No my friend he didnt made any progress he killed the best generals and many intelectual people who would have made the country stonger and made people hate each other.
Everything he did would have been done by others much better and without so many sacrifices.
I think the problem is more complicated than "killing people".
Dissension in the ranks is a problem faced by many leaders throughout the history. Even modern government is not immune. Take the US debt fiscal cliff for example, both Republicans and Democrats knew that they have to do SOMETHING, but because of their difference, they are deadlocked and ended up doing nothing. Stalin, back at the beginning of his reign, faced far more severe situations and had way less resource to work with. Here is the world picture when Stalin came into the office:
1. Treaty of Versailles, or the so-called "armistice" of a generation is signed. The Russian lost huge amount of land a few years back in Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, including what is now Finland, Baltic provinces and parts of modern day Poland and Ukraine and they are not getting it back.
2. European capitals poured into Germany, which is being propped as "European's defense against communism", Germans economy is recovering rapidly and a few years down the road, is also re-arming rapidly.
3. USSR is still an agricultural nation barely getting out of serfdom and had very limited industrialization. The " New Economic Policy" a few years back managed to restore some production, but before the first five year plan is implemented in 1929, USSR's total industry production is about 7% of the US production and 15% of the German productions.
In other words, before Stalin's five plans, the USSR wouldn't stand a chance against even a second rate power, let alone the likes of Germans and other Europeans powers that are clearly out for Russian blood. So, what is a leader to do in these kind of situation? Well, a defeatist would choose to lay down and die since this is clearly very unfavorable odds. Stalin, on the other hand, chose different. He tried to make USSR as strong as possible, consequences be damned. Intellectual getting the way and distracting people from working? Off to Siberia you go. Army officers that go against modernization of the army? The fire squad awaits. And you know what? The result shows. According to newest data released by Russia Federation, during Stalin's reign, a grand total of 3 million people is imprisoned, exiled and executed over a 24 year period. In comparison, in just four years, the Germans killed 25 million Russians despite the eventually USSR victory. Can you imagine what will happen if USSR was NOT able to fight off the Germans?
By the end of the first five year plan, USSR industry output has reached 50% of the US output and more than twice of the German output and by the end of the second five year plan, USSR industry output reached 70% of the US industry output. This is the real reason the Russians were able to defeat the Germans.
Sure, life sucked pretty badly for a while in USSR, but by paying that price, the nation as a whole had a much better chance to survive. People doesn't remember how comfortable you were, they remember how are you doing NOW!. Did people remember North Korea used to be a food exporting nation and a leading economic power in east Asia from 60s to 70s? Of course not. Did people remember German products used to be bottom of the barrel and they are forced to mark all their products as made in germany to distinguish them from "good, high quality British" product? Of course not. Does people remember US used to be called a land of "outcast, thieves and robbers and would soon collapse on its own depravity"? Of course not.
I maintain my point from before. Stalin, during his reign, killed many people indeed, but the alternative is much much worse and by achieving what he did, he had shown himself as a very competent leader.