As we are now onthe brink of writing our first fully synoptic essays on the peasants I think it would be helpful to return to our agriculture timelines.
Task :- Have a look again at the timeline. Now that you understand this theme what do you think of it ? In pairs discuss it and post a comment below thinking carefully about the relative positions of the key events. Make sure that you explain your reasons behind your comments.
Mr Kydd.
In comparison to other key events, I think the Emancipation Edict should be lower as, although there were flaws, it was a fair attempt at improving the peasants lives by giving them more freedoms. After the Edict there was no repression or famine on the scale that is seen later on.
The policy of War Communism should be of equal or greater suffering to the famine of 1921, as the famine was a direct cause of the policy. The policy was only successful because of the exploitation and suffering the peasants had to forcefully endure.
I feel that the famine that killed 15 million should be the peak of the graph as it seems to hold more of a direct link to agriculture and agrarian policies whereas the current pinacle of 70,000 villages destroyed is in no small part due to ww2 and perhaps unpreventable in any case although it was clearly made worse by the problem of agriculture. I also feel that the NEP is the time of least comparitive suffering especially as it was such a radical change to encourage aspects of capitalism, after tragedies such as war communism and the Russian Civil War where the consequences of taking food from the peasants were not once vaguely considered. At least the NEP did allow for some prosperity for the peasants who were most resilient to the previous brutality, and I feel it was right for Lenin to allow the more successful Kulak’s to flourish.
I would argue that stoylpins reforms should be lower as he undid the wrong doings of the emancipation edict. The removal of the redemption payments was the single most important aspect that increased the standard of life for the peaseants than anything else in tasrist history. Peaseants are no longer constatly in debt and could now increase internal deamd for goods.
Furthermore i would say that suffering of the peasants under stalins regime was the greatest. when we consider that more russians died due to his agricultural policy that the many that died in the world war.
I agree with most of the points of the graph but would say that stoylpins reforms should be lower as it was the golden age of the peseants and stalins policy was when the peaseants suffering was at its pinnacle.
We feel collectivisation should be slightly lower ,although it killed an estimated number of 15million people , it was the single most important factor that helped Russia ‘s agurculture as well as its industry : for example in 1931 Russia had an average 5.06 tonnes of grain exported because of the new farming methods collectivisation introduced, it gave the peasants new equipment for farming such as progressive machine tractors , because of Stalin collectivisation policy Russia’s industry was able increas rapidly from the period of 1929 to 1934. We think it is important not to overlook the advantages of collectivisation just because of the Devastion and exploited it caused to the peasantry.
I feel that the NEP should be the lowest point on the graph. The NEP did a lot to improve the lives of the peasants and Edward Acton is correct to suggest it was the “golden age” of the Russian peasant. I also believe that serfdom should be slightly higher on the graph. It was a very hard life for Russian serfs, they had no rights and were treated as slaves. I agree that collectivisation and the war that followed should be at the highest point of the graph and maybe they should be even higher. Stalin’s policy of collectivisation led to a whole social class being liquidated and millions of people starving to death. It was clearly the most horrific event and the time at which Russian peasants suffered the most in the duration 1855-1964.
We feel that the NEP should be the lowest point on the graph. This is because it gave the peasants the incentive to increase productivity. The First World War and War Communism had led to a 42% decrease in the amount of food produced, by the mid 1920s the NEP got the amount of food produced back up to pre war levels. The NEP does this by allowing profits which gives the productivity motive a sharp recovery in the quantity of food produced.
We also feel that Collectivisation should be level with the famine of 1929/1930. This is because Stalin’s collectivisation policy led to the famine being as awful as it was. Stalin’s smashes the NEP and completely wipes out the richer peasants, a process called de-kulakisation. Stalin exploited the peasants to industrialise and left many starving to death. Therefore Stalin’s collectivisation policy should be on par with the famine as if figures are correct, more people die from his policy than in the First World War (15 million).
I agree with the point that Luke H made, that the Famine of 1929/30 that killed 15 million should be the highest point of suffering for the peasants. This was brought about by a direct cause of Stalin’s Collectivisation Policy and shows the real heartless extent to which Stalin would go to industrialise Russia, by sacrificing the lives of the peasantry and even wiping out an entire class in the Kulaks. The fact that more people died in an agricultural policy than that of the entire number in the First World War shows the real tradegy and extreme suffering of the peasnats during this time. I also feel that the NEP should be lowered, because Lenin should be credited with trying to help the peasantry to develop after the horrific tratemnet they faced during War Communism. After the First World War and War Communism, food productivity had fell by 42%, however by allowing the peasantry to keep their own profits through the Economic Recovery of the NEP in just 5 years food production increased from 47% to 96%, therefore the NEP should be seen as a lot more succesful than this timeline gives there policies credit for. Finally I beleive that the Famine of 1891 should be higher. My reason for this is that it was the first large scale famine within agriculture in Russia, and although arguably it might not be as important because it didnt result in as many deaths as some of the famines to come, it is the first sign of how bad things are becoming within the countryside, and I believe is the start of a domino effect that sees things in the countryside become worse and worse and therefore its is a very significant event and is an extremely high point of suffering for the peasnats.
i feel as the NEP should be the lowest point as i believe it did more to help the peasants comapre to other economic reforms such as those put in place by Stolpin. the NEP encouraged the increase of efficiancy in Russian farming and by the 1920s had taken the levels of grain produced back to those seen in 1913. Although these reforms where put in place by Lenin for Russia and not so much for the peasants they still managed to improve the lives of peasants significantly as they were now allowed to sell their surplus garin for profit which oversaw the emerging of richer peasants known as the Kulaks.
ThE 1929/30 should be much higher because it did bring about the highest number of people dead than any other famine in Russian history. This famine was without doubt the highest levels of suffering ever induared by the Peasants. the main course of this famine was due to Stalin’s collectivisation policy which had in it the policy of grain acquisitioning which meant that even when the peasants experienced bad harvest they starved to death as all the grain was taken in order to feed the cities. Stalin’s need to industrialise Russia just like Lenin’s and Alexander II’s where all met by the exploitation of the peasants.
Personally I feel that the NEP should be lower down on the scale as this policy set a new standard of living that the peasants could aspire to. It was a completely new way if life for the peasants. For the first time peasants were able to make profit from their crops and the economy was finally on the up. I feel that the undoing of the NEP was one of the worst decisions made by Stalin as stopping the NEP once again shut down the policy. I also believe that the famine of 1929/30 should be far higher on the scale. This is some of the most extreme suffering ever known to man. The fact that it was their leader who put them through because of a desire to modernise Russia only makes the case worse. The famine of 1929/1930 should not be overlooked or underestimated.