To what extent do the sources agree that Russian government policy on agriculture consistently failed and that peasants resisted it under both tsarist and communist rule?

Source two shows opinion from the time period in question so is also comparatively reliable. It shows a mixed view on Stolypin’s reforms this source allows us to question the opinions of that time. Although part A is a quote from Stolypin himself so is more likely to be biased as it shows him addressing the duma (government officials) and speeches are usually from one person’s point of view not the general population. He states that the government has placed “its wager on the strong and sturdy” not the “needy and the drunken” suggesting that a previous reform was ineffective so the government is taking new measures plus a divide between the peasants and workers is clear. Part B shows that the peasants resisted the land law of 9 Nov 1906. The peasants felt that the land should not be traded as they would be left with near to nothing. Part C the final quote is from a peasant that took advantage of Stolypin’s reforms suggesting that they were a success. The peasant says “a bright new future lies ahead”. This source seems more reliable as we have a name so the origins are clearer.

Source three demonstrates the position of the communist agriculture policy of collectivisation under Stalin. This source is possibly unreliable as the origin is unknown and the relationship between Churchill and Stalin was unstable. The source concerns Stalin’s response to his own collectivisation policy he states that it was “a terrible struggle” this source must be looked at with suspicion as Stalin tries to express the success of his policy. He believes that he has “increased the food supply” but we know that this wasn’t always the case as famines were a common place and many died. It seems that Stalin goes on and attempts to justify himself by saying that collective farms were necessary. The sign of resistance on the peasant’s behalf in this source is Stalin’s response that “there is no use arguing with them” this may possibly imply Stalin’s policy was a failure as not everyone supported him and it seems there was opposition.

Source four shows support for the policy of the redevelopment of the virgin land under Khrushchev. It expresses its successes and failures. The source begins with how the policy worked “the building of homes” and “the era that held some the brightest memories” for the youth league activist. However he then goes on to explore the “hardship” of that time period. “Peasants worked themselves ragged” and “ill-conceived strategies cancelled out many successes” this proposes failure of the policy because “billions of roubles…were squandered”. Edward Shevardnadze conveys the image that the peasants supported the policy “trains packed with young volunteers”. This source seems reliable as it is fair from both sides expressing the positive and negative divisions of the policy but could be biased as he is communist and may have over exaggerated the amount of support.

Source five shows the agricultural input in 1958-65 under communist rule. It suggests failure because the 70% target wasn’t reached. Source four gives reasons why this could be the case, with the increase of grain production there was “no place to store grain”. Source six agrees with this source saying that grain harvests had been killed due to adverse weather conditions. Source six concludes the evidence from source four and five showing that Khrushchev’s policy was a failure blaming his “inheritance of a generation of neglect”.

It is clear that most agriculture polices did in some sense fail. It is apparent in source one and two part A and B that the tsar’s policies weren’t successful. Only sources three and four suggest peasant support whereas four also demonstrates resistance. The rest of the sources agree that the even though some policies had limited success like the Khrushchev’s virgin land policy and Stolypin’s reforms overall they all failed to reach their ultimate goal.