Would you say Russia's Terror under Stalin was a cynical control of the state for personal leadership?

Answer 1

I think Stalin had a strong and genuine desire to make Russia a powerful, prosperous and advanced country. And he partly succeeded - which is impressive given the dysfunctionalness of the communist system. On the other hand Stalin was severely lacking in compassion, and he pursued his goals with extreme ruthlessness.

Answer 2

I think that Stalin focused on ends rather than means. Being more of a revolutionary than a thinker, Stalin pursued his goals ruthlessly (the forced collectivisation of peasant farmers is an example of this). Stalin took control of the party (and hence the country) by eliminating perceived threats and fostering a cult of personality amongst the population....

So yes, the terror Stalin was able to inflict on the Soviet Union was a direct result of both his personal leadership and the control he had over the state (had he not been able to eliminate dissent within his own party, Stalin’s more radical policies may not have come to fruition).

Answer 3

I am not sure "cynical" is at all the correct word you are seeking. For sure, Stalin's brutality and murdering so many of his own people was a way for him to stay in power. Through his brutality he gained both state and personal control!!

Chow!!

Answer 4

Yes and No: Your basic premise is accurate, but so far all Communist governments have had equally bloodthirsty phases, so it was not a unique failing of either Stalin or Russian/Soviet Communism.

Answer 5

I think you could say that, yes.