He also increased industrial and agricultural production with his policy of collectivization. He carried out purges or the harsh movements against his enemies to make sure he kept total control of the U.S.S.R. Stalin made several changes in the Soviet Union. He did this by modernizing the economy by setting up the Five-Year Plan. In document 1, Stalin's speech uses nationalistic pride to motivate the people. Stalin was trying to push the people so they can be an advanced country.
How Successful Were The Russian Governments In Promoting Economic Change And Modernisation Between 1881 and 1904? When Alexander III came into power, he made sure that industrialization was at the forefront of his plans. So under Vyshnedgradsky and Witte, various measures were imposed to help kick start industrialization, which led to significant economic change The improved transport system, which resulted from government investment in infrastructure like the railways, helped to vastly improve Russia’s economic situation. This is evident through the clear positive correlation between railway improvements and increases in Russia’s industrial output. The length of railway tracks in Russia increased form 31219 miles in 1891 to 58392 miles by 1904.
Explain why in the years 1906 to 1911, Stolypin attempted to reform agriculture. (12 marks) Stolypin attempted to reform agriculture for many reasons, one of the most important being to strengthen tsarist autocracy. He strongly believed that the future of Russia depended on building a prosperous peasantry. There was widespread rural poverty but an upper class of peasant that farmed efficiently and were wealthier, they were known as the Kulaks. Stolypin believed that the encouragement of a class such as the Kulaks would make them hostile to further change therefore more conservative and loyal to the Tsar as the Tsar had made them wealthy.
In addition, World War II introduced change through industrialisation, which was key to Russia’s success in the war. These key reforming leaders and other factors of change saw Russia grow from a very deprived country in 1856 to an industrial superpower in 1964. Alexander II became known as ‘Alexander the Great Reformer’ and ‘the Tsar Liberator’ which suggests that his work and reforms changed the nature of Russian government and society to a large extent. The emancipation of the Serfs in 1861 initially appeared to have major benefits for the serfs. As Alexander II said: “We vowed in our hearts to fulfil the mission which is entrusted to Us and to surround with Our affection and Our Imperial solicitude all Our faithful subjects of every rank and condition”2.
Much like Tsarist reforming leaders, Witte and Alexander II, a poor economic situation also significantly influenced Lenin’s reforms, showing a nuanced continuity between factors influencing reforms in the Tsarist and Communist state. The peasants were at first discontented by the reform, for” a tax of 10% was imposed upon the harvest” (Acton), leading to crop prices temporarily rising, causing a famine reminiscent of the Tsarist age, indicating little change. However a year later the grain harvest increased by 19 million tonnes, this proved to be significant as the impacts of the NEP allowed Russian society to become more self-sufficient, without the need for imports. The reform was also significant, as it encouraged the growth of a bourgeoisie in the form of NEP men; older Bolsheviks viewed them as a threat to the socialist government, yet they accepted that a middle class was a necessary step towards complete socialism. The view that Lenin’s reforms were significant, therefore is credible, for despite gaining a government that had been ravaged by two wars, and rapid inflation, after about eight years Lenin’s NEP encouraged great economic growth, thus consolidating the position of the Bolshevik government in Russian society based upon Lenin’s work as a reforming
How far do you agree that Sergei Witte’s policies were successful in modernising the Russian economy in 1892-1904? During Tsar Nicholas II’s reign, he decided he needed someone to improve the Russian economy, so he appointed a Financial Minister; Sergei Witte. Witte introduced a number of reforms that both improved and further damaged Russia’s economy, and believed that the only way Russia could modernise itself and catch up with the more industrialised West was through State Capitalism. Witte was very enthusiastic about the expansion on the Trans-Siberian railway, which, when completed, stretched across Russia from St. Petersburg in the West to Vladivostok in the Far East. Witte believed that the construction of this railway was crucial to the economic growth of Russia, because it would make it possible to take advantage of the economic potential of Siberia.
Stalin’s economic strategies led to the successful growth of industrialism and modernisation of the USSR. This began with the end of the NEP and Stalin’s creation of collectivisation. Stalin’s desire to modernise agriculture led him to collectivise the farms, amalgamating them and putting them under state control. This did lead to more efficient farming and increased production[4]. 90% of farmland was collectivised by 1937 and production was 80% higher in 1940 than it was in 1913.
How successful was Stalin’s economic policy In terms of how successful was Stalin’s economic policy we need to take into consideration the successes and failures of collectivisation, moreover the economic successes and failures, and also the limitations the three five year plans. In reference to the successes of collectivisation, this included economic accomplishment for the government whereby the state procurement did not decline in which the government had collected all the grain they needed in order to sell it abroad to pay for industrial equipment, moreover in relation to achievement due to collectivisation the peasants had fled to the towns which meant there was more labour for setting up factories, which helped in Stalin’s dream of rapid industrialisation in Russia. Furthermore in mention of successes for the government and undoubtedly a success for Stalin’s economic policy; collectivisation was a political success. The party gained control of the villages and this meant the government did no longer have to bargain with the peasants anymore moreover collectivisation in terms of a political success for the government it was an essential part of modernising Russia. However the failures of collectivisation may contradict the theory of Stalin’s economic policy being a success; whereby this is in relation to how collectivisation resulted in both economic failure and human cost.
In addition it will also examine the human failures; this would be defined as human loss, death and or a decrease in living conditions and quality of life. Stalin’s first economic policy of the 1930’s was to introduce Collectivization. This was the joining of private plots which had been previously divided amongst the peasants by the Tsar, in order to increase the amount of output production altogether. Efficiency of farms and a boost in agriculture was essential in order to support industrialization which Stalin wanted to push forward. He needed enough food to be produced in order to support the working masses that would be turning to industry in cities.
These new, larger farms would pool the labour and resources and therefore operate more efficiently. In addition state provided tractors and fertilises would modernise production, again making the opponents more efficient. Stalin’s aim to modernise Russia with the idea of collectivisation would be staged in three parts; economic, political and ideological. I believe that the policy of collectivisation was set up to achieve its objectives however, if historians look at the failures alongside the aims, many were reversed and the outcome was the opposite of what was expected. There were economic factors that led to collectivisation.