Russian essay plans Flashcards
How accurate is it to say that the Bolshevik’s poor handling of the economy was the main reason for the difficulties faced by the Soviet regime in the years 1917-1928?
Lenin’s initial economic policy
- Land Decree, October 1917 abolished private ownership of land and redistributed it to the peasants, promoting development of peasant agriculture and increasing productivity, independence and food output, potential economic stability in rural areas, reducing social tensions. Caused further damage to economy, no sense of direction as those with expertise were dismissed which limited overall productivity, lack of planning caused food shortages and economic instability, possible gains reversed under Stalin’s collectivisation undermining initial goals.
- Decree on Worker’s Control, November 1917 placed control of factories into hands of industrial workers, promoting workers into decision making processes, reduction of worker exploitation- lack of expertise hindered success, causing economic instability.
War Communism, 1918
- State ownership of all industry controlled by Vesenkha, requisitioning of food from peasants to feed urban population, bartering replaced money.
- Government directed economic activity according to its needs, enabled mobilisation of resources e.g. manpower, industrial production to support the war effort, help sustain the fight in civil war.
- Severe economic collapse, significant decline in productivity to develop the USSR, more priority on war effort than society, famine in rural areas causing large loss of life, caused resistance- Tambov Rising from peasants due to grain requisitioning, food production wsa 48% of its 1913 figure, 20 million dead from diseases caused by famine.
New Economic Policy
- Requisitioning replaced by taxation system, allowing peasants to sell for profit. Reintroduction of private trading to stop growth of black market, currency returned.
- Industrial output rose as factories were put back into production, road repairings and better harvests 1922-23, by 1926 pre-war economy was restored.
- Imbalance between provision of agricultural goods and industrial goods, widened income inequality, low price grain discouraged peasants from growing for market and growth not sustained.
How significant was employment for the promotion of a stable society in the years 1953-1985?
Employment
- Soviet Constitution of 1977 guaranteed full employment, wages rose by 50% between 1956 and 1977, small wage gap, minimum wage introduced, strong job security- difficult to dismiss workers even for absenteeism or alcoholism.
- Highly successful as workers had more spending power, increased productivity under Khrushchev’s Virgin Lands Scheme.
- Full employment ensured everyone had access to income- reduced social unrest and economic inequality, poverty reduction- improved standard of living.
- Limitations: no guarantee of job satisfaction as most jobs were repetitive and undemanding, lack of economic innovation- centralised planning hindered development of new industrias and long term economic stability.
Education
- Most adults did not receive education
- Short course basic literacy and numeracy classes, opportunities to return to education part-time under Khrushchev: by 1964, over 2 million attendees.
- Equipped adults with essential skills for the workplace which increased productivity and economic development, empowered marginalised groups, could participate more actively, enhanced job prospects and social mobility.
- Limitations: main route to high status jobs, academic secondary education- although technically open to all, continued to be dominated by children of the Soviet elite, rural students remained disadvantaged.
Housing
- Khrushchev housing programme aimed to provide affordable and mass produced housing units.
- Houses built to a standard design to help speed and cost- poorly finished, occupants left to do finishing touches such as plastering, waiting lists were still long, poor conditions.
- Evidence of protest: unrest in 1959 at industrial centre in Temirtau in Kazakhstan due to lack of clean water, poor food supplies- young worker burnt down the canteen and hung the police chief.
- Employment is more significant as housing failed
Conclusion: employment highly significant
How far do you agree that there was steady improvement in the lives of Russian peasants during the years 1918-1953?
Employment
- War communism 1918 to supply Red Army with enough food to win civil war- created a lot of jobs for Russian peasants so chance of improvement in living standards, labour conscription to ensure adequate productivity so more peasants had a chance at a job (compulsory labour).
- Limitations: grain requisitioning forced peasants to surrender grain resulting in severe shortages and famine, loss of land and livestock caused decline in productivity, forced labour, worsened after end of civil war in 1921 when soldiers returned causing further food shortages and increase in unemployment rates.
Health
- More investment in healthcare, infrastructure, institutions increased and expanded to rural areas, more emphasis on preventive medicine, compulsory vaccination programme to deal with cholera epidemic in 1921. Education campaigns on hygiene and sanitation in rural areas. Rural clinics brought medical services to peasants so they don’t need to travel long distances- more convenient and accessible.
- Limitations: limited access to specialised care due to concentration in urban areas so peasants received basic treatment, no guarantee of quality healthcare, inadequate conditions of rural clinics, shortages of medical professionals in rural areas.
Housing
- Housing had low priority under Stalin, couldn’t accommodate rising demand for workers- slept in tents. The blocks of apartment built with running water and electricity were overcrowded and not accessible to peasants. They were expected to provide for their own housing- most lived in timber huts, conditions exacerbated by the damage of WWII.
- Limitations: poor housing quality due to the rush to accommodate rapid growing population, causing health risk (lack of sanitaiton facilities, peasants faced economic challenges (lack of resources) and could not improve housing independently and couldn’t rely on the state.
Conclusion: minimal improvement.
How significant was Soviet educational policy for the population of the USSR in the years 1917-1985?
Compulsory education
- Prior to 1917, school attendance wasn’t compulsory, 88% of children failed to complete primary education.
- Unless Lunachevsky (1917), control of education by Narkompros, campaign launched to provide free, universal and compulsory education for ages 7 to 17 of all abilties (comprehensive model).
- Initially failed due to laclk of resources caused by civil war, 1918-21 e.g. Narkompros could only supply one pencil for every 60 students, so they wrote with coal; poor conditions, high dropout rates.
- More successful during 1930s, especially urban areas. Children in education from 14m in 1928 to 20m in 1931, teaching standard rose, education more accessible.
- Limitations: during NEP, state funding on education declined so school attendance declined during winter due to lack of heating, teacher shortage because of low wages.
Eradication of illiteracy
- 65% illiteracy rate prior to 1917
- 1919: Bolshevik campaign of liquidation of illiteracy aimed to make ages 8-50 literate to enable the teaching of modern technical skills, liquidation points set up in areas provided basic literacy courses; 5m completed between 1920-26, Rabfaki for workers in factories also had high attendance, more emphasis on women (more likely to be illiterate) especially in Muslim areas of Central Asia- literacy courses provided by Zhenotdel.
- By 1939, 94% of urban population and 86% of the countryside population were literate: highly successful, positive impact on women- able to participate more actively.
- Limitations: limited focus on minoirty languages as it primarily focused on literacy in Russian which marginalised minority languages in the Republics and therefore faced challenges in preserving cultural diversity.
Adult education
- Most adults had not received secondary education.
- Short course basic numeracy and literacy classes, opportunities to return to education part-time under Khrushchev: by 1964, over 2m attendees, by 1970 diplomas and degrees offered by vocational colleges- offered a route to higher education.
- Equipped adults with essential skills for the workplace which increased productivity and economic development, ideological education shaped beliefs, strengthening Communism and empowering marginalised groups. Could participate more actively, enhanced job prospects and upward social mobility- by 1980, 5.1m students in higher education.
- Limitations: main route to high status jobs- academic secondary education although technically open to all, continued to be dominated by children of the Soviet white-collar elite, rural students remained disadvantaged.
Conclusion: highly significant.
To what extent did government attitudes towards the family as a social unit change in the years 1917-1985?
Bolsheviks and Lenin
- To radical Bolsheviks, the family was an outdated institution that deserved to be swept away- Kollontai (the family ceases to be a necessity), the state could take over the role of the family.
- Family Code 1918 provided new rights and freedoms: divorce could occur at the request of the wife or husband without grounds, attacks on mistreatment of women within the family, marriage status weakened as Marriage Law gave equal status to registered and unregistered marriages- by 1926, 50% of marriages ended in divorce.
- Wives encourafed to refuse disobedience to their husbands e.g. Alexandra Kollontai led calls for grater sexual freedom through the ‘new proletarian morality’.
Stalin’s Great Retreat
- Attitude more conservative, laws aimed to restore the importance of the traditional family, the family now considered a necessary unit of socialist society- major change from Lenin.
- Divorce made more expensive from 4 roubles to 50 roubles, free marriages lost legal status, starting a family was more encouraged, tax on single people, more resources allocated to building creches, rewards for mother heroines for women with 10+ children.
- Comparison: Lenin had more emphasis on gender equality, intended to weaken the family structure to Stalin was more traditional, promoting procreation to create larger workforce for industrialisation and military purposes.
- Similarities: both recognised that the family played a role in instilling values and a means of indoctrination.
Khrushchev and Brezhnev
- Khrushchev: family promoted as a social unit- traditional structure encouraged but with more liberation for women.
- Wives encouraged to undertake paid employment and complete domestic duties (dual burden), in 1960 49% of the workforce was female, resulting in multigenerational families e.g. grandmothers participated in domestic duties
- Less strain on the family through the increased provision of social benefits e.g. healthcare, childcare and maternity arrangements.
- Brezhnev: continuity in social policy to promote the family but more focus on the social problems that weakened the family- health campaigns warned the population of dangers of alcohol abuse, alcohol contributed to the high levels of domestic abuse and divorce, by 1982 the average Soviet adult was consuming 18 litres of spirits a year, shops rarely short of alcohol.
- Comparison: Stalin had extreme emphasis on traditional nuclear family values with the reinforcement of gender roles and aim to increase the birth rate whereas Khrushchev moderately relaxed social restrictions, recognising the role of the family to bring about social cohesion. Continuity into Brezhnev’s period with limited social change and a focus on stability.
- Similarities: all fundamentally promoted traditional family values, recognised the importance of the state in regulating family dynamics.
Conclusion: largest change in attitudes from Lenin to Stalin, moderate change from Stalin to Khrushchev and continuity under Brezhnev.
How successful were the government policies in promoting industrial development in the USSR in the years 1953-1984?
Seventh Five-Year Plan, 1969-1965
- Focus on light industry with focal shift from coal to oil and gas which was less used- reduce waste, production of synthetic fibres target set to 606,000 tons by 1965.
- Consumer goods more abundant- improved living standards, annual growth was 7.1% compared to 2.9% of US; space exploration, Yuri Gagarin was first human in space, growth in coal, steel and machinery contirbuted to modernisation.
- USSR still faced technological gaps compared to Western countries- limited efficiency and competitiveness of industries, poor quality of consumer goods, waste remained, environmental degradation- pollution, deforestation had long-term negative impacts on public health on environment.
Kosygin reforms, 1965
- Aimed to improve creativity and productivity, central planning focus on cost and profit rather than quanitty as the indicator of success, incentives for innovation to encourage enterprises to invest in new technology.
- Enterprises had more control so could respond to market conditions which improved efficiency and productivity in some cases, improved resource allocation through better coordination incentives provided motivation.
- Lacked market competition- hindered reaching potential benefits of these reforms, unsuccessful as officials implementing them were unenthusiastic, central planners disliked that they were accountable for policies they had little control over.
Brezhnev
- 1973 major industrial complex joined with scientific research institutions to ensure the latest technology was applied to production, system of targets centralised with a focus on cost and profit.
- Some improvement provided by technological advancement- step towards modernisation, improvement in military technology e.g. missiles, aircraft, emergence of new infrastructure e.g. transport networks- improved connectivity.
- Overall limited as new machines did not achieve a higher output than old, new system of targets undermined productivity as it was not compatible with supply and demand, inefficient resource allocation- surpluses in some sections, shortages in others.
Conclusion: quite unsuccessful
How accurate is it to say that Stalin’s economic policies modernised the Soviet economy in the years 1928-1953?
First Five-Year Plan, 1928-1932
- To bring about rapid industrialisation to modernise economy, focus on heavy industries e.g. coal, oil, iron and steel through target lists.
- Large industrial centres built- Magnitogorsk and Gorki with population of 250,000, heavy industry production increased: coal 35m tonnes in 1927 to 165m in 1940, Moscow metro lines opened in 1935- easy transportation of goods.
- Use of slave labour to complete building projects in Siberia led to a large human cost, rush to fulfil targets meant that quality was sacrificed- Stalingrad factory aimed to produce 500 tractors a month in 1930 but June only managed 8 which most broke down, unrealistic targets.
Second (1933-1937) and Third Five-Year Plan (1938)
- Second FYP aimed to set higher targets of consumer goods but then redirected to arms production to meat German threat > Third FYP.
- Rapid growth in defence-related industries- tanks, aircraft, enhancement of military coordination- communication as electricity had 51% productivity gain.
- Large waste: 40%, purge of economic planners undermined success, consumer industries suffered, neglected for arms production (1/3 of government spending), imbalance of economic progress in sectors, mostly successful as USSR could withstand German attack 1941-1945.
Collectivisation
- To extend socialism to the countryside, increase productivity and efficiency, peasants sign up to collective farms (kolkhoz), machine and tractor supply machinery to collectives, requisitioning of animals, grains and buildings, dekulakisation
- Enough food to feed town people due to requisitioning, 93% peasant households collectivised by 1937.
- Slow supply of machinery- lack of haulage power with peasants pulling ploughs themselves, removal of kulaks undermined success as they were the more productive farmers, lacked coordination with manufacturing of agricultural machines, food shortages, peasant resistance- slaughtering animals, famine 1932-33.
Conclusion: largely inaccurate.
How accurate is it to say that the main reason for the survival of the Soviet regime in the years 1917-28 was the introduction of the New Economic Policy?
New Economic Policy
- Aimed to fix the economy after the failure of War Communism (food production 48% of 1913 figure, famine- 20mil dead in 1920s)- requisitioning replaced by taxation system- allowed peasants to sell food for profit, reintroduction of private trading to stop growth of black market, currency returned, small-scale industry put in private hands.
- Beneficial for Soviet regime- provided more support from peasants as the profit they earned helped improve their living standards, provided period of stability- industrial output rose as factories put back into production and road repairings, better harbests 1922-23, by 1926 pre-war economy was restored.
- May have undermined Soviet regime- imbalance between provision of agricultural and industrial goods, widened income inequality, low price grain discouraged peasants from growing food, growth not sustained, faced internal opposition due to reemergence of capitalist elements- threatened revolutionary goals.
Civil war
- Between Bolsheviks and Whites
- Bolsheviks more organised in military, economic and political terms; the Whites were an amalgam of groups united by the desire to remove the Bolsheviks. Whites had lack of cooperation, undermined by corruption, inefficiency and lack of coordination, even though they had help from former Russian allies.
- Bolsheviks had the Red Army- effective fighting filled up by conscription of over 5mil, and support from workers as they were the best guarantors of gains in Lenin’s initial economy.
- Bolshevik state became highly centralised, power now in the hands of Sovnarkom and Politburo, much support from workers.
May have had more of a significant role in its establishment but not its maintenance, did not guarantee long-term survival as they had to use other methods e.g. terror in collaboration to maintain support/compliance.
Terror
- Cheka dealt with counter-revolution, often operated outside the law- Lubyanka building for executing suspects without official court proceedings- 200,000 people, OGPU replaced Cheka in 1922 where terror became more bureaucratic and discreet with a focus in the party.
- Suppressed political opposition or other perceived threats which allowed the maintenance of control, created a climate of fear in the public- maintained discipline, intimidation and deterrence.
- Loss of real public supprt as they felt obliged to, loss of legitimacy of regime- repressive actions (arrests, executions, torture, forced labour) abused human rights, led to growth in discontent and resentment, created culture of fear so could not maintain stability.
Conclusion: terror was main reason
How far do you agree that the most significant influence in Communist economic policy in the years 1917-1928 was the need to retain political power?
War communism, 1918
- Aimed to abolish private enterprise to implement communist ideology- nationalism, state ownership of all industry controlled through Vesenkha, requisitioning of food to feed army and urban population, outbreaks of violence, private trading banned.
- Not successful in retaining political power- requisitioning caused rural famine, huge life loss, caused resistance- Tambov rising from peasants.
- May have been slightly successful as it centralised economic and political power in the hands of the Bolsheviks, could exercise authority and maintain a degree of control, the success of Russian civil war allowed government to present itself as the defender of the revolution- maintained loyalty from some parts of the population.
New Economic Policy, 1921
- Aimed to fix the economy after the failure of War Communism (food production 48% of 1913 figure, famine- 20mil dead in 1920s)- requisitioning replaced by taxation system- allowed peasants to sell food for profit, reintroduction of private trading to stop growth of black market, currency returned, small-scale industry put in private hands.
- Successful in retaining political power- provided more support from peasants as the profit they earned helped improve their living standards, provided a period of stability- industrial output rose as factories put back into production and road repairings, better harvests in 1922-23, by 1926 pre-war economy restored.
- May not have been successful as it faced opposition within the party due to the reemergence of capitalist elements, threatening revolutionary goals.
State capitalism
- Transitional phase towards achieving socialism- state control over key industries was necessary to dismantle capitalism, state could coordinate economic activities and allocate resources and direct investment towards priority sectors.
- Successful in retaining political power as the state had commanding heights of the economy, ideological control- shaped public opinion and maintains loyalty.
- May not have retained political power as the centralised control resulted in a lack of market mechanics and incentives for inefficiency- economy struggled to keep up with global competition, led to stagnation, decline in living standards, increased corruption undermined public trust in government- somewhat eroded support.
Conclusion: main reason was to implement communism but this played a significant role in retaining politial power.
How far do you agree that the successes of Soviet economic policy outweighed the failures in the years 1945-1964?
Fourth Five-Year Plan, 1951-1955
- Economic reconstruction after WWII- rebuilding industry plants, reconversion of factories to civilian prodcution, rebuilding war-damaged regions- emphasis on heavy industry.
- Successes: quick recovery of indsutrial production due to slave labour from gulag, industrial output 80% 1945-1950, expansion of Soviet military, some improvement in economic stability, somewhat improved living conditions.
- Failures: limited consumer goods prodcution due to high focus on heavy industry, country suffered significant losses, skilled labour, raw materials, infrastructure- undermined stability of regime, failed to adopt new technology.
Seventh Five-Year Plan, 1959-1965
- Focused on light industry with focal shift from coal to oil and gas which was less used- reduce waste, production of synthetic fibres target set to 660,000 tons by 1965
- Consumer goods more abundant- improved living standards, annual growth 7.1% compared to US 2.9%, space exploration: Yuri Gagarin frist human in space.
- Soviet Union still faced technological gaps compared to Western countries, limited efficiency and competitiveness of industries, waste remained, environmental degradation- pollution, deforestation had long-term negative impacts on public health/environment.
Khrushchev’s productivity measures
- Measures to increase productivity- increased size of collectives to enable greater investment and give more decision-making power at local level, peasants could sell produce to private markets along with planned state purchases that replaced compulsory seizure of food, Virgin Lands Scheme 1954- volunteers from Konsomol work on Sibera and Kazakhstan land.
- Successes: increased flexibility on decision-making, rapid increase in mechanisation, increased food production by 51% 1953-1958.
- Failures: productivity was still low, Virgin Lands Scheme heavily relied on unskilled workers leading to lower yields, locals pursued own priorities leading to uneven development, technological stagnation.
Conclusion: slightly disagree due to minimal improvement over time.
How significant was the role of the secret police in maintaining Communist control in the years 1917-1985?
Lenin
- Cheka dealt with counter-revolution, often operated outside the law, Lubyanka building for executing suspects without official court proceedings- 200,000 people, suppressed political oppsotiion allowed maintenance, creating climate of fear- maintain discipline, intimidation and deterrence.
- Loss of support- public felt obliged, loss of legitimacy of regime- repressive action (arrests, executions, forced labour) abused human rights
- Civil war may have more significance- Bolsheviks won as they were more organised in military, economic and political terms-became highly centralised, power in Sovnarkom and Politburo, yet may have more significance in establishment of regime not maintenance- terror in collaboration to maintain support/compliance.
Stalin
- 1934-38: Yagoda- secret police focus on economic considerations so prisoners used as a labour forcer e.g. 180,000 completed White Sea Canal in less than 2 years. 1938: Yezkov issued quotas for execution camps, increased surveillance by NKVD, Beria reformed excessive behaviour because ineffiecent and wasted manpower, made gulag profitable- increased productivity, created climate of fear that silenced opposition, deterred dissent and resistance due to fear of being labelled enemy of the state.
- Propaganda and censorship may have been more significant- guiding public’s opinion through Pravda highlighting achievements of government convinced public of Soviet legitimacy shown by low levels of dissent reported by secret police. Yet secret police combatted limitations caused by globalisation’s effects on censorship- instill loyalty and indoctrinate socialist ideas.
Khrushchev and Brezhnev
- Khrushchev used KGB implementing destalinisation, monitoring and controlling dissent through informer network and surveillance
- Brezhnev had minimal use of KGB- focus on maintaining social and political stability- targeted dissidents
- Social development more significant- expansion of education as most adults did not receive education- short course basic literacy and numeracy had over 2m attendees by 1964: equipped adults with essential skills for workplace, increased productivity, empowered marginalised groups- more support for regime.
Conclusion: moderate significance under Lenin, high significance under Stalin, minimal significance under Khrushchev and Brezhnev.
How accurate is it to say that the personality cults of Stalin was markedly different to the personality cults of Khrushchev and Brezhnev?
Stalin
- Served a specific political power- emphasised Stalin’s legitimacy, presented as Lenin’s rightful heir and saviour of revolution, God-like figure, ‘The History of the All-Union Communist Party’ released in 1938 highlighted how Stalin’s role was essential in saving the revolution.
- Large-scale: government officials could not recognise him in person because of the exaggeration, large intensity- created a climate of fear through purges of party, terror accompanied his policies- Chitska aimed to remove officials who refused to implement policies, by 1935 22% of party removed from posts.
- Relied on mass media and propaganda, centralised power, concentrated authority within hia position, symbolic gestures- birthday became a national celebration.
Khrushchev
- Purpose was to move away from Stalinism- secret speech of 1956 condemned Stalin, presented as a disciple of Lenin and now highlighted how he was responsible for the success of the Soviet space race and Virgin Lands Scheme
- Small-scale as cults became less powerful, small intensity- had a desperate tone for publicity because of his failing policies: visited peasant farms for photo opportunities for newspapers, strongly associated with the failure of Virgin Lands Scheme- weakened cult
- Relied on mass media and propaganda (visiting peasant farms for newspapers) centralised power- made it seem he was the most important leader when power was shared with Malenkov, symbolic gestures- gave speeches and conducted visits to promote unity.
Brezhnev
- Aimed to maintain status quo- made him seem he had power though he didn’t, awarded over 100 medals e.g. Lenin’s Prize for Literature.
- Small-scale: although it elevated his authority, not on the same level as Stalin’s, small intensity- less repressive political atmosphere and instead of intense terror, censorship was used to showcase opposition.
- Relied on mass media and propaganda- public displays depicted as a strong leader, control of narrative and suppression of any negative criticisms.
Conclusion: extremly accurate.
