“The adulation of Stalin received was genuine and his god-like status was down to his formidable leadership.” Assess the validity of this view [25 marks]

It could be argued that Stalin’s formidable leadership during World War 2 contributed significantly to the adulation of Stalin. Through the focus of armament in the second (1933-1937) and third (1938-1942) Five Year Plan was a testament to Stalin’s strong and effective leadership as he was able to adapt to the problems of the war and execute an effective economic plan. This was a part of his aim to industrialise Russia to address the implications of a market led economy from Lenin’s New Economic Policy 1921 like the Scissor Crisis 1923. Therefore, the process of industrialisation brought about economic improvements such as electricity production and chemical industries growing rapidly under the second Five Year Plan and the exponential increase in heavy industry under the third Five Year Plan which saw the improvements in the conditions of the Russians. This industrialisation was under the leadership of Stalin because a lot of leadership and centralisation was required to change from the NEP; consequently meaning that the leadership of Stalin brought about the improvement of conditions and this would lead to the adulation of Stalin. Furthermore, to lead the industrialisation process successfully (to an extent however because there was still a shortage of materials for industry under the third Five Year Plan) led to the success of the war which would be advantageous to Stalin’s propaganda movement to present him as being a strong leader that led to the success of the war which would inspire a feeling of adulation towards Stalin. However, it could also be argued that there wasn’t formidable leadership in relation to industrialisation because the problem of absenteeism and alcoholism was rife. This demonstrates that Stalin’s formidable leadership was not able to unite the workers under a cause and motivate them to industrialise in order to advance the war effort. It also shows that the adulation towards Stalin was not genuine because Stalin in the 1930s and 1940s presented himself as a God through propaganda, so therefore if there was genuine adulation, then people would be more invested in the war effort to fight for their “God.” Instead, the Stakhanovite movement inspired people to be more productive where sectional competitions were set up and groups of coal miners wanted to compete with Stakhanov’s coal mining record in 1933. This is because they wanted to receive the same bonus Stakhanov did, so instead of Stalin’s formidable leadership being why people were being industrious and leading to an improvement in their conditions, it was because of the competition coming from the Stakhanovite movement. Therefore, I reject this argument that Stalin’s leadership of World War 2 led to genuine adulation because if it wasn’t for incentives coming from the Stakhanovite movement, the conditions of workers wouldn’t improve and Russia would not have won the war. 
It could also be argued the fact that Stalin was a strong leader led to people having to join the Union of Writers in 1933 which produced work about Stalin and consequently led to a supposed genuine adulation of Stalin. This is because the Union of Writers brought an end to the Cultural Revolution (the Avante-Garde) and art became more focussed on glorifying the workers and how Russia was becoming more industrial under Stalin. In the First Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers in 1934, Zhdanov said that Soviet literature now reflects the large-scale ambitions that Russia has because of the strong leadership of Stalin. This Union created a network whereby Stalin could control people more easily under one organisation rather than having to control people individually. There was no choice for writers to join this because to not join this would result in economic isolation where there would be a lack of opportunity to sell their literary works, so it was essential to join this Union. Stalin being able to control this Union would mean that it would be easier to influence what message they portray about Russia which is evident through Ostrovsky’s novel How Steel Was Tempered where the story about Soviet workers ended happily. This would suggest that Stalin’s formidable control on literature meant that people were exposed to propaganda that would lead to the supposed genuine adulation of Stalin. However, there was genuine adulation for Lenin as he was seen as the founder of the October Revolution, but this adulation was during a time where there was the Avante-Garde movement where Russian art was more provocative and experimental which highlights that there was a lack of leadership in relation to art under Lenin. This would show that formidable leadership of culture is not needed for genuine adulation and what contributed more to the genuine adulation of Stalin was the fact that he presented himself as Lenin’s natural successor after Lenin’s death in 1924. Therefore, I do not accept the claim that Stalin’s control of culture led to his supposed genuine adulation because Lenin did not require this and it was the portrayal of Stalin being Lenin’s companion that led to genuine adulation.