To what extent was Stalin’s economic policy successful Essay Example

areas are grey and covered up. Also with glasnost and the break up of the Soviet Union things are only starting to emerge so soviet economics is a subject only really accessible for historians in recent times.

Indeed the series of pictures "The First tractor" supports this.These series of pictures were paintings in the style of social realism that portray the beginning of collectivisation. So these pictures are highly speculative and they are obviously blatant propaganda. However there were some tractors going out to the countryside.

This propaganda shows joyous scenes with smiles on people's faces and cares nothing for the genuine human effects show in photos at the time. There isn't an exact date as much of their production was covered but it does appear to have been produced at some point around the 1930's in the height of collectivisation.The reliably of these sources is questionable due to the mystery of its creation. Furthermore the fact that there were many first tractor sources shows that it wasn't one artist's idea but a soviet propaganda one. Therefore removing the individuality of the painting therefore it would not be an observation but a manipulated picture.

Even the fact that a first tractor play existed illustrates the intent of soviet propaganda machine. These sources do not have an accurate portrayal as they do not collate with photos of the events of chaos and famine.Even by his own admissions Stalin thought collectivisation was going badly at the time and was chaotic. Shown by this Pravda editorial by him: "Dizzy with success" (Pravda, March 30, 1930). The utility of this source is high as it was said by Stalin

himself.

The motives of this source are dubious it being propaganda as is it's reliability, intended as motivation it may twist the truth for communist party ends. There are different impossible interpretations of this source in issuing this statement Stalin could suggesting that collectivisation is going well. Or possibly he could be suggesting people calm down because the situation may be chaotic.Stalin's right hand man Khrushchev backs the argument of collectivisation as a failure. Khrushchev states: 'Stalin's brand of collectivisation brought nothing but brutality and misery'. This source is a quote from Khrushchev after Stalin's death.

This is a source of good utility and reliability as it is said by Khrushchev after Stalin's death when he was in power so he could say what he wanted to, secondly Khrushchev was Stalin's right hand man so he was present around the time of collectivisation and would probably have know as much as Stalin. This source has a good level of validity because it is on collectivisation and what Khrushchev believed it achieved. It is trustworthy as it is a direct quote from Khrushchev himself. The motives of this source can be slightly questioned.

As it is post Stalin, when Khrushchev encouraged openness on Stalin, plus he criticised and distanced himself from him. So it might have been said by Khrushchev to enhance his popularity and show him as less of a tyrant than Stalin was. This source shows a view of collectivisation agreed on by a great many people in the Soviet Union and it is also the view of historians.Figures do not support any success in collectivisation theses figures taken from a history learning site

from the UK: http://www.historylearningsite.co.

uk/collectivisation2.htm. This website shows that collectivisation was a disaster these figures show than by 1935 agricultural output was only just at the level in 1928 if not lower. Even though grain production is up livestock in the USSR had disastrously fallen to fractions of the 1928 level. These show that collectivisation had caused havoc and ravaged the soviet country side and caused chaos. Even if collectivisation was aimed at grain solely the figures do not support success there because surely grain figures should have skyrocketed by the way collectivisation was hyped by Stalin.