How far could the historian make use of Sources 1 and 2 together to
investigate the effectiveness of the Great Leap Forward?
Sources 1 and 2 can be used together to investigate the effectiveness of the
Great Leap Forwards. Effectiveness is determined by the achievement of he
targets set by Mao, and overall growth in both agriculture and industry. Source
1, from a report given by Liu Shaoqi in 1958, suggests that the Great Leap
Forwards was effective and he continues to raise the expectations for the plan.
On the other side is source 2, from an anonymous interview with ‘Liushi’ in
2013, who was a supporter of the CCP and was a party cadre. He says that the
Great Leap Forward was unsuccessful and decreased productivity. While
source 1 is inaccurate, it is useful as it gives us an insight into the mindset of
the people conducting the plan. Source 2 is more accurate than source 1, and
shows the reality of the plan, although both have limitations in their
provenance.
The sources are useful together to show how effective the Great Leap Forward
was. One of the main initiatives in terms of industry in the Great Leap Forward
was the backyard furnaces, which was launched in order to fulfil Mao’s
ambition of overtaking Britain in steel production. Everyone had to construct a
backyard furnace and melt any metal possessions in it. Source 1 discusses this
initiative, saying ‘the output of local industry this year will show a considerable
increase… the rapid growth of local industries is one of the outstanding
features of this year’s industrial achievement’. This source suggests that the
furnaces were successful, but in reality the steel produced was almost entirely
unusable. Source 2 more accurately shows the result of the backyard furnaces,
saying ‘many farmers were sent away to produce iron and steel. There were
hardly any labourers left in the countryside’. A main problem with this initiative
is that it meant that farmers were taken away from their work and had to
devote their time to the upkeep of the furnaces instead, putting a serious
strain on food production. The Great Famine began in 1958, and this was one
of the causes that led into it. However, despite the obvious problems that had
begun to arise in early 1958, people high up in the Party ignored them, as
shown in source 1. Given that rudimentary furnaces cannot produce industrial-
quality steel out of pots and pans, it was always obvious that this initiative
would not be successful. However, in source 1, Liu Shaoqi overlooks this and
sets ambitions that the output of local industry ‘will show a considerable
increase’. Despite the deficiencies in the plan, he continued to set the target
high. This was because of Mao, as it was his plan to create the backyard
investigate the effectiveness of the Great Leap Forward?
Sources 1 and 2 can be used together to investigate the effectiveness of the
Great Leap Forwards. Effectiveness is determined by the achievement of he
targets set by Mao, and overall growth in both agriculture and industry. Source
1, from a report given by Liu Shaoqi in 1958, suggests that the Great Leap
Forwards was effective and he continues to raise the expectations for the plan.
On the other side is source 2, from an anonymous interview with ‘Liushi’ in
2013, who was a supporter of the CCP and was a party cadre. He says that the
Great Leap Forward was unsuccessful and decreased productivity. While
source 1 is inaccurate, it is useful as it gives us an insight into the mindset of
the people conducting the plan. Source 2 is more accurate than source 1, and
shows the reality of the plan, although both have limitations in their
provenance.
The sources are useful together to show how effective the Great Leap Forward
was. One of the main initiatives in terms of industry in the Great Leap Forward
was the backyard furnaces, which was launched in order to fulfil Mao’s
ambition of overtaking Britain in steel production. Everyone had to construct a
backyard furnace and melt any metal possessions in it. Source 1 discusses this
initiative, saying ‘the output of local industry this year will show a considerable
increase… the rapid growth of local industries is one of the outstanding
features of this year’s industrial achievement’. This source suggests that the
furnaces were successful, but in reality the steel produced was almost entirely
unusable. Source 2 more accurately shows the result of the backyard furnaces,
saying ‘many farmers were sent away to produce iron and steel. There were
hardly any labourers left in the countryside’. A main problem with this initiative
is that it meant that farmers were taken away from their work and had to
devote their time to the upkeep of the furnaces instead, putting a serious
strain on food production. The Great Famine began in 1958, and this was one
of the causes that led into it. However, despite the obvious problems that had
begun to arise in early 1958, people high up in the Party ignored them, as
shown in source 1. Given that rudimentary furnaces cannot produce industrial-
quality steel out of pots and pans, it was always obvious that this initiative
would not be successful. However, in source 1, Liu Shaoqi overlooks this and
sets ambitions that the output of local industry ‘will show a considerable
increase’. Despite the deficiencies in the plan, he continued to set the target
high. This was because of Mao, as it was his plan to create the backyard
