The USSR under Khrushchev and Brezhnev
The USSR under Khrushchev and Brezhnev Stalin died in 1953 after having transformed the USSR. Stalin made big changes to the USSR, he started in 1928 with the first Five Year Plan. He set a planned economy in which GOSPLAN, the state planning organisation created in 1921 by Lenin, set targets for each factory with the objective of increasing the production in heavy industries and of modernizing the USSR. The Communist leader did also put lots effort into industrialising remote areas of the USSR with the aim of exploiting the resources found in inhospitable areas like the Urals and Western Siberia. An example of a city created by Stalin through his Five Year Plan was Magnitogorsk. Workers were sent to these cities to start the production of the raw materials found in those areas, most of these were Kulaks who had been forced from their homes. However, Stalin did not only change the economical and industrial system in the USSR, he also changed the agricultural methods. Stalin wanted to develop the USSR, and he believed that to do this he has to modernise agriculture. As a result of the increasing population in big industrial cities the USSR was short of grain to feed its population and Stalin even had plans of exporting grain to finance industrialisation. For this reason Stalin decided to increase the production of grain in Russia. To do this he first ended the New Economical
How Successful was Soviet Foreign Policy under Khrushchev and Brezhnev
How Successful was Soviet Foreign Policy under Khrushchev and Brezhnev? Weighing up the success of Soviet foreign policy from the years 1953 to 1982 has been a matter of great dispute between historians. However, it has been recognised that after the Second World War the Soviet Union 'played a clear and decisive role in defining the shape and pattern of world politics'1. Both the Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras were characterised by highs and lows regarding diplomatic and economic relations with the United States, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Third World and the Communist-bloc. The ambiguous meaning of the word 'success' makes this debate all the more difficult. The problem with this is that what may have been seen internally as a success may have been viewed by the outside world as a failure. It is all dependent upon the ideological aims of the soviet leadership of the time, whether it is peaceful coexistence, as pursued by Khrushchev or détente which was implicit in the Brezhnev era. The waves of cold war which characterised the post-war period meant that the struggle to improve relations was complex, and so success can not only be explained in terms of improved foreign relations, but also by strategical gains over other powers. The Khrushchev era has been described as one of peaceful coexistence with a definitive competitive edge.2 This is displayed in the
To what extent did living and working conditions improve under Brezhnev?
To what extent did living and working conditions improve under Brezhnev? Leonid Brezhnev, entering into power in 1964, inherited a legacy of social problems from the Khrushchev administration: poor living conditions (including issues of alcoholism, high divorce rates, poor healthcare and education), serious housing shortages, a lack of consumer goods, as well as low working conditions and wages (for both workers and peasants). It is arguable that by the time of his death in 1982, many of these areas had been undergone some reform. However, there were many inconsistencies and shortages in Brezhnev's progress. Social conditions were a major issue in the Brezhnev era. Accommodation had been a major problem during Khrushchev's time in power: housing shortages dating back to the Great Patriotic War were still far from being solved, and many citizens were forced to live in crowded shared or communal apartments. During the Brezhnev administration, the percentage of Soviet citizens living in shared accommodation dropped from 40% to 15-18%, even as urban populations expanded to 64% (by 1982). Education was another success, and the percentage of Soviet citizens with secondary education or formal qualifications grew under Brezhnev. However, many social problems actually worsened under Brezhnev. Divorce rates were high, with one in two marriages ending in divorce. Illegitimate children
Assess the influence and importance of dissidents in Brezhnev era Russia.
Assess the influence and importance of dissidents in Brezhnev era Russia. Dissent, which may be defined as voiced or written disagreement with aspects of the Soviet regime, appeared in many forms during the years after Stalin's death. Literary dissent stimulated other forms of 'intellectual opposition', which continued to flourish during the 1960s and the 1970s, despite increased crackdowns. However, by the early 1980s the vast majority of dissidents were imprisoned, exiled or repressed into silence.1 In order to assess whether or not the dissident movement of the 'stagnation period' should be accounted a failure, it is necessary to first define the term 'dissident movement' and the aims and activities of those involved before considering what influence it had, what it achieved and whether it should be considered a failure. The three main types of dissent which existed during the 'stagnation period' were linked to religious, nationalist and humanitarian causes. The latter is often known as the 'human rights movement', or the 'democratic movement', and in this essay the term 'dissident movement' will apply to this group. The democratic movement was morally opposed to the regime's suppression of civil liberties and constitutional rights, and concerned with the lack of protection for the individual and their rights.2 Initially, the dissident movement of the 'stagnation
To what extent can one say that the Brezhnev Era was the 'Golden Age' of the Soviet System?
To what extent can one say that the Brezhnev Era was the 'Golden Age' of the Soviet System? 'For several years he proved a competent, benign and dull manager of affairs of the aging soviet ruling elite'1 Universally observed as the least interesting leader of the Soviet Union, Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev served Soviet Russia for over eighteen years until his death in the autumn of 1982. For such a considerable time in power as the head of the USSR, his conservative style of leadership and political representation, have attracted little critical evaluation from scholars worldwide. Political stratagem of the Brezhnev administration was continuity and stability, in which many scholars and observers interpret as conservative stagnation. The term 'golden age' infers a time of enlightenment and prosperity, whether improvements of this stature can be attributed to the Brezhnev era more outstandingly than any other period of soviet rule, an in-depth look at political and economical improvements, at this time, and unquestioningly, the socio-cultural aptitude of late sixties and early seventies. With the policy of 'détente' firmly in place, foreign businesses ventured forth to trade with the Soviet Union, providing a boosting injection of cash into the economy. Western business ventures included a major German investment in the construction of the Siberian pipeline, which was to
A period of economic and political stagnation. How valid is this assessment of the Brezhnev years?
‘A period of economic and political stagnation’. How valid is this assessment of the Brezhnev years? ‘Only the fourth Soviet leader in half a century, heir to the brilliant Lenin, the tyrant Stalin and the buffoon Khrushchev. What style of leadership would he adopt?’ McCauley’s question here is rhetorical, as there was no doubt that Leonid Brezhnev would lead his country into an era characterised by gradualism and a cautious pace, slowly making some selected changes to ensure his own survival, but stopping short of any real progress. Through his ascent to power and reversion of his predecessor’s administration, his economic policies and actions to silence dissidents, Brezhnev was attempting to preserve a Stalinist regime, but without its two vital components of the cult of personality and fear. His consequent reliance on bribery and excessive bureaucracy to compensate for this resulted in an epidemic of complacency developing across the Soviet Union as the Brezhnev years did indeed become a period of economic and political stagnation. It was specifically for his low key approach and moderatist stance that Brezhnev was chosen to be among the collective leadership following the fall of Khrushchev, as Russia was looking for a period of stability. Rather than performing heroics in the 1917 Revolution in the manner of the first Soviet leaders, Brezhnev instead
Neither Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev successfully addressed fundamental economic problems which increasingly dogged the USSR after the Second World War How far do you agree with this statement?
"Neither Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev successfully addressed fundamental economic problems which increasingly dogged the USSR after the Second World War" How far do you agree with this statement? After the war, the USSR was destroyed both physically and economically. The challenge for Stalin therefore was to attempt to rebuild the USSR, particularly focusing on industry and the economy in order to ensure that Russia would remain a world superpower. By the end of Brezhnev's era however, the situation was very different. The country had undergone a period of stagnation whereby the economy had failed to improve and grow over his period in power. This was due to his lack of willingness to implement new policies in preference of a "period of stability". I would suggest that although Brezhnev achieved very little, changes were implemented under both Stalin and Khrushchev. However, these changes were often not always overly successful. Stalin did attempt to address the economic damage that the war had caused and therefore try to rebuild the economy. One way in which he did this was to alter the systems in place already in order to tackle the new problems faced. For example, he addressed the growing complexity of the economy by creating more economic ministries. Further than this at the end of 1947, he adapted Gosplan in order to make it more focused on the economy and therefore
Communist Purification in Czechoslovakia.
Andrej Zsoldos Mr. Osterlund 20th Century History 2003/04/30 Communist Purification in Czechoslovakia In August 1968, the Soviet Union under the leadership of Leonid Brezhnev has invaded Czechoslovakia to restore communism, to minimize western influence and to counterbalance any measures of democratization. As early as in the late 40's, under the leadership of Stalin, the Czechoslovakian officials were informed and warned not to accept the aid from the Marshall Plan proposed by the United States. The real reason that provoked Brezhnev and ignited his power to use his Soviet might, was the Prague Spring. This short era was gradually launched by Alexander Dubcek, the Secretary General of the Slovak Communist Party and the leader of Czechoslovakia from January 1968 till the invasion. The Soviet Union was technically forbidden to allow any state within their sphere of influence to turn or become democratic. After the invasion, Czechoslovakia's foreign and internal affairs were closely bonded with the Soviets', and so the Czechoslovak population felt isolated and even erased from the rest of Europe. However, towards the mid 1970's communism in Eastern Europe gradually began to lose its strength mainly thanks to the Helsinki Conference, which tackled European Cooperation and Security, in 1975. In August 1968, Leonid Brezhnev proceeded with an ideological purification on the
'The period of apparent stagnation saw vital social, economic and cultural changes which by the early 1980s had brought the Soviet Union to the verge of crisis'. Discuss.
'The period of apparent stagnation saw vital social, economic and cultural changes which by the early 1980s had brought the Soviet Union to the verge of crisis'. Discuss. The term 'stagnation' was coined by the Gorbachevian discourse of the perestroika era to describe the situation in the Soviet Union from 1964-1985, under the rules of Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko. The assertion of 'apparent' stagnation suggests some ambiguity from the outset as to the actual situation in the USSR. Indeed, some have suggested that the term is too simplistic - this idea is especially asserted by Edwin Bacon and Mark Sandle in their recent reconsideration of the Brezhnev era. Nevertheless, when Gorbachev came to power he referred to a 'pre-crisis' situation in the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly, the 'stagnation' era did see social, economic and cultural changes which led to some deterioration in the USSR's situation, but improvement was not entirely excluded, certainly not for the whole period, thus to say that the Soviet Union was on the verge of crisis by 1985 can certainly be contested. Furthermore, the notion of 'changes' is paradoxical when the era is marked by great conservatism. Consequently, there are many factors to debate in discussion of the assertion that 'the period of apparent stagnation saw vital social, economic and cultural changes which by the early 1980s had brought the Soviet
Why did the Cold War end?
Why did the Cold War end? The Cold War took many twists and turns during the time it went on for, but the ending took many mad twists on both sides. Détente saw the two superpowers meet and discuss peacefully for the first time in years, especially after the hostility of the Cuban Missile Crisis. After Détente, things really took a good turn as neither side wanted a nuclear war, and Cuba came close! The end of the Cold War is broken in to three main sections. The failure of Communism is obviously a main part as it is one of the Superpowers. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was made out that the USSR had backed down, and Khrushchev resigned. After Khrushchev followed a series of terrible leaders. This really affected the end of the Cold War, as the Communism side couldn't function with an incompetent leader. Although treaties were signed, many things contributed to the fall of Communism. The whole idea Communism was based on meant the Communist economy was neglected, this meant that they had no means of support, especially when the USA stopped trading with them. The USSR finally decided that they did not have the technological ability to keep up with the USA, and when Reagan announced his laser defence system, the USSR decided to just give up trying and spend the little money on saving themselves from poverty. This shows that the USSR were low on money, showing a not-so
