Compare the characters and beliefs of Lenin and Stalin Essay

1: Compare the characters and beliefs of Lenin and Stalin. Both Lenin and Stalin had similar characters, they were very ambitious in terms of politician as they always aimed to achive more and more, they would do everything whatà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s in their power to be much more powerful than they were already, this power would give them pore strengh within their posts. This ambition could be determined. Along their lives they had always someone hanging around them to take advantage of any possible opportunity to get nearer and nearer of becoming their most dilligent and efficient workers. Lenin and Stalin had colleagues and followers rather than friends. A clear example which justifies this fact is that Stalin itself was always beside Lenin in order to become his successor. We can argue that both of them gave entirely to politics no matter for what they were fighting for, if it was beneficial or not to Russia, but at the same time it is to say that if someone who suggested their capability or qualities as a leader they would have serious problems. Overall they were both very humourless. Evidence which proves my idea is that almost everyone did whay ever they wanted them to do, their supporters were committed to do what both Lenin and Stalin told them to do, if they didnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t obey their orders they could be involved in serious problems with them. Not only they could be punished severely but they also used the terror, especially Stalin. No one could even disagree with them, everyone had to demonstrate that they were doing the correct things at all times. They stopped others to express themselves and their personal opinions. Generally people who opposed them were arrested, and perhaps send to prison. Lenin and Stalin, have demonstrated that they were intolerant, evident information to support this fact is the stubborn mind they were constructed of, and all was to be done immediately and whenever they wished to, not only they were possed by an intolerant character they were also very ruthless, especially Stalin who changed radically and became a ruthless politician. Despite the fact that Stalin reveal and developed much more this à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ quality,à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ we can prove this statement as reliable information due to their ruthless methods and terror to stay in power. However they did not lack ability or at least thatà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s what they showed us. One of the key points which allowed them to stay in power apart from having clear ideas since they were the leaders was their excellent leadership qualities. The strong leadership helped the Soviet Union to win the Second world War. Despite all these similarities they obviously had clear differences. Stalin showed to be personally ambitious, whereas Lenin didnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t reach up to that extend, Lenin was modest and not personally ambitious. Stalin was both. Evidence which proves that Stalin was in fact too ambitious, is when he aimed to have the entire control over everything and everyone, he wanted to control peopleà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s minds. The power was one thing with which Stalin gave his most to achieve it. We can also spot out, Stalinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s rudeness, I can back up this information from the fact that Stalin in a state of anger had the à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ bravenessà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ of insulting Leninà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s wife, or at least thatà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s what Lenin said. Although Lenin could also insult someone in a state of anger he had demonstrated to be a little less rude. Lenin was regarded as having excellent qualities as a speaker. Stalin sometimes showed to obey this quality, but at the same time he was not an intellectual or an inspiring speaker such as Lenin. The difference is that Lenin did reflect this quality fully, he showed more co-ordination. A nother difference to add to this list is that Lenin proved to be a very good speaker, evidence for this is when he made that speech demanding for various conditions, later it became known as the April Theses. Lenin argued that there should be a second revolution ( socialist revolution ), but obviously determined. Stalin lacked of patience, loyalty, politness and he wasnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t consirate towards anyone except himself, although Lenin did obey some of this points he wasnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t rude and demonstrated in various ways that he had some manners, or at least he didnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t go insulting other peopleà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s wifes and he also was a loyal man. As part of Leninà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s character we may say that he was a modest man, although Stalin didinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t lack this à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½qualityà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ he was in less proportions a modest man. It was Stalin more than Lenin who had organised and expanded the Communist Party so that it could rule this empire. The result was a cruel distatorship which moulded the careers of all the future leaders of the Soviet Union. In terms of beliefs, this section could divide in two parts. In first place the common beliefs they had and in second place in what they disagreed. The similarities these two figures had were in first place the use of terror that Stalin and Lenin employed as a political weapon in different circumstances: Lenin resorted to terror when the Bolshevik regime was fighting for survival, but at the same time of Stalinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s purges there was no major internal thereat to the regime. Both of them believed in Communism, Socialism and in Revolution. Evidence which proves this believe of revolution was when for example Lenin argued that there should be a second revolution due to that demanding speech he made, known as the April Theses. Stalin and Lenin seemed to have not much confident in the Russians because thay unbelieved that the russians could build a Communist State in the USSR without the help of the people from outside. Another clear similarity between Lenin and Stalin is that they only believed in themselfs, they didnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t put up with oppositon and refused to work with the people. Generally, they knew how to support opposition.Adding to this that they were prepared to see people die in order to stay in power, I can back up this information from the fact that Stalin introduced the collectivisation policy, without taking in account what people thought about this idea. The differences these two figures had were: At all time Lenin showed that his actions and principles were the principles of the people, totally different from Stalin who in most times showed that he only aimed to obtain his own benefits. I can back up this information from the fact that he had no consideration at the time of introducing the collectivisation policy which ended with thousands of peopleà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s lives, and this was not all, he knew from the start that many peasants opposed the idea, but he didnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t care. Another clear difference is that Lenin was committed to one-party rule, but, unlike Stalin, he did not ( and did not seek to ) exercise a personal dictatorship. Lenin had good political judgement, whereas Stalin couldnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t see much further from his ambitious aim of becoming more powerful without caring about the Russians, he did everything which was in his power to meet his proposals. Lenin had ideals which he never fully abandned, Stalin could change his mind very quickly. Lenin strongly believed that the revolutionaries had to be rock hard. Lenin believed strongly in the NEP, whereas Stalin only said to outmanoevre his opponents. Afterwards, Stalin later abandoned the NEP. 2: Assess the impact that Lenin had on Russia and the Russian people. For the Russian people we must say that Lenin took the right path when he decided to introduce the NEP. He introduced the NEP in order to improve the economic situation in Russia. Otherwise the Communists would not be able to survive. Lenin said that the NEP would give the Soviet Union a à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ breathing spaceà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ to get back on his feet. The Nepmen set up restaurants and made enormous amounts of money. The majority realised that these measures were needed to revive industry and get more food production, therefore the shortages of food would be temporaly stopped until they would recover completely, so food would be no more rationed. The NEP brought: Grain requisitioning was stopped and no longer would grain be taken from the peasants by force, which was excellent. Information which proves the grain increase is that in 1913 the cattle production was os 58.9 millions and in 1925 it was recordered of 62.1 millions, taking in account that in 1922 it was of 45.8 million. From 1925 the Kulaks could hire people to work for them. Also, private trde and traders were allowed (NEP men.)Lenin called the heavy industry and transport the à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½commanding heights of the economyà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½. Businessmen could take advantage of the situation because they could set up small, privetely own factories and workshops. Furtheremore, a new currency was introduced backed by gold. The NEP lasted until 1928 and Russia generally became more prosperous. Undoubtedly the NEP played a big role in improving the general economic situation. Living conditions in Russia had enormously improved in the past two years. Evidenci which proves the success of the Nep because it was estimated that upward of 250,000 private traders have migrated to Moscow since the NEP was introduced. The NEP leaded to an increase of harvests and food production, foreign trade did also see an increase. In general the workers were happier because bonuses and wages increase therefore they were becoming richer. reduced inflation and working conditons were better off. Due to the NEP the relationship between the government and the peasants improved. Adding to this the improvement in transport because it was helped by the import of a thousand locomotives from Sweden and Germany. The population in general felt more prosperous. Another positive aspect Lenin did during his rule was the Labour Law he introduced. This entitled eight-hour day this meant that workers had much more freedon in concentrating in their personal lives and they were able to spent more time with their families. Workers could have two weeks paid holiday each year. They also had insurance benefits such as sich pay, unemployment was also paid in order to allow workers continue feeding their respectives families, furthermore there was old age pensions. This Law did in fact benefit all the workers who some of them saw this as a motivation, and all carried out their taks efficiently and obediently. Without this Law workers would have had to suffer much more than some of them did,before this Law was introduced workers had a lot of economic problems and many workers and their respectives families died because they had no money to pay for food. This Law was a firmly evidence that demonstrated that Lenin did also thought about the workers future. Despite all these good things Lenin did also brought pain for the Russian people. Action which proves this information is the War Communism which later lead to the Civil War. The real question is why? Lenin was to run the government and to organise food and industrial production in the Red – area. It was mainly introduced because it was crucial to keep the Red Army supplied, so to keep this, Lenin adopted the policy of à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½War Communism.à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ We could consider a few aspects of War Communism. In first place, all factories with more tham ten workers were nationalised – government controlled it, furtheremore the Vesenkha decided what each industry produced. The government imposed his authority and had all the workres under his control. In factories there was military discipline including the death penalty for strikers. Another important aspect is that the unemployed people joined the à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Labour Armies.à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ Peasants had to give their surplus food to the government and they could not sell a profit, and private trading was banned. The government allowed money to lose its value through inflation, abolished rents, railway fares, postal charges and many other payments. It is to say that the peopleà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s response was quite negative. Inside the Communist Party, a group called the Workerà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s Opposition called for the trade unions to be given back the freedom they had lost under War Communism. The sailors who had always been the stongest supporters of the revolution, so their discontent with the Communists rule that they put forward a series of demands. War Communism lead to: Civil War. The 30 May 1918,the Communists found themselves under attack. They only controlled a small part of Russia and their enemies were determined that they should not remain in power for long. This was the beginning of a vicious civil war which was to tear Russia apart. The struggle was between the Reds (Bolsheviks or Communists)and the Whites(opponents of the Bolsheviks – nobles, democrats, Mensheviks and Socialist.) The reds only aim was to stay in power so that they could build the new Socialist Society. Th whites aim was to defeat the Bolsheviks. The Whites had the advantage of support from foreign powers suh as Britain, France, Japan and the USA, along with several other countries. Their governments did not want to see Bolshevism spread out in Europe. By the end of 1918 the Civil War was not going well for the Reds, they suffered a series of defeats.It was in the middle of 1919 that the real test came, by this time the Reds began to succeed. 1919 was decisive. Despite the fact that the Reds were not going well since the Civil War started they won it. Partly because they controlled Moscow, Petrograd and other major industrial cities. People saw them as defending Russiaà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s national interest against the foreign powers which were supporting the Whites AND the Whites ha no single leader nor a set unified aims other than the defeat of the Bolsheviks. In general both sides were in guilty of atrocities. With both War Communism and the Civil War,brought loads of pain to the Russians. War Communism lead to many major problems. In the towns Lenin put in his own managers, and strict discipline was imposed on the workers. Trade Unions were not allowed, and workers were prevented from leaving the cities. Furtheremore, food was rationed and people could only get a ration card if they were working. The only other possible way of getting food was through the illegal Black Market.In the countryside there was adesperate need of getting food for the workers, since the peasants were unwilling to sell their grain for money which had no value. Many peasants decided to produce less grain, because they thought it would simply be taken away. So the situation got worse. Overall this was a shedow of thr Red terror. People opposing the government were arrested and shot withour trial or sent to labour camps. Many workers and peasants began to think that the workerà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s state was worse than the government of the Tsar which they had been so pleased to get rid of. Despite the fact that Russia had been affected with both negative and positive actions which Lenin did, we have to analyse the consequences (bad and good) Lenin provoked to Russia. In first place, I will analyse the bad things he brought for Russia. War Communism lead to a disatrous results. By 1921, the economy of Russia was in ruins. In dustrial production had fallen disastrously under War Communism. The cities were in chaos. Adding to this that agirculture also collapsed. Grain requestioning had led to low harvests which at the same time led to famine. Evidence which proves that industrial output felled was that in 1913 there was 29 millions of tons of coal and by 1921 it had fallen to 9 million tons or even electicity which by 1913 there was 2039 million kWH and by 1921 therewas just 520 million kWH. Even more a massive international aid corporation was mounted. Lenin had promised to end the War. And he did. But at what cost? Yes, Lenin got his peace but his poor judgement and obsession with ending the War lead to a very harsh treaty, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Leninà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s theory was to obtain peace at any price, this was an idea which Lenin took too far. Lenin sent Trotsky to meet the Germans to negotiate a peace treaty. Trotsky walked out of the talks because the Germans demanded too much territory. He said there would be à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½no peace, no war.à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ However,Lenin sent him back, because he was sure that the Bolsheviks would stay in power only if the war could be ended quickly. The result was a harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918.Lenin would do everuthing whatà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s in his power to achieve his proposals. Russia suffered a lot since the treaty was signed because due to this treaty Russia lost: 62 million people, which meant one-sixth of the population,which at the same time meant a loss in general production which would then lead to famine. Russia also lost 27% of farm land, some of the best in Russia. It also meant a 26% of railways and a 74% of iron ore and coal. This treaty only brought more pain to the russian country, so thins went even worse. This reflects Lenin political ambition to aim more amd more in order to meet his proposals. Things went so wrong that Lenin now had the sailors who had been their supporters at all times were now going against them. This was mainly because Lenin established a dictatorship therefore the sailors were now opposing them. They said that à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½life under the yoke of the Communists dictatorship has become more terrible than death.à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ As we all know the Red Kronatadters had been strong supporters of the Bolsheviks during the 1917 Revolution. By 1921 things changed, these were not the same men. After anlaysing the negative side that Lenin adopted towards the country, we have to say the positive aspects he toook in order to make Russia a developed country in all terms. We have to say that the NEP was one thing he did correctly. With the NEP Russia generally became more prosperous, the NEP played a very important role in improving the general economic situation. Apart from all the industrial, agricultural benefits this lead to, one of the main important things was electrification. Electrification was one step forward. Lenin was enthusiastic with the idea of technological innovation and saw electric power as the key to modernising the Soviet Union. He gave a great network of power station which would provide the power for modern large-scale industry. Lenin believed electric power would change things so much that he said that.à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Soviet power plus electrification equals Communism.à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ Another very important aspect of the NEP was the foreign trade, the NEP encouraged foreign countries, which had refused to trade with Soviet Russia before 1921. Western countries hoped that the move back to private trade and profit – capitalism – meant the failure of Communists ideas. An Anglo – Soviet trade agreement in 1921 marked the beginning of increased trade with the West which gave a great boost to the Soviet economy. There were exchanges of Western industrial goods for the Russians oil and similar products. Thse were some examples which back up the idea that the NEP had been successful. Lenin demonstrated with the April Theses that he would sopport the Bolsheviks for ever. Lenin changed the whole course of the revolution. The Germans were pleased to see him, hoping that he could cause trouble for the Russian government. They gave him money and put him in a special sealed train which the destinaton was Petrograd. The Germans were right. Lenin did cause a stir and he did make trouble. The first thing Lenin did when he arrived was a speech demanding four main issues. He said that there should be no co – operation with the Provisional Government. Lenin demanded that war should be ended immediately. Furtheremore the land should be given to the peasants, and the final point, Lenin had been clear enough to understand his demands, that the Soviets should take power. These points in Leninà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s speech were later written up as the April Theses, in which Lenin argued there should be a second revolution. Lenin died in January 1924, aged 53. Lenin had been in poor health since an assasination attempt in 1918. In 1922 Lenin suffered the first of a series of strokes and from that time onwards it was clear that he was dying. He could work but his role became less and less influential. After Leninà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s death, a à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Lenincultà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ developed in Soviet Russia. His image was everywhere, in statues, plaques and posters. Petrograd was renamed Leningrad in his honour. Some loyal Communists in the 1920à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s even christened their newborn daughters à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ Ninelà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½- Lenin spelt backwards. Leninà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s body was not buried but was put on a display in a specially built MAUSOLEUM. The à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Lenin cultà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ survived for as long as Soviet Russia itself. Later in the 1940à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s a biography of Lenin called him à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½the greatest genious of all times and of all nations, master of all the treasures of human knowledge.à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ This acts revealed the complete love and admiration the Russians felt towards him. Despite all the bad things he did he was considered as a superior human being. 3: Assess the impact that Stalin had on Russia and the Russian people. For the country, Stalin introduced the collectivisation policy, which was a great disater. Agriculture was still backwars. Most farms were small, because of the way land had been shared out after the Revolution. The idea was that they worked together and share everything, including what the farm produced. Some of the produce would be sold to the state at a lowprice and , in return, the state would provide agricultural machinery such as tractors, and help the peasants to farm more efficiently. Most of the peasants opposed the ideas because thay werenà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t sure of having enough bread to eat. With they other system they were sure that they wonà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t starve because they kept all what they prodUced and they didnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t had to share with anyone. Peasants like the feeling of independance. Knowing all this Stalin didnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t even bother to analyse the situation before taking a decision. He knew from the strart that many peasants oppose the idea of collectivisation, but he didnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t care. The evidence that shows this error are the disastrous results. Factories were making very few goods for sale in the shops. Things were expensive an had to be rationed. There was a lot of discontent within the Russian inhabitants. Furtheremore there was a strict code of labour discipline and tough punishments. Central planning was not very efficient, some of the goods produced were almost unusable because they had been turned out so quickly by untrained workers. In general collectivisation was a huge mistake. In order to prove that Stalin was too selfish and ambtitious, it is to say that he used force, terror and persuassion to achieve his proposals. One sign of terror were the purges, the omly aim of this purges was to get rid of all the people who might oppose him, particularly the Bolsheviks who had been important in the past. Stalinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s method was to accuse them for the murders of the people, such as Kirivà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s deathe who Stalin accused Kamenev and Ziniviev. Afterwards they were put on a trial, in view of the world, which were called the à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½show trials,à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½which were broadcast on radio. Getting confessions was imporatant. Confessions showed that the state and Stalin were right – a conspiracy did exist. Denouncing was a good way of accusing people. Denounciations usually led to arrest nd torture. Under torture, people often made confessions implicating others, who would then be arrested in their return. Once more the purges were a symbol of Stalinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s cruelty and evilness with what he was characterised. This symbol represents the panic and terror he introduced in the russians and that he would obtain the whole control of eveything and everyone no matter at what cost, or who had to die in response. Stalin was prepared to see people die. The purges tooj away thousands of deaths. Evenmore, Stalin got rid of some of the Soviet Unionà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s best brains, such as Bukharin, who Stalin considered as a threat. He also got rid of the best thinkers, writers, artists who could have produced brilliant work in many fields. If all these deaths wouldnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t have been carried out, probably Russia hadnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t had to confront so many problems. We can know focus on the some of the positive things Stalin gave Russia. First of all, Stalin managed to turn Russia into a powerful nation, modern industrial in 30 years. Despite all the problems there had been with the collectivisation policy, Stalin was able to recover Russia from economic, industrial and agricultural dilemmas. Stalin also gave Russia some hopes, with the industrial policy. Stalin ended the NEP and began a series of Five Year Plans. These plans were highly ambitious. Since the aim was to make Russia powerful, the Plans concentrated on heavy industry, like in iron and steel, hydroelectricity and coal – mining. The second Plan was to develop transport. Thousands of dirty traks were turned into metaled rocks. New waterawys and airports, these airports allowed to travel the length and Breadth of the country. This second Plan gave industry top priority. It is to mention that communications became important to link cities and industrial centres. The third Plan ran 3 years, when Russia entered the Second World War,at the same time ended with the German invasion in 1941. Stalin reintroduced single managers to run the state enterprises and factories. The ides of work was left behind. Managers which did well were highly rewarded. Magnitogorsk built in the Urals and Western Siberis, were rich in minerals. To encourage people, à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Stakhanovitesà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ gave honours and extra rations. This policy of industrialisation saved Russia in the Second World War. For the Russians we have also to analyse both negative and positive things Stalin brought. In terms of bad points, he introduced the terror and fear within the Russiaà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s inhabitants. One way of making the russians suffer was through the workers therefore their respective families would also suffer their problems. Stalin kept wages low, and were usually used as incentives. Wages were usually paid according to how much was produced. Skilled workers could get up four times the wages of their unskilled comrades, which was an unfair thing to do. Stain also punished the workers. Not all people responded to propaganda campaigns, and measures were introduced to deal with slackers. The fear of being accused of sabotage and sent to labour camps encouraged workers to carry out their tasks obediently. There was also a strict code of discipline with tough punishments such as absenteeism. Another important aspect to consider was the idea Stalin had in case that things werenà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t wrong, he would in return blame the workers.The labour camps knwn as Gulags, were at the centre of Stalinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s programme of terror. People feared being sent to them almost as much as being shot. Few survived the harsh conditions there which meant distroyed families. The conditions were severe in extreme. The Gulags took the peasants accused of being kulaks or who resisted collectivisation and the workers accused of sabotage and à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½wrecking,à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ which was common by those days. These people were often used as forced labour to clear ground for industrial towns or for big projects. Things werenà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t so wrong that after the purges began, the labour camps were filled up with political prisioners. There were also womanà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s and childrenà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s camps. Education laws one problem the Russians had to suffer. Education was strictly controlled. Old forms of discipline and examinations had been abolished. This created unruly, poorly educated puplis. One way it had been reflected Stalinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s importance was through education. As history was particularly important, as the 1930à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s went on, it was rewritten to suit Stalin. Whatà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s more significant is the simple issue that Stalin had a book. Due to the strict control some of the childrens remaind unskilled and without too much knowledge, thismeant that in a future those children would find it dificult to find a job. Employment was a very important matter, and if you were unemplyed you would hardly find one which suited to their ability. In the positive aspects there was two main issues, the industrial policy and the living standards began to rise. The government put a lot of resources into building and health service. This favoured the peole and even les people were left without shelter. Housing was not a problem any more, and in general the population was happy of having somewhere to live. The industrial policy was what Russia needed to recover well from the collectivisation policy. This was in general a great success and brought hopes within the Russians. Weà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ve also got to spot out that there were advances in medicine, which meant that heakth care was being supervised in detail and therefore the death rate decreased due to those advances, which also led to a general happiness so it was a good way of keeping people healthy. A field in which Stalin seemed a bit interested was in the leisure activity. Sport and fitness were encouraged to improve the general health of men and women. Trade unions and collective farms played a big role in providing clubs,sports facilities, film shows, festivals and general entertainment. If we sum all these aspects we may see that ,although, Stalin didnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t worry about the Russian, we must admit that he showed to be worried about them, and introduced many leisure innovations, this would keep the Russians happy, and for a while they wouldnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t protest. Coming from Stalin this was a great success and improvement. 4: Who do you think was the more important figure in Russian history, Lenin or Stalin? Explain your answer. Before judging who had the better impact, if that means the most important, we have to make an overall view and see who gave Russia the best facilities and needs and who caused the less impact for both Russia and the Russian people. I canà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t make a precise overview of who was the most important because I didnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t lived in those days, and I think that you can never make a judgement of a person reliying your opinion in some information. The information we have nowadays about these two figures isnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t enogh to determine who was the most important of the two, but having the information we have previously seen, I will try to create a fair judgement of both Lenin and Stalin. So we canà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t be at all harsh at the time of analysing each of them. We only have to be a bit realistic and give your sincere opinion of both of them, and come to a fair conclusion with the information provided. In a way we have enough information of who and what things they separat ely did wrong along their lives, as politicians and leaders of Russia. If more important means who had the better impact, it is to say that both Lenin and Stalin were prepared to see millions of Russians suffer and die for their ideals. Basing my opinion on the facts, the information provides, we can come to the conclusion that Stalin was a violent man and his policy of solving problems was through terror, fear and violence. If the suspicions of the people who thought that Stalin was the intellectual murderer of the people who opposed him, and sometimes the direct murderer, is true, I would personally think that Stalin had a twisted mind. In terms of good things, I think that both Lenin and Stalin did more or less the same for their country, although, the industrial policy of Stalin had been one of the most important issue. Historians have given different interpretations of Leninà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s rule of Russia between 1917 and 1924. Often, these are connected with the political views of the historians. Soviet and Marxists historians have praised Leninà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s achievements as the founder of the Soviet state; for them, he could do no wrong. Historians in the West have mixed views. Some have seen him as a tyrant who seized power for his own ends and inflicted terrible suffering on th Russian people. A clear evidence that may show to who did the Russians adore and appreciate most, is just the one issue that after Leninà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s death Petrograd was remaned Leningrad. So, despite the fact that Lenin also did things wrong, the people had demonstrated the opposite thing. Whereas the historians only have one opinion of Stalin, they believe he carried with the work of Lenin, and that he took things further. I personally think that Lenin brought more hopes to the Russians but at the same time they were very close together of doing the same things, it was balanced. Or if the most important means the who had the negative impact, I seriously think that they were very similar in a way. But when we look and compare these two figures I have to say that Stalin got rid of opponents and some of the bests brains at the time, such as Bukharin, who was a clear opponent of Stalin. In the negative side of Stalin it reflects that he used more violent methods. If we look at the negative side of Lenin, it shows that he did also used terror and fear policies in order to meet their proposals. à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Every ingredient of what has become known as Stalinism save one – murdering fellow Communists – he (Stalin) had learned from Lenin, and that includes the two actions for which he is most severely condemned: Collectivisation and mass terror. Stalinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s megalomania†¦ and his other odious personal qualities should not obscure the fact that his ideology and modus operandi were Leninà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s. A man of meagre education, he had no other source of ideas.à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ Leninà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s theoretical views on the role of the Communist Party opened the way to Stalinism. The views in question arose out of Marxà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s assumption that between the overthrow of Capitalism by the revolution and the emergence of a socialist society, there would have to be a transitional period characterised by the à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½dictatorship of the proletariat.à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ Lenin adapted Marxà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s teaching, and said that during this transitional period, dictatorial power would not be exercised by the proletariat as such but rather by an elite or à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½vanguardà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ party – the Bolshevik – acting on behalf of the proletariat. Lenin not only preached violence, but as Soviet Russiaà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s head of government practised it as well – in its most extreme forms. Colleagues who were squeamish about the use of terror were mocked. Lenin, argues Pipes, set a personal example of cruelty, and thus bears responsability for the culture of brutality which grew up within the Communist ranks. He points out that the machinery of repression used by Stalin in the 1930s – the secret police, concentration camps and so on – had been put into place by Lenin before 1924. He dismisses the claim of Khrushchev and others that circumstances left Lenin with no alternative but to adopt repressive methods, pointing out, among other things, that the Cheka was formed before, not after, the emergence of organised opposition to the Bolsheviks. Lenin, he maintains, created an apparatus of terror not because he was forced to, but because he was a totalitarian dictator who believed that the Communist Party had the right à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½to subject to itself all the organised life without exception.à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ Generally both of them were more or less the same. Overall Lenin caused a major impact in Russia because he changed from Capitalism to Socialism, which was a very big change. I donà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t think that Stalin was the one who impact in a greater proportions Russiaà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s life because he basically harmed a lot more the image of Russia, and was hated much more than Lenin. So I can conclude this assigment by saying that although Lenin caused the major impact, in my opinion, Stalin did also contribute in leaving the country of Russia in one contry marked by the events and cicumstances this leadership left behind, adding to this the unsolving problems both Lenin and Stalin left behind after they finished with such a big responsability. STALIN:MAN OR MONSTER? 1: Study sources A, B and C. Do these sources give a similar or different impressions of Stalin? Explain your answer. Source A gives the real image of what Stalinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s results had been due to his policies. This source reflects how ambitious and cruel Stalin had reached to be, in order to achieve his proposed aims. Stalinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s main aim was to have control of everyone and everything, no matter how many lives heà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ sacrified if the final result was beneficial for him. This source is a clear example of what Stalinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s feelings were after his policies had finished.My impression is that Stalin was proud of what he had achieved, he was a man who didnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t mind what problems he had caused to Russia with his policies. Stalin brought to the Russian people a lot of disaster as aconsequence of his unconsciencious thoughts and his selfishness. This source shows Stalin as evil, cruel and like a murderer proud of what he has done, so therefore a monster. Stalin is shown as an arrogant man really proud of his masterpiece and what he had achieved so far. Stalin killed millions of people and he considers it a wonder compared with the pyramid of Egypt. I also deduce from this source that he had blood thirsty and that heà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s evilness and cruelty didinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t let him see what was really happening in Russia. It also reflects that he doesnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½t feel guilty for all those deaths, who in many cases could have been avoided if Stalin had opened his eyes. Evidence which proves this cruelty with what Stalin was characterised, with the purges he intriduced in 1934. I think that Source A as we may see, shows Stalinà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s policies of terror. The two methods Stalin used to encourage people to do what he wanted were the force and persuassion. Sources B and and C are what we call false propaganda. 2: Study source D Does this source provide any useful information about Stalin? Explain your answer.