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

"The costs far outweighed the benefits." How accurate is this assessment of the impact of Stalin's economic policies from 1928 to 1939?

Extracts from this document...


"The costs far outweighed the benefits." How accurate is this assessment of the impact of Stalin's economic policies from 1928 to 1939? The political and economic circumstances in Russia by 1928 appeared to necessitate rapid change in economic policy for a number of reasons. The 1927 war scare, and the nature of Marxist ideology, assuming as it did an inseparable relationship between capital and war, encouraged support for rapid industrialisation to ensure Russia was economically developed enough to survive against her enemies (as Stalin famously proclaimed, "We are fifty to a hundred years behind the advanced countries... We must make good this distance in ten years... or we will be crushed"). Economically, the scissors crisis, which thus far was being solved by cutting industrial prices, meant that the urban centres of Russia faced food shortages and low wages while the peasants "got rich". This crisis, crucially, stoked opposition to the New Economic Policy, viewed as a concession to the peasantry who were holding the government to ransom (thus their inability to procure enough grain for industrial development, leading to the grain procurement crisis) ...read more.


It created in the form of, for example, Machine Tractor Stations and the kolkhozy and sovkhozy, a definite party presence in the countryside through which the peasantry could be controlled (and crushed). The use of collectivisation policy against all manner of enemies is apparent - the disobedience of the Ukrainian arm of the Communist Party led to a purge of it and a concentration on the breaking of Ukrainian nationalism in particular; with travel out of the Ukraine banned (the introduction of internal passports strengthened state control of movement), as well as relief operations (since as far as the state was concerned no famine was occurring). The result of Stalin's economic policy here was the establishment and consolidation of Party control over the part of Russia it had previously failed to conquer. Presented by the government as a war against the countryside, collectivisation "broke" the peasantry. It was a vengeance, an solution to the concession both to the country and capitalism that was the New Economic Policy, and to the party members who espoused it (e.g. Bukharin; later purged). As a great political victory for Stalin it made his position as leader more secure. ...read more.


This fault was also visible in the mechanisation of agriculture: tractors were poorly maintained and peasants often had no idea how to run them. Overall, whilst the Five Year Plans saw substantial and undeniable progress in industrial production, the big picture was far bleaker in agriculture. Since Stalin's economic policy as a whole rested on the horrendous failure (economically) of collectivisation, no matter the political benefits, one cannot help but conclude that the costs largely outweighed the benefits. It is arguable that the industrial "revolution" was indeed a necessary and crucial aspect of Soviet policy, and that had the NEP continued for another 25 years as Bukharin advocated, the Soviet Union would have been completely unable to have won the Great Patriotic War. However, it is also arguable that given the massive human cost (later Soviet policies designed to alleviate the massive population loss of the War, which placed punitive taxes on those with fewer than two children and outlawed abortion, may well have been less- or unnecessary had millions of Russians not been slaughtered or starved during the 1930s) of collectivisation, that it was simply not worth it. The benefits for Stalin, however, who would become the undisputed dictator of the USSR, and the Party, who finally consolidated their control over the country, are undeniable. ...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 view that the failures of the Congress of Vienna outweighed the successes.

    own convenience and interest and took no account of the aspirations of the people.'21 This was a prime failure of the settlement, as in most cases where the principle of legitimacy was applied, there was another consideration at work, for example, in central Italy restoring Habsburgs dukes and principles was

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

    This clearly displays the major impact the loss of the kulaks had on the Soviet economy. Collectivisation had one particular goal of forcing peasants to move from working on the land to new industrial areas, however, as these peasants were only trained to work on the land, this 'new workforce'

  1. How far did the achievements of Stalin's economic modernisation programme justify the costs?

    There were still many problems with it involving shortages and wastage but not anything like on the scale as the first plan. The second five year plan concentrated mainly on new industries such as communications and transport which grew rapidly however did still include some heavy industries.

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

    was in all senses a basic form of free trade and a mode of capitalism. It empowered the richer peasants or 'Kulaks' and Marx clearly stated the importance of removing the rural bourgeoisie. Marx identified 'rural oppression' in the countryside of poor peasantry by the richer peasantry (Kulaks)

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

    But he saw that industries such iron, steel and oil needed to modify if he wanted Russia to modernise. If they were successful in production then Russia would be strong and ready to defend itself for the future. Heavy industry was introduced he was hoping to follow in the footsteps

  2. Causes of show trials + purges of 1930s.

    from the Provisional government and the resignation of Prince L'vov as leader of the government. This show of weakness within the government gave the spur to the so-called "July days" of early July 1917. The July days were a turning point in the period of dual power because the disturbances

  1. How far did Stalin continue Lenin's policies to 1939?

    The presence of personality of the leader alone was much stronger in Stalin's reign than in that of Lenin's. Though the use of terrorism to combat opposition can be rooted to Lenin's policy but the aim for this was altered for the advantage of Stalin's individual dominance than for the party's security.

  2. "The Wannsee Conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust" How valid is this assessment ...

    positions of power.[13] This theory can be supported by the minutes of the meeting to which Heydrich opens the proceedings by not only stating in detail but repeating how he has been granted the position of authority by Goering to oversee and co-ordinate the ?Final Solution?.

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