had benefitted from Stalin’s rule, which provided funds for the Soviet Union’s defence, hence keeping the Russians safe from all
From 1928, when the plan started, to 1932 to its end, many factories, dams, power stations and even cities were being built. Despite there being harsh penalties implemented to workers for failure to meet their targets, there was still a significant increase in Russia’s industrial growth in a very short period of time. Just like the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, under Tsar Alexander II, in protest of Stalin’s policies, the peasants, in protest, refused to work harder than they needed too, causing them to destroy livestock and crops, which eventually lead to their unnecessary death. Stalin, just like the Tsarist autocratic regime, was not committed to collectivism but preferred capitalism in his ruling of the Soviet Union. This caused a lot of rebellion from the Kulaks who opposed collectivism.
According to Doc. 4, the USSR produced 35.4 million tons of coal, 11.7 million tons of oil, 3.3 million tons of iron, and 4 million tons of steel in 1927. With Stalin in office, these numbers increased greatly in 1932. According to the Background Doc., “Stalin implemented collectivization which combined all of the agricultural farms into large state-owned farms and forced the peasants to work on them,
Therefore, his paranoia was important in generating more rapid change than anyone had thought possible. As an individual, Khrushchev managed to reverse the social changes of Stalin that had repressed Russia. Oxley’s convincing argument that de-Stalinization would enable Russia to “set a new course” to reform “industry and agriculture” shows how Khrushchev created a backlash against Stalin to ease the repression that was stunting Russia, both nationally and internationally. Khrushchev’s secret speech enabled him to distance himself from Stalin’s terror and drive reform. Khrushchev was pushed to this by his political opposition Malenkov, therefore opposition is a more important factor than the individual in de-Stalinization.
Stalin is known as one of the most brutal and unforgiving dictators of all time with people estimating that during his time in power he killed about 50 million people. But for some reason the people of Russia believed that he was amazing and incorruptible. So how did Stalin cultivate this image. Stalin made sure that images of him were everywhere.
Beginning in 1928 with Stalin’s first Five Year Plan, Stalin commenced a campaign to reverse the purely Marxist agrarian policies implemented by prior Bolshevik leadership. Under “the man of steel”, land previously given to individual peasants was seized and organized into collective farms. Believing that collectivization of agrarianism would lead to more efficient food production, Stalin implemented these policies, not foreseeing the backlash he would receive from peasants desiring greater autonomy. This dissidence was compounded by famine rampant throughout the USSR, most notably in the Ukraine. In fact, during the War Scare of 1927, many peasants hoarded their food supplies.
Under the shadow of the great industrial powers of the west, the Soviet Union was forced to rush the process of industrialization in order to catch up with it’s advanced neighboring states. Japan was in a similar position during the 20th century, though Japan’s reaction to the pressure was much more successful than Soviet industrialization. Japan’s industrialization was more prosperous and smooth than Russia’s because of the differences in treatment of factory workers, and adaptations to the developed foreign trade market, which ultimately diminished the efficiency of Russian industrialization. Russia was well aware that the state was in need of great change, even more specifically, the russian finance minister, Sergey Witte, had been writing
Stalin used censorship so no one could say anything bad about the Russian Government. He censored anything from images to
In the aftermath of Joseph Stalin’s death in March of 1953, the Soviet Union had to consider how it would move forward as a nation without the leadership of such a strong individual who was not only trusted by the founder of the nation, Vladimir Lenin, but had led them to victory during World War 2. Stalin was an incredibly capable, but controlling, leader in the Soviet Union and while the masses revered him as a living God the Secret Speech made by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev at the 20th Congress took aim at the “cult of personality” that Stalin created and demanded some type of social, political and economic reform. Author Elena Zubkova in her article “The Rivalry with Malenkov” argues that Soviet society wanted to reform directly after
Post WWl, Russia was still not industrialized, suffering economically and politically and in no doubt in need of a leader after Lenin’s death. “His successor, Joseph Stalin, a ruthless dictator, seized power and turned Russia into a totalitarian state where the government controls all aspects of private and public life.” Stalin showed these traits by using methods of enforcement, state control of individuals and state control of society. The journey of Stalin begins now.
Andre Abi Haidar PSPA 210 INTRODUCTION It is always difficult to write about and discuss Karl Marx, or more importantly the applications of Marx’s theories, due to the fact that he inspired and gave rise to many movements and revolutionaries, not all of which follow his theories to the point. Although Marx tends to be equated with Communism, it might not seem righteous to blame him for whatever shortcomings occurred when his theories were put to the test; Marx passed away well before the revolution in Russia, and he played no role in the emergence of the totalitarian regime at the time. When discussing Marx, however, Vladimir Lenin is one of the biggest highlights when it comes to studying the outcomes of Marx’s theories.
The USSR’s GNP (Gross National Product) was significantly lower than the United States, but the USSR still spent over thirty billion more dollars on their military program. The Soviet Union had more of everything, besides money. The military was known as the “Red Army,” and they had more troops, tanks, artillery guns, and nuclear weapons than any other nation on the planet. In Document E, Time Magazine compares the USSR’s Nuclear Arsenal to that of the United States, and its more than double the size. The USSR went to extreme lengths to have the most powerful army in the world, yet it greatly damaged their economy years before it collapsed.
How was your understanding of cultural contextual consideration of the work developed through the interactive oral? Learning about both the author (Aleksandr Solzhenitsy) and the situation is Russia in 1952-54 proved very informative for me, especially to understand the harshness in the life of our protagonist Shukhov (and potentially all the prisoners during that time period). It was interesting to know that Aleksandr had actually went to several camps; both a “normal” camp and a more political or Stalinist camp. Needless to say he found the political camp far worst then the normal ones.
Joseph Stalin was an instrumental figure in shaping the Russia that we know and see today. He created many new policies and changed the way many people lived their lives. Even so, there are many things that Stalin was responsible for that did not earn him quite the same amount of approval and admiration. With this in mind, we can look beyond Stalin’s death towards the rise of the Khrushchev party and a new type of leadership in the Soviet Union. It was at this time that people began to question the type of leader that Stalin was and call out some of the “mistakes” that he was responsible for during his reign (the same “mistakes” that did not earn him the admiration he desired), in part because they were now granted the liberty to do so.
However, this only scratches the surface of what Stalin put the Soviet Union through. Stalin was a very persuasive man, his writings make it seem as if he is in the right and is innocent. To support this statement, two pieces of Stalin's writings were
Communism in Soviet Russia in theory was noble and control was meant to be minimal. For such a large and influential economy, one would think the USSR and Marx ideals were correct. It is far from the truth. A government that meant to create equality and lift spirit did the opposite in many areas. A government with that much control over life proved too invasive and corrupt.