Hi There Guys!!
this blogsite is just for you to express your views of history and discuss history topics. The topic for discussion from 12 April to 22 April is
a) Communism in Russia
b) Josef Stalin's rule in Russia
You are to write at least 40-50 words on any one of the abovementioned topics. You can also comment on the comments posted by other students.
Please stick to the topics of discussion and not make unnecessary remarks or comments. Happy blogging!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i believe Stalin is the saviour of Russia because he made it one of the most industrialised nations in the world. To me Stalin is a hero even though he committed a lot of murders and atrocities in the pursuit of prosperity. I think a little 'evil' is necessary.. what do you all think?
ReplyDeleteMr Maran
As he was responsible for much of the industrial modernization in Russia, helping them catch up to the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Stalin was said to have killed about 20 million people in Russia. With all of his insecurities about the people around him and his many purges, he killed innocent people for ridiculous reasons.
He was smart enough to make a "treat" somewhat, with Germany, and when Hitler betrayed that, Stalin overcame him and was able to acquire for land for Russia, but in the process, killed a good portion of the Russian people.
He was just committed to being a leader.
Png Si Yong(34) 3 Sincerity 13/4/10
I feel that stalin was a good leader but some of his actions were inappropriate such as sending trotsky to other state when he knew that he is capable of being a leader.Stalin should've face the challenge and not send trotsky.He also commited alot of murders and killed alot of innocent people which doesn't prove him a good leader as he is not loyal.But his misssion was to make russia one of the most largest industrial nations in the world and to do it he worked really hard.He made it what he wanted to do and made the workers work really hard.Though he was a little strict i think its necessary because that can make others work towards their country.I feel that whatever he did proves that he was a good leader.{wishah baig(21)3 charity}
ReplyDeleteStalin was a leader capable of doing anything to achieve what he was aiming to do, which is to spread communism throughout Russia first. He planned everything thoroughly to get what he wanted, eventually he did it. First, he won the people's trust by standing beside Lenin's body. Second, he managed to exiled Trotsky to another country. Thirdly, he made it a point to anyone who was slacking that they would be punished severely. Lastly, he was said to have assassinated all the smart people in Russia. This was all that made him successful in the future. Hence, i would agree that he is a good leader and that what he had done was necessary.
ReplyDeleteHuang Peisheng (27) 3Charity
I believe that although Stalin seemed like a good leader at first, he turned out as a leader with no foresight. Yes, he did help Russia catch up with many countries in just a short period of 10 years but he purged many people, including the intellectuals which would stop the nation's progress if nobody could make technological advances. If the Russians knew about Lenin's will, they would not have picked Stalin as the leader even if Trotsky was not fit. By getting rid of Trotsky using underhand methods, Stalin would be seen as a sore loser to many people and leaders cannot play unfairly.
ReplyDeleteUi Jia Wei (36) 3Humility
He was a ruthless dictator who killed millions of people. He only cared about himself and stopped anyone who got in his way. And even people who didn't.
ReplyDeleteHe had a daughter that escaped him luckily and hated his guts. He used fear and autocracy to intimidate the Russians so they thought it was "Stalin's way or the highway." He told them they needed to industrialize as much as the other countries in 10 years when they had hundreds.
These "plans" hurt the Russians severly, even though it helped the industries. Stalin killed the smart people in jobs and kept the stupid people because they would be more loyal.
He also had little concern for the lives of the people, because of this 'extreme concentration of power' .
Png Si Yong(34) 3 Sincerity
I disagree with the fact that Josef Stalin was a good leader. I think he abused his authority even though he made Russia one of the most industrialised nations in the world. He caused many people to lose their lives and treated the people Russia as his slaves. He launched a period of rapid industrialization and economic collectivization and because of that he disrupted food production resulting in widespread famine. He also used propaganda to keep the people of Russia loyal to him. I don't think a leader that causes so much suffering is considered a good leader.
ReplyDeleteJasmine Leong(8) 3 Integrity
I feel that Josef Stalin was a good leader. By the late 1930s, Stalin had achieved his aim of making the Soviet Union an industrial power. Although this was achieved at great human cost, Stalin's government was an inspiring example for other countries where Communists were also trying to launch a revolution. For instance, there were some workers whose lives were vastly improved compared to their lives during the days of Tsarist rule. Despite of the hardship that the Russians had suffered under him, many of them felt that it was Stalin's vision for his country that had lifted their country out of backwardness. It was Stalin's policies that enabled Communist Russia to catch up with the sophisicated countries like britain.
ReplyDeleteStanley Chua(37) 3 Sincerity
I feel that Stalin is a good leader of Russia but was too cruel in handling matters , be it for the country or personal matters.
ReplyDeleteStalin vastly increased the scope and power of the state's secret police and intelligence agencies. Soviet intelligence forces began to set up intelligence networks in most of the major nations of the world, including Germany.Stalin did much to help Russia in the state's secret police agencies , which shows that he was a responsible and good leader.
However , he did many things which were uncalled for like killing the talented like the scientists and doctors which could help in Russia's future. But , Stalin killed them in fear of a revolt.This was unnessary as Stalin was already much powerful then any other person in Russia.
But , this was not the only thing he did , proving his cruelty. The Finns, Bulgarians, Greeks, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and Jews and many other ethnnic groups were deported in a way or another. Many died during deportation in hunger or in weather conditions. Stalin should have been responsible for them , but he made the surviving work in labour camps without pay, once again proving his cruelty in handling matters.
Hence , i feel that although Stalin is strict and cruel in handling matters , he is a good leader as he did things in mind of the country.
Rebecca Choong (5) 3 Charity
Firstly, I feel that it is a need to correct Stanley about Stalin achieving industrial power at a great human cost. He did not just sacrifice people for modernisation, he also initiated the Great Purge/Great Terror which rids all suspected of being 'anti-revolutionist' which makes him sort of a tyrant. So now it is clear that I disagree that Stalin was a good leader. Even though he transformed Russia into one of the superpowers to current date, we must not overlook the fact in which during the modernisation of Russia, due to a certain extent of negligence and disruption of agriculture, caused the Holodomor, a tragic famine in 1932-1933. If Stalin had not rushed his 'Five-Year-Plan' and been more careful, this would not have happened. Stalin also pursued an 'anti-religious' Russia as he had adopted Lenin's theories that religion cannot 'blend in' with industrialisation. Imagine if you had an explicit belief in your own religion and if the most powerful man in your country used his secret police to persecute you, how would you feel? In addition, doesn't it seem ridiculous that Stalin went after the top scientist and geniuses who could actually contribute to the modernisation of Russia? The last point I wish to add is that Stalin's tyrannical rule over his country was bad enough but he had to spread his influence so much so that he had formed the 'Iron Curtain' and many East Germans were oppressed by his rule as they were separated from their family members that were in West Germany. The East Germans were haunted by poverty and could not escape from Communist rule because of the infamous Berlin Wall imposed by Stalin. In conclusion, a good leader does not just revolutionise a country, but also in the process make sure he does not harm his people. Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin certainly harmed/destroyed millions of innocent lives.
ReplyDeleteSorry Mr.Maran gabtbh95 is me and I forgot to sign off. Gabriel Tan(39) 3Charity
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gabriel. Although Josef Stalin did bring Russia to become even with the other powerful countries, he sacrificed many lives and these were the innocent people of Russia. I think that Stalin was not a good leader.
ReplyDeleteStalin's five-year plans were being rushed due to conflicts and unhappiness between the people of Russia and its leaders. When Lenin died, Stalin, in order to win the votes and trust of the people, he made Trotsky looked as though he was a bad guy. In fact, he later sent him and his family to exile. Although a common leader would do this to prevent opposing leaders from 'snatching' the leadership from them, Stalin need not come to this stage that he had to kill and sacrifice many innocent lives! Stalin used the secret police to hunt down people which opposed him and kill or sent them to camps, which were not seen again. If you were one of the family members of this innocent life, what would you see in Stalin? The people of Russia may not like him, but they dared not to oppose him in case he did something to their loved ones.
During the five-year plan, if Stalin would have shown more care and concern to the people of Russia, it would have turned out smoothly and targets would be reached. Instead, he threatened the people and even kill lots of them. The enormous demands placed on the workers meant that millions of them lived in harsh conditions, working on the vast projects in the interior of Russia. The state tightened its control on the workers. Absenteeism was treated extremely harshly. The large emphasis on heavy industries meant that consumer goods were high in demand. Shops were empty, clothing was in short supply and many household items were unavailable. The lack of consumer products was one example of the fall in the standard of living. Because of the huge influx of people going into the cities from the countryside, there were insufficient medical facilities, houses and schools. Workers were poorly paid. Collectivization was also part of the Five Year Plan, but it was less successful than industrialization. It did not fulfill its targets under the Plan and grain production even declined from 1928 to 1932. This caused widespread famine later on. Even though up to 7 million peasants died, the government still hoarded grain to sell to other countries to earn foreign currency to be used for investment in industry. Only then, did grain production recovered a lot, but the life stock took till 1953 to regain its 1928 level due to all the killings earlier.
I believe that a good leader does all he could to save the country and bring it up to high standards, but not to the extent of hurting and causing massive killings to the people.
Chan Wei Xiang(17) 3 Sincerity
After Josef Stalin became the official leader of V.S.S.R, the people in Russia were rewarded for comforming. The state provided health care, education, homes, food, fuel and clothing for workers in the collectives. The state provided the people with work and farmers were given modern machinery.
ReplyDeleteBut, there are some negative of the economic changes on the people and the country. Some of the peasants produced as little surplus as possible. Some even slaughtered their livestocks or burnt down buildings instead of handing them over to the state. Both rich and poor did not like the idea of their lands being taken away from them. The more efficient farmers did not want to share their successes with other less efficient farmers. They felt that it was unfair for them to give what they worked so hard for those who had not worked as hard as they had.
Personally, I feel that Stalin is a cruel, cunning but a good leader. In order to gain the support form the people in Russia, he started propaganda. Both adults and children were told what to believe in. They were not allowed to think otherwise. Stalin was seen as the father figure who ruled with the people's interests at heart. He was the Russia's saviour and the people worshipped him like they would worshipped a god.
Christina Lee Yu Zhen (13) 3 Charity
Josef Stalin is well known for having created a cult of personality in the Soviet Union around both himself and Lenin. I personally think that he is a capable leader, but deep inside, he is sly and brute person. Josef Stalin was responsible for the issue of controversial military orders like 'shoot deserters, while the family members are arrested' and 'shoot for cowardice without a trial'. The 'Great Terror' or 'Great Purge' launched by Josef Stalin was announced as a campaign to get rid of corruption and treachery from Soviet society, but it is a well known fact that the step was taken in the direction of doing away with opposition. Targets were either executed, deported, exiled or imprisoned. Josef Stalin was also a cunning person as he misinformed Trotsky about Lenin's funeral, and thus causing him to miss Lenin's funeral. Stalin did that with the intention of making Trotsky look bad and make Russians to detest Trotsky and exiled him. Josef Stalin also killed many intelligent people (eg. doctors, army generals, scientist) so as to ensure that he would not be overthrown by Russians. By doing that, it would also ensure his position in Russia. Overall, I think that Josef Stalin is a determined person as he would do anything to great extends to achieve his goals.
ReplyDeleteSorry! Forgotten to sign off.
ReplyDeleteChua Li Ting(7) 3Charity
@Li Ting, I disagree with the fact that Stalin was a cunning person. In my opinion, he's someone with the wits. However I believe Trotsky might have been skeptical about Stalin's claim of the funeral not being held immediately, but delayed by a few days. He had the intelligence of stirring up a story and making Trotsky believe that the funeral wasn't that early. However, I agree with the fact that Stalin is a determined person, he did not let any potential leaders put his position in danger. Not only did he kill the intelligent people that might rule over him, he also won the people's hearts by airing Lenin's funeral on television, and was crying next to his body. He wanted to make them believe that he was the only one that is concerned about Lenin together with Russia's future. All in all, Stalin did had the wits together with his determination, he still managed to lead Russia into what it was today.
ReplyDelete(Teo Swee Huang (19) 3 Charity).
Stalin is a cunning person, no doubt about that. I definitely and strongly agree about this point. He made use of people who trusted him and have shown him loyalty to crush his opponents. After he have done so, he would think of ways to get rid of them.
ReplyDeleteTo Christina: Yes, he used propaganda to make the Russian people to believe in what he said. And the fact that they did not oppose or say anything against him was because he would threaten to hurt their loved ones and kill innocent people. If the people had said anything bad about Stalin, they would be sent to camps by the secret police, which nobody knew was actually Stalin behind the scenes.
Chan Wei Xiang(17) 3 Sincerity
@Png Si Yong, I disagree that Stalin only cared about himself. Though i did say that Stalin was not a good leader, he still helped the USSR catch up with other countries and tried to increase the production rates for coal, iron and steel. If he did not care for the people, why would he do such a thing? The above accomplishments helped the people, not harm them. However, I agree that Stalin was a ruthless dictator who killed millions of people.
ReplyDeleteUi Jia Wei (36) 3 Humility
@Li Ting, I agree that Stalin is a cunning person. Furthermore, he is a selfish person. Stalin focused on the consolidation of his power rather than the running of the Communist Party prior to Lenin's death. As the General Secretary of the Communist Party, part of Stalin's responsibility was to appoint people posts in the party. Stalin made use of Kaminev and Zinoviev to oust Trotsky from the government body of Russia (also known as Politburo). He later forced them out of the Politburo. Since the people support Lenin, Stalin developed a cult around Lenin to show that he was very close to the late leader. He made his devotion to Lenin obvious by embaling Lenin's body and displaying it. He was also the chief mourner. This increased the support that he had from the people. So I felt that Stalin is a stubborn person. Ince he had made up his mind, no one could ever change it and for the things he wanted, he will force a way out in order to get it.
ReplyDeletesorry, forgot to sign off.
ReplyDeleteChristina Lee Yu Zhen (13) 3 Charity
In my opinion Stalin was a great leader as he had managed to turn russia into a modern industrial and military power on par with western capitalist countries.Even though he had to kill almost 20million people and getting rid of intelligent people,it was really worth it.In Stalin's rule,education and healthcare improved,the position of women improved,Soviet Union farms became mechanised and the Soviet Union became in industrailised.This proves that Stalin was a great leader to have brought Russia from the bottom to one of the most powerful country in the world.
ReplyDeleteSign Off:Darren Ke(26)3 Sincerity
@JiaWei Stalin was not a ruthless dictator.Even though killing many people,it was needed to push Russia from the bottom.He had always thought for the people is what i agree as his view has proved his thoughts.Even though The Great Purges was considered ruthless,it was well worth it to protect his postion and gain full country over the country
ReplyDelete@Gabriel Tan. For Stalin to achieve great things such as communism in Russia there is a need to kill off rebels.To end off i would like to say Great Achievements Comes With Great Sacrifices
ReplyDeletePrior to Christina's mindset,I belive as Darren do.(The "once in a blue moon"phrase would be good here.)
ReplyDeleteStalin,the man of steel.George Orwell wrote the book Animal Farm out of his experiences with Communism,to expose the lie about Stalin and Russia to Britan and the world,an alarm call,so I probably knew about it there,when I read the book a few years back.
Stalin,with the Russians Communists,had,according to George Orwell,dazzled the British with the Russians Communists,whom the German invaded,in 1943,& the British were "full of admiration",and "dazzled by this heroism",and could not see any faults of Communism,or in this scenario,Stalin.
Stalin,had made himself the undisputed leader of the Soviet Union,all by himself,though " Everyone thought Trotsky, the brilliant leader of the Red Army would become leader – especially as Lenin left a Testament (will) saying that Stalin was dangerous and should be dismissed.",Stalin had outsmarted Trotsky,who was too big-headed,and missed Lenin's funeral,which impacted a great deal on Stalin's taking over.Lenin even expressed his concern over Stalin,"I am not sure that Comrade Stalin will always use his power properly.
Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, is distinguished by his outstanding ability.",and left a letter,only to be taken away by Stalin himself.
Stalin's "tyranny" and "brutality" were all for the greater good,to make Russia a better country,a sacrifice,something only a great person would do.
In summary,I do belive that Stalin is the saviour of Russia,and a hero,and that a little evil is neccessary to do great things.Don't we all tell some lies,being neccessary as "white lies" sometimes too,though telling lies is wrong?
Jasper Ku,3 Charity.
John Thavornwongwongse, 3 Humility
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with FuryzWheels and I believe that Stalin was not successful leader, despite the fact that he was a capable and intelligent ruler. His idea of improving the Russian economy was well planned out. Industrialization was his main goal, and he had achieved his target by being able to rapidly grow Russia's industrial growth in just a matter of 10 years, with the enforced policy of 'collectivization'.
However, the price for it was too high. Stalin believed that in order to achieve rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union, collection of agriculture is immensely required. Therefore Russian peasants were forced to give in their crops. This led to a major widespread famine event that had caused 5 to 10 million deaths. Those who did not follow the laws and were suspected of hiding grain were beaten, tortured and executed. This major purge resulted in deaths of ranging from 3 to 60 million people.
Therefore this proves that Stalin was NOT successful, because to me, a leader that had caused so much suffering and so many death-tolls to his country is not considered a successful leader.
@wishah and @lalabeginer - Yes well he may have brought Russia into becoming one of the greatest countries of the world. But at the end of the day that doesn't prove that he is a good leader. When you say 'he is a good leader' it also means that he is both highly successful and morally righteous. In Stalin's case, he lacks the latter, and therefore that makes him merely a leader
@ Darren's reply to Jiawei - Stalin was a ruthless and evil ruler. He killed millions of people and tortured those who weren't loyal. Purging russians just to protect his position is not noble, it just proves to me that he is merely a selfish man who simply wanted to keep his title.
Signed Off - John Thavornwongwongse, 3 Humility
I personally agree that Stalin is the savior of Russia. Despite of his cruelty and ruthless and in order to make Russia one of the most industrialized nations in the world, Stalin have to make lots of decisions and being a ruler, making his people suffer isn't an easy job. But in the other perspective, lots of people will think that Stalin is not fit to be the savior of Russia. To support industrialization, he ordered the collectivization of agriculture and the creation of large-scale communal farms. But collectivization soon turned into a bloody civil war, resulting a large number of death and deportation. But without the sacrifices Stalin want the people of Russia to sacrifice, Russia will not be one of the industrialized nations in the world. Therefore i think that Stalin is the savior of Russia.
ReplyDeleteNg Shi Min (08) 3Sincerity
@Darren Ke: Although Stalin brought Russia into one of the most powerful countries, he used methods which the Russian people do not have a say in it. They did not have a choice whether to accept it or not. If the opposed the demands and rules, they would be at risk of being killed. Stalin killed many innocent people and also intelligent people so that he could rise to power and make the country listen to him and not have any oppositions. All of the people feared him because of his use of the secret police. Although he made Russia's industry on par with other countries, he sacrificed lots of innocent lives. i disagree with Darren.
ReplyDeleteChan Wei Xiang(17) 3 Sincerity
@John. He was purging Russians due to the fact that he was afraid that if he were to lose his position the person next would not make use of Lenin's 5year plan.He had to kill those that weren't loyal in case of a revolution so that he would not be overthrown and would be able to continue Lenin's 5 year plan
ReplyDelete@John. Well being a good leader doesn't mean that he has to be righteous and all sorts come on look at those mafia gangs and all sorts their leaders are also good leaders even though they are evil.In my opinion being a good leader meaning that you can lead your people to a place that they deserve which Stalin had did for russia bringing its modernisation.
ReplyDelete@Rebecca. He was not cruel he was just being strict as people who do not obey the laws will have to be killed which justifies his action of murder and all sorts.
ReplyDelete@weixiang Even though you say that putting Russia on par with other countries is meaningless if you were to sacrifice many lives but put yourself in the shoes of the russian in the past.Would you rather remain living the lives of being poverty and famine or would you strive for a better live.Even though those lives were taken but it was needed for the next generation to experience a better life and not suffer like the previous generation.
ReplyDelete@weixiang Should i say that the innocent and intelligent people that were killed had deserved their deaths.The secret police were used to ensure that the citizens of russian would not gather to revolt against Stalin.
ReplyDelete@Jasmine He was continuing Lenin's 5 year plan.Therefore thats where the economic collectivation and industrialisation came from.Well for me a definition of a good leader is when one leads a group to accomplish a same goal which i believe that the people of Russia would come to terms with Stalin's view of bringing Russia into communism so that they would experience a better yet equal life in russia
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Darren Ke: The innocent people I meant were those who were threatened by the secret police, which they did nothing wrong. The secret police demands answer from anyone and if no answer is provided, the person could be hurt or sent to camps, or even shot on the spot. I do not agree that in order to put Russia's economy and industry on par with the other countries, so many lives needed to be sacrificed. Although the Russian people got what they wanted and had a 'good' life after the five-year plans, they lost many of their loved ones due to the over-work and intense re-structuring of Russia's economy and industry. Also, the First Five-year plan, which introduced collectivization, caused famines and many deaths of the Russian people. Modernization in agriculture was created by collective farms. It was supposed to be a potent solution for the crisis of agricultural distribution. And it was believed that replacing the individual land and labour with collective farms would immediately increase food supply for urban population. The policy, unfortunately resulted in the imprisoning, murdering and torturing of many farmers, which led to famine and abject poverty in a large section of the population. This happened during the time of the Great Depression. In conclusion, this plan did not really succeed much and reach the targeted amount of crops.
ReplyDeleteSo, Darren, I still don't agree with you.
Chan Wei Xiang(17) 3 Sincerity
@Darren - Although Stalin and Lenin shared the same principles, Stalin believed in domestic communism whereas Lenin believed in international communism, which meant that they led a different path. Another point, is that right from start Lenin had already stated that Stalin was not suitable to be his rightful successor, that also tells me that Lenin must have known or sensed Stalin's change in plan.
ReplyDeleteJohn
@Darren - I think you have misunderstood what a good leader is. Since the word 'Good' by itself means to display moral virtue, which Stalin never did. In fact he was the opposite, an example is when he exiled Trotsky and later got rid of him through low means.
ReplyDeleteCommunism is actually a good thing because all people,regardless rich or poor,strong or weak,will be treated equally and fairly.Especially after WW1,Russian was severly weakened and many people lived in poverty,and many died of hunger,etc.Lenin was right to promote communism,as the lives of the people will definitely improve by a million times.After Lenin died,Stalin took over using some cunning methods.However,I agree with what Stalin to let the Russians to obey and abide by his rule.A person will only think of himself and not others when power,fame or even money is in his face.Stalin promoted coolectivisation,and the three five year plan to modemise Russia and keep up with the whole world.Although he also introduced propaganda,purges and labour camps,but I think they all come with a purpose.Propaganda is to make every people to know the exist of Stalin.The purges are to remove the intellectuals,in which Stalin is afraid they will rebel.The labour camps were to imprison those who did not agree with Stalin or opposed him.Therefore,on the whole,I think communism is a good thing and that Stalin is A good leader.Ng Shao Feng 3Respect (36)
ReplyDeleteI agree that Stalin was a great leader. He showed that he was able to manipulate the minds of many people, including leaders like Trotsky, Zinoniev and Kamenev. He had planned everything out to the last detail such that he was able to be seen not as a threat to the three and still maintained a normal, if not warm, relationship with Trotsky. This should be what a good leader should posses to lead a country into success.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Stalin was a great leader as he had managed to transform Russia into a modern industrial and military power to balance with western capitalist countries. Even though he had practically 'washed his hands in blood', it was really worth it since he had education and healthcare improved. The position of women improved and they were no longer looked down upon,Soviet Union farms became mechanized and this had really helped to provide food supply towards Russia's own citizens. This proves that Stalin was a great leader to have brought Russia from the most broken up country to one of the world's best, economically and politcally, due to its strong and violet history.
@Darren said...
ReplyDelete@Gabriel Tan. For Stalin to achieve great things such as communism in Russia there is a need to kill off rebels.To end off i would like to say Great Achievements Comes With Great Sacrifices
Not really since Stalin could have simply asked them to join him so that he could get more people to do his little dirty work, like propaganda, and pay them with a lot of money.
@christina
ReplyDeleteThe state DID provide the farmers modern machinery. But what about those who did not support Stalin? That is part of the propaganda where PROBERLY these farmers are arrested and brought to construction sites where they are forced to do labour and ill treated.
@Darren
ReplyDeleteStalin had improved the lives of those in support of him. BUT what about those who don't? They would be ill-treated and their possesions taken away from them. This would cause them no not have enough to live on and eventually, they would die.
@John
ReplyDeleteBeing a good leader does not mean lacking moral righteous. Take Qin Shi Huang for example. He had caused many millions of people to die while building a stone wall but it could protect them from any attacks by other states of China. This had been a great achievement for China and is it not right to say that Qin Shi Huang was NOT a good leader? He had successfully gotten the people of Qin dynasty to come together and build the Great wall, something thought of as impossible.
@Wei Xiang
ReplyDeleteWhat would happen if Stalin had not taken this step into trying to make Russia industry on par with other countries? Russia could still be in Communism and many goverments could be incharge. This could cause the states to fight amongst themselves and not get peace. 20 million lives is nothing compared to many decades of war and the death toll could stretch into 100millions mark.
@John
ReplyDeleteThe term 'good' could also be smart
The boy is good. Showing that he is smart, but there are also other definitions. Darren is trying to say that his definition of good could be smart, cunning and being able to do what he wants to be done.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that communism, to some people is a good thing while to others, it is a bad one. The reason why i say it is a good thing is because communism makes people equal, which means both the rich and the poor are being treated equally. They both too share the amount of wealth and work.
ReplyDeleteThe people of Russia was somewhat forced to work and no slacking was allowed in the country. When one starts slacking, he/she will be severely punished. Only this will allow communism to be effective in Russia.
The next point is about why communism is a bad thing to some people. The rich people might think that they have been treated unfairly because they had to share their wealth with others. They worked so hard to earn so much money, and the results is that their money is being shared. This is the bad thing about communism in Russia.
Hence, i feel that communism maybe a good thing or maybe a bad thing depending on which angle a person see it.
Huang Peisheng(27) 3 charity
@John
ReplyDeleteYou can't assume that the term "good" represents that Stalin is both highly successful and morally righteous. It is purely of self-assumption. Though i have to somewhat agree with you, but wouldn't you think that substituting the word "good" with other words would be a better idea instead of letting people assume? I am not trying to say that the word "good" is not a suitable word to use, but it is too vain, words like "successful" and "capable" or by stating the level of intensity of the words being used.
HuangPeisheng (27) 3Charity
@HuangPeisheng
ReplyDeleteTrue to what you say about communism but what about those people who wishes to share their wealth amongst the poor? He will become 'robinhood' and Stalin might try to get rid of him in case 'robinhood' won over the hearts and mind of people. Therefore I feel that communism is a way which allows people to share their wealth and meanwhile not allowing others to know that they want to help and attract unneccessary attention towards themself.
Joshua Ho (26) 3Diligence
ReplyDeleteps- forgot to sign off for all my comments!!!
@Joshua Ho
ReplyDeleteThat was a slight miscalculation on my side, but try think that to those days. At that time, after the WW1, Russia was severely weakened, while the lucky ones in Russia managed to survive. Do you think that after overcoming a "threat", the willing ones will still want to share their money? Not that i am trying to say that it is impossible, but at that time, the situation was such that it was ALMOST impossible.
HuangPeisheng(27) 3Charity
@ Chen Wei Xiang
ReplyDeleteYes, i agree with wei xiang, but you have to look at the big picture. Joseph Stalin was a leader, which meant his people trusted him with their welfare,in which Stalin have turn Russia into an industrial power. To have achieved this at great cost, millions of the people who put their trust in him were killed.I agree that Stalin was part to blame for a huge famine that killed between 5-8 million people and he launched a reign of terror know as The Great Purge, that increased his power but did no benefit to his people. Stalin was an effective ruler in the views of some, but the methods he used and the changes he made were at the expense of his country and his people. Thus, with both good and bad points on Stalin, I would say people would have respect him at the end of the day because he had made glory for Russia and made the people to be proud of it. Can you believed it? His policies have enabled Communist Russia to catch up with advanced countries like Britain!
Stanley Chua(37) 3 Sincerity
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that Stalin was a good leader, but to a certain extent. In order to achieve his aims, he has killed many people. Although in some people’s eyes, Stalin is evil, but I think that Stalin was quite a good leader. He has helped Russia achieve modernization and turn Russia into a powerful country. Not everybody is perfect in the world and nothing is perfect. To some people, Stalin’s rule may be perfect but to the people, who suffered in his rule, might have a different view.
ReplyDeleteMaybe another one of his flaws might be the fact that he did not trust any people around him. If he really is a good leader, he would be able to win the trust of the people of Russia with his own ability, and not use propaganda. If he had trusted the people around him and if his rule was really good for Russia, the people around him would not overthrow him.
But after all, Stalin did help Russia move on to its modernization.
Sean Tan(27)3 Integrity
I agree to a certain extent that Stalin was a 'good' leader. Though there was a great loss of many innocent lives during the purges and collectivization, he was right to eliminate all hint of opposition. Stalin was far from perfect, but was basically the 'right leader' for his time and circumstances. In modern society, what we perceive to be a 'good leader' is one that is most importantly, morally upright, caring, compassionate, who have a vision, a plan, are willing to execute said plan AND people are willing to follow them. If you plant this model example of a leader in Russia back then, it could take ages to execute a plan, much less implement it in a morally unrighteous way because not all people will listen, and not all people will follow. Stalin was a ruthless dictator, harsh, strict and cruel. He punished people when they did not follow his rules. He ruled with fear and authority. Fear, that drives everyone to obey him.
ReplyDelete@ Everyone who argued about a 'good leader'
Like what i mentioned above, a 'good leader' as what we perceive now in society, is probably not as effective as a 'good leader' like Stalin was back then.
Back to my point. Historically speaking, was Stalin a great man? He may have helped in the defeat of the Nazis, but he killed more soviets than the Nazis killed people in concentration camps. On the other hand, without him, Russia would have remained a third world nation.
Stalin may not have been a very great leader in a sense that he killed many people to get his own way. He used low means. E.g. misinforming Trotsky of Lenin's funeral. If he was truly a capable leader, he wouldn't have gone to these drastic measures, especially the purges. Nevertheless, i still agree more, that Stalin was a good leader. At that time, a little bit of evil and a pinch of slyness had to be added to be successful.
Adele Ang(1) 3 Charity
@Joshua Ho, I like the sentence, "Great Achievements Comes With Great Sacrifices". But have you ever think about the innocent lives that people had sacrificed because of him? The purges removed hundreds of scientists and engineers, adminstrators, teachers and experienced army personnel. Let me ask you, after Stalin's death, who will rake over him if he had killed those intelligent people? Ruled by those uneducated people?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the goods are badly made and transportation networks were faulty. -and this is what you called a great leader? There was a lack of able help in the government and the army lost experienced soldiers. The people were led to believe that Stalin's plans were the best for the country. If Stalin's plans were the best for the country, why must there be a need to led the people to believe his plans were great for the country? The people were decieved by statistics provided by the government as some of these HAD BEEN MADE UP. Why must Stalin lie to the people in order to let the people to believe him?
Christina Lee (13) 3 Charity
think we cannot really classified Stalin under the "good" or "bad" leader group. Because it all depends on the type of method he used.
ReplyDeleteFor example, his intention of making Russia one of the most industrialised nations in the world was a success afterall. And working so hard just to archieve his intention. His method may be quite cruel, or all kinds of negative adjectives that your throw to describe him, but the results matters a lot, which is a success. And to descibe him as a bad leader, wasn't a wrong idea too. In order to archieve what he want, he actually cause about 20 Millions of death. And some methods like removing the "enemies of the state", and to "show trials" to remove Kaminev and zinoviev, and also to get rid of intelligent people in the country, a major purges causing a farmine event had prove that his method was kind of cruel and strict, and many people just direct classified him under the"bad leaders" group.
I personally don't really think so. What i think was that the process wasn't that important, but the results is more of the key points. Although his way may cause lots of disadvantages, and may gained unhappiness between people, he is still able to succeed by archieving his aim he set at the beginning.
And other ways that he use to rule the country like spreading commusim was a good idea.
@Stanley: i agree with you that people are still graning support for Stalin despite his "cruel" methods.
@Peisheng: I kind of disagree with you. The term" good" use to descibe someone shows that he wasn't bad at all, so his methods, action is garning support from the people, its still proves that he is able to rule, just that it depends on how many people agree with his ruling methoods.
@adele: i agree with you with the points that you mention that without Stalin, Russian would have remained a third wold nation. Even if his methods is disagree by people, think again, did he benefits the people at the end of the results?
@ sean: You agree with him to a greater extent or a smaller extent? I agree with you that different have different view on how to rule a country because it wasn't a easy things, if not we would not need a GOOD one to rule the country.
Afterall, i think i still believe that the results that Stalin make out with was good enough to show that he was a "good" leader.
Guirui (32) 3Humility
I do not think that stalin is a hero. He has caused deaths of many people for the sake of rising to power and taking over Russia. One instance is when he framed Trotsky by giving him the wrong date of Lennin's funeral. He managed to succeed in that as Trotsky happened to be out of the country during the week before. Stalin took advantage of that and sent a wrong message to Trotsky, making him late for the funeral. This made the party members hate Trotsky and Stalin received full support of the Party and was selected as leader of Russia. At first in Lennin's will, it was meant for Trotsky to be leader. But in the end, he got exiled. After that, Stalin sent his men to assasinate him and his whole family. Therefore, I believe that he is a villan in the time of Russia.
ReplyDeleteNg Jing Jie(34) 3 Charity
Hi Mr. Maran, just to make it clear. Me (Adele) and Jing Jie are sharing accounts because Jing Jie can't comment on this blog. But we clarify ourselves at the end of each comment. So yea.
ReplyDelete@Adele: Yes, i agree that Stalin could sacrifice some lives but not to the great extent that so many people died because of him. some innocent people have died due to the fact that Stalin used the secret police to hunt them down and accuse them of what they have not done. This was carried out in order to let the Russian people think that Stalin didn't want this to happen and that it was somebody else that carried out the arrest and killings. Especially the family members of the oppositions. Stalin used the secret police to track down their family members and threaten the opposing parties to hurt their families if they decided to vote against plan.
ReplyDeleteStalin had misinformed Trotsky of Lenin's funeral so that he could make people think that he was closer to Lenin and the fact that he wanted to be his successor made him do all of these. And anyway, the Russian majority did not like Trotsky because him being very arrogant.
Although Stalin was strict and demanded the people to work for a better future, he should not have gone to the extent of killing people and causing a famine as not a lot of farmers wanted to give up their land, especially the rich farmers, the kulaks.
And one more point. You mentioned that he punished people when they disobeyed him. May I ask you, who will want to oppose him and get killed or sent to camps or even getting their family into trouble with him? Stalin used the secret police to hurt and kill the people who oppose him, namely his opponents. Although he was correct to rule with fear and authority, he could not use other means of killing or hurting people.
Chan Wei Xiang(17) 3 Sincerity
Although Josef Stalin was harsh and strict when industrializing the Soviet Union, and that he set high work targets for workers to accomplish, he managed to industrialize the Soviet Union. Workers had many restrictions and lack of freedom but this was necessary to speed up the process of industrializing the Soviet Union and I think that a little sacrifice is needed to accomplish big things.
ReplyDeleteShawn Lee(28) 3 Sincerity
After their Russian Civil War victory, the Bolsheviks moved to establish a sphere of influence in Central Europe, starting with what became the Polish–Soviet War.
ReplyDeleteAs commander of the southern front, Stalin was determined to take the Polish-held city of Lviv. This conflicted with general strategy set by Lenin and Trotsky, whose priority was the capture of Warsaw further north.
Trotsky engaged with Polish commander Władysław Sikorski at the Battle of Warsaw, but Stalin refused to redirect his troops from Lviv to help. Consequently, the battles for both Lviv and Warsaw were lost, and Stalin was blamed. Stalin returned to Moscow in August 1920, where he defended himself and resigned his military commission. At the Ninth Party Conference, Trotsky openly criticized Stalin's behavior.
Later in his career, Stalin was to compensate for the disaster of 1920. He would ensure the death of Trotsky, secure Lviv in the Nazi-Soviet pact, execute Polish veterans of the Polish-Soviet War in the Katyn massacre; establish the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe; and at Yalta, demand that Lviv be ceded by Poland to the Soviet Union.
Kho Hui Han (8), 3 Diligence
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@JoshuaHO: I still do not agree with you. Stalin had committed too many crimes and he sacrificed too many people. These are all at the cause of the country's economy and industry, I agree. But he does not need to have such a big change, and like I've said, he rushed the five-year plans. if he had carefully planned the economy and industry upkeep, the Russian people would not have needed to suffer so much for it. The famine had already caused millions to die because of Stalin's use of the secret police to force the farmers. They had no choice. If they rebelled, they were either killed or sent to camps. If they gave up their land, it would be unfair to them.
ReplyDeleteThe second five year plan created in 1932 aimed to triple coal, iron and steel output. The success of the second five year plan put an end to food rationing and the USSR became a major world economic power. There was a minor increase in the availability of consumer goods although due to increased output and minor problems in the collectivization the quality remained poor. Again, these was the cause of rushing the farming methods and changing them.
Although Stalin has already brought up Russia's economy and industry states to the same level with other superpowers countries, his extent of sacrificing people was too great. That's why I disagree with you.
Chan Wei Xiang(17) 3 Sincerity
Stalin may have been ruthless during his rule with the purges and labour camps, but he helped to improve standards of healthcare and increased the literacy rate. He also unified Russians through the personality cult, thus undoing the destabilizing effect of the Russian Civil War. Though the success of the Five-Year Plans was to his credit, he lacked economic foresight in terms of focusing on the heavy industries and neglecting the consumer industries, which did more harm than good to the population.
ReplyDeleteJan Rubiano (12), 3 Sincerity
@SweeHuang
ReplyDeleteI disagree that Josef Stalin was not a cunning person as he planned carefully his next move or movement in order to take over the leader position in Russia. After Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin promoted himself as his political heir and gradually outmanoeuvred his rivals. By the late 1920s, Stalin was effectively the dictator of the Soviet Union. Josef Stalin used his own ways to get to the position he longed yield to have. He even lied to Trotsky about the date of the funeral with the intention of making Trotsky look bad and making the people in Russia to misunderstood him as a person who was cold-blooded and did not even bother to attend Trotsky's funeral. This was the main reason why the people in Russia exiled Josef Stalin soon after he returned from overseas. The above explanation states that Josef Stalin planned that with an "evil" intention and was a cunning person.
Furthermore, I also think that Josef Stalin was a irresponsible leader in Russia. Josef Stalin forced collectivisation of agriculture in Russia cost millions of lives, while his programme of rapid industrialisation achieved huge increases in Soviet productivity and economic growth but at great cost. The population suffered immensely during the Great Terror of the 1930s, during which Josef Stalin purged the party of 'enemies of the people', resulting in the execution of thousands and the exile of millions to the gulag system of slave labour camps. These purges severely depleted the Red Army, and despite repeated warnings, Josef Stalin was ill-prepared for Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941. His political future, and that of the Soviet Union, hung in the balance, but Josef Stalin recovered to lead his country to victory. The human cost was enormous, but was not a consideration for him. Therefore, I concluded that Josef Stalin was a cunning and irresposible leader, but I can't deny the fact that he indeed brought Russia from the bottom to one of the most powerful country in the world.
Chua Li Ting(7) 3Charity
I totally agree with Wei Xiang that Stalin is a cunning person as he made use of people who trusted him and have shown him loyalty to crush his opponents. After he have done so, he would think of ways to get rid of them. He killed all the 'smart' people so that no one will be able to overthrown him easily. As he believed that those 'smart' people who is able to help him will also be intelligent enough to make him step down from his position as the leader of Russia.So, Stalin had dealt with his opponents by expelling them from the communist party or sending them into exile.Therefore, we can see that how Stalin rule with terror and how cruel and serious he was in doing anything to achieve what he was aiming to do, which is to spread communism throughout Russia.
ReplyDeleteBut being so harsh and nasty,it might not be a bad idea too ,if without Stalin for being so sly, will communism be spread throughout Russia? and, communist Russia transformed into a modern industrial power? So my conclusion is a little 'evil' is necessary to achieve something that we are aiming for like Stalin's aim is to spread communism throughout Russia.
Stella Pear (10) 3sincerity
I agree with Liting that Stalin is a cunning man as he managed to outsmart all his rivals and become the leader of soviet union,he also tricked his biggest rival Trotsky into missing Lenin's funeral by giving him te wrong date.I tink that Stalin is a great leader,he is capable in leading everyone to a better industrial.I also agree with stella that little 'evil' is necessary .Stalin introduced the five-year plan and one of the aims is collectivisation although this leads to famines,confiscated of crops which lead many people staving,hence many people had suffered. But only through this way ,stalin then would be able to sell the corps to other countries to earn money and buy technology to improve the industrial at the end, he really make it to one of the most industrialised nations in the world ,so i think it is worthed.
ReplyDeleteJeslinPear(11)3Sincerity
@ Mr Maran:We're all fine with a little evil.But a "little" evil on a grand scale is just too much.
ReplyDelete@All:You can't hide the fact that most Russians still find Stalin a good leader but we are now cursing him like there's no tomorrow.Therefore,Stalin being a "good" or "bad" leader depends on how you see him.
Lim Zheng Wen 3Respect
@All:Here's something to ponder over.Give me a leader who isn't FLAWED.Moral of story:No one is prefect etc,Obama smokes
ReplyDeleteI think that overall, Stalin was a good leader. His rule in Russia mainly consisted of 2 parts. Economic and Political features. The economic features were extremely good because it made USSR on par with many of the Western countries by 1940. In the starting of Stalin's rule, there were low wages and the living and working conditions dropped. There were deaths of millions of people. However, Stalin ruled USSR very well because he made it on par with the other Western countries in just 10 years. He ensured modernization and high level of production which benefited USSR a lot. The hours of work and wages were determined by the State which made it equally fair for all the employees. Stalin introduced collectivisation to modernise agriculture and that was an advantage because it lead to more efficient farming and it increased production. The farmers also thought that collectivisation was a good idea. But, it made enemies with the Kulaks and led to a famine in the long run.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the political features were the bad side of Stalin's rule in Russia. He made use of propaganda, purges and labour camps to control the Russians. He made sure that schools taught history on how good Lenin and him was. The State also controlled the radio, films and newspapers and made sure that no anti-communism things were published or read out. He made use of purges to remove the "enemies of the State", political opponents, workers who did not meet the target and anyone who opposed him. He had a secret police and army and also used "show trials" to remove Kameinev and Zinoviev, who were previously his allies. He also encouraged children to tell on their parents. The labour camps increased when USSR was under his rule and the prisoners were used for industrial projects. Much fear and suspicion was created in the Soviet Union too.
However, in the long run, the Soviet Union became an industrialised country and there was a decrease in unemployment as a result of jobs created.
Loo Lye Kit, 3 Humility.
@Chan Wei Xiang.
ReplyDeleteYes, many innocent people died due to Stalin's insecurity. It isn't entirely right, neither entirely wrong. It wasn't entirely right, because he shouldn't have killed so many people, it is his country after all, his own people he is killing. But on the other hand, if he does not get rid of his threats, someone might over throw him eventually. I agree, it was cruel of him to make use of the secret police, and made scapegoats out of so many people. But if you put yourself in his shoes, you would rather be sure that you are the one with the most power and nothing will go wrong. Then again, this shows that he may not be such a good leader after all, if he has to stoop to such low means to get his way. That is why, i agree to a CERTAIN EXTENT, that he is a good leader. But i still believe, that at that point of time, it was him that Russia needed.
And also, he killed people because the rich farmers, the kulaks did not want to obey him, to share their land and produce. Yes, i mentioned that he punished people when they disobeyed him, who, you ask? Like i mentioned above, the kulaks for instance, burnt their houses and produce - an utter act of defiance towards Stalin's plan of collectivization.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Stalin was a good leader as he was the one who modernized Russia and made Russia industrialized and powerful.Although there were a lot of sacrifices made in order to modernize Russia,i think it was all worth it as it ended the suffering of the people in Russia and all people were treated fairly in terms of economic.
ReplyDelete3sin(hong kai)
I agree that overall Stalin is a good leader. He introduced collectivisation so as to mordernise agriculture, and hence leads to efficient farming and increased the productivity of goods. The people during that time did not think that Stalin's method of improving their lives would affect in the long term, however, they just wanted a job and a peaceful life so that they could support their family. Stalin's aim, in this case is achieved because the people listened to him.
ReplyDeleteAnd also, stalin is able to bring the USSR on par with the rest of the countries in a short period of 10 years. He is successful in being a good leader in terms of political terms.
Koh Qing,09, 3 respect.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Si Yong: I agree that he was a ruthless dictator who killed millions of people. As according to Memorial, Russia's leading human rights organization, official records prove that during Stalin's reign, at least one million people were executed for political offences and at least 9.5 million more were deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the Gulag. This shows that he was a cruel and ruthless dictator who kills anybody that offended him and goes against his will. This reminded me of Emperor Qin Shi Huang who also used cruel methods to those who goes against his will and talk back to him by using various methods to torture them which is exactly the same as Stalin ways.
ReplyDelete@Darren Ke: I disagree to a large extend that Stalin was a good leader. Although there are some ways that he was a good leader too. For example in the short run of Stalin’s rule, he causes many people to have poor working and living conditions which causes many people to die. So what in the long run, he had help soviet union to become an industrialized country and to bring Russia from the most broken up country to one of the world’s best country. In order to achieve that, he make use of all the workers and set restrictions on them by asking them to work seven days a week, not to move around the factories during working hours, to be responsible for any damage to tools and would be dismissed if they missed a single day of work. This is no different from living in jail and workers working for Stalin have no freedom at all. They have to live in fear everyday for the terror that he would did something wrong and never to see the day again just because of the one mistake that workers had made. But we are all human being and human being do make mistake. Thus, I felt that he was not a good leader.
I personally felt that Stalin was really a very sly man. Although he was smart to make up story to outwitted his rivals and tricking Trotsky into missing Lenin funeral but all this can be done is because he lie. And I felt that a good leader should not lie and should be honest. Imagine if our country government is always telling us lies, it would be very scary as we don’t know whether he is telling the truth a not. Thus in conclusion, Josef Stalin’s rule in Russia was a period of torture, terror and fear.
Jasmine Heng (6)
3 Sincerity
Stalin was only a hero of Russia.His heroic title came mainly because of the things that he has done for Russia and how he modernize Russia and changed it into one of the most powerful industrial state.The sacrifices were necessary , for if there is no pain , there is no gain. He did it all for Russia. But, the orders for murdering the communism party members had nothing to do with welfare of the country, he did it all for himself. His fear of losing his position , drove him to commit such acts. A leader's underlings obey him by respect , not by fear. So , as a leader, Stalin failed terribly. Yap Zuo Xuan , 43 (3 Sin)
ReplyDelete@Wei Xiang
ReplyDeleteok dude....
LETS just say that he did NOT rush the five year plans...
Stalin was in 'absolute' at that period of time and people really was afraid of him and really watched out what they were doing. If he had decided NOT to rush the five year plans, he would have given a chance to other politicians to win over the hearts of people and Stalin might lose power. This could have caused the five-year plan to be diminished and the economy of Russia could have had a different ending.. If this was the reason why Stalin had no choice to sacrifice innocent people, although it is the main reason why so many people disagree that he is a 'good' leader, BUT I still think that 20million lives lose for the sake of Russia is really a good deal. Taken from a politician point of view, this 20million population could recover over a period of time BUT if Stalin had not decided to rush the plan, would there be enough time for the Russian economy to recover?
Take some time to reflect over this and I hope this would change your mindset over Stalin. :-)
JoshuaHO(26) 3Diligence
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree to a certain extent that Stalin was a great leader in USSR. I will explain why I only agree to a certain extent. Although he killed a lot of people in his conquest to modernize the USSR, he had sacrificed millions of people in that 20+ year period.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Stalin was a person who believed in fear to control the mass population. He was partly right in killing those rich people. If not, they will revolt and overthrow him. When he enforced the act of collectivization, many people complied but nevertheless, there a small group of rich people, named the kulaks. They did not want collectivization to take place as they did not want to share with other people their crops. If I were Stalin, I would still kill those kulaks as they killed the officials that made the peasants use collectivization.
On the other hand, I felt that Stalin was too harsh on the people. NKVD officers would just pick some random people in the middle of the night and pull them away to concentration camps. What is this? They need people to carry on their army, etc! if they just kill like that, what’s gonna happen to the country? Leave them in God’s hands? World War II? Nonono.
So, I agree but only to a certain extent that Stalin that he was a good leader of the USSR.
I refer to Adele Ang’s comment about Stalin’s rule. I agree with her about this statement “if you put yourself in his shoes, you would rather be sure that you are the one with the most power and nothing will go wrong”. If Stalin had to reign with such a big country and population, he would certainly use terror to rule his people. Thank You.
This is Yeo Chester (43) of 3 Diligence 2010 here!!!
@chrisina lee yu zhen
ReplyDeleteLets assume you are correct :-)
The purges did remove hundreds of scientists and engineers, adminstrators, teachers and experienced army personnel..
This period of time where Stalin were 'getting rid' of the 'intelligent people', this period of time could have easily been a time where people join underground groups which they learn in secret. They would be more inspired to learn compared to the way, example, we students study where sometimes, we do not even care. BUT during that time, it was probably a luxury to study!
Also, Stalin 'lied' to the country is like the world war 2 Japanese propaganda during the Japanese occupation in Singapore from 1942 onwards. Stalin wanted the people to support him and if he had not 'lied' to the people, they would have thought him as an incapable leader and not support him. A good leader has to learn to manipulate the minds of his people such that they are 'always' supportive of his actions. Therefore he had no choice but to 'lie'
JoshuaHO(26) 3Diligence
I definitely agree with Jasmine and that she DISAGREES with DARREN KE. Stalin only knows how to kill people using different ways, e.g. using the secret police. His method of accusing and killing people is not much of a difference to doing it himself. Just that if he does it, he would be seen as a 'evil' man and the Russian people would vote him out in the next election.
ReplyDelete@Darren Ke: If you think Stalin was a good leader, then may I ask you, why did so many innocent people died because of his 3 five-year plans? Although he managed to increase a certain amount of crops, industries, coal, iron, steel and others, he did this with sacrificing a lot of the Russian people. He not only gave them very little food when he introduced collectivization, he actually did not have enough to provide the people. Then, when the kulaks, the rich peasants, didn't want to give up their land, they were went to labour camps. If Stalin had already not enough food to give to the people of Russia, will he have enough food to feed the people at the labour camps? The answer: No. Therefore, a lot of people died because of a famine that had arose in the country. Again, not much of his opponents dared to say a word and criticize his actions, if not, they would be killed by the secret police, which was actually Stalin behind the act. Stalin also makes many secret police admit to what they have not done, then getting them hanged for their 'mistake'. What would the Russians see in Stalin if they knew. Not good...
@Adele: Why would anyone want to overthrow him if he did not do anything that upset and cause deaths among the Russian people?? If he did not use the secret police to hunt down people and accuse them of wrong doings, the people of Russia would not want him to even step down! But now, not that nobody didn't want him to step down, it is just that they didn't have the guts to! If they did criticize him and try to overthrow him, Stalin would simply use the secret police and threaten them of hurting their family members. To Stalin, if he encounters any problem, he would resort to using the secret police. And when things arises, Stalin would blame one of the secret police members or people that opposed him, accusing them of the crime. And to your view on his actions towards the kulaks. The Kulaks were RICH and of course, wouldn't want to share their wealth with some poor Tom, Dick and Harry anywhere. They had earned and worked so hard for the money earned, and now, they have to share it?! Sure they would be furious. If it were you, rich and living comfortably, would you suddenly share your hard earned cash with some guy you don't know? I don't think it'll happen for me.
@ZhengWen: What we are talking about now is the bringing up of Russia's economy and how Stalin uses sly methods to achieve what he wants and to avoid the bad things, like killing of people. Look at George Bush, he brought up the economy well and kept it at a decent pace and look at America now, is it not one of the superpowers?
@JoshuaHO: I'm real sorry... but I still don't agree with you. 20million is a lot of people. These whole amount of people can work and farm and prevent Russia from getting into a famine. Without these 20million people, the economy workforce would be reduced greatly and the amount of production would also be reduced. Therefore, not as much food can be farmed. You should be the one changing your mindset about Stalin. You're getting too close to him for comfort.(: Stalin could have planned the five-year plans carefully and not rushing. I didn't say he should not rush, but he should do it slowly and carefully. That way, the amount of crops would far be more than the amount produced.
Chan Wei Xiang(17) 3 Sincerity
@Chan Wei Xiang
ReplyDeleteThe thing is that IF Stalin had not rushed the five-year plan, like i mentioned at my replies, he could have been easily overthrown by other political figures! This could have caused his plans to fail!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree to a certain extend that Stalin was a good leader. He had brought Russia from a down to earth country to a fantastic and great economy and industrialized modern Russia. Although he sacrificed millions of lives, it was needed so as to keep people from opposing Stalin and to interrupt his plans. Stalin used the secret police to track and hunt down people whom he disliked or that have offended him before. Stalin ruled Russia with fear so that he could succeed without failing. So, I agree that Stalin was a good leader as he really brought up Russia economy and industry on to the same level of power as the other superpowers.
ReplyDeleteShawn Lee(28) 3 Sincerity
a) Communism in Russia
ReplyDeleteKarl Marx introduced communism to Russia. He is a German sociologist. At that time, Russia was poor and was suffering. It was huge and 97% of the population were under poverty. Being such a gigantic country, it was difficult to rule Russia, and difficult to built infrastructure as well. In 1941, during WW1, the Tsar(Kaiser) converted farmers into soldiers. They could not do a good job due to the fact that 1. they were untrained and thus, died. 2. there were not enough weapons. and 3. getting the farmers to fight the war, resulted to no planting of crops and producing of food, which started a famine in Russia. This led to the unhappiness of the people towards the Tsar. Peaceful revolution > bloody revolution. Two of Lenin's good assistants, Trotsky and Stalin, decided to embark on their 5-year plan of communism and ruling of Russia. Leon Trotsky was intelligent and arrogant, and he strongly believed in spreading communism worldwide. On the contrary, Josef Stalin was sly, dull, quiet, and brute. But he wanted communism to be 'solid' in Russia first. The people of Russia supported whoever who was closest to them. Josef Stalin seemed more like a people's person while Trotsky was even hated by his peers. This way, Stalin 'gained a point'. Stalin misinformed Trotsky about LEnin's funeral. This led to a major misunderstanding, and all the more people hated Trotsky. He was exiled. He headed to Mexico and wrote articles and had appearances on television about what Stalin/Russia did to him. Knowing about this, Stalin assassinated Trotsky and his family. Josef Stalin became the official leader of U.S.S.R.
b) Josef Stalin's rule in Russia
I feel that Stalin was a good leader. Although he had no friends and everyone was an enemy, he was still able to carry out his plans, cruel or not. He had good foresight for Russia. Although he did a lot of harm to the people, and they hated him, he brought Russia up to become a industrialise and modernise country. However, he was sly and even got rid of his best friend, Kamanev. He assassinated Trotsky and his family in the end as well, because he wanted no rival. He wanted things to go his way. He got rid of all the smartest people so that no one could compete with him for the post(official leader of U.S.S.R) He created propaganda. However, he did care for the women and the poor. He might be too greedy and greed has overcome his life. But he sure did help Russia a lot.
Lim Pin Han, 14, 3 Charity.
In my opinion I think that the way Josef Stalin's rule was strict but he was able to carry out order in the country. The town where Stalin grew up was a violent and lawless place. This might be one of the reasons why Stalin was determined to rise to power and make sure that the country wouldn't be so corrupted.
ReplyDeleteI think that Stalin was a man we should look up to. Being able to manipulate his opponents and played them off against each other shows that he was able to plan for the future, and if he was able to manipulate his opponents, although with a sly intention, he would definitely be able to bring law and order to his country.
I would disagree with what Jasmine had to say about Stalin killing his people. Stalin killed because the people rebelled him. It was the last resort, his people didn't listen to him and they are a group of violent people. Killing might scare the others who didn't obey him, thus making them afraid of him and give him their attention. He was cruel not for his sake, but for the sake of bringing peace and order. As Adele had said, Stalin killed them because 'the kulaks for instance, burnt their houses and produce - an utter act of defiance towards Stalin's plan of collectivization.' These people would of course be killed for that downright act which could disgrace their nation.
In conclusion, Stalin's rule in Russia should be well respected .
Lina yee( 14 ) 3sincerity .
@LINAYEE
ReplyDeleteYEAH! THATS THE WAY!! HA! WEI XIANG EAT THAT:D:D
@Darren Ke. This is not just a mere case of Spiderman in where 'When great power comes great responsibility'. We are talking about a powerful man (Stalin) that executed his own friend, Lev Borisovich Kamenev, and other prominent members of the November Revolution and men whom he though had enough influence to overthrow Stalin, in order to assure that they cannot do so.
ReplyDeleteIronically, if Stalin did not execute his top generals, politicians and especially the scientists, Operation Barbarossa might have been a complete failure and the 800 000 dead including the 3 million men captured could have been averted to a certain extent. It is very clear that the people of Russia did not like Stalin very much even though he tried to convince them otherwise by means of propaganda. One example is that when the Wehrmacht arrived in Russia, the western Ukrainians welcomed them as liberators instead of the contrary because Stalin's rule was simply too brutal. Is this your idea of a good leader? Just look at how powerful and influential the U.S.A is now? Did Washington ever had to sacrifice any important people? The same goes for the French Revolution.
You might argue that because Russia was big, so it was necessary that Stalin had to sacrifice 'some' people. However, America was only a little smaller than Russia but still it did not have much problems with its nation's foundation and modernisation. In addition, it certain did not have a tyrant such as Stalin.
My last point is that you mentioned that 'there is a need to kill off rebels'. Were they rebels? Were scientists, military generals, political party members rebels? I'll leave you to reflect on this point.
Gabriel Tan (39) 3Charity
@Lina Yee. As I have said before, draw comparison to his tyrannical rule to George Washington's peaceful liberation and foundation of America. In fact, Americans loved Washington and even treated him as a God as evident by the painting of 'The Apotheosis of Washington' on the Capitol Rotunda in Washington DC which still exist today. Stalin did not have the privilege of this honour.
ReplyDeleteGabriel Tan (39) 3Charity
@Gabriel Tan
ReplyDeleteIt is easy for you to say USA did not sacrifice innocent people BUT that is exactly what propaganda is all about. Think about this, Russia tried to cover for itself but failed that is why we know it is a propaganda. BUT what about USA? For all we know, many people around the world who tries to talk back about USA could land in jail, persecuted or shot dead. For that, I do not think it is fair that you say the USA had not sacrificed important people or 'sacrificed' those who apposed them.
By rebels, Darren means those who have a political standing/power/influenzal ability because Stalin could have forseen that these group of people had a high chance of turning against the government. Although there is no way to prove it unless you can stick a metal rod into your head, drug yourself heavily with acid-based katamine solution and some how manage to undergo shared-dream state with someone rotten and probably and most likely the most boney figure the world has ever seen and somehow manage to communicate and interview someone who died at about 1940, no one can ever prove it but it still is a very high possibility that this can happen.
JoshuaHO(26) 3Diligence
b) Stalin's rule in Russia
ReplyDeleteOverall, I agree that Stalin was a good leader of Russia. A good leader of Russia is someone that have to improve the people's lives, maintain peace and order, ensuring sufficient food supply for the people and making sure that everyone have a fair share of land. Stalin managed to achieve all these conditions.
He managed to increase employment rate and high production level by using the first Five Year Plan (from 1928 to 1932) which emphasize on the heavy industries such as coal, steel, iron and oil, and through colectivisation to modernise agriculture. This led to more efficient farming and high production rates as well. He also managed to improve infrastructures, build subways and impressive buildings by using the second Five Year Plan (from 1933 to 1938), which focused on the heavy industries too.
These Five Year Plans managed to put USSR on par with many Western countries by 1940.
By: Brenda Lee Jay Lynn (11), 3 Respect
@Lina Yee
ReplyDeleteI do not agree that Stalin is a man we should look up to. If everyone agrees with what Stalin does and follow his ways, the people living in the world will be constantly living with motives of harming one another when there is a chance, and the world will become corrupted and evil. Everyone will be thinking of plans to get rid of one another, and trust will be useless in this world. People will be living their lives filled with fear and motives, instead of joy and happiness.
By: Brenda Lee Jay Lynn (11), 3 Respect
b)stalin's rule in Russia
ReplyDeleteI agree that Stalin is a good leader of Russia.a good leader is a leader that has the 'lead to serve, serve to lead' motto in his/her mind. Stalin has proven to me that he is a good leader. He lead by serving the people's needs and serve the people's needs to lead them on.
Stalin had improved the people's lives through his plans. A leader is not based on his powers to be a good leader but on how he/she has helped the people and gain poeple's hearts.
An example was the 5-year plan. Two of his 5-year plans which focus on heavy industries like coal, oil and iron and infastructures like roads and subways.
His plans results in increased in employment rate and production level and built impressive infastructures like roads. By 1940, Russia was on par with many western countries.
Through this examples, i conclude that Stalin is a good leader.
By: Fan Shi Yah(2), 3 Respect
@Lina Yee's
ReplyDeleteI do not agree that Stalin was a leader that we should look forward to. A good leader is not determined by his power and ability to manipulate people's lives but how he has gained people's hearts through his plans to help people.
Violence would led to more violence. He should have a more practical way of leading the country. Living in a lawless place does not mean he could use the same way to rule Russia. he should be able to know what is right and wrong and how to use a better way to solve the problems like the 'rebels' and 'the enemies of the state'.
His thinking of communism had led to violence and killings.
I feel at that time, it was necessary for Stalin to be a little evil and sacrifice the people of Russia to gain and maintain his leadership position. Stalin did a great job in industrializing the USSR to be on the same level as the other European countries. The good he did which was also a grave mistake was to carry out the Great Purge. It's good as no one will be able to think for themselves and overthrow Stalin and it is a mistake as this left Russia with intellectually impaired citizens who could only follow. Stalin might have industrialized Russia but without the intellectuals, Russia cannot advance in the field of science and technology. This could also be one of the reasons why they fell to the Nazi Army. Another possible reason is also during the Great Purge, many experienced military leaders were killed too, leaving Russia with no "brains" to fight on the battlefield.
ReplyDelete@Shawn Lee - He used the secret police to kill anyone who was suspected to have the idea of overthrowing him and not just use them to kill whoever he disliked. Doing that would make him be a bad leader and if word got out, his reputation wouldve have ruined and the people will force him to step down as their leader.
Communism is actually not as bad as everyone thinks. Communism means that everyone gets the same share but this would work if everyone properly did their job and don't slack off. It would also work if like farmers, they would grow more than needed. But it's in human nature that in the end, communism would lead laziness and leaders being corrupted with power. Josef Stalin and Kim Jung il are examples of communist leaders who have gone mad with power.
Dominique Lee ( 30 ) 3Respecy
Type wrong
ReplyDeleteDominique Lee ( 30 ) 3 Respect*
@ Dominique Lee
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Five Year Plan was not all that successful if we talk in terms of the social aspects present in Russia at that time. The enormous demands placed on the workers meant that millions of them lived in harsh conditions, working on the vast projects in the interior of Russia. Workers were poorly
paid.
A serious military effect was that the purges severely weakened the armed forces by removing many capable leaders who had to be replaced by inexperienced officers. This contributed greatly to the slow start that the Russians made in World War II.
In economic terms, the purges slowed down economic development, what with all the internal squabbling and fear in the country. Many industrial workers and high-end employees were killed, thus affecting worker morale and productivity.
Lastly, the purges made life extremely difficult for the people - the millions of citizens. Everyone lived in fear and terror, with the secret police patrolling the area. Apart from those sent to the labour camps where conditions were appalling and most people died or disappeared, the family and friends that they left behind suffered because they did not know what had happened to their loved ones.
a) Communism in Russia
ReplyDeleteI think the system of Communism is good and fair to the people. In a communist state like USSR, differences in wealth is unaccepted, and emphasized on fairness and equality. Hence everyone in Russia at that time, enjoyed equal treatments, compared to the government under Tsar.
This is why Communism is a workable idea, provided everyone do their part and performed their duties, example, farmers farm and workers produce goods.
However Communism has some bad points. Example, it is a dictatorship political system. Hence the people would have no say in the decisions of the government. For example when Stalin became leader and purged the enemies of the state, the people cannot oppose against him. They are completely under his control. Another point is that the country would not be as efficient as under a Capitalism state. This is because before the factories can start producing goods, they had to seek permission from the state. Although Stalin's Russia seemed to have being very efficient, achieving great outputs, but it was only because of his harsh rules, that this results are achieved.
So Communism in Russia was good, as people got fair treatment, but also bad at the same time, as people have no freedom or democracy.
-Jasmine Tan (21) 3Respect
Crystal Ang(4),3 Sincerity.
ReplyDeleteI felt that Stalin's rule was pretty good. Although he's a viscious man,killing people and yet,act as if he did'nt,he was the one,who in fact made Russia a powerful country. Killing innocents such as the smart ones and even his close friends is definitely wrong but developing Russia into a powerful country is something which is not easy and which make Stalin someone to respect to,which in the postitive things he did.
@JoshuaHO: I definitely agree with Gabriel. Stalin also used means of fear and killings to threaten people and if the people did anything to oppose him, Stalin would just kill them or their family members. Like Gabriel had said, Stalin killed his own political members when he thought that they were of no use to him. His assistants were loyal to him and when he committed a crime, he would just push the blame to somebody possible, preferably secret police leaders. Who would want to accept such a leader when he goes around killing innocent people and gets away with it, and also getting even more people being killed! He used propaganda to make people believe that he was a good guy and that people would believe that he was a good leader of Russia. But if the Russian people knew, they would look at him as a useless leader and vote him out the next election.
ReplyDeleteChan Wei Xiang(17) 3 Sincerity
I feel that in overall, Stalin is a good leader.Although he is harsh, we cannot deny the fact that he helped Russia in many ways.
ReplyDeleteStalin has helped Russia achieve modernization and turn Russia into a powerful country.He managed to increase employment rate and high production level by using the first Five Year Plan.
So i feel that despite Stalin harshness, He still helped to ensure that the people of Russia have food to eat and he still serve to the people's needs. Hence, i can conclude that Stalin is the hero of Russia.
Stalin's rule in Russia.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Stalin's way of governing the country was somewhat inappropraite. Despite the improvements in Russia by the five year plan, there were more negative impacts than positive caused by Stalin.
For me, i would want a ruler that truly cares and concern for us. Stalin however was more concern about his own interests. Whats best for the country he did not care. He was afraid of being overthrone, he had to assassinate all the able help in the govenment and trotsky too. Thats bad, a country needs a good government party as well.
There were negative impacts on the economic. People suffered due to their resistance. Millions died in famines and labour camp. As a commoner, can't we voice out our says and resistance? We are the ones making up the county. Stalin should not go round killing people just because they are unhappy with certain decisions. Stalin only cared for himself and thought that he is the ruler means that everything should follow his orders.
Stalin also controlled the children and their education. Although their education improved, kids were only abled to learn the 'greatness' of Stalin and Lenin. Other beliefs were also controlled, there werent much freedom. U might say that the infrastructures, amenities and lifestyle of the country was greatly improved but so what? People are most happy with freedom and their own will to do things.
Therefore, i feel that Stalin's rule in Russia was terrible.
Harriet Lee Mei Huey (12) 3 respect
I strongly agree that Josef Stalin is a villain even though he managed to turn Russia into a morden industrial.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Stalin misinformed Trosky about Lenin’s funeral so that he will not turn up for the funeral, and he himself stood next to Lenin’s coffin and was naturally the next leader.
Secondly, in order to get rid all his oppositions and opponents, he sent all the smart people like scientists, army generals and even his own political party members so that nobody can overtake him. Often there were people admitting being against Stalin for fear of Stalin hurting their family members. The worst thing is, he killed his own best friend and pushed the blame to the leader of the secret police Another reason why Stalin ia a villain is because he made people work long hours with low payin bad working conditions. Plus at that time there was a food shortage and a lot of people did not have a proper home to go back to. The workers work as hard as they could because they were fear of Stalin, or rather the punishment Stalin had prepared for them but all credits were given to Stalin when Russia was a major industrial power in 1940. Everyone was being controlled during Stalin’s rule. Artists could only draw pictures which potrays Stalin as a good ruler and only good things about Stalin can be published in newspapers. History was changed to make sure people remember Stalin as a good leader. Lastly, places of worship was destroyed because Stalin believed that worship can make people lazy.
sorry forgot to sign off
ReplyDeleteChu Siyi, 3charity
Stalin's Rule in Russia.
ReplyDeleteI think that Stalin is both a good and a bad leader because he aims to make Russia an industralised country . And he is successful in his aims. Stalin's idea of rapid industrialisation and collectivisation of agriculture led to more efficient farming and increased production . His five-year plans led to the increase of industrial output such as coal, iron and steel. They even had improved infrastructure and were rewarded healthcare, education, homes etc. The literacy rate improved and they had free and universal healthcare and education.
But at the same time, Stalin's way of ruling is a harsh. he should not kill people just as he wishes. Millions of peasants were shot, sent to labour camps, and died in the famines. Intellectuals were purged just because Stalin was afraid that they might overthrone him. He is just plain evil towards Russians. Nearly 20 million people were purged in a mass murder. this concludes that Stalin is a good and a bad leader at the same time.
-Siti Hajar Binte Zainal(20) 3 respect
I think that Stalin’s rule on Russia was a very harsh one; he isn’t a good leader as he forced people to do things against their will. For example, collectivization.
ReplyDeleteNot every one wanted collectivization. Kulaks did not want it as it meant that they would lose their land, farmers did not want it as it meant that they were likely to experience food shortage. They were also not happy with the fact that someone who did lesser work than them would get the same amount of food.
Stalin also used propaganda to influence people’s minds. Everywhere, there were posters and statues praising him, depicting him as a hero. The people had no freedom of speech; Stalin encouraged people to tell on others who were anti-government. He even asked children to tell on their parents! Stalin would then kill those who were found guilty, or send them to labour camps. He did not care who it was, he purged whoever he liked. He even purged the leader of the NKVD! As a result, everyone didn’t know who to trust, they were very careful with their words.
Thus I think that Stalin isn’t a good leader. He only brought fear and hardship to his people. He killed them without thinking, he claims that it’s for the good of Russia, but is it really so?
@teokangxiang: I disagree with you. True, Stalin had helped Russia achieve modernization, but at what cost? Countless Russians died because of his high goals. I also do not agree that the Russians have food to eat. If they have enough food to eat, would famines occur? Would Russians have to climb up trees and eat cherries till their body swelled up? Therefore, I disagree with you that Stalin is a good leader.
Chew MinJun (3) 3humility.
@Min Jun:No surprise that Stalin killed the leader of NVKD-He probably didn't support Stalin or Stalin wanted someone that he could trust in that powerful position.
ReplyDelete@Si Yong:"A serious military effect was that the purges severely weakened the armed forces by removing many capable leaders who had to be replaced by inexperienced officers. This contributed greatly to the slow start that the Russians made in World War II."
Slow start is an UNDERSTATEMENT.Russia was practically rolled over by Germany in the opening phrases of Operation Babarossa.Only a mixture of spirited last-ditch defence of valiant soldiers and poor strategic decisions due to interventions by Hitler prevented the Germans of taking Moscow before the harsh winter limits offensive action to practically nil for the German Army as it was poorly-equiped for winter warfare.
Lim Zheng Wen 3Respect
@Brenda Lee Jay Lynn
ReplyDeleteLooking up to someone does not mean we have to follow his ways.. Take Qin Shi Huang for example. People always look up to him as a cunning leader and an evil leader BUT he is still looked up at am I not correct? Therefore it is in accurate for you to say that people would follow in his ways as he was indeed a good leader in some point of views but I do not think anyone in the right sense would try to follow his ways as they would have lose total trust in everyone around them.
JoshuaHO(26) 3Diligence
@Chan Wei Xiang
ReplyDeleteFINALLY YOU AND I COME INTO AGREEMENT! PHEW!!
b) Josef Stalin's rule in Russia
ReplyDeleteI feel that overall Stalin did a good job in ruling Russia.Firstly,he was able to make himself popular with the russians and gain thier support.I feel that good leaders are people who can win the support of the people in their country as this shows that the people agree with what their leaders are doing.
Secondly,Stalin gave Russia a big push towards modernisation.This was a very big achievement as Russia was far behind leading countries like USA and needed to be modernised or Russia would remain permanently weak.
Lastly,he managed to eliminate political threats and kept communism popular in Russia.
Even though he was responsible for many purges and assasinations,I feel that it was required to help Russia gain stability and increase the output of industries in Russia, etc. and only under pressure will the poeple of Russia work harder.
Overall, he was a good leader as he helped Russia more then he harmed it.He helped Russia rise to power and catch up with the non-communist countries in terms of development.
Low wei rong 3 respect
@Joshua Ho, U.S.A is a liberal country in where you can say anything about any political person and they cannot harm you in any sort. Anyways Wei Xiang already made my point for me.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I would like to add one more point as to why Josef Stalin was a horrible leader of the Soviet Union. He sacrificed millions of innocent lives in order to increase heavy industry in Russia. His policies of rapid industrialization did make Russia the SECOND largest economy in 1955, but his use of force was just too brutal.
Even after WWII, Stalin re-opened Auschwitz and other various concentration camps to torture/execute anyone that dared oppose, as he calls it, his 'flawless' regime. Is this your idea of a good leader?
Plus, I found this very interesting sentence on Wikipedia and wish to share it with you all. "Gulag is recognized as a major instrument of political repression in the Soviet Union." I could not agree more with this statement.
Pulling Communism into the picture, I would like to say that after WWII, Stalin gained much of their lost land to the Wehrmacht and had the control of other countries. However, he did not hold any elections and had the people oppressed too. Many people were separated from their family. Familiar? Draw parallel to this and the Treaty of Versailles in which Germans were suddenly part of a different country. He used a, in my opinion, failed politician's (Georges Benjamin Clemenceau) method of gaining and sustaining land. I do not know if Communism forbids free elections so someone please enlighten me but even so, why must Stalin draw the 'Iron Curtain' over Europe?
Gabriel Tan (39) 3Charity
I feel strongly that Stalin is a ruthless dictator. He ruled with an iron fist and terrorized his country to the point where he developed a cult personality. Stalin was not voted into power - he eliminated his political enemies one by one. Furthermore, he mercilessly eliminated his enemies - whether they were Soviet or not. His policies such as collectivization resulted in disrupted food production and catastrophic famines, the Great Purge which virtually wiped out the Soviet military, and Gulag camps where "enemies of the state" were forced into labour. Stalin's Russia defines a ruthless regime - it was the Soviet people who suffered under his rule.
ReplyDeleteKaryn Gunawan (10) 3 Humility
I personally think that Stalin's rule is unacceptable, thus he isn't a good leader.
ReplyDeleteIn the first place, he gained his position by tricking Trotsky into not coming for Lenin's funeral by giving him the wrong date of the funeral, so that he could be the successor. From this, the other key leaders such as Kamanev and Zinoviev detested Trotsky and agreed to work with Stalin to remove Trotsky from all his posts, making himself to become the undisputed leader of the country.
He then made the people's lives difficult under the five-year plans. Their wages were low, they had to endure food shortages, they had to work long hours, and they had no proper homes to go to. This is such a torture for the people!
To achieve his main aims, he even sold food to other countries to raise finances for his industries, while his people were starving by the millions! Millions of lives were being exchanged for him to able to get food supplies cheaply and on a regular basis.
Stalin was also too powerful. He got rid of all his enemies, and nobody was safe during the time. Anyone could be arrested and to be sent to the labour camps without even knowing the reason.
Lastly, artists could only draw art that glorified Stalin and Communism. Any work critical of Stalin or the state would result the writer or artist spending his life in the labour camps for the rest of his life. This made him seem like an extremely "good" person with no flaws! He even demolished places of worship as communists do not believe in religion, and it was an offence to talk about religious doctrines.
In short, he made people's life difficult & torturous.
Beverly Toh(20) 3 Charity
b) Josef Stalin's rule in Russia
ReplyDeleteI feel that overall, Stalin had done a good job at ruling Russia. He manage to turn a backward country into the modernised country we all see today in suck little time. Even though he had used a few measures which I feel were cruel, he still managed to win over the support and love of his countrymen.
He was a good leader who put his country at the front of his heart and tried his best to improve their live through communism. Only a good leader would be able to win the support of his people, he had proven himself to be a capable leader.
He had managed to make the Russian economy so stable that even during the Great Depression, everyone was employed and had a job despite millions of people around the world that are losing their jobs everyday.
Yes, even though he used had used collectivisation and had murdered a large number of kulaks as a result of it. It had manage to modernise the farming methods used in Russia and improve the outputs.
That is why I feel that Stalin was a great leader to Russia. Despite the deaths and innocent people he murdered, I feel that in the long run. It was all for the better good.
@MinJun
I disagree with some of what you said, Stalin did in fact improve the lives of his countrymen. Yes, there were deaths and blood in his trail to bring Russia to a better place but in the end, we see Russia being a country who was able to keep itself economically stable despite the Great Depression, a country who was loyal to their leader. Till today, many years after Stalin had passed on. There are still people praising him and saying that he had helped them and he did. He gave hope to the poor ones who needed a push in life. That is why I feel that Stalin was a great leader to Russia.
Sorry, forgot to say who I was.
ReplyDeleteGermaine(07) 3 Respect
@Jeslin, First of all, it is spelled as crops and not corp because that would be like selling a country 1 million+ mercenaries. But that is beside the point.
ReplyDeleteI found a fatal flaw in your argument. As you have said, ‘Stalin introduced the five-year plan and one of the aims is collectivisation although this leads to famines, confiscated of crops which lead many people staving, hence many people had suffered. But only through this way, Stalin then would be able to sell the cROps to other countries to earn money and buy technology to improve the industrial at the end'. First of all, if he had not massacred his scientists and thinkers, would he need to commit such an act? Had he spared his 'geniuses' he would not need to oppress the farmers and waste so much money. Perhaps there are some technologies that his scientists could not invent but surely they would contribute majorly in the advance of Russia.
The second point is more of a reflection point than an argument statement. Was Stalin so cunning that he could outsmart Trotsky or was it just Trotsky's arrogance and ignorance which led him to believe Stalin's infamous lie about the date of Lenin’s funeral
Gabriel Tan (39) 3Charity
Boon Siong
ReplyDeleteI think that Stalin is not a good leader.He killed many people and uses propagenda to make them think that he is a good leader but he was just a cunning person.The Great Purge was introduced to wipe out members of the Communist Party. He also tried to eliminate Kaminiev and Zinoniev who were once his allies.In my conclusion, I think that Trotsky will do a better job in ruling Russia.
Teng Boon Siong(35) 3Humility
I personally think that Stalin was not a good leader. ALthough a leader has to be witty. However, Stalin was way too crafty and uses underhand methods to get to his goal. A fine example would be tricking Trotsky into not attending Lenin's funeral so that he can gain a higher chance of being Lenin's successor. Not only so, despite being a good leader in certain aspects in Russia, he had commited heinous crimes that are unpardonable as well. Just because of him, an estimated number of around 60million victims were killed under his rule, especially those due to famine.
ReplyDeleteShermaine Ang (15) 3 Diligence
Just to add another point to prove that Stalin is 100% paranoid. When have you heard of a prominent scientist ever overthrowing his country's leader and doing the job himself? And what are the chances of a scientist, which are generally not as influential as military men, starting a new revolution?
ReplyDeleteGabriel Tan (39) 3Charity
I personally feel that Stalin’s rule in Russia was successful to a certain extent, he was able to bring Russia up the ranks as one of the economic super-powers in the world due to his multiple 5-year plans, and controlling the entire economy in Russia.
ReplyDeleteDespite being able to achieve his goals I would have preferred a leader that was able to rule the nation with a pure heart and had good intentions for the society. Instead, Stalin ruled Russia by force and fear, ordering all people in the nation to do what he requested them to do , if they didn’t, they would have faced severe consequences.
Though Stalin managed to bring up Russia as one of the world’s super-powers, he was not able to bring happiness and fulfilment to the Russian society. On top of that he was very cunning, he found every opportunity to dispose of his rivals, he killed the people that threatened his position as ruler of Russia. He betrayed many of his friends and assassinated them. Stalin used propaganda to manipulate the minds of the society and influence them in terms of look up to him as their so called “father”. But all in all, it’s really depends on how individual looks at it, either from a economic aspect, or social aspect. From there, we are than able to conclude whether Stalin’s rule was successful or a failure.
@JoshuaHo, looking up to someone means to idolize him/her in every way, how can we look up to someone who betrays and even kills his own friends, it just isn’t right. So, although Stalin was successful, anyone who uses the wrong means in order to obtain they’re goals shouldn’t be looked up to, instead they should be used as an example to teach others that this is morally wrong and in some ways, inhuman.
Nigel Lee-33 (3sin)
Although Stalin did a great job of controlling Russia and improving Russia as a whole, he did that through means of force and by striking fear in his people.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if he had controlled Russia through ways that were less harsh, he might have gained the true and sincere respect of his people.
Furthermore, many people have died under his hands even for the slightest reasons. He was also a dishonest person; he lied to Trotsky about the date of Lenin's funeral, so as to spoil Trotsky's reputation and make himself appear close to Lenin. To me, that isn't what a true leader should be like.
Nicole Chan (2) 3 Sincerity
@Chu siyi
ReplyDeleteBy removing competition is the only way Stalin would be able to gain his position. This doesn't mean he's villainous, it means he has a strategy. And on your point of him making workers work long hours with low pay also doesn't make him a villain. This is to make construction cheap and easy. Even now in our modern age, people in Africa can work a day at a factory manufacturing shoes for US to wear and they only earn US5 cents and yet they are deemed the happiest country in the world. Someone villainous would be Hitler who did not only kill his own people but uncountable number of Jews and innocent people who may be our ancestors.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe that Josef Stalin is a good leader. Number 1, is that he introduced the 5 year plan. And that there were 3 5 year plans in total. The targets were set and industries had to meet them and for the 1st 5 year plan it was coal, iron and steel. Results were positive as many industrial plants and industrial cities were built and that is one of the reason why i think Stalin was a good leader. Than there was the 2nd and 3rd 5 year plan. For the second year, the production target were transport, rail and road as well as canal. Thirdly, the 3rd 5 year plan had most resources in war as WW2 has started. This is basically one of the reason why i think Stalin is a good leader. Although Stalin did evil stuff, example getting rid of all his political rivals as well as people who threatened his rule like scientists, army generals, his own political party members etc. But as of answering the HIHS History Department, i think a little "evil" is needed for a leader's rule.
ReplyDelete-Chloe Jong(4), 3 Charity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStalin, for all the murders and other atrocities he committed, was because of his eagerness to help Russia become an equal to the other great powers of the world.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it cost millions of lives to be lost during his reign (because of his purges), in the end the implement of industrialization, and collectivization (partially successful) transformed Russia into an industrialized state within 10 years only, though Russia was behind the other industrialized states by 50 to 100 years.
For all his faults, we cannot deny that Stalin achieved all this, and to some Russians up to this day, is a savior in their eyes
Miguel Tan(31) 3 Hum
Stalin's Rule in Russia.
ReplyDeleteI think Stalin is a good and bad leader at the same time. When Stalin took over as the new leader of the Soviet Union, one of his aims was to control his people, establish a personal dictatorship which removed all opposition. He consolidated his rule over Soviet Union through the purges.
Stalin is cruel and selfish. To eliminate the criticism and potential opposition towards himself, he embarked on a policy of purges. This was the terrifying period in Stalin’s rule. Arrests were made and charged in ‘show trials’. The accused were always found guilty of treason and executed or sent to labour camps. Stalin also extended his purges to the armed forces to ensure that they remained loyal to him. Ordinary people were also subjected to the terrors of the purges. The unpredictability of arrests and executions struck fear in people and no one dared defy Stalin. Therefore, I think Stalin is a cruel and heartless leader.
On the other hand, Stalin is also a good leader. He wanted Soviet Union to be strong industrially as it would be more prepared to resist invasion and be more powerful than other Western countries. Stalin therefore introduced the Five-Year Plans. The Russian industry changed and expanded enormously. Stalin also implemented the policy of collectivization to modernize agriculture. The State provided tractors and other machinery to help the peasants farm more efficiently. This led to more efficient and organised farming and increased production. Stalin meant good for the country, thus, I think he is a good leader.
@Jasmine Tan of 3 Respect
“In a communist state like USSR, differences in wealth is unaccepted, and emphasized on fairness and equality. Hence everyone in Russia at that time, enjoyed equal treatments”
I disagree with “Hence everyone in Russia at that time, enjoyed equal treatments”. The rich were angry that their lands were being taken away from them due to communism and even the poorer ones did not like the idea of not being able to own their own lands. They did not enjoy the equal treatments. Also, the more efficient farmers did not want to share their successes with other less efficient farmers. They felt that it was unfair for them to give what they worked so hard for to those who had not worked as hard as they had. Not everyone in Russia at that time, enjoyed equal treatments.
-Crystal Chong (5) 3Humility’10
@Koh Qing, You mentioned 'Stalin's aim, in this case is achieved because the people listened to him.' You 'conveniently' left out the part that the Russians listened to him because they were living in perpetual fear of him as they would be executed if they had not followed his orders.
ReplyDeleteGabriel Tan (39) 3Charity
@Chloe, Number 1 is that he introduced the Five-Year-Plan and you said that the results were positive. Do you consider the Holodomor to be positive? In addition, after the people were starting to recover from the famine, Stalin immediately set another toiling five year plan in action? The only difference between this and Jews working in concentration camps is that the Russians were paid and did not wear pyjamas.
ReplyDeleteGabriel Tan (39) 3Charity
@ZhengWen: Stalin did kill the leader of the Narodnyi Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del(NKVD). And anyway, it's not NVKD, its NKVD. Stalin killed the leader of the NKVD was not because he opposed Stalin or that he didn't support Stalin. It was because Stalin had instructed the secret police, to kill somebody, and in order to get someone to cover up for his crime, he made the leader of the NKVD admit to his 'mistake', and was thus, hanged. This shows how unfair and ruthless Stalin is and reacts to what he has to cover up, in order not to let the Russian people know about his deeds.
ReplyDeleteI especially do not like Stalin's 3 five-year plans. Stalin takes control of the economy, introducing a program of rapid industrialization and agrarian consolidation and setting unrealistic goals for development.
Industry and commerce are nationalised. All social, political and regulatory power is centered on the state. Twenty five million peasant farmers are forced to collectivize their property and then work on the new state-controlled farms. Wealthy peasants (kulaks) and the uncooperative are arrested and either executed or deported to work camps in Siberia.
The collectivized farms are required to meet an ever increasing production quotas, even if this results in starvation on the farm. In the Ukrainian Republic up to five million peasants starve to death in the famine of 1932-33 when the state refuses to divert food supplies allocated to industrial and military needs. About one million starve to death in the North Caucasus.
By 1937, the social upheaval caused by the "revolution from above" has resulted in the deaths of up to 14.5 million Soviet peasants.
Although industry has failed to meet its production targets and agricultural output had dropped in comparison with 1928 yields, Stalin announces that the first five year plan has successfully met its goals in only four years.
In 1934, the Communist Party celebrates its economic achievements at the 'Congress of Victors'. While Stalin is lavishly praised for his leadership more than 100 of the 2,000 delegates to the congress cross out his name on a secret ballot for the Central Committee. Only three delegates cross out the name of the Leningrad party chief, Sergei Kirov.
Believing that a conspiracy is now afoot to unseat him and overthrow the socialist revolution, Stalin had Kirov assassinated in December before he began a series of purges of party members suspected of disloyalty. Thousands from the Leningrad party office are deported to work camps in Siberia. Few return alive.
At show trials held in Moscow between 1936 and 1938, dozens of former party leaders are forced to confess to crimes against the Soviet state. They are then executed. Among those put to death are Kamenev and Zinoviev, the former members of the troika that included Stalin. More than half of the delegates to the 'Congress of Victors' also disappear. By the end of 1938 almost every leading member of the original Bolsheviks have been killed.
The campaign of terror, flamed by the secret police, the NKVD, extends throughout the party and into the general community, including the military high command. Those that are also targeted are scientists, artists, priests and intellectuals.
All told, about one million were executed, and that will come to be known as 'The Great Terror', 'The Great Purge'. At least 9.5 million more are deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the Gulag without returning alive. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the Gulag. All these people that were sent there was the cause of Stalin and the secret police.
Chan Wei Xiang(17) 3 Sincerity
@To all who disagree that Stalin is ruthless(e.g. Ivan, Shermaine, Boon Siong)(applies to all those who think along the same lines)
ReplyDeleteIt is true that Stalin was a ruthless leader, killing all those who he thinks are likely to overthrow him, and other people, but we cannot say that Stalin did not do a completely bad job.
Although he had sacrifice millions, he managed to achieve the rapid industrialization of Russia, and kept up with all the other countries in terms of technology.
He killed people during the purges, but that was also necessary in the sense that was an example to show the other people what happens to them if they opposed him.
The fear generated by the purges have help control the Russians to a large extent, thus having a country that does not go to war at each other's throats, such as Thailand's Red and Yellow shirts(those who support the government and are against the government).
With all these points, I can tell you all that Stalin did all this for the greater good of Russia
Miguel Tan(31) 3 Hum
@boon siong , i totally agree with you.stalin will never make a good leader with his cunning personality.Though he made russia into one of the most industrialised nations in the world ,it is all because of his cunning personality as he take over lenin's position.he actually tricked trotsky by giving the false information about the date of funeral of lenin. through this , the disrespectful behaviour he gave by not attending the funeral made a great change in the views of other memebers towards trotsky .Morever,Stalin made himself to be incharged of helding this funeral so as to gain the trust from other memebers that he have the capability of handling such huge matters.His smartness gave rise to his position . therefore , through the cunning personality he had i do not think he would become a great leader . without people knowing about his evil doings and neverthless gaining respect from the people from what he have dont to turn russia into the world's most industrialised nations ,he will be able to keep his "evilness" from the people. Not being able to govern the country with "clean " methods , i do not think he deserves the right to take over lenin's position.Morever by commiting lots of crimes to pursuit his prosperity , that is one of the most improper behaviour he had given.To be able to take over lenin's position , the memebers have to compete fairly with their potential and not by doing evil means to give rise to his status. Therefore , i do not think "evilness" is necessary to be able to gain respect from people but to just depend on your own potential just like trotsky.
ReplyDeletegerald 3humility
Ahhhhh! Forgot sign off.
ReplyDeleteDominique Lee (30) 3 Respect
@GeraldS
ReplyDeleteSo sorry, but I have to disagree with your point about 'evilness' not being necessary.
"evilness" may actually be useful, and the only way, in Stalin's case. If Stalin just used his potential, it would cause him to lose out to the other competitors(Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenov) as they already have esteblished themselves as better candidates then Stalin in the first place.
Like what Justin had told me last time, Stalin is only a blank shhet of paper, compared to the other potential candidates.
And if Stalin did not used 'evilness' his other competitors may have actually used it instead.
Miguel Tan (31) 3Hum
@Miguel Tan: I disagree! He had sacrificed the lives of so many people for a Greater Russia? I don't think so. He committed crimes and made major mistakes but he got away with all of it and on top of that, he blamed his mistakes on others and even caused them to be killed! Although he managed to produce more crops than before his rule, he caused a famine in Russia when they could not sell their food to other countries. He also made many rich peasants give up their land and to share their wealth with everyone. If they rebelled, they would be shot on the spot. If Stalin was not happy with anyone, he would get the secret police(NKVD) to search for the oppositions and kill or threaten their family members. if you were one of the Russian people, and one of your kin is a politician being threatened by Stalin, how would you feel? His use of fear to control Russia was too great and caused a large extend of damage to Russia. Becoming a Greater Russia does not mean that one could sacrifice millions of lives in order to achieve what is needed and to show the Russian people how 'capable' he was.
ReplyDeleteChan Wei Xiang(17) 3 Sincerity
i think that stalin is a good leader .though "evil" is necessary to make russia one of the most industrialised nations in the world,he did a great change to russia that benefited the people living.He centrally planned economy by having the three 5 year plans between 1928 and 1941.the state requlated the ownership and distribution of land which means that pleasants were working on the land as state employees and earning an equal income as other peopl.he mordernised agricultural as he exterminate the kulas .kulas are people who are rich land owner and to exterminate them , it lead to more efficient farming and the increase in production as the landds were equally distributed to the people.These were the things that stalin done to improve russia as a communist country , though he did many crimes by removing people who oppose him ,he was able to suceed in his high goals by making russia into a industrialised nation.Therefore ,i think that stalin deserve to be a good leader.
ReplyDeleteps elaine 3dil
ReplyDeleteI feel that Josef Stalin is a man who wants power and have the intention to be a good leader to his people.
ReplyDeleteEven though he had killed many innocent lives fearing of their power, I do feel that Josef Stalin was a good leader of Russia. Because of Stalin’s rule, Russia became a world superpower along with the United States. Stalin introduced a 5 year plan that made a big impact in Russia.
If Stalin did not eliminate all the private business and made the production of industrial machinery and farm equipment more important, Russia economy would not have stabilize and Russia would not have been the one of the most industrial countries in the world. He also gave equal rights to women and men.
I really respect him as leader but not as a person, he has caused many families to fall apart and also has caused death to more than millions but he has made Russia to what it is today. Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin is one man that has made history.
Nurul Suryani (15) 3 Charity
I feel that Stalin wasn't a good leader for the people in Russia even though he had made many plans that made Russia such a modernize and industrialise country in such a short time as 5 years. Majority of the farmers in Russia didn't like the idea of collectivisation. If so, why didn't Stalin stop the plan of sharing lands which caused many especially the Kulaks to be so unhappy that they act deviance and destroyed their own crops and lands? So i feel that Stalin wasn't a good leader/hero to Russia.
ReplyDeleteThe other point is that Stalin was the sole cause of why people in Russia was afraid of one another and especially Stalin. Many of them were killed for no reason and this was totally injustice for their family. If one didn't do anything wrong like saying rude remarks of Stalin or tearing Stalin posters in Public, why must they received the punishment of someone else? This reason may prove that Stalin was in fact a unloyal person that should not have been a Russia's leader. Killing an innocent, killing even his own best friend and other intelligent people, doesn't that make him the Villain of Russia?
Sheldon Low(32) 3Charity.
@Shi Yah: I disagree that Stalin is a good leader of Russia. He may have the ‘lead to serve, serve to lead’ motto in his mind but he was definitely not a good leader of Russia. He did help to improve people’s lives but the impact of it is very little. Because Stalin first five year plan focused on heavy industries especially iron and steel and although there were a great increase in the amount of coal, iron, steel and oil produced, more then 1500 factories and more then 100 new cities built but it was not a success although Stalin announced it was a success. It encountered problems such as very few workers had the skills that were required as many could not read and write. Machines were often damaged because of the workers’ ignorance or lack of training. Many of the new industrial workers were farmers who had lived in the countryside; they were not used to life in cities and often found it hard to adjust to their new living environment. Thus with so many problem, how can Stalin’s plan be a success. Even his second five year plan were related to military production and all this were not cater to the people living in Russia like to increase production on food, drinks which were the necessary item for them to continue living. Thus, this shows that he only do what he thinks is right and once he set his mind on, he would not change which were unfair as the people cannot give their opinion thus he is not a good leader.
ReplyDeleteJasmine Heng (6)
3 Sincerity
@Jantsen, yes I do agree with that drop on the ocean thing. However, it is a critical mistake to say that Stalin defeated the Nazis all on his own. First he had the brilliant field marshal Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov in command during Barbarossa and this was probably one of the few good things that Stalin had done, with/without knowing it. Sparing him during the Great Purge.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, it was due to weather conditions such as the monsoon that slowed down all forms of German transportation/mobilisation in Russia. The second was the Russian winter which most Germans were worried about as the winter annihilated Napoleon’s Grande army. However, the Germans survived both.
There is probably one strategy that Stalin had adapted from the kulaks rebellion. That is the scorched earth policy. To say that Stalin did not contribute would be incorrect but to say that he contributed majorly would be a big mistake.
There were many more factors that led to the failure of Barbarossa in which included Hitler’s intervention of some plan and so on but I'm not going to elaborate on this.
In addition, your statement that ‘Russia...made it strong in time to avoid being crushed by Germany' could be easily countered with this argument. If Stalin did not execute his generals, scientists and for your point, politicians, whom were capable of warning/advising Stalin that Hitler would most indeed break the treaty, the Nazis might not even have been able to step into Russia.
My last point has nothing to do with your statement but since we are talking about WWII, I might as well bring up this point. Stalin's influence was certainly felt by people whom were not from Russia as they feared him if they were ever captured by him. One example is that when news of the Red Army's advance and the Allies advance from the opposite direction towards Germany was made public, Germans fled towards the oncoming Allies for fear that Stalin would to horrible things to them if they were captured by the Soviets. However, the Allies are probably seen as less brutal than the Red Army even after German propaganda convinced that both were as bad. So you see that Stalin's rule practically revolves around fear and that is not an example of a good leader.
Gabriel Tan (39) 3Charity
Communism in Russia began in the early 20th century where Karl Marx, “the ideas of a German thinker”, decided that Russia should create a society in which wealth would be shared among the people. People then were suffering badly from World War 1 (WWI). The Russian emperor, Tsar, was blamed for the poor performance on the battlefield because soldiers were poorly fed and equipped for the war. People had to queue long queues during harsh winters and barely had enough food and coal for themselves. Therefore, Tsar had to convert farmers into soldiers for the war. However it did not went well due to the fact that the farmers were lack of training and there was a lack of weapons. Russians began being unsatisfied with the ruling of Tsar adapted Karl Marx’s idea of changing Russia into a communist country. In 1917, 15 March, the Tsar was abdicated. Provisional Government was in charge of bringing peace to Government in Russia until the elections for the new parliament. Lenin won the support of the Bolsheviks (one of the two different groups of the communist country), with his promise of land and bread supply. In its place, Lenin established the World’s first Communist regime. When Lenin died in January 1924, there was a struggle to get the next leader for Russia. Both Leon Trotsky and Josef Stalin were Lenin’s assistant. There was a struggle to get their next leader even though it did reflected in Lenin’s will that Trotsky should be the next rightful leader of Russia. And because of Stalin’s jealousness, he sabotaged Trotsky.
ReplyDeleteStalin intentionally misinformed Trotsky of Lenin’s funeral. Got rid of Lenin’s will. As a result of all this act, Stalin was the next leader of Russia.
Gerlissa Chan (2) 3 Charity
[continued]
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I would like to note that a leader is someone who looks after his people. Being a good leader is a completely different thing. Stalin’s main purpose in mind was to build a positive reputation for Russia. But the fact to him being a bad leader is that he does it at all cost even if it means to sacrifice everything besides him losing his positions. Stalin very much cared about how the others thought of Russia but the irony here is that, he does not even consider the feelings of the Russians! His very own people. So let me ask, how can he be a good leader if he does not even regard them as humans? It does not even matter here that he have achieved his goals of the 5 year plans, collectivization. He did it by authority! And good leaders lead by example. Not by authority. Over here, we can all see his style of leadership is probably not the best. In fact not good at all. He forced it out of his people. They had no say in this matter at all. Even though I have to say that the Russians were more than willing to play a part in the development of a blooming country. But after a while, when there was food shortages, people suffered from malnutrition and there were no proper homes to go back to, Stalin did not stop taking supplies from his people. In fact, he did not even considered about them at all. To him, it was the reputation for Russia that mattered most. To him, it was just a matter of fact that those who are unwilling to contribute would just have to pay for their actions. People had to work long hours, in addition to all their sufferings. To compensate for them, Stalin provided free health care for all. Or was it just the selected few?
Mentioning about this brings about my second point. It is about the purges. All he REALLY wanted was for Russia to have a good reputation world wide. But why does he have to get rid of all political rivals if they had the ability to be helping to contribute in the growth of this industrialization? Or was he just jealous about the fact that he was going to be the “least important man of Russia’? If he really was good so why does he have to worry about the fact that he will be overthrown by others. In fact, he is indeed guilty of something he has done and does not want to be found doing something bad. I agree with Nigel that killing your own best friend is indeed inhuman. What kind of good leadership quality is portrayed in stalin here?
Gerlissa Chan (2) 3 Charity
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteName: Joanne Xu (12)
ReplyDeleteClass: 3Charity
Stalin was no doubt a good leader but he can never gain our respect, for his actions were despicable. He has the qualities that a good leader should posses like how he is able to influence the Russian to work with him to achieve a common goal and he did tried to improve the quality of the Russia. But as a leader, he did not care about his people and often would not mind sacrificing them to achieve his aim. He also eliminated those he considered were a threat to his rulings which indicates his lack of integrity. A true leader would never be afraid of defeat and will never make sly moves to retain his position.
Yes, Stalin made Russia one of the most industrialised nations in the world. But, he's not saviour of Russia.
ReplyDelete"Common and political prisoners in labor camps were forced to do unpaid labor.The Soviet Union used numerous foreign experts, to design new factories, supervise
construction, instruct workers and improve manufacturing processes. The most notable foreign contractor was Albert Kahn's firm that designed and built 521 factories between 1930 and 1932. As a rule, factories were supplied with imported equipment."
Russian were being left out. Stalin go ahead with his plan even though he knew that many Russians disagree with him.
"that these gains were accomplished at the cost of millions of lives"
"the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million."
From the above sentences, we can conclude that Stalin's succeeded with millions of lives lost. Did he, as a leader thought of the people of Russia? He only thought of his gains from other country. Him living peacefully in his world and not aware of people suffering? Unbelievable.
If you agree that a little 'evil' is necessary, I don't agree. That's too much of evil he had done for this gain.
My stand is, he's not a good leader.
Wilson 41
3 DILIGENCE!
I do agree to a certain extent that Joseph Stalin was a good leader of Russia as he brought Russia to success. Indeed he did his job well, by introducing communism to Russia, which also lead Russia into having great industrial power. But the thing is, you see, Stalin only ruled by injecting fear into his people. Noone dared to go against him. He was feared by everyone, be it the rich or the poor.
ReplyDeleteStalin only thought about himself and his benefits, not giving two-hoots about others.
Yes, he gave equal rights to both men and women, and he did all in his power to make Russia prosper. But he did all these with a black heart. Stalin was a sly man. He had many cunning ways of eliminating anyone who he believed was a threat to his rule. He even held 'show trials' where even the innocent were exiled, just for the sake of Stalin. A perfect example of how evil Stalin really was, was when he tricked Trotsky into missing Lenin's funeral. And without a doubt, it lead to Stalin being the hero, and Trotsky being the bad guy. Stalin killed countless of innocent people while he was in power. And I find his act very disgusting. It was very horrible of Stalin to cause so many innocent deaths just so he could get all that he wanted, and get all he wanted he got.
Stalin brainwashed his nation by having posters of him potraying gentleness and kind-heartedness. He soon became the father figure of Russia. But the propaganda led to his people believing he was a good man. And they treated him as if he were god. I personally think that this is a very crude way to lead a country. And what Stalin did was wrong. Thus, I do not respect him as a leader at all, no matter how much he may have brought Russia to success.
Oh, I actually wrote a comment and was about to post it when I stupidly clicked 'back' and my whole comment got erased. Moral of the story : never click 'back'.
Shaista Dinis Meldi (16) 3 Charity
Communism was started in Russia by a guy named Karl Marx. He was a German sociologist. At that time, Russia's economic was very poor so he came up with a theory that we should make money equal for all. Communism was created to try and make the gap between poor and the rich disappear. He wanted to make money equal in terms of money.
ReplyDeleteJosef Stalin Rule produced great results for Russia. He came up with the 5year plans. Thanks to him Russia did not suffer unemployment during the Great Depression. But because of him trying to make everything equal, the rich did not like t and turn against him. As a result, all those who apposed him were killed and sent to labour camps. In my opinion, he is neither a hero nor villain. He only did things that he thought was best for his country and did not allow anyone to go against him.
Derrick Kok(22) 3 charity.
Although Stalin had killed many people in Russia, however, he can still be said as a good leader as he made Russia one of the most industrialised nations in the world at that time.
ReplyDeleteHis idea of collectivisation had caused any Russians to die of starvation as what crops they had grown were collected and sent for exports. This forced collectivisation had decreased the crops and livestock output by almost 50 percent.
In addition, he wanted to be the ruler of Russia so much that he made use of despicable and dishonest acts to get what he wanted. After he got his position, in order not to lose it, and in fear of others overthrowing him from his position of power, he imprisoned and killed many whom he thought would try and overthrow him as the leader of Russia. His power hungry ways had caused him to seem like a bad ruler, which I agree.
if he was a good leader, he would be putting the peoples interests first instead of keeping his own position. by imposing many rules by force, he did improve Russia's economy, but many had to pay for ti when they were unable to meet his targets for that certain industry.
i strongly believe that being "evil" is not necessary, when you can earn the people's respect to keep your position of power. By killing intelligent people that may help and will cause the nation to benefit from the industralisation. instead of improving, wont it get worse?
Inhumane acts are not needed to rule or lead a nation.
therefore, i disagree with your statement.
Correena Wee (9) 3 Charity
I agree that Stalin is a good leader. But, he is also not as good as it seems. Once in power, Stalin began a drive to industrialize and modernize the Soviet Union, with a Five-Year Plan (1927-32). This made Russia to catch up with the other countries in industrialisation in just 10 years even though Russia was a century behind. . Stalin had made Russia on par with the other countries. Central to his program was the collectivization of agriculture, in which the government would redistribute the land by taking over the estates of the "kulaks", the wealthiest peasants. But, the collectivization reaped disaster--the government persecuted and killed the peasantry, famine swept the country, and as many as ten million may have died. Thus, after the execution of the kulaks, the peasants were given equal land and equal pay. With this, communism had spread. In my opinion, I think that Stalin was a good leader. He had made Russia an industrialised country. But, this was achieved through the deaths of millions of people. Many who opposed Stalin was either purged or sent to labour camps. Millions of people died in the labour camps. Many young people were idealistic and they were willing to suffer a few years of hardship if they were going to get to the promised land of a better society. Thus, they supported Stalin. Thus, Stalin was a good leader, capable of achieving industrialised Russia. But, he was also cruel as many people died because of him. However, if Stalin was not cruel, Russia might not have been an industrialised country.
ReplyDelete@Boon Siong
Yes, I agree with you that he uses propaganda to influence people that he was a good leader. But, in actual fact, he is quite a good leader. He had made Russia an industrialised country in just 10 years. Although he had killed millions of people, many still supported Stalin as he had somehow made their lives better. Thus, propaganda is not only the thing that makes people think he is a good leader. I do not agree that Trotsky will do a better job than Stalin. Trotsky believed in permanent revolution. If Trotsky were to succeed Lenin instead, who knows what might have happened to Russia? Russia would be a land of blood and Russia would not have been an industrialised country.
@Germaine
Yes, I agree with you that he put his country at the front of his part, but I do not think he tried his best in improving the lives of the people through communism. He had caused many people to suffer in labour camps and purges at the slightest bit of defiance leading to the deaths of millions of people. I think he is too concerned matters involving the economy Russia, not the people of Russia.
Siti Nurain(18)
3 Humility
Stalin's rule had led to a lot of sufferings to the people and these people led a life of fear. Stalin instilled fear in the people's lives to gain absolute control over the country. Nobody was safe during the time of the purges and anyone could be arrested or sent to labour camps. Children were even encouraged to tell on their family members who is against stalin.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there were also many russians who had benefited under his dictatorship. Peoples lives had improved as compared to the days under the tsarist rule. His policies helped to transform russia into a modern industrial and militry power on par with other western countries.
-kerlyn(4) 3Respect
This is Sheng. i agree that Stalin is a great leader to a certain extent. Firstly, Stalin was a man who only believed in success, riches and of course, supreme power. He modernized russian success by implementing various 'unclean' rules. I believe that although he caused innocent civillian deaths, he achieved what few could even think of. why? Why did stalin ensure that the days ahead were to be of strong independency(the country itself)? This was partly due to the matter of him being confident. Confident of Success and Revolution. I would like to bring also, back the issue of Stalin causing the countless no. of deaths (that were emphasized by wei xiang, gab tan and the other delinquents of the leadership issues relating to Stalin) Why did Stalin do that? It wasn't just because he was bad or anything(cruel). The main input is that many regions of the USSR were backward. Thats why Stalin said that to be backward was to be defeated and enslaved. ‘But if you are powerful, people must beware of you’. His enemies were not of the poor, but those who were in his way of relating his viewpoint of success. Stalin believed (with Lenin) that the USSR should ‘overtake and outstrip the capitalist countries’. He believed in ‘Socialism in one country’ – the USSR would become strong enough to survive, then would take over the rest of the world. This shows also how Lenin shared a same view between the two men. People can argue that Trotsky wanted the same for his country men, but how long would it take? Did he have a plan so well-tonned like josef stalin's? No. As a matter of fact, Stalin believed Germany would invade. In 1931, he prophesied: ‘We make good the difference in 10 years or they crush us’. In the end, it was the people of russia whose fate was in thier own hands. Stalin did of course use some propaganda to instill this maniscurity of revelations into the minds of people. The famine had help Stalin to get the upper hand in winning authority from the nation at that time. Only the rich farmers suffered at the point, when Stalin made a point to purge the chances of some farmers/rich people overthrowing or rebelling ag against his "perfect" idea. Back to Propaganda, what Stalin basically did was turn the USSR into a modern state (which was able to resist Hitler's invasion). Lastly, on the point of how the 5-year plans helped Russia : Plans were drawn up by GOSPLAN (the state planning organisation)
ReplyDeleteIn fact, there were even targets which were to be set by all laboured people working at that point in time. In another effort to drive the success of Stalin's 5-year plans arrangements were made to hire foreign experts & engineers. To this on how Stalin could make use of resources, here is another example: Big engineering projects such as dams or canals, slave labour (such as political opponents, kulaks or Jews) was used. Many at times ,there was a concentration on heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods or good housing. Sign off-- Shaun Lee Sheng Hao (3 Charity) (38)
Stalin: [How much he has done that you can't deny he is a great leader] In 1923 Stalin put forth his arguement that socialism could be brought about by Russia without an international revoltion. He was therefore able to garner support from most of his communist party members.In Dec. 1925, Stalin packed his congress with his own supporters. In Dec 1927, Stalin expelled his opponents, Kamenev and Trotsky. By 1929, Stalin and his supporters launched a campaign to denounce his opposintion in the press. He recognised that Russia was 50 years behind the West and began a ruthless 5-year plan. Under Stalin's Great LEADERSHIP, the Soviet Union industriallised, but at a huge cost to the population. Stalin therefore is best remembered for exerting totalitarian control through the terror imposed by the (K.G.B) [secret police and labour camps]; state control of education, arts and sciences, propaganda and sensorship; a single party state. To prevent his party rivals from toppling in the great purges in 1946. Thhe purges ended in 1938, but in 1939, an estimated 2 million over russians had been sent to labour camps. Stalin's positionas a dictator was in disputable. He dismantled the Red army during the Second World War. He did not expect a German Nazi attack on the Soviet Union . After the 2nd World War, Eastern Europe became a Soviet Sphere of influence. Russian armies occupied all the eastern european countries and Stalin set up a communist gov. in Poland. He also wanted to punish and weaken germany because of the extensive damaged endured by Russia during the second world war. Stalin wanted germany to make large reparations so that it could never be strong enough to be a threat to russia again. He wanted a communist eastern europe under his control. In fact, by 1946, the british prime minister, winston churchill, made a speech pointing/highlighting out the two opposing camps-between the communist east and the non-communist west. Churchill said' From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain has decended across the continent.' This divide between the communist under Stalin's Soviet Sphere of influence and the non-communist became known as the Cold War. In Germany, East Berlin came under the soviet sphere of influence while the west berlin came under the western powers. He managed to control East Berlin as well as most eastern european countries by 1948. In 1947, Stalin set up Cominform. Which included European communist parties. Stalin wanted these communist parties in his "puppet" states in europe to adhere his ideological stance. These are Examples of how Stalin made success deep in those who were standing by him. Under stalin's rule in june 198, soviet union blocked western berlin from west germany. However, the west resolved the berlin blockade by air lifting well over 1.5 million tons of supplies to west berlin over 318 days. In 1955, Stalin, together with the communist countries of eastern europe excluding Yugoslavia, formed the Warsaw Pact. Relationship between the USA and Russia(USSR), worsened and the cold war last for many decades. Stalin was also able to control the satellite states for many years. Stalin has proven himself to be a strong communist leader. Sign off-- Shaun Lee Sheng Hao (3 Charity) (38)
ReplyDeleteStalin attacked the Muslim faith because he thought it was holding back industrialisation. :)
ReplyDeleteI thought that Stalin was very efficient in controlling Russia. He was able to transform a backward USSR into one of the most industrialized nations, which was a great achievement. His rules in Russia had significant impacts on the economic, political, and social.
ReplyDeleteFor example, collectivization did lead to more efficient farming and increased population. There is greater political stability. There was greater gender equality as women were given equal opportunities as men. Literacy rate improved too.
At the same time, these positive impacts of Stalin’s rule came with negative impacts. Fear was what people had to live with then, and millions of people died.
In my opinion, the result of everything was due to the fear Stalin had planted in everyone’s hearts. It was that that gave him power, that let him be in control of Russia. Even though I think he was cruel too, by taking away so many people’s lives, without him, it will be hard for Russia to be what it was then. Overall, I think that Stalin had played an important role in helping Russia, improving the lives of the citizens.
Kemmy Eer (8) 3Respect
Stalin's rule in Russia
ReplyDeleteStalin's main aim was to modernise and develop the Soviet Union and to do so, he implemented two measures, namely collectivisation and rapid industrialisation.He strongly believed that Russia's backwardness was the reason behind their many defeats and through his Five-year plans , he hoped to transform the Soviet Union into a modern industrial state. His economic plans , based on developing heavy industries, did reap in positive effects such as improved infrastructure for all, increased employment rate and high production level.By 1940, USSR was already on par with many other Western countries.Using industrialization as an example, I can say that Stalin had improved its country economic state and there was greater political stability . As a whole, I agree that he improved the state but considering the fact that he overused propaganda and purged intellectuals, he may not be that good a leader . He controlled education, teaching students about his and Lenin's great leadership skills and controlled religious beliefs. He deprived his state of the freewill to decide . Literally, he brainwashed the state. I don't agree that he should have gone to such a large extent to make them do what many disapproved of such as collectivisation that was not approved at the start.To be called a good leader , one would not deprive its people of food , cause widespread famines and such a huge human cost.Hence I feel that Stalin's rule in Russia may have brought in benefits but he was missing moral values and a compassionate heart as a leader.
Nur Amira Binte Bahari(17) 3 Respect :D
@kemmy eer:
ReplyDelete"collectivization did lead to more efficient farming and increased population" :Quote from comment.
I disagree that collectivization led to increased population of people. Collectivization may have led to larger crop output and efficient farming. It allowed Stalin to get a cheap and regular supply of crop from the farmside to provide for the workers in the cities. And this perhaps solved the problem of starvation the poor may have suffered, under the Tsar in the past.
But there is one point that we must not ignore. When Stalin suggested collectivization, many farmers resisted, maybe because of the fact that they experienced collectivisation during the Civil War years, and saw that it led to food shortages, and also based on other reasons. Stalin did not try to persuade the people more, but took to violent means-- forced collectivization and eliminating of the kulaks.
He sent secret police to farms to force the farmers to hand over their farms. If they resisted further, the poor farmers simply ended up in the labour camps or get killed. Kulaks were also unfairly being killed.
These actions led to more problems: riots and resistance, and finally famine.
A huge amount of innocent people got killed or starved to death, due to shortage of food as farmers burnt their crops, then hand it over to the government.
Hence with so many deaths, how can this phrase: "increased population" be justified?
Even if the poor in the cities are provided with food, the large number of deaths already outnumbered this amount.
-Jasmine Tan (21) 3Respect
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Wei Xiang:I said "No surprise that Stalin killed the leader of NKVD".Besides,the Chief of the NKVD DID opposed Stalin on the grounds that during the show trials,he inadvertently revealed that the men had no political differences with Stalin[From Wikipedia]
ReplyDelete@Gabriel:You have a couple of minor mistakes.A corp is about 2 division of troops which is around 20-40k men-not a million.If you want to use "Grande Armee",please use it as it is-not Grande Army.I am just pointing out mistakes and sincerely hope you do not shoot back.
Lim Zheng Wen 3Respect
I believe that Josef Stalin is a true person who change Russia to a period of new era.
ReplyDeleteFirstly Stalin has been a dictator of Russia, If there is no leader in Russia, There would be more wars, More battles and blood, People would try to strive for power and then will cause Russia to plundge, It already has a high foundation already, Without a leader, The country will only suffer, Just like us and animals.
Secondly, Stalin main aim was to control Russia and promote Communism, Communism would work well for the first few years, But that is enough to change everything, Although he did kill many people, He helped the 90+% of the people who were poor( Though he did kill some of them). With this, More people are willing to work because the money they earn donot go to the rich,But instead to be shared equally. With this case, There will be rapid industrailization growth.
Also note that this happens in 1900s. Techonology is not advance, All leaders have in mind is kill for thier sake and improve the country, Since most people are defendless and the leader have everything in their say, They'll just kill anyone they are unhappy with, This event only stop/reduce after World War 2, Many leaders kill to rise in power and only with their rise, then will the country improve. Almost all leaders are like that, Take Qin Shi Huang for an example, He may have killed many but unify China to improve it, If he did not unify China, Think how many more wars would have been fought and how many lifes lost, Definitely more than the number he kill.
Another example would be Adolf Hitler, Germany was made to pay the Versailies treaty, Hitler rose and counter attack this, Germany would suffer longer if without him. But in the end, It all comes to this : Which leader before World War 2 is not corrupted and selfish.
Furthur more, Russia has a very high foundation in the past, With Stalin improving it furthur, More inventions were created and many countries benefited from it.
However, Most people including me would hate Stalin because of his creulty, Not to be bias but if the Japanese have not came to Singapore in WW2, We might have been stuck with the British rule, Though many had suffered, Modern Singapore may not have come, Though unfortunately our forefathers paid the price.
So therefore, I think that Stalin really deserve to be in his position, However, in our current time, I don't think he or any corrupted leaders should even get a post.
Gladwin Ang 21 (3 Diligence)
In my own opinion, i think that stalin is a good leader. He make it possible for Russia to become one of the most industrialised nations in the world.stalin had implemented two measures: collectivisation and rapid industrialisation to modernise and develop the soviet union into a great ,powerful country. Although great sacrifices were made by people,the soviet union became an industrialised country under his rule.The education, healthcare and position of woman is also greatly improved. Many russia also benefited from his polices- workers whose live improved somewhat under stalin's dictatorship as compared to the lives during the days of Tsarist rule.Stalin had high targets for agricultural and industrial production. when the russian do not meet his targets,he would punish them severely. This shows that stalin had place high expectation for the future of Russia and wanted to do the best to achieve his goal even if he had to kill millions of innocent people.All the Russian people do not dare to oppose stalin as they will be killed. To me, stalin is very considerated about russia future. The russian workers also feels that they had gone through so many difficult times in building Russia into a better place but is worth it.They think that it is needed for stalin to come out with those unreasonable rules and policies to build a new Russia for their children.Also, with his five year plans,there is rapid expansion of the soviet union's heavy industries and an increase in consumer goods.It also helped the USSR to face threat from Germany when it came under attack in june 1941...With so many profits gain when Russia is under stalin, he is a good leader who make Russia a more prosperous country even if he need to be the bad guy .Jasmine Chng Zhi Min (6) 3Diligence
ReplyDeleteI think that Stalin is not a good and successful leader. He may be very intelligent but he is very cruel. If you are a good leader, you will think of ways to improve the quality of life for your people instead of killing them and you make them starve. He lied and trick many people in order to achieve his dream to become the leader. He also brainwashed the people by propaganda and did little to improve the lives of the people. He also lied about the five year plan saying that it was very successful which wasn't true. If he was a good leader, would he lied, kill and starve his people?
ReplyDeleteConstance(5) 3diligence
In my opinion,I agree to a great extent that Stalin is a cruel leader as he targeted and blamed the rich peasants also known as kulaks which resisted collectivization and executed them which were about 20 million people.Stalin blamed them for the failure of collectivization and ordered their elimination.The kulaks resisted collectivization because they did not want to give up their land to the government.
ReplyDeleteThis was what Stalin address the Communist Party in 1929.
"The Kulaks are the sworn enemies of the collective farm movement.We are to eliminate them as a class...We must break down the resistance of the kulaks and deprive them of their existence.We must smash them...We must strike at the kulaks so hard to prevent them from rising to their feet again."
Stalin also tricked Trotsky about the date of Lenin's funeral.When Lenin died in January 1924,Stalin tricked his biggest rival,Trotsky into missing Lenin's funeral by giving him the wrong date which resulted in many party members were unhappy with Trotsky for failing to appear at the funeral as it showed a lack of respect for Lenin.Stalin also organised the funeral so as to look like as if he was close to Lenin but actually he was not.
Stalin also established an authoritarian regime.He was a dictator.He could make laws without seeking agreement from the people or other members of the government.He also banned other political parties from the Soviet Union.Anyone who opposed him will be beaten,jailed or killed.
Stalin used propaganda to make people believe that he is the rightful leader of the country and persuaded them to accept him.For example,he made writers write him as a hero of people.He also potrayed himself as a fatherly,cheerful and popular man.
Stalin also manipulated his opponents and played them off against each other.Stalin formed a "troika" of himself,Kamenev and Zinoviev against Trotsky as Trotsky was his biggest rival.
Stalin also had a good point in which he aimed to increase the amount of crops produced by the farms by improving farm methods and also by collectivization.He said that if farming methods were improved,fewer people would be needed to work the land.This meant that some people in the countryside would be able to move to the cities to work in the new factories.
In conclusion,I think that although Stalin did made a good point in helping the people to work in new factories but still with all his evil crimes,I still will agree that he is a cruel leader.He should not do all this evil crimes and be so despicable.In fact,he sould be a good leader so as to win the hearts of the Russians and be a good role model to others.
Ong Hui Luan(13),3Diligence.
@kerlyn: “Stalin instilled fear in the people's lives to gain absolute control over the country.”
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with this statement. Stalin planted fear within people’s hearts by killing many innocents. Millions were shot, sent to labour camps, and died in the famines. For example, collectivization was not popular with both the rich and the poor farmers, but if they resisted, they would be killed or sent to the labour camps. The peasants could not have a say. With fear, no one dared to oppose him and they could only listen to him and do their jobs quietly.
Meanwhile, if Stalin had given in to the peasants and there was no collectivization, there would not be such efficient farming and increased production. Thus, I agree that the main reason Stalin was able to gain absolute control over the country, was the fear he had planted in their hearts.
Kemmy (8) 3Respect
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion,to made a country to be better does not necessarily use violent and force to gain what they want.
ReplyDeleteStalin was very impatient to slowly wait for the country to developed at a normal pace so he used violent to make sure the improving rate was faster.
This should not be the case as instilling fear into people will make them do things more slowly as they are scared they might do the wrong things.
Stalin should be kind and use other non-violent ways to make the improving rate grow faster.
Wang Guo Wei(34) 3 integrity
I personally feel that Stalin was a good leader, but a bad person. He had the right ideas, but the methods he used were wrong.
ReplyDeleteHe did many things to bring Russia closer to the other countries in terms of industry, such as increased the produce of coal, iron and steel and also increased the amount of crops, but to do those things, he had to kill millions of people, and i feel that it was not right. Killing millions of people just to industrialize a country is not considered as " a little evil". Further more the people worked for very low wages and worked in fear of punishment.
Santhosh (37)
3Charity
As a conclusion, i would like to say that Stalin was a good leader with a cunning mind which he used to kill his opponents and other leaders who might have been a threat to him, but i feel that more could have been achieved if Stalin and Leon Trotsky had worked together. They would have been more sucessfull
ReplyDeleteSanthosh (37)
3Charity
B) Stalin rule in Russia
ReplyDeleteI think that Stalin ruled Russia well to a certain extent as he did brought Russia to a higher level and standard by using the five years plans which in turn made Russia on par with other western countries by the end of 1940 and also had increased employment rate and high production level and also implemented collectivization to modernist agriculture in Russia.
But though he ruled Russia well,I feel that Stalin is a very cruel and heartless leader because instead of using peace and love to rule people,he turned to vicious way which is usig fear to dominate peoples lives. Not only that,Stalin used purges to remove the "enemies of the state" and he eliminated kaminev and zinoniev who were his allies and once helped Stalin in rising to power yet Stalin ruthlessly killed both of them. Stalin even encouraged children to tell on their parents and this is a very despicable act cause children are considered precious and if they tell on their parents, they are being unfillial! And they thing s Stalin does are only for his own good and not for the welfare of the people! Yes, he may did bring Russia to a higher level but he did not improve peoples lives!
Limshiqi, 3 humlity!
In my opinion, stalin was a cruel leader, as when severe food shortages occur due to farmers burning their crops and grew less food rather than send them to the communist officials, Stalin refused the offer of USA to send food, instead, he suppressed the information about the famine and ordered officials to take whatever crops were left and sold it to countries to buy machines from them. More than 10 million peasants and their families died in the famine.
ReplyDeleteTing You Yao (42) 3 Sincerity
Overall i feel that Stalin was a good leader.Stalin launched a command economy, replacing the New Economic Policy of the 1920s with Five-Year Plans and launching a period of rapid industrialization and economic collectivization.He shaped the modernised Russia and built up Russia back then.His aims to industralise Russia was deem sucessful.
ReplyDeleteNgYuxuan(34) 3Dil
@GuoWei
ReplyDeleteto make a country better some extent of violent measures needed to be taken.if he would not have killed the rebellion,Russia would not have peace and order back then.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree to a great extent.
ReplyDeleteBeing a good leader, means he need to be a good model. Thus, i felt that being a leader should be upright, which Stalin failed to do so.
Stalin was very sly and made full use of his post as General Secretary to appoint his supporter to the important posts in the party. He should had gained his support by really offering helps to others than making use of his post.
Stalin tricked Trotsky into not coming for Lenin's funeral by giving him the wrong date of the funeral. Stalin organised funeral and made it seem as if he had always been a close associate of Lenin. Many party members were angry with Trotsky for failing to appear at the funeral, as it showed a lack of respect. Funeral is something that he should not play with, he should show respect to Lenin and not making Trotsky into not coming. This gave an expression of disrespect from Stalin too.
In additions, Stalin had ideas that only benefits the government. A good leader should think of ideas that benefits everyone instead of the government itself only.
Stalin decided that the only way for the industrialization programme to succeed was if the government took full control. In other words, no roles to play for the private individuals but government would decided what should be produced and the way it should be. Including, how, when, where, what, prices of the product.
Stalin also modernised the agricultural sector through the establishment of collective farms. Peasants in a particular area would combine their individual plots of land together to form a collective farm. Their tools and animals had to be also be used collectively which means the peasants would have to work together, and share farm produced and sell a percentage of their crops to the government at low prices.
Stalin did not acknowledge the famines and did not ask for international aid to provide food for the starving millions when severe famines occurred.
Therefore, i felt that Stalin was not a good leader.
Kee Jiah Ching(7); 3Diligence
I think stalin is a capable leader who brought modernization to Russia. Before stalin came to power, Russia was a ‘peasants society’ and lagged far behind the West. Stalin’s programme of rapid industrialization achieved huge success and transformed Russia into an industrial state . before ww1 Russia had already become one of the leading economies in the world! Stalin also stressed a lot on heavy industries and because of this , Russia could keep herself militarily strong and she was able to defeat nazi germany in ww2 and that’s really a laudable contribution to the world!!! After ww2 , Russia became the superpower and it was the only nation that could confront USA!! The huge achievement of Russia in the 1900s reflected the effectiveness of stalin’s rule and that’s the best evidence to support that stalin was a good leader. Although stalin was a very murderous leader, his contribution to the Russian economy and military power still could not be denied!
ReplyDeleteQiu Zhiyu 3 Humility
"@ZhengWen: What we are talking about now is the bringing up of Russia's economy and how Stalin uses sly methods to achieve what he wants and to avoid the bad things, like killing of people. Look at George Bush, he brought up the economy well and kept it at a decent pace and look at America now, is it not one of the superpowers?"
ReplyDeleteGeorge Bush didn't brought up the economy.USA's economy already the largest since 1940s and it doesn't look like it is losing that position anytime soon.Also,America is a superpower along with Soviet Union(Russia) at the end of WW2[That's Cold War history for you]So,you saying that George Bush brought USA to the level of a superpower is utter crap.So get your facts right before shooting at random.
Lim Zheng Wen 3Respect
Stalin is a very successful leader while he was in control of communist Russia. Stalin had great ambitions to transform Russia into a modernized state which was to be economically independent. There are several reasons that led to the rise of the USSR. The centrally planned economy, three five year plans between 1928 and 1941, collectivisation and he regulated the ownership and distribution of land which means the peasants who worked on land were to become state employees. These reasons are grouped into three different groups: Economic impacts, Political impact and social impact.
ReplyDeleteFrom 1928-1932, Stalin emphasized mainly on heavy industries such as coal, iron and oil. High targets were not met but it had excellent results, there was increased employment rate and high production levels.
From 1933-1937, Stalin focused on heavy industries, emphasized mainly on infrastructure-roads, railways and canal networks. There were great results such as new roads, impressive buildings and a subway, the USSR was on par with many western countries by the 1940s.
However from 1938-1942, the productions were to cease with immediate effect as Germany invaded the USSR in 1941, all the resources were put in the war to be used. Through all these measures, USSR has improved on becoming economically independent.
Through collectivisation, surplus of food were to be taken by the government to be sold. Hours of work and the wages of farmers were to be determined by the state. This led to a fair distribution of earnings and work.
Propagandas, purges and labour camps were set up to 'brainwash' the Russians to support Stalin and to eliminate all ''enemies of the state''. This helped Stalin to become powerful with no one to oppose him and he was free to rule the state. The number of Labour camps increased during Stalin's rule and prisoners were used for industrial projects that would benefit the country.
Therefore, with all these supporting reasons, I conclude that Stalin is a great leader in the USSR.
Low Chuwen Fu(31) 3 Sincerity (H.I.H.S)
I agrees that Stalin is a great leader but he is definitely not a hero.Stalin is a cunning man and he tricked his rival,Trotsky by giving him the wrong date of Lenin's funeral.Stalin forced collectivisation of agriculture in Russia costing millions of people to die due to this while his rapid industralisation achieve success.The population of russia suffered during the Great Terror for which execution of 'enemies of the people' took place at the slave labour camp.Although his motive was to implement industralisation,does it mean that million of lives ought to be lost?
ReplyDeleteSweeny Nah(12) 3DIL
Disclaimer:sweeny cannot post on blogger so she wrote it down and i post it for her.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Stalin is a bad leader to a great extent. He is an overly-ambitious leader and has placed his wants above his people's needs. He has made unrealistic goals that has seriously affected his people, while leaving him unharmed. The aftermath of his unrealistic goals is the great famine, which has caused the deaths of 6-8 million people. It is a man-made famine, and it would not have happened if not for the fact that Stalin had not disregarded his people's lives.
ReplyDeleteHis mistakes and miscalculations has caused people around him to suffer. However, he did improve the quality of lives of some people, but with the price of 21 million people's lives.
Furthermore, he launched the Great Purge which although has benefitted him greatly, his people suffered and lived through fear and leads a tense life. Therefore he is a bad leader that disregards the well-being of his people.
Tiffany, 3 Diligence
Issabel H. A 3 Int.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of keeping a country up to date and under control, Stalin was a great leader. But in terms of providing necessitates to the people Stalin might as well have been deft, dumb, blind and mute.
The peasants all lived in fear for all that needed to be done was for someone to point at them and say something like, "He's anti-Stalin!" and they would be arrested till they admitted to anti-Stalin crimes they probably didn't commit at all.
Anything that Stalin didn't like to see, hear or think might exist was gotten rid off. And if anything that his secret police came across suggested disloyalty to the state, more people would be arrested and eventually executed or purged.
Stalin's collectivization was also not the most popular thing among farmers, and peasants had to worry about being denounced and called a 'kulak,' which they could be if the NKVD or anyone working under Stalin found they'd been keeping ’extra’ food of resources anywhere, even if they desperately needed it and had little left.
Even those working under Stalin were subject to purges and accusations.
At one point, Stalin sent out people to check and report to him the population levels in the country, and when the report came back to him telling of a lower rate than what he had hoped for, he had the people he sent out executed.
For all he knew, the low population was caused by his purges and executions.
The leader of the NKVD, Nikolai Tezhov, was also executed just like any other person. He had not actually done anything, and was denounced because Stalin and Nikolai's deputy wanted him replaced.
Stalin not only ignored his people, he also treated those working under him like parts in a machine, quite literally. If it doesn't work, or if you think it doesn't work as well as it should, you find fault and get rid of it for good and replace it with something else till that 'something else' needs to be replaced, etc.
But considering all this, I still feel that Stalin is a good leader.
He put Russia on par with other main powers and his five-year plans pushed production and employment rates higher. He was actually a smart guy in getting what he wanted, even though he was paranoid.
He got rid of scientist and leading who-so-evers to remove intellectuals from his way. Looking at it from the view of preventing smart people from questioning his rule, it worked, even though it left room for vulnerability. Without leading doctors/scientist/etc, in times when they are needed, for example when a cure for something was needed or for when new technology could be afforded, they could only be found either dead or half dead. The way Stalin removed his competitors were also smart moves, for it left him standing there as the only capable and authoritative figure.
Even though Stalin killed so many people, he did straighten things out in Russia. And from what history shows so far, it’s the evil people who seem to make the big differences, differences that are ironically useful.
P.S I know I’m over the time btw, but it didn’t work when I tried some time back.
@All:Some intellectuals ARE spared in the Great Purge.Some (too brillant to be killed)scientists and engineers were put in special camps[conditions were much better than the Gulags] and assigned to do research for the state.
ReplyDeleteLim Zheng Wen 3Respect
what makes a good leader? It’s someone who has a flexible leadership. In my opinion, I think that Stalin was a great leader to a certain extent as he had managed to transform Russia into a modern industrial and military power to balance with western capitalist countries. He also reduced the amount of unemployments .But though he had ruled Russia well, I think that stalin is a cruel and demanding leader.
ReplyDeleteStalin only cares about himself and do not consider on people’s welfare. He only wants people to have a good impression of him and therefore tricked his biggest rival, Trotsky into missing Lenin’s funeral by giving him the wrong date. And by this, he wanted to make use of this chance to show the Party members that Trotsky has a lack of respect for Lenin and stalin was the one organizing, being the chief mourner at the funeral. And also, he used his position as a secretary- general as a threat and people became loyal to him because it was he who appointed them with an important role. He used this good opportunity to organize a party meeting with his supporters, and they voted to remove Trotsky from his post.
Indeed, stalin modernize and develop the soviet union into a great country, by implanting two measures rapid industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. But, workers were displeased with the labour unrest and punishments were taken against them. worst still, it’s ridiculous when the farmers were forced to hand over their crops. This caused a shortage of foods, making people to search for food drastically.
In conclusion, people were unhappy the way he ruled Russia and therefore, stalin was not a good leader that everyone can look up to.
Orica Tan(17) 3 diligence
I agree that Stalin was a great leader as he generally improved the lives of people and brought the Russian economy on par with other western countries. Although those that opposed his plan were mostly killed or arrested, he did it as he did not was any disruptions to his plans. Still, although he killed over 20million people during the purge, getting rid of intelligent people, army generals, etc, he had only Russia in his mind and did not want any opposition in his way.
ReplyDeleteStalin had also imposed communism and this helped a lot of needy people as they will be able to live off someone else's income. Although Stalin was also partly the cause of the famine, in which many died of starvation, Stalin had machanized farms and helped production of supply to increase by many times.
I feel that the reason why Stalin had still remained in power is due to the fact that he had used propaganda to influence the minds of people. He was able to duduce the human mind and allow him to practically control them but not everyone. Stalin had organized secret police where they would kill those that try to counter him. This is what I feel is a good leader as he keeps his country unite and does not allow anyone to try and break this belief. Anyone that opposes would be killed.
A leader should be someone in which believes in what he says. Stalin believed that he could change Russia and he did! That is the amazing part of Stalin. He had managed to bring Russia under his country and straighten
out the flaws in Russia and for once in the country, people would actually think before rebelling against Stalin
Overall, I feel that Stalin is a good leader despite the manslaughter he had caused and the fear he had placed in people BUT he still managed to bring Russia up to par with the world and that is what matter the most! 20million lives compared to Russia's economy is NOTHING!
JoshuaHo(26)3Diligence
Oh Stalin! Do those innocent people really need to die? Let's face it! Even before he became the Great Ruler of USSR, he already committed mischiefs and shamful acts! Naming, lying about the funeral date of Lenin to Trotsky, he will of Lenin wasn't read out to the communist party members which may have actually jeopardize Stalin's chance of succeeding Lenin, and even using Kamenev & Zinoviev! Why would someone go to that extend? Was it because of power? Or was it because Stalin really wanted to lead the USSR into a new era? If he really wanted to, why do that knowing that its killing your very own people? This is considered a major "demerit" to whether he was a good leader, as he played "punk" to get himself to the top!
ReplyDeleteLet's look into the period during his era. Industrialization! Full employment! Collectivization! "Successful" Five-year plans! Education for all! Looking at all these that Stalin provided for the USSR, there isn't a single doubt that Stalin rule has actually made a positive impact on her. Hey, maybe this Stalin guy isn't so bad after all? However i must say, on the good side, you may want to consider Stalin as one of the best ruler in the history of Mankind... based economic wise. (thumbs up)
Based on ruling his population wise, i beg to defer! Labour camps? Intellectual purges? Resistance will lead to a death sentence? Where are the rights of the people? Where's all the democracy? Speaking of that, it actually links back to the definition of "Communism". It feels very contricting when it comes to this. What i dislike is Stalin's propaganda. Everybody has a mind on his/her own, who gives you the right to influence them? Furthermore, why result in killing people to advance? Let's give an example, the USA, a Capitalist country. Do they resort to massacres to get to where they are today? I'm not favoring Capitalist over Communism. Communism is able to be a very good method, however due to the selfishness and greed of mankind, i have yet to conclude any successful countries with Communism. To add on, USSR fell in 1991 and lost its communism. See what i mean? Okay back to story... So, control over people? I don't agree with what the Communist government did.
The point is Ladies and Gentlemen, we can keep going on and on debating on whether Stalin was a good leader or not. And its a good thing as Historians like you and me should evaluate. Emphasizing again, everybody has a mind on his/her own. If i disagree someone else will agree and vise virsa. But coming into a conclusion, I personally believe that Stalin brought more harm than good. The very fact that it has brought fear in many Russians during that time, and only a handful of them worshipping Stalin like a God. The feeling of fear is a horrible one, especially if you're feeling it everyday. Be glad that you are living in this country.
Marvin Yeo (42), 3 Respect
Sorry, made a little error. 4th Line = THE* will of Lenin. Thanks
ReplyDeleteI think that the best and most accomplished way to rule russia or BIG countries is through communism.
ReplyDeleteIf Russia was ruled through democracy, the margin between the number of rich and poor people would be significantly huge. That will eventually lead to dire consequenses such as theft, forgery, robbery & rioting throughout the nation.
On the other hand, If Russia were to be ruled by communism, such crimes would reduced since everyone gets the smae share of everything, and the margin between the rich and poor would close up. Although this may be unfair to the richer people, but it would not only benefit the society, it could also benefit the economy, law, civic and people throughout the nation.
I also think that communism can be further improved with the use meritocracy. The communist government can choose to reward certain hardworking people and punish the lazy by docking their pay.
Titus Lee (29) 3 Sincerity
I think that Stalin's rule in Russia is quite successful because he got he's main purpose. Although many villagers died of famine during collectivization, obviously he manage to show he's leadership and influence people in Russia. Stalin was so confident that collectivization will solve many problem, but in my opinion, he should not have done it. He sold food to foreign countries instead of even thinking about he's fellow countrymen suffering.
ReplyDelete-Jasmine Ong (10) 3Faith
I agreed with jasmine and I think Stalin is a good leader because he get what he wants and what he had planned but he used his power for the wrong things, like he manage to increase the production of coal,iron,steel and oil in Russia during the Great depression but people in Russia had to work for long hours with a low pay. Another example is he got food supply from farmers in the countryside cheaply and sell the foods to other country to earn money. Because of this , many farmers died because they did not want to sell their food as there were famine.
ReplyDelete-Ivan Law(24)3Faith
I agree with Ivan that Stalin is a good leader because in 1930s, propaganda was used to build up Stalin's image. Like a religious worship, a cult of Stalin was formed. Stalin was like a godlike leader to the people, praised in the newspapers, books and in films and posters. Poems published in Pravda praised his deeds, speeches exalting his skills, his modesty, his wisdom and his brilliance. People who attended these meetings were careful to applaud long and loudly, and the person who stopped first would most likely be arrested as it showed great disrespect and disloyalty to Stalin. This shows that Stalin is a good leader and is well respected.
ReplyDelete-Randall Gnoh (20) 3Faith
I think that Stalin is a good leader, because he made Russia into a major industrial & great economy power,people still respected him and all, like artists and writers, draw and write good things about him, no one dares to go against him, which proves that they cant do anything to him. And he also give everyone education opportunity and equal pay which people need in that time, so, it makes him a good leader,even though there were many random arrest.
ReplyDelete-Claire Chua (2) 3Peace
I don't think Stalin is a good leader at all. Yes,he did make contributions to let Russia modernize and turned into a major industrial. He was well respected because of all the propaganda he created of himself. Let's see...does a great leader needs all these propaganda to be well-respected?the obvious answer is no. Do leaders need to bring fear in order to be respected? Let's see..the Russians then feared Stalin because he would be able to do anything to them. If Stalin is feared because the people thinks that Stalin is doing good for the country then it would be a different matter.
ReplyDeleteEducation is the most important thing that make up our lives. Stalin went to change the education to suit him. If the history wasn't true, what is the point? Many Russians who study it before it was changed would knew that it has no effect. The history became PRO-Stalin. The facts were that "true" as ever?
Collectivisation is not the way to regulate food supply. The result of collectivisation is the death of many farmers and a severe famine.It goes to show that collectivisation did not work well.
In conclusion, I think that Stalin was not a good leader. He tried all ways and means to achieve his purpose and gain respect in terms of leadership..even till the extend of sacriicing lot's of innocent lives for his "GREAT PLANs".
-Lee Yi Hui(7)Sec 3 Faith
Stalin is a charismatic as he was able to influence people. But he abused his powers to spread his influence for the wrong purpose and controlled people to remove people he dislike.
ReplyDeleteKeeping a country under control isn't easy. Stalin did a really good job. But the methods he used was cruel. He had never spare a thought for his people, ignored them treated them as robots so that he could fulfilled his aim. Many people, especially workers, had suffered a lot due to the restrictions that were placed on them. Eg. All workers had to work seven days a week. This restriction is unfair because they could not have one day break despite working for long hours in bad working environment with low wages.
Also, Stalin wanted to force the farmers to be under his control. Many had die due to famine.
But at the end of the day, Stalin did achieved his aim. At least the people did not died in vain.
Serene Heng (4) 3Faith
I think that Stalin is an good leader, he knows how to control the committees, using his power. And he also uses this great opportunity to spread his influence so that more people will listen to him and respect him.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the farmers did not wanted to collectivise their farms, but Stalin had managed to force the farmers to hand over their crops.
He achieved his aim as he had a cheap and regular supply of crops.
Although things was achieved at a great human cost, but Stalin managed to make the Soviet Union an industrial power.
Tai Pei Wen (15) 3 Love
Stalin is considered a good leader only in terms of achieving his goals (5year plans).
ReplyDeleteMaking Russia one of the most industrialised nations in the world.
People worked for Stalin,so as to avoid punishment. Nearly ten millon farmers died.
People that were been seen as a threat to Stalin, would be killed or sent to labour camps.
A good leader should not only improve the state of the country but more importantly is to have the welfare at heart for the people.
Patricia Lim (9) 3Love
In my opinion, Stalin is a successful and good leader but however, he is a cunning and cruel person. He is able to lead and control the people in Russia well and no one dares to disobey him.
ReplyDeleteStalin changed Russia into a modern industrial and had machines for farming, increased in the goods. He made propaganda and gained respected and he had achieved his aims.
Stalin forced collectivization of agriculture to take place and caused famines to people in Russia and millions died.
Cheryl Foo(3) 3Love
I think that Stalin is a bad person even though he managed to turn Russia into a morden industrial,because in order for him to take over the position he wanted,he lied to Trotsky about date of the funeral.He made people thinks that Trotsky was evil that he did not attend the Lenin's funeral.The other leaders dislike Tortsky and agreed to work with Stalin in order to remove Trotsky from all his post.Stalin send people to kill trotsky.Stalin also killed millions of people.He does not care for other people and treat them like slave.He made peoples life hard.He made people to work for long hour but low paying.People also have to endure the food shortages.Stalin sold food to another countries inorder to raise the finances for his industries.Stalin get rid of those smart people just because he scared that his position will be taken over.
ReplyDeleteShang Jin(28) 3Peace