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

To what extent do the sources agree that Russian government policy on agriculture consistently failed and that peasants resisted it under both Tsarist and Communist rule?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

James Morris-Cotterill 13Hy History Coursework To what extent do the sources agree that Russian government policy on agriculture consistently failed and that peasants resisted it under both Tsarist and Communist rule? Agrarian policy was not a continuous failure between Emancipation and Khruschev, yet harboured very few successes. The period is, however, characterised by failure, success punctuating the period infrequently. Government policy will be viewed in light of its effects on the peasant economic position rather than morally. The peasants resisted most government policy throughout the period, although not always overtly or violently as will be shown with reference to the sources. Emancipation must be considered a failure. Source 1 contains little enquiry into the policy's effects on the peasant economic position, although Hingley insinuates that it suffered as a result of the policy: "receiving too little land for their needs" and "having to pay far more...than they could afford". ...read more.

Middle

In this respect the policy could be viewed as a success for the government; a supply of grain for the towns and industry at a low fixed price was attained. The Virgin Lands policy is seen as a failure by Shevardnadse. Success is only mentioned indirectly; "stupid decisions... cancelled out many successes". As was the case with Stalin, Gigantism was still inherent in communism, "billions of roubles and vast amounts of equipment and manpower were squandered", and from this stemmed a lack of incentive and spontaneity (samotyok), as fulfillment of targets was only met with higher quotas. Whilst "he interfered, reorganized and campaigned too much", the policy did advance grain production 14% in spite of Khrushchev, although far less than the expected 70% increase between 1958-1965. Shevardnadse's comments that the Virgin Lands policy was "grandiose...but poorly organised" with "stupid decisions and ill-conceived strategies" are not only true but could also be applied to the whole of Russian policy during the period. ...read more.

Conclusion

Resistance here is not mentioned, perhaps alluded to in the lack of ability of those "worked... ragged" so defiance was lost in a weary haze. However, the reason for the lack of resistance was that the rural population was broken. Collectivisation had destroyed all resolve and strength that the peasants had. They were the "generation of neglect and impoverishment". Source 5 again, supplements little, although failure to fulfill quotas may demonstrate passive resistance. However, resistance also surfaced in regions and periods not covered by the sources, such as the uprisings accompanying the 1905 revolution and the 1920 Tambov rebellions. Resistance in some form was inherent throughout the period. Thus, government policy, viewed in terms of economic effect on the country and its dwellers must be considered a failure, although not a consistent one. Success was anomalous and usually reticent, yet did surface, although infrequently, to break ruts of failure. Likewise, continuity in the prevalence of resistance was apparent, defiance existing in some form throughout the period, although not always indubitable. ...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 Sources Questions

    It was written by Bukharin. He was a former supporter of Stalin when Stalin was challenging Trotsky to become the successor of Lenin. However, Bukharin radically altered his pretension after he was expelled from the Communist party in 1929. This source was written in Paris, the capital of the Allied country France.

  2. Stalin Coursework - sources explaining collectivisation and its effects.

    Source I is a newspaper article published by an international body called 'Reuters' which gathered news. Since this was an international news body, it was not bound by the restrictions of the Russian media and was therefore free to publish an article that criticised Stalin's regime, unlike the Russian media

  1. What happened to the Romanov family? - Study Sources A and B. Sources A ...

    it is the notes from the "interview of Pavel Medvedev carried out by White Russians" who opposed the Boscheviks and hence they may have distorted the source against the Reds whom they were rivals of to fulfil their intention of proving that Bolscheviks were responsible for the murder of the

  2. Both Russian Revolutions stemmed from Russians' dissatisfaction with the Tsarist government's ineptitude

    In fact a large part of the petition presented to the Tsar on the infamous "Bloody Sunday" had to do with better working conditions and minimum wage for workers. The intelligentsia was discontent as well, finding the government ineffective and inefficient and clamored for reform.

  1. How did the new economic policy cosolidate the boshevik rule?

    Although this was quite a capitalist approach, it meant that Russians could earn a living, then spent what they earnt to strengthen the Russian economy. Lastly, the New Economic Policy removed the ban on private trade, meaning that a black market was no longer necessary.

  2. Stalin: Man or Monster - Sources Questions

    Which of course is true; as the communist leaders usually didn't care for non important members of the society and dealt with them ruthlessly; but what Stalin does not mention and in fact says the exact opposite is that neither did he really care for anyone apart from himself.

  1. To what extent do the sources agree that Russian government policy on agriculture consistently ...

    Source two shows three separate views of Stolypin's land law of November 1906, shows a mixed view and differs to source 1 as all of the evidence comes from the period in question allowing use to asses the views of the time to those of today.

  2. The blance sheet for russia.

    Basing themselves on the soviets, the Bolsheviks dissolved the Constituent Assembly. There was no resistance. This incident now causes an indignant reaction in some quarters. And yet, we are left with a self-evident contradiction. If the Constituent Assembly really represented the will of the masses, why did nobody defend it?

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