answersLogoWhite

0

he Is a very bad man. He killed millions and many just disappeared over night. He built a canal connecting Moscow with St. Petersburg and killed 25,000 people just doing that. He also flooded many villages in making the canal. If he needed a man who had a certain occupation or ability, he would be arrested, and kept in a prison camp forced to work. I was in Russia last summer and went down the canal to St. Petersburg. Enroute we stopped at a old monastery to see a musem,but the whole place was in ruins with piles of rocks everywhere. After I got home and was watching a history channel program on the canal I saw the monastery I had visited. It had been used as a prison camp. I now wonder if the piles of rocks weren't graves, but I will never know. Also he let 20 million of his own people die during the war with Germany

I, personally, like Stalin but I will give both sides of the debate.

Anti-Stalinists say he killed lots of people in the Holodomor but than again Stalinists say the Statics don't add up.

Also, Stalinists question WHY he would do that?

On the whole, Stalin was a "bad" man in the sense that he was either directly or indirectly the cause of much misery to millions of innocent people and is responsible for, whether directly or indirectly, the deaths of 15 to 20 million people.

Czar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate the throne because he was indifferent to the misery of the Russian people. Stalin, on the other hand, actively caused misery to the people he was supposed to be governing.

Even the one thing that can be said that he did for the country, making it into a modern industrial power was not without its negatives. IN order to fund his industrialization plans, Stalin had to confiscate grain from the peasant farmers, because that was what the Soviet Union could produce to sell abroad. So he confiscated as much grain as he needed to fulfill his plans, but without worrying whether the farmers who grew it had enough left to live on.

Depends how you look at it. It's not like he had a huge moral and ethics concerns, but his intentions were never to simply cause misery to the population for the sheer fun of it.

Everything has it's negatives. Even increasing health care or education funding, the funding has to come from somewhere. This means something else loses money, or the population pays more taxes.

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

What else can I help you with?