Tma 03 Aa100- Myths Surrounding Stalin in Khruschevs Speech

Jim Harrison and Jack Underwood are two completely different authors who share one thing in common; their poems involve a connection with animals. Jack Underwood writes how he does not care too much about the animals which is the poem called “Totem Pole” as he hunts them and then mentions “to appraise my work only” (Underwood). Jim Harrison writes the poem called “Man Dog” in which the main character cares for his animal so much that he even pretends to act like his animal. In both poems we experience the authors writing in first person and expressing a somewhat somber mood. Jim Harrison and Jack Underwood are both able to connect through animals and through the use of emotions as well as a deeper connection we see how two different poems

Myths, surrounding Stalin have played a major role in the construction of Stalin’s reputation, in both a positive and negative way. This essay will look at Plate 1.5.8 in the illustration book, and discuss how the myth of Stalin presented in this image differs from earlier and later mythic presentations of him.

By acting as if his words were indirectly Lenin's, Stalin could say almost any number of things with the people agreeing out of respect for Lenin. This relates to the propaganda technique Testimonial.

Each of the poems relies heavily on imagery to convey their respective messages. Often throughout each of the poems, the imagery is that of people. However, each uses similar imagery to very different, yet effective ways to explore the same

Lenin defined his movement by the slogan “all power to the soviets” Lenin believed he could make a new revolution in a way the old one happened by starting large street demonstrations. The soviets were giving lenin little support, but lenin believed he could manipulate them for his own purposes. Lenin tried to sieve power for the bolsheviks

Once eliminating Trotsky, Stalin’s idea of, “socialism in our country,” inevitably meant that Russia needed strength. The productions in the USSR had almost reached pre-war levels by the mid-1920s, but the population of Russia had also increased by 20 million people. No matter, Stalin assured that maximum efforts and resources would be given to the expansion and strengthening of Russia herself rather than an effort to start a revolution elsewhere. This is explained in his famous 1931 speech, gaining power for himself. The people had nowhere else to turn to and needed a leader. Stalin was there and knew what to do to make the people interested in his ideas, thus acquired their trust and control. From these ideas, he created his first

The comparison between the two poems is kinda similar. they both have to do with something religious and it both talks about god. in Huswifery the guy is a sinner who wants to be pure and a saint. He basically tells god to make him a robe of glory and to make him into all these parts of a spindle. and he just keeps telling god to do this for him. And in Sinners In The Hands Of a Angry God talks about the same thing almost. In this one it talks about the sermon calmly telling all the people that if they don't go to church they will all go to hell and be tortured. And he also said that the only thing between you and hell is the air. He tried to scare all the people by how calm and how he put images in there heads. About god's wrath and how there

Plato’s account of a tyrant is close to that of the “great” Soviet Leader, Joseph Stalin. In Book IX of the Republic, Glaucon notes that under a tyrannic rule, a city or state will be tragic and depressing; additionally, it is also stated that city will always experience more freedom and content under a king. (Bloom, 257). This account is a key factor in comparing Stalin with the Republic, as Stalin’s ambitions were similar with Plato’s descriptions. Using other descriptions from Plato’s Republic, it clear that Joseph Stalin fits Plato’s account of a tyrant. The Soviet regime under Joseph Stalin suffered greatly and the tyrant rule of Stalin was oppressive, restrictive, and produced great amounts of casualties. We are comparing how Plato’s account for a tyrant is accurate of the results of Joseph Stalin; that a city will experience freedom with kingship, as well as darkness and scrutiny under a tyranny.

Vladimir Lenin was slowly degrading before Stalin took power. Before Lenin died, he spoke out against Stalin by saying, “Stalin has concentrated enormous power in his hands, and I am not sure he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution.” (Document 1). As the main creator of the Communist party and the USSR, Lenin warned the public that Stalin’s power was going to get to his head and he was going to become a selfish ruler. This became true when Stalin becomes a full time dictator. He begins abusing his power by creating a police state that brought terror among the public. He forced obedience and crushed any opposition that came in his way. Secret police arrested and killed off any traitors towards Stalin. Stalin, then, betrayed members of the Communist Party. From there, he lofted the Great Purge, which was a campaign of terror against all of his citizens. He killed off anyone that threatened the power and authority against him. Old Bolsheviks and the police themselves were either arrested or eliminated. It is estimated by the end of the Great Purge, Stalin killed as many as 8 to 13 million people. These were all people who supposedly threatened his regime. Even more people got killed, when Stalin started persecuting religious officials and followers. By Lenin’s warning, the Great Purge, and religious persecution, it is evident on how Stalin frequently abused his power during his reign. It also shows how selfish he is towards his

Stalin like Hitler “used propaganda, censorship, and terror to force his will on the Soviet people. Government newspapers glorified work and Stalin himself. Secret police spied on citizens, and anyone who refused to praise Stalin and the state faced severe punishment, even death” (“The Soviet”, n.d.).

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.

But make public his speech wasn’t part of his plan, his speech was for the communist party, that’s why he didn’t mention his disapproval of the persecution of non-communist. His speech was named “Stalin’s second funeral” since it reconsidered everything Stalin supported, Khrushchev, on the other had advocated a new policy of peaceful coexistence. After his speech protester took the streets in the soviet satellites of Poland and Hungary, the Polish revolt was resolved peacefully, unlike the Hungarian which was suppressed with tropes and tanks a cost the life of 2,500 Hungarians. In his domestic front, Khrushchev tried to increase agricultural work and raise living standards. He also reduced the power of the Soviet Union’s feared secret police, released many political prisoners, relaxed artistic censorship, opened up more of the country to foreign visitors and inaugurated the space age in 1957 with the launch of the satellite

Nikita Khrushchev rose to power after the death of Stalin. He was a leader who desperately worked for reform yet his reforms hardly ever accomplished their goals. He was a man who praised Stalin while he was alive but when Stalin died Khrushchev was the first to publicly denounce him. Khrushchev came to power in 1953 and stayed in power until 1964, when he was forced to resign.

On the 25th of February 1956, the twentieth congress of the Communist Party, Nikita Khrushchev gained 1,500 delegates and many invited visitors to assembled in Moscow in the Great Hall of Kremlin as to deliver a speech on the recently – deceased Joseph Stalin. In the next 4 hours, Khrushchev went on criticizing on every aspect of Stalin’s method of rule. The well-known speech entitled “On The Cult of Individual and its Consequences” become simply known as Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech”. Primary sources are used to allow the historian to have an insight on the context and the intention it’s trying to present. While it does give the historian an insight on the context, the response will consider the problems that pose as a primary source to historians.

Joseph Stalin’s three decade long dictatorship rule that ended in 1953, left a lasting, yet damaging imprint on the Soviet Union in political, economic and social terms. “Under his inspiration Russia has modernised her society and educated her masses…Stalin found Russia working with a wooden plough and left her equipped with nuclear power” (Jamieson, 1971). Although his policies of collectivisation and industrialisation placed the nation as a leading superpower on the global stage and significantly ahead of its economic position during the Romanov rule, this was not without huge sacrifices. Devastating living and working standards for the proletariat, widespread famine, the Purges, and labour camps had crippling impacts on Russia’s social