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

Stalin's policy of collectivisation was politically a success but was economically a failure and a human catastrophe how far do you agree with this point of view?

Extracts from this document...


"Stalin's policy of collectivisation was politically a success but was economically a failure and a human catastrophe" how far do you agree with this point of view? Collectivism was an economic policy that was introduced in communist Russia in 1928 it's economic aims was to increase the governments procurement of grain, to increase the grain harvest , to increase the amount of grain that was exported for foreign currency and free people from agricultural industries to work in urban areas instead. All theses aims combined was to try and ensure that Russia could industrialise rapidly. Its political aims were to break the peasants grip on food production so that it was state controlled, to remove the unpopular capitalist "element" that was the NEP scheme the old agricultural policy and to create self-sufficiency in agriculture. Additionally it wanted to weaken the peasants as a class they weren't seen as "true" socialists shown by their resistant to former Bolshevik policies such as war communism and their dropping production of grain within the NEP system. Economically Russia altered radically over the ten year period starting in 1928 when Stalin achieved absolute dominance within power. This was due to Stalin economic aims of industrialised Russia rapidly he stated in a speech talking about Russia "That we are fifty to hundred years behind the other powers we must make good this gap in ten otherwise we will be crushed". ...read more.


the shocking reduction the quantity of the animal stock between 1928 to 1933 stock of sheep and goats collapsed from 146.7 million to 50.2 million due to peasants either eating or killing their animals before they were taken. If we examine the economic question from the basic view of amount produced collectivisation was a catastrophe failing to produce grain harvests that were as good a*s those in 1917 under the Tsar and in a feudal system. However they weren't the economic aims of Stalin. All Stalin's aims around collectivisation revolved around one key feature the ability to procure a far greater amount of grain for the state to be able to export and for it to be able to supply the cities with a reliable supply of cheap grain. With collectivisation as the entire process from production to supply was state controlled this meant that Stalin could take the acquired grain to export for foreign currency to start the great industrialisation and supply the cities with cheap grain even when grain production was being reduced. This was achieved because the people who produced the grain were placed on the lowest priority for grain distribution meaning that as grain harvest dropped it wasn't the exports that were dropped or supply to cities it was grain to the peasants that failed to be produced causing massive man made famines in the "breadbasket" of Europe around the area of Ukraine. ...read more.


As even though there was vast industrial economic progress it was gained at a too greater cost to the agricultural sector of the economy and it caused there to be a fundamental flaw in the soviet economy. The human cost was and always will have been massive in a system which placed a particular sector of societies needs so far below every other priority and gave them no ability to deal with the crisis themselves as it forced them to depend on the system which had only contempt for them. But the policy meant that Stalin achieved his aims and did provide a massive leap in the standard of living for the majority of Russians and turned Russia into a super power in only ten years which is a political achievement which is miraculous. This explains why eye witness accounts differ so wildly from "He was the defender of the working people..... a great leader" to "He was not a man.... but a devil". Reflecting different view points. This divide represents clearly the vast and altering effects that collectivisation had and whether you view it as a success or failure depends on whether you rate vast industrialisation a benefit great enough to justify huge human cost and whether you believe economic success for one segment of society can ever be counted as an overall economic success for a state as a whole. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 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 AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Reasons for Napoleon's Success (to 1807).

    But his career didn't finish then, and the failures and defeats of the later years, the blunders and ill-judged decisions of the later campaigns, in Spain, in Russia, even at waterloo, must be taken into account when in consideration of a Napoleon as a leader.

  2. Assess the economic, social and political consequences of the collectivisation of Russian agriculture in ...

    certainly decreased, especially in 1930, however the issue was not as severe as in the rural region of the Soviet Union (Millar 1982 p65). Additionally, another consequence that collectivisation had socially in the Soviet Union in relation to the famine was that as people were starving, many engaged in acts

  1. How far was the holocaust a long term plan of nazi racial policy?

    Again Henig draws links between policies. She automatically assumes that the n**i regime had linked the Euthanasia policy and the Jewish Question, although before 1941 there had been no plan to murder the Jewish people. However, by explaing the situational factors this creates a firmer argument.

  2. "Foreign success; domestic failure." How fair is this summary of Bismarck's governance of Germany

    The term was somewhat vague, identifying republicanism and socialism as common enemies and promised to consult on matters of common interest or if a third power disturbed Europe's peace. Bismarck, having hardly intervened, was happy, much suiting his purpose. However, France had begun to reorganise her armies, ensuring riddance of the Germany army of occupation by 1873.

  1. Nazi war production in the years 1939-45 was essentially inefficient. How far do you ...

    Overall, the failure of the Nazis to fully exploit the raw materials of the countries they occupied and Hitler?s poor prioritisation of ideological goals and necessities was crucial in preventing the expansion of the German economy necessary to fight a major war.

  2. How far can the impact of the depression be seen as a key turning ...

    People were left starving, scared, and in desperate need of a strong leader who could promise them a solution. The Great Depression paved the way for Hitler and the Nazis to rise to power.**** Before the Wall Street Crash the n**i Party only held 12 seats in Parliament.

  1. How far do you agree that Mussolini's foreign policy was a failure from the ...

    wounded, 500 were taken prisoner and 25 artillery pieces, 10 mortars, 85 machine-guns and 67 trucks lost. This shows the extent of Italian losses and how weak the Italian army became from losing troops and resources in order to help Spain therefore making the intervention a severe failure.

  2. British dominance was unrivalled during the period of 1850-1929. How far do you agree ...

    The Royal Navy did in fact, rule the waves and protect Britain in pride and strength. The Navy preserved the trade routes with the Empire and with other commercial partners, as well as doing the most obvious job; providing Britain with security and stability.

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