Stalin (1 Viewer)

[Chew me:)]

Evaluate the view that Stalin produced positive changes for Soviet Society.

where do i begin?

 

[kloudsurfer]

Uhhh...shouldnt this go in national studies?

Im not up to this bit of the topic yet, but im assuming you talk about how stalin industrialised russia and made the country a superpower...but at the expense of the russian people...im just guessing here lol

 

[Tulipa]

Equality for women too.

That's a good point.

 

[Chew me:)]

i did it

talked about industrialisation and collectivisation
couldnt fit anymore in

 

[Chew me:)]

1544 words

Evaluate the view that Stalin produced positive changes for soviet society (until 1939)

In 1924, Stalin’s position of General Secretary gave the opportunist an upper hand in gaining power. After gradually doing so, Stalin had one essential aim, the modernisation of the Soviet Union, and two essential methods, collectivisation and industrialisation. Through the use of force, brutality and ruthlessness, Stalin used collectivisation as a means of gaining more control over the peasantry who would consequently work as labour in industries. Afterward, he used the idea of five-year plans to aid the process of industrialisation and to quicken its pace. Until 1939, Stalin did achieve, to an extent, modernisation, however, at the suffering of millions of innocent people.

Russia is commonly described as an economically backwards country in the early 20th century. However, when Stalin gained most of the power in the USSR through his position of General Secretary in the Politburo, he introduced collectivisation of large-scale farms (kokhozee) on December 27, 1929. This meant that, ideally, peasants would voluntarily hand over their privately run small farms to the Central Committee in order for collectivisation. It was then assumed that modern agricultural methods would create a surplus of labour that would then be employed in the factories, thus beginning industrialisation. However, the Central Committee was faced with a vast amount of resistance, in which peasants and the Kulaks in particular, sold off their grain cheaply, destroyed their implements, and slaughtered their animals. This led to the quickening of the pace of collectivisation, where “techniques became compulsory, forced, and brutal.”
“Kulak” had traditionally been a derogatory term in Russia and had connotations of exploitation and misery. Any peasant who was against the forced requisitioning and collectivisation was branded a “Kulak”. They were either deprived of their land, sent to Siberia or shot. Deported Kulaks often took weeks to reach Siberia, and as a result of being unfed and subject to sub-zero temperatures, many died on their way. Those that did reach their destination were put in camps and used as slave labour. In eliminating the Kulaks, Stalin had deprived his country of its most productive farmers. The bulk of the other peasants were in no mood to apply themselves for the interests of the state. This meant that seeds went unsown and crops went unharvested, thus leading to “the first purely man-made famine in history” according to historian Isaac Deutscher.
Unrealistic quotas were demanded in villages and regions, which, if not met, Officials would swarm over the region and collect all the food they could find. Stalin’s plan was to starve the peasantry into submission, and ff necessary, sentence them to death by hunger. People were desperate for food to the extent that they stood by railway tracks in the hope that food might be thrown from the passing trains. One of the main centres of resistance was in Ukraine, as one woman claimed that it was “a war in which the weapons were not tanks, machine guns or bullets – but hunger”. This shows that through methods of collectivisation, Stalin was allowing soviet society to endure greater pains and losses.
The confiscated grain was either exported to earn foreign currency, or was simply allowed to rot. None was released to feed the starving masses and consequently, an estimated 10-15 million people died as a result of the famine. The result of collectivisation was that, by 1937, the output from the privately owned plots was greater than that of the collectives. Grain production was 73.3 million tonnes in 1928 yet fell to 69.5 in 1931 and rose to 75.0 in 1935. This shows it took a full seven years before grain production recovered to reach 1928 levels. On the other hand, the number of tractors and combine harvesters available increased considerably. This show the positive changes, which resulted from collectivisation, yet at a high cost, socially.
Although agricultural output did eventually increase sufficiently to support industrial growth, “Collectivisation was in effect a civil war unleashed by the Party on the peasant population” as, stated by Alan Wood in “Stalin and Stalinism”. The famine, which was avoidable, outweighs the agricultural output, which returned to the level recorded for Tsarist Russia in 1913, thus proving that Stalin slightly produced positive changes for Soviet Society, but at a large cost.

As a result of making industrialisation the country’s first priority in 1927 through collectivisation, Stalin produced the first five-year plans, where damns, iron and steel, automobiles, tractors, railroads and armaments were of high priority. Officially launched in 1928, the five-year plans “were intended to bring about an economic miracle by transforming the Soviet Union into an advanced, industrialised socialist state in ten years.” The plan was backed by a system of rewards, such as additional pay, extra allowances of food, and improved housing and punishments, which consisted of the forfeit of pay and food to which workers were normally entitled. Although workers were forced to work extremely long hours for limited rewards, the majority were consciously enthusiastic as they helped modernise their country. John Scott, an American who witnessed the events first hand, points this out in his book Behind the Urals: An American Worker in Russia’s City of Steel; “…Soviet Youth found heroism in working in factories and of construction sites…”. This shows that through the peasants’ enthusiasm, Industrialisation was seen as quite possible, as opposed to collectivisation.
The First five-year plan was aimed at increasing the industrial production by 180%, and heavy industry by 300%. As the resources of the country were geared to the production of capital rather than consumer goods, workers suffered in the short term, enduring appalling conditions and working seven days a week. Andrew Smith, an American who worked in a factory in Moscow, wrote, “…Some had no beds and slept on the floor or in wooden boxes”. This shows the extent of their working and living conditions.
Although workers endured a number of highly poor conditions, it is important to note that quite a few achievements resulted from the first five-year plan among which were a machine factory and chemical works in the Urals, impressive tractor factories at Stalingrad and Kharkov, car factories in Moscow and Sormovo were among. Stalin proudly told his people that the First Five-Year plan had been completed in four years, and it was then time to start on the second stage of his programme of industrialisation, which was the second five-year plan.
The second five-year plan, which began in 1932 and ended in 1937, had less demanding and more realistic goals. Through this, it was able to proceed more smoothly and build on the achievements of the first. Although living standards and working conditions did not improve, and the life of workers and their families remained unpleasant, there was an impressive increase in the manufacture of machinery, which made the Soviet Union less dependant on the import of foreign products. Also, there was an impressive increase in agricultural production, which rose from 57.8million during the first five-year plan to 62.6-76.9 as a result of the second five-year plan. Levels of production of coal and electricity also continued to improve; however the performance of the oil and textile industries did not. A small increase in the amount of consumer goods produced and the availability of more food meant that bread, meat, fats, sugar and potatoes rationing came to an end in 1935. This shows the positive changes being made in soviet society under the ruling of Stalin.
Although millions had died during the course of the first and second five-year plans, it might be argued that “people forced to endure hard labour, reducing living standards and the loss of their personal liberties in order to create a better life for future generations of Russians.” Stalin’s plans increased the population of the Soviet Union from 147 million to 170 million. In 1926, just 17% of the Russian people lived in towns; by 1939, this had risen to 33%. Russia had become a country of factories, iron and steel works, hydroelectric dams and much improved systems of transport and communications. This shows that Stalin did produce positive changes for the Soviet Society, regardless of the deaths that amounted during his time of centralised power. The country evidently moved forward economically, especially during a period where the Western World was in a state of economic depression and thus, the Soviet Society was able to endure positive changes.

Conclusively, the aforementioned facts show evidence of the changes Stalin made for the soviet people until 1939. It must be said that as a result of collectivisation, millions of innocent people died due to an avoidable famine, which Stalin had the power to stop, and even so, help once started. Further so, the practice of Collectivisation did not help Soviet Russia move economically forward. However, the use of five-year plans for Industrialisation evidently made positive changes for the people, and although there were, once again, millions of deaths, it could be said that these were needed to take place for the well being of future generations of Russians, as well as the country. Stalin, directly and in-directly, was the cause of millions of innocent deaths and sufferers who could have been saved if the use of other methods were practiced. Nonetheless, due to the process Stalin used to industrialise, positive changes were eventually made in Soviet Russia economically.

 

[Tulipa]

1544 words

Evaluate the view that Stalin produced positive changes for soviet society (until 1939)

In 1924, Stalin’s position of General Secretary gave the opportunist an upper hand in gaining power. After gradually doing so, Stalin had one essential aim, the modernisation of the Soviet Union, and two essential methods, collectivisation and industrialisation. Through the use of force, brutality and ruthlessness, Stalin used collectivisation as a means of gaining more control over the peasantry who would consequently work as labour in industries. Afterward, he used the idea of five-year plans to aid the process of industrialisation and to quicken its pace. Until 1939, Stalin did achieve, to an extent, modernisation, however, at the suffering of millions of innocent people.

Russia is commonly described as an economically backwards country in the early 20th century. However, when Stalin gained most of the power in the USSR through his position of General Secretary in the Politburo, he introduced collectivisation of large-scale farms (kokhozee) on December 27, 1929. This meant that, ideally, peasants would voluntarily hand over their privately run small farms to the Central Committee in order for collectivisation. It was then assumed that modern agricultural methods would create a surplus of labour that would then be employed in the factories, thus beginning industrialisation. However, the Central Committee was faced with a vast amount of resistance, in which peasants and the Kulaks in particular, sold off their grain cheaply, destroyed their implements, and slaughtered their animals. This led to the quickening of the pace of collectivisation, where “techniques became compulsory, forced, and brutal.” Okay but why did the peasants resist? There's a great quote about Stalin and Churchill chatting about how Stalin thought that collectivisation was harder than the second world war. Why? Because the peasants are resistant to change.
“Kulak” had traditionally been a derogatory term in Russia and had Instead of two "and"s link the ideas together using "with" instead of the first "and".connotations of exploitation and misery. Any peasant who was against the forced requisitioning and collectivisation was branded a “Kulak”. They were either deprived of their land, sent to Siberia or shot. Deported Kulaks often took weeks to reach Siberia, and as a result of being unfed and subject to sub-zero temperatures, many died on their way. The gulag.Those that did reach their destination were put in camps and used as slave labour. In eliminating the Kulaks, Stalin had deprived his country of its most productive farmers. The bulk of the other peasants were in no mood to apply themselves for the interests of the state. This meant that seeds went unsown and crops went unharvested, thus leading to “the first purely man-made famine in history” according to historian Isaac Deutscher.
Unrealistic quotas were demanded in villages and regions, which, if not met, Officials would swarm over the region and collect all the food they could find. Stalin’s plan was to starve the peasantry into submission, and ff "if"necessary, sentence them to death by hunger. People were desperate for food to the extent that they stood by railway tracks in the hope that food might be thrown from the passing trains. One of the main centres of resistance was in Ukraine, as one woman claimed that it was “a war in which the weapons were not tanks, machine guns or bullets – but hunger”. This shows that through methods of collectivisation, Stalin was allowing soviet society to endure greater pains and losses.
The confiscated grain was either exported to earn foreign currency, or was simply allowed to rot. None was released to feed the starving masses and consequently, an estimated 10-15 million people died as a result of the famine. The result of collectivisation was that, by 1937, the output from the privately owned plots was greater than that of the collectives. Grain production was 73.3 million tonnes in 1928 yet fell to 69.5 in 1931 and rose to 75.0 in 1935. This shows it took a full seven years before grain production recovered to reach 1928 levels. On the other hand, the number of tractors and combine harvesters available increased considerably. This show the positive changes, which resulted from collectivisation, yet at a high cost, socially.
Although agricultural output did eventually increase sufficiently to support industrial growth, “Collectivisation was in effect a civil war unleashed by the Party on the peasant population” as, stated by Alan Wood in “Stalin and Stalinism”. The famine, which was avoidable, outweighs the agricultural output, which returned to the level recorded for Tsarist Russia in 1913, thus proving that Stalin slightly produced positive changes for Soviet Society, but at a large cost.

As a result of making industrialisation the country’s first priority in 1927 through collectivisation, Stalin produced the first five-year plans, where damns, dams. iron and steel, automobiles, tractors, railroads and armaments were of high priority. Officially launched in 1928, the five-year plans “were intended to bring about an economic miracle by transforming the Soviet Union into an advanced, industrialised socialist state in ten years.” The plan was backed by a system of rewards, such as additional pay, extra allowances of food, and improved housing and punishments, which consisted of the forfeit of pay and food to which workers were normally entitled. Although workers were forced to work extremely long hours for limited rewards, the majority were consciously enthusiastic as they helped modernise their country. John Scott, an American who witnessed the events first hand, points this out in his book Behind the Urals: An American Worker in Russia’s City of Steel; “…Soviet Youth found heroism in working in factories and of construction sites…”. This shows that through the peasants’ enthusiasm, Industrialisation was seen as quite possible, as opposed to collectivisation.

Remember that there was no unemployment too, it was a crime to be unemployed. Stalin had everyone working, something that can be seen to be a good thing.

Sorry for like ... sort of critiquing your essay.

 

[Chew me:)]

yeahhh
thats cool
thanks

but what do you think of the essay itself?

 

[Tulipa]

Not bad.

I don't think you make enough of an arguement but that's hard because well Stalin was an asshole and this only good thing he did was win WWII.

In your conclusion you need to state what the positive changes were