The Effects of Collectivization on Soviet Citizens
TITLE
Assess the impact of Collectivization on the people of the Soviet Union.
ESSAY
The impact of collectivization on the people of the Soviet Union was profound and multifaceted, encompassing economic, social, and political dimensions. While collectivization was aimed at modernizing agriculture and providing resources for industrialization, its implementation resulted in significant suffering and upheaval for the peasantry, particularly the wealthier farmers known as Kulaks.
One of the most immediate consequences of collectivization was the brutal treatment of Kulaks, including land seizures, deportations, and executions. This class warfare created a climate of fear and resistance among the peasantry, leading to violent conflicts in many areas. The abrupt transition to collective farming also disrupted agricultural production, leading to decreased productivity and food shortages that persisted for years.
The impact of collectivization was felt most acutely in regions like Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, Volga Region, Kazakhstan, South Urals, and West Siberia. Livestock farming suffered greatly as peasants slaughtered animals rather than surrendering them, resulting in long-term damage to this sector. Moreover, the new collectives often lacked the necessary resources and infrastructure, hindering their effectiveness and contributing to the overall economic dislocation.
While collectivization did contribute to industrial growth in the Soviet Union, the targets set were often unrealistic and the policy led to widespread suffering and hardship. The political implications of collectivization were far-reaching, as dissent was not tolerated in the life-or-death struggle to transform Soviet agriculture. The increased repression and purges that followed can be seen as a consequence of the ruthless control exerted by the party during this period.
In assessing the impact of collectivization, it is important to consider both the short-term damage done to the peasantry and the longer-term benefits in terms of industrial growth and survival in World War II. While collectivization did bring about economic changes and urban growth, these gains came at a tremendous cost in terms of human suffering and political repression. Ultimately, the legacy of collectivization in the Soviet Union is one of complex trade-offs between economic development, social disruption, and political control.
SUBJECT
HISTORY
PAPER
A LEVEL
NOTES
Assess the impact of Collectivization on the people of the Soviet Union.
Collectivization resumed the revolution after the compromise of NEP and was linked to a drive for industrialization and to provide capital for broader economic growth. It was intended to solve problems in grain distributions and also create surpluses for export. Begun on a large scale in 1928 and part of a general five-year plan, it intensified after 1929 and by the mid-1930s 90% of land was in some form of collective, whether a Kolkhoz or a more centrally directed Sovkhoz.
The effects on the mass of peasantry were considerable. Richer peasants or those designated ‘Kulaks’ suffered land seizures, deportations, and 20,000 deaths by execution as class warfare accompanied enforced collectivization. The reaction of peasants to requisitioning and then collectivization brought about a virtual war in many areas. The disruption caused by such a rapid and often inefficient transition reduced production and productivity. Probably productivity did not recover until 1940.
As Kulaks were a small minority, in fact, the definition was widened to include better-off peasants so successful farmers were punished and expropriated, causing hardships in both rural areas and also in urban areas struggling with the disruptive effects of mass industrialization, and there were widespread food shortages. Livestock farming was hit by the peasants slaughtering animals rather than surrendering them, and this sector did not recover until in the 1980s. Richer farming areas such as the Volga suffered most. But the principal burden of the policy fell on Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, Volga Region, and Kazakhstan, the South Urals, and West Siberia.
The new collectives often did not have the necessary equipment, expertise, or transport. The policy was defended as necessary to create an industrial base that would prevent the USSR from becoming an overwhelmingly peasant country unable to defend itself. The targets for industrial growth were too high to be met, but collectivization did allow substantial industrial growth which had a considerable effect on the Soviet people in terms of lifestyle, urban growth, opportunities, and some might argue ultimate survival in the Second World War.
The political results of the struggle for Collectivization might be seen in the greater repression and the Purges. In this life-or-death economic struggle, there had to be no dissent and utter control by the party, which meant a terror and repression of hitherto unknown ferocity and scale. Answers might balance the damage done and the deaths and hardships with longer-term advances and gain and assess the relative importance of economic dislocation with social and political impacts.