Using written sources

Lots of students feel more comfortable with the pictorial sources. The worry is that some of the meaning of written sources will be lost. However, you should not get too worried. As with the pictorial sources, a little preparation and clear thinking will soon make a huge difference.

Look at the source below and the question that goes with it.

QUESTION How useful is the source above in assessing Stalin's leadership in the Soviet Union? (5 marks)

HOW DO WE START?

a) What does the question want? In this case it is simply asking us to pass judgment on the source. It wants us to show an informed view about it.

b) Quickly read the source.

c) Look at the origin of the source. Who wrote it? Were they biased?

d) What does the source say about Stalin?

e) Does it attempt balance (look for the nature of the language)?

f) Can your subject knowledge add anything?

Who wrote it and when? Well it came from within Russia during Stalin's rule. It is not difficult to guess it will be all for him, given what happened to opponents of Stalin at the time.

Try to break the source down. Look for emotive words (those that show bias). I have noted them in green. There really isn't much left!

What can your subject knowledge add? Maybe the collectivisation of the farms, the secret police, the Gulag, or the consequences of the five year plans will help you balance your answer (the key is balance).

REMEMBER Answer the question not what you want to write about Stalin.

QUESTION How useful is the source above in assessing Stalin's leadership in the Soviet Union? (5 marks)     WHAT IS THE QUESTION ASKING?

1) The source is no use because it is all for Stalin and it is one sided. It doesn't tell the truth about what he did or if he was a good leader. (2 marks)

1) The source is from Russia at the time of Stalin's rule so it is one sided. The person was probably too scared to be honest. The source is not really much use in assessing Stalin's rule because it only looks at his positive side and doesn't tell you what really happened.  (3 marks)

1) The source is of limited use in assessing Stalin's leadership as it is biased and clearly the result of censorship. The source comes from within Russia during Stalin's rule and given what I know about how he dealt with opponents (the collectivisation of farms, the show trials and his purges etc.).  I am sure the writer would have been influenced by this. Stalin was a harsh leader. Even if we accept that the West has given Stalin a biased view it is clear that this source is more concerned with propaganda rather than a realistic attempt at assessing what he actually did. I think the source is of limited use rather than no use because it does help us to see the style of Stalin's rule and his need to always show himself in a positive way. (5 marks)