World War II was a turbulent time in history for Soviet Russia. Coming fresh out of the 1930s, the Soviet people were recovering from mass purges of the Communist Party, and it proved to affect Russia’s entrance into the war. As Fuller notes in his chapter of Russia: A History, the military purges that began in 1937 seriously affected the Soviet military’s hierarchy. With “at least 35 percent of the officer corps” purged, the Red Army became seriously demoralized, not to mention the amount of technical knowledge the military would lose because of the arrests and executions (377). These purges put Russia at a tremendous disadvantage when the time to fight the Nazis came around. This, combined with Stalin’s inability to face reality, made for a sour start to a deadly war. There were many military and political elites who assumed that the war wouldn’t even be fought on Soviet soil, which combined wonderfully with Stalin’s initial willingness to collude with Germany, in the hopes “that they would exhaust themselves in a lengthy war of attrition against the French and British” (379). Stalin completely miscalculated how the war would play out, and it put every member of the Red Army and Soviet society at great risk.
Despite all of this, the Soviet people were willing to trust and follow the direction of Stalin and the Soviet state. The problems from the thirties seemed to have “taught the mass of Soviet citizens a healthy respect for the power of the state” (385). This allowed the state to centralize very quickly, and made the mobilization of people and resources during the war a lot more efficient, and aided Soviet Russia significantly in their victory. So what of Stalin then? He allowed himself to be manipulated by Hitler, was culpable for the insane amount of deaths at the start of the war, and was willing to scapegoat anyone he could in his bid to “divert blame from himself” (388). Stalin was able to inspire fear in Soviet citizens. The mere thought of a threat from Stalin motivated factory workers, as well as generals, to put in whatever effort was necessary to win the war. Furthermore, as the war progressed, so did Stalin’s strategy in approaching the enemy. His growing willingness to accept advice from his political and military aids contributed greatly to the turnaround Russia was able to make to secure victory over Germany. However, the Soviet people loved him. In a time of crisis and catastrophe, Stalin “became a symbol of national unity, an embodiment of the spirit of resistence” (388). In July of 1941, in a very fireside chat-esque manner, Stalin addressed the Soviet people in a radio address in regards to the German invasion only weeks prior. His greeting of “Brothers and Sisters . . . my friends!” gave the Soviet people a hopeful perception of their leader during a serious and fearful time. He addressed the masses not just with disdain for the enemy, but with hope for the role they could play. He urged the Soviet people to do their part, ordering them to make haste and mobilize in order to protect and defend the motherland, saying “the masses of our people will rise in the millions.”
At the end of the war, Stalin was sure to maintain his control over the issues that inevitably arose once victory was reached. Among the many concerns, rebuilding the industrial base was a high priority, and Stalin hoped to achieve this with a fourth 5-Year Plan, and he did. By 1950, “gross industrial output exceedeed tat of 1940 by 40 percent” (394). He also implemented a political and ideological crack-down where he “reorganized the High Command, personally assumed the portfolio of Minister of Defence, and conducted a ‘purge of the victors'” in order to combat the lackadaisical rules that were allowed during the war (394). Stalin also deported well over a million indigenious people he felt were predisposed to collarborate with the Nazi party, and he also made it very clear in his electoral speech that “good relations with the Western allies would not continue in the post-war era,” to make sure that the Soviet people didn’t get too close to the idea of liberalization (395). This went so far that it started “a xenophobic campaign to purify Soviet intellectual life of Western, bourgeois influence” known as Zhdanovshchina (396).
After the war ended, Stalin was adament on not letting the West entrench itself into the minds of the Soviet people. They had just come out on the winning side of a bloody war (one where he caused a lot of blood to spill), and he was not about to let all of his hard work crumble under the stress of an alliance with the US and Britain, among others, and he knew Russia wasn’t capable of another war. So when the Cold War arose as a problem, he bluffed. He exaggerated the strength of his military, began a counterintelligence campaign that would inspire countless spy movies, and bought the state enough time to rebuild itself (399-400). When Stalin died in 1953, the Soviet state mourned. He laid in state at the Kremlin, and if you don’t believe that the Soviet people at least respected Stalin, don’t forget that 500 people were trampled to death on the day of his funeral. The man caused death when he was alive and after he died. And despite the fact that millions of people died because of him in WWII, he also managed to win the war. And in the eyes of the Soviet people, I guess that meant more than the damage he caused before the war, and at the beginning of it.
This post was featured in “Comrade’s Corner” on the Motherblog.
April 13, 2020 @ 11:10 am
Hey, Kendall! I really liked you post, I think that it definitely made me think a lot of Machiavelli and his view of how you should rule a country (a very ‘the ends justifies the means’ approach). Specifically, the entirety of this post and I think in the larger view, the relationship between the Soviet people and Stalin, was very reflective of Machiavelli’s famous quote, “it is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” Though in addition, I feel like the Soviet people definitely both feared and loved Stalin, kind of like a father-child relationship where you fear the punishments of your father but you also love him because he cares about you. Stalin’s rule and his dynamic with his people are very interesting overall.
April 13, 2020 @ 2:30 pm
Hi Joy! I really like your perspective and how you brought up Machiavelli! I think Stalin did have a very Machiavellian style when it came to his rule over the Soviet Union, but it managed to translate well to the people, in a certain sense. He was able to inspire fear in his people more often than not, but he was also capable of portraying a certain type of “love” when he knew his people needed it. There is something to be said for his ability to do both.
April 13, 2020 @ 12:34 pm
I really enjoyed your post Kendall! I learned a good bit about the post-war era under Stalin, and I had no idea that there was another round of Purges even after the war was over. I also had no idea that so many people were trampled at Stalin’s funeral, and it is amazing how the man was still causing death even after his passing!
April 13, 2020 @ 2:34 pm
Hi Rory! Thanks for your comment! It was definitely really interesting to analyze the dynamic Stalin created for himself in WWII, and how quickly he was able to shift his attitude toward Soviet citizens and those closely surrounding him. As for his funeral, it’s almost not surprising; he caused death anywhere he went (dead or alive).
April 13, 2020 @ 3:06 pm
This is such a big, hairy, scary topic — and you cover a lot of important ground in your post. But as overwhelming as it is, I think we need to look deeper to get at the complex dynamics of Stalin’s leadership cult. As you note, the “My dear friends” address mobilizes people in a way that goes beyond the negative motivation of fear of the brutal dictator. For all of his problems (and there were lots of them) Stalin was (and remains) closely associated with Soviet victory in WWII — a victory that was literally about the national survival, and as Lauren notes, one that engaged hearts and minds AND created an expectation that life would be better when peace was finally secured (https://blogs.lt.vt.edu/laurenhurt/2020/04/12/a-tribute-to-the-soviet-people/#comment-37).
April 13, 2020 @ 5:28 pm
Hello Professor Nelson, thanks for your reply! I agree, Stalin’s cult of leadership is incredibly sticky and confusing, but at the end of the day, he was the major reason the Soviets won the war. But to be fair, he almost cost the Soviets the war as well. I read Lauren’s post and I loved it! To me, the strength of the Soviet people is the real reason Russia won the war because, without that faith and hope, no country could survive the catastrophes Russia faced.
April 13, 2020 @ 6:39 pm
I’m with you! Also, so good to see you’ve got such a good response to this post.
April 13, 2020 @ 3:47 pm
Hey Kendall, great job on highlighting the role of probably the most notorious world leader of the 20th Century. I really like how in depth you went with how Stalin managed the war and the Soviet Union and how he managed to pull together the state into a formidable force that played a huge role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.
April 13, 2020 @ 5:31 pm
Hello! Thanks for your comment! Stalin’s ability to kinda “get himself together” is definitely worth talking about. And his ability to catch the attention of the Soviet people to inspire hope is something even more incredible.
April 13, 2020 @ 4:06 pm
Hey Kendall, I thought your post was very intriguing and informational. Stalin was an incredible manipulator and Is till think it’s amazing how much he was able to get away with and still have respect from the Soviet people. I also really like your last paragraph and saying how he was able to kill people even when he was dead, very creative.
April 13, 2020 @ 5:35 pm
Hey Matt! Thanks for your comment! I definitely think it’s interesting how Stalin kind of pulled himself together once the war started, and then went right back to forcing respect once it ended. I’m glad you enjoyed the last paragraph, thanks for the compliment!
April 13, 2020 @ 8:10 pm
Hi Kendall, I thought your post did a great job covering such a complex and enigmatic character. I think that it’s crazy that the Soviet people rallied around him even though he was at fault for many of their early losses in WWII. I’d imagine that people weren’t actually allowed to not support him so that probably played into it but it’s still wild to look at. Great post!
April 13, 2020 @ 8:32 pm
Hi Michael! Thanks for your comment! I’m glad you enjoyed the post. I love your thought that maybe people really weren’t allowed to not like Stalin. I think the fear the masses had for him definitely played a large part in their respect or love for them as well. As Joy noted above, fear seems to bring a lot more power than love.
April 14, 2020 @ 12:31 am
Hi Kendall, great blog post! When learning about WW2 I always wondered why the Soviet Union went into alliance with the US and Great Britain, reading your blog post made me realize that the saying ” the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is true, the biggest enemy was Germany. While doing all of this he defeated the common enemy and was very quick to tell his people that alliance would not continue after the war.
April 14, 2020 @ 12:54 am
Hi Siria! Thanks for your comment! The alliance with the US and UK was definitely strange given how different the nations, and their leaders, were. What I found especially interesting about the war though, was the fact that Stalin managed to turn himself into a symbol of national unity and it proved to be extremely helpful when it came to Russia winning the war. I’m glad you enjoyed the post!
April 14, 2020 @ 8:41 am
Andrew Grant – Yes, even to this day Stalin is seen with great respect and admiration by much of Russian society. Many believe that without him, the war would not have been won, and claim that he “industrialized the country” and brought it into being a true “industrial superpower.” Putin, even though not a fan of Stalin, has often downplayed his atrocities by claiming that he is “no worse than Oliver Cromwell” (the 17th English dictator who waged a brutal war against the Irish). It is strange to see the cult of personality that he had developed, still persists to this very day.
April 14, 2020 @ 4:40 pm
Hey Andrew! I really like your comment and your explanation of how even Putin viewed him. I think it’s a really interesting dynamic because of how many issues Stalin caused, yet people still today manage to find a way to appreciate the work he did. Then again, I think it’s also pretty cool how so many people are able to find the positives in the work Stalin did. Thanks for your comment!
April 14, 2020 @ 5:25 pm
Hey Kendall, I really enjoyed reading your post. I think you did a great job of showing just how influential Stalin was. Coming out of the 30’s like you said and gaining that much support and trust is incredible. And not only for them to follow him as a leader, but as a general in war. The Russian people did put a lot of trust and faith in him and what he wanted to accomplish.
April 14, 2020 @ 9:14 pm
Hi Jake! I’m glad you enjoyed it! It’s an interesting thing to think of how unified the Russian people were in WWII under Stalin’s regime. Especially to have enough trust, like you said, to follow him into war.
April 14, 2020 @ 8:59 pm
Great post Kendall! It is pretty insane how Stalin is such a divisive figure during this time period in that he was responsible both for the destruction of millions of his own people and their salvation in a war of annihilation. Though Stalin was arguably a very morally bankrupt person he was probably the strong willed leader that the Soviet Union needed to survive world war two.
April 14, 2020 @ 9:17 pm
Hi Andrew! I love your comment. The dichotomy between, what you put so eloquently as annihilation and salvation, is something really interesting about Stalin. And I agree with you, his strong will definitely proved necessary in the Soviet Union’s victory.