# data[].attributes.body
Does Source C make you surprised about what source B says about Stalin?

# data[].attributes.body
Study D and E.
How different are these sources as evidence about how the threat of Trotsky was dealt with?

# data[].attributes.body
Source c makes me surprise by what source b says as they contradict about whether Stalin was a capable leader like Lenin
Source b tells me that stalin was a capable leader like Lenin.
this is evident in source b when " he  made a tremendous impression upon young politically inexperienced party members, and had the reputation of being the second Lenin."
this means that he was a good leader and was comparable to Lenin he was seen as the father of USSR.
However source b says that stalin was an incapable leader unlike Lenin.
this is evident in source b when " he was not a charismatic leader, a fine orator,  or a distinguished marxist like Lenin or Trotsky."
this means that he did not have the capability to lead as well as Lenin.

i expect both sources to differ by provenance as they were published during different times so i am not surprised.
source b was written during stalin's rule in 1928 where he was rising to power , and positive things about stalin could be published so that he could garner support.
this source was written to convince  the soviets that stalin was as good as Lenin when it came to his leadership, so that the soviets would support him and accept him as the successor to lenin.
however source c is from a historian in 1983 after stalins death hence the historian would have more information on stalin's rule. it was published in a book and it is objective on stalin's rule.

# data[].attributes.body
Source C makes me surprised about sourcd B because it contradicts Source B's claims that Stalin is a charming leader equal to other great communist leaders by saying he is not charming nor noteworthy . This is seen in source c ' not a charismatic figure, a fine orator, or a distinguished marxist like Lenin or Trotsky' This shows that Stalin was not a charming leader as he could not make great speeches and was not equal to Lenin nor trotsky.

However, Source B claims Stalin was charming and equal to other great communist leaders. This is seen in 'He made a tremendous impression upon young inexperienced party members, and had the reputation of being a second Lenin.'  This shows that Stalin is very charming, capable of laying deep impressions on others and was equal to Lenin.

Source C does not make me surprise with B as I expected C to differ from B. ((ATQ)
C is by a historian in 1983.  At this time, stalin had died and his successors embarked on destalinisation, trying to remove his cult of personality by revealing the truth. This source was created to convince the world that Stalin was not a great charismatic leader as was previously depicted so as to get people to stop following his cult of personality

# data[].attributes.body
I am surprised by what Source B says as Source C disagrees about Stalin's strengths and abilities. Source B tells me that Stalin was Lenin's potential successor as he possess leadership qualities . This is evident in "He made a tremendous impression upon young, politically inexperienced party members, and had the reputation of being a second Lenin." This shows that Stalin's charisma and abilities are on par with Lenin's  and that he will potentially succeed Lenin. However Source C tells me that Stalin doesn't possess leadership qualities. This is evident in "Stalin had none of the attributes that the Bolsheviks normally associated with outstanding leadership." This shows that Stalin was unpopular in the Communist Party and that he would not be a capable leader like Lenin. (NO CLEAR MATCH OF I)

You did not address the question at all although analysis is correct.
Source C was written by a historian in 1983, nearing the end of the Cold War. Thus it is expected for Source C to be an objective source and to cover both Stalin's strengths and weaknesses.As a historian, he/she should have more access to information about Stalin and his abilities. Since Source C is objective and states both Stalin's strengths and weaknesses, I am not surprised as this is expected for the historian to say.
Source B was written in 1928 by Stalin's prison mate. By this time, Lenin had passed and there was a power struggle within the USSR. Thus it is expected for Simon to be biased and supportive towards Stalin as he would only have information about Stalin and not the other Politburo members that are competing for power as well. Since Source B is biased, I am not surprised as what the source says is expected. (NO ATQ)

# data[].attributes.body
Source C does not make me surprise about what source B says about Stalin as both sources are similar in terms of the view Stalin gaining control of Russia because of his cleverness. Source B tells me that Stalin gain control over Russia because of his own cleverness. This is evident in "He made a tremendous impression upon young, politically inexperienced party members, and had the reputation of being a second Lenin." This shows that Stalin was a capable leader like Lenin. Similarly, Source C tells me that Stalin gain control over Russia not because of his own cleverness. This is evident in "He was a good backroom politician, an expert on the internal working of the party, but a man without personal distinction." This shows that Stalin made use of his own cleverness to gain control of Russia although he had no personal distinction. As both sources do not contradict each other, i am not surprised. (Good/L2/3)

By cross referencing to Source D, it also tells me that Stalin gain control over Russia because of his own cleverness. This is evident in "Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against Trotsky and so he suggested that the will not be published, for Comrade Lenin's suspicions of Stalin had been proved baseless." This shows that Stalin had cleverly made an alliance with the party members and gain control of Russia. Since D supports B and C, so i am not surprised.

Moreover, source B and C are also supported by contextual knowledge, Stalin made alliance with Zinoviev and Bukharin, forming the Troika alliance. He started to manipulate moderates and radicals to elinimate radicals. (ATQ- Since D supports B & C, so I am not surprise) Moreover, also supported by Ck - able to make alliances - Troika alliance and manipulate moderates and  radicals to eliminate rivals = NS

# data[].attributes.body
Source C makes me surprised about what source B says about Stalin because they contradict each other. Source C tells me that Stalin was a capable leader as compared to Lenin, This is evident in " he made a tremendous impression upon young,politically inexperienced party members, and had the reputation of being a second Lenin." This shows me that Stalin had the qualities of a leader and was capable to take over Lenin's position. However, Source B tells me that Stalin was an incapable leader as compared to Lenin, This is seen in "Stalin had none of the attributes that the Bolsheviks normally associated with outstanding leadership." This shows me that Stalin was not as incapable as Lenin and lacked in many qualities when compared to Lenin.

I am not surprised because I expected the sources to differ in terms of their hidden motive. Source B is written in 1928 which was the period during collectivization. During that time, Stalin had make use of propaganda and censorship to gain support from the people. Hence, it was expected of Simon Vereschak to praise Stalin. Since there is a hidden motive, it is expected for him to praise Stalin so I am not surprised. Source C is written by a historian in 1983, which is the end of war already. At that time, the censorship was lifted away already so more information was passed out.  Hence, it was expected of the historian to write the correct information., therefore I am not surprised about both sources. (weak analysis)

# data[].attributes.body
Source C  make me surprised about source B. This is as source C says that Stalin is not a natural successor of Lenin, this is evident in "He was not a charismatic figure a fine orator, or a distinguished Marxist like Lenin or Trotsky. " This shows that Stalin does not have any good attributes like the rest of the politburo thus not an expected successor  of Lenin ,while source B says that Stalin is a potential successor of Lenin. This is evident in "He made a tremendous impression upon young politically inexperienced party members, and he had a reputation of being a second leader of Lenin. " This shows that Stalin is viewed as a capable leader like Lenin and thus a natural successor of Lenin. Since the 2 sources disagree with each other source c makes me surprised about source B.  l2/3 -good
Cross referencing to source A i am surprised as source a agree with source b about Stalin being a successor of lenin. This is evident in stalin being the chief mourner at lenins funeral. since he is the chief mourner at lenins funeral he must be very close to lenin and lenin must trust him to be the next supreme leader. since source a agrees with source b and not source c . source c makes me does not make me surprised about source B. explain why you expect C to differ. (ATQ WRONG?)

# data[].attributes.body
Q1b)
Source C makes me surprised about Source B as both sources contradict about Stalin's leadership quality as compared to Lenin.  Good Source C said that Stalin was not a suitable leader for USSR as compared to Lenin. This is evident in Source C, which states"He was not a charismatic figure, a fine orator, or a distinguished Marxist like Lenin and Trotsky. " This shows that Stalin could not lead USSR like Lenin, as he did not possess the qualities of a leader as compared to Lenin. However, Source B said that Stalin was a good leader, just like Lenin. This is evident in Source B, which states"and had the reputation of being a second Lenin." This shows that Stalin had what it took to be a good leader like Lenin, and hence contradicts with Source C on Stalin's leadership quality as compared to Lenin.
I expect the 2 sources to differ as both sources had different provenance .  was written at different times. Source B was a magazine article written in 1928, when Stalin was already in power. This source could have a hidden motive as it could be propaganda for Stalin because the magazine article was written by a person who was with Stalin in prison in 1908, and had been contact with him and might be influenced by Stalin and be biased towards Stalin. I exepct him to ___ However, Source C was written by a historian in 1983, and most likely will be objective as there is no benefit for the historian to write about Stalin, as Stalin was already dead by then. Hence, Source C would be an objective source (should show evidence of how it is objective) and thus would not have a hidden agenda. Therefore, the 2 sources have different provenances and thus, I am not surprised as it is expected.

# data[].attributes.body
Source C makes me surprised about what source B says about Stalin. Source B says that Stalin was expected to be the next successor after Lenin, which can be seen in Stalin having the "reputation of being a second Lenin." This means that Stalin was the next obvious choice to lead the USSR due to his strong belief in Marxism, which is the communist idealism. Thus, source B makes me expect source C to agree with B, that Stalin would be the next successor. Source C, however, disagrees with source B, as it implies that Stalin the the opposite of Lenin, and thus is not the next successor after Lenin. This is evident in "He was not a charismatic figure... or a distinguished Marxist like Lenin." This means that Stalin had lacked the means of becoming a great leader, let alone take on the role as the leader of the USSR and the communist party.  Both sources disagrees on whether Stalin can be as good as Lenin in terms of leadership, and in terms of his belief in Marxism, hence source C makes me surprised about what source B says.

Cross-referencing to source A, source A supports source B as it agrees that Stalin is the next obvious leader of the USSR. This can be seen in the picture, showing Stalin being the chief mourner at Lenin's funeral. This shows that Stalin is very close to Lenin and is taking on the role of the next leader, as according to my contextual knowledge, the chief mourner is usually the person who takes over someone's legacy, and Stalin is thus taking over the role of the leader. NO ATQ + did not mention C in this paragraph at all so no marks.

Source B is biased as the writer of the source is some one who stayed in prison with Stalin. He has good relations with Stalin, and this will be biased towards Stalin. Source B has the intention to praise Stalin and tell everyone that he is a good leader, so that Soviets will support Stalin in the communist party, and he would get benefits from supporting Stalin.

# data[].attributes.body
Source C make you surprised about what source B says about Stalin  because they differ in terms of whether Stalin  is a capable leader as compared to Lenin.Source B agrees that Stalin was a capable leaders compared to Lenin.This is evident in “He made a tremendous impression upon young ,politically inexperienced party members,and had the reputation of being a second Lenin.This shows that Stalin was a very talented and inspiring leader towards the soviets that have the potential to be Lenin’s successor .However,Source C disagrees that Stalin was as capable as Lenin.This is evident in “Many Bolsheviks would have been surprised to find Stalin ranked as Trotsky’s equal in political stature.This shows that Stalin was a leader that had no outstanding qualities and he was lacking as compared to Trotsky.Hence he was an unlikely candidate to be the next successor. L2/3

Both sources differ in terms of purposes so NO ATQ . It is expected of source B to glorify to the soviets  Stalin of being a capable leader as compared to Lenin and is Lenin’s natural successor. This was done so as because at that time, Stalin ruled by inciting fear in the soviets through NKVD and the secret police and anyone who said anything bad about Stalin would be persecuted, arrested or sent to gulags so that he would not be killed. I am not surprised by Source C as it is expected of Source C to criticise Stalin being an incapable leader compared to Lenin and was an unlikely candidate as compared to Trotsky as because at that time, it was written in 1983 which was after Stalin’s death and people were free to voice their opinions and were not controlled by the government and would not be purged. This was done so as to get people to condemn Stalin for being an incapable leader. Hence, I expect both sources to differ in terms of hidden motives , I am not surprised. - GOOD ATQ

# data[].attributes.body
Source C says that Stalin was not as capable of a leader as Lenin as it says that 'He was not a charismatic figure, a fine orator, or a distinguished Marxist like Lenin or Trotsky.' This shows that his rise to power was surprising. This sets up the expectation that Source B would say the same.
However, Source B says that Stalin is capable of being Lenin's successor. This is evident in 'He made a tremendous impression upon young, politically inexperienced party members, and had the reputation of being a second Lenin.' This shows that he was charismatic like Lenin. Therefore, Source C makes me surprised by Source B.
NO ATQ Source C does not make me surprise with B as I expect them to differ. However, since Source B is written in 1928 when Stalin was in power so the Source could be a propaganda material created by Stalin to brainwash Soviets into thinking that he was a capable leader, therefore it is expected for the Source to praise Stalin. However, Source C is from a historian's book which was written long after Stalin's rule. SO? He also tells us about the positive and negative aspects of his rule and thus is an objective source.  SO?

# data[].attributes.body
Source C makes me surprised about what Source B says about Stalin because they differ in terms of whether Stalin was suitable to be the next leader of USSR after Lenin. Source B tells me that Stalin is a suitable successor after Lenin. This is evident in Source B "He made a tremendous impression upon young, politically inexperienced party members, and had the reputation of being a second Lenin." This shows that the Soviets viewed Stalin as someone comparable to Lenin and someone able to rule USSR after Lenin. However, Source C tells me that Stalin was not suitable to be the next leader of USSR after Lenin. This is evident in Source C "He was not a charismatic figure, a fine orator, or a distinguished Marxist like Lenin or Trotsky. " This shows that Stalin did not have the qualities of a leader like Lenin or Trotsky and is not a suitable candidate. Since Source B and Source C differ from each other, I am surprised.

Source C makes me surprised about what Source B says about Stalin as it is expected of Source B and C to differ from each other as they are written in different time zones. (YES ATQ) Source B is written in 1928 by Simon Vereschak who was in prison with Stalin in 1908. Based on my contextual knowledge, Stalin was rising to power in 1928. Since Stalin had already known Simon Vereschak, it is expected of him to speak good things of Stalin so that his life would be spared if Stalin came to power.  However, Source C is written by a historian in 1983. By 1983, there was enough evidence to prove if Stalin was a suitable leader of USSR. The historian would have time to gather more information and evidence about Stalin's policies and rule and aims to educate the world about Stalin's rule and policies. Since both Sources have difference point of views , i am not surpised that they differ as they were written in different period with differing intents.

# data[].attributes.body
STEP 1
Source C makes me surprise about what Source B says as they differ/disagree about ________ (STALIN)
OR
Source C does not make me surprise about what B says as they they agree __________  (STALIN)

STEP 2 - B & C differ so

Since, I expect them to disagree  as both are written in different time with different motives so Source C does not make me surprise about what Source B says.

OR

SInce I expect them to agree as both are __________________
so Source C makes me surprise by what B says as they actually contradict each other.
OR
If Using CR -
X supports B so B is not surprising
Explain using provenance, ck, motive etc why C is expected to differ so after reading C which contadicts B & X, you still not surprise  by B.

X supports C and contradict B so B is indeed surprising. Explain why B is so unexpected using provenance, typicality, CK so B is surprising.

# data[].attributes.body
Surprise -
B & C contradicts on whether Stalin possess a strong knowledge of Marxism

B & C disagree about whether Stalin was an influential figure

B & C disagree about whether Stalin had great qualities similar to Lenin

B & C disagree on whether Stalin is  the next natural successor of Lenin,

# data[].attributes.body
Both sources differ in terms of methods of how the threat of Trotsky was dealt with. (good)

Source D says that Lenin's will not being published so that Stalin can work with Zinoviev to  deal with the threat of Trotsky while Source E says that Stalin used manipulation to remove Trotsky from power, dealing with the threat of Trotsky.

This can be seen in Source D" Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against Trotsky and so he suggested that the will not be published, for comrade Lenin's suspicions of Stalin had been proved baseless." This goes to show that by not publishing the will, Stalin would be able to keep his power and manipulate his way to look like the natural successor of Lenin without the Soviets knowing the truth. By providing him an easier path to rise to power and getting rid of a constant threat of Stalin, he can continue to work with Stalin to overthrow Trotsky.

This is evident" Stalin proposed to the Central Commitee of the Party that the Comrade Trotsky be removed from his position as the head of the army for the war had been over for some time and it was a pity to waste his brilliant talents. Comrade Trotsky should be put in charge of the developement of electrical power of the USSR." This goes to show that Stalin was smart, using current situations as a reason  to remove Trotsky's power indirectly of the Red Army which supported him. By cutting out Trotsky's support base, Stalin was able to eliminate his rival and ease the rise to power without others knowing of his true intentions. L2 Good

Both sources D and E are similar in terms of Stalin receiving the help and agreement of others to remove Trotsky out of power.  (V.GOOD) This is evident" The others agreed, especially as the will contained criticisms of them too." With the agreement of the other party members, they were able to work together to prevent the will of Lenin to be revealed which helped Stalin rise to power and to get rid of Trotsky. This can also be seen in Source E where" The commitee elected Trotsky to the new position." Many party members felt that Trotsky was a threat to their rise to power and hence decided to work together to get rid of the common threat.

Well Done - so the two sources are largely similar in that variety of methods was used to deal with Trotsky

# data[].attributes.body
They differ in terms of whether the methods to
stalin used  to get rid of trotsky. Source D says that the alliance was crucial, this is evident in " Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalins help in the struggle against trotsky" This shows that stalin manage to stay in the politburo and eventually manage to remove trotsky because of it thus this shows that the alliance was crucial to remove trotsky. (will not revealed which helped stalin to continue with teh alliance to remove trotsky )
However, Source E says that it was stalins manipulation and took advantage of his power that he manage to remove trotsky. This is evident in " stalin therefore proprose to the central committe that comrade trotsky be remove form his position as the head of committee " .
Both sources are similar in terms of purposes. Since in 1968 de stalinisation already began thus this book is free to voice its own opinion about stalin. They are also similar in terms of their purpose that is to criticize stalins manipulation to get power , this was done to get people to condam stalin and expose him as a tyrant.

# data[].attributes.body
Source D and E differ in terms of how the threat of Trotsky was dealt with. Source D tells me that removing Trotsky was difficult (source does not really show this) alliances was formed to deal with the threat of trotsky. This is evident in "Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against Trotsky and so he suggested that the will not be published, for Comrade Lenin's suspicions of Stalin had been proved baseless." This shows that without the help of Stalin, other party members will not be able to get rid of Trotsky. Trotsky was very strong and hence, he is very difficult to be remove from his position. However, source E tells me that removing Trotsky is not difficult.  trotsky was removed through Stalin's manipulations. This is evident in "Stalin therefore proposed to the central committee of the party that Comrade Trotsky to be removed from his position as the head of the red army for the war had been over for some time and it was a pity to waste his brilliant talents." This shows that Stalin had plan to remove Trotsky by letting him to get a new position which was not that important.

Source D and E are similar in terms of whether the members of the Politburo want to remove Trotsky. (GOOD) Both sources tell me that the members of the Politburo members wanted to remove Trotsky. This is evident in Source D, "not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against Trotsky." Similarly, this is also evident in Source E, "The committee elected Trotsky to the new position." This shows that the Politburo members wanted to remove Trotsky as they felt that he was a threat.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1c}
Sources D and E differ in terms of the difficulty level of removing Trotsky from power. (not valid BOC- can't really see the levl of difficulty from the source) Source D said that it was hard to remove Trotsky from his position. This is evident in the source, which states"Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against Trotsky". This shows that it was hard to remove Trotsky from his power, as the only way was with the help of Stalin. However, Source E said that it was easy to get rid of Trotsky. This can be seen in Source E, which states"Stalin therefore proposed to the Central Committee of the Party that Comrade Trotsky be removed from his position" and "The Committee elected Trotsky to the new position." This shows that all that it took for Trotsky to be stripped off his power was just a word from Stalin. With just Stalin's words, Trotsky lost his original position and his power. Therefore, it was easy to remove Trotsky's power, and hence Source D differ from Source E in terms of the difficulty level of removing Trotsky from his position.
Both sources D and E are similar in terms of the members of the Politburo helping to/played a role in removing Trotsky's power.(GOOD) This is evident in Source D, which states" in the struggle against Trotsky and so he suggested that the will not be published" and "The others agreed". This shows that the members of the Politburo enabled stalin to stay in the politburo,to continue with the struggle against Trotsky which were supportive of the idea that Trotsky was to be removed of his power. Whereas, in Source E,  this can be seen from the source, which states" The Committee elected Trotsky to the new position." This shows that the members of the Politburo made Trotsky lose his original position and power. Therefore, both sources D and E are similar in terms of the members of the Politburo agreeing to remove Trotsky's power.  (yes)

# data[].attributes.body
Sources D and E differ in evidence about how threat of Trotsky was dealt with. Source D states that Stalin made use of the Troika alliance and not making Lenin's testament known to the public to eliminate the threat of Trotsky, This is seen in, "Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against Trotsky and so he suggested that the will not be published, for Comrade Lenin's suspicions of Stalin had been proved baseless." This shows me that the threat of Trotsky was removed. However, source E states that the threat of Trotsky was eliminated by removing him from a position of power, This is evident in,"Stalin therefore proposed to the Central Committee of the Party that Comrade Trotsky be removed from his position as the head of the army for the war." This shows me that Trotsky was a great threat to Stalin so Stalin had to use manipulations to remove Trotsky from his position.  (yes)

# data[].attributes.body
The sources differ as evidence about how the threat of trotsky was dealt with in terms of whether it was difficult to deal with the threat of trotsky. (not valid BOC, not really seen in teh source}  Source D tells me that it was difficult to deal with the threat of trotsky.
this is evident in ' Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against trotsky and so he suggested that the will not be published'
This means that it was a difficult task for the members of the politburo to get rid of trotsky as they had to work together.
However source E tells me that it was easy to deal with the threat of trotsky. This is evident in' Stalin therefore proposed to the central committee of the party that comrade trotsky be removed from his position as the head of the army for the war had been over for some time...the committee elected tortsky to the new position.'
This means that it did not take much to get rid of trotsky as stalin just had to make one suggestion.

The sources are similar as evidence about how the threat of trotsky was dealt with in terms of the politburo members wanting to get rid of trotsky as a possible successor to lenin. (YES/GOOD BOC)
Source D tells me that Zinoviev,a politburo member, wanted to get rid of trotsky and allied with Stalin.
This is evident in ' Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against trotsky'.
This means that he was determined to rid trotsky as one of the possible successors to Lenin.
Similarly, Source E tells me that Stalin wanted to get rid of trotsky. This is evident in 'Stalin therefore proposed to the central committee of the party that comrade trotsky be removed from his position as the head of the army'
This means that Politiburo agreed to Stalin wanted to ensure that trotsky would not have the support of the red army so as to rid trotsky of the possibility of being the next successor to Lenin.

# data[].attributes.body
Source D and E are different about how the threat of Trotsky was dealt with in terms of the methods used to eliminate Stalin.  (BOC) Source C states that "Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against Trotsky and so he suggested that the will not be published, for Comrade Leinin's suspicious of Stalin had been proved worthless ". This means that Stalin and Zinoviev had an alliance to remove Trotsky together.  However in source D, it states that " Stalin therefore proposed to the central committee of the Part that Comrade Trotsky be removed from his position as the head of the army ..... Comrade Trotsky should be put in charge of the development of electrical power of the USSR. " This means that Stalin intelligently manipulated the position of Trotsky by removing him for the dangerous head of red army.

# data[].attributes.body
K

# data[].attributes.body
Source D and E are different as evidence about how the threat of Trotsky was dealt with. Source D tells me that Trotsky was a great threat to members of the party and could only be removed through the Troika alliance. This is evident in Source D "Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against Trotsky and so he suggested the will not be published... " This shows that Trotsky was highly feared in the politburo. Party members had to form alliances in order to deal with Trotsky as a threat and ensure that none of them is removed before Trotsky.

However, Source E tells me that the threat of Trotsky was eliminated through voting in the party. This is evident in Source E "Stalin therefore proposed to the Central Committee of the party that Comrade Trotsky be removed from his position as the head of the army for the war had been over for some time and it was a pity to waste his brilliant ideas." This shows that Trotsky was not well liked by the members of the politburo and was constantly in the danger of being removed from his position. Votings were not in his favour as majority of them were under Stalin's manipulation and Trotsky could be easily removed from his position through votings.

Source D and E are similar as evidence about how the Threat of Trotsky was dealt with. Both sources tells me that the party wanted Trotsky to be removed and is working together. This is evident in Source D "The others agreed, especially as the will contained criticism of them too." This shows that the party agreed not to disclose Lenin's will. This is also evident in Source E "The committee elected Trotsky to the new position." This shows that the party is working together to get rid of trotsky as a threat. Majority of the party voted for Trotsky in order to remove him from his current position,  which was threatening the rest of them.

# data[].attributes.body
Both Sources were different in terms of the difficulty of getting rid of the threat of Trotsky. (not valid BOC)
Source D tells us that it was not easy to get rid of Trotsky 'Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against Trotsky and so he suggested that the will not be published,' This tells us that in order to get rid of Trotsky, Zinoviev risked losing Stalin's help to do so because of the criticism Lenin had towards Stalin in his will.
However, Source E tells us that the threat of Trotsky can easily be eliminated as Stalin just had to propose to the Central Committee to remove Trotsky from his position as the supreme commander of the Red Army to another position where he had no power over party politics.  Therefore, it was easy to eliminate the threat of Trotsky by just giving him a lower position where he had little control.
Both sources are similar in terms of telling us that the rest of the Politburo wanted to remove Trotsk y (GOOD) from power. Source D says that 'Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against Trotsky'. This tells us that the other members of the Politburo were working together to get rid of Trotsky as a threat.
Source E tells us that 'The Committee elected Trotsky to the new position.' This tells us that Stalin had to convince the rest of the Politburo members to put Trotsky out of power.

# data[].attributes.body
Source A supports this judgement because it tells me that Stalin had made use of his manipulations using propaganda to show that he is close to Lenin. (I) This is evident in the source which shows a photograph of Stalin as Chief Mourner at Lenin's Funeral. this shows me that Stalin was cunning as he had made use of propaganda to portray himself having close relations to Lenin and looking like the natural successor to Lenin.(GOOD)

Source D does not support the judgement because it tells me that Stalin had gained control over Russia because of the non-disclosure of Lenin's testament. This is evident in," Stalin looked small and miserable; in spite of his show of calm it was clearly evident that his fate was at stake." This shows me that Stalin was would be powerless if Lenin's will was made known to the public, and since it was not published, it created a favorable circumstance for Stalin and enabled him to rise to power and eventually gain control over Russia.  (GOOD)

Source E supports this judgement because it tells me that Stalin rose to power through he was able to cleverly eliminate his strongest competitor, Trotsky. This is evident in, "Stalin therefore proposed to the Central Committee of the Party that Comrade Trotsky be removed from his position as the head of the army for the war." This shows me that Stalin eliminated his strongest competitors by using the Central Committee to remove Trotsky's position,  so he use manipulations to get rid of his strongest competitors and gained control over Russia because of his own cleverness.

Source C does not support this judgement because it tells me Stalin cannot rise to powers because of his own capabilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Source A agrees as it tells me that Stalin manipulated the situation by showing that he is close to Lenin through this photo of him, other politburo members and Lenin at his funeral with him as chief mourner. This shows that he cleverly made himself look like the natural successor of Lenin.
Source D disagrees as it tells me that his rise to power is due to favourable circumstances. This is seen in,’ Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin’s help in the struggle against Trotsky and so he suggested that the will not be published’. This shows that due to the will not revealed , Stalin was able to consolidate his power by staying in the politburo. (good)
Source B agrees as it tells me that Stalin manipulated many people to strengthen his support base. This is seen in , ‘ He made a tremendous impression upon young, politically inexperienced party members , and had a reputation of being a second Lenin’. This shows that he  cleverly made use of his own charisma to win the support of members that are easily manipulated.
Source E agree as it tells me that Stalin tried to use his power to get rid of his rivals . This seen in,’ Stalin therefore proposed to the central commitee of the party that Comrade Trotsky be removed from his position as the head of the army for the war’. This shows that Stalin cleverly took advantage of his power to eliminate Trotsky, a strong opponent. (GOOD)

# data[].attributes.body
Q1d)
Source A

# data[].attributes.body
jackie's horse mouth

# data[].attributes.body
Source A agree with the judgement as it shows me that Stalin cleverly manipulated to show he was close to Lenin. This is evident in the source which shows Stalin being the chief mourner  . This means that Stalin manipulated the situation and made people think that he was very close to Stalin so that he can be seen as the next natural successor to Lenin. (GOOD)

Source B agrees with the statement as it shows that Stalin manipulated the position of  Trotsky. This is evident in the source which states that " Stalin therefore proposed to the central committee of the party that Comrade Trotsky be removed from his position as the head of the army .... " This means that Stalin cleverly made use of his position as the party secretary to reappoint Trotsky to another department. (GOOD)

# data[].attributes.body
Source A agrees with the statement as it tells us that Stalin was clever to make himself the chief mourner to make himself close the Lenin and thus garner support and make Soviets think that he is the natural successor to Lenin. From my contextual knowledge, Stalin purpose gave Trotsky the wrong date for Lenin's funeral, causing him to miss it an so the Soviets would think of him as unworthy to be Lenin's successor which shows he is clever at manipulation to rise to power . (so  the source is reliable as supported by CK)

1. Source B also agrees with the statement as it tells us that Stalin was able to gain support of young officials and also had the reputation to be the next Lenin. (EVIDENCE & EXPLAIN???)

2. Source C disagrees with the statement as it tells us that Stalin's rise to power would have been surprising to the Bolsheviks as 'He was not a charismatic figure, a fine orator, or a distinguished Marxist like Lenin or Trotsky.'  SO EXPLAIN ? his rise could not have been due to his cleverness as ...

# data[].attributes.body
Source A agrees with the statement as it attributes Stalin's success to his manipulation. Source A shows Stalin mourning at Lenin's funeral. Stalin is the chief mourner by manipulating the situation and taking the place of chief mourner. This shows that he used his cleverness to manipulate propaganda to create an image of him as the next successor. How? EXPLAIN - as he is the closest to Lenin being the chief mourner

Source D disagrees with the statement as it attributes Stalin's success to favorable circumstances. This can be seen in "Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against Trotsky and so he suggested that the will not be published", which means that due to Zinoviev's desperation not to lose allies against Trotsky, he decided to keep Stalin in the party, which results in him eventually rising to power. THIS DOES NOT SHOW FAVOURABLE CRICUMSTANCES ON ITS OWN - shows Had the help of allies to prevent the will from being revealed - shows favourable circumstance when the testament was not revealed to the public

Source C agrees with the statement as it claims that Stalin's cleverness led him to rise to power. Source

# data[].attributes.body
Source

# data[].attributes.body
Source E agrees with this statement as it tells me that Stalin had manipulated the Politburo members into removing trotsky from power. This is evident inn 'Stalin therefore proposed to the central committee of the party that comrade trotsky be removed from his position as the head of the army as the war had been over for some time and it was a pity to waste his brilliant talents.' This means that Stalin used his cleverness to come up with a strategy to ensure that trotsky would not be able to be the successor to Lenin, which was what Stalin wanted. (good)
Source B agrees with the statement as it tells me that Stalin got to power due to his charisma. This is evident in ' He made a tremendous impression upon young,politically inexperienced party members, and had the reputation of being a second Lenin'
This means that Stalin had charisma to influence people so he could garner support and rise to power and used his cleverness to take advantage of his strength and rise to power. (GOOD)
Source C disagrees with the statement as it tells me that Stalin could not have risen to power due to his cleverness . This is evident in 'He was not a charismatic figure,a fine orator, or a distinguished marxist like Lenin or Trotsky. This means that Stalin used his cleverness to manipulate the situation at that time to make it seem that he was the natural successor to Lenin.
Source D diagrees with the statement as it tells me that Stalin's rise to power was due to the help of others. This is evident in 'Zinoviev was very anxious not to lose Stalin's help in the struggle against trotsky and so he suggested that the will not be published.' This means that it was the help of zinoviev that helped stalin to rise to power and get rid of stalin's opponents. the will was not revealed and Stalin was able to continue to compete for power.

# data[].attributes.body
Source A agrees with this statement. This can be seen in Source A which shows Stalin being the Chief mourner at Lenin's funeral. This means that Stalin was able to instill an image of being close to  good friend of Lenin's. By doing so would allow him to look as if he is the next natural successor of Lenin so that he could gain support easily