Stalin is considered one of the historic mass murderers mainly because of his policies implemented in Russia. The leader considered the ultimate solution of resistance as terror. The first approach to promote development engulfed the exploitation of collectivism among the small farmers. Although the agricultural workers fostered optimal production, Stalin imposed socialism as the solution to elevating productivity among the kulak (Rozenas & Zhukov, 2019). Nevertheless, the statesman geared the use of violence among the peasants to agree and amalgamate farmlands. The use of intimidation and fear is a high cost that led to the loss of Russian lives to enhance economic development and supremacy on a global scale.
Stalin as a political leader spearheaded communism in Russia, and the transition incurred a high cost to Russian lives. Between 1933 and 1934, the country experienced famine, and at least four million residents died due to hunger (Rozenas & Zhukov, 2019). The idealist argued that despite the decline in productivity, economic development was a prominent issue in the lives of the workers and the peasants. In this case, Stalin emerged as one of the greatest mass murderers because of his vision to lead the nation to greatness through industrialization. Apart from the famine that led to the deaths of inhabitants and laborers, the use of terror as the primary motivational element caused a significant percentage of the loss of lives.
Consequently, Stalin led the Russian economy to communism based on strict policies that cost a significant percentage of workersâ and peasantsâ lives. The politician and idealist focused on empowering the nation to avoid being colonized by other developed countries. As a result, Stalin enhanced industrialization based on the essence of boosting communism and economic competence globally. However, the initiative negatively affected the residents and mainly the peasants.
Reference
Rozenas, A., & Zhukov, Y. M. (2019). Mass repression and political loyalty: Evidence from Stalinâs âTerror by Hunger.âAmerican Political Science Review, 113(2), 569â583. Web.