-
With reference to their origin and purpose, assess the value and the limitations of Source A and Source D for historians studying collectivisation under Stalin.
Source A is a speech by Stalin to peasant party activists, in Siberia, January 1928. His speech is concerning the kulaks as he explains how they have tonnes of surplus food that should be taken away from them. Its aim is to force the peasant party activists against the kulaks who are slowing down the collectivisation process. The importance of the source is that it comes directly from Stalin so the style of his rule can be examined as well as his attitude towards the kulaks who he claims to be enemies of the state as they oppose collectivisation and do not want to give up their land. It can be seen that even though it is known that Stalin is very hostile towards the kulaks he does not show his hatred radically in the speech but he has a moderate approach which makes him sound more decisive. The limitations of the source are that there is an unknown amount of propaganda in Stalin’s speech as usually he would be more aggressive towards them. The measures Stalin mentions to be used against the kulaks as charging them money at state prices for the surplus grain or charge them under Article 107 are not in his usual style of rule. Stalin often uses the secret police and terror to spread his policies so he tries to create of himself a fair image in front of the peasant party activists and pursue them that he would deal with the kulaks lawfully but at the same time behind their backs to send the secret police.
Source D is an extract from the 1933 diary of Tikon Puzanov who was a young peasant supporter of collectivisation. The extract is a reflection of an ordinary young peasant who is a believer in collectivisation and obviously favours Stalin’s policy. The value of the source is that it gives an example of a supporter of Stalinism and proves that actually there were people who truly favoured Stalin’s rule and it was not because of fear. This source can also expose the success of the Soviet propaganda to portray Bolsheviks values and earn the people’s favour towards collectivisation. Also the fact that the peasant is young it reveals that it was easier to propagate the state’s ideas to the youngest who have not experienced the time prior the Russian Revolution and have grown with the slogans of the Bolshevik party. The source does not have many limitations as it is a diary which contains reflections and evaluations of a single person and is not aimed to be spread to auditory. Therefore, the content of the extract is reliable and portraits the truth for that time. For example, the peasant says that ‘’other think differently- and they are the majority’’ as they are against collectivisation. It can be concluded that supporters of the collectivisation existed but they were few and can be represented by the diary of this peasant while most of the peasantry was against collectivisation. However, the limitations of the source are that all the critics in it towards those who do not believe in the collectivisation are statement imposed by the party over the population as ‘’ they are not interested in their work. They don’t care about how they work, as if they were serving a sentence.’’ These are probably words by the party which have penetrated through the minds of the ordinary peasants as they are not able to reach this conclusion themselves.
- Using these sources and your own knowledge, analyse the claim in Source B that collectivisation by Stalin was a ‘war on the countryside’’.
Collectivisation as Stalin himself said was ‘’ the second revolution’’ after the 1917 Revolution. As he came to power his main aim was to modernise the Soviet State through collectivisation and industrialisation in disregard what it would cost him. Stalin wanted to create a great Soviet power able to compare with the West and the USA. The collectivisation by Stalin was a ‘’war on the countryside’’ because it caused massive resistance and almost civil war among the peasantry, brought de-kulakisation which took the lives of 15 million people as well as a national famine and all of those struggles were in order the agriculture by 1939 to reach its level of 1913 during the Tsarist time.
As Stalin introduced his idea of industrialisation to the Soviet people it was deeply unpopular. The collectivisation involved the merging of all farms in the Soviet together and their nationalisation. The peasants had to farm the land for the common good instead for their own profit. Stalin saw this way as the only possible solution to raise money to develop the Soviet industry as the collective profits would be used to sponsor industrialisation programme. Also the surplus produced by the collective farms was going to be exported to the West. Moreover, with the merging of all farms less labour was going to be required to work on the land and some of it was going to move to the cities and become factory workers. However, most of the peasants did not like the idea as they wanted to keep their land. It seemed as the land they have been fighting for during Alexander III and received with the Act of Emancipation was taken away from them by Stalin and all their effort was for nothing as now they had again to fight for it.
Between 1929 and the 1930 it can be seen from Source E that almost half of the land in the USSR was collectivised. However, on the way of reaching these results the Party faced a lot of resistance among the peasants which led to a civil war in the countryside. But these uprisings were quickly solved by the Party through the means of terror as Sources B and C claim- ‘’In 1929, the Soviet regime accelerated [quickened] forced collectivisation in the countryside, a vast upheaval which was in some ways more radical than the Russian Revolution itself’’. As Sources C and D suggest most of the peasant were against collectivisation as ‘’millions resisted collectivisation, hiding grain in their cellars, or refuse to corporate with the authorities’’ (Source C) and ‘’others think differently- and they are the majority’’ (Source C). By using violence and brutality against the peasants the Party created an atmosphere of fear of saving your own life which is usually experienced during a war.
During the collectivisation the greatest opposition that Stalin faced was from the kulaks who were the richest and most productive farmers as Source A states- ‘’ the kulaks have thousands of tonnes surplus’’ who were created while the New Economic Policy (NEP) during Lenin. They were earning good profits for themselves and were even able to trade so the kulaks were against giving up their land and participating in the collectivisation. In order to overcome this opposition Stalin decided to destroy the kulaks as a class as this will push the collectivisation and let it flourish without complications. As Source A states Stalin’s aim was to destroy the kulaks and he portrayed them in front of the Soviet people as being unlawful as they hid surplus grain for themselves when everyone had to hand it in to the Party. As Source B and C state the kulaks were chased and forced to give up their land through brutal and highly violent actions. They were even divided into groups as Source B states and many of them were deported or sent to concentration camps or in the worst case killed. Around 15 million kulaks were killed in the period of few years. It was really a war on the countryside as many ordinary peasants lost their lives in the attempt to save their land and escape from the collectivisation.
When the kulak’s class was destroyed and the Party collected any produced grain in order to export it abroad- ‘’all available grain was taken out of the villages’’ (Source C) and obtain capital to develop the industry famine was caused as mentioned in source C. There was high level of misery in the countryside and the consumption of the footstock decreased rapidly between 1928 and 1932 as it can be also seen by Source E. In many areas the peasants stopped their production as a sign of a protest against collectivisation which further deepened the famine. Also many peasants moved to the cities which was also part of Stalin’s collectivisation plan and started to work in factories. However, the press all over the country hid the news that there was famine and they were encouraging the peasants to produce as much as possible. The famine between 1932 and 1933 was a manmade famine as it was created by Stalin deliberately in order to crush the peasantry and then unite them in the project of collectivisation.
The collectivisation process was really like a ‘’war on the countryside’’ as everyone was trying to survive and escape from the strict regulations and brutality of Stalin. The peasants were attacked by the Party which took their land and could not defend themselves as they were immediately killed or deported in case of resistance. In this situation there was a war between the Party and the nation as collectivisation was imposed over them with all means.
