Edexcel Stalin.

Right guys, lets share thoughts, ideas and facts about post-Lenin Russia! We know how to have fun, don't we?
I'll start us off: How far do you agree that Stalin's "second revolution" was one achieved at the expense of human life?
I think this is an accurate perception; he turned Russia from a backward, agricultural peasant-land to the world's second super-power, with nuclear capabilities, but this was achieved through the destruction of (usually inexistent) percieved enemies, an intangible 'kulak class' and the starvation of peasants who did not cooperate in the Ukraine and Kazakstan.

Reply 1

mollten

It all depends how you define the 'achievement' of the 'second revolution'.

Yes, Russia was transformed from a backward, medieval nation to one capable of jointly defeating Nazism. Yes, it became a nuclear superpower. Yes, the purges were successful as they got rid of opposition (although the Ryutin platform was significant, as it showed both that opposition existed after Stalin had become a dictator, and that the Politburo had power [Ryutin was however purged 5 years later during the 'Great Purge']).

However, was the dictatorship an achievement? Was it really communist? Was he justifiably the 'heir to Lenin'? Do the loss of life and methods used mean that there was no sensible 'achievement', and instead, merely ruthless egotistical hijacked communism?

My own opinion is that yes, Russia did advance and this was at the expense of human life. However, I struggle to fully view the 'second revolution' as an 'achievement' because of the scale of suffering and loss. Perhaps I'm a bleeding heart liberal :biggrin: