How accurate is it to describe soviet social policy in the 1930s as a ‘Great Retreat’? Stalin’s early promises compromised of socialism and a life free from exploitation in regards to his social policies. However, he soon realised his error and reverted to a more conservative form of rule, whereby the interest of the state was given priority. Many describe his soviet social policy during the 1930s as a ‘Great Retreat’, it was named this as his policies saw a return to earlier social policies under the Tsar and former leaders. It is debatable as to how far his actions were a retraction of previous decisions…and the areas impacted were women, family, and education. A common theme of the great retreat was the gender role in society. It …show more content…
In simple terms the scheme of work was devised to prepare the future working generations for the FYPs. Much of the changes to education were dependant on this future work and therefore needed a lot of reconstructing. All communist plans were eradicated, however it was partly a retreat yet partly not; as the new aims were working towards the blueprints of the new economic policies- those who had not been implemented before. In conclusion there is clearly evidence of a ‘Great Retreat’ but it is of how much does this evidence account for in comparison to the whole picture. The largest retreats saw were in family life and equally in women’s role in society, there is endless proof of Stalin returning to traditional family values as the sexual freedom era was abolished and marriage symbolising legalised again. Yet retreat was also clear in the women’s role as a differentiation in beliefs was key in the gender roles in society- although they were thought to be moving forward stereotypical household women still existed. It is valid enough to call it a great retreat but there are also many movements’ forwards that weren’t evident prior to the social changes, one for example being women in the workforce. Education also saw a retreat by removing communist plans, yet it was also a move forward as it took into account the FYPs and based the educational aims around them.
To begin with, this book educated the reader about the past. Everyone in the Soviet Union looked up to the leader, Stalin, even though he wasn’t a good leader at all. He caused many problems for the citizens including uncomfortable living conditions. This book educates the reader by showing that back then even when people were treated badly, they still had to look up to their leader even though he was the cause of all
From 1932-1933 the Communist Party thought they were doing good by stealing privately owned farms from families, stripping peasants in the winter, and starving them because they thought Russia should own all property and if it was not given to you by the state you do not get to have it. During Stalin’s time of ruling, he established fear into the Russians, so that they could not think any other way than him, and that they could not have anything of their own. He would execute those who broke his laws or disobeyed him. Lev Kopelev took part in taking from families during this time. He would ignore the screaming children and women because of what he thought he was accomplishing.
The USSR showed great educational progress as it is shown in the statistics , the literacy was twenty-five percent in 1915 and it grew to ninety-nine in 1980. Another example of Russia’s social condition is the massive instability and genocides during 1937 and 1938. In Document C it states “According to declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,366 victims , of whom 681,692 were shot -an average of 1,000 executions a day ( in comparison, the Tsarists executed 3,932 persons for political crimes 1825 to 1910-an average of less than 1 execution per week).” (Document C) it shows how the NKVD, the police force that carried out Stalin’s orders to keep his people from rebelling and having freedom of speech
Stalin’s policy priorities were not building a ‘worker’s paradise’ or a classless society, but protecting Russia from war and invasion. In 1928, Stalin launched the first of two ambitious five-year plans to modernize and industrialize the Soviet economy. These programs brought rapid progress – but also significant death and suffering. Stalin’s decision to nationalize agricultural production dispossessed millions of peasants, forcing them from their land to labor on gigantic state-run collective farms. Grain was sold abroad to finance Soviet industrial projects, leading to food shortages and disastrous famines in the mid-1930s. Soviet Russia was dragged into the 20th century, transforming from a backward agrarian empire into a modern industrial superpower – but this came at extraordinary human cost.
In the book Sofia Petrovna, the author Lydia Chukovskaya writes about Sofia Petrovna and her dreadful experiences as a widowed mother during the Russian Stalinist Terror of the 1930s. There were four basic results of the Russian Stalinist Terror: first, it was a way of keeping people in order; second, it kept Stalin in power and stopped revolutions from forming, made people work harder to increase the output of the economy, and separated families as well as caused deaths of many innocent people due to false charges.
Throughout historical times, the rule of Josef Stalin has been questioned due to his position as being one of the most popular and contentious leaders. Through the evaluation of his ruling within the Soviet Union, he can be seen as both a positive and negative ruler. His methods of changing the country following World War I were sudden, causing a complete change in societal ways of life in controversial ways. While his changes created one of the most powerful countries the world had ever seen at its’ time, they also caused for massive discontent within the citizens of Soviet Russia.
The concept of Stalinism, being the ideologies and policies adopted by Stalin, including centralization, totalitarianism and communism, impacted, to an extent, on the soviet state until 1941. After competing with prominent Bolshevik party members Stalin emerged as the sole leader of the party in 1929. From this moment, Stalinism pervaded every level of society. Despite the hindrance caused by the bureaucracy, the impact of Stalinism was achieved through the implementation of collectivization and the 5-year plans, Stalin’s Political domination and Cultural influence, including the ‘Cult of the Personality’. This therefore depicts the influence of Stalinism over the Soviet State in the period up to 1941.
Both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis shared a fundamental commitment to create a creating a higher human type. However, the ideals and approaches of both regimes towards this mission differed substantially. While the Nazis sought to create a master race above all in European hierarchy, the Bolsheviks sought a system of liberation of their entire race and complete equality. Within both ideologies, the role of women was a hotbed of debate and instigated a period of change. In Germany, women confined to roles that were ‘natural’ or intended by nature, while in Russia, although women ‘received’ previously inaccessible rights and freedoms, it became more of a burden rather than a boon, The creation of “new men and women,” became more about the removal of undesirable classes or nationalities and the integration of the rest of the population with particular characteristics. Women were expected to accept state-propagated guidelines for conduct and appearance, and conform to certain gender roles that were defined by the state. In Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union ideology, the rebirth of the nation, its prosperity and survival depended directly on women’s conformity to the propagated feminine ideal and thus, their participation was severely influenced by the regime’s economic, social and political policies. In this essay, I
The Soviet Union did a few things that are notable of mentioning as positive aspects of the Cold War and of the USSR’s mindset. One example of something positive yielded from
One can easily admit that the Party had failed to properly economically plan the needs of each state. The Soviet Union economy was complex and massive, it became an impossible task for the state planners to manage, as they did not want to grant and create more managerial levels that would proceed to the local level resulting in failed timely attempts to the constant changes the economy was going through. Since the Soviet economy was based on state planning, it failed in encouraging innovation and motivating productivity. Managers would also alter numbers in order to produce the quotas that they were required to meet. The growth of the Soviet economy had been in a constant decline since the 1950’s and this progressed to the 1980’s. This was a clear sign that the Soviet economy was in need of a complete economic overhaul. Gorbachev succeeded power in March, 1985 and became General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. His main goal was to revive the Soviet economy, and he strongly believed that success was tied to loosening the governments control and creating a system that included less government intervention and more freedom to allow private initiatives. This new market economy would allow for private enterprise, which what Gorbachev believed would create more innovation. For the first time since 1920’s, individuals were able to own and create businesses.
"Stalin performed his great turn-about in late 1927 and took over the left analysis" (Pereira, 5). This is interesting because Stalin had been on the
While this may be the case for the more information-limited Soviet historians, the more modern, revisionist historians such as Edward Acton, Robert Service, Harold Shukman and Steven Smith have had great exposure to much of the confidential literature, kept secret by the many Soviet Purges and the prolific ‘Iron Curtain’. In the view of Acton “Russia’s workers were
Joseph Stalin’s three decade long dictatorship rule that ended in 1953, left a lasting, yet damaging imprint on the Soviet Union in political, economic and social terms. “Under his inspiration Russia has modernised her society and educated her masses…Stalin found Russia working with a wooden plough and left her equipped with nuclear power” (Jamieson, 1971). Although his policies of collectivisation and industrialisation placed the nation as a leading superpower on the global stage and significantly ahead of its economic position during the Romanov rule, this was not without huge sacrifices. Devastating living and working standards for the proletariat, widespread famine, the Purges, and labour camps had crippling impacts on Russia’s social
an attempt to address the issues that serfdom created, Russian thinkers desired to avoid doing what their Western counterparts did and radically modernize (Sakwa 1999). Instead, the aim became to utilize the traditions and way of life that have already been established in Russia for decades and centuries and implement them to make the move from feudalism to the institution of socialism (Sakwa 1999). Socialism would blur and erase the socioeconomic divide between classes and help to implement equality in Russia by creating a society that was classless and mostly homogenic in nature (MacKenzie and Curran 2002). This blurring would, in theory, help to ease the economic troubles that kept surfacing while the provisional government attempted to
Joseph Stalin once said during his rule over Russia, “Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed” (“Joseph Stalin Quotes”). In George Orwell’s book, 1984, Orwell mirrors the events of Stalin’s Russia using the government called the Party to show the similarities between the two. In 1984, the Party is in control of everything; just as Stalin’s government was when he was in power. George Orwell demonstrates what was going in Russia in his book through the Party’s glorification of their leader and through the control of education.