Russia economy and society practice essay 3
How far do you agree that the credit for industrialising Russia between 1855-1964 can only be given
to Stalin?
While it is true that Stalin expanded Russia’s industry more than any other ruler in the
period between 1855-1964, it would be a mistake to argue that only he is worthy of credit for
industrialising the nation. To a great extent, Stalin’s industrial achievements were facilitated by the
tsars in the first place, who certainly made more significant attempts to expand Russia’s industry
than the other communist rulers, Lenin and Khrushchev.
The view that Stalin deserves great credit for industrialising Russia is clearly supported by his
‘Great Turn’ in terms of his approach to industrialising Russia; he launched a war against the nation’s
tsarist past and focused all resources into heavy industry, with the worker at the centre of society.
His initiation of the Five Year Plans was a revolutionary idea in the sense that the state took direct
control of industrialisation for the first time in the period. Stalin set strict targets and was extremely
repressive in his attempt to ensure that targets were met, although effective when we consider how
quickly this changed the nature of industry in Russia. Indeed, the first Five Year Plan saw remarkable
increases in heavy industrial output, with coal production rising from 35 million tonnes in 1928 to
166 million in 1940. With the second Five Year Plan, the electricity industry took off, increasing from
5 million kilowatt-hours in 1928 to 48.3 million in 1940. Clearly, these were significant attempts at
industrialisation, the success of which is evident by the victory of the USSR in the Second World War
and the ability of the economy to withstand a war with a Great Power, which was not possible in the
First World War under Nicholas II. To a great extent, Stalin’s industrialisation programmes laid the
foundations for the USSR to become a global superpower after the Second World War and for its
impressive expansion into eastern Europe when the opportunity arose. The entire society and
landscape of Russia was revolutionised by Stalin’s industrial reforms, as centres of heavy industry
such as Magnitogorsk emerged in the Urals. It is certainly a viable interpretation that such changes
constituted a complete overthrow of the agrarian economy which had dominated the period prior to
Stalin’s rule. If so, then considerable credit should be given to Stalin for industrialising Russia,
although he was not solely responsible for doing so. In many ways, the success of Stalin’s
industrialisation programmes is undermined by his use of repression to achieve his aims, as many
production managers committed suicide in fear of not meeting the targets set. The reality was that
the targets were too high and the achievements of the plans were exaggerated for the sake of a
propaganda victory in projecting an image of the USSR as a workers’ haven. Goods tended to be
shoddy and working conditions were often dangerous. Clearly Russia was still far behind the West in
its industrial capacity and lacked the credentials of an advanced economy.
Nevertheless, viewed relative to other rulers, Stalin’s achievements were far superior. After
a period of passivity towards industrial reform under the Provisional Government at a time when
change was crucial, Lenin did little to bring relief to the workers by industrialising the nation. Despite
the establishing the world’s first communist state, the Civil War led to a decrease in coal production
to just 8.9 million tons, which was massively under the 166 million tons produced in 1940. Lenin
lacked the ability to make industrialisation work under the communist system, with the replacement
of War Communism by the New Economic Policy acting as an indication of his failure to industrialise
Russia. Although the NEP did result in a period of steady growth, it was far behind that achieved in
How far do you agree that the credit for industrialising Russia between 1855-1964 can only be given
to Stalin?
While it is true that Stalin expanded Russia’s industry more than any other ruler in the
period between 1855-1964, it would be a mistake to argue that only he is worthy of credit for
industrialising the nation. To a great extent, Stalin’s industrial achievements were facilitated by the
tsars in the first place, who certainly made more significant attempts to expand Russia’s industry
than the other communist rulers, Lenin and Khrushchev.
The view that Stalin deserves great credit for industrialising Russia is clearly supported by his
‘Great Turn’ in terms of his approach to industrialising Russia; he launched a war against the nation’s
tsarist past and focused all resources into heavy industry, with the worker at the centre of society.
His initiation of the Five Year Plans was a revolutionary idea in the sense that the state took direct
control of industrialisation for the first time in the period. Stalin set strict targets and was extremely
repressive in his attempt to ensure that targets were met, although effective when we consider how
quickly this changed the nature of industry in Russia. Indeed, the first Five Year Plan saw remarkable
increases in heavy industrial output, with coal production rising from 35 million tonnes in 1928 to
166 million in 1940. With the second Five Year Plan, the electricity industry took off, increasing from
5 million kilowatt-hours in 1928 to 48.3 million in 1940. Clearly, these were significant attempts at
industrialisation, the success of which is evident by the victory of the USSR in the Second World War
and the ability of the economy to withstand a war with a Great Power, which was not possible in the
First World War under Nicholas II. To a great extent, Stalin’s industrialisation programmes laid the
foundations for the USSR to become a global superpower after the Second World War and for its
impressive expansion into eastern Europe when the opportunity arose. The entire society and
landscape of Russia was revolutionised by Stalin’s industrial reforms, as centres of heavy industry
such as Magnitogorsk emerged in the Urals. It is certainly a viable interpretation that such changes
constituted a complete overthrow of the agrarian economy which had dominated the period prior to
Stalin’s rule. If so, then considerable credit should be given to Stalin for industrialising Russia,
although he was not solely responsible for doing so. In many ways, the success of Stalin’s
industrialisation programmes is undermined by his use of repression to achieve his aims, as many
production managers committed suicide in fear of not meeting the targets set. The reality was that
the targets were too high and the achievements of the plans were exaggerated for the sake of a
propaganda victory in projecting an image of the USSR as a workers’ haven. Goods tended to be
shoddy and working conditions were often dangerous. Clearly Russia was still far behind the West in
its industrial capacity and lacked the credentials of an advanced economy.
Nevertheless, viewed relative to other rulers, Stalin’s achievements were far superior. After
a period of passivity towards industrial reform under the Provisional Government at a time when
change was crucial, Lenin did little to bring relief to the workers by industrialising the nation. Despite
the establishing the world’s first communist state, the Civil War led to a decrease in coal production
to just 8.9 million tons, which was massively under the 166 million tons produced in 1940. Lenin
lacked the ability to make industrialisation work under the communist system, with the replacement
of War Communism by the New Economic Policy acting as an indication of his failure to industrialise
Russia. Although the NEP did result in a period of steady growth, it was far behind that achieved in
