Communist Leader Joseph Stalin : The Death Of One Man

The analysis of how the Southern States lost the Civil War is based on three articles, each with a different perspective. According to Died of Democracy by David Donald, the Confederates were defeated because of internal challenges facing the 11 Sothern States seeking independence. Some of the challenges facing the Confederate States of America included a predominantly agricultural economy and slave revolts. In Why the South Lost by Beringer et al., the authors argue that the Confederates lost because of their weak nationalism, which was constantly undermined by the feelings of guilt over slavery. Confederates’ nationalism had shallow foundations, which caused the Southern to lack the will to fight for their nation. In the Blue over Grey: Why the North Won George Frederickson articulates that the North prevailed over the South because the North’s social system was more adaptive to the changing present. From the accounts of the war, it is clear that Southern States had the will to fight for their ideologies and social system. The Southern society was less innovate and adaptive; however, the internal challenges facing the Confederates states of America is the best explanation for why the South lost the Civil War.

The North had many advantages over the South, but the South had an emotional and geographic advantages. The South used their grounds, instead of moving northwards to fight. They stayed in their local areas and brought the Union toward them in unknown areas. The South used the strategy to defend their ground, instead of attacking. The Confederacy generals believed that they had a chance of winning, if they used a defense strategy instead of being like the Union and attacking.

There were two main problems with the South's initial war strategy meant to protect the entire Confederacy; firstly it required the dispersal of forces to maintain a perimeter defense, and secondly it required the establishment of independent and self-sufficient military districts. The dispersal of its forces created a weak perimeter defense everywhere in the Confederacy, and not a single place from where the

“Why did the North win the Civil War?” is only half of a question by itself, for the other half is “Why did the South lose the Civil War?” To this day historians have tried to put their finger on the exact reason for the South losing the war. Some historians blame the head of the confederacy Jefferson Davis; however others believe that it was the shear numbers of the Union (North). The advantages and disadvantages are abundant on either sides of the argument, but the most dominate arguments on why the South lost the war would be the fact that state’s rights prevented unification of the South, Jefferson Davis poor leadership and his failure to work together with his generals, the South failed to gain the recognition of the European nations, North’s superior resources made the outcome inevitable, and moral of the South towards the end of the war.

Almost everyone knows what a monster Adolf Hitler was, but most people do not know that one of the great ally leader of World War II, Joseph Stalin, had committed even greater atrocities than Hitler. Joseph Stalin was a ruthless and yet diligent dictator of the Soviet Union, whose rise to power influenced a multitude of major events in his country’s history. Due to Stalin’s impactful reign, he made the Soviet Union become a global superpower, underwent difficult hardships such as the Great Famine in the Soviet Union, and after his death, caused the Soviet Union to go through a process known as de-Stalinization.

Historians have argued inconclusively for years over the prime reason for Confederate defeat in the Civil War. The book Why the North Won the Civil War outlines five of the most agreed upon causes of Southern defeat, each written by a highly esteemed American historian. The author of each essay does acknowledge and discuss the views of the other authors. However, each author also goes on to explain their botheration and disagreement with their opposition. The purpose of this essay is to summarize each of the five arguments presented by Richard N. Current, T. Harry Williams, Norman A. Graebner, David Herbert Donald, and David M. Potter. Each author gives his insight on one of the following five reasons:

The South was way outclassed industrially (Donald, 1996, pp. 70-74). There was probably never any chance her winning without European recognition and military aid (Donald, 1996, p. 74); Jefferson Davis, realized at the time, that there was never any real hope of Europe intervening. It just never was in England or France's best interests to get involved in a North American war. Industrially, the South could not keep up in output and in manpower (Donald, 1996, pp. 7-16). By the end of the war, the South had, more or less, plenty of weaponry still, but it just did not have enough men to sustain the use of the guns (Donald, 1996, pp. 18-19).

South and had cost the Union dearly. Later, Antietam had given the Union a small victory and prompted President Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation announcing all slaves in the Confederate territory still in rebellion were freed. Unfortunately for the North, this was soon followed by another Confederate victory at the battle of Fredericksburg. So, why did the South eventually lose? When the question is asked that way, it somewhat implies that the South lost the war all by itself and that it really could have won it. One answer is that the North won it. The South lost because the North outmanned and outclassed it at almost every point, militarily.

The Union was invading and fighting in the South, which was unfamiliar territory for them. This highlights the Norths disadvantage as they did not know where they would be most vulnerable. The Union also had to fight an offensive war, which meant they had to invade the So the, hold down occupied territory and capture Washington or New York to win the war. This proves that they had disadvantages as an offensive war is much harder to fight than a defensive one. Grant argues that “The South had a strategic advantage as the North was compelled to invade to force the South back into the Union”.

The Civil War was a bloody four-year long war between the United States of America, also known as the Union, and the seceded Confederate States of America, also known as Confederacy. Though the start of the war could possibly tell the outcome of the war, the Union ended up pushing through and won the Civil War, bringing back a wholesome United States. But why did the South lose to the Union? At the start of the war, the Confederates were winning a large amount of battles. However, “the Union advantages in manpower (a five-to-two edge), draft animals, and industrial capacity suggest that Union victory was inevitable” (Sheehan-Dean).

“Why did the North win the Civil War?” is only half of a question by itself, for the other half is “Why did the South lose the Civil War?” To this day historians have tried to put their finger on the exact reason for the South losing the war. Some historians blame the head of the confederacy Jefferson Davis; however others believe that it was the shear numbers of the Union (North). The advantages and disadvantages are abundant on either sides of the argument, but the most dominate arguments on why the South

During the Civil War, both the North and South had different strengths and weaknesses. For example, strengths of the North were that they had a much larger population than the South, they had more industries/factories to produce more weapons, a better banking system, larger ships, and a better railroad system to transport weapons, etc. to their troops. On the other hand, the South had a smaller population, a small number of factories, less food, and very few railroad tracks. These weaknesses of the South, however, did not mean they didn’t have any strengths too. The South had superior military leadership, they were fighting in familiar territory, and overall had strong, educated college graduate soldiers that went to military school.

Both the Union and the Confederacy had good military leaders who used and/or invented promising war tactics. The North used a strategy known as the Anaconda Plan. This is where the Union Forces would surround the Confederacy, cut its trade, divide it into two at the Mississippi River, and squeeze it to death. At first the Anaconda Plan was ridiculed, because both sides were originally stuck on old fashion tactics of using mass troops to attack a certain point. When both sides found the new technology in weaponry, made this old strategy suicide the Anaconda Plan was implemented. New technology caused old war tactics to change. Another strategy, I personally like to call “The Jaw” was demonstrated by the brilliant Robert. E. Lee from the South. One war tactic used by Ulysses S. Grant from the North in The Siege of Vicksburg changed the way war was fought from then on. It was called Total War. Total War involves not only war against the opponent’s soldiers but war against their civilians and economic system, in hopes of breaking their moral and in hopes that they give up the thought of winning because victory is just not worth the losses, so defeat may be welcomed. The combination of the ancient technique of total war, which

“Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem.” This is a direct quote from one of the most notorious men in history, Joseph Stalin. Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union from the mid 1920’s until his death. The period in which he ruled over the Soviet Union was known as the Reign of Terror because he was a malicious leader who was ready to do anything to maintain the level of power he achieved. He will forever be remembered as a cold blooded and heartless leader, who took the lives of millions without remorse. This research paper will cover this notorious and deceitful dictator and his early life, rise to power, his reign of terror, and the aftermath of his actions.

It is undeniable that Stalin had a profound impact on the Soviet Union following Lenin’s death. His rise to power within the Soviet Union has provided historians with a hotbed of political intrigue for many years. He was an opportunist, coming to dominance by manipulating party politics and influential figures in the politburo to eliminate his opposition by recognising and exploiting their weaknesses thus becoming the dominant leader of the Soviet Union. He was severely underestimated by other members of the Politburo about his potential within the party, leading to missed opportunities to ally and stand against him- a mistake that Stalin never made. He gained support from the public by exploiting the idea of ‘the Cult of Lenin’ in 1924 at Lenin’s funeral, and then adopting this concept for himself, thereby likening himself to Lenin; and, more importantly, gained support from other party members by following the wishes of Lenin, for example, initially supporting the continuation of the NEP and supporting the idea of factionalism. This essay will also argue that he was ideologically flexible as he was able to change his ideas for the party according to who he needed as an ally, in order to achieve dominant status in the party. He sought out which individual was the biggest threat, and eliminated them before they could stand against him.