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

Assess The Impact Of Stalin On Russia And The Russian People.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Assess The Impact Of Stalin On Russia And The Russian People? Now that Stalin was in power, he was determined to modernise the USSR so that it could meet the challenges which were to come. He took over a country in which almost all the industry was concentrated in just a few cities and whose workers were unskilled and poorly educated. Many regions of the USSR were in the same state as they had been a hundred years earlier. So, Stalin wanted to make a few changes and believed that: "Throughout history Russia has been beaten again and again because she was backward" and that the USSR was "50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries. Either we make good the difference in ten years or they crush us" so in order to do this Stalin ended Lenin's NEP because he believed is was such a slow process and needed a dramatic change for Russia to become a world power. So Stalin set about achieving modernisation through a series of Five-Year Plans which was for towns and industrial workers and also made a modernisation plan for peasants and countryside's throughout Russia. ...read more.

Middle

Stalin seized the land by sending out an army. Stalin used the Kulaks as a reason to take there land. He used it as an opportunity to stir up class hatred between the peasants. By the end the 1920s, the kulaks were basically wiped out. Eventually, around 14million people joined these farms. Many peasants were labelled kulaks and sent to labour camps. When collectivisation was complete, Stalin could treat the peasants as slave labour. It is accepted that Stalin deliberately caused this famine to crush the resistance of the peasants. Despite the famine, Stalin did not ease off. By 1934 there were no kulaks left. By 1941 almost all agricultural land was organised under the collective system. Stalin had achieved his aim of collectivisation .It's estimated that 5 million people died as a result. Although his aim was achieved as he introduced collectivisation, but the production remained below pre-1914 level until the 1950s. There was also an amazing number of human life's left dead. However, Stalin's huge changes in the industry and agriculture made Stalin millions of enemies. He dealt with these by using his secret police force to eliminate them. ...read more.

Conclusion

He didn't care about them as people but was able to use them as a leap to complete power. The effect of collectivisation was harsh on the peasants. When it came to industrial workers the 5 year plans improved there living conditions and gave them better wages, but there housing was poor. Overall he had a positive effect on them because they got free medical and free education. This was better than what they had before. Army officers, managers and party leaders did well. These were the social elite in the USSR. So overall he made the people living in cities life easier but he killed several peasants and made there life's unhappy .As a conclusion, Stalin had negative and positive effects on his people. His policy on peasants was very harsh and he didn't treat them as equals. On industrial workers, there life's got made a lot better. They were being paid steady wages with lots of free health care and education. Although there housing was poor they were earning better money for a easier job. As for the social elite, there life's got made easier. But they were sometimes the victims of the purges made by Stalin. ?? ?? ?? ?? Coursework Mr Groves By Stephen turner ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 section.

Found what you're looking for?

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

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

4 star(s)

This is a secure response, with a good level of subject knowledge and a balanced and evaluative account of Stalin's impact. There is a good level of detail but statistics and dates could have been used more frequently. A few grammatical errors. 4 stars.

Marked by teacher Natalya Luck 09/04/2012

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 GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. How did Stalin control Russia from 1924-1953?

    This would have gained Stalin much more respect from the Russian people, and more of their trust. In fact, Stalin was anything but trustworthy. While Kamenev and Zinoviev were admitting to plotting with Trotsky, Stalin had Trotsky murdered, who was in exile in Mexico.

  2. Stalin and the Five Year Plans

    The five-year plans really did make Russia a much stronger country. Not only did the five-year plans allow its economy to raise and allow the people of Russia to have their own money, but it showed the public what they could do if they were put in the right direction and put all their heart into it.

  1. 'The Five Year Plans brought glory to Stalin and misery to his people.' How ...

    He needed to industrialise to complete his cry for 'Socialism in One Country'. Also, as the Wall Street crash had led to the rise of the anti communist Hitler in Germany, Stalin very much needed to prepare Russia for what was to come.

  2. How did living conditions change in towns as a result of the Industrial Revolution ...

    to outsiders that take action in the centre of the trading process when the Revolution took place .This was since families had sold their goods in the local market. When comparing the industrial changes to the domestic practices one can perhaps say that any lower class family would have benefited more from the Domestic process .

  1. How effectively did the Soviet Union control Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1968?

    They kept an eye over the people, and crushed any sort of uprising. This would have been a deterrent enough for anybody looking to rebel against communism. This proved to be effective as there are no real incidences where the Red army have been called in to sort out a

  2. How convincing is the argument that WW1 was the main factor in the collapse ...

    Liberal optimist historians claim that without the obstruction of the war the Tsar may have made more reforms and efficiently improved agriculture as well as the peasant's quality of life. The Liberal optimists believe the revolution could have been prevented without the imposition of WW1, though it seems likely that

  1. War Communism and the NEP

    The New Economic Policy, however, was a lot more a lot more successful. Agricultural and industrial production were rising, 50,3 million tones of grain were harvested in 1922 and 72,5 in 1925, 9,5 millions of tones of coal were mined in 1922 and 18,1 nearly twice as much , in

  2. Stalins Five Year Plans were a great success 1928-1941. Do you agree? Explain you ...

    The targets helped the workers to stay aware of what is expected from them. In order to achieve the targets, the workers were offered incentives which inspired them to work harder. Workers who exceeded their targets were entitled to better housing, free holidays and cash prizes.

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