• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Stalin's policy of collectivisation was politically a success but was economically a failure and a human catastrophe how far do you agree with this point of view?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Stalin's policy of collectivisation was politically a success but was economically a failure and a human catastrophe" how far do you agree with this point of view? Collectivism was an economic policy that was introduced in communist Russia in 1928 it's economic aims was to increase the governments procurement of grain, to increase the grain harvest , to increase the amount of grain that was exported for foreign currency and free people from agricultural industries to work in urban areas instead. All theses aims combined was to try and ensure that Russia could industrialise rapidly. Its political aims were to break the peasants grip on food production so that it was state controlled, to remove the unpopular capitalist "element" that was the NEP scheme the old agricultural policy and to create self-sufficiency in agriculture. Additionally it wanted to weaken the peasants as a class they weren't seen as "true" socialists shown by their resistant to former Bolshevik policies such as war communism and their dropping production of grain within the NEP system. Economically Russia altered radically over the ten year period starting in 1928 when Stalin achieved absolute dominance within power. This was due to Stalin economic aims of industrialised Russia rapidly he stated in a speech talking about Russia "That we are fifty to hundred years behind the other powers we must make good this gap in ten otherwise we will be crushed". ...read more.

Middle

the shocking reduction the quantity of the animal stock between 1928 to 1933 stock of sheep and goats collapsed from 146.7 million to 50.2 million due to peasants either eating or killing their animals before they were taken. If we examine the economic question from the basic view of amount produced collectivisation was a catastrophe failing to produce grain harvests that were as good ass those in 1917 under the Tsar and in a feudal system. However they weren't the economic aims of Stalin. All Stalin's aims around collectivisation revolved around one key feature the ability to procure a far greater amount of grain for the state to be able to export and for it to be able to supply the cities with a reliable supply of cheap grain. With collectivisation as the entire process from production to supply was state controlled this meant that Stalin could take the acquired grain to export for foreign currency to start the great industrialisation and supply the cities with cheap grain even when grain production was being reduced. This was achieved because the people who produced the grain were placed on the lowest priority for grain distribution meaning that as grain harvest dropped it wasn't the exports that were dropped or supply to cities it was grain to the peasants that failed to be produced causing massive man made famines in the "breadbasket" of Europe around the area of Ukraine. ...read more.

Conclusion

As even though there was vast industrial economic progress it was gained at a too greater cost to the agricultural sector of the economy and it caused there to be a fundamental flaw in the soviet economy. The human cost was and always will have been massive in a system which placed a particular sector of societies needs so far below every other priority and gave them no ability to deal with the crisis themselves as it forced them to depend on the system which had only contempt for them. But the policy meant that Stalin achieved his aims and did provide a massive leap in the standard of living for the majority of Russians and turned Russia into a super power in only ten years which is a political achievement which is miraculous. This explains why eye witness accounts differ so wildly from "He was the defender of the working people..... a great leader" to "He was not a man.... but a devil". Reflecting different view points. This divide represents clearly the vast and altering effects that collectivisation had and whether you view it as a success or failure depends on whether you rate vast industrialisation a benefit great enough to justify huge human cost and whether you believe economic success for one segment of society can ever be counted as an overall economic success for a state as a whole. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. How far was the holocaust a long term plan of nazi racial policy?

    of the Jews and therefore it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date or wording of the order. Henig then highlights September 1941 as the time that the mass extermintation of all Jews was called for. She supports this by explaining by this point it has been realised that an

  2. Assess the economic, social and political consequences of the collectivisation of Russian agriculture in ...

    its own traditions and norms and the peasants of Turkmenistan made their views extremely clear they disagreed with the policy and engaged in protest methods such as passive resistance (Edgar 2004 p296). The political consequences of collectivisation is that the policy was used in order to spread communism to the

  1. Reasons for Napoleon's Success (to 1807).

    He introduced no new training methods. He underestimated supply problems, and made other errors of judgement, often because of his amazing, but acknowledged, ignorance of climatic and geographical conditions. * This led to avoidable losses in Egypt and in San Dominigue from heat and fever, from cold, snow, and mud

  2. The importance of the First World War as a turning point in the development ...

    compared to the West, in particular the USA where over fifty percent had colour televisions which were still a privilege for the rich in Russia. The Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861 under Alexander II and other agriculture reforms were also turning points in the development of Russian history.

  1. How far do you agree Communist ideology influenced Stalin's decision to implement Collectivisation in ...

    However Marxist historians support the view that Stalin was a dedicated Communist and used Collectivisation to feed the revolution and fulfil the Communist dream. "Stalin was a hard man, but one who represented the views of many other people, and who forced through progressive economic and social changes."4 The 'view

  2. How far can the impact of the depression be seen as a key turning ...

    pp 3?58 ***U.S. Library of Congress (http://countrystudies.us/germany/33.htm) ****Nancy Mitchell, The Danger of Dreams: German and American Imperialism in Latin America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1999, p. 23. *****United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC- Holocaust Encyclopaedia, Impact of WW1, Treaty of Versailles 1919 Gustav Stresemann could be argued to be another turning point of the Weimar Republic.

  1. Nazi war production in the years 1939-45 was essentially inefficient. How far do you ...

    Unfortunately, these supplies were not sufficient to keep Germany going through the War at the rate they were being consumed. This said, the invasion of Russia and the take over of the Caucasus oil fields was not the only option presented to Hitler, some of the largest oil fields in the world were located in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq.

  2. How far do you agree that Mussolini's foreign policy was a failure from the ...

    Mussolini?s intervention of this war was to achieve dominance over the Mediterranean, to spread fascism abroad, stop French left-wing influence in Spain and to gain an ally in a strategic area. In the battle of Guadalajara, in March 1937, Italian troops were defeated and 400 soldiers were killed and 1,800

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work