‘The policy of collectivisation was a success in the 1930s.’ How far do you agree?
Level
A Level
Year Examined
2021
Topic
Russia 1894-1941
👑Complete Model Essay
‘The policy of collectivisation was a success in the 1930s.’ How far do you agree?
The policy of collectivisation was a success in the 1930s. How far do you agree?
The policy of collectivisation, implemented by the Soviet Union in the 1930s, aimed to transform individual peasant farms into large-scale collective farms. This dramatic social and economic shift was intended to increase agricultural output, provide grain for urban populations, and weaken the opposition of the peasantry. While the sheer scale of collectivisation – with over 90% of peasants in a collective farm by the end of the 1930s – initially suggests a successful implementation, the policy’s devastating consequences, notably the Holodomor famine, cast a long shadow over its legacy. The question of whether collectivisation can be considered a success therefore remains a subject of intense debate.
Arguments for Success
Supporters of collectivisation point to the policy's success in fulfilling key objectives of the Soviet government. Firstly, by the late 1930s, the Soviet Union had significantly increased grain production, which was crucial for feeding the rapidly expanding urban population. This achievement allowed for the development of industry and the growth of cities. Secondly, collectivisation effectively removed the traditional class of private landowners, the "kulaks". This achieved Stalin's goal of eliminating opposition to his regime and consolidating power. Thirdly, collectivisation facilitated the transfer of millions of peasants into industrial cities, providing a workforce for the burgeoning Soviet industrial sector. The establishment of Machine Tractor Stations (MTSs) not only supplied agricultural machinery but also provided a means of surveillance, ensuring greater control over the rural population.
Arguments for Failure
However, the stark reality of the human cost of collectivisation casts a long shadow over any claims of success. The forced removal of Kulaks from their land and their subsequent exile or execution resulted in the loss of skilled agricultural expertise, ultimately hindering rather than aiding in the development of efficient farming practices. The devastating Holodomor famine, which claimed millions of lives, stands as a stark reminder of the policy's brutal consequences. The peasant resistance to collectivisation, manifested in the slaughter of livestock and the destruction of crops, caused significant damage to Soviet agriculture, further exacerbating the effects of the famine. The poor production figures in comparison to the successful NEP period before 1928 highlight the inefficiency of the collective farm system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the policy of collectivisation in the 1930s had both positive and negative effects on Soviet society. While it can be argued that the policy achieved some success in fulfilling its key objectives, such as increasing grain production and consolidating Stalin's power, the devastating human cost in the form of the Holodomor famine cannot be ignored. The policy ultimately failed to achieve sustainable improvements in agricultural production and resulted in severe social and economic disruption. It is therefore difficult to view collectivisation as a true success, despite achieving some of its stated goals.
Note: History Study Pack Required
Score Big with Perfectly Structured History Essays!
Prepare effortlessly for your A/AS/O-Level exams with our comprehensive...
History Study Pack.
✅ 1200+ Model Essays: Master your essay writing with expertly crafted answers to past paper questions.
✅ Exam Boards Covered: Tailored materials for AQA, Cambridge, and OCR exams.
🍃 Free Essay Plan
The Policy of Collectivisation
Question:
‘The policy of collectivisation was a success in the 1930s.’ How far do you agree?
Introduction:
Briefly define collectivisation and its aims. Provide some context for the policy, such as its connection to the Five-Year Plans and Stalin's vision for the USSR. State your line of argument – will you be arguing that collectivisation was a success, a failure, or a mixture of both?
Arguments in Favor of Success:
Paragraph 1: Scale of Implementation
⭐Discuss the rapid and widespread implementation of collectivisation, with the vast majority of peasants incorporated into collective farms by the late 1930s.
⭐Analyze whether this sheer scale, while achieved through coercion, can be considered a success in terms of policy implementation.
Paragraph 2: Grain Procurement and Urban Supply
⭐Examine the argument that collectivisation led to improved grain procurement, ensuring a more stable food supply for urban centers.
⭐Contrast this with the situation under the NEP and consider whether the gains outweighed the human cost.
Paragraph 3: Political Control and Elimination of Opposition
⭐Analyze how collectivization served Stalin's aim of eliminating the perceived threat of the peasantry (kulaks) and solidifying the control of the Communist Party.
⭐Discuss the role of Machine Tractor Stations in surveillance and control.
Paragraph 4: Industrial Workforce and Urbanization
⭐Explain how collectivisation aimed to free up peasant labor for industrial jobs, facilitating the rapid industrialization outlined in the Five-Year Plans.
⭐Evaluate the extent to which this goal was achieved and the social consequences of this mass migration.
Arguments Against Success:
Paragraph 5: Human Cost and the Holodomor
⭐Address the immense human cost of collectivisation, particularly the devastating famine (Holodomor) in Ukraine.
⭐Argue that the scale of suffering and loss of life cannot be ignored when assessing the success of the policy.
Paragraph 6: Agricultural Decline and Dekulakization
⭐Discuss the negative impact of dekulakization, arguing that it removed skilled farmers and had a detrimental effect on agricultural output.
⭐Analyze the decline in livestock numbers and overall production during the early years of collectivisation.
Paragraph 7: Peasant Resistance and its Impact
⭐Highlight the widespread peasant resistance to collectivisation, including the slaughter of livestock and destruction of crops.
⭐Argue that this resistance demonstrates the policy's failure to win over the peasantry and contributed to agricultural decline.
Paragraph 8: Limited Success and the Persistence of Private Plots
⭐Point out that collectivisation never fully achieved its aims and that the Soviet regime had to make concessions, such as allowing private plots.
⭐Suggest that this reliance on private production undermines the argument that collectivisation was a complete success.
Conclusion:
Offer a balanced judgment on the extent to which collectivisation was a success. Avoid simply repeating your arguments; instead, weigh the evidence presented. Consider the different perspectives on "success" – was it a success in Stalin’s eyes, even if it came at a terrible human cost? End with a clear and concise statement that reflects your overall assessment of the policy's success.
Extracts from Mark Schemes
Arguments for the Success of Collectivisation
In arguing that collectivisation was a success, answers might argue that the sheer scale of collectivisation – with over 90% of peasants in a collective farm by the end of the 1930s – shows that the policy was successfully implemented.
Answers might argue that collectivisation was successful in ensuring improved supplies of grain to Soviet cities, which had been a major objective of the scheme.
Answers might argue that in the eyes of Stalin the policy was successful in removing class opposition in the form of dekulakisation.
Answers might argue that the network of collective farms allowed for far greater control of the rural population, for example through the surveillance work of the Machine Tractor Stations.
Answers might argue that collectivisation permitted the transfer of millions of peasants into the cities to become workers and stimulate Soviet industry, which had been a key reason for introducing the policy.
Arguments Against the Success of Collectivisation
In arguing that collectivisation was not a success, answers might argue that the massive scale of human suffering through famine and the Holodomor means that collectivisation must be seen as a tragic failure.
Answers might argue that dekulakisation served to remove the most efficient farmers from the USSR and set back agricultural production rather than improved it.
Answers might argue that the peasant resistance to collectivisation caused significant damage to Soviet agriculture, with livestock numbers halving in the early 1930s due to peasants slaughtering them rather than handing them to the collective.
Answers might argue that production increases as a result of collectivisation were disappointing compared to the high point of NEP in the 1920s.
Answers might argue that collectivisation was never fully implemented and the toleration of and reliance on peasants' private plots for food production shows that the policy was a compromise rather than a success.