• 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

    Most of the things that brought comfort to the people had problems with them from the outset anyway, as many tools, such as tractors and the like were very difficult to operate and hardly anyone was trained in using them.

  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. China 1945-90 - source based questions.

    These zones and the growing private sector is another example of how China was changing and getting rd of the old Maoist China. Deng believed in trade with overseas countries, this was something Mao would have feared; also he believed that only people of political importance should gain wealth.

  2. Purges and Hysteria in the Soviet Union

    The Communist Party was still supposed to be a family of comrades. And still in the Party, or readmitted to the Party, were some of Stalin's former opponents, the so-called Rightists, Bukharin, Tomsky and Rykov, and the so-called Leftists, the humbled Zinoviev, Kamenev and others of the old "United Opposition."

  1. Consider this judgement on the consequences of Stalin's leadership of the Soviet Union 1928 ...

    Under Stalinism, society was controlled and indoctrinated from all possible angles. He developed the 'Cult of Personality' in which pictures and statues of him were placed throughout every town and village, many of which ere named after him. The media was heavily censored with all documents being enforced to follow 'social realism'.

  2. How Successful Was Roosevelt’s New Deal?

    These people said that she should not take part in political affairs but simply remain at her husband's side. Conservative Republicans and Democrats attacked Roosevelt for going too far and by liberal Democrats for not going far enough. The Old South seemed to be getting little from the New Deal, southern blacks least of all.

  1. Explain why by 1928, the Soviet leadership had decided on collectivisation of agriculture?

    Problems then incurred with this during the 'grain procurement' crisis of 1928-1929. Stalin also wished to band all individuals together into one class, he therefore set out to disband and destroy the 'Kulaks' the Soviet middle class (Anyone who can afford to employ someone for more than six months a year.)

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

    Stakhanov became a national hero. His picture appeared on the front of newspapers and he was invited to meet other workers to explain his methods. However, the Stakhanovites were hated by their fellow workers and in 1936 the British consul in Leningrad reported that 'people are sick of Stakhanov'.

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