Evaluate the rule of Stalin in the Soviet Union, taking into consideration the changes made and the methods used. Refer to the DBQ 20 and the film Red Flag.
Today during A Block, we had a difficult time focusing on Stalin's leadership. However, some key points were raised. Marquis brought up the issues of collectivization and the death of millions of Kulaks. Donavan brought up the idea about Stalin making himself look like a king through the use of propaganda. the documents are key to understanding his leadership.
Stalin's leadership was not appropriate and made himself look like a king knowing that he wasn't. 4.5 to 7 million Kulaks died because of grain shortage. THe grain shortage was caused by Stalin because he took it away from them.
stalin was a bad leader, becouse he killed almost all of his comrads, just so that he could strike fear in the people of his country. hundrends of people died while excersizing his punishment. stalin forced the poeple who "defied" him to syberia, where they then had to work of of morsals of food. :)
Dhana, Good point about the number of Kulaks that died because of Stalin's actions of collectivization. Do you think his work in the area of industry must be conmsidered when thinking about his leadership?
During C Block, I was somewhat surprised that the class was so insensitive in regards to the idea of the Ukrainian "holocaust". I'm aware that many scholars might not consider Stalin's killing and starving of millions of Kulaks a "genocide" or a Holocaust. However, it's a bit sad that many today wrote it off as a nothing but an amusement on the screen. Red Flag is somewhat biased, but I think it gave a fair account of something many people have never heard about. There is the great irony of Stalin's rule. He killed millions of Kulaks and industrialized the country for Russians!
the regin of stalin was both suceesful and unsucessful. it was sucessful because he started the modern russia. he had workeres modernize every aspect of russia. althought the workers were some what upset about living conditions they loved what they did for there country. it was unsucessful however because of the failure of the colectivization. when he started this over 7 million people were killed by famine and the amout of live stock dropped rapidly causing famine thru out the peasants. alos the fact that he crushed the church and made people detest the religion they followed. also his reign was horrible because of the purges in which he forced people to admit there guilt or else he would kill there family even thou they were inocent.
I believe that Stalin should not have become the Man of the Year in 1939 because his whole life was a lie. All Stalin did was lie to a country to make himself a leader. Yes, he may have changed the industry I believe he was more like a dictator. I believe this beacause in document nine it talks about the way he got rid of his enemies by having them confess they were against him. he took advantage of illiterate people. I also believe that he used others to do his dirty work to make himself look good. Not only that but,he tried to stop a social class called the Kulaks by killing them. That is not what a good leader does.Seven million Kulaks died because of grain shortage which Stalin was responsible for.
Stalin had a very big impact on the way that people lived their lives. The way he treated people i thought was no right the people should be treated with more respect from their leader. For example in document #9 of the purges(trails) the changes that were made was that they tried to get rid of the Kulaks as a class meaning they all came together. The methods that they used were to give in to save their family members and others in hope of saving their own lives.
Today during C block we read several articals and watched part of a movie on Stalin's leadership. From these sources I have personally concluded that Stalin failed as a leader. We read that he eliminated private owned farms and made farming a collective job. This change made the agricultural production rate drop significantly. as a result of this shortage, many Russians starved to death. He also attempted to eliminate the Ukranian race. Stalin created propoganda making himself look like a king. Stalin gave the people a false out look on the way he wanted to run the country. He built them up and when he finally did put actions to his words, they had a negitive affect.
Stalling might have been man of the year in the Times but he wasnt someone that should be admired. He killed people just so everyone else would be afraid to disagee with him or go against him. the Kulaks that lived in the USSR were killed because of Stallin just because he didn't like them and he wanted their land. that doesnt sound, to me like someone who should be admired. In America during the time that Staling ruled America was in the Depression and some Americans liked Stalling because they thought that Communism would be better compared to the way that they were living.
I didn't like stalin because he was very bad at what he did. a lot of people died because of him. all he wanted was to put fear in the country. his punishment killed people too and that not right. some of his punishment was doing hard work. to me he seem more like a dictator than a man of the year. also he took advantage of illiterate people and he even made people do his dirty work to make him look good. another thing is, he tried to stop the kulaks by killing them. Seven million Kulaks died because of grain shortage which Stalin had everything to do with. also he tried to eliminated the ukraine race. another thing he did was created propoganda to make himself look like something he shouldn't be.
There are some comments that show general understanding here. I'm impressed by the conviction that most posters are showing against Stalin. Is there anybody out there that finds his work for the Soviet Union to be important and historically significant? i.e. the industry and economy of Russia?
I believe that Stalin's leadership was one that was not needed. His leadership was portrayed as a forceful way to get what he wanted. He created a genocide of many Kulaks bacause he was so angry that their means of production of grains was not efficent enough. No matter how angry you might be as a leader you should pick great decisions for the people and not means that go against them, such as killing them off and taking all they own.
I think Stalin was a person who never wanted to lose. Because in document 1 when he launched his 5 year plan he told the people that they should taken pride and not be beaten. Also in the movie you saw that Stalin killed many people just so that he could come in first.
You should be a psychologist! I don't think I've ever heard that analysis of Stalin's character. It would be interesting to know more about his biography and why he "never wants to lose".
The rule of Stalin in the Soviet Union was not the kind of rule that should be put into any type of perspective. The people who were killed under his reign weren't worth all of his effort. He decided to put the Purges in a situation of life or death and a good leader shouldn't do that. He made them give in to his plans, because he knew that they would to save their famalies and others. He was a bad leader and tried to cover it up by posting murals of himself in schools and around towns. This was supposed to make him look like a good person, but he just made himself look like a liar that covered up the truth. This is what Stalin is to me.
Stalin believed he was supposed to be a king of some sort. He really didn't deserve that kind of royalty. Then there was the kulaks massacre were 4.5 to 7 million died because of harvests were precipitously declining. Stalin's commisionors continued to confiscate grain.
In c block today we learned about stalins leader ship. i thought that he was not a good leader because of the methods that he used againced his people. He used his enimies and his comrads lives to stike fear into his people. He also used propaganda to make himself look like a king to his people or just as if he were really big and powerfull.
Stalin has affected these peoples lives tremendously. He has tried to put them down in every possible way. Stalin demands industries at a certain time frame, because he wants themto work harder. He wants the argiculture base of our economy changed. the Kulaks also stooped in to destroy the collectivization campiagn.some were put on trial because of some of Stalin's regime. Stalin made himself so powerful and big he thought he was king.To me Stalin is cruel and unjust and neede serious help, because he wouldnt have liked if all those things were done to him. -Phylicia Lilly
I believe that Stalin should not be Time magazine's man of the the year. Due to the simple fact that his past is shamed with horrible and injustice things that he has done to his peopleand the government in the Soviet Union. He is responsible for the big economy dip in livestock and the mass murder and genocide of the Kulaks (4.5 to 7 million killed). He is a horrible leader and i resent the fact that there was no one else better to make the man of the year
Stalin was a very bad leader. He would kill people just the make others feared of him. A persons life meant nothing to him. if you did anything out of line you were dead. He let millions of kulaks die and did int even care. He would kill people that liked him and did int even do anything wrong he was just a crazy and was a bad leader.
Stalin was a terrible leader due to his acts of violence and his misuse of promises. He promised the working class that they would be at the top of the pyrimad. yet, the bolchevicks reigned supreme because Stalin was their leader. Also, he caused a major grain shortage in Kulaks which killed 4.5 to 7 million citizens of U.S.S.R. The communist nation was supposed to remain equal and the government was supposed to help out, yet the workers worked twice as much as they used to and they were just as miserable.
I don't think that Stalin should have been Time Magazine's Man of the Year because he killed all of his comrades just to strike fear to the people of his country. He made himslef look like a King knowing that he wasn't. 4.5 to 7 million Kulaks died because of Grain Shortage. The grain shortage was caused by Stalin because he took it away from the people. The people who "defied" Stalin were sent to Siberia where they had to work for morsals of food and suffer the cold. I dont think that makes him a worthy to be named man of the year by Time Magazine.
stalin's leadership wasn't appropriate. he killed inocent people while trying to make Russia a better place in his eyes. He only cared for himself, and made it seem as if he was a king.
i personally believe that even though Stalin's leadership had its high points, he was over all a bad leader. Stalin lead the industrialization of russia but at what cost? the failure of the colectivization! the amout of live stock decreased drastically causing famine to travel througout the peasants. with out them who would do the work? all i know is that it wont be Stalin. another factor of leadership where he failed was when he lead the purges where he forced people to admit there guilt. he even lost alot of his friends and supporters to the purges.
Stalions leadership was not appropiate because he impacted the way people lived their lives. People should have more respect from their leaders. The changes he made were trying to get rid of the Kulaks as a class meaning they all came together. __KRISTINA__
In my opinion I believe that Stalin's leadership was bad. Stalin was a type of person that I think could have been a better leader than he actually was. There are things that Stalin did that do show me that he really wasn't a good leader or a good person. Stalin tried to get rid of all his friends and enemies. When a person tries to do that it shows me who they really are on the inside. He also had propaganda that made himself look more powerful that he probably was. By Stalin trying to make himself look more powerful it tells me that maybe he shouldn't be a leader if all he wants is power. Which is why I believe that he doesn't have good leadership.
i dont think that Stalin's leadership was not apporitate because he made himdself look like a king when he really wasn't. And making everyone believe that he was when again he wasn't.
29 comments:
Today during A Block, we had a difficult time focusing on Stalin's leadership. However, some key points were raised. Marquis brought up the issues of collectivization and the death of millions of Kulaks. Donavan brought up the idea about Stalin making himself look like a king through the use of propaganda. the documents are key to understanding his leadership.
Stalin's leadership was not appropriate and made himself look like a king knowing that he wasn't. 4.5 to 7 million Kulaks died because of grain shortage. THe grain shortage was caused by Stalin because he took it away from them.
stalin was a bad leader, becouse he killed almost all of his comrads, just so that he could strike fear in the people of his country. hundrends of people died while excersizing his punishment. stalin forced the poeple who "defied" him to syberia, where they then had to work of of morsals of food. :)
Dhana,
Good point about the number of Kulaks that died because of Stalin's actions of collectivization. Do you think his work in the area of industry must be conmsidered when thinking about his leadership?
Today during a block it was very hard. but people brought up some interesting thingz abot stallion
Tyshaun
During C Block, I was somewhat surprised that the class was so insensitive in regards to the idea of the Ukrainian "holocaust". I'm aware that many scholars might not consider Stalin's killing and starving of millions of Kulaks a "genocide" or a Holocaust. However, it's a bit sad that many today wrote it off as a nothing but an amusement on the screen. Red Flag is somewhat biased, but I think it gave a fair account of something many people have never heard about. There is the great irony of Stalin's rule. He killed millions of Kulaks and industrialized the country for Russians!
the regin of stalin was both suceesful and unsucessful. it was sucessful because he started the modern russia. he had workeres modernize every aspect of russia. althought the workers were some what upset about living conditions they loved what they did for there country. it was unsucessful however because of the failure of the colectivization. when he started this over 7 million people were killed by famine and the amout of live stock dropped rapidly causing famine thru out the peasants. alos the fact that he crushed the church and made people detest the religion they followed. also his reign was horrible because of the purges in which he forced people to admit there guilt or else he would kill there family even thou they were inocent.
I believe that Stalin should not have become the Man of the Year in 1939 because his whole life was a lie. All Stalin did was lie to a country to make himself a leader. Yes, he may have changed the industry I believe he was more like a dictator. I believe this beacause in document nine it talks about the way he got rid of his enemies by having them confess they were against him. he took advantage of illiterate people. I also believe that he used others to do his dirty work to make himself look good. Not only that but,he tried to stop a social class called the Kulaks by killing them. That is not what a good leader does.Seven million Kulaks died because of grain shortage which Stalin was responsible for.
Stalin had a very big impact on the way that people lived their lives. The way he treated people i thought was no right the people should be treated with more respect from their leader. For example in document #9 of the purges(trails) the changes that were made was that they tried to get rid of the Kulaks as a class meaning they all came together. The methods that they used were to give in to save their family members and others in hope of saving their own lives.
Today during C block we read several articals and watched part of a movie on Stalin's leadership. From these sources I have personally concluded that Stalin failed as a leader. We read that he eliminated private owned farms and made farming a collective job. This change made the agricultural production rate drop significantly. as a result of this shortage, many Russians starved to death. He also attempted to eliminate the Ukranian race. Stalin created propoganda making himself look like a king. Stalin gave the people a false out look on the way he wanted to run the country. He built them up and when he finally did put actions to his words, they had a negitive affect.
Stalling might have been man of the year in the Times but he wasnt someone that should be admired. He killed people just so everyone else would be afraid to disagee with him or go against him. the Kulaks that lived in the USSR were killed because of Stallin just because he didn't like them and he wanted their land. that doesnt sound, to me like someone who should be admired. In America during the time that Staling ruled America was in the Depression and some Americans liked Stalling because they thought that Communism would be better compared to the way that they were living.
I didn't like stalin because he was very bad at what he did. a lot of people died because of him. all he wanted was to put fear in the country. his punishment killed people too and that not right. some of his punishment was doing hard work. to me he seem more like a dictator than a man of the year. also he took advantage of illiterate people and he even made people do his dirty work to make him look good. another thing is, he tried to stop the kulaks by killing them. Seven million Kulaks died because of grain shortage which Stalin had everything to do with. also he tried to eliminated the ukraine race. another thing he did was created propoganda to make himself look like something he shouldn't be.
There are some comments that show general understanding here. I'm impressed by the conviction that most posters are showing against Stalin. Is there anybody out there that finds his work for the Soviet Union to be important and historically significant? i.e. the industry and economy of Russia?
I believe that Stalin's leadership was one that was not needed. His leadership was portrayed as a forceful way to get what he wanted. He created a genocide of many Kulaks bacause he was so angry that their means of production of grains was not efficent enough. No matter how angry you might be as a leader you should pick great decisions for the people and not means that go against them, such as killing them off and taking all they own.
I think Stalin was a person who never wanted to lose. Because in document 1 when he launched his 5 year plan he told the people that they should taken pride and not be beaten. Also in the movie you saw that Stalin killed many people just so that he could come in first.
Ashleigh,
You should be a psychologist! I don't think I've ever heard that analysis of Stalin's character. It would be interesting to know more about his biography and why he "never wants to lose".
The rule of Stalin in the Soviet Union was not the kind of rule that should be put into any type of perspective. The people who were killed under his reign weren't worth all of his effort. He decided to put the Purges in a situation of life or death and a good leader shouldn't do that. He made them give in to his plans, because he knew that they would to save their famalies and others. He was a bad leader and tried to cover it up by posting murals of himself in schools and around towns. This was supposed to make him look like a good person, but he just made himself look like a liar that covered up the truth.
This is what Stalin is to me.
Stalin believed he was supposed to be a king of some sort. He really didn't deserve that kind of royalty. Then there was the kulaks massacre were 4.5 to 7 million died because of harvests were precipitously declining. Stalin's commisionors continued to confiscate grain.
In c block today we learned about stalins leader ship. i thought that he was not a good leader because of the methods that he used againced his people. He used his enimies and his comrads lives to stike fear into his people. He also used propaganda to make himself look like a king to his people or just as if he were really big and powerfull.
Stalin has affected these peoples lives tremendously. He has tried to put them down in every possible way. Stalin demands industries at a certain time frame, because he wants themto work harder. He wants the argiculture base of our economy changed. the Kulaks also stooped in to destroy the collectivization campiagn.some were put on trial because of some of Stalin's regime. Stalin made himself so powerful and big he thought he was king.To me Stalin is cruel and unjust and neede serious help, because he wouldnt have liked if all those things were done to him.
-Phylicia Lilly
I believe that Stalin should not be Time magazine's man of the the year. Due to the simple fact that his past is shamed with horrible and injustice things that he has done to his peopleand the government in the Soviet Union. He is responsible for the big economy dip in livestock and the mass murder and genocide of the Kulaks (4.5 to 7 million killed). He is a horrible leader and i resent the fact that there was no one else better to make the man of the year
davon c
Stalin was a very bad leader. He would kill people just the make others feared of him. A persons life meant nothing to him. if you did anything out of line you were dead. He let millions of kulaks die and did int even care. He would kill people that liked him and did int even do anything wrong he was just a crazy and was a bad leader.
Stalin was a terrible leader due to his acts of violence and his misuse of promises. He promised the working class that they would be at the top of the pyrimad. yet, the bolchevicks reigned supreme because Stalin was their leader. Also, he caused a major grain shortage in Kulaks which killed 4.5 to 7 million citizens of U.S.S.R. The communist nation was supposed to remain equal and the government was supposed to help out, yet the workers worked twice as much as they used to and they were just as miserable.
I don't think that Stalin should have been Time Magazine's Man of the Year because he killed all of his comrades just to strike fear to the people of his country. He made himslef look like a King knowing that he wasn't. 4.5 to 7 million Kulaks died because of Grain Shortage. The grain shortage was caused by Stalin because he took it away from the people. The people who "defied" Stalin were sent to Siberia where they had to work for morsals of food and suffer the cold. I dont think that makes him a worthy to be named man of the year by Time Magazine.
stalin's leadership wasn't appropriate. he killed inocent people while trying to make Russia a better place in his eyes. He only cared for himself, and made it seem as if he was a king.
Jeremy C
i personally believe that even though Stalin's leadership had its high points, he was over all a bad leader. Stalin lead the industrialization of russia but at what cost? the failure of the colectivization! the amout of live stock decreased drastically causing famine to travel througout the peasants. with out them who would do the work? all i know is that it wont be Stalin. another factor of leadership where he failed was when he lead the purges where he forced people to admit there guilt. he even lost alot of his friends and supporters to the purges.
Stalions leadership was not appropiate because he impacted the way people lived their lives. People should have more respect from their leaders. The changes he made were trying to get rid of the Kulaks as a class meaning they all came together.
__KRISTINA__
In my opinion I believe that Stalin's leadership was bad. Stalin was a type of person that I think could have been a better leader than he actually was. There are things that Stalin did that do show me that he really wasn't a good leader or a good person. Stalin tried to get rid of all his friends and enemies. When a person tries to do that it shows me who they really are on the inside. He also had propaganda that made himself look more powerful that he probably was. By Stalin trying to make himself look more powerful it tells me that maybe he shouldn't be a leader if all he wants is power. Which is why I believe that he doesn't have good leadership.
i dont think that Stalin's leadership was not apporitate because he made himdself look like a king when he really wasn't. And making everyone believe that he was when again he wasn't.
Post a Comment