The First Five Year plan saw remarkable increase in production. By 1940, Russia had overtaken Britain in iron and steel production and was within reach of Germany’s coal production. However, evidence suggests that everyday life under Stalin’s reign was still treacherous, for the punishments failing to meet the demand of production was extremely brutal. Historian Alec Nove argues that Stalin made vast errors trying to go too far within a short period of time, using unnecessarily brutal methods, treating all criticism as evidence of subversion and treason. Furthermore, the plan that originally called for the collectivization of only one-fifth of the farm population, under Stalin’s discretion, was abruptly revised over the winter of 1929 to involve the entire agrarian industry. This plan was intended to convert the peasantry into a class more nearly resembling the proletariat of the Marxism doctrine. Not only were peasants (particularly the kulaks) outraged that they had to hand over a certain amount of produce to the government, but they also so began to slaughter their horses, cattle, pigs, and poultry. The total grain production did not increase at all as well, so by 1932, the agricultural disorders led to a deadly famine in Russia where millions had died.
Over the course of Stalin’s economic policy, many peasants bore the burden of collectivization; they were subject to violence, expropriation, and in a communal society, they could not make their own decisions. In fact, the policy that forced peasants to produce a certain output even revived some features of the type of serfdom and forced labor that had prevailed in the country a century ago. With no significant increase in production and such brutal acts against its people, Stalin’s policy as a whole was rather a disaster. Although the country’s prospered in heavy industry, it failed to produce enough household goods, and much of what was produced was already of poor quality. Living standards and real wages were lower than it had been prior to Stalin’s reign. Undoubtedly, the Five Year Plan demanded sacrifices on the part of its people.
Stalin certainly prospered Russia’s heavy industry through its austere policy; but at the same time, was responsible for millions of deaths that were caused both through executions and famine. Perhaps such stringency was necessary to resuscitate the country from devastation. Historian Martin McCauley implies that Stalin’s policy was truly a remarkable phenomenon that marked the twentieth century, but also that one can only approve its success if moral judgment is suspended. Many historians argue that more industrial progress could have been made with conventional methods, perhaps even by continuing the NEP. However, the sacrifices made for the policy undoubtedly outweighed the benefits it brought to the country, and so it seems reasonable to suggest that Stalin’s policy was not as successful as it initially was intended to be.
