| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "STALIN COMMUNISM": |
|
|
Josef Stalin: The Man and the Ideology, 2006.
This paper focuses on the leadership and political career of Joseph Stalin as well as the general era of Stalinism, a period of Russian history that is characterized by authoritarian rule through constant vigilance and fear.
1,443 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer of this paper explores the political and military accomplishments of Soviet Union leader Josef Stalin. This paper describes Stalin as an object of admiration, yet also as an oppressor who ruled with an iron fist, utterly successful in spreading and infusing his ideology. Stalin infiltrated every level of a society that could do nothing to protest, nothing to free itself from the tightening, unyielding control that was present in every aspect of Soviet life. This paper delves into the implementation of Stalin's five-year plan for economic development in which the Russian leader adopted the policy views of his former ousted rival Trotsky. His rewriting of historical events marked Stalin as the faithful disciple of Lenin, bringing the ideals of socialism into being with the success of the October Revolution. The writer ponders Stalin's astute political career while describing the leader's ability to inflict torture on his enemies while at the same time filling the minds and hearts of the Soviet people resulting in his inevitable rise to power.
From the Paper
"Soviet citizens had various reasons to buy into Stalin's ideology and support his rise to power. One reason was self-interest, as those who opposed him, along with their friends and associates, were likely to be awakened in the dead of night by a knock on the door, which meant arrest, imprisonment, and many times, execution. From the time of the murder of Sergei Kirov, first secretary of the party in Leningrad, in 1934, to the culmination of the Great Purges, with the show trial of the late 1930's in Moscow, Stalin promoted an attitude of vigilance and suspicion of one's own neighbors. This led to the denunciation of thousands of citizens, many of whom were loyal supporters of Stalin and the party. It was the unleashing of this paranoia, spreading uncontrollably throughout Soviet society, which fed the purges - the cold fear felt by the citizens who turned in their friends and family, and by NKVD officials, who would act on any and every accusation to avoid being accused of lack of vigilance themselves."
| |
|
Stalin's Rise to Power, 2006.
This paper examines Josef Stalin's rise to power, while focusing on the years 1921-1932.
2,228 words (approx. 8.9 pages), 20 sources, MLA, $ 69.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the life and accomplishments of Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin. The writer of this paper examines Stalin's role as the leader responsible for the conversion of communism in the Soviet Union from an egalitarian revolutionary movement into that of an authoritative bureaucratic governmental system, while focusing on his political and military career between 1921-1932. Stalin began his political career by joining the Social Democratic Party of Georgia in 1901. This well-researched paper discusses the views of numerous biographers who have described Stalin as a plodding figure with brutality as his main distinguishing feature. Stalin is considered the man responsible for the deaths of some 20 million people of which more than 14 million died needlessly from hunger. Stalin also deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps more than nine million people. It is estimated that five million of the people sent by Joseph Stalin to the Gulag Archipelago never came back alive. This paper explores Stalin's intellectual strength and cunning which was first noticed upon his appointment as General Secretary of the Communist party in 1922. The rise of Stalin to power was a mix of factors as well as fate. These factors include his character and his relentless quest for power, the revolutionary zeal of Leon Trotsky, the rise of the bureaucrats and the role played by his comrades in power. The writer explains how all these factors impacted on Stalin's leadership style.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Rise of Stalin
Conclusion
References
From the Paper
"The strength of his intelligence and cunning was to be seen that when he came to become a General Secretary of the Communist party in 1922, he cultivated the bureaucracy and by using his maneuvering and administrative skills ensured that his potential rivals in the party were marginalized and it was this amassing of power by Stalin that made Lenin worry about the role of Stalin and call for his removal that did not take place as Lenin did not live long enough after that to see that Stalin did not utilize this accumulation of strength in the party as the means to get to the top of the existing power system in the Soviet Union. It could be said that fate also played a part in assisting the rise of Stalin to power by removing Lenin from the scene by his death. In the earlier days Lenin was the idol of Stalin and they built up a friendship that was to aid Stalin in his initial rise to power in the Communist Party. Stalin used this platform that was built on his looking on Lenin as an idol and the friendship that started between the two of them as his launching pad to power."
| |
|
De-Stalinization and Nikita Krushchev, 2002.
The Soviet leaders and Nikita Krushchev responded to Stalin's death in de-Stalinizing the Soviet Union by changing political, economic and government policies.
1,000 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay examines what happened in the Soviet Union after Stalin died in 1953. Stalin?s failed economic policies, overcentralized leadership, and brutal acts of terror had left a broken and numb society lacking in all autonomous initiative. Into this challenging situation came Nikita Krushchev, a dedicated and enthusiastic Communist reformer who made significant changes and tackled the legacy of Stalinism. This paper explains the successes and failures of Kruschev in the de-Stalinization of the Soviet Union.
From the Paper
"Russia has never been a democratic or egalitarian society, although it is slowly moving in that direction now. Successes have been substantial in the last decade, yet there is still far to go. As Robert Service writes, ?The burden of the past lies heavily upon Russia, but it is a burden which was not solely the product of the assumption of power by Lenin and his fellow revolutionaries.? It is not only Stalinism that is being fought by the Russians but the history of the later Russian Empire as a restless and unintegrated society (Service 546). With those facts in mind we can see how difficult de-Stalinization was and still is, for it was so much more than just coming to grips with what Josef Stalin did."
| |
|
Stalin, 2007.
A discussion of the personality traits that allowed Josef Stalin to take power in Russia.
2,001 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 7 sources, APA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the quality of charisma in a leader, using Josef Stalin as an example. The paper describes Stalin's rise to power, focusing on the political situation in Russia at the time, and how Stalin used it to his advantage. The author notes that the discontent of the people created fertile ground for Stalin's ideas to gain popularity. The paper weaves the concepts of charisma, changes in leadership and Stalin's rule throughout the paper, showing that despite the changes Stalin claimed to be making, the life style of the masses ultimately changed very little, since their role in society remained the same.
From the Paper
"When Stalin came to power in 1924 the situation in Russia was unstable on both the economical and political side. The country had experimented a long tsarist period under the rule of an absolute leader that had total control over the country and its citizens. The prolonged domination of the czar that denied people's freedom had brought a wave of discontent among the working class, formed mainly by peasants."
| |
|
The Stalin Revolution, 2000.
This essay examines the effect of Joseph Stalin's reign over Russia and the social policies that he introduced. Stalin's work is compared to that of Karl Marx.
2,500 words (approx. 10.0 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains how Joseph Stalin used his understanding of the Marxist dialectic to better understand what good can come of any given society. It shows that Stalin manipulated the dialectic only because he knew it needed to be modernized to work properly in a more modern society, a Communist society. Stalin's movements in education and the labour force were truly remarkable and positively changed the face of Communism as the world knew it.
From the Paper
'Manya Gordon viewed the Stalin Revolution and the five year plan as a complete change in the position of labour. ?Stalin made a point of making all labour and trade union commonplace and merging the entire Soviet labour force into one government operated establishment. In doing this, Stalin forced all government personnel in opposition to his plan to resign and filled their positions with his own followers who, in turn, helped induce the interests of the workers in the five year plan.?5 In the opinion of Gordon, to a non Communist, the five year plan meant the complete betrayal of the workers interests for the sake of building a new, state owned industry. In relation to this, Stalin declared, ?the trade unions are called upon to play a decisive role in the task of building social industry by stimulating labour productivity.?6 Hence, the trade unions were compelled to drive the workers, to organize shock brigades, and to bring discipline to those who are lacking in production. In short, ?the trade unions are a ?whip? over the workers.?7 Instead of defending the interests of the workers, the labour organizations were obliged to disperse Stalin?s ?brand? of Marxism which was actually very different from Lenin?s Marxist policy. ?Lenin insisted that all trade unions must be non political, while Stalin insinuated that all non political aspects of the unions must be eliminated. Eventually the people accepted Stalin?s policy even though it depicted the labourers as a lower status of beings, much the same as earlier Russian capitalists.?8 This fact would also mean that Stalin was not, in fact, a Marxist as he claimed to be, because a Marxist would be more concerned with the non political aspect of a trade union. For example, ?Stalin planned for industrial workers to increase production by twenty eight percent, but only give the workers a six percent pay raise.?9 Thus, Stalin was more concerned with industrialization than with the proletariat, hardly a display of Marxist theory. Another historian concerned with Stalinism and its effects was Raymond Bauer."
| |
|
The Late Stalin Period, 2004.
A look at Soviet history during Joseph Stalin's tenure as head of the Communist Party.
904 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at social, economic and political aspects of Soviet society during the era of Joseph Stalin. The paper discusses Stalin's paranoid personality, Stalinist terror and the period leading up to Stalin's death. Also discusses are the hardships endured by the Soviet people because of Stalin's policies and the Soviet economic depression in post WWII era. The paper also touches upon Stalin's control of science.
From the Paper
"Many historians credit Stalin's paranoid personality for the horrific course of events that unfolded during his tenure as the head of the Community Party in the USSR. For example, historians argue that Stalin was about to launch another set of purges when he died. Despite the power of Stalin's personality to control so forcefully the apparatus of the state, he never succeeded in destroying this apparatus. At least one historian argues that Stalin's personal power had begun to threaten the political..."
| |
|
The Death of Stalin and Soviet Succession, 2001.
An examination of power struggles after Stalin's death.
975 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 4 sources, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This papers examines the power struggle in the Soviet Union between Malenkov and Khrushchev after Stalin's death. It discusses the idea that foreign policy and not domestic policy was the key to Khrushchev's eventual victory.
From the paper:
"It was the debate over Soviet foreign policy that allowed Khrushchev to gain the upper hand and eventually take charge of the Soviet Union. After Stalin?s death in 1953, Georgii Malenkov was seemingly heir apparent to Soviet power. As Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Malenkov was head of government, as both Lenin and Stalin had been. Quickly after Stalin?s death, however, Khrushchev had moved to acquired the position of First Secretary, putting him in charge of the Party organization. At the same time in the US, the debate over containment versus a ?new world order? was playing out between President Eisenhower and his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles."
| |
|
Joseph Stalin, 2006.
This paper examines the characteristics that Joseph Stalin possessed and the circumstances surrounding his rise to power that engendered near-fanatic loyalty in his followers.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 6 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Joseph Stalin was a ruthless leader, capable of engendering near-fanatic loyalty in his followers. Nikita Khrushchev, who followed Stalin to power, characterized Stalin's leadership as creating a cult of personality. What was it that gave Stalin such power? Was it his ability to speak convincingly on the benefits of Marxism? The fortunate accident of his rise to power coinciding with the rise of industrialization? Or did Stalin simply create a cult, replacing the religion that he nearly destroyed? This research demonstrates that Stalin's success most likely stemmed from a combination of all three things.
| |
|
Stalin's Post 1945 Rule, 2007.
This paper discusses the totality of Stalin's control after 1945.
1,700 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer examines Stalin's control following the war. The writer notes that what the post-war situation demonstrated was a change, most of all, in Stalin's personal circumstances, which meant that, increasingly, he had to rule while away from Moscow. But far from this geographical position placing limits on his power, it inflamed his suspicions that those he entrusted would soon plot against him when their backs were turned against him. The writer maintains that it would be right to say that efforts amounted neither to denting power Stalin wielded nor did such initiatives imply that actions were overtly anti-Stalin. The writer concludes that, even though Stalin did not ultimately operate in dictatorial mode per se, still insisting at least nominally on the Council of Ministers and the Politburo, in the final analysis his grip on the country was as 'total' as it could have been after 1945.
From the Paper
"What this far from untypical episode reveals is the way in which Stalin ruled the Soviet Union after 1945. Living for extended periods away from Moscow, Stalin conducted his day-to-day affairs from a distance. While away, it was the inner-circle of his most trusted advisors who stood by him and with whom he reached the majority of his political decision. Most significantly, as the Ilichev case reveals, important judgements were often made not at formal meetings, which invariably took place in the early evenings so as to suit Stalin's work habits, but within an informal setting during dinner, for example, as the editor found to his cost. Finally, the episode also illustrates the way in which those who dealt with Stalin were supposed to think and behave. What Ilichev had not been alert to, as he put off emptying his wine glass in one go, compared to the inner-circle, was this instinctive sense of what pleased and displeased Stalin. When Robert Service recounted this encounter in his biography of Stalin, he could have chosen countless other examples that conformed to a pattern of dictatorship which stood in marked contrast to how Stalin operated before and during the Second World War."
| |
|
Stalin and Hitler, 2004.
A comparative analysis of the influence of childhood on Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler.
1,977 words (approx. 7.9 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how history has recorded the actions Hitler and Stalin took once they were in office. Both men were ruthless and dealt with those who opposed them harshly. Stalin had many, many people executed because he believed they threatened him in some way, and Hitler was responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews and other people he deemed undesirable. It looks at how their childhoods contributed to the men they became and the actions these men took to accomplish their rise to power.
Outline
Childhood
Hitler?s Early Life
Stalin?s Early Life
Early Life Comparisons
Hitler?s Rise to Power
Stalin's Rise to Power
Comparisons
From the Paper
"The author Robert C. Tucker argues that as Stalin rose in power he developed a rich fantasy life in which he was the avenger for those wronged by those opposed to him. In this kind of convoluted thinking, the existence of people who opposed him only served to make himself feel more self-important (Tucker, p. 6). Fantasy began to become reality, however, when Lenin suffered a stroke in 1922, Stalin formed a triumverate, or troika, to rule the Party, and began arguing that modernization was the key to Russia?s greatness and that unless the country moved as rapidly as possible to modernize, they were threatened by outside forces as well as forces within the country. Stalin led this modernization (Stalcup, p. 45). Meanwhile, as part of a three-man leadership team, he was able to take on the one real threat to his leadership. He had Leon Trotsky expelled from Russia and eventually assassinated."
| |
|
Stalinism, 2004.
This paper discusses and rejects the belief that Stalinism was a more extreme form of Bolshevism.
1,050 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Stalinism and Bolshevism were mortal enemies. The author points out that, to those who argued that Stalin's tyranny grew naturally out of the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks' plans, the revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky rebuked that it was necessary for Stalin to liquidate the Bolshevik leadership of 1917 and systematically restructure the party to achieve his goals. The paper relates that Stalinism was not Bolshevism any more than it was any kind of socialism.
From the Paper
"Joseph Stalin became the leader of Russia after the death of Lenin in 1924. Stalin's dictatorship arose from the defeat of the Russian Revolution and the failure of revolution to catch on in more advanced capitalist countries in Europe. Stalinism is a term that describes the political and economic system implemented by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union. Building on the foundations of Lenin, who led the Bolsheviks, Stalin expanded the centralized bureaucratic system of the Soviet Union during the 1930s. This system is largely perceived as an extreme system of totalitarianism, as Stalin slaughtered many people to achieve his goals."
| |
|
Josef Stalin and World War Two, 2002.
An examination of Stalin?s actions and the motivations behind them in World War II.
2,200 words (approx. 8.8 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 68.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
It clearly can be confusing to evaluate Josef Stalin?s actions and his role in the events of World War II. There are, nonetheless, some well-documented facts about Stalin?s behavior in the wartime period. This essay presents those facts and analyzes why Stalin chose these behaviors and what motivated him. Stalin role and conduct included: heavy personal involvement in the operations of the war, continual thoughts of self-preservation and power, humiliation and intimidation of his own people, and his ability to think several moves ahead in postwar policy goals. Why he did these things is traced to his life before World War II.
From the Paper
"In discussing Stalin?s role, motivations, and behavior during World War II, the historian is presented with a problem that must be overcome before beginning. He must decide which accounts of Stalin?s role and behavior are most accurate and then, and only then, proceed with the analysis of the motivations and character traits that caused them. There are two schools of thought about Stalin in World War II. The first is exemplified by many traditional historians, who believe that in the 1930s Stalin was focused solely on the internal health of the Soviet Union and had no plans for aggressive Bolshevik expansion. His mistrust of the West in dealing with Hitler?s aggression led him to make a defensive alliance with Germany to stop them before they advanced in his direction. In this treaty, Stalin agreed to let Hitler move some steps to the east in return for his allowing Stalin to move Soviet borders to the west; a division of Eastern Europe. As a result, Stalin correctly foresaw that Hitler would fall into conflict with the Western powers and not the USSR. Stalin thereby gained both the time and space he desperately needed for the build-up of his own defenses. This was proceeding when Hitler, buoyed by his quick successes in Western Europe, launched a surprise assault on the Soviet Union in June, 1941. This invasion caught Stalin totally by surprise; he had ignored warnings from many credible sources and refused to question his own assumptions about Hitler. Stalin felt great remorse over his strategic blunder, spent some time in seclusion and stunned inaction, and then finally rose to the challenge. In the coming four years he personally rallied the Soviet Union, its people and soldiers, into a great victory over fascism, one that could not have been possible without the sacrifices and patriotism Stalin inspired in the Soviet citizens. After the war, Stalin felt that the amount of death and suffering his people had endured in the war legitimized his creation of Communist buffer states in Eastern Europe."
| |
|
Stalin's Rise to Power, 2006.
This paper analyzes the topic of Stalin's rise to power and his place in Russian history.
1,338 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores Stalin's rise to power and shows his obsession with power. Stalin's rise through the Party by seeming to be loyal, meek, and mild is described. In reality, he was cruel, ruthless, and only wanted to rule Russia with an iron hand. The paper further describes his rise to power and the changes it brought to Russia and the Russian people. The author concludes that Stalin may have been a good leader, but he was also power hungry, fearful of anyone who disagreed with him, and vindictive.
From the Paper
"Many people believe that Stalin and Lenin were very close, but that is not really the case. Lenin had a stroke in May of 1922, and before his next series of strokes that turned him into a "wheelchair-bound half-vegetable" (Moynahan 101), he wrote about all of his staff members and gave his recommendations about who should take his place as the leader of Russia. He thought Stalin was a good leader, but actually wanted him replaced as general secretary because he was rude. He said his replacement should be "more patient, more loyal, more polite and attentive to comrades, less capricious" (Moynahan 101). However, this recommendation never reached the public because Lenin had another stroke, and it overshadowed all of his recommendations. "
| |
|
Stalin, 2007.
A comparison of Joseph Stalin to Vladimir Lenin and a general discussion of the traits of tyrants.
5,854 words (approx. 23.4 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 140.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses whether Stalin was a faithful disciple of Lenin. It discusses, briefly, the history of Russia and examines whether Stalin was responsible for the demise of communism. The paper also attempts to depict the main traits of the figure of the tyrant and puts the analysis into perspective by noting lines of continuity in the history of Russia.
Table of Contents:
The despotic continuity
Stalinism
From the Paper
"In studying the history of the Russian state, one is struck by the continuity of its despotic character. The moments of 'liberalization' of the state were very few and very brief and led to a state of anomie which in turn brought about the return of the 'good old order'. One such moment of return to a strong state is for example the immediate aftermath of the October revolution which followed a period of chaos, another one can be seen in the advent of Vladimir Putin as head of state, following the 'decadence and enhanced corruption' of the Eltsine era. Thus there are forces of continuity leading to this permanence of the strong authoritarian state in Russia."
| |
|
Early Aspects of Stalinization in the Soviet Union, 2002.
A look at the economic and social aspects of the first few years of Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union.
1,987 words (approx. 7.9 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper begins by discussing the rise of Stalin to power. It then looks at various social and economic aspects of Stalinization and the purpose of the Five Year Plans. It then discusses the success of industrialization, collectivization and the Great Purge. Looks at the success and failures of Stalin's rule as a whole.
From the Paper
"When Joseph Stalin became head of the Soviet Communist Party, he became the most powerful man in Russia and took full advantage of his power. Stalin ran the Soviet Union with an iron fist, killing all that opposed him and eliminating the former Communist beliefs. In the early years of ?Stalinization?, Stalin killed anyone who got in his way. During this period, millions of people were arrested and killed. The economic status of the nation changed, during the Stalinization period, as all ownership was eliminated, industrialization began, and the strength of the Soviet Union?s military force grew."
|
|
|
