Written By Utkarsh Singh Patel (Grade 8)
Joseph Stalin, who led the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953, was one of the most influential personalities in Soviet and world history. Stalin led the Soviet Union during the most revolutionary period by industrialising the nation, becoming a world superpower, solidifying a victory over Nazi Germany during WWII, and for all intents and purposes, starting the Cold War. At the same time, his reign was afraid of repressions, purges, famine, and totalitarian rule, and thus millions of people died, and the Soviet society suffered profound consequences. If I found myself in Stalin’s shoes, there are certain major policies that would have been made differently, especially on political administration, economic control, and international diplomacy. These changes one could only imagine could have led to a completely different history of the USSR and the world.
- The role of political purges as the means for leadership consolidation
The most sinister event that characterised Stalin’s leadership was the Great Purge, popularly known as the Great Terror, that besieged the USSR between 1936 and 1938. At this period, many millions of Soviet citizens—political opponents, senior military, intelligentsia, and much of the population—were arrested, imprisoned, or executed for being enemies of the state. These policies caused Stalin’s Soviet Union to have a culture of fear and suppression, which greatly diminished the ability of the Soviet Union’s intellectual and military intelligence.
Combining political power with a regime is much more effective than a military regime, so if I were Stalin, I would not kill people with whom I could collaborate politically. Stalin considered getting rid of rivals as essential to controlling the party and the country, but adopting a more open-minded leadership strategy would have helped to build a solid union and create conditions to encourage the flow of new ideas within the framework of the version of the Communist Party. Permitting healthy discussions and brainstorming amongst the Soviets would have enabled them to harness the strength of diverse opinions in the party and therefore govern and make policies in the best interest of the union.
Further, not removing the political leaders would have put the Red Army in a better standing and made it much more capable of confronting the emerging conflict with Nazi Germany. Slaughtering experienced military leaders through mass execution crippled the Soviet Union’s defence during the early stages of the Second World War and led to very massive losses. Maintaining the leadership and experienced personnel of the military may have benefitted in a better defence against the German invasion, extending the war into invasion failing with less loss of thousands of lives.
- The economic policies together with the forceful collectivisation.
Stalin aimed at rapid industrialisation and the elimination of capitalist tendency from the Soviet peasant; for this reason, Stalin’s economic policies focused on collectivising agriculture. However, in the attempt to advance with the implementation of collectivisation, the Ukrainians suffered enormously, and millions of them died of hunger and grain requisition during the Holodomor 1932–1933.
Specifically, if I were Stalin, I would change the course of the collectivisation by making it more slow and voluntary. I would have only encouraged peasants to join the collective farms instead of forcing them as it was done before, providing them with such stimuli as the availability of modern farming equipment and state-sponsored support. Such an approach could have enhanced the production of food crops, hence improving food production without resulting in the horrifying famines that characterise the Soviet Union during Stalin’s reign.
Moreover, instead of focusing on the development of big industry at the expense of agriculture, I would have laid down a much more sensible policy. Had the Soviets invested in them in the industrial and agricultural sectors, they would have been in a position to create a better economy for the advancement of living standards of people in the country. A population that is innately healthier, better nourished, and has more access to food would provide less resistance towards the Soviet Communist government, and hence the minimal employment of force necessary would suffice.
- Foreign Policy and Relations with the West
The relations with foreign countries were dominated by Stalin’s profound suspicion towards the Western democracies, especially during post-World War II. His demands for the existence of the ‘outer ring’ of socialist countries in Eastern Europe and for the introduction of the totalitarian regimes paved the way to the division of Europe as well as the start of the Cold War. This resulted in decades of tension, arms buildup, and a Cold War-like situation between the Soviet Union and the United States.
If I were Stalin, I would have wanted a better and more friendly relationship with the western world, especially after the downfall of Germany’s fascist regime. Although it was vital to shield Soviet interests, I would have supported the development of the more liberal and democratic socialist societies in Eastern Europe instead of placing dictatorial regimes there. At first glance, the policy with these nations granting them more independence and cooperation with western democracies might have given the Soviet Union a more stable postwar world.
This change of strategy could have averted the cold war or at least have slowed it down to buy the Soviets more time to develop internally and lessen the imperative of military competition with the United States. A more conciliatory approach on the international platform could have also paved the way for economic cooperation and technology share that would have been of mutual advantage to the Soviet society in the future.
- Human Rights and Governance
Stalin’s regime also supplied oppression of the dissidents, censorship, and the application of the forced labour camps, commonly referred to as gulags. Against their will, millions of people were taken to these camps for political crimes and thereby exposed to poor treatment and even demise. Soviet culture erased the individual’s autonomy for thought and freedom of expression and created a society filled with fear, pain, and mistrust.
The evaluation of the situation with all its adverse outcomes would have been different. If I were Stalin, I would have been more open and humane. Had I had a chance to change society, I would have abolished the secret police and eliminated the usage of forced labour camps, resulting in a more diligent society. Giving more freedom to people in terms of information exchange and dispute would have made the Soviet Union one of the most prosperous civilisations in the world. This would have also helped increase the level of support for the CP and, at the same time, lowered the amount of opposition from the populace.
In conclusion, Stalin’s leadership can be considered to have had a significant impact on the Soviet Union as well as the world. But in addition to this, the Soviet Union could have become a more prosperous, stable, and respected world power if it had adopted a more liberal political process, sustained moderate economic policies, recognised the western world, and supported human rights. Such changes would have certainly redirected the course of twentieth-century history in general and the Cold War in particular and would have saved millions of people from suffering under Stalin’s dictatorship.
Featured Image Courtesy –
