How did Stalin’s death affect Russia?
109499
It was a great loss for Russia...
371828
He was from Georgia (not the state in the U.S.).  His real name is Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili but he adopted the name "Stalin" because that is the Russian word for "steel".
1156756
When he changed his name to Stalin in 1905
187900
The previous answer is not quite true - as there was no such place as the Soviet Union during Napoleon's time.  Napoleon invaded Russia.\nThe Germans invaded the Soviet Union during World War II and were unsuccessful due to a combination of their own strategic incompetence and a particularaly bitter winter.\nI am fairly sure that during the lifetime of the Soviet Union no one invaded and took land from it.
721779
Personally I think it was destined to fail to begin with. Look at the methods of control that were used and the rampant corruption within the government. It’s a wonder it managed to stay afloat as long as it did. Reganomics really didn’t have as much to do with the USSR’s collapse as much as the slow attrition of the US economy and the world governments against a rapidly eroding communist regime that was finally becoming aware that their empires threshold of domination was long gone. In short, Reganomics was just the last straw that toppled the ‘evil empire.’ I think the true turning point in the sway of power within the USSR was the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. This upset the greater population to such a degree that the government would never again manage to maintain its sway of power to the effect it once had. The world view of the their government had a major impact and further exposed not only to the world the level of corruption the Russian government had, but also caused the Russian people to become more acutely aware of what the greater overview the world had of their government, and as such for once the Russian people agreed with them wholeheartedly. \n\nAgain in short, Reganomics was just the last straw.
918466
the Bolshevik revolution in Russia\n(Communist revolution)
261505
I consider them both pretty evil.  Consider this, Stalin's mass killings were mostly before WW II (100,000 a year), and mostly from his purges and 'collectivization in early 30's with the latest estimate of around 20-30 million dead.  His genocide wasn't a full time occupation to his death, unlike Hitler, but that's where the comparison stops.  When comparing the two, both were evil, both put people in concentration camps, both committed genocide, both were dictators, both...well you get the picture.  The one factor Hitler had over Stalin tho, Hitler was insane.  Stalin was just angry and distrustful.\n\nOther things to consider,Stalin killed more people, Hitler started WW II, Hitler killed the Jews and some people in his nation, but he started the war that resulted in many troops dying on both sides.  Hitler may be considered the greater of both evils; tho Stalin killed more people it is said, Hitler's action ensured that those loses were as high as possible.
417642
I will assume you mean on the surviving population, don't you? I mean, if you mean on the actual victims, the effect is obvious: death.\n\nNow, if you mean what happens with survivors, I think they're traumatised for life. They'll be afraid of something like that happening again, and will do whatever they think it takes to avoid it.\n\nI'm from Argentina. My country didn't actually undergo a genocide, but we were close, when 30,000 people were killed by an illegal government (out of a population of about 25,000,000 at the time) just because they thought differently, or believed in different ideals (only a few of them actually killed people in the name of those ideas, and then again, even these should have been tried, not killed).\n\nAnyway, this started 30 years ago, but many people are still afraid to say what they think, in case something similar happens. Many have even given up their ideals, and are now ordinary people, with average ideas. This affects even people who were born during the dictatorship, or afterwards. Fear is still in the air. It's awful.
19538
Based on how many killed and motivation for killing I say  Stalin.
1081972
Boris Yeltsin was a good transition.  He was someone that the communists didn't hate, and yet he was not a communist, and forged the way for Russia to survive after the fall of the Soviet Union.  So, he was somewhat of a revolutionist.  However, once he was in power, he was not a very good leader.  It took everyone some time to see that he was not the best man for the job, because of the great changes that were taking place as a result of capitolism.  He had a bad drinking problem, which led to his general dislike, distrust, and inability to lead.
633164
She was Stalin's daughter. She escaped from Russia and came to India and also married an Indian. She has also written an autobiography, I read it long time ago fo I don;t remember if it was an autobiography or a biography. Anyways, that woman went through a lot.
635891
this has some good info, there's even more of you follow the link\n\nCauses and outcomes\n\nWhile complex, it is possible to group the causes of the Holodomor. They have to be understood in the larger context of the social revolution 'from above' that took place in the Soviet Union at the time.\n\nIn the early 1920s, when Soviet Russia needed to win the sympathy of other nations for the newly born communist state, Ukraine enjoyed a short period of revival of its national culture under the policy of Korenizatsiya. This was, however, ended and replaced with the a policy of effective Russification, as soon as the Soviet regime firmly took root, thereby causing significant social, cultural, and political conflict in the Ukrainian populated territories.\n\nSimultaneously, a policy of collectivization of agriculture was introduced. Agriculture in Ukraine was affected more strongly by this than most other agricultural areas, as Ukraine has had a long tradition of individually owned farms, while most farms in Russia, for example, had been communal (not collective) property.\n\nUnexpectedly, from the Bolshevik point of view, Collectivization proved highly unpopular with the rural population. When collectivization was still voluntary, very few peasants joined collective farms. The regime therefore began to increasingly put pressure on peasants to join collective farms, and to speed up the process of collectivization, tens of thousands of officials were sent into the countryside in 1929–1930.\n\nAt the same time, the "Twenty-Five Thousanders", industrial workers, mostly devoted Bolsheviks, were sent to help run the farms. In addition, they were to fight the increasing passive and active resistance to collectivisation by engaging in what was euphemistically referred to as "dekulakization": the arresting of 'kulaks' — allegedly well to do farmers who opposed the regime and withheld grain — and sending whole 'kulak' families into concentration camps and Siberia. In fact, most of the so-called 'kulaks' were no more well off than other peasants. Effectively, the term 'kulak' was applied to anybody resisting collectivization. It is estimated that around 2 million[citation needed] Ukrainians became victims of these repressions in 1929-1932.\n\nCollectivization proved to negatively affect agricultural output everywhere, but since Ukraine was the most productive area (over 50% of Imperial Russian wheat originated from Ukraine in the beginning of 20th century), the effects here were particularly dramatic.\n\n \nPassers-by no longer pay attention to the corpses of starved peasants on a street in Kharkiv, 1933.Despite the decrease in agricultural output, Soviet authorities soon drastically increased Ukraine's crop production quotas (by 44% in 1932). The targets were unrealistic and many historians believe that this was intentional. On August 7, 1932, the Moscow government imposed death penalty in Ukraine for any theft of public property [7] [8] [9]. The scope of this law was very wide, and included even the smallest appropriation of grain by peasants for personal use. As a result, hundreds of peasants were executed each month under the new law. Still, until October 25, Moscow received only 39% of the demanded grain supplies. When it became clear that the 1932 grain deliveries were not going to meet the expectations of the government, the decreased agricultural output was blamed on the "kulaks", "nationalists", and "Petluravites".\n\nA special commission headed by Vyacheslav Molotov was sent to Ukraine in order to execute the grain contingent.[10] On November 9, a secret decree urged Bolshevik police and repression forces to increase their "effectiveness". Molotov also ordered that if no grain remained in Ukrainian villages, all beets, potatoes, vegetables and any other food were to be confiscated. On December 6, a new regulation was issu
789133
It is Stalin not Stallin.\n\nHitler was worse because he was a nazi and targeted a specific race. Stalin was also horrific in his belief of violence against anyone that opposed his idea of government.
517464
No.  Although the Germans could have invaded England and conquered it, they decided that Britain "was not worth the trouble".  England had no oil, and Hitler made the decision that the natural resources of Russia were a better target than the factories of England.  \n\nThe Russian army, and the Russian winter, stopped the advance of the German 4th Panzer and German 6th army.  The Russians drew the line at Stalingrad, and literally fought the Germans to the death over that one city.  Over two million people died in the battle of Stalingrad alone.  The Russians took massive losses, but the German army never recovered.\n\nAlthough it sounds less patriotic, the more accurate thing to say is: "Great Britain would be ruled by Germany right now, if it were not for Stalin."
937041
He was murdered and by someone that didn't care how many innocents die with him as a result. Minimum reparations would be financial damages claims to all victims and a signed pledged to never touch another person in the UK, other than that it's like a flea biting a dog. They could make political waves, break off any funding/economic ties to Russia (something Russia has never been shy about asking the West for more of). BUT it's very disturbing that this harms Russia  and Putin more than it helps Russia or Putin, which makes me naturally question if they were set up by a third party who will benefit from the fallout? Like the Chechen rebels, or maybe "right wing" communist hardliners in Russia or China? Response must be careful and measured, so as not to reward those who orchestrated this.
611084
The word means "death" but also refers to an area in the most NE portion of Siberia that was used by Stalin for some of his re-education/labor camps.
476805
It was actually Stalin's personal decision to end it. People were getting too rich, and they did not care very much about Socialist Principals any more. Neither Stalin nor the Communist Party were interested to lose control over Russia, hence it was decided to cancel the NEP toward the end of the 1920th decade. Cancellation of NEP was the first step of Stalin Power consolidation, Purges and Hunger were to follow.