I have had a good look at your timelines, and I think that Tom (shown here with Laura and Jess looking on) has produced an excellent effort. Click here to see it.
Our task for today is discuss and understand it. What does it show ? What you agree with, and what do you disagree with ?
Mr Kydd.
Firstly we agree with the first half of Tom’s timeline from 1855 – 1887 however we don’t think that Witte should go up as high, as there was industrialisation pre-
Witte and such as Reuturn and Bunge.
We also agree with the decrease after Witte to the treaty of Brest Litovsk in 1918 – because under this treaty Russia lost 25% of its industry and 80% of its coal industry.
Moving on to the second Five Year Plan under Stalin in 1933. We disagree that this should at the same height as Witte was put, as there was more industrialisation from a lower level and a focus on heavy industry. Additionally ‘Gigantomania’ caused production levels to increase.
Moreover there shouldn’t be such a big dip in 1941 (war) as they were better prepared therefore the line after this point should be higher that the peak of 1914.
We agree with the last part of the graph that industry increases under Vyshnegradskii as well as the impact on the workers here.
I thought for the first half of the course, until about 1917, when communism was the main aim for Soviet Russia, there was no real industrial policy. Therefore, with the different leaders with lots of different policies, the view of the peasants would change and effect the level of exploitation. Granted, the Vyshnegradskii and Witte line shouldn’t be that low (apologies for the confusion) it seems clear that the more industrial progress, the higher level of exploitation. The two peaks with Witte and Stalin are at the same height because of the growth rate of 8%, and as Laura said in the lesson, Witte’s peak had come from a lower foundation. Also Stalin’s peak was mainly heavy industry, so not all round industry and most of that was used for war which causes the amount of industrialisation to decrease. It is also important to look right at the end of the timeline when Stalin dies, Khrushchev focuses of consumer goods, the hydrogen bomb and the space race which all decreases the level of exploitation. It is the only time in this whole period which does that.
Witte certainly achieved great industrial progress, however the line of progress should not match that of Stalin’s, as his scale of industrial progress was significantly more of an increase than Witte, even though there was a parallel of 8% growth between both. This is because of Stalin’s high aims in his 5 year plans, and one major example could be Magnatigorsk, a city built for the soul purpose of industry in 1931.
We also decided that the level of industrial progress achieved under Khrushchev should also be higher when taking into account his Virgin Lands policy, the risen levels of increasing consumer goods and his ‘Space Race’ achievements 🙂
Vyshnegradskii’s level of repression and suffering should continue to decrease after 1892, instead of rising as it is shown. This is because under his “we will export and go hungry” policy which directly led to the 1891 famine, causing extreme levels of suffering of the peasants.
we agree with most of the graph but disagree with the height of the increase and the peak at the witte system, we believe that the peak should be lower then this in proportion to the rest of the graph. the peak of Stalin should be much higher as there was a massive emphasis on industry in this period as this was an important issue to Stalin. Also the height of the Khruschev/ space race peak should be higher as it was argued Russia were winning the space race which shows that the industry was booming so therefore the peak should be higher.
the level of exploitation is correct as we believe that exploitation was definitely highest under stalins five year plans. and that there was less exploitation under khruschev as this was a period of “de-stalinisation”. however there should be more suffering under vyshnegradskii as this suggests there was zero exploitation in this period.
Covo and Short Twin No. 2’s answer:
We agree that there wasn’t much meaniful industrialisation pre- Witte and that there is a sharp increase in industry under his system. We also agree that the dip due to the Brest-Litovsk treaty is correct, as the loss of predominantly industrial areas meant that industrialisation had to rebuild itself. We would have put Stalin’s industrialisation as a higher peak than Witte’s as although growth rate is the same we believe that Stalin’s achievements were bigger, remembering that he did have the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in the recent past to build from.
For conditions of the workers we agree until Vyshnegradskii, where the line should continue quite sharply downwards. Under the NEP we believe the line should go up slight as Lenin made life easier for the workers during this period. Apart from that, we agree with most of Tom’s plotting.
Firstly, we agreed with Tom with his idea of Witte and Stalin having equal peaks in terms of industrial progress. We also agrees with the increase in repression for the workers under stalin and through war communism.
However, we believe that the drop in industrial progress in 1945 is too low as the USSR exited the war as one of the worlds most industialised countries. We also think that there was a more gradual decrease in suffering between 1855 and 1914 for the workers. Finally, under stalin, there was a greater rise in progress than tom Percieves.