Theme- Agriculture

Question 1

what is agriculture

Answer 1

“The practice of cultivating plants and livestock”. Until the late-20th century, Russia was an agrarian society with the vast majority of the population being peasant farmers (by 1913 only 18% of Russians lived in towns, by 1960 just 49%).

Question 2

agricultural problems russia faced in 1855
serfdom ensured russias agriculture was backwards

Answer 2

Under this system the State was the personal property of the monarch, and he divided it up and gave it to his nobles in return for their loyalty. The poor peasant farmers who lived on the land became the personal property of these nobles; serfs were destined to work all their lives for no pay. Feudalism had disappeared in the rest of Europe centuries before 1855, but it was still the central column of Russian society. They were required to give labour to the noble for, usually, ¾ days per week. Serfs had no real legal rights peasants had no real incentive to grow more food. As effective slaves, they did not control the land they worked, nor did they benefit from the product of the land. Peasants paid rents to their landlord masters and taxes to their Tsar in crops, but primarily they farmed to survive

Question 3

what agricultural problems did russia have in 1855
agriculture was extreamley fertile

Answer 3

Russia’s geography limited the scope of agriculture considerably. Well over half of the land Russia controlled to the north and east is what is called ‘permafrost’ – a layer of permanently frozen soil. Vast swathes of land were therefore entirely unsuitable for farming [or really living comfortably]. However, it was also limited by the dry and desert-like southern regions. Russia’s sweet spot for agriculture was the Black Earth region in the south-west of the country. The region, stretching from the Black Sea to the Ural Mountains to the north-west, the region has a combination of fertile soil and suitable weather conditions for farming. This region produced much of Russia’s agricultural food, but made up only around 10% of its land.

Yet, the growing season, essentially the period free from killing frost, is only 130 to 160 days long in the Black Earth region. By contrast, in the UK, this is 244 days. This means that Russia’s agricultural system is delicate and relies heavily on a brief window in the warmer months between Spring and Autumn. This delicate situation means that unusually poor weather, social change, or political issues can easily destroy the harvests Russia relies on. The consequence is that Russia frequently suffered from famine throughout this period.

Question 4

what agricultural problems did russia face in 1855
influence of the mir

Answer 4

(Mir – which means ‘commune’ and also ‘world’) where the land was shared out in fields of strips. Each strip was allocated to a family, with families having strips dotted around the fields in both good and poor-quality soil. This meant families shared the successes and failures of farming. Taxes were also paid as a community, not by individuals. If new methods were to be tried, everyone in the ruling village council, or Mir, would have to agree. These councils were always made up of the oldest and most conservative members of the village, so they were unlikely to risk changing age-old methods of farming.

Furthermore, the mir’s land distribution tended to exhaust land rather than use it productively. The land they allocated could be taken away the following year, so they exhausted the soil and made little effort to replenish nutrients.
the communal tax burden meant there was no incentive to work hard – the hardest working peasant would pay the most taxes!

Question 5

russia being highly dependant on agriculture

Answer 5

To remain a powerful country Russia needed to trade with the other great states of Europe. However, without an industrial base the Tsar was forced to rely on the export of the Empire’s abundant raw

materials. Chief amongst these was grain, which accounted for 40% of the revenue gained through exports. By 1855 Russia’s population was growing at an ever-faster rate and more and more of the grain harvest was needed to feed the home population. The state could not lose this valuable export and this put massive pressure on the nations food supply. Bad harvests would lead to famines that would claim thousands of lives. Agriculture needed modernisation and a significant increase in productivity.

Question 6

why did alexander II emancipate the surfs in 1861

Answer 6

Alexander took the momentous decision to end it and free all the serfs in 1861. Alexander’s motives were many. Firstly, and most importantly, the notion of ‘reform from above to prevent revolution from below’. In this sense the motive was to maintain Tsarism. Secondly, he believed it would strengthen the regime by contributing the economic modernisation. Finally, the motive was humanitarian – a genuine desire to improve people’s lives.

Question 7

the terms of emancipation of the surfs, 1861

Answer 7

· All serfs legally freed [e.g. they could own land, travel, marry]

· The state compensated nobles [i.e. those who previously owned Serfs] financially. Peasants were required to re-pay the state for their freedom in the form of redemption payments. These were to be paid over a 49-year period at 6% interest.

· Peasants received ‘cut-offs’ – small plots previously owned by the nobles. Legal landownership was only confirmed after final payment. With the average life expectancy of a peasant being 35 in the 1860s very few of the newly freed serfs could ever hope to see the day when they actually owned their own land. This was often poor-quality land.

· The Mir was responsible for the collection of Redemption payments and the allotting of communal land.

Question 8

positive effects of alexander II emancipating the surfs

Answer 8

Peasants lives were significantly improved by the newfound freedoms – right to marry, right to move, etc.

Question 9

economic impact of emancipation 1861

Answer 9

· The land given up by the nobles was often poor-quality land. This meant the peasants struggled to grow enough.

· Peasants struggled to earn enough from the land to meet redemption payments. These financial problems meant that the greater freedoms peasants had were meaningless. By 1870 just 55% of peasants had paid these back.

· As the Mir still redistribute land on a villager’s death most peasants saw no point in wasting their time trying to improve their individual plots.

· The Mir also took control of most decisions made at a village level. They had the power to decide which crops were being grown and how those crops were grown. Their primary concern was ensuring subsistence farming.

· A government report found in 1878 that just 50% of peasants made a profit.

Question 10

Alexander III peasant land banks 1883

Answer 10

Alexander III sought to improve peasant productivity by allowing rich and talented peasants to take cheap loans on the condition they use it to improve their farming methods or acquire more land. underpinning this policy was that if peasants proved they had potential to pay back loans [i.e. proved they were successful farmers], then they should be encouraged to acquire more land. This was really a desire to encourage capitalism in the countryside, boosting competition and therefore productivity

Question 11

impact on alexander III land banks

Answer 11

between 1877 and 1905 peasants purchased 260,000km worth of land. . There was a gradual shift in land ownership during this period away from nobles and poorer peasants and towards the Kulaks.

Question 12

1891 famine impact

alexander III land banks inpact

Answer 12

the 1891 Famine shows the limits of Russia’s agricultural advances. The famine was initially caused by poor weather [a long, hot, and dry summer], but the Tsarist state failed to respond effectively. Relief efforts were hindered by Vyshnegradsky who, as the Tsar’s finance minister, continued to encourage the export of grain. The famine killed approximately 500,000 people. With food shortages across the countryside, the population’s nutrition levels depleted and epidemics of typhoid and cholera killed many thousands, exacerbating the issues.
therefore alexander III believed that the peasentry was the problem

Question 13

the states view on peasents after 1891 famine

alexander III land banks

Answer 13

That state viewed peasants as ‘indolent [lazy] and intoxicated’ and claimed these forces led to poor productivity. The agricultural failures of that year, in the government’s view, were the fault of indolent and intoxicated peasants who did not want to work hard. Alexander introduced Land Captains to try and keep order in the countryside and maintain peasant discipline.

Question 14

alexander III land captains

caused by the inpact of the famine of 189

Answer 14

• 2000 Nobles, appointed by officials
• aimed to discipline peasants they could make local legal decisions, punish peasants for crimes, and order peasants to
• they were known for publicly flogging serfs – in one case for refusing to take off their hat in the presence of the land captain.

This represented the return to the methods of the arbitrary legal system of serfdom, showing the limits of change.

Question 15

nicholas II-why stolypin’s reforms was put in place 1906-17

Answer 15

By 1906, Russia’s agricultural crisis had become significant. Rural instability had increased between 1900-1906. The Black Earth revolts and the disturbances before, during, and after the 1905 Revolution represent a peak of rural discontent.
economic success of Emancipation had been limited. Agricultural output per square kilometre of land was four times greater on British farms than Russian farms in 1905. Of 11 million households in European Russia, only about half could produce enough to feed themselves in 1900, and only 16% were able to produce a marketable surplus. It is possible that that percentage had dropped to as low as 10% by 1905.
While the population was growing, the amount of land available to farm did not grow at the same rate

Question 16

stolypins idea of the problem of the influence of the mir

nicholus II

Answer 16

· He believed communal responsibility reduced the scope for individual responsibility and talent. This reduced productivity.

· He believed the mir stifled economic progress by holding back talented peasants. Stolypin believed that peasants in the mir took advantage of their collective responsibility. A large number of peasants made little effort to genuinely improve their lot and according to Stolypin lived drunk on vodka. This put off the talented and able peasants from working hard, realising their produce would be shared across the community.

Question 17

what was stolypins reforms reffered to as

Answer 17

‘wager on the strong and sober’ – hoping to create a class of independently-minded peasants who had a stake in the status-quo

Question 18

terms of stolypins reforms

Nicholus II

Answer 18

· To reduce peasant discontent and cut debts -> Redemption payments abolished

· To encourage skilled peasants to purchase more land -> Unused or poorly utilised state-owned land made available in to the Peasant Land Bank. Peasants could now purchase this land and make greater use of it. This facilitated the purchase of land in regions not previously used for farming,

· To reduce the mir’s influence -> The Mir’s powers were reduced:

o Peasants were given the right to leave the mir and withdraw their land from the village commune.

o The mir lost the right to redistribute land. The hereditary principle was introduced

o The mir lost the responsibility to collect taxes on the behalf of the community

Question 19

what was stolypin hoping to come out of his reforms being put in place

Nicholus II

Answer 19

· The intention was to encourage capitalism in the countryside. The rationale was that peasants with small independent strips would compete with one another, thereby having two consequences.

· Firstly, production levels would rise due to the need to produce more to compete with opponents.

· Secondly, peasants who owned some land would feel a greater sense of loyalty to the status quo/regime. Similar to Margaret Thatcher’s idea of the “Home Owning Democracy”, Stolypin believed that if peasants would feel a greater sense of power and responsibility to make it work, rather than blame the communal mir.

Question 20

impact of stolypins reforms
reducing the influence of the mir, there was limited success

Answer 20

The most noteworthy achievement of the reforms is the facilitation of a shift in agricultural organisation. The mir lost some influence. 2 million took up the option of leaving the mir by 1914. However, 90% of peasants remained part of the mir, favouring the collective security that it provided over the risk of leaving and having to be completely self-reliant. Furthermore, of the 2 million who left the mir, historians estimate that only around 1% of these went on to gain kulak status – most joined band of migrant labourers whom. This shift also created rural tensions as those moving away from the mir were called ‘Stolypin separators’. The peasant majority in the mir were frustrated that wealthier peasants could separate from their communal responsibilities.

Question 21

impact of stolypins reforms
more land was opened up for farming

Answer 21

. A further success was the opening up of new land for farming - some hundreds of thousands moved to parts of Siberia now connected to western Russia by the Trans-Siberian railroad. Parts of Siberia specialised in butter production and it became so important that Stolypin said ‘The whole of our butter export to foreign markets is entirely based on the growth of Siberian butter production. Siberian butter-making brings us more than twice as much gold as the whole Siberian gold industry”. 90% of Russian butter exports came from Siberia.

Question 22

impact of stolypins reforms
due to agricultural stability, agricultural production peaked

Answer 22

d. By 1913, Russia produced 80 million tons of grain and exported 12 million of them. It would take communist Russia many years to rival this level of success. In the period 1930-35, the average grain harvest stood at a mere 73 million tons.

Question 23

tsars agricultural summary, contionuity with all tsars

Answer 23

• Sought to encourage capitalism in the countryside by facilitating the growth of kulak – e.g. Land Bank + Stolypin
• Tried to encourage change, were met with peasant resistance – e.g. peasant resistance to Stolypin + limits of Emancipation
• Had a limited impact in achieving their goals – the mir remained strong.

Question 24

tsars agricultural summary, changes. how did the tsars differ

Answer 24

· Alexander II set about giving more rights; whereas Alexander III reduced those rights. Compare and contrast Emancipation to the Land Captains

· Nicholas II was the only one to try to reduce the Mir’s influence, albeit unsuccessfully.

Question 25

lenins agricultural policies
decree on land, october 1917

Answer 25

was one of the first acts created by Lenin after seizing power. It legitimised peasant seizures of land which had been occurring throughout the Provisional Government. This abolished the landlords’ right of property, also confiscating large estates from monasteries, churches and the nobility. Land was to be redistributed by the peasant soviets (councils). This reversed much of the reforms introduced by Stolypin. This represented a huge change in approach. Whereas the Tsars had sought to encourage private land ownership and individualism, here the Communists were banning it. Yet, the policy was a fait accompli – it had already happened and the Bolsheviks had little real control over the process.

Question 26

lenins agricultural policies
war communism 1918-21

Answer 26

By the summer of 1918 there were serious food shortages in all urban areas, as the peasants’ no longer saw the point in producing food for markets where inflation had made money worthless. The primary effect of War Communism in the countryside was to enforce harsh grain requisitioning to feed the towns and Red Armies. Lenin responded by sending the Red Army and the Cheka into the countryside to requisition food at gun point. Lenin blamed the richer peasants, whom he called Kulaks, for hoarding food from the peoples’ government and appealed to poorer peasants to turn on their neighbours. Their self-interested ‘hoarding’ on grain was deemed to represent a Capitalistic attitude – looking after oneself rather than the community as a whole

Question 27

lenins inpact on the faliure of war commmunism

‘’ war on the country side’’

Answer 27

This “war on the countryside” had catastrophic results. By the summer of 1920 most villages were willing to resist food requisitioning by force, as shown by the Tambov and Volga revolts in 1920. The rural provinces were in chaos and farming had been badly damaged. The peasants were only planting enough food for their own families to survive on; as if they produced a surplus the State simply stole it from them. Russia’s agricultural system had collapsed: grain shortages increased. Due to requisitioning, peasants had little incentive to grow more than they needed. If the state was simply going to requisition grain from them, they had little incentive to grow more food. Harvests in 1921 produced just 48% of 1913. The result was a terrible famine in 1921 in which 5 million died.

Question 28

lenins agricultural policy, new economic policy 1921-28

Answer 28

the NEP sought to solve these issues and reintroduce stability in the countryside. The terms of the NEP designed to give the peasants a reason to grow vitally needed food again. The NEP ended the requisitioning of grain, replacing it with a new grain tax comprising 10% of every peasant’s harvest. It also reintroduced a free market, in which peasants were able to sell any surplus for a profit.

Question 29

impact of lenins new economic policy 1921-28

Answer 29

· The NEP did see agriculture recover. The grain harvest rose from 37.6 million tons in 1921 to 56.6 million tons in 1923.

· The recovery of agriculture resulted in the re-emergence of kulaks – rich peasants who were able to make profits from the surplus produce they produced. A kulak was formally defined as those who owned at least three cows. They were able to grow rich by making a profit.

Question 30

the impact of the new economic policy in relation to the sissor crisis

Answer 30

so called because the prices of agriculture dropped on a graph whilst the price of industrial goods rose, mirroring open scissors on a graph. Huge increase in grain supplies brought prices of food down; while prices of industrial goods increased dramatically. I.e. it marked the separation between peasant income (ie low food prices) and peasant expenditure (ie high industrial prices).

The issue of food supply continued to be a problem. Generally, peasants seemed unwilling to provide food to the market to be sold in cities. This can be explained by two factors. Firstly, the peasants were taking a ‘safety-first’ approach of subsistence farming. Secondly, peasants could not purchase anything because land was unavailable and industrial prices were so high, so there was no real point in selling. By 1928 rationing had to be introduced in some cities – forcing an end to the NEP and requisitioning was reintroduced in some regions.

Question 31

why were collective farms introduced under stalin
ideology. the ‘socialisation’ if the countryside

Answer 31

Socialist ideology favoured a more ‘collective’ farming model. Marx’s notion of economic determinism is important here. Marx argued that the economic basis of a society influenced ideas and beliefs. In a capitalist society your economic motive is to make a profit – and you do so by making the most of your capital and other people’s labour. In this way, capitalism creates an individualistic society. For instance, if a Kulak hoarded grain they might be able to raise prices by reducing supply. This would benefit them, by helping them make more money, yet, this would not benefit the country as a whole because supply would be limited. Stalin wanted to create a society which was more interested in the interests of the community over the individual. Stalin believed that individual farms created a ‘bourgeois’ attitude whereby individuals withheld grain, whereas collective farms would serve the interests of everyone. Stalin argued that if responsibility to produce is shared then farming would be more efficient and effective.

Question 32

why were collective farms introduced in the stalinist era
increase state control and agricultural produce

Answer 32

Part of the prompt for Collectivisation was the lack of grain supplies under state control. This has led to rationing in 1928. Hence, the state sought to exert greater control of the countryside by forcing peasants into these Collective farms.

Question 33

why were collective farms introduced in the stalinist era
practical aim- modernisation

Answer 33

Agricultural modernisation was seen as a pre-requisite to industrialisation. By modernising the agricultural system Stalin hoped surplus grain could be exported, which could then fund industrial projects. The pooling and sharing of production was seen as a means to improve productivity. One example of this is the Machine Tractor Stations which would rent out tractors to Collective Farms, sharing the equipment in theory helped to make production more efficient.

Question 34

collectivisation chronology
1929

Answer 34

Stalin launches a policy of ‘forced collectivisation’

Question 35

Collectivisation chronology
december 1929

liquidate the kulaks as a class

Answer 35

Stalin announces a pledge to ‘liquidate the kulaks as a class’. Kulaks were arbitrarily defined as those who owned six cows or more. However, local officials took it upon themselves to target any successful peasants. A policy of effective ‘de-kulakisation’

Question 36

collectivisation chronology
jan-march 1930

aim to collectivising 25% of peasent households

Answer 36

Stalin announced the target of collectivising 25% of peasant households. The army, secret police, and party work brigades were sent into the countryside to force the peasants to accept the new arrangements. By March 1930, 58% of households had been collectivised through a mixture of force and propaganda.

Question 37

collectivisation chronology
march-oct 1930

officials becomind dizzy with success

Answer 37

Stalin denounced over-eager local officials for the speed of collectivisation which had caused considerable hostility. He claimed local officials had become ‘dizzy with success’. Consequently, Stalin slowed the pace of collectivisation and allowed a reintroduction of ‘voluntary collectivisation’. The consequence was that people began to leave collective farms: by October only around 20% were still collectivised.

Question 38

collectivisation chronology
1931-41

reintroducing forced collectivisation

Answer 38

Forced collectivisation was re-introduced. A new state-sponsored drive brought almost all agricultural land back under the control of the state.

Question 39

ccollectivisation chronology
1931-33

mass de-kulakisation

Answer 39

· Counter-revolutionaries who were to be shot (approximately 25,000) or sent to gulag (approximately 390,000) · Active opponents of collectivisation who were to be deported to other regions of the Soviet Union. Many were moved to Siberia (approximately 1.8 million) · Those who were expelled from their farms and settled in collective farms

Question 40

collectivisation chronology
1932-33

the holodomor

Answer 40

. A devastating famine rages in Ukraine, prompted by poor harvests. The poor harvests were of partly natural causes (poor weather), but also man-made causes. Collectivisation had agriculture in the region by forcing people to move from their traditional family farms to disrupted collective farms. This disruption reduced agricultural yields. Stalin did not relieve the region with aid, but instead increased pressure on the region to produce food for the state. For instance, in August 1932, a law stated that anyone who stole from a collective farm could face ten years in prison. Stalin accused those of stealing from the collective of being ‘kulaks’. Around 1,000 people were executed for stealing grain and many more were sent to the gulags. In December 1932, party officials ordered that Ukraine should provide 1/3 of the rest of the USSRs grain quotas, increasing food pressure in the region In January 1933, concerned that people were migrating from the region, the Russo-Ukraine border was sealed by the Red Army and peasants banned from the cities – internal passports denied to peasants by Feb 1933 190,000 peasants were returned to the villages Estimations of the number of people who die during this famine range between 3.3 million (Snyder) and 7 million (Conquest).

Question 41

collectivisation chronology
may 1933

end of mass de-kulakisation

Answer 41

Mass de-kulakisation stopped. Collectivisation continues: 66% lived in collective farms.

Question 42

collectivisation chronology
1935

the kolkhozy becoming modal for collective farms

Answer 42

The ‘Kolkhozy’ becomes the model for the collective farms. These farms allowed people to grow food on small ‘private’ plots and own one cow and four sheep. 83% of peasants lived in collective farms.

Question 43

collectivisation chronology
1941

the end picture

Answer 43

90-95% of peasants lived in collective farms.

Question 44

what were collective farms like

Answer 44

· Members pooled all their resources and labour – including tools and livestock in order to make production a communal task

· They were granted use of the land but not its ownership

· each household was allowed to keep a private strip and were allowed a cow, a pig, four sheep, and unlimited fowl

· 50-100 households

· Chairman appointed by the local party secretary and was given targets [and usually dismissed for failing to meet such targets]

· Provided agricultural targets to meet each year [usually grandly ambitious or impossible]

· hired tractors from Machine Tractor Stations

· The collective would allocate duties and roles equally

· if a farm exceeded their quota, the profits of the farm would be distributed equally amongst its members. Yet, quotas and targets were often too high which meant that few made profits.

Question 45

impact of collectivisation

Answer 45

Collectivisation, due to the use of considerable force, was the policy which most changed people’s lives in agriculture. It represents the most significant turning point in agricultural policy throughout the period due to the extension of the role of the state into everyday life. The mir was abolished, ending village autonomy and centuries of traditional village practice. The peasants now became required to work the land of the state in that they now had to meet the targets set by state officials.

Collectivisation lasted under these terms for the rest of the period – Khrushchev’s only real intervention was to extend it – in this way one could argue that the life of the peasant was not that different in 1964 compared to 1855. In 1855 they were required to work the land of the nobility, while in 1964 they were required to work the land of the state. In both cases peasants gained little from their hard work. Sheila Fitzpatrick in a separate book on the lives of peasants, claims peasants viewed collectivisation as a ‘second serfdom’.

The most significant success of Collectivisation is that the state gained greater control of agricultural produce and was now able to direct it where they wanted it: towns. State requisitioning of food increased – allowing investment in towns

Question 46

de-kulakisation removes russias most sucsessful farmers… why

Answer 46

De-Kulakisation not only had negative human consequences it had negative economic consequences.

De-Kulakisation eliminated the Kulaks as a social class and in doing so removed the USSR’s most successful farmers.

Question 47

negative effects of collectivisation
russias livestock was decimated

Answer 47

Under state definitions, kulaks were those who ‘6 or more cows’

When Stalin announced his intention to ‘liquidate the kulaks as a class’, ‘kulaks’ killed their livestock en masse to avoid being targeted by the state.
The USSR not only lost valuable sources of food, but also valuable sources of agricultural production. Horses were still used extensively in ploughing fields during this period. It took the USSR until the 1950s-60s to recover from this (although this can also partly be explained by the Second World War).

Question 48

famine- the holodomor 1932-33

Answer 48

A devastating famine rages in Ukraine, prompted by poor harvests. The poor harvests were of partly natural causes (poor weather), but also man-made causes.
Stalin did not relieve the region with aid, but instead increased pressure on the region to produce food for the state. For instance, in August 1932, a law stated that anyone who stole from a collective farm could face ten years in prison. Stalin accused those of stealing from the collective of being ‘kulaks’. Around 1,000 people were executed for stealing grain and many more were sent to the gulags.

Question 49

khrushchev- virgin land scheme

Answer 49

The rationale behind the Virgin Land Scheme was that as productivity on Collective farms was rising, more land needed to be cultivated. The scheme was designed to send thousands of young farmers and their families east, to cultivate the untouched steppe of western Siberia and northern Kazakhstan. Started in 1954, by 1958 grain production had risen from 81 million tons to 144 million tons.

The rationale was that ‘virgin’ (un-used) land in Kazakhstan, Siberia, etc would be settled with collective farms and put under the plough for the first time. Collective farms would be established in these regions.

Question 50

impact of the virgin land scheme

Answer 50

The Virgin Lands Campaign and accompanying reforms met with a limited level of success.

Huge amounts more land were brought under new cultivation (see the above) and that in itself is a remarkable success. 300,000 komsomol members were mobilised to help construct the new collective farms and many went on to settle in the regions – believing they were helping to achieve communism in doing so.

Very quickly the expansion of land under cultivation paid dividends. In 1956 over half of the 125 million tons of grain produced came from these new regions.

Yet, in the sixties the flaws of the programme became clear. A combination of poor weather, inappropriate soil, and the failure to rotate crops, produced very poor harvests – a drop of 33 million tonnes compared to 1962. It was so poor, in fact, that the USSR had to undergo the humiliation of importing food from the USA and Canada.

Question 51

problems with khrushchev decitions
soil erosion and infertility

Answer 51

Much of the land now under plough had not been ploughed for good reason: the soil and/or weather was not appropriate. As intensive mechanised farming intensified, significant soil erosion took place every time the soil was ploughed. As the fertile top soil was churned up, wind storms in the arid, flat, and unprotected regions of Kazakhstan blew away the top soil exposing clay infertile soil underneath.

Question 52

problems with khrushchev decitions
lack of crop rotation

maize craze

Answer 52

was that wheat was not rotated with other crops. This meant that whilst in the first few years wheat was relatively successful; after two-three years the wheat had taken the nutrients it needed out of the soil. Part of the cause of the agricultural failure was what historians call the ‘maize craze’. Enthusiastic local party organisations tended to take Khrushchev’s perceived opinions on crops very seriously and turn them into policy. Khrushchev had travelled to the US in the late 50s and tried cornflakes for the first time. He wanted the USSR to produce its own version of cornflakes – made from maize. The ‘maize craze’ refers specifically to a trend towards favouring maize, caused by Khrushchev’s enthusiastic words.

Question 53

comparing tsars and communists, continuities

Answer 53

Both regimes tried to encourage the peasantry
to adopt new, more efficient farming methods
and the majority of peasants always resisted
this. e.g. few took up Stolypin’s offer to leave the mir most resisted collectivisation under Stalin

· Peasants had few incentives. Serfdom kept
productivity low. Redemption payments
were unpayable for most. War Communism
and Collectivisation meant requisitioning
with little rewards.

· Geographic issues – shorts growing season
and poor land were inhibiting factors in 1855 + 1964.

· Famines! – 1892, 1921, 1933

· Both regimes always saw the peasants as a resource to be exploited to help the modernisation of the rest of the country. Grain exports were a vital part of the
economy that was continually exploited. This resulted in major famines and millions of deaths.

o Collectivisation seen as a ‘second serfdom’

Question 54

comparing the tsars and communists
changes

Answer 54

· The methods with which the regimes tried to modernise the peasantry changed. The Tsars tried to develop a new, prosperous class of peasants by loaning them money to build up their own farms. Capitalism would then allow these kulaks to make profits, become richer, modernise their farms and invest money. While the NEP came close to this, for the bulk of the Communist period the government’s ideology and methods were very different. Collectivisation saw the government take control of agriculture and try to create a new class of rural proletarians with the emphasis on cooperation over competition
· Treatment of kulaks – the Tsars favoured, the Communists did not.
· Shifts in the organisation of the countryside. Initially Serfdom, then the Mir, then attempts at independent capitalist farmers, then state-controlled collectivisation
. · Technological shifts – collective farms were more mechanised.