Do the ends justify the means? This popular question could be applied to a large number of situations, both important and inconsequential. One of the more important situations would be the evaluation of the leadership of Joseph Stalin. Like the answer to this famous question, Joseph Stalin’s rule, or as some might say, tyranny, was highly controversial. Most people would have immediately said that he was an unjust ruler, because he used very unconventional means to bring about his vision for the Soviet Union. Other might have countered by pointing out the industrial and economical advancements he brought to the USSR. Thus begs the question, do the ends justify the means? But to answer this question, one must have first discovered what it was really asking. Joseph Stalin was famous for his ruthlessness, and rightly so. There have been numerous recorded situations in which Stalin made and enforced policy and actions with no apparent regard for human life. Some of his most criticized actions were the great purges. In these purges, …show more content…
Is murdering, starving, silencing, and deceiving millions justified by an improvement in economy and industry? The answer is no. There is no point in improving your country if there is no one left to live in it. The book Animal Farm, written by George Orwell, was written to represent the Russian Revolution. In his book, the character that represents Stalin is a pig named Napoleon, who preaches his hate for mankind, who represent the people Stalin overthrew. However, in this book, Napoleon’s tyrannical ruling turns him into the very thing he hated. This was also true for Stalin. Stalin used secret police, a tactic that was despised when used by Nicholas II. He killed millions, and received no blame, even as the former Tsar was blamed for the millions of war casualties. The end’s to not justify the means, and even if he had good intentions, nothing can justify what Stalin did to his