chant_m_d

=D. Analysis (500-650 words) Tips]= Stalin’s personality and role is at the centre of many historical debates about the USSR from the 1930’s onwards. Regarding the historical debates about Stalin’s main economic policies being Collectivization and Industrialization, the question of “How successful were the economic policies of Stalin during the 1930’s” has raised numerous debates about it. Whether Stalinist historian, totalitarian, or Revisionist historian[1], all agree that Russia’s economy was backwards in 1928, and was terrible compared to the economies of the western countries. Important questions such as “Would the economy have gotten back up slowly but surely if the NEP had kept on going?” are important. Historian David Hoffman[2] offers a strong argument in which he argues that Stalin’s use of coercion in seeking economic and social change proved both inhumane and ineffective. He points out what he believes contradictions in Stalin’s economic policies.[3] On the other hand, Revisionist historian Peter Gattrell[4] acknowledges that Stalin’s measures were harsh and destructive in the way he treated the Soviet people, however Gattrell argues that “hard though it is for the Western liberal mind to accept, it may be that Russia could not have been modernized by any other methods except those used by Stalin”[5].
 * __Different Interpretations. __**
 * __Critical Analysis. __**

As previously stated, the most fundamental problem when investigating the number of deaths due to collectivization and the programme of de-Kulakisation, or the industrial output of the USSR in certain areas, is the various interpretations historians can bring to the sets of figures and data. Where one historian may see gradual increase in a certain production, the other will see a decline in quality of the specific product, thus considering it an actual decrease of production. Sources are often subject to problems of bias and selection, for sometimes we are given a deluge of information, thus having to select certain sources and ignoring others, and in other cases there are problems of bias, and historians need to assess how trustworthy sources are. Moreover, Historians aim to persuade and to entertain, thus sometimes distorting our ‘knowledge’ even further, and making it harder to comprehend fully the topic in question.
 * __Historiography and philosophy in History. __**

[1] Stalinist Historian – Those who follow the line of the Communist Party during Stalin’s lifetime. Totalitarian Historian – Those who see the USSR as a totalitarian state controlled from above by Stalin. These historians see Marxist and Bolshevik ideology as a fundamental cause of the nature of the regime and Stalin’s dictatorship. Revisionist Historian – Those historians who turn their attention away from the personality of Stalin and the apparatus of terror. Instead they tend to concentrate on the structures inside the USSR, the difficulties the regime faced in carrying out important policies, etc. [2] Info about David Hoffman and his works. [3] Appendix F [4] Info about Peter Gattrell and his works. [5] Michael Lynch, (2008). //Access to History Stalin's Russia 1924-53//. Oxford University Press, USA. Page 55