To what extent was Stalin responsible for the modernisation of Russia?

Agriculture was the main area of Russia that had to be modernised if Russia wanted to proceed with be in competition with the rest of western Russia. In 1858, 19,379,631 state serfs were in Russia, which took up at least 80% of the population at the time. The need for urgent reform was recognised by at least three people but was always put down by the nobility who continued to exploit the serfs. Ultimately the serfs were given personal freedom over a period of two years, including the land they previously owned. Serfs got several new freedoms, such as being able to marry who they wanted, move, within reason, where they wanted, could own property and generally were allowed to become free citizens of Russia. The abolition of serfdom encouraged the growth of banking, railways, industries and cities, and seen as a vital stage in the modernisation of Russia and in keeping support high for the Tsar. This way it was seen that the army would become stronger after they got rid of serfs that didn’t want to be there and the economic backwardness of Russia could be reversed. Additionally, it was thought that due to this, serfs would be grateful and therefore agricultural production would grow. This certainly was the first step towards modernisation as serfs were once again liberalised. However, the tsars wished to keep their autocratic leadership, therefore it was not exactly freedom. Serfs were given less land than they had before and it was often not enough to support their family, therefore, it begs the question as to how they could make the surplus food to improve the economy if they could not even support their family. Also, regardless of how free the serfs were in theory, the Mir placed restrictions on travel, therefore, things were not modernised. Before the landowners were in charge of the serfs, yet they no longer had the power, therefore, a new system was needed to govern the serfs. However, within the time needed to set up the new government, violence spread across the countryside. Russia ended up being more backward than it was before the emancipation. Stolypin also attempted to modernise the agricultural sector of Russia, however, his plans were not put into power as WWI began, and therefore all interest went into Russian industry. Lenin continued to try to modernise Russia’s agricultural when he was in power under his policy of war communism. Russia was constantly suffering from famines due to peasants keeping excess grain and selling it for large amounts of money, as opposed to it being taken off them directly and being distributed centrally. Therefore, famines were common occurrences.  To try and solve these problems, Lenin set up the People’s Commission of Supply in June 1918 to improve grain supply. Nevertheless, results were counterproductive with more peasants turning to subsistence farming and 20% of the population starving. However, this is mostly blamed on poor railway networks as grain could not be taken from the countryside to the industrialised areas. Therefore, although Lenin did substantially modernise Russia’s agriculture, other areas had to be modernised before the affects could reach the whole of Russia. Khrushchev also attempted to modernise the agriculture of Russia due to the continuing famines and to stabilise the economy. It was known as the Virgin Lands scheme where unused land in Kazakhstan was used to grow grain. However, the land was not suitable for farming due to poor land and weather and therefore failed. This may suggest, therefore, that although Khrushchev had appropriate ideas, they were not executed properly.  Stalin, however, was one of the most modernising leaders in agriculture. He had a desire to make agriculture more efficient through introducing machinery and making it more factory based. New farming methods, some up to date with western countries were tried, such as tractors and fertilisers. 99% of Russia was collectivised and therefore 97 million tonnes of crops were produced, which Stalin had complete control over. However, millions of people were killed which therefore reduced morale. An estimated 6-7 million died as a result. However, this is the highest amount of grain produced and new methods, such as the new western ideas towards agriculture were used, therefore it was definitely modernised, but at a huge cost. Nevertheless, it must be stated that although Stalin made the biggest change to the agriculture, it could not have been done without the foundations initially laid by the Alexander II and his emancipation policy. Therefore, it cannot be said that modernisation was solely due to Stalin as his policies could not have been made without the emancipation policy of Alexander II.

Purges were often a large problem in Russia, with the execution and murder of hundreds, perhaps even thousands of the population. For example, when Alexander III came into power, a reign of terror began in reaction to his father’s assassination. Alexander III began a policy of Russification where those who were ‘disloyal subjects’ (mostly those who were not Russian or orthodox but continued to live in Russia. The worst blows fell upon the Jews, with several pogroms took place against the Jews. Over 500 Jews were killed in the ‘great’ pogrom of 1905. Therefore, Alexander III did not modernise Russia as these violent attacks still occurred. This didn’t improve under the leadership of Lenin either as in 1922 over 200 critics were exiled as he tried to form a state of Russian intellectuals. Furthermore, Stalin did nothing to improve the situation, and if anything made them worse with even bigger purges taking place in order to remove people who were considered a threat to the party. Under Stalin’s rule, artists, scientists, teachers and people in the military were exiled, sent to concentration camps or executed. Millions were killed as a result of Stalin’s insecurity. Over 10 million were sent to labour camps, whereas 1 million were killed directly. Once again, it therefore cannot be said that Stalin modernised Russia as they were still using old tactics to clear the country of any opposition. Also, it Russia had been modernised, freedom of speech, to a certain extent would have been allowed, with other parties allowed to be competition for the existing party, however, this was not allowed due to laws passed by Lenin and Stalin. No criticisms or opposition was allowed. Therefore, Russia was not modernised.

Stalin, however, was the one who modernised the education system the most. When Alexander II was in leadership, education was very narrow. Only Russian subjects were taught with severely biased teachers taking lessons, for example subjects such as Philosophy were banned as they promoted western ideas. Additionally, universities were constantly being opened and closed in regards to spreading western, liberal ideas. Therefore, the education was under control of the tsar. In contrast, under Lenin’s leadership, students were very much in control of their education. Education was also compulsory, in comparison to the lax attitude under Alexander II where it was often restricted. Millions of children and adults alike were enrolled in literacy classes in an attempt to modernise Russia and improve global industry. Additionally, he continued to modernise Russia by introducing ‘national schools’ into Russia. However, this education was also biased. Social sciences were dominated by Marxist ideology and many scholars that didn’t approve were purged. Nevertheless, it must have been modernised as the number of children starting school rose dramatically. Stalin continued to contribute to the social liberalisation. Girls were given equal education opportunities with millions benefitting from literacy campaigns in his power. Again, however, this is not solely due to Stalin, as the literacy campaigns would not have been started without the original introduction by Lenin.

Therefore, in conclusion, it cannot be said that the modernisation of Russia was solely due to Stalin. However, it is more suitable to say that different leaders were successful in modernising different things in Russia. For example, as previously shown, Stalin made the most difference to agriculture. Nevertheless, it is also noted that in many of these policies, the successes of modernisation are due to more than one leader. For example, Stalin would not have been able to make such a difference to the education system if Lenin had not come up with a similar idea previously. Additionally, Stalin would not have been able to make such a difference in agriculture if Alexander II had not already laid down the foundations for change. Therefore, this essay concludes that whilst it was mostly Stalin that finished modernising Russia, the process lasted a long time which had contributions of many leaders which additionally lay down the foundations for many of Stalin’s future policies.