Asses the economic and social costs to the Soviet people of the Great Patriotic War of 1941 to 1945, in the years to Stalin's death in 1953.
Revisionist historians agree that, despite the devastation left in the wake of the Great Patriotic War, it did have a great strengthening effect on the Soviet people, having unified them against a common enemy and brought them together for so long. Although the lives and resources lost to the war effort were significant and almost certainly detrimental to the recovery of the USSR to Stalin's death in 1953, the economic "miracle", as Nove terms is, serves almost completely to nullify this. Social conditions, however, did not undergo the same miraculous recover, with the Cold War and paranoia on Stalin's part causing the grip over the population to tighten and social restrictions to become more all-encompassing than before. Thus, the social costs of the war may outweigh economic recovery, because of their more direct effects on the lives of the Soviet People.
ECONOMY
COSTS
- agriculture - scorches Earth
- industry lost resources in move East
- loss of workers
- focus on arms
- tighter control than ever before
RECOVERY
- "remarkable"
- 1950 statistics up on 1940
- resources and trading partners gained from Eastern Bloc
- quantitative
- industry = :)
- NOVE: "agriculture, in Stalin's final years, was characterised by excessive centralisation of decisions, insufficient investment, extremely low prices and ill-judged intentions"
SOCIAL COSTS
DESPITE UNITY IN WAR EFFORT:
- 20 000 000 people dead
- Zhadnovshchina
- anti-cosmopolitanism
- Soviet nationalism
- loss of individual identity
- orthodox church rejected again
- living conditions still pretty dire
- Cold War isolationism
- LYNCH: "Paranoia had a large part to play in the Soviet politics of the time"
RECOVERY?
- not really...
CONCLUSION
- economic costs were not too terrible and were easily recovered
- social costs were dire and never were solved until Khrushchev's arrival, when they were addressed
- social costs outweigh economic recovery in their effects on the Soviet people
Showing posts with label Stalin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stalin. Show all posts
13 June 2010
7 June 2010
Themes: Social change
I'm not going to look at specific elements within social change independently, but rather have come up with this rather lovely table for you. Click to see it larger :)
Print it and learn it :)
- HistGrrl x
Print it and learn it :)
- HistGrrl x
Themes: Leaderships
The comparison of leaderships makes up a large part of the analysis of political change.
Stalin
- strong, decisive leadership which commanded respect
- ideology
- brutal, dictatorial, paranoid, resistant to change
- rigid control and denial of outside influences
- death toll & purges
- economy strong but extremely rigid and controlled
- no dissent because no dissent tolerated
Khrushchev
- popular, accepting of reform and more humane
- unpredictable, coarse and indecisive
- dismantled Stalinism
- peaceful co-existence
- ignored party responsibility for crimes
- economic failures
Brezhnev
- stable, reliable
- poor judgement, conservative, corrupt
- abuse of system
- cult of personality
- treatment of peasants
- stagnation
- ideology lost meaning
Gorbachev
- more liberal and Western
- recognised need for change
- indecisive, inconsistent, hesitant
- opened society
- more realistic defence and foreign policy
- contribution to break-up
- not an economist
I was going to put pictures of the leaders on this post, but I thought it might scare away my readers. Eeek...
Interesting thought: Russian leaders alternate - bald, had hair, bald, had hair etc
Lenin - bald
Stalin - had hair
Khrushchev - bald
Brezhnev - had hair
Andropov - bald
Chernenko - had hair
Gorbachev - bald
That's... um, interesting, right? And, um, of course, highly significant to their leaderships...
- HistGrrl?
Stalin
- strong, decisive leadership which commanded respect
- ideology
- brutal, dictatorial, paranoid, resistant to change
- rigid control and denial of outside influences
- death toll & purges
- economy strong but extremely rigid and controlled
- no dissent because no dissent tolerated
Khrushchev
- popular, accepting of reform and more humane
- unpredictable, coarse and indecisive
- dismantled Stalinism
- peaceful co-existence
- ignored party responsibility for crimes
- economic failures
Brezhnev
- stable, reliable
- poor judgement, conservative, corrupt
- abuse of system
- cult of personality
- treatment of peasants
- stagnation
- ideology lost meaning
Gorbachev
- more liberal and Western
- recognised need for change
- indecisive, inconsistent, hesitant
- opened society
- more realistic defence and foreign policy
- contribution to break-up
- not an economist
I was going to put pictures of the leaders on this post, but I thought it might scare away my readers. Eeek...
Interesting thought: Russian leaders alternate - bald, had hair, bald, had hair etc
Lenin - bald
Stalin - had hair
Khrushchev - bald
Brezhnev - had hair
Andropov - bald
Chernenko - had hair
Gorbachev - bald
That's... um, interesting, right? And, um, of course, highly significant to their leaderships...
- HistGrrl?
6 June 2010
Themes: Economy
The Soviet Economy is a topic highly likely to come up, and so an understanding of it and themes within it is very important.
I'm going to look at a few key dates in detail to help spot trends.
1941 - how prepared were the USSR for war?
The top line shows 1941 levels of industrial production and the bottom line shows 1942.
- Gosplan, FYPs and collectivisation prepared the USSR for war
- strong armaments industry
- industry in less vulnerable areas
- central planning system well geared towards war
- HOWEVER 1942 statistics show how badly the invasion hit the USSR & how it caused serious damage to industrial infrastructure
- agriculture was similarly hit because of the "scorched Earth" and German advances through Ukraine
1950 - how well had the USSR recovered from war?
Purple bars show 1950 statistics; green show 1950 plan targets; red show 1945 stats; and blue show 1940.
- for the most part, the Soviet economy recovered bizarrely well from the war
- 1940 quotas were always exceeded by 1950 & most of the 1950 plan targets were, too
- quantitative statistics, not qualitative
- propaganda projects
- agricultural production up on 1945, but down on 1940
- scorched Earth damage
- NOVE: "agriculture, in Stalin's final years, was characterised by excessive centralisation of decision, insufficient investment, extremely low prices and ill-judged intentions"
1965 - how successful were Khrushchev's reforms?
Blue shows 1958; red shows 1965 targets; green shows 1965 actual results
- supposed failures not as bad as is often claimed
- agriculture characterised by campaignist schemes
- confusion of bureaucracy and changes to it
- ind/ag wings left added complications
1985 - how far was the economy declining?
The weird cream colour is 1981-85; maroon is 1976-80; and purple is 1971-75
- lack of investment/innovation
- conservatism
- black market
- lack of regard for environmental concerns
- tried to replace Gosplan, but was not successful
- little put into economy = little comes out (ind)
- agriculture received significant investment, which came to nothing
1991 - economy in crisis?
Blue is national income (what people were paid); red is industrial out-put; green is agricultural out-put
- even official Soviet statistics showed significant decline in growth, and even genuine economic decline
- indecision
- Gorbachev was not an economisy
- the party lost economic control
Shocking final statistics to leave you with a true sense of the desperation of the Soviet Economy...
Growth rates 1960-1985
Blue is Soviet statistics; red is American estimates; green is a leading Soviet economist, Kahin.
All show the economy to be declining at unprecedented rates.
Why did the economy decline so drastically, though?
- indecision
- inability to modify the Stalinist system
- vested interests in the bureaucracy
- the extent of the bureaucracy
- falling birth rates and lack of people to work
- lack of environmental concern
- absenteeism and alcoholism
- determination that the system that existed was the right one
- the role of the black market and the mafia
- lack of trading partners, once the Eastern Bloc began to turn away from the USSR
- loss of party control over the economy under Gorbachev
And... that's the economy done.
Questions, as ever, are welcome. I still can't believe I understood and created all those graphs! Statistics used sourced from Laver textbook on the era.
- HistGrrl x
PS - email me if you want full-size copies of the graphs, and I will transfer them over GoogleDocs.
I'm going to look at a few key dates in detail to help spot trends.
1941 - how prepared were the USSR for war?
The top line shows 1941 levels of industrial production and the bottom line shows 1942.
- Gosplan, FYPs and collectivisation prepared the USSR for war
- strong armaments industry
- industry in less vulnerable areas
- central planning system well geared towards war
- HOWEVER 1942 statistics show how badly the invasion hit the USSR & how it caused serious damage to industrial infrastructure
- agriculture was similarly hit because of the "scorched Earth" and German advances through Ukraine
1950 - how well had the USSR recovered from war?
Purple bars show 1950 statistics; green show 1950 plan targets; red show 1945 stats; and blue show 1940.
- for the most part, the Soviet economy recovered bizarrely well from the war
- 1940 quotas were always exceeded by 1950 & most of the 1950 plan targets were, too
- quantitative statistics, not qualitative
- propaganda projects
- agricultural production up on 1945, but down on 1940
- scorched Earth damage
- NOVE: "agriculture, in Stalin's final years, was characterised by excessive centralisation of decision, insufficient investment, extremely low prices and ill-judged intentions"
1965 - how successful were Khrushchev's reforms?
Blue shows 1958; red shows 1965 targets; green shows 1965 actual results
- supposed failures not as bad as is often claimed
- agriculture characterised by campaignist schemes
- confusion of bureaucracy and changes to it
- ind/ag wings left added complications
1985 - how far was the economy declining?
The weird cream colour is 1981-85; maroon is 1976-80; and purple is 1971-75
- lack of investment/innovation
- conservatism
- black market
- lack of regard for environmental concerns
- tried to replace Gosplan, but was not successful
- little put into economy = little comes out (ind)
- agriculture received significant investment, which came to nothing
1991 - economy in crisis?
Blue is national income (what people were paid); red is industrial out-put; green is agricultural out-put
- even official Soviet statistics showed significant decline in growth, and even genuine economic decline
- indecision
- Gorbachev was not an economisy
- the party lost economic control
Shocking final statistics to leave you with a true sense of the desperation of the Soviet Economy...
Growth rates 1960-1985
Blue is Soviet statistics; red is American estimates; green is a leading Soviet economist, Kahin.
All show the economy to be declining at unprecedented rates.
Why did the economy decline so drastically, though?
- indecision
- inability to modify the Stalinist system
- vested interests in the bureaucracy
- the extent of the bureaucracy
- falling birth rates and lack of people to work
- lack of environmental concern
- absenteeism and alcoholism
- determination that the system that existed was the right one
- the role of the black market and the mafia
- lack of trading partners, once the Eastern Bloc began to turn away from the USSR
- loss of party control over the economy under Gorbachev
And... that's the economy done.
Questions, as ever, are welcome. I still can't believe I understood and created all those graphs! Statistics used sourced from Laver textbook on the era.
- HistGrrl x
PS - email me if you want full-size copies of the graphs, and I will transfer them over GoogleDocs.
5 June 2010
Themes: Foreign Policy
When talking about Foreign Policy, you must ALWAYS talk about its significance within the USSR. Talking about it as a stand-alone element is neither relevant to the course, nor analytical. So, how did it affect leaderships and perceptions of leaders? Did it bring opposition or prove weakness?
As this theme is harder to analyse, I'm providing examples of short paragraphs of analysis after the information.
This theme is going to include the war as a separate element to High Stalinism - and I should probably warn you that I'm doing this one off the top of my head...
The Great Patriotic War
- working with the Allies
- suspicion of foreign powers
- against Germany, Norway and Finland
- A-Bomb
- "Soviet Sphere of Influence"
- Potsdam and Yalta conferences - the cause of the Cold War?
- Lend-Lease
The tensions created by the beginning of the cold war lead Stalin's regime to become even more internal and to spend a lot more on military and defence, dramatically effecting the economy. The Atomic Bomb also lead to changes in policy towards scientists and mathematicians, who were given more civil liberties in order to incentivise them.
High Stalinism
- THATCHER: "aggressive foreign policy"
- Aggression over East Berlin
- Defence spending rocketed
- Comecon
- Not involved in diplomacy with the rest of the world
- Seen as trying to "take over the world"
The internal nature of Stalin's regime at this time lead to distaste and bad feeling from the West, making later easing in relations even harder. However, the "percieved menace of the West" left Stalin with a suitable excuse to become more brutal in his internal policy, and lead him to be presented as a stronger leader, something that many historians agree Russians find necessary in their leaders - especially at this time, when memories of the Tsar were still existent.
Khrushchev
- the "thaw"
- U-2 incident
- Berlin Wall
- Start of the Vietnam War in earnest
- Warsaw Pact
- Cuban Missile Crisis
- economic aid to the third world
- alliance with China breaking down
- Sputnik and the space race
- Suez Crisis, 1956
Khrushchev's role in Soviet Foreign Policy is often seen as having been fatal because of the contradictions between the supposed "thaw" of destalinisation and the problems he caused with the West, over instances such as the building of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and Cuban Missile Crisis. The "thaw" made him unpopular in the USSR, and his handling of these major events presented him as weak and aggressive both at home and abroad.
The effects of the Cuban Missile Crisis were especially fatal, given that clauses of the Kennedy/Khrushchev agreement which lead to the removal of US nuclear warheads from Eastern Europe were kept secret on the international stage, making it seem as though he had backed down, and thus presenting him as weak within the USSR. This is commonly seen as having been a major cause of his downfall.
Brezhnev
- SALT
- Détente
- Helsinki
- Moscow Olympics
- Afghanistan
- Brezhnev Doctrine
Laver has argued that "Brezhnev presided over a crucial period of Soviet Foreign Policy", given that his actions provoked distaste and opposition both within the USSR and abroad; although the initial SALT treaties and détente meetings were successful in the West as well as in the USSR, the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 is often seen as having been the breaking point. Causing millions of Soviet deaths, and often being referred to as "Russia's Vietnam", the war was as unpopular at home as it was in the West, where a boycott of the Moscow Olympics was called in protest, demonstrating the regime's unpopularity abroad to dissidents at home, thus exacerbating the problem.
Gorbachev
- popular in the West; seen as an international statesman
- membership of the UN
- ending the cold war?
- talks with Regan and Bush successful
Despite Gorbachev's vast successes in nuclear disarmament and in making the USSR acceptable on the world stage, he is often perceived within the USSR as having cared too much for Western ways of life and for PR as opposed to serious policies. Some argue that, had he spent less time on Foreign Policy, the collapse of the USSR in 1991 could have been averted.
As ever - any questions, just ask! :)
- HistGrrl x
As this theme is harder to analyse, I'm providing examples of short paragraphs of analysis after the information.
This theme is going to include the war as a separate element to High Stalinism - and I should probably warn you that I'm doing this one off the top of my head...
The Great Patriotic War
- working with the Allies
- suspicion of foreign powers
- against Germany, Norway and Finland
- A-Bomb
- "Soviet Sphere of Influence"
- Potsdam and Yalta conferences - the cause of the Cold War?
- Lend-Lease
The tensions created by the beginning of the cold war lead Stalin's regime to become even more internal and to spend a lot more on military and defence, dramatically effecting the economy. The Atomic Bomb also lead to changes in policy towards scientists and mathematicians, who were given more civil liberties in order to incentivise them.
High Stalinism
- THATCHER: "aggressive foreign policy"
- Aggression over East Berlin
- Defence spending rocketed
- Comecon
- Not involved in diplomacy with the rest of the world
- Seen as trying to "take over the world"
The internal nature of Stalin's regime at this time lead to distaste and bad feeling from the West, making later easing in relations even harder. However, the "percieved menace of the West" left Stalin with a suitable excuse to become more brutal in his internal policy, and lead him to be presented as a stronger leader, something that many historians agree Russians find necessary in their leaders - especially at this time, when memories of the Tsar were still existent.
Khrushchev
- the "thaw"
- U-2 incident
- Berlin Wall
- Start of the Vietnam War in earnest
- Warsaw Pact
- Cuban Missile Crisis
- economic aid to the third world
- alliance with China breaking down
- Sputnik and the space race
- Suez Crisis, 1956
Khrushchev's role in Soviet Foreign Policy is often seen as having been fatal because of the contradictions between the supposed "thaw" of destalinisation and the problems he caused with the West, over instances such as the building of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and Cuban Missile Crisis. The "thaw" made him unpopular in the USSR, and his handling of these major events presented him as weak and aggressive both at home and abroad.
The effects of the Cuban Missile Crisis were especially fatal, given that clauses of the Kennedy/Khrushchev agreement which lead to the removal of US nuclear warheads from Eastern Europe were kept secret on the international stage, making it seem as though he had backed down, and thus presenting him as weak within the USSR. This is commonly seen as having been a major cause of his downfall.
Brezhnev
- SALT
- Détente
- Helsinki
- Moscow Olympics
- Afghanistan
- Brezhnev Doctrine
Laver has argued that "Brezhnev presided over a crucial period of Soviet Foreign Policy", given that his actions provoked distaste and opposition both within the USSR and abroad; although the initial SALT treaties and détente meetings were successful in the West as well as in the USSR, the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 is often seen as having been the breaking point. Causing millions of Soviet deaths, and often being referred to as "Russia's Vietnam", the war was as unpopular at home as it was in the West, where a boycott of the Moscow Olympics was called in protest, demonstrating the regime's unpopularity abroad to dissidents at home, thus exacerbating the problem.
Gorbachev
- popular in the West; seen as an international statesman
- membership of the UN
- ending the cold war?
- talks with Regan and Bush successful
Despite Gorbachev's vast successes in nuclear disarmament and in making the USSR acceptable on the world stage, he is often perceived within the USSR as having cared too much for Western ways of life and for PR as opposed to serious policies. Some argue that, had he spent less time on Foreign Policy, the collapse of the USSR in 1991 could have been averted.
As ever - any questions, just ask! :)
- HistGrrl x
Themes: Position of the CPSU
In this post, I'm going to examine the changing position of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) throughout the period 1941-1991. It's vague - but remember, you only have 45 minutes to cover fifty years. You can't go into too much detail and still be analytical!
Remember to differentiate between the PARTY and the GOVERNMENT. At certain points, they were synonymous, but at certain points they were completely different.
The changing role will be judged by leader, and "govt" is short-hand for "government".
Stalin
- dominant
- all-powerful
- congresses rarely met
- economic and social control rigid and complete (Gosplan, Zhadnovshchina etc)
- Govt and party synonymous
Khrushchev
- FILTZER: "It was Khrushchev who placed the party back at the centre of the political stage"
- moves to consolidate his own power gave the party more power
- split into industrial and agricultural wings
- legal reforms meant it had less control over people's lives
- government and party organs became more seperate
Brezhnev
- reversal of Khrushchev's reforms
- Nomenklachura and stability of cadres
- LAVER: "ideology had all but lost its meaning to many within the USSR by 1982"
Andropov
- anti-corruption drive to take power back from the mafia
Gorbachev
- law and party separated
- couldn't hold a state and party position
- membership fell by 3 million in 1990
- removal of incentives
- BRESLAUR: "Gorbachev refused to recognise that Yeltsin and the radicals were the future"
- economic control revoked 1988
- CPSU banned in aftermath of coup
- emergence of other parties
Specialist terminology has been used in this post - if you don't know it, please feel free to ask! :)
And... that's one theme down!
- HistGrrl x
Remember to differentiate between the PARTY and the GOVERNMENT. At certain points, they were synonymous, but at certain points they were completely different.
The changing role will be judged by leader, and "govt" is short-hand for "government".
Stalin
- dominant
- all-powerful
- congresses rarely met
- economic and social control rigid and complete (Gosplan, Zhadnovshchina etc)
- Govt and party synonymous
Khrushchev
- FILTZER: "It was Khrushchev who placed the party back at the centre of the political stage"
- moves to consolidate his own power gave the party more power
- split into industrial and agricultural wings
- legal reforms meant it had less control over people's lives
- government and party organs became more seperate
Brezhnev
- reversal of Khrushchev's reforms
- Nomenklachura and stability of cadres
- LAVER: "ideology had all but lost its meaning to many within the USSR by 1982"
Andropov
- anti-corruption drive to take power back from the mafia
Gorbachev
- law and party separated
- couldn't hold a state and party position
- membership fell by 3 million in 1990
- removal of incentives
- BRESLAUR: "Gorbachev refused to recognise that Yeltsin and the radicals were the future"
- economic control revoked 1988
- CPSU banned in aftermath of coup
- emergence of other parties
Specialist terminology has been used in this post - if you don't know it, please feel free to ask! :)
And... that's one theme down!
- HistGrrl x
4 June 2010
Unit Two - Destalinisation (part two)
Back again with more Destalinisation - having taken a break to watch a lovely film and enjoy the sunshine! Hope you did too xx
Economic reform
MOTIVES
- over-taking the West
- improving major weaknesses in the Soviet system
- didn't want to rest on Stalinist fear
INDUSTRIAL REFORM
- decentralisation
- central planning remained
- 40% more investment in Eastern regions
- more consumer goods
- Gosplan functions divided
AGRICULTURAL REFORM
- Virgin Lands
- taxes on private plots reduced
- collectives merged with state farms
- fixed wages and state benefits for peasants
- city dwellers weren't allowed to keep cattle
INTERPRETATIONS
- LAVER: "Khrushchev's reforms did not really help the economy"
- FILTZER: "Bureaucratic anarchy"
How far did the Khrushchev reforms aid/hinder the economy? To what extent were they responsible for the Brezhnev era's stagnation?
Other Reforms
DESTALINISATION
- the removal of Stalinist excesses from Marxist doctrine
POLITICAL REFORMS
- restructuring and decentralisation
- LAVER: "The party diehards would not easily forgive Khrushchev for placing such obstacles in the path of traditional Soviet communism"
- FILTZER: "It was Khrushchev who placed the party back at the centre of the political stage"
CULTURAL REFORM
- 'reform communism' - move away from Zhadnov-era rigidity
- foreign culture allowed in and foreign visitors encouraged
- political prisoners released (some)
- cultural freedoms returned to writers and artists etc
LEGAL REFORM
- new legal code, Dec 1958
- defendants couldn't be convicted on confession alone
- 'Enemy Of The People' no longer a crime
- Comrade Courts tried minor crimes, but encouraged corruption
- death penalty reinstated, 1961, due to black market
What effect did Khrushchev's social reforms have on his standing within the party?
Limits to destalinisation
- writers could still be classified as dissidents
- Westernised behaviour rejected
- modern art rejected
- many liberal reforms revoked before Khrushchev fell from power
- persecution of radical/religious groups
- party still decided what was allowed
What did this prove about destalinisation?
Foreign relations
- Cuba
- Eastern Bloc; Poland, Hungary, Berlin
- Buffer states remained
- Warsaw Pact
- Khrushchev seen as having weakened the union
What effect did this have on Khrushchev's leadership?
Back soon with the process of ousting Khrushchev - yes, I know, it gets more and more exciting... *rolls eyes*
Have a cuppa. Again. And email a friend. And then come back to this! Fuuuuuun ;)
- HistGrrl x
Economic reform
MOTIVES
- over-taking the West
- improving major weaknesses in the Soviet system
- didn't want to rest on Stalinist fear
INDUSTRIAL REFORM
- decentralisation
- central planning remained
- 40% more investment in Eastern regions
- more consumer goods
- Gosplan functions divided
AGRICULTURAL REFORM
- Virgin Lands
- taxes on private plots reduced
- collectives merged with state farms
- fixed wages and state benefits for peasants
- city dwellers weren't allowed to keep cattle
INTERPRETATIONS
- LAVER: "Khrushchev's reforms did not really help the economy"
- FILTZER: "Bureaucratic anarchy"
How far did the Khrushchev reforms aid/hinder the economy? To what extent were they responsible for the Brezhnev era's stagnation?
Other Reforms
DESTALINISATION
- the removal of Stalinist excesses from Marxist doctrine
POLITICAL REFORMS
- restructuring and decentralisation
- LAVER: "The party diehards would not easily forgive Khrushchev for placing such obstacles in the path of traditional Soviet communism"
- FILTZER: "It was Khrushchev who placed the party back at the centre of the political stage"
CULTURAL REFORM
- 'reform communism' - move away from Zhadnov-era rigidity
- foreign culture allowed in and foreign visitors encouraged
- political prisoners released (some)
- cultural freedoms returned to writers and artists etc
LEGAL REFORM
- new legal code, Dec 1958
- defendants couldn't be convicted on confession alone
- 'Enemy Of The People' no longer a crime
- Comrade Courts tried minor crimes, but encouraged corruption
- death penalty reinstated, 1961, due to black market
What effect did Khrushchev's social reforms have on his standing within the party?
Limits to destalinisation
- writers could still be classified as dissidents
- Westernised behaviour rejected
- modern art rejected
- many liberal reforms revoked before Khrushchev fell from power
- persecution of radical/religious groups
- party still decided what was allowed
What did this prove about destalinisation?
Foreign relations
- Cuba
- Eastern Bloc; Poland, Hungary, Berlin
- Buffer states remained
- Warsaw Pact
- Khrushchev seen as having weakened the union
What effect did this have on Khrushchev's leadership?
Back soon with the process of ousting Khrushchev - yes, I know, it gets more and more exciting... *rolls eyes*
Have a cuppa. Again. And email a friend. And then come back to this! Fuuuuuun ;)
- HistGrrl x
Defining Stalinism
In defining Destalinisation, it's imprtant to define Stalinism.
My favourite definition comes from Thatcher, who defines Stalinism in six crucial elements:
- Dictatorship of one man
- Dominant ideology
- Cult of Personality
- Use of Terror
- Aggressive Foreign Policy
- Command economy
Learn this; any essay on Stalinism will require you to know it!
- HistGrrl x
My favourite definition comes from Thatcher, who defines Stalinism in six crucial elements:
- Dictatorship of one man
- Dominant ideology
- Cult of Personality
- Use of Terror
- Aggressive Foreign Policy
- Command economy
Learn this; any essay on Stalinism will require you to know it!
- HistGrrl x
Unit Two - Destalinisation (part one)
Emergence of new leaders after Stalin's death
A joint leadership existed for a time, but new leaders rapidly fought their corner.
KHRUSHCHEV
- down to Earth
- took initiative
- power-base
- listened to and respected
- visited provinces and met people
- lucky
- crude and unsophisticated
- over estimated himself
- not good at seeing the "bigger picture"
MALENKOV
- educated
- friendly with Stalin
- promised higher living standards
- friendly with Beria
- less concerned with limelight
- hated by some important colleagues
- errors of judgement
BULGANIN
- prominent in party
- lacked political skill
- powerful enemies
BERIA
- hated
- ruthless
Which leader had the better qualities for leadership at this point?
Power struggle
- collective leadership took over after Stalin's death, with Beria and Malenkov in positions of greatest power
- Beria brought down in a coup while in Berlin; lack of power-base made him an easy target and he was arrested and shot in June 1953
- Khrushchev used party roles to seize initiative
- left Khrushchev and Malenkov to secure power
KHRUSHCHEV AND MALENKOV
- Malenkov in state and government administration
- Khrushchev in party and used power-base to ensure party dominated government
- different economic approaches - Khrushchev's was more Stalinist and thus what the party wanted
- Khrushchev more ambitious than Malenkov
- Feb 1955, Malenkov resigns, and Khrushchev establishes dominance
To what extent does Khrushchev's rise to power echo Stalin's?
Secret Speech, 20th Congress of the CPSU, 1956
BACKGROUND
- Khrushchev needed to consolidate his leadership and this was an easy way to do it
- 20th Congress, 1956, closed speech to delegates only
THE SPEECH
- denounced excesses of Stalinism
- Stalin's behaviour declared to be out of touch with Marxism-Leninism
- Limitaions - wrong-doings pre 1934 ignored, focus on Stalin not the party, no suggestion of flaws in the system, not blue-print for the future, accepted 'correctness' of major policies
REACTIONS
- 1/2 1956 CC admitted post 1952; new members admitted to make up for anti-Khrushchev reactions
- LAVER: "The essential features of Stalinism survived intact"
What impact was the Secret Speech to have?
Breaking Destalinisation down to save us all from dying of boredom! Have a break; have a coffee; eat a biscuit and see you soon! :)
- HistGrrl x
A joint leadership existed for a time, but new leaders rapidly fought their corner.
KHRUSHCHEV
- down to Earth
- took initiative
- power-base
- listened to and respected
- visited provinces and met people
- lucky
- crude and unsophisticated
- over estimated himself
- not good at seeing the "bigger picture"
MALENKOV
- educated
- friendly with Stalin
- promised higher living standards
- friendly with Beria
- less concerned with limelight
- hated by some important colleagues
- errors of judgement
BULGANIN
- prominent in party
- lacked political skill
- powerful enemies
BERIA
- hated
- ruthless
Which leader had the better qualities for leadership at this point?
Power struggle
- collective leadership took over after Stalin's death, with Beria and Malenkov in positions of greatest power
- Beria brought down in a coup while in Berlin; lack of power-base made him an easy target and he was arrested and shot in June 1953
- Khrushchev used party roles to seize initiative
- left Khrushchev and Malenkov to secure power
KHRUSHCHEV AND MALENKOV
- Malenkov in state and government administration
- Khrushchev in party and used power-base to ensure party dominated government
- different economic approaches - Khrushchev's was more Stalinist and thus what the party wanted
- Khrushchev more ambitious than Malenkov
- Feb 1955, Malenkov resigns, and Khrushchev establishes dominance
To what extent does Khrushchev's rise to power echo Stalin's?
Secret Speech, 20th Congress of the CPSU, 1956
BACKGROUND
- Khrushchev needed to consolidate his leadership and this was an easy way to do it
- 20th Congress, 1956, closed speech to delegates only
THE SPEECH
- denounced excesses of Stalinism
- Stalin's behaviour declared to be out of touch with Marxism-Leninism
- Limitaions - wrong-doings pre 1934 ignored, focus on Stalin not the party, no suggestion of flaws in the system, not blue-print for the future, accepted 'correctness' of major policies
REACTIONS
- 1/2 1956 CC admitted post 1952; new members admitted to make up for anti-Khrushchev reactions
- LAVER: "The essential features of Stalinism survived intact"
What impact was the Secret Speech to have?
Breaking Destalinisation down to save us all from dying of boredom! Have a break; have a coffee; eat a biscuit and see you soon! :)
- HistGrrl x
Unit One - High Stalinism
Impacts of the war
SOCIAL
- gender imbalance makes role of women more important
- Soviet nationalism
- new terror
- cult of personality built up again
ECONOMIC
- 4th Five Year Plan (FYP) - very effective
- quantitative targets, not qualitative
- labour intensive
- war-time allied aid lost
- industrial production in 1950 almost 70% higher than 1940
- sphere of influence stripped USSR of its assets
- most historians argue the remarkable extent of post-war recovery
- Agriculture absolutely terrible & neglected - inefficient & ill-judged, prices too low, excessive centralisation
- too great a focus on the A-Bomb
- Lynsenkoism held technology back
COLD WAR
- isolationist
- political paranoia
- sphere of influence
- Soviet Nationalism
- anti-'cosmopolitanism'
OTHER
- Stalinism?
- Authoritarianism?
Which were the greatest impacts of the war? Did the war have a positive or negative effect?
Political developments
STALIN'S ROLE
- totality of control debated
- never lost control
- role of paranoia
- role of party decreasing
- most believe his position was firm and absolute
- dealt with colleagues on a one-to-one basis
CULT OF PERSONALITY
- STALIN: "I am clearly Lenin's pupil"
- presented as fatherly
- height of influence was 1949, for his 70th birthday
- Laver suggests he disliked this but recognised its ideological importance
GOVERNMENT
- same basic structure as 1936
- state positions held little meaning and some suggest that everyone was picked for their contrasting views, so that they could never agree on a coup against Stalin
PARTY
- 10% of population were members
- ideological commitment or career advancement
- controlled all areas of Soviet Life
And, those are the important aspects of post-war Stalinism.
As always, if you have a question, ASK! :)
- HistGrrl x
SOCIAL
- gender imbalance makes role of women more important
- Soviet nationalism
- new terror
- cult of personality built up again
ECONOMIC
- 4th Five Year Plan (FYP) - very effective
- quantitative targets, not qualitative
- labour intensive
- war-time allied aid lost
- industrial production in 1950 almost 70% higher than 1940
- sphere of influence stripped USSR of its assets
- most historians argue the remarkable extent of post-war recovery
- Agriculture absolutely terrible & neglected - inefficient & ill-judged, prices too low, excessive centralisation
- too great a focus on the A-Bomb
- Lynsenkoism held technology back
COLD WAR
- isolationist
- political paranoia
- sphere of influence
- Soviet Nationalism
- anti-'cosmopolitanism'
OTHER
- Stalinism?
- Authoritarianism?
Which were the greatest impacts of the war? Did the war have a positive or negative effect?
Political developments
STALIN'S ROLE
- totality of control debated
- never lost control
- role of paranoia
- role of party decreasing
- most believe his position was firm and absolute
- dealt with colleagues on a one-to-one basis
CULT OF PERSONALITY
- STALIN: "I am clearly Lenin's pupil"
- presented as fatherly
- height of influence was 1949, for his 70th birthday
- Laver suggests he disliked this but recognised its ideological importance
GOVERNMENT
- same basic structure as 1936
- state positions held little meaning and some suggest that everyone was picked for their contrasting views, so that they could never agree on a coup against Stalin
PARTY
- 10% of population were members
- ideological commitment or career advancement
- controlled all areas of Soviet Life
And, those are the important aspects of post-war Stalinism.
As always, if you have a question, ASK! :)
- HistGrrl x
Unit One - The Great Patriotic War
The USSR on the eve of war - Strengths and weaknesses
ECONOMY
- good defence economy created by Five Year Plans
- industry to East of Urals - harder to attack
- adaptability to total war
- DAVIES: "The armaments industry of the 1930s was by far the most outstanding success of the Soviet pre-war economy"
- OVERY: "The pre-war experience of economic planning and mobilisation helped the regime run a war economy on an emergency basis"
SOCIAL
- people used to hardship and tight control
MILITARY
- Red Army Purge, 1937
- Stalin only used to "attrition" warfare
What strengths and weaknesses did this leave the USSR with?
Impacts of the invasion
ECONOMIC
- economy fell dramatically, 1941-2
- central planning worked well for a war economy - the USSR was arguably the only true war economy of WW2
- came out stronger
- agriculture decimated by "scorched Earth"
SOCIAL
- 20 million Soviet citizens (inc. military and civilians) killed
- exile of suspect nationalities
- campaign of Russification
POLITICAL
- fuelled by suspicion of outside world
- renewed need for buffer states
- lead to SOME advice being taken
MILITARY
- conscription
- victory
- reliance on the 1941 winter
How big an impact did the invasion really have on the USSR in both the long and short terms?
Stalin's war-time leadership
POSITIVES
- diplomacy before the war, buying time
- centralisation of power, STAVKA
- creation of GKO (State Defence Committee) to by-pass bureaucracy when making important decisions
- personal strengths - commanded respect etc
- allowed Zhukov to help
- learning to take advice
- grasp of strategy
- total war
- Order Number 270, August 1941 (all deserters to be shot and their families to be imprisoned)
NEGATIVES
- failures at the start of the war
- PEARSON: "Stalin's first, most fatal error was not to allow his troops to mobilise in time before impending Nazi disaster"
- to blame for many failures, eg Siege of Leningrad
- military purge
- lack of modern, military knowledge
How significant was Stalin's leadership in the Soviet war victory? (This is a regular exam question, and should not be ignored)
Economy during the war
MAIN POINTS
- total war adaptability
- Lend-Lease
- Movement East
- preparation
- falling productivity at the start
- out-producing Germany
POSITIVES
- large industrial capacity
- quick mobilisation of people to war effort
- relocation of industry
- out-producing Germany
- HARRISON: "If WW2 was a test, then the Soviet Economy passed it"
NEGATIVES
- industry in vulnerable areas
- agriculture. Full stop.
- relocation fraught with problems
- shortage of skilled labour
How great an impact did the economy have on the war-effort as a whole?
Impacts on Soviet Society
PROPAGANDA
- Russification
- Orthodox Church
- hailing old war heroes, eg Peter The Great
- 'Mother Russia'
- anti-German, not anti-Nazi
NATIONALITIES
- tartar exile
- Volga Germans
- 250 000 working on German side
- most fully involved in Soviet War Effort
- LAVER: "Stalin was obsessed with a supposed national threat"
CPSU
- membership rose by 3 million, mostly members of armed forces = total support
WOMEN
- running factories etc in men's absence
- employment rose 47%
- in party, proportion rose to 18.3%
PARTISAN MOVEMENTS
- worked for Russia from behind enemy lines
- attacked German soldiers and destroyed equipment
- often killed for their work
Which social issue was most significant to the war effort as a whole?
Kay Battles of the War
MOSCOW, WINTER 1941-2
- October, push begins
- 600 000 troops killed by Germans
- resistance aided by harshest winter on record
- Hitler refused to allow withdrawl
- Russian counter-attack, Dec 1941, leads to Germany's first defeat of the war
- FERGUSON: "the era of Blitzkrieg was over"
STALINGRAD, 1942-3
- Soviet troops told to "defend at all costs"
- Soviets turned it into a war of attrition
- Soviet operation Uranus, Nov 1942, meant Germans were surrounded by 22 Nov, in the "Kessle"
- Hitler ordered General Paulus to stand firm
- surrender 31 Jan 1942
- DOCKRILL: "the beginning of the end for Germany"
KURSK, JULY-SUGUST 1943
- biggest tank battle in history!!
- NAGORSKI - "the turning point of WW2"
Which are the most significant battles and why? Remember, you'll never be asked about a battle; you'll merely have to refer to its significance in the war as a whole.
And, that's the war over!
Obviosuly, the USSR won - they pushed back to Berlin in May 1945, and Hitler committed suicide, meaning victory in Europe.
If you have any questions or thoughts, or would like information on sources or resources, please don't hesitate to comment!
- HistGrrl x
ECONOMY
- good defence economy created by Five Year Plans
- industry to East of Urals - harder to attack
- adaptability to total war
- DAVIES: "The armaments industry of the 1930s was by far the most outstanding success of the Soviet pre-war economy"
- OVERY: "The pre-war experience of economic planning and mobilisation helped the regime run a war economy on an emergency basis"
SOCIAL
- people used to hardship and tight control
MILITARY
- Red Army Purge, 1937
- Stalin only used to "attrition" warfare
What strengths and weaknesses did this leave the USSR with?
Impacts of the invasion
ECONOMIC
- economy fell dramatically, 1941-2
- central planning worked well for a war economy - the USSR was arguably the only true war economy of WW2
- came out stronger
- agriculture decimated by "scorched Earth"
SOCIAL
- 20 million Soviet citizens (inc. military and civilians) killed
- exile of suspect nationalities
- campaign of Russification
POLITICAL
- fuelled by suspicion of outside world
- renewed need for buffer states
- lead to SOME advice being taken
MILITARY
- conscription
- victory
- reliance on the 1941 winter
How big an impact did the invasion really have on the USSR in both the long and short terms?
Stalin's war-time leadership
POSITIVES
- diplomacy before the war, buying time
- centralisation of power, STAVKA
- creation of GKO (State Defence Committee) to by-pass bureaucracy when making important decisions
- personal strengths - commanded respect etc
- allowed Zhukov to help
- learning to take advice
- grasp of strategy
- total war
- Order Number 270, August 1941 (all deserters to be shot and their families to be imprisoned)
NEGATIVES
- failures at the start of the war
- PEARSON: "Stalin's first, most fatal error was not to allow his troops to mobilise in time before impending Nazi disaster"
- to blame for many failures, eg Siege of Leningrad
- military purge
- lack of modern, military knowledge
How significant was Stalin's leadership in the Soviet war victory? (This is a regular exam question, and should not be ignored)
Economy during the war
MAIN POINTS
- total war adaptability
- Lend-Lease
- Movement East
- preparation
- falling productivity at the start
- out-producing Germany
POSITIVES
- large industrial capacity
- quick mobilisation of people to war effort
- relocation of industry
- out-producing Germany
- HARRISON: "If WW2 was a test, then the Soviet Economy passed it"
NEGATIVES
- industry in vulnerable areas
- agriculture. Full stop.
- relocation fraught with problems
- shortage of skilled labour
How great an impact did the economy have on the war-effort as a whole?
Impacts on Soviet Society
PROPAGANDA
- Russification
- Orthodox Church
- hailing old war heroes, eg Peter The Great
- 'Mother Russia'
- anti-German, not anti-Nazi
NATIONALITIES
- tartar exile
- Volga Germans
- 250 000 working on German side
- most fully involved in Soviet War Effort
- LAVER: "Stalin was obsessed with a supposed national threat"
CPSU
- membership rose by 3 million, mostly members of armed forces = total support
WOMEN
- running factories etc in men's absence
- employment rose 47%
- in party, proportion rose to 18.3%
PARTISAN MOVEMENTS
- worked for Russia from behind enemy lines
- attacked German soldiers and destroyed equipment
- often killed for their work
Which social issue was most significant to the war effort as a whole?
Kay Battles of the War
MOSCOW, WINTER 1941-2
- October, push begins
- 600 000 troops killed by Germans
- resistance aided by harshest winter on record
- Hitler refused to allow withdrawl
- Russian counter-attack, Dec 1941, leads to Germany's first defeat of the war
- FERGUSON: "the era of Blitzkrieg was over"
STALINGRAD, 1942-3
- Soviet troops told to "defend at all costs"
- Soviets turned it into a war of attrition
- Soviet operation Uranus, Nov 1942, meant Germans were surrounded by 22 Nov, in the "Kessle"
- Hitler ordered General Paulus to stand firm
- surrender 31 Jan 1942
- DOCKRILL: "the beginning of the end for Germany"
KURSK, JULY-SUGUST 1943
- biggest tank battle in history!!
- NAGORSKI - "the turning point of WW2"
Which are the most significant battles and why? Remember, you'll never be asked about a battle; you'll merely have to refer to its significance in the war as a whole.
And, that's the war over!
Obviosuly, the USSR won - they pushed back to Berlin in May 1945, and Hitler committed suicide, meaning victory in Europe.
If you have any questions or thoughts, or would like information on sources or resources, please don't hesitate to comment!
- HistGrrl x
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
