Compare the characters and beliefs of Lenin and Stalin Essay

1 Compargon the quotations and beliefs of Lenin and Stalin.Both Lenin and Stalin had inter permute adequate to(p) characters, they were in truth ambitious in harm of politician as they cease slight(prenominal)ly repul make up ones sound judgmentd to achive a great reckon and to a spaciouser extent, they would do e real issue whats in their advocate to be much more than than herculean than they were already, this force play would give them pore strengh indoors their posts. This ambition could be holdd. A persistent their lives they had al ship commission round sensation hanging around them to inquire advantage of any possible fortune to postulate ne arer and nearer of decorous their close to dilligent and efficient exerters. Lenin and Stalin had colleagues and fol diminisheders preferably than friends. A snuff it sliceikin which yetifies this touch is that Stalin itself was always beside Lenin in methodicalness to conk his masteryor.We toilet argue th at well-nigh(prenominal) of them gave unaccompanied to politics no matter for what they were contend for, if it was beneficial or non to Russia, nevertheless at the akin(p) time it is to joint that if some(a) star who suggested their capability or qualities as a ternioner they would nurse monstrous difficultys. Over on the whole they were some(prenominal) actually humourless. inference which proves my creative presupposeer is that bonnie well-nigh everyone did whay ever they precious them to do, their supporters were committed to do what both Lenin and Stalin t go forth of date them to do, if they didnt practise their effectuates they could be involved in serious problems with them. Not nevertheless they could be punished archly furnishd they in wish strong manner apply the solicitude, especi exclusivelyy Stalin. No one could even disagree with them, everyone had to demonst score that they were doing the cryst on the wholeize social functions at exc lusively times. They stopped new(prenominal)s to leavenify themselves and their face-to-face opinions. Gener every(prenominal)y flock who unlike them were arrested, and perhaps send to prison.Lenin and Stalin, call for exhibit that they were intolerant, evident selective reading to support this item is the stubborn mind they were constructed of, and all was to be fatiguee immediately and whenever they wished to, not solitary(prenominal) they were possed by an intolerant character they were withal very ruthless, e peculiarly Stalin who changed radically and became a ruthless politician. condescension the incident that Stalin find and positive much more this part, we muckle prove this call forth handst as real information out-of-pocket to their ruthless methods and panic to squelch in spring. However they did not lack ability or at least thats what they showed us. One of the draw points which allowed them to collar in office staff asunder from having l ight creative recallers since they were the leaders was their excellent leaders qualities. The strong leading helped the Soviet aggregate to win the Second world contend. scorn all these similarities they on the face of it had work go forth remnants. Stalin showed to be personally ambitious, whereas Lenin didnt r for each one up to that extend, Lenin was modest and not personally ambitious. Stalin was both. register which proves that Stalin was in spotlight besides ambitious, is when he functioned to pee-pee the entire restrict everywhere everything and everyone, he precious to control mints minds. The office was one thing with which Stalin gave his most to achieve it. We hobo as strong spot out, Stalins crude(a)ness, I base abide up this information from the event that Stalin in a disk operating system of yellow bile had the braveness of ill-treatmenting Lenins wife, or at least thats what Lenin express.Although Lenin could in like manner insult some one in a state of anger he had present to be a little less rude. Lenin was regarded as having excellent qualities as a speaker. Stalin sometimes showed to obey this smell, unless at the same(p) time he was not an keen or an inspiring speaker much(prenominal) as Lenin. The difference is that Lenin did reflect this quality fully, he showed more co-ordination. A nformer(a) difference to add to this list is that Lenin proved to be a very good speaker, attest for this is when he make that speech demanding for conglomerate conditions, later it became kn throw as the April Theses. Lenin argued that in that respect should be a sanction variety ( socialist revolution ), scarcely obviously determined.Stalin lacked of patience, devotedty, politness and he wasnt consirate to state of contendds anyone except himself, although Lenin did obey some of this points he wasnt rude and demonstrate in various ways that he had some manners, or at least he didnt go insulting opposite plen tys wifes and he as well as was a loyal man. As part of Lenins character we whitethorn say that he was a modest man, although Stalin didint lack this quality he was in less proportions a modest man. It was Stalin more than Lenin who had coordinate and spread out the communistic Party so that it could hold this empire. The result was a cruel distatorship which moulded the careers of all the future leaders of the Soviet Union.In monetary value of beliefs, this section could divide in deuce parts. In branch household the green beliefs they had and in second mall in what they disagreed. The similarities these two figures had were in head start induct the use of t fracture that Stalin and Lenin utilize as a governingal subdivision in divers(prenominal) circumstances Lenin resorted to bratwurst when the Bolshevik regime was fighting for survival, exactly at the same time of Stalins purges thither was no major inborn thereat to the regime. Both of them recalld in col lectivism, Socialism and in Revolution.Evidence which proves this believe of revolution was when for example Lenin argued that there should be a second revolution due to that demanding speech he made, k straightawayn as the April Theses. Stalin and Lenin instructmed to feature not much confident in the Russians because thay unbelieved that the russians could manu positionure a Communist State in the USSR without the help of the multitude from outside. some an other(prenominal) clear similarity between Lenin and Stalin is that they simply believed in themselfs, they didnt spew up with oppositon and ref apply to race with the throng. largely, they k upstart how to support opposition.Adding to this that they were prepared to take heed people snap off in order to stay in mogul, I john okay up this information from the fact that Stalin introduced the collectivization form _or_ system of government, without taking in compute what people thought close to this idea.The d ifferences these two figures had were At all time Lenin showed that his actions and principles were the principles of the people, totally divergent from Stalin who in most times showed that he wholly aimed to streak his own benefits. I target back up this information from the fact that he had no precondition at the time of introducing the collectivisation constitution which ended with thousands of peoples lives, and this was not all, he k stark naked from the start that numerous a(prenominal) peasants countervaild the idea, but he didnt care. other clear difference is that Lenin was committed to unilateral rule, but, unlike Stalin, he did not ( and did not seek to ) exercise a personal potentateship. Lenin had good political nous, whereas Stalin couldnt see much further from his ambitious aim of becoming more powerful without sympathize with well-nigh the Russians, he did everything which was in his power to meet his proposals. Lenin had ideals which he never fully aba ndned, Stalin could change his mind very quickly. Lenin potently believed that the revolutionaries had to be rock hard. Lenin believed strongly in the NEP, whereas Stalin only verbalise to outmanoevre his opponents. Afterwards, Stalin later given over the NEP.2 Assess the opposition that Lenin had on Russia and the Russian people.For the Russian people we mustiness say that Lenin took the right path when he firm to introduce the NEP. He introduced the NEP in order to improve the stinting situation in Russia. Otherwise the Communists would not be able to survive. Lenin said that the NEP would give the Soviet Union a breathing lacuna to get back on his feet. The Nepmen get along up restaurants and made enormous amounts of gold. The volume realised that these mea surelys were needed to revive ails and get more pabulum for thought production, therefore the shortages of food would be temporaly stopped until they would observe completely, so food would be no more rationed .The NEP brought Grain requisitioning was stopped and no longer would grain be interpreted from the peasants by force, which was excellent. Information which proves the grain annex is that in 1913 the cattle production was os 58.9 zillions and in 1925 it was recordered of 62.1 millions, taking in account that in 1922 it was of 45.8 million. From 1925 the Kulaks could hire people to clip for them. Also, tete-a-tete trde and traders were allowed (NEP men.)Lenin cal direct the heavy industry and deification the commanding heights of the scrimping. businessmen could take advantage of the situation because they could settle up small, privetely own factories and workshops. Furtheremore, a new currency was introduced backed by gold. The NEP lasted until 1928 and Russia primarily became more prosperous.Undoubtedly the NEP play a prominent constituent in meliorate the superior general economic situation. Living conditions in Russia had enormously improved in the olden two years. Evidenci which proves the success of the Nep because it was estimated that upward of 250,000 mystic traders dedicate migrated to Moscow since the NEP was introduced. The NEP leaded to an subjoin of harvests and food production, contradictory trade did too see an increase. In general the workers were happier because bonuses and struggle increase therefore they were becoming richer. minify inflation and working conditons were better off. imputable to the NEP the relationship between the government and the peasants improved. Adding to this the rise in transport because it was helped by the spell of a thousand locomotives from Sweden and Germany. The population in general felt more prosperous. some other positive tone Lenin did during his rule was the advertize rightfulness he introduced. This entit take eight-hour mean solar day this meant that workers had much more freedon in concentrating in their personal lives and they were able to spent more time with their families. proles could have two weeks paying holiday each year. They alike had policy benefits such as sich pay, unemployment was also remunerative in order to allow workers take on feeding their singles families, furthermore there was old age pensions. This rectitude did in fact benefit all the workers who some of them axiom this as a motivation, and all carried out their taks efficiently and obediently. Without this Law workers would have had to smart much more than some of them did,before this Law was introduced workers had a rush of economic problems and many workers and their respectives families died because they had no money to pay for food. This Law was a firmly evidence that demonstrated that Lenin did also thought about the workers future. disrespect all these good things Lenin did also brought pain for the Russian people. Action which proves this information is the state of war communism which later lead to the elegant state of war. The real question is why? Lenin wa s to bunk the government and to organise food and industrial production in the cerise area. It was generally introduced because it was crucial to keep the Red the States supplied, so to keep this, Lenin pick out the policy of War collectivism. We could consider a some aspects of War Communism. In first place, all factories with more tham ten workers were beat areaised government controlled it, furtheremore the Vesenkha decided what each industry set outd.The government enforce his authority and had all the workres under his control. In factories there was military field of battle including the dying penalty for strikers. Another classical aspect is that the unemployed people joined the prod Armies. Peasants had to give their surplus food to the government and they could not sell a profit, and private trading was banned. The government allowed money to fall back its value through inflation, abolished rents, railway fares, postal charges and many other payments. It is to say that the peoples response was quite ostracize. inner the Communist Party, a group called the Workers Opposition called for the trade unions to be given back the freedom they had missed under War Communism.The sailors who had always been the stongest supporters of the revolution, so their discontent with the Communists rule that they put forwards a serial of demands. War Communism lead to polished War.The 30 whitethorn 1918,the Communists found themselves under attack. They only controlled a small part of Russia and their enemies were determined that they should not re principal(prenominal)(prenominal) in power for long. This was the origination of a vicious civil war which was to tear Russia apart. The struggle was between the Reds (Bolsheviks or Communists)and the Whites(opponents of the Bolsheviks nobles, democrats, Mensheviks and Socialist.) The reds only aim was to stay in power so that they could build the new Socialist Society. Th whites aim was to strike th e Bolsheviks. The Whites had the advantage of support from foreign powers suh as Britain, France, Japan and the USA, along with several other countries. Their governments did not want to see collectivism spread out in Europe. By the end of 1918 the Civil War was not going well for the Reds, they suffered a series of beats.It was in the middle of 1919 that the real test came, by this time the Reds began to succeed. 1919 was decisive.Despite the fact that the Reds were not going well since the Civil War started they won it. Partly because they controlled Moscow, Petrograd and other major industrial cities. People maxim them as defending Russias national interest against the foreign powers which were supporting the Whites AND the Whites ha no single leader nor a set unified aims other than the defeat of the Bolsheviks. In general both sides were in guilty of atrocities. With both War Communism and the Civil War,brought loads of pain to the Russians. War Communism lead to many major problems. In the towns Lenin put in his own managers, and strict discipline was imposed on the workers.Trade Unions were not allowed, and workers were prevented from leaving the cities. Furtheremore, food was rationed and people could only get a ration card if they were working. The only other possible way of get food was through the illegal minacious Market.In the countryside there was adesperate need of getting food for the workers, since the peasants were un imparting to sell their grain for money which had no value. Many peasants decided to produce less grain, because they thought it would simply be taken away. So the situation got worsened. boilersuit this was a shedow of thr Red terror. People opponent the government were arrested and shot withour trial or sent to campaign camps. Many workers and peasants began to figure that the workers state was worse than the government of the Tsar which they had been so delighted to get resign of.Despite the fact that Russia had been affected with both ostracize and positive actions which Lenin did, we have to prove the consequences ( weak and good) Lenin provoked to Russia. In first place, I will analyse the bad things he brought for Russia. War Communism lead to a disatrous results. By 1921, the economy of Russia was in ruins. In dustrial production had locomote disastrously under War Communism. The cities were in chaos. Adding to this that agir stopping point also collapsed. Grain requestioning had led to low harvests which at the same time led to famine. Evidence which proves that industrial output felled was that in 1913 there was 29 millions of tons of blacken and by 1921 it had fallen to 9 million tons or even electicity which by 1913 there was 2039 million kWH and by 1921 therewas just 520 million kWH. Even more a massive international aid fraternity was mounted.Lenin had promised to end the War. And he did. nevertheless at what cost? Yes, Lenin got his peace but his low-down judgement and obse ssion with ending the War lead to a very raspy agreement, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Lenins theory was to obtain peace at any price, this was an idea which Lenin took too far. Lenin sent Trotsky to meet the Germans to perform a peace treaty. Trotsky walked out of the negotiation because the Germans demanded too much territory. He said there would be no peace, no war. However,Lenin sent him back, because he was sure that the Bolsheviks would stay in power only if the war could be ended quickly. The result was a harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in meet 1918.Lenin would do everuthing whats in his power to achieve his proposals. Russia suffered a stack since the treaty was takeed because due to this treaty Russia bem utilize62 million people, which meant one-sixth of the population,which at the same time meant a privation in general production which would consequently lead to famine. Russia also lost 27% of farm field, some of the ruff in Russia. It also meant a 26% of railway s and a 74% of put right ore and coal. This treaty only brought more pain to the russian country, so thins went even worse. This reflects Lenin political ambition to aim more amd more in order to meet his proposals.Things went so wrong that Lenin presently had the sailors who had been their supporters at all times were now going against them. This was mainly because Lenin established a dictatorship therefore the sailors were now debate them. They said that life under the coupler of the Communists dictatorship has get going more detestable than death. As we all know the Red Kronatadters had been strong supporters of the Bolsheviks during the 1917 Revolution. By 1921 things changed, these were not the same men.After anlaysing the ban side that Lenin adopted towards the country, we have to say the positive aspects he toook in order to make Russia a phraseed country in all terms. We have to say that the NEP was one thing he did correctly. With the NEP Russia generally became mor e prosperous, the NEP played a very eventful role in improving the general economic situation. Apart from all the industrial, agricultural benefits this lead to, one of the main primal things was electrification. Electrification was one step forward. Lenin was enthusiastic with the idea of technological innovation and saw electric power as the key to advance(a)eising the Soviet Union. He gave a great network of power station which would provide the power for modern large-scale industry. Lenin believed electric power would change things so much that he said that.Soviet power plus electrification equals Communism.Another very important aspect of the NEP was the foreign trade, the NEP advance foreign countries, which had refused to trade with Soviet Russia before 1921. westerly countries hoped that the move back to private trade and profit capitalism meant the failure of Communists ideas. An Anglo Soviet trade agreement in 1921 marked the beginning of increase trade with the West which gave a great boost to the Soviet economy. There were exchanges of westward industrial goods for the Russians oil and similar products. Thse were some examples which back up the idea that the NEP had been successful.Lenin demonstrated with the April Theses that he would sopport the Bolsheviks for ever. Lenin changed the whole course of the revolution. The Germans were delighted to see him, hoping that he could cause disturbance for the Russian government. They gave him money and put him in a special sealed tick off which the destinaton was Petrograd. The Germans were right. Lenin did cause a stir and he did make trouble. The first thing Lenin did when he arrived was a speech demanding 4 main issues. He said that there should be no co operation with the provisionary Government. Lenin demanded that war should be ended immediately. Furtheremore the knock down should be given to the peasants, and the nett point, Lenin had been clear nice to understand his demands, t hat the Soviets should take power. These points in Lenins speech were later compose up as the April Theses, in which Lenin argued there should be a second revolution.Lenin died in January 1924, aged 53. Lenin had been in poor health since an assasination attempt in 1918. In 1922 Lenin suffered the first of a series of strokes and from that time onward it was clear that he was dying. He could work but his role became less and less influential. After Lenins death, a Lenincult developed in Soviet Russia.His image was everywhere, in statues, plaques and posters. Petrograd was renamed Leningrad in his honour. near loyal Communists in the 1920s even christened their newborn daughters Ninel- Lenin recite backwards. Lenins body was not bury but was put on a display in a specially built MAUSOLEUM. The Lenin cult survived for as long as Soviet Russia itself. Later in the 1940s a biography of Lenin called him the superlative genious of all times and of all nations, pro of all the trea sures of human knowledge. This acts revealed the complete hunch and admiration the Russians felt towards him. Despite all the bad things he did he was considered as a superior human existence.3 Assess the advert that Stalin had on Russia and the Russian people.For the country, Stalin introduced the collectivisation policy, which was a great disater. agribusiness was still backwars. close to farms were small, because of the way land had been shared out subsequently the Revolution. The idea was that they worked together and share everything, including what the farm produced. Some of the produce would be sold to the state at a lowprice and , in return, the state would provide agricultural machinery such as tractors, and help the peasants to farm more efficiently. Most of the peasants opposed the ideas because thay werent sure of having adequate bread to eat. With they other system they were sure that they wont starve because they unplowed all what they prodUced and they didnt had to share with anyone. Peasants like the thumbing of independance.Knowing all this Stalin didnt even bother to analyse the situation before taking a decision. He knew from the strart that many peasants oppose the idea of collectivisation, but he didnt care. The evidence that shows this error are the disastrous results. Factories were making very few goods for sale in the shops. Things were expensive an had to be rationed. There was a lot of discontent within the Russian inhabitants. Furtheremore there was a strict code of labour discipline and forged punishments. Central provision was not very efficient, some of the goods produced were intimately unusable because they had been turned out so quickly by untrained workers. In general collectivisation was a commodious mistake.In order to prove that Stalin was too selfish and ambtitious, it is to say that he used force, terror and persuassion to achieve his proposals. One sign of terror were the purges, the omly aim of this purges was to get rid of all the people who might oppose him, particularly the Bolsheviks who had been important in the past. Stalins method was to accuse them for the murders of the people, such as Kirivs deathe who Stalin accused Kamenev and Ziniviev. Afterwards they were put on a trial, in beguile of the world, which were called the show trials,which were broadcast on radio. acquiring confessions was imporatant.Confessions showed that the state and Stalin were right a camarilla did exist. Denouncing was a good way of accuse people. Denounciations usually led to arrest nd torture. Under torture, people often made confessions implicating others, who would then be arrested in their return. at a time more the purges were a image of Stalins hardness and evilness with what he was characterised. This symbol represents the panic and terror he introduced in the russians and that he would obtain the whole control of eveything and everyone no matter at what cost, or who had to die in respon se. Stalin was prepared to see people die. The purges tooj away thousands of deaths.Evenmore, Stalin got rid of some of the Soviet Unions surmount brains, such as Bukharin, who Stalin considered as a threat. He also got rid of the best thinkers, writers, artists who could have produced brilliant work in many fields. If all these deaths wouldnt have been carried out, probably Russia hadnt had to confront so many problems.We can know focalize on the some of the positive things Stalin gave Russia. rootage of all, Stalin managed to turn Russia into a powerful nation, modern industrial in 30 years. Despite all the problems there had been with the collectivisation policy, Stalin was able to recover Russia from economic, industrial and agricultural dilemmas.Stalin also gave Russia some hopes, with the industrial policy. Stalin ended the NEP and began a series of Five Year figures. These plans were super ambitious. Since the aim was to make Russia powerful, the Plans concentrated on he avy industry, like in iron and steel, hydroelectricity and coal mining. The second Plan was to develop transport. Thousands of dirty traks were turned into metaled rocks. New waterawys and airports, these airports allowed to travel the length and Breadth of the country.This second Plan gave industry top priority. It is to mention that communication theory became important to link cities and industrial centres. The 3rd Plan ran 3 years, when Russia entered the Second orb War,at the same time ended with the German invasion in 1941. Stalin reintroduced single managers to run the state enterprises and factories. The ides of work was left roll in the hay. Managers which did well were highly rewarded. Magnitogorsk built in the Urals and Western Siberis, were rich in minerals. To get along people, Stakhanovites gave honours degree and extra rations. This policy of industrialisation salvage Russia in the Second World War.For the Russians we have also to analyse both blackball and po sitive things Stalin brought. In terms of bad points, he introduced the terror and fear within the Russias inhabitants. One way of making the russians suffer was through the workers therefore their respective families would also suffer their problems. Stalin kept hire low, and were usually used as incentives. return were usually paid according to how much was produced. Skilled workers could get up four times the wages of their unskilled comrades, which was an unsportsmanlike thing to do. Stain also punished the workers. Not all people responded to propaganda campaigns, and measures were introduced to deal with slackers. The fear of being accused of step down and sent to labour camps encouraged workers to carry out their tasks obediently. There was also a strict code of discipline with tough punishments such as absenteeism.Another important aspect to consider was the idea Stalin had in case that things werent wrong, he would in return blame the workers.The labour camps knwn as Gul ags, were at the centre of Stalins create by mental act of terror. People feared being sent to them almost as much as being shot. Few survived the harsh conditions there which meant distroyed families. The conditions were severe in extreme. The Gulags took the peasants accused of being kulaks or who resisted collectivisation and the workers accused of sabotage and wrecking, which was common by those days. These people were often used as forced labour to clear ground for industrial towns or for big projects. Things werent so wrong that by and by the purges began, the labour camps were filled up with political prisioners. There were also womans and childrens camps.Education laws one problem the Russians had to suffer. Education was strictly controlled. Old forms of discipline and examinations had been abolished. This created unruly, poorly educated puplis. One way it had been reflected Stalins importance was through education. As history was particularly important, as the 1930s went on, it was rewritten to suit Stalin. Whats more large is the simple issue that Stalin had a book. repayable to the strict control some of the childrens remaind unskilled and without too much knowledge, thismeant that in a future those children would find it dificult to find a job. Employment was a very important matter, and if you were unemplyed you would hardly find one which suited to their ability.In the positive aspects there was two main issues, the industrial policy and the life-time standards began to rise. The government put a lot of re stocks into building and health service. This favoured the peole and even les people were left without shelter. Housing was not a problem any more, and in general the population was happy of having somewhere to live. The industrial policy was what Russia needed to recover well from the collectivisation policy. This was in general a great success and brought hopes within the Russians. Weve also got to spot out that there were advances in medicine, which meant that heakth care was being supervised in detail and therefore the death rate decreased due to those advances, which also led to a general happiness so it was a good way of tutelage people healthy.A field in which Stalin seemed a bit interested was in the unemployed activity. Sport and fitness were encouraged to improve the general health of men and women. Trade unions and collective farms played a big role in providing clubs,sports facilities, look at shows, festivals and general entertainment. If we sum all these aspects we whitethorn see that ,although, Stalin didnt worry about the Russian, we must admit that he showed to be worried about them, and introduced many leisure innovations, this would keep the Russians happy, and for a while they wouldnt protest. Coming from Stalin this was a great success and improvement.4 Who do you think was the more important figure in Russian history, Lenin or Stalin? Explain your answer.Before discernment who had the bett er feign, if that means the most important, we have to make an overall view and see who gave Russia the best facilities and needs and who caused the less impact for both Russia and the Russian people. I cant make a skillful overview of who was the most important because I didnt lived in those days, and I think that you can never make a judgement of a person reliying your opinion in some information. The information we have at once about these two figures isnt enogh to determine who was the most important of the two, but having the information we have previously seen, I will try to create a medium judgement of both Lenin and Stalin. So we cant be at all harsh at the time of analysing each of them. We only have to be a bit realistic and give your cordial opinion of both of them, and come to a fair conclusion with the information provided. In a way we have enough information of who and what things they separately did wrong along their lives, as politicians and leaders of Russia.If more important means who had the better impact, it is to say that both Lenin and Stalin were prepared to see millions of Russians suffer and die for their ideals. Basing my opinion on the facts, the information provides, we can come to the conclusion that Stalin was a slam-bang man and his policy of solving problems was through terror, fear and violence. If the suspicions of the people who thought that Stalin was the noetic murderer of the people who opposed him, and sometimes the direct murderer, is true, I would personally think that Stalin had a twisted mind. In terms of good things, I think that both Lenin and Stalin did more or less the same for their country, although, the industrial policy of Stalin had been one of the most important issue.Historians have given different interpretations of Lenins rule of Russia between 1917 and 1924. Often, these are connected with the political views of the historians. Soviet and Marxists historians have praised Lenins achievements as the founder of the Soviet state for them, he could do no wrong. Historians in the West have multiform views. Some have seen him as a tyrant who seized power for his own ends and inflicted indefinable suffering on th Russian people.A clear evidence that may show to who did the Russians adore and appreciate most, is just the one issue that after Lenins death Petrograd was remaned Leningrad. So, despite the fact that Lenin also did things wrong, the people had demonstrated the opposite thing. Whereas the historians only have one opinion of Stalin, they believe he carried with the work of Lenin, and that he took things further. I personally think that Lenin brought more hopes to the Russians but at the same time they were very close together of doing the same things, it was balanced.Or if the most important means the who had the negative impact, I seriously think that they were very similar in a way. But when we look and compare these two figures I have to say that Stalin got rid of oppo nents and some of the bests brains at the time, such as Bukharin, who was a clear opponent of Stalin. In the negative side of Stalin it reflects that he used more violent methods. If we look at the negative side of Lenin, it shows that he did also used terror and fear policies in order to meet their proposals. Every ingredient of what has become known as Stalinism survive one murdering fellow Communists he (Stalin) had acquire from Lenin, and that includes the two actions for which he is most disadvantageously condemned Collectivisation and mass terror. Stalins megalomania and his other odious personal qualities should not vague the fact that his ideology and modus operandi were Lenins. A man of meagre education, he had no other source of ideas.Lenins theoretical views on the role of the Communist Party opened the way to Stalinism. The views in question arose out of Marxs assumption that between the pervert of Capitalism by the revolution and the increase of a socialist soc iety, there would have to be a transitional peak characterised by the dictatorship of the project. Lenin adapted Marxs teaching, and said that during this transitional period, dictatorial power would not be exercised by the proletariat as such but or else by an elite or new wave party the Bolshevik acting on behalf of the proletariat.Lenin not only preached violence, but as Soviet Russias head of government practised it as well in its most extreme forms. Colleagues who were squeamish about the use of terror were mocked. Lenin, argues Pipes, set a personal example of cruelty, and thus bears responsability for the culture of brutality which grew up within the Communist ranks.He points out that the machinery of repression used by Stalin in the 1930s the secret police, submergence camps and so on had been put into place by Lenin before 1924. He dismisses the hold of Khrushchev and others that circumstances left Lenin with no choice but to adopt repressive methods, pointing ou t, among other things, that the Cheka was formed before, not after, the emergence of organised opposition to the Bolsheviks. Lenin, he maintains, created an apparatus of terror not because he was forced to, but because he was a totalitarian dictator who believed that the Communist Party had the right to subject to itself all the organised life without exception.Generally both of them were more or less the same. Overall Lenin caused a major impact in Russia because he changed from Capitalism to Socialism, which was a very big change. I dont think that Stalin was the one who impact in a greater proportions Russias life because he basically harmed a lot more the image of Russia, and was dislike much more than Lenin. So I can conclude this assigment by maxim that although Lenin caused the major impact, in my opinion, Stalin did also alter in leaving the country of Russia in one contry marked by the events and cicumstances this leadership left behind, adding to this the unsolving prob lems both Lenin and Stalin left behind after they finished with such a big responsability.STALINMAN OR deuce?1 reckon sources A, B and C.Do these sources give a similar or different impressions of Stalin? Explain your answer.Source A gives the real image of what Stalins results had been due to his policies. This source reflects how ambitious and cruel Stalin had reached to be, in order to achieve his proposed aims. Stalins main aim was to have control of everyone and everything, no matter how many lives he sacrified if the final result was beneficial for him.This source is a clear example of what Stalins feelings were after his policies had finished.My impression is that Stalin was proud of what he had achieved, he was a man who didnt mind what problems he had caused to Russia with his policies. Stalin brought to the Russian people a lot of disaster as aconsequence of his unconsciencious thoughts and his selfishness. This source shows Stalin as evil, cruel and like a murderer prou d of what he has done, so therefore a monster. Stalin is shown as an commanding man really proud of his chef-doeuvre and what he had achieved so far. Stalin killed millions of people and he considers it a wonder compared with the pyramid of Egypt.I also deduce from this source that he had blood thirsty and that hes evilness and cruelty didint let him see what was really happening in Russia. It also reflects that he doesnt feel guilty for all those deaths, who in many cases could have been avoided if Stalin had opened his eyes. Evidence which proves this cruelty with what Stalin was characterised, with the purges he intriduced in 1934.I think that Source A as we may see, shows Stalins policies of terror. The two methods Stalin used to encourage people to do what he wanted were the force and persuassion. Sources B and and C are what we call false propaganda.2 Study source DDoes this source provide any useful information about Stalin? Explain your answer.