“There is no bread; we are dying”
The correspondent includes this quote to support his article about the atrocities that have followed Collectivisation and this claim is supported by the fact that Stalin sent out a requisition squad and took all the grain from villages. The consequence of this was the death of 5-7 million people from famine. Furthermore, the correspondent states how he “walked alone though villages and twelve collective farms”. The fact that he walked through only 12 collective farms when there were at least 50 State farms, meaning that the correspondent didn’t see the whole picture and perhaps he purposefully visited the 12 worse State farms or embellished the truth about the state in which these farms were in. In addition to this, ‘The Communist’ was constrained by the Socialist Realism Policy and had to portray Collectivisation as a success in case Stalin found out about his involvement in the construction of the article. This constraint would explain his denials about the starvation that was occurring across the Soviet State as if he agreed with the correspondent; he would run the risk of death. However, these denials, if anything, contribute to the unsupportive depiction of the Communist regime, as the Communist disregards what the peasant originally said in spite of the evidence presented to him. This detracts from the credibility of ‘The Communist’ and the Communist party as a whole because although in the end he concedes that famine may be an issue, his original denial produces the image of a person attempting to deceive people for personal gain.
Source J is a passage from a book called “Stalin: Man of Steel” written by a historian called E. Roberts in 1986. The date shows that it was published in the aftermath of Stalin’s era, when Gorbachev was in power, therefore, E. Roberts is unlikely to be under any pressure to be subjective towards or against Stalin as Stalin was dead and the Socialist Realism Policy no longer applied to him. However, just because it was written in hindsight, does not mean it is a completely trustworthy source as E. Roberts may be writing this in order to demonstrate just how brutal Stalin’s regime was, instead, it is possible to tell that Source J is a trustworthy source because it is written in a balanced way. E. Roberts starts off by stating how Stalin ignored “the great cost in human life and misery” and is thus showing the bestial side of Stalin, however, he then goes on to counter-act this point by saying how “The collective farms, despite their inefficiencies, did grow more food than the tiny, privately owned holdings had done.” By doing this, E. Roberts has created a balanced and therefore Source J is an objective source. Nevertheless, without evidence to support these statements, it cannot be construed as a reliable source.
“Stalin, ignoring the great cost in human life and misery, claimed that collectivisation was a success; for, after the great famines caused at the time…no more famines haunted the Russian people.”
The fact that Stalin ignored the cost in human life comes as no surprise as during the Purges, 8-14 million people died, a feat for which Stalin was directly responsible. In addition to this blatant disregard for human life, on the 12th December 1938, Stalin and Molotov signed the death warrants for 3,182 people and then went off to the cinema supporting this allegation that Stalin was a callous man who seemed unperturbed by the loss of human life. Also, in ‘The Second World War’ by Winston Churchill, Stalin is quoted as saying, “it was all very bad and difficult-but necessary.” Stalin was adamant that collectivisation was the way forward for agriculture; also it combined the improvement of farming with rapid industrialisation, an effective double bonus for Stalin. Furthermore, Stalin had constantly maintained that collectivisation was the way forward, he had bared the famine of 1932, ignored public pressure and since no new famine came, he was able to declare collectivisation a success. The one thing Stalin would not do though, was to say it was a failure, nothing Stalin ever did was a failure in his eyes. He rarely allowed for concessions to be made in his policies, and when he did, it was either the result of inevitably or his own personal choice. His stubborn and paranoid attitude hated being wrong, and therefore, not only would he struggle to admit his failings, but whenever a chance comes up to glorify one of his own policies, Stalin would take full advantage of it. Stalin lusted after being portrayed in a God-like manner, any flaws in his policies would undermine this image and therefore, any failings of Stalin were immediately dismissed and normally blamed on someone else (e.g. in this case, the kulaks). Khrushchev himself said in the ‘secret’ speech to the Communist Party in 1956 how Stalin demanded “absolute submission to his opinion.” So it is no surprise that Stalin declared collectivisation a success. Statistically, Stalin’s claims of success were not unfounded, in 1928 only 2% of farms were collectivised, by 1932 68% were collectivised, and by 1938, 98% of farms were collectivised, therefore Stalin had achieved his targets.
Whilst Elizabeth Roberts has constructed a balanced source, it is perhaps fair to say that he has underestimate the true extent of just how many died from the famines as “the great cost in human life” doesn’t really equate to 5-7 million deaths, however, his statement was perfectly valid and the underestimate of the amount of deaths is inconsequential to how reliable the source is.
“Introduction of machines into the countryside”
This is another statement that can be supported to establish the reliability of the source because as well as joining (in the end) 98% of all privately owned farms to make big State owned farms, Stalin also modernised farming by introducing new technology to the State farms. Stalin wanted each collective farm to have a tractor station where tractors were available to be hired out be the collective farm workers and tractors soon replaced horses on the farm. In fact, in 1929, the USSR had 34 million horses, however, by 1933, it only had 17 million horses. This was because half of the horses were slaughtered, probably in an attempt to get more farmers to use tractors instead of horses (farmers were originally reluctant to switch to new methods of farming).
Overall, all three sources have content that can be verified with other pieces of historical data and could therefore be useful for a historian studying collectivisation, however, since Source J is the only balanced and objective source, it would probably be the most reliable source. Whilst it shows some of Stalin’s failings with the collectivisation policy (e.g. Stalin’s ignorance of all the deaths), it then goes and counter-acts that with some of the positives of collectivisation (e.g. the mechanisation of agriculture). Sources H and I, both provide useful information, however, they are subjective sources, and for a historian looking for an objective and reliable source of information, Source J would be the best.