• 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...


"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.


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.


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. 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

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

    Despite this there is clear evidence that one of the big influences on Stalin's choice to collectivise was the way in which it would allow a more efficient requisitioning process, consequently injecting more food into the urban areas of Russia, which would help the USSR towards the ideological aim of creating a Communist workers utopia.

  1. How far do you agree that the collectivisation of agriculture made an essential contribution ...

    In 1928 Joseph Stalin started politically attacking kulaks (Rich peasants who had grown wealthy under the NEP) for not contributing enough food for industrial workers. He also encouraged the setting up of collective farms (Kolkhoz). The proposal involved small farmers joining forces to form larger-scale units.

  2. "Foreign success; domestic failure." How fair is this summary of Bismarck's governance of Germany

    the other, he would be faced with a choice and the other would seek France as the alternative. Bismarck faced foreign problems, but enjoyed far more the control in foreign affairs than in domestic matters. However, not all of Bismarck's foreign policies were a success.

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

    This was provided by the Gaulieter. Contrastingly, in rural areas people saw less of each other and their local Gaulieter, therefore the ethos was not pressured upon them as much and as a result they were less inclined to act upon Nazi orders.

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

    However, one of the faults of Stalin's 5 year plans were that he neglected consumer goods. This all changed under Khrushchev in the late 1950's and 1960's when he began to shift focus. By 1960 over fifty five percent of households had televisions and washing machines but this is low

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

    War had been satisfactorily self-financing. It would continue to be so, as long as he kept on winning. v) Weapons and Training in the Grand Armee * Armies and their deployment might have changed, but the soldiers' weapons did not begin to do so until the middle of the nineteenth century, when industrial technology caught up with military theory.

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

    In May 1939, the Germans and Italians cemented their friendship with the Pact of Steel. This pact committed both countries to support the other if one of them became involved in a war. The Italian Foreign Minister, Galleazo Ciano, Mussolini?s son-in-law, realised that this pact was potentially very damaging for

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