Stalin Makes the Great Turn - 12 January 2011 - IB 1 Blog - IB1 History Blog
Wednesday, 2016-12-07, 11:09 PM
ISL IB1 History BlogMain

Registration

Login
Welcome Guest | RSS
Site menu
Login form
Search
Calendar
«  January 2011  »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031
Main » 2011 » January » 12 » Stalin Makes the Great Turn
11:49 AM
Stalin Makes the Great Turn
Give the best two pieces of evidence for the following question:
"Collectivisation was a political success but an economic and human disaster"?
Views: 2041 | Added by: jeller9803 | Rating: 0.0/0
Total comments: 131 2 »
1  
Economic disaster:
"Grain harvest; 1913 - 80.1mil. tons. 1931-34 ~68.7million tons"
Clearly, collectivization had failed to reach the prewar grain harvest levels, and had sunk from the pre-collectivization levels: "1926: 76.8mil"(page 171).
People were yet again starving places from a man-made crisis.

Speaking Politically, the government had large clusters of peasents under control. Now they didn't have to seek out every single one for grain and "political check ups", they lived in groups of "50 to 100 families"

If you look at it logically, an uncountable amount of people were forced to undergo suffering, and many died, simply to readjust to a newly created "beta-version" of a system that hadn't ever been used in its essence in Russia. The people had to suffer this much to only take another of Lenin's famous "one step forward, two steps back" - they had readjusted to a new system, which didn't produce in any way more grain than pre-war systems (Aside from one exception). To make matters worse, in the "transition years", the country had a lower grain output that before enforcing the system.

"[...] some then million peasants were dispossessed between 1929 and 1932 of whom two or three million lost their lives" (pg 172)
Just like the red terror, the new collectivized farms were being secured, and people were being convinced by "Killing others".


2  
Evidence 1: The fact that grain harvests dropped dramatically in the early 1930s when grain was most needed................... However, although the overall grain harvest declined in the early 1930s, state procurements did not. (pg 171): This explains the peasants had a huge economic depression but government was abusing their authority.

Evidence 2: Roy Medvedev estimates that some then million peasants were dispossessed between 1929 and 1932, of whom around two or three million lost their lives (pg 172): This shows the human disaster. Moreover, economic depression, because Russia lost work force who would actually produce grains.


3  
Economic disaster:

(pg.171)
Grain harvest (million tons): in1928 when grain harvesting started based on the table, it had a figure of 73.3. in 1935 (after 7 years) almost the same value is present; 75. so it is possible to say that collectivisation in the begining gave an up and down yet similar rate as in the end of collectivisation.
in those 7 years, there had been constant ups and downs of the amount of grains being harvested. true success of collectivisation in basis of economy would be a constant increase of the x and y variables, or somewhat constant.
x= years
y= grain harvested
but there wasn't any of such constant increase sad

Political Success:

pg. 160
small yet an attribution for Stalin to look good infront of the public (peasants; majority of the public) EVEN when the economic conditions were horrible. he blamed the Kulaks (rich peasants :P) for "hoarding the grain". Stalin was a positive figure to the public for that in couple of ways. one way is that he took care of banishing the "enemy" of such horrible conditions to Siberia. Another way was that after a Kulak was arrested and deported, all his belongings such as machinery, animals, grain would be then distrubuted to the other peasants as we discussed in class on friday.


4  
Political Success:

-made the government look like they were trying to do something about the matter
-had the peasants under control with the help of local soviets and MTS
-for the party it was an essential part of modernisation
-succeeded in the way, that it provided resources for industrialisation

Economic Disaster:

-grain harvest didn't increase greatly, let alone reach pre-war levels
-the USSR didn't get as much money as they had hoped for due to the fact The Great Depression had forced down the price of grain
-the cost of famine (seven million people dead), ten million peasants dispossessed


5  
Political Success:

"The party gained control of the villages and did not have to bargain with the peasants any more. It had established a system, using local soviets and MTS, of controlling the countryside and making agriculture serve the towns and workers." (172)

Economical and Human Disaster:

"Roy Medvedev estimates that some ten million peasants were dispossessed between 1929 and 1932, of whom around two or three million lost their lives...Robert Conquest estimates around seven million died (of famine), five million of them in the Ukraine alone." (172.)

These are the best two pieces of evidence for the given question.


6  
It was an economic and human disaster because "grain harvests dropped dramatically in the early 1930's when grain was most needed and did not recover to their 1928 level until the latter half of the the 1930's."(171) This resulted in famine that killed millions of people.

It was a political success because "the party (Bolsheviks) gained control of the villages and did not have to bargain with the peasants any more."(172) This allowed the Bolsheviks to supply grain to the cities and export it so that they could continue their industrialization process. During the collectivization with the help of force, the Bolsheviks were able to get the upper hand over the frightened peasants.


7  
economical & human disaster:

"...grain harvests dropped dramatically in the early 1930's when grain was most needed and did not recover to their 1928 level until the latter half of the the 1930's."(171)

"...some ten million peasants were dispossessed between 1929 and 1932, of whom about three million lost their lives. Then we must add the cost of famine. Robert Concquest estimates around seven million died, five of them in the Ukraine alone." (172)

"After collectivization it was the countryside, not the towns, which went hungry if the harvest was bad." (source 11.18, 172)

political success:

"Collectivization had succeeded in its main purpose- to provide sources for industrialization." (171)

"The party gained control of the villages and did not have to bargain with the peasants any more. It had established a system, using local soviets and MTS, of controlling the countryside and making agriculture serve the towns and workers." (172)


8  
Political success - "the state collected the grain it needed to feed the rapidly growing worforce and sell abroad to pay for industrial equipment; collectivisation had suceeded in its main purpose"(171). "the party gained control of the villages and did not have to bargain with the peasants anymore"."(172)

Economic and human disaster - "With the exception of 1930, mass collectivisation meant that not until the mid-1950's did agriculture regain the level of output achieved in the last years before the Great War. Conditions in the countryside were so dire that the state had to pump additional resources into the country in order to maintain the new agrarian order" (source 11.18, 172). "Roy Medvedev estimates that some ten million peasants were dispossessed between 1929 and 1932."(172).

[i]even after collectivisation was over, it took a while until everything went back to order and pre-collectivisation outputs were achieved, which clearly shows what a strong impact it had on the economy. many people were killed as well, which really makes it a disaster.


9  
Political Failure- "...the halt to collectivisation...was well recieved...the local officials and activists were really out of control..." (170)

Human Disaster- "...the human costs were horrendous. The suffering cannot be quantified..."(172)

Economic Success- "Collectivisation had succeeded in its main purpose - to provide the reasources for industrialisation." (171)


10  
economical and human disaster :
Roy Medvedev estimates that some ten million peasants were dispossessed between 1929 and 1932, of whom around two or three million lost their lives.The we must add the cost of the famine. Robert Conquest estimates around seven million died, five million of them in the Ukraine alone." (pg 172)

political success:
" In this sense, collectivisation was a political success.The party gained control of the villages and did not have to bargan with the peasants any more. It had established a system, using local soviets and MTS, of controlling the countryside and making agriculture serve the towns and workers." (pg 172)


1-10 11-13
Only registered users can add comments.
[ Registration | Login ]
Entries archive
Tag Board
200
Statistics

Total online: 1
Guests: 1
Users: 0
Copyright MyCorp © 2016 Free website builderuCoz