There are however in both of these sources implicit suggestions of failures or success depending whom you are in this period. Source one insinuates this when Hingley writes, “ most of its beneficiaries couldn’t see in that light,” when referring to the emancipation act. This implies failure as if only the nobles and the Tsar gained from the emancipation how can it be “one of the most beneficent pieces of legislation on record”? to anybody else but themselves, it can’t! Thus the policy must be a failure. However that’s from a peasant’s point of view. The tsar would have wanted only himself and the nobles to gain from his Emancipation Act. He would not have want the Peasants to become too powerful or even have that much money. The tsar might just want them to work in factories or on his land.
Source 2 also agrees with these allegations of success. 2b is mainly suggesting resistance on the surface but implicitly it is implying Tsar success’s as the peasants “ fear that the peasant elders will sell up the land and their children will become paupers” meaning that the Tsar will have done what he aimed to do with the Land Laws and has effectively forced the paupers to go work for him in factories or on his land.
The other two extracts don’t suggest failures but you must ask about their credibility. The first a speech to the Duma and must make the Land Laws appear successful and the third is from a kulak. The kulak sees the Land Laws in this way as he has taken advantage of them, the majority of Russia is made up of 80% peasants, what do they think of the Land Laws?
Under Communist rule there too were success under their Government policies. In source 3 Winston Churchill questions Stalin about his collectivisation programme and it would appear that there were only successes. When asked a question by Churchill Stalin replied “Oh no, the collective Farm policy was a terrible Struggle”. This seems to imply that there was only resistance to the policy but not any failures. This was the same throughout the questioning by Churchill, which would lead one to believe Stalin is trying to hard to impress Churchill about the policy and communism. Stalin never once mention to what degree there was success.
Source 5 which shows the agricultural output in the USSR 1958-65 supports the question of consistent success as out of 9 years there were full figures given 5 of them show success as the figures have increased from the previous year. Over the 8 years the agricultural output recorded has increased by 14% showing a slight success.
However this figure doesn’t match the figure of 70% the Government first expected showing a failure in the policy. Sources 4 and 6 both agree that there were failures in the Communist reigns. Source 6 says “the picture as a whole was very disappointing” and contradicts source 5 as source 5 implies that the collectivisation policy was a success all be it a slight success. The figures in source 5 could have been manipulated to make the figures appear better than actually were. Then in source 4 when Eduard Shevardndse discusses the virgin land scheme and Krushchev he writes “ I can clearly recall this grandiose but poorly organised ‘Virgin Land’ era, the stupid decisions, and the ill-conceived strategies that cancelled out many successes.” This openly admits that although there were successes there was too many failures too see them. It is implies that the government is to blame for this henceforth agreeing with all the other sources that there was a consistent failure of government policies. However over the years there have been more successes with the policies than failures to say all the policies failed miserably. In the whole the majority succeeded.
The resistance for these policies as well did seem to appear throughout each policy, however just how much resistance was there. Two of the sources agree there was resistance but to different degrees. Source 1 explicitly suggests that those peasants who resented receiving to little land resisted afterwards but there were some who resisted from the start and due to this ‘Special community courts received power to order the flogging of recalcitrant peasants, and even to send them to Siberia.’ This shows that there must have been quite a lot of resistance.
Source 3 backs up source 1. This backs it up explicitly as well as Stalin openly admits resistance. ‘The collective Farm policy was a terrible struggle’ Stalin replied to one of Churchill’s questions implying resistance. However Stalin claims the resistance wasn’t towards collectivisation but to the kulaks. However Stalin is trying to impress Churchill and won’t admit resistance to his policy, thus you must question this source’s credibility.
The rest of the sources seem to appear as there was no resistance and if there was it was only possible. Source 5 you can’t use to say if there was resistance and the following source writes “instinctive suspicion” implying that the government treated the peasants with this as they thought the peasants might be resisting/rebelling. Source three also appears similar to source 6 as although there is no sign implicitly or explicitly that there was resistance there might well have been as the three extracts are from three people during censorship. Two of which are part of the government and one is a greedy kulak. The credibility of this source must also be questioned. Then finally source 4 only appears to have no real resistance.
Sources 2a,b and c are all extracts taken from a speech or an interview. Part a is a speech made by Stolypin to the Duma in 1908. This is two years after the Land laws were made and Stolypin is doing the speech to get the support of the Duma. This means that he will be trying hard to impress and not show that the Laws are failing. Extract b is a secondary source take from A People’s Tragedy in 1996. The extract itself is a quote from a tsarist official and he contradicts Stolypin’s speech saying that there is resistance to the Land Laws and that the peasants don’t think the laws are best suited for themselves and their children. Extract c is taken from a piece of writing by Sergei Semenov a Kulak who has taken advantage of the Land Laws, and he believes that they are the way forward.
