Stalin a good leader?
Making a powerpoint about Stalin and how he was a good leader and keep finding how he killed abunch of people but not how he was a good leader. thanks!
- 7 years agoFavorite Answer
Stalin - he was an iron fist, a proud man who led his people with honesty. He used his power to help his people, giving equal amounts of resources to every person. He also made many plans to improve the economy, making it more efficient. This led it to become a superpower by the end of WW2. The Soviet Union was a relatively new nation compared to the old British Empire who stole from countries and did inhuman things such as slavery. The Soviet Union was formed in the 1922, and soon after in 1944 was the 2nd strongest nation in the world. This was all due to Stalin.
Joseph Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1928-1953. Stalin was a dictator but under him The Soviet Union developed from a backward country to a world power. Stalin had many achievements during his reign, like the industrialization of Russia, which turned it in a much more modern and developed country, and the creating of loads of jobs. But people also suffered under Stalin. Many were taken into labor camps, famine broke out, and under Stalin a time known as the Terror came up.
The greatest achievement of Stalin's policies was the industrialization of Russia. In order to industrialize Russia, Stalin had to provide the towns and workers with food. Since the peasants were unwilling to sell extra grain because they wanted higher prices Stalin had to find a solution for ensuring a good food supply. Therefore he came up with the idea of collectivization. This was that in selected areas peasants had to join their small farms together and form larger farms. These "collectives" were sometimes as big as a village, some even included schools and hospitals, and had to provide a fixed amount of food to the government. What was left over could be shared out between the farm workers. Obviously small farmers liked this idea of joining large collective farms; they had only little to lose. However, the kulaks, the richer peasants, rejected it. They rather burned their crops and killed their animals, than hand them over to the Communists. That caused a fall in food production and famine in which millions died broke out. After the farmers were allowed a bit of private land the situation became more relaxed. By the middle of the 1930's there was just enough food for everybody. So, at the beginning the results of collectivization were absolutely bad. On the one hand because of the famine on the other hand because of the millions of peasants that were killed because they rejected collectivization. But Stalin finally got control of the countryside and made sure a secure food supply for his industrialization and avoided the big Depression Europe had to face.
If I had to order the list of the Soviet Union leaders in ranking, Stalin would be no.2, and Lenin no.1.
- 7 years ago
No he wasn't. Soviet Russia had to industrialize out of necessity or die by the Nazi's hand. It really didn't matter who was the leader. Actually, Stalin's Purges almost cost the USSR WWII by depleting the officer corps and most of the intellectuals of the Soviet Union. After his death, any and all traces of his regime where erased from the Soviet Union by Nikita Kruschev. This act is called "Destalinization".
He also couldn't find a way to actually feed his people. His farming policies before the war failed horribly. His foreign policies also secluded the USSR from the west. The USSR was a hated country before the war and the only reason they where part of the Allies was the fact they all where fighting a greater enemy which was Nazi Germany. During the war, he insituted some of the most barbaric military policies of the 20th century. He ordered that retreating soldiers where to be shot and when the hole army had to retreat, he had whole towns burned down in a policy known as scorched earth.
True that the Germany Army caused a lot of destruction in Russia but the Russians caused just as much on themselves on the orders of Stalin. Stalin by no means was a good leader, he just won the war, so he has the illusion he was.
- eldots53Lv 77 years ago
Depends what you consider to constitute a 'good' leader. Michael is correct that he helped modernize and industrialize Russia, though the way in which he did it was pretty brutal, and it's not only the kulaks that paid the price. Let's just say that there was a reason that the Ukrainians initially welcomed the Germans as liberators...and let's not forget that the control that Stalin exercised over the flow of information in the country kept the people at large from being aware of the nature of all of what he had done, and how ineffective his collective farms were at producing what was needed. Stalin's purge of generals didn't help matters much in the war, either. He managed to save industrial production from being destroyed by requiring that factories dismantle and relocate. That was good. But he allowed himself to be diddled by Hitler, and he was careless about the lives of his people in war. Simply because the people were not allowed to know the truth until much later does not change the fact that he was more interested in serving himself and his cronies than the people.
- 7 years ago
He turned Russia into a modern industrial nationand turned it inot a super power. Much of stalin's purges centered on the wealthy and elite of russian society so in that respect while he was a ruthless murderer he was also a great equalizer in russian society. He brought down vast landowners who were operating in asystem similar to the American south and the share croppers that were kept in poverty by the system. These landowners were called Kulaks. Stalins policies regarding economics were greatly beneficial to the russian nation and soviet republics in that he was able to capitalize on the huge amount of natural resources located within the USSR and to make sure that the entire nation benefited from them and not just the rich. He also was the reason that Gemany lost WWII. He was a strong leader when it was required to save his nation from destruction. People wept with sadness when he died and didn't celebrate in the streets. I think that that on the whole speaks to the kind of leader he was.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 7 years ago
Depends for who...