Stalin and the HistoriansStalin and the Historians

Will the real Stalin stand up please?

Notes borrowed from Notes borrowed from

Peter Oxley Stalinist Russia by Michael Lynch Stalin by Stephen J Lee

Problems of evidence: How do we know?Problems of evidence: How do we know?

Evidence itself is neutral It’s the historians who give it meaning Evidence itself can be interpreted in

different ways base on ones experience

What did the ruling elite think of Stalin?What did the ruling elite think of Stalin?

Read the comment in Source 4 on page 225

Do you agree with this view? Why do you think he wrote it?

Sources of information about StalinSources of information about Stalin

Official media Economic statistics published by the regime News from foreign visitors such a Walter

Durranty Reports from exiles; those who had fled

Stalin’s regime Read Source 6 page 226 Smolensk Archive captured in 1941 by the

Germans Since 1991 the opening up of the Russian

archives

Which of the above sources is the most reliable?

Which of the above sources is the most reliable?

Identify the most reliable source Why do you feel it is the most reliable? What arguments would you put forward

to defend your view?

HistoriographyHistoriography

Writers in the 1930’s less critical about Stalin Why? Political stance of the historian explains his

stance How did these historians view Stalin?

– Issac Deutscher and Medvedev– Dimitri Volkogonov– Trotsky

Post World War 2 viewsPost World War 2 views

Read Grey’s view source 8 page 228

– Have his views been affected by his position during the war?

How did American historians view Stalin?

Post Cold War view?

Marxist Historians’ dilemmaMarxist Historians’ dilemma

Should Marxist accept Stalin If you accept Stalin then what happens

to Trotsky? Read source 10 page 229. How have

Trotsky’s views been affected by the events of the 1920’s

Can you accept Khruschev’s ‘secret speech’?

Four Schools of thought Four Schools of thought

Stalinist historians Totalitarian historians Isaac Deutscher Trotskyite historians Revisionist historians such as Pipes,

Robert Service

The debate………….The debate………….

Why and how did Stalin become the most important figure in Europe?

What were the reasons for the Purges? How successful were the economic

policies of the 1930’s? How far did Stalin build on Lenin’s

legacy?

Rise to powerRise to power

Trotsky: Stalin’s ambition Robert Conquest: The conditions within

the Party favoured the rise of a leader Marxists are divided. Was Stalin the

logical successor? Pipes: Closeness to Lenin is the key.

His rise is not surprising

Stalin’s role in the TerrorStalin’s role in the Terror

Stalinists say it was necessary because the were real threats to the USSR in the 1930’s

Totalitarian historians say it was to eliminate opposition

Trotskyite supporter Isaac Deutscher is of the opinion that the Purges were motivated by the need to unite Russia in the face of an imminent German attack

Revisionist on the other hand feel that Stalin’s role was over estimated.

Read KS Davies’ view Page 233 Do you agree with his assessment?

Stalin’s Economic PoliciesStalin’s Economic Policies

Highly debatable topic Would Russia be able to achieve that level of

industrialisation w/o Stalin’s policies? Marxist historians accept Stalin’s views and

see it as a kind of social engineering. Was it?Was it utopian?Or was it as George Orwell saw it..some

are more equal than others? Revisionsists now agree that the system did

work in a strange way

Was Stalin Lenin’s heir?Was Stalin Lenin’s heir?

Stalinist historians believe it was so They use the comments of Rosa Luxemburg (

Source 17, page 234) They also look at Stalin’s attacks on the

Kulaks Totalitarian historian believe otherwise Schapiro believes that Stalin took the ideas of

Lenin much further to create a truly totalitarian state

This had been done by Lenin too

Revisionist viewRevisionist view

They seem to believe that there was a divergence of views and often Stalin had to formulate his own policies to meet the demands of the situation

Lewin also points out that Lenin’s own view are ambiguous, contradictory and were often modified

Probably there can be no consensus on the issue

Revisionist historian Robert Service sums up the debate effectively in Source 19 Page 235

Closing commentClosing comment Source 20, Page 235 How valid is this interpretation? Deranged or not, Stalin remains a towering figure in

world History. He had galvanised the forces that built a new form of society, presided over an ultimately triumphant war and by careful diplomacy had made Russia the second greatest power on earth. He has destroyed the country ways, thrown down old gods, decimated Muzhiks ( opposite of Kulaks) and mullahs, priests and intellectuals, engineers and writers. He died as he had lived, a remote, cruel deity, but for many a deity all the same.

Kochan and Abraham, The Making of Modern Russia, 1983