The following source written by a soviet observer shows the counter argument for this policy and that there were problems hidden amongst the glorified NEP, stating “the pay of miners, metal workers and engine drivers was still lower than it had been before 1914” and this meant that “workers’ housing and food were poor.” Also the problem with overcrowding had not been fixed because “Every day there are many complaints about apartments: many workers have families of six and seven people, and live in one room."
This source placed below shows that although production such as electricity, cattle and pigs increased; grain, coal and steel decreased or stayed the same in production. This would therefore back up the statement that “pay of miners, metal workers and engine drivers had decreased.”
However Stalin also had a hand in strengthening the country by introducing the 5 year plans. The five year plans focused on the major industries and although most targets were not met, the achievements were still staggering up. This can be shown in the source below named: The achievements of the five year plans.
Although targets are not being met throughout the first and second five year plans, a steady increase is happening throughout the first and second five year plans, Stalin’s targets were seemingly unachievable and unrealistic, yet a rise in production was happening.
The five year plans were used very effectively for propaganda purposes. Stalin had wanted the Soviet Union to be a “beacon of socialism” and his publicity machine used the successes of industrialisation to further that objective.
Overall although Lenin introduced many decrees aimed at specific areas such as pleasing the peasants, workers, increasing Bolshevik control and improving personal freedom, all of this was taken away through war communism, which left children starving during a famine in 1921 and many harsh punishments were handed out for things as petty as not handing over surplus to the government. However there was a fault in Lenin’s war communism plan as a hard working peasant and a lazy peasant received exactly the same amount of produce, even though the hard working peasant had to grow 9 tons more. Lenin knew something had to change and introduced the NEP which seemingly brought something to look forward to if the peasants worked hard for example the left over grain could be sold for cash and therefore brought more money to the peasants.
On the other hand although Stalin’s five year plans did not have targets met, a slow but steady upward push in producing more occurred meaning more and more production was increasing through to the first and second five year plans.
Overall I Believe Stalin was more influential in this case because although Lenin tried to redeem himself with the NEP some production was still lower than pre 1914 therefore not enough was happening quickly enough. Whilst on the other hand Stalin made increases to production, even though he did not make his targets, production was still raising steadily throughout his five year plans.
Dealing with the opposition:
In December Lenin set up a secret police force called the Cheka to crush his opponents. The Cheka made sure that nobody in Bolshevik territories cooperated with the whites (the opponents.) As a result there were many beatings, hangings and shootings of opponents or even suspects. The people who suffered most were ordinary workers and above all peasants in the areas where the fighting was most prominent.
The Bolsheviks were beginning to turn peasant views with their violent outrages, as peasants had previously been given land owned by the Tsar, church and nobles this would seem that as a result the peasants would happily oblige to the Bolshevik ways but the following observed by a Businessman in 1919 convinces me otherwise, it states that “In the villages the peasant will not give grain to the Bolshevik because he hates them” and “fights for grain are fought till the finish” because “people are dying of hunger.” People are also becoming wary because “People are arrested daily and kept in prison for months without trial” this shows me that the fair communist state Russia is supposed to be, is not there. Instead the peasants are in fear, as causing a scene would surely bring prison or at worst death. The fair distribution of food is not present as hundreds of people are still dying of hunger and going against the Bolshevik party will most definitely bring death. This source can be trusted to the extent that a British businessman has nothing to gain from what is being said.
Stalin’s approach also carried violent ways, through the purges. Stalin used the murder of Kirov, the leader of Leningrad as an excuse to purge and to clear out his opponents in the party. As the purges extended, university lecturers and teachers, miners and engineers, factory managers and ordinary workers all disappeared. The most frightening for everyday people would be that arrests were made in the middle of the night and victims were rarely told what they were being arrested for. Days of physical and psychological torture would gradually break the victims and they would confess to anything.
This information can be backed up by the following sources:
The source to the left shows a mock travel poster produced by Russian exiles in France in the late 1930’s. The text says: “Visit the USSR’s pyramids.” This is basically a mock travel poster to deter those thinking of going to Russia. This poster could have an effect on the Russian economy because if there is no travel into Russia there won’t be enough money circulating, and the Russian people will suffer as a result.
Stalin also took things to the extreme by deleting/removing his opponents from photographs, as this allowed Stalin to create the impression that his enemies never existed. This can be shown in the source below:
Although Stalin was to blame for the death of a vast number of people, in the USSR in the 1930’s you would have found that the average citizen actually admired Stalin. If you asked them about the purges they were likely to reply that it had nothing to do with Stalin himself. The soviet people honestly believed in Stalin and this belief was built up by communist leaders, and by Stalin himself. This became known as the cult of personality. The history of the Soviet Union was rewritten so that Lenin and Stalin were the only real heroes of the revolution. This would have had an impact on the people because: Stalin seriously weakened the USSR by removing so many able individuals. Everyone who was spared knew that their lives depended on thinking just like Stalin did, therefore becoming a clone hence the cult of personality. Although Stalin and his style of government were popular, you have to remember that Stalin was still in power during the 1930’s and with so many prosecutions how could you not “like” Stalin. Many people were in fear of their lives already, therefore they believed in the man running their country.
In conclusion; Lenin set up the Cheka and as a result there were many beatings, hangings and shootings of opponents or even suspects. As a result the ordinary workers and peasants suffered. This source shows the hatred felt towards the Bolsheviks as a villager claims “he hates them” and “fights for grain are fought till the finish” because “people are dying of hunger.” as a result.” People are arrested daily” This resulted in the people being scared for they were living in fear under the Cheka. Although Lenin killed many people I would have to say that Stalin had the biggest negative impact on soviet Russia through the following ways:
Everyday people would be arrested and were taken in the middle of the night and victims were rarely told what they were being arrested for. This would have impacted the people of Russia as many innocent people were being either executed of sent to gulags. As a result people knew if they thought like Stalin did then surely they would live. The cult of personality not only affected the people but it also begins to show how paranoid Stalin really was. In the population as a whole, the long term impact of living under Stalin with terror and distrust haunted the USSR for a generation.
Living and Working conditions:
When Lenin introduced the NEP in 1921 he stated that “Our poverty and ruin are so great” that we must “try to satisfy the demands of the peasants who are dissatisfied, discontented” and “there must be a certain amount of freedom to trade, freedom for the small private owner.” This source tells me that Lenin himself knew the peasants were “dissatisfied and discontented” therefore he knew that introducing the NEP would allow the peasants to “sell surplus grain for profit and would pay tax on what they produced rather than giving some of it up to the government.” This would influence peasants to work harder, as they are getting a reward at the end that will ultimately improve cash flow and subsequently living conditions. However this source can only be reliable to a certain extent because it is Lenin who said it, and he would surely want to make himself sound better.
In the towns, small factories were handed back into private ownership and private trading of small goods was allowed, this would allow the people of Lenin’s Russia to have that bit of extra freedom. The decrease in production of coal and steel suggests that increases in production did not necessarily improve the situation of industrial workers.
However under Stalin many soviet workers had improved their conditions by acquiring well paid jobs and earning bonuses by meeting targets. Unemployment was almost nonexistent and in 1940 the USSR had more doctors per head than Britain. On the other hand life was very harsh under Stalin factory discipline was strict and punishments were severe. Lateness or absences were punished by sacking, and this could often lead to the person losing their own home as well, this would affect the people because with no income, how would they afford to live?
Those people who had caused accidents at work could also be sent to prison along with Kulaks, Jews and political opponents therefore getting stuck into the job was the only other possible choice. On these major projects conditions were appalling and there were many deaths and accidents alike, however not all spirits were broken: this can be shown in the following source by Tatyana Fyodorova, who was interviewed as an old lady in 1990, who remembered building the Moscow underground as a child. She states “we were such young things, small, slender, fragile” But “we had our orders to build the metro” and “we wanted to do it more than anything else.” Although she states “My feet were size four and the boots were elevens.” There was still “such enthusiasm.” This shows me that these major projects were also an achievement for the people of Russia as they were to Stalin; perhaps they felt honoured to help “build” the “new” Russia. When looking at this source I must consider that Tatyana was child at the time, and Stalin had rewritten many book so that he was portrayed as being a “hero” therefore the realisation of what was happening may not have been apparent.
A source written by Dr Hewlett Johnson of Britain in 1939 states that whilst visiting the USSR “Nothing strikes the visitor to the soviet union more forcibly than the lack of fear. No fear of not having enough money at the birth of a child. No fear in doctor’s fees, school fees or university fees. No fear of under work, no fear of overwork. No fear of wage reduction in the land where none are unemployed.” This source shows me that the people of Russia were so used to the demands and consequences or Stalin; nothing was too much or too little. Complaining could bring severe punishments; therefore coping was the only other option.
In Conclusion, the following source from the Manchester guardian in 1933 shows the effect of Stalin’s regime on the people of Russia to which an old man states ‘We have nothing, absolutely nothing. They have taken everything away.’ and the famine had caused this, yet Stalin was not easing off, Stalin had achieved his aim and that was all that was important. This source also highlights that the secret police were still controlling the people of Russia as the man “looked around anxiously to see that no soldiers were about.” And if they were caught bad mouthing Stalin they were likely to be “marched off under escort”
Collectivisation meant that peasants were to put their lands together to form large joint farms, but could keep small plots for personal use. Stalin believed that “The way out (of the food problem) is to turn the small and scattered, peasant farms, gradually but surely into large farms based on common, co-operative, collective cultivation of the land. There is no other way out.” But was Stalin just undoing the works of Lenin and his idea of the Land once belonging to the Tsar, church and nobles being handed over to the peasants? However not all was bad, as MTS stations provided by the government now made tractors available, this meant labour intensive work could be easily avoided.
However Lenin himself knew the peasants were “dissatisfied and discontented” therefore he knew that introducing the NEP would allow the peasants to “sell surplus grain for profit and would pay tax on what they produced rather than giving some of it up to the government.” This would influence peasants to work harder, as they are getting a reward at the end that will ultimately improve cash flow and subsequently living conditions. On the other hand the decrease in production of coal and steel suggests that increases in production did not necessarily improve the situation of industrial workers.
Overall the people of Russia had the best living and working conditions under Lenin because he engaged with the peoples own concerns as he knew he must “try to satisfy the demands of the peasants who are dissatisfied, discontented” unlike Stalin who was not easing off, all that was important to him was achieving his own aims, this can be shown when an old man states “We have nothing, absolutely nothing. They have taken everything away.’ Although under Stalin many soviet workers had improved their conditions by acquiring well paid jobs and earning bonuses by meeting targets, the negative outcomes just outweighed all that was good because discipline was strict and punishments were severe. Lateness or absences were punished by sacking, and this could often lead to the person losing their own home as well, this would affect the people because with no income, how would they afford to live?
Final Conclusion to answer the question: How important was Lenin compared to Stalin in creating the Soviet Union?
To conclude Lenin and Stalin did have similarities for example the use of the secret police and that they both ultimately wanted to “crush their opponents.” However they both focused on different aspects of the Soviet Union. I can see this where Stalin focuses on industrialisation and where Lenin focuses on getting the country back on its feet.
Overall I believe Stalin had the bigger hand in creating the USSR: Under Lenin war communism led to a huge famine, although Lenin tried to redeem himself with the NEP, sources show that some production was still lower than pre 1914. Although Stalin did not meet his targets he was steadily increasing production of electricity, coal, oil, pig iron and steel. As a result the USSR increased in production and created a foundation on which to build the next five year plans. Although Living and working conditions were better under Lenin, Stalin achieved more. Lenin engaged with the peoples own concerns as he knew he must “try to satisfy the demands of the peasants who are dissatisfied, discontented” unlike Stalin who was not easing off, all that was important to him was achieving his own aims, this can be shown when an old man states “We have nothing, absolutely nothing. They have taken everything away.’ Under Stalin many soviet workers had improved their conditions by
acquiring well paid jobs and earning bonuses by meeting targets, even though discipline was strict and punishments were severe Stalin made unemployment almost nonexistent and in 1940 the USSR had more doctors per head than Britain. In the population as a whole, the long term impact of living under Stalin with terror and distrust haunted the USSR for a generation; however his methods allowed the USSR to strive.
