Stalin, also known as the man of steel, was known as a god among his people and still can remembered as one today. However, were his views on the world and racial profiling correct? Think about it, Stalin killed well over 53 million based on religion, race, and stupidity. Many would argue that Stalin was an evil man, but I disagree. Stalin stepped up to the plate to what he had to. Leaders are elected for the good of the nation, and Stalin did wonders for Soviet Russia. I believe Stalin was the necessary evil that Mother Russia needed.
The tricky thing with morality is the gray area between right and wrong. One man’s right may be another's wrong. Stalin once said “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” Would …show more content…
Stalin fought with the victors during WW2 but when the tides turned, he knew he had to change sides. Stalin knew the risks but he did what he had to to save the Motherland. Out of all countries who fought in world war two, Russia had the most casualties. One could argue that Stalin single handedly rose Russia up from the ashes of world war one. A good man has be stern in times of crisis, and Stalin made the tough choices so that others would not have to.
Through the years leaders have come and gone, but gods are forever. Etched in the stones of history, Stalin will be forever remembered as the man who went against the popular opinion to survive. Humanity is based off survival of the fittest, and Stalin did what it took to survive. Without Joseph Stalin, the Nazis could have very well taken Russia. Without Russia fighting with the Allies, Hitler would have won the war. Stalin was the necessary evil for the good of the world.
Do ethics define a man? Stalin was a very ethical man, as he knew he had to fight with the allies when he found out Hitler's darker motives. They say “history is written by the victors.” but with war, does anyone truly win? Stalin stepped up to the plate to what he had to, and because it was right. The lives of a few are outweighed by the lives of many. By this simple logic, Stalin was
The tricky thing with morality is the gray area between right and wrong. One man’s right may be another's wrong. Stalin once said “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” Would …show more content…
Stalin fought with the victors during WW2 but when the tides turned, he knew he had to change sides. Stalin knew the risks but he did what he had to to save the Motherland. Out of all countries who fought in world war two, Russia had the most casualties. One could argue that Stalin single handedly rose Russia up from the ashes of world war one. A good man has be stern in times of crisis, and Stalin made the tough choices so that others would not have to.
Through the years leaders have come and gone, but gods are forever. Etched in the stones of history, Stalin will be forever remembered as the man who went against the popular opinion to survive. Humanity is based off survival of the fittest, and Stalin did what it took to survive. Without Joseph Stalin, the Nazis could have very well taken Russia. Without Russia fighting with the Allies, Hitler would have won the war. Stalin was the necessary evil for the good of the world.
Do ethics define a man? Stalin was a very ethical man, as he knew he had to fight with the allies when he found out Hitler's darker motives. They say “history is written by the victors.” but with war, does anyone truly win? Stalin stepped up to the plate to what he had to, and because it was right. The lives of a few are outweighed by the lives of many. By this simple logic, Stalin was