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

How far by 1941, had the Soviet economy benefited from changes in agricultural policy since 1928?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐How far by 1941, had the soviet economy benefited from changes in soviet agriculture policy since 1928? Collectivisation in the Soviet Union was enforced under Stalin between 1928 and 1940. The goal of this policy was to consolidate individual land and labour into collective farms. The Soviet leadership was confident that the replacement of individual peasant farms by kolkhozy would immediately increase the food supply for urban populations, the supply of raw materials for processing industry, and agricultural exports. Collectivisation was therefore regarded as the solution to the crisis of agricultural distribution mainly in grain deliveries that had developed since 1927. This essay will focus on how far collectivisation benefited the economy since 1928-1941. At the start of Collectivisation the economic benefits were apparent, there was ?growing sophistication of the peasant women? as women learnt to read and there was ?large scale industrialised farming.? This is what source A thinks as source A is an account of collectivisation by a Left wing American Journalist who visited Russia in 1930. Source A gives us a few ideas of the impact of agricultural policy because it refers to the early period of collectivisation. In the 1930s collectivisation was seen as positive as there was ?large scale industrial farming? and there were ?unmistakable signs of the approaching civilisation in the Russian village?. ...read more.


Source B was right to say that many peasants ?were psychologically unprepared to become members of collective farms.? Source B does show us that the collective farms were successful but it criticises the way they were run. This is evident when it says ?some over enthusiastic officials forced peasants into joining giant collective farms which were unmanageable. Some middle class peasants were mistakenly lumped together with kulaks.? He admits that there were failures but he does not blame the communists this is because it was written in 1981 when the communist party still controlled the Soviet Union. During the period of 1928-1941, the first second and third five year plans were introduced. These plans were introduced to put central planning at the forefront of the soviet economy. The key features of the plans were the setting of production and output targets which industrial enterprises had to achieve. The plans also set targets to key industries. There were many failures and successes of the five year plans. The first five year plan benefitted the economy as there was increased production and output in electricity (which had trebled), coal, iron, steel (which had doubled) and steel increased by one third. Huge new industries complexes were also built and new tractors were built in Stalingrad and other places to meet the needs of mechanised agriculture. ...read more.


Therefore peasants remained unenthusiastic and agriculture remained inefficient as ?collectivisation reduced food output to below the 1928 level, resulting in overall reductions in output.? Some say this was a worse performance than 1913 tsarist Russia! Therefore in conclusion the soviet economy has benefited from changes in soviet agricultural policy as there was huge industrialisation, women became more educated and the peasantry way of living changed. At the time where mass industrialisation was needed and needed to be done fast I think that collectivisation was probably the only way to get the grain that they needed. On the other hand I do believe that the soviet economy did not benefit from changes in soviet agriculture policy as there was a huge famine where 7 million peasants died. The Kulaks were exterminated and the economy was not benefitting as the peasants were protesting and had no incentive to work. There was a shortage of new machinery and not enough grain was being produced. A lot of peasants hoarded their grain. Also because a lot of grain was being exported there was not enough for the peasants to eat. This is therefore why I believe that the economy did not benefit that much, although there were benefits to the economy there were a lot more disadvantages and it took a lot of time for the economy to get over collectivisation. ...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

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. Stalin and the Five Year Plans

    Overall, I think that the five-year plans succeeded quite well on many fronts, but also failed on others. These plans did raise Russia's economy quite a lot, gave Russia a new place in the world and they did, in a way, show that communism worked.

  2. To what extent was Stalin's economic policy successful? In the 1920's the soviet economy ...

    Even though grain production is up livestock in the USSR had disastrously fallen to fractions of the 1928 level. These show that collectivisation had caused havoc and ravaged the soviet country side and caused chaos. Even if collectivisation was aimed at grain solely the figures do not support success there

  1. How Successful Were Stalin's Policies During His Leadership of the Soviet Union?

    a large buffer zone or 'Iron Curtain' on his western border by setting up communist regimes in Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia13. These events were understood by the Western powers to be an example of Stalin's desire to impose communism on the whole of Europe.

  2. How Successful Was Roosevelt’s New Deal?

    This is not the case with source L because it simply says that Stalin was a 'gifted politician' and says nothing about why Stalin ordered the purges. Both sources contain valuable content, which we can use to understand Stalin but both sources say many things about Stalin, some of which differ, and some of which agree with the other source.

  1. Between 1928 and 1941 Stalin had a huge effect on Russia.

    The Tsar survived and crushed the revolution by firstly arresting and then exiling revolutionist leaders, so revolutionists had far fewer leaders to march them, and secondly by using the army to fight street fighters (as it was loyal to the Tsar)

  2. Purges and Hysteria in the Soviet Union

    In an interview that he gave in Moscow to a correspondent for New York's Daily Worker, Robeson is reported as saying that wherever he turned in Moscow he had found happiness and "bounding life, the feeling of safety and abundance of freedom."

  1. 'The Soviet Sate was established at the expense of the Soviet people' Examine the ...

    So in 1932 a second Five Year plan was drawn up to run until 1938. This plan concentrated on producing tractors for the new collectivized farms and on machinery and tools for the factories. These were also to be improvement in all types of transport.

  2. China 1945-90 - source based questions.

    Posters appeared demanding Deng be reinstated. This move was supported by provincial leaders and the military, fearing demonstrations on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square incident. Deng's reinstatement was followed by a speedy climb to real power, and his four-modernisation programme was given increased prominence - modernisation of agriculture, industry, science and technology, and national defence.

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