Stalin was an effective leader

While my opponent gave a fantastic history lesson, I can only infer what arguments he is trying to make as there is a lack of clear points as to why Stalin was an ineffective leader. I agree with my opponent's opening paragraph, we will not be arguing about his personal achievements, but rather how much he did for the nation. Counter Arguments: 1) Agricultural Collectivization My opponent summarizes the entire process, but it all boils down the fact that collectivization caused a massive famine (Holodor). While this is true, it should be noted that the population of the nation (which is often a measure of prosperity) continued increasing rapidly from 147 million in 1926 to 164 million in 1937. I will also note that "Following collectivization of agriculture and forced industrialization from 1927, a Soviet economy emerged based on large-scale production and communal agricultural work. This foundation resulted in increased growth rates, which propelled the Soviet Union to be among the industrialized powers." After the initial turbulent stages, collectivization was relatively successful. https://barbradozier.wordpress.com... 2) The Five Year Plans "Many of Stalin"s great work projects were carried out by prisoners of the gulag. The influence of free labor should not be compared to normal production. " Why not? In this section, my opponent doesn't really make any points against Stalin's leadership. He only says that the GDP never reached that of the US (which is irrelevant) and Stalin's quotas were never reached. I don't see why the latter is an issue considering that there was still massive growth. 3) Military Purges "Stalin"s paranoia led to a weakening of the Red Army, explaining the crushing Soviet defeats of 1941." While I agree that the weaker military leadership played a role in the defeats of 1941, there were so many other factors such as surprise attack of Germans, superior German technology and dilution of Russian forces across the country that led to these defeats. The elimination of some military leaders doesn't come close to being the sole or most significant cause of the defeats. "Poor German planning and the harsh winter is what allowed the Red Army enough time to fully mobilize and retaliate at Stalingrad. In other words, luck was on Stalin"s side giving time to correct the self-created leadership problem in the army." While I strongly disagree with everything in this statement, it is irrelevant to the debate and we can debate it another time. As a whole, I agree with my opponent that the purging of military personnel was a mistake on Stalin's part, the issue is not as significant as my opponent tries to make it out to be, without showing any really evidence. Arguments: I will now present my own arguments to show that Stalin managed to completely revolutionize the Soviet economy and military, making the nation a world superpower. 1) Economic growth The Five Year Plans led to rapid industrialization of the USSR. Not only did the national income rise from 24 billion rubles in 1928 to 96 billion in 1937 (enormous increase), but industrial output increased dramatically. In this same time frame of 9 years, coal output increased from 35.4 to 128 million tons, steel production from 4 to 17.7 million tons, electricity output rose 700%. It is thought that annual economic growth rate under Stalin's rule was close to 13%, which is absolutely incredible. http://www.buzzle.com... http://econc10.bu.edu... 2) Education and Transportation As a result of education reforms, Stalin brought the illiteracy rate from 50%, to 20%. He also increased transportation be building many new railroads all across the country, including the Turkenstan-Siberian railway. http://www.sahistory.org.za... 3) Standard of Living Under Stalin's rule, women were given equal rights in terms of employment and education. Advancement in the field of healthcare increased the average lifespan of Russians, and most of the Russians had universal access to hospitals and medicines. The prevalence of some dreaded diseases of those times, like cholera and malaria, dropped to record low numbers. http://www.buzzle.com... 4) Military Probably the single, most critical moment of Stalin's regime was the USSR's involvement in WW2. It should be noted that even during such a time of incredible destruction and turmoil, the USSR was able to put out increasingly large amounts of tanks, aircraft and warships which in the end led to the USSR's victory on the Eastern Front. http://www.nationalww2museum.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... It seems to me pretty much indisputable that Stalin had a massive, positive impact on the USSR, turning a war-stricken mess into a world superpower. I await my opponent's response.