The process of de-Stalinization was the political restructuring that took place in the Soviet Union through several significant incidents after the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953. These reforms intended to eradicate the horrific institutions established by Stalin, under whom the people of Ukraine experienced severe mental and social anguish. De-Stalinization began in 1956, when Nikita Khrushchev was elected as the First Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. Khrushchev launched new reforms that abominated the doings of his predecessor and shattered Stalin’s persona as an infallible leader. The three key elements of de-Stalinization, also referred to as the Thaw, are bold authoritative pronouncements that started the process, introduction …show more content…
In this speech, Khrushchev denounced Stalin, who merely three years ago, was looked up to by the vast majority of the Soviet population as their beloved leader. Khrushchev condemned Stalin for all his atrocious crimes, including murder, torment, and repression on a massive scale. This speech took all the Congress Party attendees by extreme shock. According to John Rettie (The Guardian, 2006) some attendees were so shuddered by the content of Khrushchev’s speech that they suffered heart attacks, while others committed suicide after the event. Rettie also stated in another article (History Workshop Journal 62, 2006) that soon after this, there were also incidents of violence and unrest, especially in Georgia, Stalin’s hometown, where crowds had rioted in protest against the denunciation to their beloved national hero. However, for Ukrainians, who struggled with submission of their national identity and basic humanity throughout Stalin’s era, this event marked the beginning of a change; the realization that Stalin’s rule of terror was finally over. This eventually led to several Ukrainians speaking up and defending their rights to their language, literature, and national identity, and also steered the two other key elements of de-Stalinization: introduction of new policies and the liberation of intellectual property for the …show more content…
This specific element served Ukrainian’s long awaited need of freeing from censorship of their language, art, literature and culture. Under Khrushchev’s Thaw, writers in the Soviet Union were able to speak freely and express their emotions about matters close to their hearts. According to Gibian (Interval of Freedom: Soviet Literature During the Thaw, 1960), the Congress of Writers meeting that took place in December 1954 contained public discussions of pressing matters that in Stalin’s era would have only been a conversation among trusted
Around the early 1920’s, Stalin took power and became leader of Russia. As a result Russians either became fond of Stalin’s policies or absolutely despised them. Stalin’s five-year plans lured many into focusing on the thriving economy rather than the fact that the five year plan hurt the military. The experience of many lives lost, forced labor camps, little supply of food, influenced the Russians negative opinion about Stalin. Having different classes in society, many Russians had different points of views. For the Peasants, times were rough mainly because of the famine, so they were not in favor of Stalin and his policies; where as the upper classes had a more optimistic view of everything that was occurring. Stalin’s policies affected the Russian people and the Soviet Union positively and also had a negative affect causing famine for the Russian people.
Tucker, Robert C. "Stalinism as Revolution from Above". Stalinism. Edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: American Council of Learned Societies, 1999.
As relations changed between Russia and the rest of the world, so did the main historical schools of thought. Following Stalins death, hostilities between the capitalist powers and the USSR, along with an increased awareness of the atrocities that were previously hidden and ignored, led to a split in the opinions of Soviet and Western Liberal historians. In Russia, he was seen, as Trotsky had always maintained, as a betrayer of the revolution, therefore as much distance as possible was placed between himself and Lenin in the schoolbooks of the 50s and early 60s in the USSR. These historians point to Stalin’s killing of fellow communists as a marked difference between himself and his predecessor. Trotsky himself remarked that ‘The present purge draws between Bolshevism and Stalinism… a whole river of blood’[1].
In conclusion, many soviets citizens appeared to believe that Stalin’s positive contributions to the U.S.S.R. far outweigh his monstrous acts. These crimes have been down played by many of Stalin’s successors as they stress his achievements as collectivizer, industrializer, and war leader. Among those citizens who harbor feelings of nostalgia, Stalin’s strength, authority , and achievement contrast sharply with the pain and suffering of post-revolutionary Russia.
Stalin’s hunger for power and paranoia impacted the Soviet society severely, having devastating effects on the Communist Party, leaving it weak and shattering the framework of the party, the people of Russia, by stunting the growth of technology and progress through the purges of many educated civilians, as well as affecting The Red Army, a powerful military depleted of it’s force. The impact of the purges, ‘show trials’ and the Terror on Soviet society were rigorously negative. By purging all his challengers and opponents, Stalin created a blanket of fear over the whole society, and therefore, was able to stay in power, creating an empire that he could find more dependable.
Fiehn, Terry, and Chris Corin. Communist Russia under Lenin and Stalin. London: John Murray, 2002. Print.
In 1934, Sergey Kirov a rival to Stalin was murdered. Stalin is believed to have been behind the assassination, he used it as a pretext to arrest thousands of his other opponents who in his words might have been responsible for Kirov’s murder. These purges not only affected those who openly opposed Stalin but ordinary people too. During the rule of Stain o...
In George Orwell’s 1984, the strategies used by Oceania’s Political Party to achieve total control over the population are similar to the ones employed by Joseph Stalin during his reign. Indeed, the tactics used by Oceania’s Party truly depicts the brutal totalitarian society of Stalin’s Russia. In making a connection between Stalin’s Russia and Big Brothers’ Oceania, each Political Party implements a psychological and physical manipulation over society by controlling the information and the language with the help of technology.
In order to conclude the extent to which the Great Terror strengthened or weakened the USSR, the question is essentially whether totalitarianism strengthened or weakened the Soviet Union? Perhaps under the circumstances of the 1930s in the approach to war a dictatorship may have benefited the country in some way through strong leadership, the unifying effect of reintroducing Russian nationalism and increased party obedience. The effects of the purges on the political structure and community of the USSR can be described (as Peter Kenez asserts) as an overall change from a party led dictatorship to the dictatorship of a single individual; Stalin. Overall power was centred on Stalin, under whom an increasingly bureaucratic hierarchy of party officials worked. During the purges Stalin's personal power can be seen to increase at the cost of the party.
When most people hear the name Joseph Stalin, they usually associate the name with a man who was part of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. He was willingly to do anything to improve the power of the Soviet Union’s economy and military, even if it meant executing tens of millions of innocent people (Frankforter, A. Daniel., and W. M. Spellman 655). In chapter three of Sheila Fitzpatrick’s book, Everyday Stalinism, she argues that since citizens believed the propaganda of “a radiant future” (67), they were able to be manipulated by the Party in the transformation of the Soviet Union. This allowed the Soviet government to expand its power, which ultimately was very disastrous for the people.
...y, and grief. This made me realize how significant it is because I am a Ukrainian too. I must have had a relative who is dead already that must have lived during that event. This made me explore more details of the close truth that is hidden behind the genocide of the 1930s in Ukraine. I recommend for others to read and learn of what has occurred when one country has and can control other countries beside it.
The Development of Totalitarianism Under Stalin By 1928, Stalin had become the undisputed successor to Lenin, and leader of the CPSU. Stalin’s power of appointment had filled the aisles of the Party Congress and Politburo with Stalinist supporters. Political discussion slowly faded away from the Party, and this led to the development of the totalitarian state of the USSR. Stalin, through.
Following the death of Josef Stalin in 1953, the harsh policies he implemented in not only the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but also its many satellite nations began to break down. There was a movement to distance all of the socialist nations from Stalin?s sadistic rule. In the Peoples? Republic of Hungary, there was much disillusionment with this Stalinist absolutism (Felkay 50). This disillusionment with the Soviet ideal of socialism lead the people of the fledgeling socialist state of Hungary to rise up in revolt, but ill-preparedness and the strength of the Soviet Red Army put down the insurrection within several days.
During Stalin’s regime, the individual Russian was the center of his grand plan for better or worse. Stalin wanted all of his people to be treated the same. In the factory the top producer and the worst producer made the same pay. He wanted everyone to be treated as equals. His goal to bring the Soviet Union into the industrial age put tremendous pressure on his people. Through violence and oppression Stalin tried to maintain an absurd vision that he saw for the Soviet Union. Even as individuals were looked at as being equals, they also were viewed as equals in other ways. There was no one who could be exempt when the system wanted someone imprisoned, killed, or vanished. From the poorest of the poor, to the riches of the rich, everyone was at the mercy of the regime. Millions of individuals had fake trumped up charges brought upon them, either by the government or by others who had called them o...
... a change in this image to a realization that Stalin’s suppression of dissidents and opposition had real effects on soviet society and can not be justified by Marxist and Leninist Ideology instead they were just Stalin looking to maintain his autocracy.