The USSR under Stalin, 1924-1941 Essay Example

It shows a man taking the roll to check if all the female agricultural workers have arrived for work. It shows a direct reliance of collective farms on women workers.

We can see from the large group of workers opposed to a small (family) group that the process of collectivisation has been implemented where by entire groups work one piece of land.The man taking roll call suggests regimentation (imposition of order and discipline), which contradicts the communist ideal of equality amoung all citizens. already given 5/53. Compare and contrast the views on collectivisation expressed by Stalin in Sources A and C?In Source A- an official article published in 'Pravda' newspaper 1930 - Stalin appears to condemn forced collectivisation saying that the Party's policy rests on the voluntary principle.

He says that the attempts to 'overtake and 'outstrip' the peasant farms by methods resorting to military force are against party policy. In Source C - a record of a conversation between Stalin and Churchill in 1943- Stalin claims collectivisation was absolutely necessary in order to avoid the periodic famines. It suggests that collectivisation was not entirely voluntary and that those that disagreed, mainly kulaks, paid the ultimate price.[c1]Both sources are official sources from Stalin and talk about the collectivisation policy although the views expressed sharply contradict each other. Source A implies that collectivisation was voluntary and condemns forced collectivisation where as [c2]in Source C Stalin says it was absolutely necessary making it appear as if there was little choice involved. In source A Stalin attacks attempts by peasants to collectivise using military force furthermore this is reinforced in Source C where he blames the death of

the kulaks as a class on overenthusiastic peasants.

5/6 marks4. With reference to their origin and purpose, assess the value and limitations for historians studying Stalin's agricultural policy, for Sources B and D?Source B is a foreign reporters[c3] view in 1932. The Reuter's correspondent purpose was to inform, convey and [c4]persuade his readers to see his point of view. The reporter's account had limitations: he may not fully comprehend the culture, and may be reporting in poorer areas making it appear as if the entire USSR was in poor condition.

The value of the account is also subject to scrutiny. The reporter may have been a hostile witness or may have had a vested interest in portraying the USSR in a negative light. On the other hand, he is trained to observe and is a non-Russian in-the-field qualified [c5]correspondent who would be able to give an outside-unbiased view. Where as [c6]USSR (govt) officials may have intimidated Russian reporters, this reporter would not have been affected.

Source D is an extract from a history book written by Robert Service in 1997. It too has the purpose of informing. As it is a secondary source written after the Cold War, Service has been exposed and has access [c7]to archives and secret documents that the 1932 correspondent had not. Secondly, as an historian Service has the skill of being able to evaluate sources, his view is also more reliable because he is not in the situation therefore is not being influenced by culture or environment. The value of Robert Service's account may be scrutinised[c8], as he doesn't state his political status[c9]. He is also a western historian and may be

hostile, and sceptical about certain facts about the events.

Using the sources (ie most of the sources given) and your own knowledge[c10], explain to what extent you agree with the verdict on collectivisation expressed in source D "the price was awful".In Source D, an extract of a history book written by Richard Service in 1997, the Russian Communist Party's (RCP) collectivisation policy is described as awful. The collectivisation policy demanded individual farms join together into a 'collective farming group' in order to increase agricultural management and output. However [c11]the policy was not successful; unskilled government aid was given and many perished.

The agricultural output however was increased but there is debate about whether or not it was due to the new policy or better weather conditions. I agree [c12]with Richard Service's statement, being the value of human life is greater than the value of economic output. Service's history was written well after the event allowing him the benefits of hindsight, adding credibility to his words. [c13][c14]Richard Service views the Communist Party's policy of collectivisation as having had disastrous effects on the majority of the Russian population and being appallingly mismanaged. Firstly, Richard s[c15]tates how poverty-stricken the living conditions of ordinary Russians were during the famine of 1932 mainly caused by the food shortages brought on by collectivisation. Secondly he contends that the millions of people that starved to death and perished due to issues arising from the "dekulakisation" /collectivisation was too high a price for the government's attempts at successful collectivisation.

Furthermore those that didn't die were often severely affected. Many were emaciated, malnourished and lost family and friends to starvation or government raids for 'hidden grain'.

Often government elected collective chairmen were "inexpert party loyalist or rural ne'er do wells" and out of the 100,000 tractors promised by the government only half were manufactured and delivered to their chosen collective farms. On the whole Source D by Richard Service asserts that the high price of human lives, poor living conditions, famine, and unfulfilled and inept aid from the Communist Party government, made the process of collectivisation a rural nightmare.Source D states there was an appeared improvement in agricultural output due to Stalin's collectivisation policy, although it was primarily due to first-rate weather conditions.

Service maintains that the improvement did not come from "improved agricultural management" as the collective chairmen elected nothing more than inept communist loyalists. Their new methods of administration and organisation certainly could not have been and upgrading of the old methods, due to lack of expertise on the subject. The increased agricultural output of 1932-3 was not owing to improved agricultural running but beneficial weather conditions and not an effect of the new policy of collectivisation.Personally I agree [c17]with Richard Service's description of the (RCP) collectivisation policy, "The price was awful". I believe the value of life to be far more important than increasing revenue or raising the economy[c18]. Stalin wanted to industrialise Russia in too short a time, and in my opinion, he did it in a way, which lost more than it gained.

The country might have appeared to be improving in agricultural means but the four to five million who died of starvation and the many others harshly affected caused a decline in the living conditions of the majority of Russians. An external development -increased

agricultural growth- is not of more value than the lives of the Russian and a decline in their internal needs.Using Source D [c20]and my own knowledge I agree with the statement "The price was awful" for the reason that the detriment caused by collectivisation far out weighed the supposed benefits. The famine resulting from the unsuccessful attempt at collectivisation caused many deaths, poor living conditions, poor health and poverty for Russian people. The collective chairmen were often inept and unskilled adding to the damage.

An increase of agricultural output was recorded but the cause is more likely to have been excellent weather conditions rather than an improved farm management due to collectivisation.