Free Sample Essays > European History
Were Stalin’s methods the only ones appropriate to the task of transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial nation?
The economic growth between 1935-36 was considerable. In 1934 gross industrial output rose by 19%, in 1935 by 23% and in 1936 by 29%. Stalin officially justified forced collectivisation and industrialization by claiming that Russia was “threatened” by the Western powers, i.e. Britain and France, so it had to “catch up” with them in industrial production. During the early 1930’s Russia was starting to get recognised on the international scene on its economic strength and means of production. She formed economic relationship with Germany. In 1934 she entered the League of Nations. This is a great reflection for what Stalin and his ruthless methods did for Russia. His methods to industrialize at any cost were completely appropriate, as at the time it was the only option as it takes much more then words and a change of regime to change people’s mentality and work ethic. The establishment of totalitarian political control was completed with retrenchment in the social and economic realm in which Stalin instituted better methods of industrial management, a system of incentives and different wages and prices, the reestablishment of traditional procedures in the armed forces, more moderate general guidelines in the arts and the sciences, and a revival of the family as the basic social unit and the elimination of religion as a national cult allowing Stalin greater control. Hundreds of new cities and settlements were founded. By October of 1935 all the rationing of foods was abolished as both industry and agriculture was ripe. In marked contrast at the time to the capitalist West, unemployment was abolished. In fact the economic advance gave rise to shortage of labour, which was overcome by millions of peasants entering Russian industry. Whilst the rest of the world was paralysed by the worst slump in history, the USSR under Stalin was taking giant steps forward. It can be said that Stalin dragged Russia up on its own 2 feet. It was now self-efficient, as she could now rely on its own production both for agricultural and industrial materials.
Russia’s victory over Germany in 1945 I believe was a direct consequence of Stalin’ rule and methods he used to get things done. In view of the initial collapse in 1941/42 due to Stalin making the wrong decision and focussing purely on offensive war strategy, the extent of Soviet military recovery was nothing short of remarkable. Credit must be given to Stalin’s own recovery and ability to co-ordinate military revival and make full use of the climate and size of Russia. Despite some losses of territory, Soviet Union still managed to out produce Germany in war material, the direct result of the FYP’s of the 1930’s. Stalin matched his peak of his administrative efficiency during the war years and was able to make structural changes, which enabled Soviet Union to make a more effective use of production, mobilisation of Russian resources. This was achieved by Stalin breaking up the old components of Stalinism, the totalitarian control over the political government. He decided to dismantle [next page]