"Stalin transformed the Soviet Union from a backward country into a strong modern state but the price of this was misery for the Soviet people." How accurate is this view of Stalin's rule of the USSR between 1928 and 1941?

Authors Avatar

History Coursework

“Stalin transformed the Soviet Union from a backward country into a strong modern state but the price of this was misery for the Soviet people.” How accurate is this view of Stalin’s rule of the USSR between 1928 and 1941?

This statement about Stalin’s ruling of the USSR between the years 1928 and 1941 is more than just black and white. The preceding social influences of the Communist Party, coupled with the practical side of putting all of these ideas into use caused an extremely complex situation. Stalin’s ideas benefited some, greatly disadvantaged others and completely changed the way the USSR was run and how all sectors of public life were organised. In the process of ascertaining how important each of the factors such as the industrial base, the agricultural system and control of society, a view of Stalinist rule between these years is created. The issues that affected Stalin’s rule and decisions are more numerable than simply the welfare of the Soviet people.

Undertaking the task of analysing Stalin’s regime in this period of 13 years is not an easy feat. There are a broad range of subjects and ideas to comprehend and attempt to convey to begin to understand the overall view of Stalinist Russia. A logical starting point for the consideration of Stalin’s actions as he sought to drag the Soviet Union into a position where it stood amongst equals on the international stage is the impact of Stalin’s rule when compared to the wider history of Russia. In the beginning, five years into the new 20th Century was the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II. The Tsar’s trial of ruling Russia as an autocracy failed, but in the future, Stalin would succeed where he failed. A figure always closely linked to any of Stalin’s actions is Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik movement that took control of Russia in late 1917. Lenin, as the leader of the Bolshevik’s, laid many of the foundations on which Stalin built upon in his time in control of Russia. The Bolshevik’s quashed Russia’s involvement in the First World War and also the subsequent insurrection of the White army before introducing the New Economic Policy. The NEP is the main groundwork that Stalin took and based his Five Year Plans on, as Lenin managed to bring about increases in all of the raw materials that were necessary to the revival of Russia. Taken from this base, ignoring all of the repercussions of the actions of Stalin, it is quite clear that Stalin did indeed advance Russia’s socio-economic development a significant amount. In Stalin’s period of control between 1928 and 1941, there was the most increase in all major materials such as grain, steel, iron ore, coal and oil. Conversely, removing the objective view of what Stalin achieved through his methods, the results of his work seem appalling. Stalin’s method of bringing Russia up to speed with other dominant countries of the world led to the most deaths and the highest amount of famine than in any other ruler’s time. The biggest question any historian is faced with is; did the ends justify the means in Stalin’s case? Looking separately at both overall achievement and price of progress, the position of Stalin in the context of wider Russian history seems to support the statement made about success at the cost of misery for the population.

Furthermore, the effects of Stalin’s policies for industry, agriculture and how these policies relate to the state of each of these core areas pre-Stalin that is important in finding out how successful the plans made for Russia were. As stated, taking the basic idea that Stalin caused an increase in the USSR’s industrial output, it is plain that the Five Year Plans had a positive influence. In 1933, when the results of the first Five Year Plan were assessed, it was seen that all of the major industrial areas had seen an increase, electricity output more than doubled in this first five years. Although the results of the first plan did not meet the targets set by the Communist Party, the increase was dramatic. Perhaps the targets had been set unrealistically high, but the industrial area had leapt up in sheer amount of production. The Communist industrial work ethic was highlighted by the reported “true” story of Alexei Stakhanov. It was reported in national newspapers (controlled by the Government) that Stakhanov had shifted 102 tons of coal in one shift, apparently 14 times that a regular man would move. This example of heroism and Stakhanov’s subsequent use as a guiding light to all Russian workers is just an example of what the Government aimed to get out of the workers at the end of the first Five Year Plan. Corollary, for the industrial situation to improve, Stalin needed more workers and to have more workers Russia needed to produce more food. In order to produce the amount of grain needed for this concentrated upheaval of industrial Russia, the farming system was forced to change from a selection of individual farms to a series of collective farms where land, equipment and workers were pooled together for the greater good of Communism. Taken at face value, the bulk of grain produced did indeed increase rapidly, but at great expense to the Russian people. Stalin wanted the USSR to produce enough grain to feed itself, and enough surplus grain to export to other countries to maximise the amount of money flowing into the Russian economy. Problems aside however, Stalin did in fact achieve what he set out to do in respect to increasing industrial output and agricultural production. The USSR was well on its way to being on level footing with international superpowers as far as industry and import/export was concerned.

Join now!

The overall increase in production in both industrial and agricultural sectors inevitably came at a price. The effects of Stalin’s policies on the people of the USSR were profound. Under the Bolshevik’s New Economic Policy as a replacement for War Communism the peasant’s were doing extremely well. They had enough grain for themselves and their family, and could sell part of their grain for profit. At the end of all that the Government brought about, the quality of life the average Russian citizen was much reduced. Although the country was produced far more steel and iron, each household had ...

This is a preview of the whole essay