Agriculture
The changes that were made had two main motives behind them, firstly Stalin’s want to bring all of Russia’s economy under state control and secondly to increase food production dramatically to feed the massive numbers of workers that Stalin will need to accommodate as a result of his plans for industry.
The first stage of the Stalin’s plan to achieve those two goals was to achieve collectivisation. This was a key word since it meant that all the private farms spread across Russia would become either a collective farm Kolkhoz) or a State farm (Sovkhoz).
A Collective farm was one in which the peasants who ran it would pool their land to form one large unit in which they farmed co-operatively. They would sell a fixed amount of their produce to the government at a low price and keep any surplus for themselves.
In State Farms the land belonged to the government and the peasants would work on it for a wage paid by the government.
The main problem for Stalin was what he gave the name ‘kulaks’. These were the people who had prospered under the N.E.P. and so were unwilling to change circumstance. As these were Stalin’s greatest impediment the communists encouraged the rest of the peasants to regard these ‘kulaks’ with jealousy and hatred, though without a huge amount of success.
When Stalin decided to eliminate the problem of the ‘kulaks’ by force it served two purposes. It meant that the rest of the peasants were now aware of what would happen to them if they did not co-operate with Stalin in his campaign to collectivize Russia and it gave Stalin and collectivisation a good image as they were liberating the majority of farmable land from the kulaks and making it available to the poorer peasants through collectivisation.
Collectivisation began in earnest by the forming of collectivised and state farms in 1929 and by March 1930 55% of the land had been collectivised and its resisting owners had either been shot or deported to Siberia yet still collectivisation only meant that the peasants had signed a piece of paper, nothing solid had been achieved. In fact the whole of agriculture had moved backwards as resentful peasants proceeded to destroy equipment, farm buildings and crops as well as slaughtering and eating their livestock. At this development Stalin declared that the communist officials had been too hasty in their methods and so temporarily called off collectivsation. After having declared this he then attempted again but allowed the peasants the right to own their own houses, a small plot of land for household needs and a few head of livestock in the hope that these concessions would make collectivisation more attractive. So collectivisation began again in 1931 and so by 1937 almost all of the USSR’s farmland had been collectivised.
Once the farmland had been collectivised it was important to increase efficiency on those farms so tractors and more modern equipment was introduced having been produced as a result of the industrialisation of Russia.
As a result of collectivisation and Stalin’s five-year plans the population of the USSR increased from 159,200,000 in 1913 to 170,600,000 in 1939 and the grain harvest changed from 80.1 million tons in 1913 to 73.3 million tons in 1928 to 68.4 million tons in 1933 to 97.4 million tons in 1937 so despite some major setbacks in 1913 and 1928 Russia was better off by 1937.
Changes in agriculture and industry were linked in one way. In order for Stalin to make significant changes in industry he needed a lot more workers in his cities. By collectivisation Stalin made more food and because the farms now state controlled more of that food was available to the workers in the cities at a faster rate and for much cheaper than before.
Question 2: Why did Stalin make these changes (6)
Stalin gave a fairly famous speech about the need to modernise Russia, which had an extract that went: “We (Russia) are a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this lag in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us!” Stalin on February 4th 1931. Stalin had started the progress of collectivisation two years previously but here there the message was that Russia was being threatened on two fronts. In the east Japan was becoming a less than peaceful nation whilst in the west the threat of Germany was becoming more real by the year and so four years later Hitler would reintroduce conscription and start to lead Germany down the road to war. Yet even at this point Hitler was not considered to be a international menace so it is more likely that this was a fear that had dwelt with Stalin for a long time, stemming from the hatred that the western countries harbored for the threat of communism which in turn reflected on Stalin causing him to fear that the western countries may decide that communism was to big a problem to leave to its own devices. All of this contributed to the need for the modernisation of Russia, at least in Stalin’s eyes.
Secondly there was prestige at stake. Stalin wanted to show the world that communism worked, especially at a time when there were a lot of international problems stemming from the Wall Street Crash and many people were unhappy about the condition of their countries economy etc. Stalin wanted to show the world that Russia was not only a threat in terms of being a communist state but that she could be on a level footing economically with the rest of the world.
Despite the amazing progress, which Russia had made in her industry, she was still lacking in well-trained engineers and machine parts in comparison to the rest of the world. So it was important for a lot of food (grain) to be produced so that they could traded for engineering materials etc.
Although I doubt that Stalin intended to do so in a hurry, the main idea of modernising, for the rest of the communists anyway, was to achieve a state of autarky (self-sufficiency) which meant that Russia would be capable of surviving on its own (without imports from other non-communist countries) in order to create a power base from where Russia would start spreading communism farther afield creating more communist states and so eventually Karl Marx’s vision will complete with a whole communist world.
Questions 3:What were the consequences of these changes; and how successful were these changes in achieving Stalin’s objectives? (14)
What were the consequences of these changes?
There were a lot of different types of consequences of the changes that were made. First and foremost is the affect that these changes had on the Russian people.
Consequences upon population
As a result of collectivisation and Stalin’s five-year plans the population of the USSR increased from 159,200,000 in 1913 to 170,600,000 in 1939.
But the purges which were carried out from 1934 through till 1940 more than counter acted this. Targets differed from as high profile as; Trotsky in 1940 who was assassinated in Mexico by Stalin’s agents, to common workers in random arrests to instill fear in which the people involved would often not even be told their alleged crimes.
The Army was hit hard with 25,000 officers removed (around one in five) including the Supreme Commander of the Red Army, Marshall Tukhachevsky. This had major repercussions on Russia’s military performance when Hitler invaded as Stalin had successfully rooted out all independent thinkers.
Not even party members were spared when 500,000 were deported or shot. All of these murders of the Purges had an overall effect on the current Russian population which haunted their hearts for a generation, creating fear and anger amongst many.
Consequences upon the grain harvest
The grain harvest changed from 80.1 million tons in 1913 to 73.3 million tons in 1928 to 68.4 million tons in 1933 to 97.4 million tons in 1937 so despite some major setbacks in 1913 and 1928 Russia was better off by 1937.
Human consequences of the modernisation of agriculture
In Stalin’s attempts to modernise Russia millions were sacrificed as an example to the public, as everyday disciplinary measures and finally many were killed or deported simply because life would be simpler if they did not exist (the kulaks etc.). The first victims of liquidation as a result of modernisation were the Kulaks (see question one). Stalin encouraged other peasant to hate and envy these Kulaks and then once he had isolated them he liquidated them, either deporting or shooting them without motive amounting in a total of five million killed or deported.
After the liquidation of the Kulaks more peasants were killed when collectivisation truly began in 1929 and any peasants who resisted were either shot or deported, many of the rest died in the acute famine of 1932-3, resulting in their being 10,000,000 less mouths to feed by 1939.
It wasn’t just getting liquidated which was a factor for the peasants but by being asked to accept collectivisation they were being forced to change the way of life that they and their ancestors had lived in for countless generations and that was not easy.
Personal consequences
On a more personal level Stalin’s wife, Nadia Alliluyeva committed suicide having argued with Stalin the previous night, condemning him for the famine, terror and misery he had brought upon Russia, especially at that time. To Stalin the peasants he had killed were but a statistic to him, five million was nothing. But the death of his wife must have made him feel something and to us it is just a symbol of how ruthless he could be, how determined he was to see Russia become great so much that nothing stood in his way, not friends not family and not even his wife’s death made him reconsider and see the pain so many of the peasants must be feeling, having their families split up when someone was deported or shot must be terrible but Stalin didn’t seem to care.
Human consequences of the industrial revolution
Many people died as a result of the industrial revolution as well. Anybody who criticised Stalin’s rule in connection to his industrial projects were herded into labour camps where they died in their millions, of exhaustion and malnutrition.
Any managers or engineers who failed to meet deadlines or targets were killed or deported and anyone who asked for a target to be lowered or who questioned methods etc. would be accused of sabotage and also be deported or killed except sometimes they would just be fired and be condemned to unemployment and ultimately starvation.
Consequences upon living/working conditions etc. of workers
Workers who were hit by the industrial revolution had actually improved their conditions by the late 1930s since unemployment was now virtually nonexistent; workers had achieved well-paid skilled jobs with bonuses when targets were met and in 1940 the USSR had more doctors per head than Britain did.
However life was still harsh in many ways. Factory discipline for workers was strict and punishments were often severe. The punishments for absenteeism were sacking or even imprisonment, which incidentally often meant the loss of your house and possibly even starvation. Workers would often try to change jobs to one where the discipline was less severe so the ever-present secret police introduced internal passports to prohibit free movement for workers within the USSR. If you were unlucky enough to be deported to a labour camp would often be left to starve in extreme squalor.
Working conditions on the major new projects were also atrocious, so much so that around 100,000 men died during the construction of the Belomor canal. Another aspect was not only the loss of life but also the quality of life since the countries’ resources were being concentrated on heavy industry very few consumer goods were being produced illustrated when brad was rationed in 1928 due to the poor harvest.
Overcrowding in the workers’ homes was another problem often with more than one family being crammed into a two room flat. Even wages fell 1928 and 1937 so much that by 1932 a man and his wife who both worked only made as much as one man or woman in 1928.
Cultural consequences
There were not a huge amount of cultural changes but many were typical of Stalin’s overall style and so fairly predictable. For what was basically the first time women were working factory jobs and were happy to be involved despite the treatment of workers in general at the time. Here is a quote of one of the women working on the famous and modern Moscow Underground: “We got so dirty, and we 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. We wore our miners’ overalls with such style. My feet were size four and the boots were eleven’s. But there was such enthusiasm.” This woman was interviewed in 1990 when she would have no longer been blinded by the propaganda at that time but she still seems to remember the occasion with honour and pride.
Despite the positive cultural consequences such as the freedom for women to work there were still darker cultural consequences. An example of this is in the central Asian republics the influence of Islam was thought to hold back industrialisation, so between ’28 and ’32 it was repressed. Many Muslim leaders were imprisoned or deported, mosques were closed and pilgrimages to Mecca were forbidden.
Consequences upon communism
As a consequence of the modernisation of the USSR Stalin had proved to the world that Communism was a system that worked. That, as soon as Communism had taken over Russia, and found her feet, her agricultural and industrial achievements leaped forwards hundreds of years until they were at a similar level to the modern “super states” in the west.
Stalin had proved that the USSR could not only provoke a revolution in other major countries, but that Russia was in a position where she could be a serious military threat. Had her economy been concentrated on munitions, and this was proved when Russia successfully beat Germany back when she invaded and then proceeded to drive Germany’s forces right back to Berlin, liberating countries along the way.
How successful was Stalin in achieving his goals?
Stalin’s long term goals were to modernize Russia, and achieve autarky. In the short term he needed to make enough food to feed all his new workers and leading up to the war he wanted to be capable of resisting Germany and possibly make a few attacks of her own.
Had the Second World War not happened Stalin would have completed his process of modenisation and probably have achieved autarky. By 1937, 97.4 tons of grain was being produced per annum and this was a lot better than before collectivisation and although Russia had problems when the Germans invaded she finally got her act together and drove Germany all the way back to Berlin.
If you look at what Stalin achieved after his shake up of Russia’s economy he had indeed succeeded in his goals to a very commendable extent but you have to ask yourself, was it worth it? Did the cost of these operations outweigh the successes?