What do you think of Stalin's rule?

Question

Do you think his methods and the changes he made were effective?

What exactly was his rule?

Answer 1

Stalin's control over Russia meant that freedom was the one thing that people lost. The people of Russia had to read what the state allowed, see what the state allowed and listen to what the state allowed. The state’s control of the media was total. Those who attempted to listen, read etc. anything else were severely punished. Everybody knew of the labour camps and that was enough of a deterrent.

He gained the nickname "Uncle Joe" which was an attempt to develop an image of a kind, homely man who was the ‘father’ of all Russians. This was all called "Social Realism". Those who wrote poems and novels had to do the same - write about Stalin in a manner which gloried him. Some artists and authors were so depressed by all this that they committed suicide rather than do what the state ordered them to do. Many others tried to leave the country.

Education was strictly controlled by the state. In 1932, a rigid programme of discipline and education was introduced. Exams, banned under Lenin, were reintroduced. The way subjects were taught was laid down by the government - especially History where Stalin’s part in the 1917 Revolution and his relationship with Lenin was overplayed. Books were strictly censored by the state and Stalin ordered the writing of a new book called "A short history of the USSR" which had to be used in schools.

Outside of school, children were expected to join youth organisations such as the Octobrists for 8 to 10 year olds and the Pioneers for the 10 to 16 year olds. From 19 to 23 you were expected to join the Komsomol. Children were taught how to be a good socialist/communist and an emphasis was put on outdoor activities and clean living.

There was a marked increase in the attacks on the churches of the USSR throughout the 1930’s. Communism had taught people that religion was "the opium of the masses" (Karl Marx) and church leaders were arrested and churches physically shut down. Stalin could not allow a challenge to his position and anybody who worshipped God was a challenge as the "personality cult" was meant for people to worship Stalin.

For a short time under Lenin, women had enjoyed a much freer status in that life for them was a lot more liberal when compared to the ‘old days’. Among other things, divorce was made a lot more easy under Lenin. Stalin changed all this. He put the emphasis on the family. There was a reason for this. Many children had been born out of marriage and Moscow by 1930 was awash with a very high number of homeless children who had no family and, as such, were a stain on the perfect communist society that Stalin was trying to create.

The state paid families a child allowance if their were a married couple. It became a lot harder to get a divorce and restrictions were placed on abortions. Ceremonial weddings made a comeback. In the work place, women maintained their status and there was effective equality with men. In theory, all jobs were open to women. The only real change took place in the image the state created for women. By the end of the 1930’s, the image of women at work had softened so that the hard edge of working became less apparent.

Living standards: these generally rose in the 1930’s despite the obvious problems with food production and shortages elsewhere. Some people did very well out of the system especially party officials and skilled factory workers. Health care was greatly expanded. In the past, the poorer people of Russia could not have expected qualified medical help in times of illness. Now that facility was available though demand for it was extremely high. The number of doctors rose greatly but there is evidence that they were so scared of doing wrong, that they had to go by the rule book and make appointments for operations which people did not require!!

Housing remained a great problem for Stalin’s Russia. In Moscow, only 6% of households had more than one room. Those apartments that were put up quickly, were shoddy by western standards. In was not unusual for flat complexes to be built without electric sockets despite electricity being available - building firms were simply not used to such things.

Leisure for the average Russian person was based around fitness and sport. Every Russian was entitled to have a holiday each year - this had been unheard of in the tsar’s days. Clubs, sports facilities etc. were provided by the state. The state also controlled the cinema, radio etc. but an emphasis was placed on educating yourself via the media as it was then.

Russia become a major industrial nation by 1939 and her progress was unmatched in the era of the Depression in America and western Europe where millions were unemployed.
Tthose workers who did not offend the state were better off than under the reign of the tsar. Russia’s military forces were benefiting from her industrial growth and there was a stable government under Stalin.

Another fact about Stalin's rule is that people had access to much better medical care some 10 years before the National Health Service was introduced in Great Britain.


However Stalin also caused alot of pain and suffering among the people of Russia and neighboring countries. Millions died of famine after the failed experiment of collectivisation. In addition,
Russia’s agriculture was at the same level in 1939 as in 1928 with a 40 million increase in population. Furthermore, the country become a ‘telling’ society. The secret police actively encouraged people to inform on neighbours, work mates etc. and many suffered simply as a result of jealous neighbours/workers. Many of Russia's most talented people had been murdered during the Purges of the 1930's. Anyone with talent was seen as a threat by the increasingly paranoid behaviour associated with Stalin and were killed or imprisoned (which usually lead to death anyway). The vast Soviet army was a body without a brain as most of her senior officers had been arrested and murdered during the Purges. This fact was one of the reasons Hitler and the Nazi's almost conquered Russia in World War two.

In the first years after the war, Stalin ruled with the assistance of four leaders: Molotov and Mikoian from the older guard and Malenkov and Beria representing the younger membership of the party. Stalin's relations with these leaders were characterised by 'relentless severity'. His technique was to keep his deputies on edge, to find fault so as to keep them in line. But he 'stepped back from the brink of radical or irrevocable acts against members of his ruling circle'. He avoided 'behaving in an anarchic or uncontrolled way'. This repressive and informal mechanism of personal loyalty was the first of two opposing elements in Stalin's approach. The second was a system of committees. In particular, there was the Council of Ministers and its sectoral sub-committees covering aspects of the economy. The aim of this structure was to maximise the long-term potential of the Soviet economy.

1949 was a pivotal year for this system. The Soviet position was strengthened by the successful explosion of an atomic bomb and by the Communist victory in China. But there were setbacks with the signature of the North Atlantic Treaty, the Soviet climb-down on the Berlin blockade and the creation of a West German state. In addition there were problems with Yugoslavia. This last case seems to have contributed to Stalin's concern for 'enemies' and the consequently sterner attitude to the East European satellite states. Within the Soviet Union he also adopted a much tougher attitude over two issues. Officials in Leningrad held a wholesale fair in January 1949 without authority. In addition, Gosplan officials, who were responsible for co-ordinating various parts of the Soviet economy, were accused of manipulating the figures. Two individuals, a Politburo member and a Secretary of the Central Committee, were killed on Stalin's orders--the only occasion in this era when he resorted to such measures. His motives remain unclear but the authors speculate that a major consideration was his determination to show that he 'still possessed the power and the will'.

If the Politburo was more wary thereafter, then Stalin, whose seventieth birthday coincided with these episodes, was more lethargic. Removal of these two figures also led to a reconstitution of the Council of Ministers. Meanwhile, we hear of the wider costs to Soviet society and the economy of the later Stalinist system, in particular, agriculture and the Gulag. Stalin and his inner circle pursued policies that 'left large swathes of their country in dire poverty'. There were nearly four-and-a-half million people in camps, prisons or special settlements. Despite his frailties, Stalin continued to dominate. 'As he reached the end of his life, Stalin fell back on the essence of his rule, a crude toxic mixture of ideology and repression'. Although he was ill from the summer of 1952 onwards, there was no sign of rebellion from his colleagues. But they did 'privately begin to question his leadership'.

In the original version of his book The Great Terror, Robert Conquest gave the following estimates of those arrested, executed, and incarcerated during the height of the Purge:


Arrests, 1937-1938 - about 7 million
Executed - about 1 million
Died in camps - about 2 million
In prison, late 1938 - about 1 million
In camps, late 1938 - about 8 million

Conquest concluded that "not more than 10 percent of those then in camp survived." Updating his figures in the late 1980s based on recently-released archival sources, he increased the number of "arrests" to 8 million, but reduced the number in camps to "7 million, or even a little less." This would give a total death toll for the main Purge period of just under ten million people. About 98 percent of the dead (Gendercide Watch's calculation) were male.

The estimates are "only approximations," Conquest notes, and "anything like complete accuracy on the casualty figures is probably unattainable." But "it now seems that further examination of the data will not go far from the estimates we now have except, perhaps, to show them to be understated"; and "in any case, the sheer magnitudes of the Stalin holocaust are now beyond doubt." He cites Joseph Berger's remark that the atrocities of Stalin's rule "left the Soviet Union in the condition of 'a country devastated by nuclear warfare.'" (All figures and quotes from Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment, pp. 485-88.)

Answer 2

Stalin's 'rule' was:
"You either agree with Me, or else You and Your whole family, and all Your friends, and just about everyone You have ever spoken to, will be going up against the wall, or to the Gulag for a very long time!"
Seems quite reasonable and very effective, when You think about it. No pressure or collusion. Just a pleasant way to state a proposition. Gets the necessary changes and results done, doesn't it? Why worry about wiping out a few million 'non-voting' patriots when, for the cost of a pogrom, (or two) You can become a dictator for life?
And to think, some people (and WE know Who You are) say bad things about George W. Bush. The next knock on the door could be the Secret Police!

Answer 3

The rule of Stalin was tyrannical indeed. However when you consider what the Russians had before the rise of Communism it wasnt much better. An absolute monarchy which often carried out its own purges and often watched its people starve. Im not saying that Stalin wasnt doing wrong, its just in a social framework of a nation that didnt ever have democracy, he was just continuing a tradition of absolutism.

Answer 4

He was a man who wanted to turn the USSR into a modern Industrial Country. He did it with Efficacy,and deadly. He not also killed scientists but put most under his thumb so they were always monitored to make sure they are working hard like the rest of the country. If we don't realized it he set up his country for WWII, With modern factories they could stay in the war by over-producing guns, tanks, and planes. The Great Patriotic War was a war of production of equipment and attrition

Answer 5

If he didn't like you, its back to the barn for you. but he used this to his advantage, so he was an effective leader.

Answer 6

they were effective in killing a lot of people

Answer 7

He was a fanciful guy, I heard he liked twizlers.

Answer 8

brutal and effective

Answer 9

He had more people killed than Hitler did.

Answer 10

He was a dictator and all dictators suck.