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. The first part of the quote is from Stolypin saying ‘ the government placed its wager… one the sturdy and strong’. It could be that the kulaks were the not ‘sturdy and strong’ and that is why they were mistreated. This also indicates that past agricultural reform; such as emancipation have failed, as further 'wagers' or reforms were needed. The second part of the quote provides direct evidence of rebellion by peasants towards Stolypin's reforms ‘ the peasants are very hostile to the Law of 9 November’. The peasants feared the laws because they were scared they would lose their land and their children would then suffer because of that. The person speaking in the third part of the quote is very supportive of the law of November 1906 as they sate ‘ the past three years has convinced me that a bright new future lies ahead of peasants’ but it is not clear where the actual peasant is from as it could be the Ukraine or west Russia. I would infer that the peasant is from the Ukraine because there the reforms were doing ok and there were more fertile lands whereas in west Russia the lands were much less fertile and the weather conditions were much worse. This source does suggest that this reform did bring some success, but the overall picture was that many peasants preferred social security and not taking such risks by selling their land, and this then lead to the failure of the policy.
Source three is a conversation between Winston Churchill and Stalin on collectivisation. But one thing to consider with this source is that we do not know where the source actually came from, as it is not in Churchill’s diaries and nothing else is mentioned, this meaning it lacks some reliability. It is also Stalin's view of his own collective farm policy, so is another reason why the source has to be objectively. Churchill is talking to Stalin in a very positive/sympathetic way but really he had to considering the political situation he was in. The talk took place during world war two and at this time Stalin was keeping the eastern front open, helping Churchill. So he could not make an enemy of Stalin. The source does provide evidence that the policy was a failure, by referring to the collective Farm policy as 'a terrible struggle'. The source also shows many pieces of evidence for resistance against the policy, stating some kulaks were 'wiped out by their labourers'. The kulaks were also mentioned in source two and considered the‘ needy and the drunken’. The resistance was present due to the fact many people did not want to work on collective farms, and the farms themselves provided little reward for the actual peasants growing the grain. There is evidence that peasants were forced into collective farming ‘ we took the greatest trouble to explain it to the peasants’. Stalin does provide evidence that the policy was a success by stating the food supply had been 'vastly increased'. This statement may not be true, as evidence suggests more and more people were dying of famine during the period of collectivisation.
Source 4 describes the Virgin Land Schemes introduced by Khrushchev. There is no evidence that there was actual peasant resistance to the scheme in this source and it even portrays the scheme in a positive light ‘ trains packed with young volunteers shuttled to Kazakhstan and the Altai range’ but the source is written by communist party member Eduard Shevardnadse. So he may have been prone to exaggerating the support the peasants actually gave. However, Source 5 does suggest that the scheme did increase the amount of grain produced from 1958 to 1965 from 100 to 114, suggesting there must have been some kind of support for the project. But in the source there is evidence that the scheme was a failure ‘ thousands of people worked themselves ragged but failed to gather in the gigantic harvest. The crops rotted in the fields and there was no place to store grain’. The virgin lands scheme was a failure in a similar way the emancipation statute was that’s mentioned in source one, at first it seemed popular and like it was going to work but in the end it failed due to ‘stupid decisions and ill conceived strategies’. Source 5 backs up the idea that the scheme should have been more successful, as the target for 1965 was 170, and only 114 was achieved.
Source six also agrees that Khrushchev's policy was on the whole a failure, blaming its failure on Khrushchev's inheritance of 'a generation of neglect' for its failure. What source six also points out is ‘ change could only come by order from above’ which meant that the government policy on emancipation and the virgin lands caused the failure of these schemes as they were poorly organised. Like in source four and source one, the peasants were left with no initiative and no real freedom and success like they were always promised and never given. Alec Nove, the source writer who is a respected historian also mentions that about collectivisation ‘ensured that they be imposed on a set pattern regardless of local circumstances, so as to report what Moscow wanted to hear’. This referencing to source three and how Stalin imposed the local farming policy. Overall, it is clear that the sources do agree that most of the agricultural policies did consistently fail and there was evidence that it was resisted under both Tsarist and Communist rule. Some of the sources do need to be treated with some question due to the writer of the source being objective as in sources 3 and 4, but all of the sources do agree that all of the agricultural policies during the period did fail to some extent.
