Though Stalin's rule cost many human lives, it is unarguable that huge economic progress was made during this era. His five-year plans had drastically improved Russia's economy, especially in terms of production in substances such as oil, coal, iron and steel. The production in agriculture such as grain increased significantly due to Stalin's plans of collectivisation, despite much resistance from the peasants and Kulaks.

The millions of lives cost by Stalin could not only be attributed to his plans. Russia was facing a crisis since Lenin had died, and it would also be likely that Russians would have died without Stalin's rule anyway as grain production just as Stalin came into power was extremely low.

Economy: Even though the 5-Year Plans Stalin had constructed were stressful on the people, this allowed Russia to stand up against Hitler in terms of military, which was a great feat.

Stalin's dictatorship was a success, as he had brought about industrial improvement of Russia, whereby Russia used to be an agricultural country during the Tsar's period of ruling, whereas during Stalin's dictatorship, he has brought about education in working and improved farming practices, allowing the increase in food and resource production, thereby improving the quality of life in Russia. An example of increased production would be the 367% increase in Coal, 392% increase in Oil and 450% increase in Steel during the 10 year period between 1927 and 1937

Stalin's dictatorship was a success, this is due to the fact that Stalin succeeded in what he first set out to do, to industrialize the backward Russia. and succeeded in doing so, there was also a surplus of grain for foreign income, another goal of stalin's leadership. also other than the first famine, there were no other famine.

Stalin was able to remove his opposition during his time and remain in power for a very long time. He was able to improve the economy of Russia even though lives were sacrificed, the country was able to produce more in the industries. The people were given new jobs in factories and the farmers were able to learn new methods of farming to produce more grain. Stalin have been able to industrialize Russia and bring it out to the modern world.

Agricultural production was increased in a way that would have never been achieved. Despite heavy human costs, the extra grain produced may have very well prevented millions others from dying due to starvation

Economic: Stalin increased production of agriculture (from collectivisation) and industrial materials, like coal and iron (from industralisation). This allowed more exports and allowing the country to be economically better.

Social: Due to a growth in economy, people had more money to lead better and more comfortable lives.

Through the economic policies, Russia was pulled out of poverty. Collectivisation had proved to be success, it had fulfilled its task of providing food for the people after the first great famine which was also the last.

Although we can argue that Stalin's dictatorship resulted in the deaths of millions of people, it goes without a doubt that he led the Soviet Union to become a world-class superpower with far-reaching influences throughout the world. His policies of collectivization and industrialization allowed the Soviet Union to be self-dependent on the basic resources of food, energy and raw materials, and the factories ensured that large quantities of machinery can be produced, especially crucial in the Second world war. Also by ensuring the loyalty of the Russian people, he united the Soviet Union into a strong force, important during those tumultuous times where fractured and indecisive governments lose control of their countries.

Through Stalin's leadership, the transport system was improved as well as the industry, where there was more coal and iron.

Agriculture also improved and grain production reached high levels, through modernisation and efficient farming methods.

Education was also provided for more people since Stalin needed people who could read instructions.

Stalin's dictatorship was a success as he managed to industrialize Russia and made USSR a superpower. He also managed to bridge the gap between the Western Democracies in terms of modernization .

Collectivization was also designed to modernise farming practises to create a surplus to sell abroad for hard currency and to free up manpower as they were needed in the new factories; and finally it was designed to break the peasants as a political force. Collectivization was a success as it fulfilled it's goals.

Stalin did manage to pull Russia out of poverty with his plans. Even though a heavy price was paid, Stalin did manage to get Russia back up on its feet. The amount of goods produced is much more than that before Stalin took over. From 1927-1937, production of electricity, oil, coal and steel increased. This is therefore a success whereby Russia is geared for production and this is a long term effect.

Although Stalin was a ruthless man, whose mismanagement led to twenty million Russians dying in battle and even more dying from his Five-Year-Plans, while he did whatever necessary to keep himself in power, Russia helped save Europe from the horrors of Hitler.

The introduction of technology in farming practices, even though not that ideal at that time (due to poor manufacturing, the tractors frequently broke down), helped to pave a foundation and revamped how the Russians view farming. This would benefit their agricultural industry in the long run, as people are more acceptance and aware of the ways they could use technology to farm more efficiently.

Although many had considered Stalin to be a failure, considering the atrocious death toll and negligence of his fellow Russians, he did in fact achieve his goals of modernisation. Stalin's plans for modernisation by far was successful. Reforms for industralisation and agriculture had indeed boosted the USSR's economy, doubling output from heavy industries and introducing collectivised farms and machinery to farms had cause a surplus in grain production. Furthermore, during Stalin's dictatorship, the nation was able to catch up with other already industrialised nations and was able to rebuild the nation. Defence armaments grew rapidly as resources were diverted to them. Also hydro-electric dams, canals, railways and other infrastructural projects were built. Thus, even though the human cost was high, economically and politically, it was considered to be a huge success as goals were achieved.

Its a difference between Long term effects or Short term effects.

In short term, stalin had taken many lives but for the rest of the Russian population he gave them better standing in the world by forcing industrialization to occur. For change to occur something outside the "comfort zone" had to be done.

Stalin's dictatorship was a success because Stalin was able to bring out the surge in the economy and transportation of USSR. This allowed USSR to become a superpower in a very short time. Although his policies came at a great human cost, it fulfilled his goal of bringing the USSR forward.

IT WAS A SUCCESS BABY. He achieved what he wanted to achieve which was the only thing important to him. He was a professional at what he was doing and didn't care about what people felt or think, which is the MINDSET of a CHAMPION.

Stalin's goals were to regain power in the world and regain lost lands that were taken by the germans. By industrialization he had help Russia gained it, the growth and advancement. By which makes him successful for which he did not state the actions he would take to achieve it, making the 20 million deaths he caused not a stand that should be used against him.

Although Stalin's rule costed many Russians their lives, there was still huge economic progress was made during this era. Stalin's five-year plans had improved Russia's economy dramatically with some reported figures doubling the original production rates, especially in terms of production in substances such as oil, coal, iron and steel. The production in agriculture such as grain increased significantly due to Stalin's plans of collectivisation, despite the resistance from the peasants.

Russia faced great crisis since Lenin died. And the Russians would probably have died without Stalin's rule as grain production was very low. Should Stalin had not come in and executed the 5 year plans, Russian would probably still have been a backwards country and they might not have made it through WWII, which was a great indicator of the positive impact of the industrialization process. Some even argue that it was because of industrialization that Russia survived WWII.

Despite causing many lives to be lost, Stalin pushed the economy to thrive with his industrialization and collectivization plans. Furthermore, he used propaganda to control his people which i found was a success because during his dictatorship, there were minimal revolts and protests against him showing that he used fear to control the people.

Stalin's dictatorship was a success, as industrialization and civilization both were successful. He also managed to achieve control of many people through propaganda and purges. Though the human cost were a little high during the five year plans, the ultimate goal was still achieved.

-ZhiYong

In every leadership, there must be a certain amount of dictatorship. Under Stalin's rule, he had dictatorship over Russia and implemented many policies in hope of improving the USSR. In some of the policies, it may have cost many lives and the treatment/conditions were brutal. However, have we ever considered what if Stalin did not implement these policies? Russia would have never advance, and their economic state would be devastating. Collectivisation and Industrialisation were one of the most important policies in my opinion. Technology was introduced to farmers, military was funded and no more famines occurred. In every good, there has to be a bad. How can there be success when there isn't failures? Of course, the cost of human lives may be considered immoral to some, but there would have been much more deaths in the long run if not for Stalin's dictatorship.

Stalin's dictatorship was a success as it helped Russia to increase grain production which resulted in modernization and economic proper through the years.

Even though his harsh policies and purges resulted in the death of 10 million people, it is incomparable to the resulting prosperity of the rest of Russia. A worthy sacrifice for the country~

- Jonathan T.

Although Stalin's rule killed millions and caused the suffering of a million more, it is evident that Stalin was a success. He managed to set Russia onto a modern path, and lay the foundation for a first world country. By implementing collectivization, he brought grain production to a record 100 million tons, at least 30 million tons more than before collectivization's implementation. With the increase in grain, Russia was able to gain capital via exports and feed workers in cities to move Stalin's other plan, industrialization, forward. A tribute to his success would be that Russia managed to fend off Germany, a major military power, when Germany attacked Russia during WW2.

Stalin had benefited the country by advancing it significantly when he was leading the country than during the time period when other leaders were leading it. Besides the obvious economical breakthroughs of increasing production rate almost twice than before, Stalin has recovered the country from during the times of crisis such as the famine. This improved the population by having better social conditions than the time initially before that. People could finally eat when they want to, when before, they can't even eat anything in the first place. Jobs were created with the Industrialization implemented by Stalin, which gave the people a better purpose to life which is for the good of the country, rather than just trying to survive, miserably. Ultimately in the end, it was for the good of the country. It was for the benefit of the general population. They may have been sacrifices, but they were necessary sacrifices, which lead them to victory.

In order to have success there has to be hard work, perseverance and sacrifices. Sure there were many deaths and unhappiness with the peasants, but the amount of benefits it brought to Russia outweighs the deaths and unhappiness.

With Stalin's policies, Russia became a more modernised country and prevented famine. Without these policies, there would eventually be more deaths as peasants would starve and Russia would not have the firepower to fight back in the case of a war.

Despite the great number of people that were killed under Stalin's rule,Stalin did manage to greatly improve Russia in many ways.Through industrialization,Russia was no longer a "backwards" country and production levels greatly increased.Transportation was improved,dams and heavy engineering plants were built.Through collectivization,grain production greatly increased.Stalin was also able to almost completely prevent any rebellions by purging or eliminating all those that opposed him.Also,if it were not for Stalin,the state of Russia may have been different during World War II,and Germany may have actually beaten Russia.This would have altered the course of world history.Overall,despite the sheer number of deaths under Stalin's rule,it can be argued that it was necessary to ensure the survival of Russia.

Stalin helped to increase food production as well as material production. He had a strong control over Russia and anyone who disobeyed him would get exiled under the command of Stalin.

Stalin was an effective leader and dictator and his dictatorship can be considered a success as he drastically improved the grain production over the years with the use of Collectivisation, especially after the Great Famine and the Civil War. Similarly, his Five-Year Plans improved the economy and all of his ideas and implementations were the reason why Russia would advance. Simply speaking, in order for successes to arise, there bound to be the sacrifice of lives in order for these ideas of Stalin to become popular and effective. The deaths can be considered a worthy sacrifice for Russia, as Russia was able to further develop and improve with the implementation of Stalin's measures and ideas. This proved the success of his dictatorship as Russia changed and improved under Stalin's rule.

In my opinion, if you live in a certain country, you owe that country a living. In other words, you have to work for your country, fight for them and sometimes even sacrifice yourself. It is not about Stalin brutally forced the farmers to work; it's about the mindset of the people to pay back to their country.

Stalin's dictatorship was a success due to how much his methods had benefitted the Russian people and the efficiency of his methods to allow people to follow his lead. Collectivisation had allowed grain productivity to increase, providing the people with food. People also were able to learn how to drive tractors or work in factories and mines, providing them with skills to make productivity increase more efficiently. His methods to make the Russian people follow his lead were also efficient. His usage of fear to force the people into working provided them with no other option, allowing the productivity to increase even more efficiently. Furthermore, his methods also worked in a sense that they improved the economy of Russia, making his dictatorship a success as that was one of the goals behind his methods which benefitted Russia. The death of millions of humans was also negligible as one of the goals behind Stalin's methods were to benefit Russia, not to save more people. Furthermore, should Russia benefit, people would be able to survive better as compared to a Russia without the implementation of Stalin's methods were people who may have been spared would still die in the end.

Stalin was a success because although he had indirectly killed lots of people, he did help progress Russia as the red army had managed to kick our glorious leader Hitler out of motherland Russia when he tried to poke his nose in. Remember. Russia then was literally ruined by fat corrupted kings and he managed to salvage mother Russia to its glorious state as what we know today. And besides, Stalin had a better moustache than Hitler hence Russia > Germany so Stalin wins. Hence ,imo the deaths were worth the success of mother Russia :D

P.s. what's with my dp? I'm not that fat and dumb..

Often, many say that any kind of dictatorship is bad. Many say that dictatorship always favoured the dictator himself, which is very true. What Stalin did was not only favouring him, but also the country. His policies helped his country, under him, grow, modernize and sustain.

Stalin was a considered a failure due to mass killings and using fear to control the people.However, he increase the production rate of the defense structures as he knew that Russia could not withstand an attack from the other countries. With the increase of the number of weapons/defensive structures, he was not only able to defend Russia, but also became one of the winning countries in World war 2.

Stalin's work can instead be divided into the parts where he succeeded and those where he failed. He has contributed to economy and laws that are still in practice. Hence to call something unsuccessful bypassing events that have made major changes would be wrong. When one sees his contribution in a perspective that is not in relation with what he otherwise did; question that arises is; not if Stalin was successful but if his policies worked.

So here what is required is not to negotiate with his ways of expression but demand how his ways have worked.

Also in the ways he has failed as some here have mentioned like the thousands of deaths, it is important to analyze it deeper.

Let's calculate the number of deaths during Stalin's time as head of state, using some data from previously closed archives

1: Variation in Population = Births - Deaths + Immigration - Emigration

2: Deaths = War + Famine + Forced + Natural

3: Delta Pop = Births - (War + Famine + Forced + Natural) + Immigration - Emigration

We will calculate the amount of deaths between 1926 and 1951 (the time of Stalin's leadership)

Important Numbers:

1- Population of June 1941 includes 20,270,000 in territories annexed by USSR in 1939-45 net of population transfers.

2- World War II Losses were 26.6 million, total war losses includes territories annexed by USSR in 1939-45.

3- The modern estimate of about 5 million deaths due to the famine is used.

4- Average birth rate = 2,000,000 B/Y

Our equation then becomes:

182,321,000 (1951 Population) - 148,656,000 (1926 Population) =

2,000,000 (Average Births / Year) X 25 Years - ( 26,600,000 + Famine + Forced + Natural) + 20,270,000 + Immigration - Emigration

Notice how some fields are unknown, this is because the information is not directly available, and we are to find it through calculation.

-36,605,000 = -26,600,000 - Famine - Forced - Natural - Emigration

10,005,000 = Famine + Forced + Natural + Emigration

Now, taking into account the 5 million deaths due to the famine

(The 1930s famine is a hotly debated topic and it is, in the academic arena rather difficult to link as a deliberate policy to eliminate the Ukrainians. Not to mention it did affect other regions of the Soviet Union. If prejudice compels however, blaming the Soviet government is to the discretion of the reader.)

5,050,000 = Forced + Natural + Emigration

Evidently, forced deaths could not have been too high, otherwise there would have been virtually no natural deaths.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union

Which in turn cites:

Andreev, E.M., et al., Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1

Notable difficulties

1- Note that the birth rate used is an average of the entire Soviet Era, and it is probable that this number was lower during the famine and World War 2. (Effect: Lower number than calculated of deaths linked to regime)

2- The estimates of deaths (civilian and combatant) for world war 2 range from a minimum of 20 million to a maximum of about 29 million. The figure most accepted in academia today is about 25-26, and so I used the figure from the source, since it was within range.

3- Always add +/- 5%, since a margin of error is always possible with this kind of data.

The myth concerning the famine in the Ukraine

One of the first campaigns of the Hearst press against the Soviet Union revolved round the question of the millions alleged to have died as a result of the Ukraine famine. This campaign began on 18 February 1935 with a front-page headline in the Chicago American `6 million people die of hunger in the Soviet Union'. Using material supplied by Nazi Germany, William Hearst, the press baron and Nazi sympathiser, began to publish fabricated stories about a genocide which was supposed to have been deliberately perpetrated by the Bolsheviks and had caused several million to die of starvation in the Ukraine. The truth of the matter was altogether different. In fact what took place in the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1930s was a major class struggle in which poor landless peasants had risen up against the rich landowners, the kulaks, and had begun a struggle for collectivisation, a struggle to form kolkhozes.

This great class struggle, involving directly or indirectly some 120 million peasants, certainly gave rise to instability in agricultural production and food shortages in some regions. Lack of food did weaken people, which in turn led to an increase in the number falling victim to epidemic diseases. These diseases were at that time regrettably common throughout the world. Between 1918 and 1920 an epidemic of Spanish flu caused the death of 20 million people in the US and Europe, but nobody accused the governments of these countries of killing their own citizens. The fact is that there was nothing these government could do in the face of epidemics of this kind. It was only with the development of penicillin during the second world war, that it became possible for such epidemics to be effectively contained. This did not become generally available until towards the end of the 1940s.

The Hearst press articles, asserting that millions were dying of famine in the Ukraine - a famine supposedly deliberately provoked by the communists, went into graphic and lurid detail. The Hearst press used every means possible to make their lies seem like the truth, and succeeded in causing public opinion in the capitalist countries to turn sharply against the Soviet Union. This was the origin of the first giant myth manufactured alleging millions were dying in the Soviet Union. In the wave of protests against the supposedly communist-provoked famine which the Western press unleashed, nobody was interested in listening to the Soviet Union's denials and complete exposure of the Hearst press lies, a situation which prevailed from 1934 until 1987! For more than 50 years several generations of people the world over were brought up on a diet of these slanders to harbour a negative view of socialism in the Soviet Union.

The kulaks and the counter-revolution

In the case of the counter-revolutionaries, it is also necessary to consider the crimes of which they were accused. Let us give two examples to show the importance of this question: the first is the kulaks sentenced at the beginning of the 1930s, and the second is the conspirators and counter-revolutionaries convicted in 1936-38.

According to the research reports insofar as they deal with the kulaks, the rich peasants, there were 381,000 families, i.e., about 1.8 million people sent into exile. A small number of these people were sentenced to serve terms in labour camps or colonies. But what gave rise to these punishments?

The rich Russian peasant, the kulak, had subjected poor peasants for hundreds of years to boundless oppression and unbridled exploitation. Of the 120 million peasants in 1927, the 10 million kulaks lived in luxury while the remaining 110 million lived in poverty. Before the revolution they had lived in the most abject poverty. The wealth of the kulaks was based on the badly-paid labour of the poor peasants. When the poor peasants began to join together in collective farms, the main source of kulak wealth disappeared. But the kulaks did not give up. They tried to restore exploitation by use of famine. Groups of armed kulaks attacked collective farms, killed poor peasants and party workers, set fire to the fields and killed working animals. By provoking starvation among poor peasants, the kulaks were trying to secure the perpetuation of poverty and their own positions of power. The events which ensued were not those expected by these murderers. This time the poor peasants had the support of the revolution and proved to be stronger than the kulaks, who were defeated, imprisoned and sent into exile or sentenced to terms in labour camps.

Of the 10 million kulaks, 1.8 million were exiled or convicted. There may have been injustices perpetrated in the course of this massive class struggle in the Soviet countryside, a struggle involving 120 million people. But can we blame the poor and the oppressed, in their struggle for a life worth living, in their struggle to ensure their children would not be starving illiterates, for not being sufficiently `civilised' or showing enough `mercy' in their courts? Can one point the finger at people who for hundreds of years had no access to the advances made by civilisation for not being civilised? And tell us, when was the kulak exploiter civilised or merciful in his dealings with poor peasants during the years and years of endless exploitation.

Turned a backwater feudal third world into a superpower that made the West crap its pants. Stalin might be bad, but people living under the Tsar weren't much better.

Stalin was a success in terms of development and his ambition was to match up with the capitalist countries in terms of infrastructure and production. He inherited a country which was politically and economically unstable and he made it into a country which had nuclear weapons. Granted his method was cruel but it was necessary. He didn't sigh away from his ambition and that was reflected in WW2 as well when he decided not to accept his son as a mean of negotiation. There is a saying by fidel castro " Cruel leaders are replaced by leaders who become cruel". And let us not rule out the fact that He himself was a very hard worker. And it was because of him the Nazi military machine could be stopped.

If the people disobeyed Stalin, they would have been killed. This caused many people to panic and when people panic they make mistakes and when people make mistakes they get hurt or killed. Although Stalin's rule caused many deaths, huge progress was made during this era. His five-year plans had improved Russia's economy, especially the production of substances such as oil, coal, iron and electricity. The production in agriculture such as grain increased a lot because of Stalin's rule although people didn’t like it. If Stalin didn’t kill people, his plans wouldn’t have worked. Russia was facing a crisis since Lenin had died, and it would also be likely that Russians would have died without Stalin's rule. Overall Stalin’s rule was good and it was successful but not that many people should have died.