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

    * This reputation rests largely on the success of his early campaigns in Italy and Egypt, and on those of 1806-6, when he was still young and energetic, full of enthusiasm and, it seemed, invincible. His methods, if not exactly new in theory, were new in practice and he used them well.

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

    It can further be highlighted that as the Nazi regime had already used the policy of enforced emigration they could have continued this and pushed the Jews out of Europe into Asia; meaning the implementation of the Final Solution could have been delayed or even avoided, and so Henigs choice

  2. "How far do the sources suggest consistent aims in Mussolini's foreign policy 1922-1939?"

    Firstly the enormous economic deficit continued to devalue the Lire and the government was forced to raise taxes, which greatly angered the working class. The cost of the war was in the region of 14 billion lire, which is half a year's tax revenue!

  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. "Bismarck's Foreign policy was a Success." Is This Statement True?

    In answer to his search for friendship with Austria and Russia to deal with both his desire for friendship with the two Great Powers and aid his plan for the isolation of France, Bismarck met with the state leaders and an agreement for the 'Dreikaiserbund' (Three Emperors League)

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

    Second World War broke out.***** Evidently, Hitler?s rise to power had a huge impact on German foreign policy- the question here however, is whether Hitler himself is relevant at all, or would this turn of events have occurred no matter who had been in his position; the expansionism and dream

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

    Germany was in dire need of oil by 1941, the German arms would very soon grind to a halt without the necessary supplies; this problem needed an imminent solution. The German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact signed in 1939 meant that Hitler did not have to worry about a war on two fronts and the Soviets would still trade oil with Germany.

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