Stalin was an effective leader

Counter-counter arguments: 1. My opponent states that population is a "measure of prosperity". This is not accurate. Yes, prosperity can lead to population growth but one is not indicative of the other. Germany is the 17th most populous country in the world, but has the 4th highest GDP (GDP being a more accurate measure of prosperity). Modern day Russia has a population almost double that of Germany's (9th most populous), but has less than half GDP (ranked 10th). If you were referring to population growth, Japan is 3rd in GDP and has a negative population growth. Stalin did succeed in increasing agricultural output long term, but at a tremendous human cost. It's hard to say whether or not Lenin's NEP would have seen similar success, but it's a reasonable assumption. As I've stated and sourced, the NEP was successful in increasing agricultural production while it was in place. Whether or not the NEP could have seen agricultural growth equivalent to collectivization is debatable, but the NEP would not have led to nearly the same number of deaths by famine and related illnesses. If we are judging Stalin by "how much he did for the nation", the Holodomor is certainly an catastrophic blunder. 2. My comment about Stalin not meeting the production goal is meant to illustrate the early success of the Five Year Plan did not last nearly to the same degree in later plans. Stalin forced an industrial revolution, which is generally a short lived phenomenon. I understand that the statement about America's GDP was tangential. I could find any other sort of information relating to the USSR's industrial output other than GDP. 3. Yes, I agree. I should have been more careful not to overplay the role of the military purges. I still believe that it had a negative effect on the Red Army, lasting until Stalingrad. However, as you mentioned, the element of surprise and technological edge did contribute heavily to Germany's early success. Counter arguments: 1. I have nothing more to add than what I've mentioned above regarding the Five Year Plans. 2. All good points. 3. I concede that quality of life did increase in the USSR under Stalin. However, housing conditions were abysmal. To quote my source: "It was not unusual for flat complexes to be built without electric sockets despite electricity being available." Also, the working conditions of the Gulags were shockingly inhumane. At the height of the Gulag system under Stalin, 5 million were sent to these forced labor camps. These people ought to be considered. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... http://www.britannica.com... 4. My opponent states that Stalin's industrialization led to Soviet success during WW2. This is partially true. The USSR's industrial advancement allowed for massive production of weapons and supplies. However, even this was not enough. Lend-Lease provided the USSR alone with a staggering 20,000 armored vehicles, accounting for %20 of the total Soviet product of armored vehicles. 15,000 aircraft were also provided, %25 of Soviet produced aircraft. Whats more, the USA provided many small arms and monetary loans. Even with strides in industrial development, Soviet industry still lagged behind significantly. http://ww2-weapons.com...