• 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...


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.


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.


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

    Krushchev is being very careful not to anger any of Stalin's supporters. Like Stalin, Krushchev was a strict leader but both were not on the same scale. As his role in being second in command to Stalin, Krushchev knew him extremely well.

  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. China 1945-90 - source based questions.

    China's rapid economic development was not without its problems. Rapid growth had lead to overheating of the economy, and inflation, unknown to China under Mao, was a matter of real political concern. Tight fiscal policies were not popular, nor were the dismantling of much of the state subsidy on food and other daily necessities.

  2. 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.

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

    The peasants were feeling considerable strain since they paid high taxes and had constant food shortages because of the increasingly large cereal export by the government to repay industrialization debt. An acute land-hunger was also persistent across Russia's countryside. Workers felt exploited and sought protection from government, but were always disappointed.

  2. To what extent do the sources agree that Russian Government policy consistently failed and ...

    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.

  1. How far do you agree with the judgement that Tsarist rule and Communist rule ...

    Soviet rule was dominated by the internal workings of the communist party. Unlike the Tsarist system the Communist party had a group of 15 ministers called the Politburo to be in this it was necessary that you were a party member and then a deputy.

  2. Stalin and Russia - Sources Question

    This indicates the bias that exists through Stalin's control over the media and art. This source very much gives us a positive impression of the man. Finally taking source C, we can see by looking at it that it has no date nor situation attached.

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