Do you think that Stalin had an overall plan for Soviet economic policy?

In regard to Soviet economic policy, I do believe that Stalin had an overall plan. His overall vision was, albeit an audacious agenda, to industrialise Russia at the speed of 100 years but in 10 years. I think the changing priorities are evidence that he had to be pragmatic (just as Lenin had had to be when he switched from War Communism to the NEP) and address problems which occured at the time. The USSR's triumph over Nazism would later be claimed as the ultimate proof of Stalin's planning through his enforced industrialisation programme. I see it as a 'rough and ready system', which did work and by 1941 it had succeeded in creating an industrial base for a powerful arms industry.

The industrial policies Stalin enforced, i.e: the 5 year plans, were his economic models. But I do think it could be interpreted as simply putting one foot in front of the other as he went along rather than having a vision. Yes, Soviet policy did bully and cajole the workers into ever greater productions, but despite the claims from Gosplan etc, planning was not at a national level. The majority of planning actually took place at a local level whereby regional and site managers who were struggling desperately to make sense of instructions they were given from the top, had to formulate schemes to reach their (usually impossible) production quotas. So perhaps his plans for Soviet economic policy could be seen as a far sighted aim  but with no means of how to get there, and so each ammendment of his plans was simply a case of hobbling along and getting by.

I guess in a sense you could argue that his industrial policies do not deserve the title 'plans' at all. Specifically the 1st 5YP, which made no attempts to match raw materials to production, and production to consumption. It's as if the government just demanded production but had no clear idea of how it was to be achieved or what was to be done with the materials produced - this shows the extent they went to, to portray Stalin as a great leader. Quantity took precedence over quality, since many workers were not skilled in the fields they had been forced to work in. Stalin's economy was more like a command economy based on a series of central orders which had little insight into the real everyday lives of the factories, rather than a planned economy. Perhaps this could show Stalin's eagerness to make Russia an industrial giant - again, he had a vision but had no planning of how to reach it. The unrealistic targets Stalin set were yes, impossible to reach, but they were designed to drive people forward to try and achieve the impossible. Could it be argued that the 5YPs were trying to function in an incredibly backwards Russia and the type of command economy which existed with clearly set priorties was well suited to the backwardness of the USSR in the 1930s? Perhaps there was not much planning to reach his vision, but clear priorities were set (yes, without ways to reach them), but it did the set the Soviet industrial force moving did it not?

I don't know, just my opinion! What do you think?

At what point do you think that the Tsar was doomed?

At what stage from WW1 to the Feb 1917 Revolution do you think that the Tsar was doomed to abdicate and therefore spell the end of the Romanov dynasty?

These are my thoughts:
I think the Tsar was doomed to abdicate when he went to frontline, and when he lost the support of the people of Russia.

The Tsarina's interference with the Duma meant that the Russians' concession and representation was further damaged. Those who had wanted to work with the Tsar in the duma began to change their opinions.
The lack of supplies from the lack of organisation meant  there were less supplies for the working class. The working class participated in the 'uncontrollable riots'. These would be the people who later make up the army, but would be disloyal since they resented the Tsar because of their desperate conditions.
The opposition to the Tsarina's influence meant  that this was the foundation of raging opposition which became apparant in the revolution. The Tsar's reputation was damaged beyond repair and te Russians' were now fed up with the principle of autocracy. This is later shown when during the Feb 1917 revolution, their demands turned to overthrowing the Tsar.
Rasputin's influence on Russia meant that those in the Duma didn't represent the true issues faced by Russians. This is because Rasputin ridded of ministers who actually made a difference and replaced them with incompetent ministers who didn't know what they were doing.
The fact that the Tsar went to the frontline meant that he took personal blame for the running of the war and could not blame it on his generals since he was responsible for the conduct of the war now. Several defeats such as Tannenburg and Masurian Lakes and the 1916 Brusilov offence lay the foundations of the soldiers' discontent for the Tsar which went on to result in their disloyalty during the 1917 revolution. 'If the troops turn against the government, then nothing can save the country from a revolutionary upheaval' - he was doomed from the moment the soldiers became discontent.
The fact that the Tsar was blamed meant that the situation was worsening. The Tsar ignored a telegram telling him that Russia was at 'crisis point'. People now wanted rid of the Tsar, since there was an 'absolute necessity of doing away with them.'

The point when the army became disloyal to the Tsar was when some refused to fire on the demonstrators (against the Tsar's orders). I think they did this because they were terrified they were going to be sent to the front line. I also think the Tsar was doomed to abdicate when he tried to suspend the Duma rather than work with it and empower it, but the Duma defied him and stayed intact and in sessions. They formed a committee of all classes/parties which looked to remove the Tsar's influence. The 'Progressive Bloc' had wanted to be fully involved in the war effort to prevent Russia slipping into revolution, and if the Tsar had worked with them, it could have been a chance to show he was workin with the people and to offload the responsibility of war. As usual, the Tsar went about in his own incompetent way and retained the principle of autocracy, which later led to his abdication.

Another question for you - What are the similarities and the differences between the 1905 and 1917 revolution?
Here are a few I came up with:
Similarities:

• Both revolutions were not organised by a political group, they were the culmination of spontaneous crowds from the people of Russia

Differences:

• The army did not remain loyal to him and refused to fire on the crowd in 1917
• There was no alternative to the Tsar in 1905, whereas in 1917 the Bolsheviks offered hope with 'peace, land and bread'
• In 1905, the Russo-Japanese War had ended by the time the revolution began. In 1917, WW1 was still ongoing throughout the revolution
• The aims of 1917 eventually turned to wanting to overthrow the Tsar, whereas in 1905, the people only wanted political reform
• In 1905, the revolution was peaceful. In 1917 the demonstration gathered in momentum and grew violent
• In 1905 the Tsar dissolves the Duma with the powers of the Fundamental Laws, but in 1917 he tried to dissolve the Duma but they defied him

What do you think?

Alternative ways of source evaluation

Just thought I would write up the alternative way of source evaluation which we learnt in lesson:

This applies to the Part A (20 mark) questions.

The mark scheme states that 'the attributes of the source are taken into account in order to establish what weight the content will bear in relation to the question'.
Attributes: nature of source (type), origins (who/when/where), purpose (why), audience (who is it aimed at?)

Introduction
Source 1 gives the impression that.... (continue source referencing)
Either 'it is no surprise/ it is to be expected that Source 1 gives this impression because...' (comment on attributes)
Or 'it is somewhat unexpected that Source 1 gives this impression because...'  (comment on attributes)

Middle (Support/Agree AND Disagree/Challenge - Both are exactly the same)
Write in detail how the other sources SUPPORT Source 1 about the impression of..... (Cross reference)
'The fact that Source 2 supports Source 1 is not surprising... this is because...' (comment on attributes)
The fact that Source 3 also supports Source 1 comes as somewhat a surprise... this is because...' (comment on attributes)

Conclusion
Make a final judgement about whether the sources mainly support/challenge the impression given in Source 1. (For example), Certainly the clearest area of challenge is found in Source 2 where.... However... there are areas where they support....
This overall conclusion is/isn't a surprise based on (attributes)... (for example - very different source types, purposes etc)

As our teacher said, we can get full marks using this way, or if we prefer the other method of doing all the source evaluation in the conclusion, we can also get full marks. Good luck!

Why do you think Gladstone converted to Home Rule in 1886?

Just a short blog to see what you all thought the main reasons behind Gladstone's conversion to Home Rule in 1886 were. Do you think it was driven mainly by political ambition, or perhaps he had a genuine moral conviction, or that there was no alternative and everything else had been tried, or perhaps another reason for his conversion?

Your thoughts on the changing priorities of Stalin's 5 year plans?

There are 3 different 5 Year Plans up until Russia becomes involved in WW2. What are your thoughts on the changing priorities? Do you think the priorities were changed in response to the mood of the times - e.g: the imminent threat of Hitler invading (since he was rearming Germany)? Or do you think Stalin had no clear overall scheme for Soviet economic policy (after abandoning NEP)?

In my opinion, Stalin's aims seem to be quite misinterpreted. I think he did have an overall scheme, which was to industrialise faster than the NEP's 'snail pace', and to do this from100 years into 10. Do you think this would have been impossible and  how close to achieving this do you think he got? I think that the changing priorities were indeed a response to the changing problems that Stalin was facing at the time. For example, the 1st 5YP had an emphasis on heavy industry and infrastructure in order to have the resources available for building, and large scale cities such as Magnitorsk were built. However, one of the priorities of the 2nd 5YP was consumer goods, which were used to motivate the workers and act as an incentive. This shows how the change in priorities was a response to the problems Stalin was facing, since his workers were dissatisfied and many were exiled/shot when unrealistic and constantly revise targets were not reached. In motivating his workers, Stalin hoped for better productivity in order to meet the 2nd 5YP's slightly more realistic targets. Another example would be how in the 3rd 5YP, the priorities changed to military spending, creating a war economy, heavy infrastructure, and rearmanent. This was a response to the threat of war. However, one part of the plan saw internal passports issued to workers, to deal with the 'Quicksand Society' which Stalin described, whereby workers who had become skilled in their trade constantly moved jobs in search for better pay and conditions, creating a flux. By issuing internal passports, this created a stable and steady workforce, because it prohibited the workers from moving jobs, or certainly from moving jobs as easily as they were. These are just a few examples of the changing priorities, but I feel that whilst Stalin did have an overall scheme, which was to industrialise faster than the NEP ever did, whilst asserting his leadership and revolutionising the peasants, all in order to modernise Russia. However, I feel Stalin was stopped short of his aims by the invasion of Germany, whereby Russia was introduced to WW2. So to conclude, Stalin had a clear overall aim, but his position as leader of the Soviet Union meant he had to respond to the mood of the times which he did so with the changing priorities of the 5YP plans (and his other strategies working along side, such as collectivisation). His 5YPs came to an unprecedented end because of WW2.

What do you think? Anything else to add? :)