Industrialization was creating even more towns, increasing this problem. So in order to feed his industrial workforce Stalin needed to revolutionize agriculture. He achieved this through forced grain seizure and the prosecution of kulaks and forcing peasants to work together in ‘collectives’. By doing so he was able to secure extra grain to feed the growing urban population of workers and sell the surplus to gain foreign currencies for purchasing foreign machineries. Though collectivisation may have had short term boosts to the economy but the effects of collectivisation were disastrous.
In spite of all these changing times and circumstances, the tension between the upper and lower classes remained tenser than ever before, building up under the fabric of society. Russian became industrialized during the 1930's when Joseph Stalin instituted a series of what he called “five year plans". The plans were designed to rapidly increase the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union and change it from an agrarian economy to an industrial one. The plans succeeded and Russia did become an industrialized nation. Prior to the “five year plans”, Russia had mostly a peasant farming economy.
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.
Stalin was successful as leader of the USSR between the years 1928 to 1953 to a large extent. On one hand his totalitarian regime enabled vast industrial growth; however his agricultural policies led to miserable conditions in rural areas. Overall one can state that Stalin’s economic system was well suited to the demands of total war. Stalin establishing a totalitarian government led to his success as leader of the USSR. He was supported by the public due to his ruthless and efficient regime during the 1930’s.
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.
Although the industrial revolution had a huge positive impact on German economy, it also lead to a rise in socialism which meant the emergence of pressure groups, such as the Nationalist pressure groups and the Economic pressure groups. These groups were often focused on single issues, but they highlighted the tensions and divisions in Germany. Foreign minister and Chancellor Von Bulow played a key part in protecting the position of the Second Reich's ruling elite. He focussed on an aggressive foreign policy to
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.
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.
This can be demonstrated through the examination of urbanization, the rise of new classes, theories (by Smith, Malthus and Ricardo), and factory conditions. The industrial revolution began with tinkers introducing new inventions that were going to dramatically improve the way people produced goods. These new machines (such as the water frames, cotton gins, power looks, and the spinning jenny) enabled different industries (like the Textile industry to produce products in mass quantities. In consequence, these new methods of production made other approaches such as the cottage industry obsolete. These new techniques may have allowed for ample production of goods and prices of goods to drop, ultimately increasing consumerism; inevitably though, it had a destructive effect on the old-fashioned methods of production.
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.