To what extent do the sources agree that the Russian government's policy on agriculture consistently failed and that peasant resisted it both under the Tsarist and Communist rule?

        In relation to peasant resistance under the Tsarist and communist rule, there is evidence within the sources which tend to support this view but not to a large extent. In source1 there is no evidence of peasant resistance although there is evidence of peasant resentment over too little land, redemption payments, control of the MIR, possible anger because there isn’t full emancipation. There is also evidence of disappointment because the emancipation took several years and was half hearted e.g. redemption payment. Source 2 illustrates peasant resistance as it points out clearly in source 2b “that the peasants were very hostile to the Law of 9th November” this statement might suggest physical resistance. However it is possibly mainly resentment expressed by the peasants in this source as it can be inferred from source 2a that the peasants might have felt isolated and in 2b they resented loosing their land. There was also disappointment because little was done for them by Stolypin. However there is evidence from outside this source of a revolt in this period. In source3 there is also evidence of a possible peasant resistance under the communist government of Stalin. He points out in a discussion with Churchill that “collective farming was a struggle” this statement could be seen as implying resistance. The source also points out that there was physical resistance as there was destruction of tractors and kulaks were wiped out by peasants which is evidence that the kulaks were non co-operative. There is also evidence of kulak resentment as they hated collective farming. However from evidence outside the source we know that there was a deliberate policy of dekulakisation by Stalin’s government. In source 4 there is no evidence of physical resistance, however there could be a possible sense of resentment because their expectations weren’t been met and they were bring overworked. There is also disillusionment amongst the peasants in this source as a result of the failure of the scheme and loss of enthusiasm. In source 5 there is no direct evidence of resistance from the source. Source 6 also doesn’t have any evidence of peasant resistance either but there is however a sense of disappointment.

                    However in most of the sources there is evidence of a successful policy on agriculture but mainly in the later sources during the Communist rather than Tsarist rule. However during the Tsarist rule there was the emancipation of serfs and they were also given the opportunity to buy land. There is also evidence of the Kulaks benefiting from the governments wager. However during the period of communism there is evidence in the source of a rise in food supply, improvement of grain quality, introduction of mechanisation etc.

        In conclusion I think the government’s policy on agriculture wasn’t aa much of a consistent failure under the communist rule because there is evidence of some agricultural success which means that the policy couldn’t have been a consistent failure. There was some failure however but I don’t agree that it was consistent because outside the sources most of Russia was collectivised and agriculture wasn’t necessarily a collective failure. In term of peasant resistance I don’t agree that there was consistence as there is in a few sources evidence of physical resistance. I think three was more of a peasant resentment and disillusionment with the government than actual physical resistance.