"Stalin was justified in using force to create a strong Russia." How far do you agree with this statement?

Question

I am writing an essay about it, any good ideas or any good websites for references?

Answer 1

If, in the end, the means justify the ends, then I agree. I don't particularly like Stalin, but yours is an academic exercise. He held together disparate regions, he imposed Russian sway from the Ukraine to the Pacific, and for better or worse, he made Russia a country to be feared.

Machiavelli, whose book, called The Prince, is something you should read. It is the quintissential treatise on the subject of the things the Prince must do to justify his place in history and to benefit not only himself, but the state. Basically, the Prince can do no wrong in his pursuit of power for the state.

Here are some of his quotes. It may sound like Stalin himself!
1. is necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force. "
2. "Therefore a wise prince ought to adopt such a course that his citizens will always in every sort and kind of circumstance have need of the state and of him, and then he will always find them faithful. "
3. We have not seen great things done in our time except by those who have been considered mean; the rest have failed. "
4. he who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined"

Here is where the good student uses a classical reference and makes analogies of behavioral characteristics and imputes them from the former to the latter.
Regards

Answer 2

Your question presumes that Stalin did in fact create a strong Russia. Did he? I know I am probably in a minority here, but if Russia became strong after the Revolution, it was in spite of Stalin, not because of him. Think about these facts:

After concluding the Molotov-Ribentropp Pact as to "mutual non-agression" with Nazi Germany, Stalin proceeded to decimate the Soviet military leadership. He may have had his reasons to fear a military coup, but only an idiot would presume that a regime like the Nazi Germany, which had already demonstrated its military ambitions, would sit back and not attack Russia merely because its official signed some piece of paper.

As a result, by mid-1941, the Soviet military was in shambles. This allowed the Nazis to pretty much steamroll through Russia, seizing its "bread basket" and major industrial centers, coming within 40 km of Moscow and besieging St. Petersburg. Of course, repressioned military brass who had not yet been executed or tortured to death in the Gulags were hastily rehabilitated, and so eventually, Stalin was able to reconstitute the military more or less, but for the first few crucial months of the war, the USSR was in total and utter disarray. This disarray cannot be blamed solely on Hitler's failure to declare war. In short, Stalin's prewar policies contributed significantly to USSR's catastrophic casualties, both civillian and military, and the extensive destruction of its infrustructure.

Besides, Stalin's long-term terror intensified Russia's already existing culture of fear, complacency and submission to tyrannical authority -- which in the end hurt Russia a lot more than it helped.

Answer 3

I don't. If the Germans had not been so brutal in their treatment of the Russians as they invaded, they probably would have sided with them. Stalin was hated and ruled through fear. Such a policy doesn't make a country strong, it simply eliminates the opposition. If the thinkers, scientists and intellectuals of Russia had been allowed freedom, Russia could have become a strong country. All Stalin did was rule a weak (economically and culturally) country with an impressive military.

Answer 4

His actions had the opposite effect.
He created a Russia in which the citizens were encouraged to inform on each other and the political process became paralysed resulting in many bad decisions.
His agricultural policies led to famine and industrial development was very backward as people were afraid to use their own initiative
Terror was the keynote of his rule and his purge of top army officers in the 1930s left Russia very vulnerable when Germany invaded. It was only the heroism of its people that saved him

Answer 5

No more than I agree with the statement that fidel kastro became a comunist because the yanks turned against it.
You should read about the trenches of Kathyn and some many other subjects. Don't forget about Lavrenti Beria

Answer 6

ask yourself: "does the end justify the means." did do you feel Stalin was successful in his goal to create a strong Russia. (take how his actions contributed the successes of his predecessors into consideration)

Answer 7

justified?

Lets see

if he didnt like you (no matter who you were) he could point you out and you'd have a bullet in your head before you even knew why, by the hands of a KGB.

He killed some 20 generals just because they displeased him in the defense of Russia against germany.

In all he killed some 20 million russians in this reign of terror.

now is that justification?

Answer 8

http://members.aol.com/TeacherNet/Russia.html

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalin.htm

http://www.stel.ru/stalin/young_joseph_1879-1904.htm

As far as agreeing with the statement, I personally do not agree with that Joseph Stalin did as a ruler; however you do have to keep in mind that any ruler, no matter how corrupt we might view them today, thought they were doing what was right then. HE felt his actions were justified. Good luck with your essay.

Answer 9

Stalin was a murdering thug who was perhaps only rivalled by Hitler.

Answer 10

Just to begin, start with :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin