Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Stalin during ww2 research paper
Stalin during ww2 research paper
Stalin during ww2 research paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Stalin during ww2 research paper
Mikheil Chiaureli’s The Fall of Berlin was released in the Soviet Union in 1949, just under five years after the end of the Second World War. Like both of the other films reviewed for the purposes of this analysis, the setting for the film is the entirety of the Second World War. The film, which was released in the Soviet Union as a two part epic, with each part spanning around seventy-five minutes, starts the viewer off with the story of the two romantic leads of the film, Natasha, a school teacher, and Alyosha, a steel worker, as they meet thanks to Alyosha’s great accomplishments in his profession and acting as a exemplar of steel workers, having greatly surpassed the quota for production. Alyosha is then honored for his work, similar to …show more content…
The film quickly drops its main characters for a focus on Stalin himself and his achievements. What is depicted here is the understanding that Stalin himself was not only the most important factor in the defeat of the Germans in the Second World War, but also that he alone made all of this possible. Stalin is painted as an ethereal, almost Christ-like figure, as one character states on the warfront: “Stalin is always with us,” of course he is speaking in spirit, but the use of this phrase indicates that the film treats Stalin as some sort of perfect, all-knowing being, where he is aware of all that goes on, he is a master strategist, as “everywhere are manifestations of Stalin’s genius, Stalin’s wisdom, Stalin’s goodness and solicitude” (Babitsky, 194). The ending of the film is perhaps the most historically inaccurate part of the film, as Stalin did not go to Berlin historically, and even if he did, “it was common knowledge that Stalin was mortally afraid of showing himself among the people and was always carefully guarded from crowds” (Babitsky, 195). Stalin in this film is depicted as the “war-hero-in-chief” (Youngblood, 96). It is with this film that “Chiaureli created the first true epic about the war, with Stalin as epic hero,” and as such created a historical understanding of the Second World War that depicts the triumph of Stalin as the sole hero of the War, and the Soviet Union the true victors, without the help of the other countries fighting against the Germans (Youngblood, 97). The historical narrative of the Second World War idolizes Stalin, and embellishes and fantasizes his role in the Soviet war
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.
The argument that both of these book have made is that Stalin, for all of his brutality, was a patient political leader that was concerned about the direction of the Soviet Union. The simplicity of “If you were seen as an obstacle you were removed” workered well for Stalin . Whether that future be political, ideological, or technological, Stalin deemed himself worthy of screening many aspects of Soviet society. Although we do get a portrait of Stalin's domestic life, that was of comparably lesser importance than running a nation with trouble developing a thriving heavy industry, defending itself from outside attacks, and spreading communist ideology. Stalin was a monster, but he built the Soviet Union from into an a world super power state.
Alder, Peter. "Stalin: Man of Steel." Prod. Guido Knopp. Dir. Oliver Halmburger. Perf. Ed Herrman. The History Channel, 2003. Videocassette. Youtube. 15 Mar. 2013. Web. 12 May 2015.
In 1943, the Allies decided to divide Germany into three zones. The US and Great Britain would split the western half of Germany and the Soviets would control the eastern half. The city of Berlin would be deep inside the Soviet side, but would be jointly occupied as a symbol of Allied unity1. This was the Attlee Plan, devised by the British and signed by US President Franklin Roosevelt, Great Britain Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin during the February 1945 Yalta conference. However, this plan did not allow for access for the United States or Britain2.
“The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do; the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die” (Kierkegaard 95). Søren Kierkegaard was a clear supporter of expressing our own personality. He wanted us to take the time to find our true selves. Even though he acknowledged there were social systems in our society, he still believed we were our own individual human being. The only way to make sense of our life and find our individuality is to embrace our faith in God. Kierkegaard wanted human beings to be able to exercise their freedom. Human beings should not postpone their choices simply because they do not know the universal truth. As humans we cannot postpone our choices because we will never
“Stalingrad is the scene of the costliest and most stubborn battle in this war. The battle fought there to its desperate finish may turn out to be among the decisive battles in the long history of war…In the scale of its intensity, its destructiveness, and its horror, Stalingrad has no parallel. It engaged the full strength of the two biggest armies in Europe and could fit into no lesser framework than that of a life-and death conflict which encompasses the earth”
John F. Kennedy, having been in Berlin numerous times already, returns to display the support of the United States government. Kennedy’s willingness for the survival of Berlin was vast and was never doubted. The strength of Berlin rested with the United States, and John Kennedy looks toward the positive of their situation. With his youth and energy, John Kennedy’s words are heard around the world yet again. On June 26, 1963, President Kennedy delivered the most distinguished speech of the time, elevating the morality of the city’s protection from communism (Kennedy 1963).
Son of a poverty-stricken shoemaker, raised in a backward province, Joseph Stalin had only a minimum of education. However, he had a burning faith in the destiny of social revolution and an iron determination to play a prominent role in it. His rise to power was bloody and bold, yet under his leadership, in an unexplainable twenty-nine years, Russia because a highly industrialized nation. Stalin was a despotic ruler who more than any other individual molded the features that characterized the Soviet regime and shaped the direction of Europe after World War II ended in 1945. From a young revolutionist to an absolute master of Soviet Russia, Joseph Stalin cast his shadow over the entire globe through his provocative affair in Domestic and Foreign policy.
The end of World War II was the beginning of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. The Soviet Union had control over East Berlin, which was governed by a communist government and the United States had control over West Berlin, which was regulated by a democratic government. Both countries wanted full control over Berlin, so the Soviet Union set up a blockade on the West but was unsuccessful. The Berlin Wall was then built to stabilize the economy of East Berlin, which meant that fewer people could escape the east to live in the west. In the article “The fall of the Berlin Wall: what it meant to be there,” by Timothy Garton Ash, he highlights the feelings of no longer having a “iron curtain” segregating both sides of Berlin.
...s appeared not so much to matter as the fact that he developed new techniques, devised camera approaches and sought always to bring out the potential of a still developing form. That he forgot--or overlooked--to bring the Marxist message to one of his films two years ago brought him that fatal kiss of all--the accusation from the authoritative Soviet magazine, Culture and Life, that his productions had been short on the prescribed Soviet requirement of art and interpretation of history” ("Sergei Eisenstein is Dead in Moscow”, New York Times, 1948) . In film, Eisenstein was known for his development of the montage sequence, his unusual juxtapositions, and his life-like imagery. In life he was known for his propaganda and belief in the plight of the working class. Eisenstein left an inevitable mark on his community, his time, the shape of a sub-culture, and his art.
The Berlin Crisis reached its height in the fall of 1961. Between August and October of that year, the world watched as the United States and the Soviet Union faced off across a new Cold War barrier, the Berlin Wall. In some ways, the Wall was Khrushchev’s response to Kennedy’s conventional buildup at the end of July, and there were some in the West who saw it that way. However, as Hope Harrison has clearly shown, Khrushchev was not the dominant actor in the decision to raise the Wall, but rather acquiesced to pressure from East German leader Walter Ulbricht, who regarded the Wall as the first step to resolving East Germany’s political and economic difficulties. The most pressing of these difficulties was the refugee problem, which was at its height in the summer of 1961 as thousands of East Germans reacted to the increased tensions by fleeing westward. But Ulbricht also saw the Wall as a way to assert East German primacy in Berlin, and thus as a way to increase the pressure on the West to accept East German sovereignty over all of Berlin.
Stalin, a paranoid ruler, always feared his political opponents, military officials and even common citizens. In his mind he felt they were...
After World War II, when Germany was defeated, it was divided into four zones, one for each of the Allies. The eastern part went to the Russians. The other Allied Powers, France, Britain and the U.S. divided the Western portion of the city among themselves.
The collapse of the Berlin Wall changed Western Europe as we know it today. The Iron Curtain which had split Europe had ascended and the once divided germans were reunited under one common nation. The causal factors which resulted in the fall of the Berlin Wall were internal — communism imploded upon itself—. Gorbachev attempted to reform communism through Glasnost and Perestroika, which were supposed to incorporate economic reforms and transparency, however, history illustrates that increased liberty is incompatible with communism. Dr. Schmidtke argued that structural deficiencies led along with poor economic growth which led to the collapse of communism in Europe, and consequently the collapse of the Berlin Wall. The alienation of intellectuals and the authoritative nature of communist regimes further contributed to the failure of communism in Europe. However, the collapse of the Berlin Wall would not have occurred had it not been for Gorbachev’s Glasnost, Perestroika, and the end of the Brezhnev Doctrine. Along with German official Schabowski whose actions were the catalyst for the mass exodus of persons from the GDR into West Germany. The Collapse of the Berlin Wall would not have occurred so swiftly had Gorbachev not tried to implement reforms to communism.