How accurate is it to say that industry in the USSR was transformed by the Five-Year Plans
of 1928–50?
Introduction
- transform = achieve goals of the FYPs
- It is inaccurate to say it was fully ‘transformed’ as by being transformed it would have to
address light industry and well as heavy industry. The FYPs, although they grew / restored the
economy after the war and promoted heavy industry, ignored consumer goods and focused
only on heavy industry, which is only one aspect of industry. Therefore only partially
transformed
1st pg - 1st FYP
- did not transform industry as a whole - focused on rapid growth in heavy industry
- Partially transformed it in this respect - eg increased electricity output from 5m kwh to 13.4m
kwh
- Built up industrial centres eg Magnitogorsk which went from a population of 25 to 250,000
workers
- No focus on consumer goods - textile output fell from 97m metres to 93m metres, or on
housing to accomondate workers in these new towns
- Arguably didn’t transform industry at all between 1928-32, as the heavy industry output was
below its output, eg the steel output goal was nearly double the actual produced amount (10.4
and 5.9)
- Therefore, didn’t transform industry at all as didn’t ful l either sides of industry (heavy and light),
however laid the base for the other FYPs
2nd + 3rd FYP
- Partially transformed industry - substantially developed heavy industry and a 17% growth rate
- Exceeded goals for steel by 10 million tons
- 4 fold increase in steel production and 6 fold increase in coal production
- Also completed projects that provide power for growth of industry, eg Dnieper dam project
- 17% growth rate
- Housing industry ignored and shortage of consumer goods made worse by destruction of
cottage industry in rural areas
- There had previously been shortages of consumer goods so rationing, but there were such
severe shortages that the government couldn’t supply the minimum level of rations, eg shoe
and clothes queues in Moscow in the early 1930s often exceeded 1000 people.
- However by the end of the 1930s there was a small improvement in consumer goods which
meant new bakeries, ice-cream and meat-packing facilities. However these didn’t solve the
problem in shortages of important consumer goods
- Therefore only partially transformed as heavy industry transformed but light industry ignored
4th FYP
- light industry further neglected after the war = not transformed
- Soviet economy shattered by war - steel production had fallen to 12 million tonnes in 1945
from 18 million tonnes in 1940, and oil production less then 2/3, wool less then half
- 4 FYP reconstructed heavy industry
- Plan over ful lled targets and by 1950 pre-war production in heavy industry had been exceeded
- Eg produced 166m tons of coal in 1940 and 260m tons in 1950 - due to strong central planning
- Production of consumer goods doubled during the plan = transformed? partially. As only 12%
was put into food production and consumer goods, so although production doubled it was still
scarce.
- Therefore partially transformed, as heavy and consumer industries were addressed, however
the focus was mostly on heavy so not as valid
-
fi fi
, /
INTRO
Criteria: successful - ie did it meet the context of the time, was it successful at that point in time
Overall - they were
PARAGRAPH 1 - industry
Under Lenin - war communism and NEP
War Communism:
- high levels of industrial production of war goods
- food production to feed soldiers, workers + civilians
-, rationing, intense labour discipline (eg working day extended to 11 hours, work made
compulsory for everyone aged 16-50, harsh punishment for slackers) Was partially successful as
it led to its aims (a military victory) - however it led to economic collapse - , industrial production
declined signi cantly (from 3 million in 1917 to 1.2 in 1922), huge black markets (where workers
stole government resources in order to make goods to barter), mass poverty (1921 fuel crisis),
political crisis eg Kronsdast mutiny.
NEP
- needed to revive economy and end War Communism
- money re-introduced, small factories/businesses were denationalised, grain requisitioning
ended
- Was successful as it succeeded its goals of economic stability. However the industrial economy
plateaued + there was no huge industrial growth due to no investment
- Led to industrial growth, however there was a huge gap between farmer’s income and industrial
prices (the ‘scissor crisis’) which convinced some that the NEP wasn’t sustainable. Also led to
inequality + corruption, eg the nepmen, as well as gambling, prostitution + drug dealing)
So overall - industry under Lenin was partially successful, in the sense that each plan achieved
the goals that they were aiming towards, however both plans had negative / unwanted e ects .
PARAGRAPH 2 - industry
The main aims were to industrialise, make the ussr a global superpower and show that
communism worked
Under Stalin - ve year plans (three of them 1928-41)
1st ve year plan = successful as it increased output of heavy industry, transport, labour
productivity and rearmament
Eg 1927-40 coal output increased from 35 million tones to 166 million tonnes
Labour productivity was low, but under the ve year plans there were incentives introduced
(higher payment and a system of rewards) which increased productivity. In electricity productivity
went up by more then 50%
Also helped with rearmament as due to rise of Hitler, economic planners began to prioritise arms
productive. By 1940, 1/3 of government spending was devoted to rearmament, however this was
hindered by shortage of quality materials eg steel
However there were production problems especially with quality (as planners set targets for
production not quality and factory managers were awarded for producing large quantities
regardless of quality),
no co-ordination between factories about what resources should be used for what, which meant
that in some industries as much as 40% of what was produced was wasted,
Plans were very disorganised and undermined by other policies, eg during purges of industrial
managers + economic planners. The Terror attacked those within the Gosplan to such an extent
the 3rd ve-year plan was never nished
Also undermined by unrealistic targets set by Gosplan, meaning that industrial managers would lie
about gures, which made economic planning even harder
not enough consumer goods = poor living standards, scarce supply of consumer goods, poor
housing and living conditions eg most houses built during the plan didn’t have any running water,
as housing hadn’t been able to cope with the increase of industrial workers, and a black market
lled with stolen goods
fi fi fi fi fifi fi fi ff
, Mostly successful- they achieved actual economic growth in theory, despite failing to meet the
targets set (although these were unrealistic) and led to a huge decline in consumer goods and the
output was often of terrible quality, making it counter-productive
PARAGRAPH 3 - agriculture
Under Lenin
War Communism
- Introduced ‘food dictatorship’ - grain requisitioning (enforced by Cheka)
- 1913-20 ; agricultural production fell by 40% by 1920
- low agricultural production due to grain requisitioning and low incentives.
- Mass starvation
NEP
- agricultural production left to the free market - peasant could buy, sell and produce freely
- Grain requisitioning ended
- Free trade encouraged peasants to grow more food
- End of grain requisitioning returned economic stability and was far more popular with the
peasants
However
- there became a huge gap between farmers income and industrial goods (due to cheaper price
of food, farmers couldn’t a ord to buy things and there was no incentive to produce grain), so
the government had to subsidise prices of industrial goods, which meant there was less money
available to improve the economy
Overall: Agriculture under Lenin was relatively successful, this was as it did its job during war
communism (despite causing a famine- which wasn’t really of great importance to the communist
government during the civil war), however under the NEP when the government had to step in to
subsidise agricultural goods, it was a pretty unsuccessful and helped convince members of the
party that the NEP couldn’t be sustained
PARAGRAPH 4 - agriculture
Under Stalin
- Collectivisation - massive failure
- Agricultural production fell in 1926 (done on purpose by farmers to push up their prices). The
party claimed that Kulaks (rich peasants) were putting their pro ts in front of the USSR’s need
to industrialise.
- Sent in red army and Cheka to seize grain, and launched dekulakisation (around 1.5 million sent
to labour camps)
- Forced collectivisation introduced in 1929 - devastated Soviet agriculture
- Peasants responded to this by destroying crops, animals, machinery etc. 60 million sheets and
goats, 17 million horses etc, whilst grain production also decreased due to removal of kulaks
who were the most experienced/successful farmers and absence of incentives
- Famine killed estimated 9 million. Although the government began to seize more grain from
communes than it could under the NEP, grain production was Lower and the human cost was
massive
- Overall: as a whole the economy was crippled. The e ects continued into 1941, even after the
famine the communes were consistently lower and into the war farming couldn’t meet the
needs of the population + the USSR had to import + ration
Conclusion
Although individually, many of the goals were met and the economic policies were successful in
promoting economic development for the government, as their overall aim of becoming a
superpower and industrialising were achieved by 1941, as a whole this was quite unstable and
there was a huge human and long-term cost. So yes it was mostly successful
ff ff fi
of 1928–50?
Introduction
- transform = achieve goals of the FYPs
- It is inaccurate to say it was fully ‘transformed’ as by being transformed it would have to
address light industry and well as heavy industry. The FYPs, although they grew / restored the
economy after the war and promoted heavy industry, ignored consumer goods and focused
only on heavy industry, which is only one aspect of industry. Therefore only partially
transformed
1st pg - 1st FYP
- did not transform industry as a whole - focused on rapid growth in heavy industry
- Partially transformed it in this respect - eg increased electricity output from 5m kwh to 13.4m
kwh
- Built up industrial centres eg Magnitogorsk which went from a population of 25 to 250,000
workers
- No focus on consumer goods - textile output fell from 97m metres to 93m metres, or on
housing to accomondate workers in these new towns
- Arguably didn’t transform industry at all between 1928-32, as the heavy industry output was
below its output, eg the steel output goal was nearly double the actual produced amount (10.4
and 5.9)
- Therefore, didn’t transform industry at all as didn’t ful l either sides of industry (heavy and light),
however laid the base for the other FYPs
2nd + 3rd FYP
- Partially transformed industry - substantially developed heavy industry and a 17% growth rate
- Exceeded goals for steel by 10 million tons
- 4 fold increase in steel production and 6 fold increase in coal production
- Also completed projects that provide power for growth of industry, eg Dnieper dam project
- 17% growth rate
- Housing industry ignored and shortage of consumer goods made worse by destruction of
cottage industry in rural areas
- There had previously been shortages of consumer goods so rationing, but there were such
severe shortages that the government couldn’t supply the minimum level of rations, eg shoe
and clothes queues in Moscow in the early 1930s often exceeded 1000 people.
- However by the end of the 1930s there was a small improvement in consumer goods which
meant new bakeries, ice-cream and meat-packing facilities. However these didn’t solve the
problem in shortages of important consumer goods
- Therefore only partially transformed as heavy industry transformed but light industry ignored
4th FYP
- light industry further neglected after the war = not transformed
- Soviet economy shattered by war - steel production had fallen to 12 million tonnes in 1945
from 18 million tonnes in 1940, and oil production less then 2/3, wool less then half
- 4 FYP reconstructed heavy industry
- Plan over ful lled targets and by 1950 pre-war production in heavy industry had been exceeded
- Eg produced 166m tons of coal in 1940 and 260m tons in 1950 - due to strong central planning
- Production of consumer goods doubled during the plan = transformed? partially. As only 12%
was put into food production and consumer goods, so although production doubled it was still
scarce.
- Therefore partially transformed, as heavy and consumer industries were addressed, however
the focus was mostly on heavy so not as valid
-
fi fi
, /
INTRO
Criteria: successful - ie did it meet the context of the time, was it successful at that point in time
Overall - they were
PARAGRAPH 1 - industry
Under Lenin - war communism and NEP
War Communism:
- high levels of industrial production of war goods
- food production to feed soldiers, workers + civilians
-, rationing, intense labour discipline (eg working day extended to 11 hours, work made
compulsory for everyone aged 16-50, harsh punishment for slackers) Was partially successful as
it led to its aims (a military victory) - however it led to economic collapse - , industrial production
declined signi cantly (from 3 million in 1917 to 1.2 in 1922), huge black markets (where workers
stole government resources in order to make goods to barter), mass poverty (1921 fuel crisis),
political crisis eg Kronsdast mutiny.
NEP
- needed to revive economy and end War Communism
- money re-introduced, small factories/businesses were denationalised, grain requisitioning
ended
- Was successful as it succeeded its goals of economic stability. However the industrial economy
plateaued + there was no huge industrial growth due to no investment
- Led to industrial growth, however there was a huge gap between farmer’s income and industrial
prices (the ‘scissor crisis’) which convinced some that the NEP wasn’t sustainable. Also led to
inequality + corruption, eg the nepmen, as well as gambling, prostitution + drug dealing)
So overall - industry under Lenin was partially successful, in the sense that each plan achieved
the goals that they were aiming towards, however both plans had negative / unwanted e ects .
PARAGRAPH 2 - industry
The main aims were to industrialise, make the ussr a global superpower and show that
communism worked
Under Stalin - ve year plans (three of them 1928-41)
1st ve year plan = successful as it increased output of heavy industry, transport, labour
productivity and rearmament
Eg 1927-40 coal output increased from 35 million tones to 166 million tonnes
Labour productivity was low, but under the ve year plans there were incentives introduced
(higher payment and a system of rewards) which increased productivity. In electricity productivity
went up by more then 50%
Also helped with rearmament as due to rise of Hitler, economic planners began to prioritise arms
productive. By 1940, 1/3 of government spending was devoted to rearmament, however this was
hindered by shortage of quality materials eg steel
However there were production problems especially with quality (as planners set targets for
production not quality and factory managers were awarded for producing large quantities
regardless of quality),
no co-ordination between factories about what resources should be used for what, which meant
that in some industries as much as 40% of what was produced was wasted,
Plans were very disorganised and undermined by other policies, eg during purges of industrial
managers + economic planners. The Terror attacked those within the Gosplan to such an extent
the 3rd ve-year plan was never nished
Also undermined by unrealistic targets set by Gosplan, meaning that industrial managers would lie
about gures, which made economic planning even harder
not enough consumer goods = poor living standards, scarce supply of consumer goods, poor
housing and living conditions eg most houses built during the plan didn’t have any running water,
as housing hadn’t been able to cope with the increase of industrial workers, and a black market
lled with stolen goods
fi fi fi fi fifi fi fi ff
, Mostly successful- they achieved actual economic growth in theory, despite failing to meet the
targets set (although these were unrealistic) and led to a huge decline in consumer goods and the
output was often of terrible quality, making it counter-productive
PARAGRAPH 3 - agriculture
Under Lenin
War Communism
- Introduced ‘food dictatorship’ - grain requisitioning (enforced by Cheka)
- 1913-20 ; agricultural production fell by 40% by 1920
- low agricultural production due to grain requisitioning and low incentives.
- Mass starvation
NEP
- agricultural production left to the free market - peasant could buy, sell and produce freely
- Grain requisitioning ended
- Free trade encouraged peasants to grow more food
- End of grain requisitioning returned economic stability and was far more popular with the
peasants
However
- there became a huge gap between farmers income and industrial goods (due to cheaper price
of food, farmers couldn’t a ord to buy things and there was no incentive to produce grain), so
the government had to subsidise prices of industrial goods, which meant there was less money
available to improve the economy
Overall: Agriculture under Lenin was relatively successful, this was as it did its job during war
communism (despite causing a famine- which wasn’t really of great importance to the communist
government during the civil war), however under the NEP when the government had to step in to
subsidise agricultural goods, it was a pretty unsuccessful and helped convince members of the
party that the NEP couldn’t be sustained
PARAGRAPH 4 - agriculture
Under Stalin
- Collectivisation - massive failure
- Agricultural production fell in 1926 (done on purpose by farmers to push up their prices). The
party claimed that Kulaks (rich peasants) were putting their pro ts in front of the USSR’s need
to industrialise.
- Sent in red army and Cheka to seize grain, and launched dekulakisation (around 1.5 million sent
to labour camps)
- Forced collectivisation introduced in 1929 - devastated Soviet agriculture
- Peasants responded to this by destroying crops, animals, machinery etc. 60 million sheets and
goats, 17 million horses etc, whilst grain production also decreased due to removal of kulaks
who were the most experienced/successful farmers and absence of incentives
- Famine killed estimated 9 million. Although the government began to seize more grain from
communes than it could under the NEP, grain production was Lower and the human cost was
massive
- Overall: as a whole the economy was crippled. The e ects continued into 1941, even after the
famine the communes were consistently lower and into the war farming couldn’t meet the
needs of the population + the USSR had to import + ration
Conclusion
Although individually, many of the goals were met and the economic policies were successful in
promoting economic development for the government, as their overall aim of becoming a
superpower and industrialising were achieved by 1941, as a whole this was quite unstable and
there was a huge human and long-term cost. So yes it was mostly successful
ff ff fi
