1. Was collectivisation necessary for the USSR?

EYA.
Collectivisation was necessary for the USSR. As most farms were small strips of land, it was
impossible to introduce mechanised farming. Collectivisation would join small pieces of land into
larger plots to make it easier to introduce mechanised farming like the use of tractors. In the
long run, improved farming methods would allow output to increase dramatically, which could be
used to sell overseas to buy the machinery needed for industrialisation. Mechanised farming
would also help industrialisation because fewer people were needed to work on farms, hence
allowing more people to be deployed in the town to work for factories and industries. By taking
away farmland from the kulaks and forming state-owned collective farms, the state took control
of the food supply and was able to produce enough food to feed the towns and the Red Army.
The state also built some schools and hospitals for some collectives for the workers. Hence,
collectivisation solved the problem of agriculture being backward and needed to help support
industrialisation, since the USSR was 50 years behind the West and needed an industrialised
economy to support its military against a hostile West. Hence collectivisation was necessary.

Collectivisation was not necessary for the USSR. Forced collectivisation was carried out where
kulaks were forced to give up their land and crops to create collective farms. There was strong
resistance against collectivisation where many kulaks assassinated officials, burnt their crops,
and killed their livestock. This resulted in many kulaks being killed and sent to labour camps.
Many collective farms did not know how to use tractors or refused to use them. Stalin ordered
the slaughtering of 17 million horses to force the farmers to use tractors. However, there were
not enough tractors to replace the killed horses to plough the land and grow crops. Despite food
shortages, grain was still being exported to other countries to sell for funds for industrialisation.
By placing peasants in work communes that had to deliver their harvest according to targets
and report at tractor stations to monitor these co-operatives. Such close supervision helped to
remove any opposition to Stalin but also meant many peasants and farmers lost their freedom.
Hence, collectivisation was not necessary for USSR because it did not benefit the USSR where
places like Ukraine and other parts suffered severe food shortages and famine, resulting in the
death of 13 million peasants. Russians also lost their freedom, Kulaks lost their farms and
suffered in the gulags. Collectivisation brought hardship for the Russian people and only served
to give Stalin dictatorship over USSR, hence it was not necessary for the USSR.
In conclusion, collectivisation was necessary to solve the USSR’s need to industrialise to defend
itself against a hostile West. (Long term/ Short term) Even though food production decreased in
the short run, it would eventually increase in the long run.
Or
In conclusion, collectivisation was not necessary. Collectivisation only caused massive suffering
and loss of lives which cannot be replaced (bigger/smaller impact) only for Stalin’s dictatorship
when in fact Lenin’s New Economic Policy was also capable of increasing food production and
there was no need to change the policy.
2. Was Stalin’s persecution of his political
enemies the most important factor that enabled
him to establish a dictatorship over the Soviet
Union?
Stalin’s persecution of his political enemies was an important factor. Stalin arranged for the
murder of Sergei Kirov who had favoured a relaxation of the 5-year plans. This allowed Stalin to
carry out show trials to purge his opponents, such as leading party members like Zinoviev,
Kamenev by threatening their family members so that they would confess and be executed as
traitors. Stalin was also suspicious of the Red Army because of Trotsky’s strong connection
hence 25000 army officers were purged or sent to labour camps, promoting younger
inexperienced members of the party that was loyal to Stalin. By persecuting his political
enemies, it meant that there was no one to oppose his policies or challenge his leadership,
hence allowing Stalin to establish a dictatorship over the Soviet Union.
(Cannot use labour camps, secret police, or kulaks anymore after this if show trials were chosen
as a given factor because all come under the category of persecution of political enemies.)

Stalin’s constitution was another important factor. The constitution appeared democratic where
all citizens over the age of 18 were allowed to vote for members of the supreme soviet.
However, it had no real power, as Stalin controlled party membership (who they could vote for in
the first place) and decisions were still made by Stalin and his closest supporters. Stalin was
able to use the constitution to ensure he had the allegiance of all political members, either
through gratitude for their posts or fear of getting purged, it meant no one dared to oppose
Stalin’s policies and he had few political enemies, hence establishing a dictatorship.

State control over the economy enabled Stalin to establish a dictatorship. Stalin carried out a
mass industrialisation programme which allowed him to control the people. The five-year plan
grouped people into supervised work intis where they were supervised to ensure that they met
quotas. (Don’t mention kulaks, because similar to eliminating opposition) The use of
propaganda like Stakhanov motivated the soviet people to work hard for rewards like money
and food. Stalin’s control of the economy meant that he could place many soviet people under
his control, they did not dare to oppose him and were motivated to work hard for him. When
they saw his economic achievements in transforming the USSR into an industrial nation, they
would support Stalin's policies and continue to work hard to carry out his policies, hence
allowing him to establish a dictatorship.

In conclusion, Stalin’s persecution of his political enemies was the most important factor,
because he was able to remove opposition to his political party and five-year plans, allowing him
to ensure the constitution and political system could be manipulated in his favour and continue
carrying out this five-year plans. He needed to stay in power in order to implement his economic
policies and control the government.
3. Stalin’s social and economic policies created
a better society in the Soviet Union. HFDYA?
Stalin’s social and economic policies did not create a better society for the Soviet Union. Stalin
launched the Cultural Revolution to attack the intellectuals and artists to move towards a more
proletarian society. Artists, writers, musicians had to please Stalin with their work or else leave
the USSR or face being purged. Stalin’s policy regarding the minority, republics was that even
though they were governed by their own governments and were allowed to use their own
language, their government was appointed and controlled by Moscow. Anyone who wanted
independence was purged in the Great Terror. Stalin’s policy on religion was to close down
churches, Muslim mosques, and schools and ban pilgrimages to Mecca, imprisoning church
leaders. Stalin’s policy on education was to use propaganda to control what the children were
taught. Children were taught that Stalin was ‘the Great Leader’. Large portions of Soviet history
were re-written to boost Stalin’s status and discredit his rivals. He had the Young Pioneers and
youth groups sent out on political campaigns and went on outdoor activities, trained to be loyal.
Stalin’s economic policy on collectivisation sent the Kulaks to labour camps as they confiscated
their land, leading to resistance and burning of crops, hence famine and the death of millions.
Stalin’s social policies restricted the freedom of the people for their religion, freedom of speech
and caused the people to live in fear and terror. His education policy created youths who were
blindly loyal to Stalin. His economic policy caused starvation and deaths. Hence, not creating a
better society.

Stalin’s economic and social policies created a better society. The Soviet constitution
guaranteed equal rights to women. The USSR legalised divorce so women could have more
control over their lives. Stalin’s industrialisation efforts encouraged women to enter the
workforce and become productive members. State-run childcare centers were built to enable
women to work. In education, there was growing literacy. Some collective farms had hospitals
and schools built, providing healthcare and education needs. His economic policies of
industrialisation increased the USSR’s production of industrial goods, transforming USSR from a
backward agricultural nation to a modern industrialised economy able to catch up with the West
and defeat Germany, ensuring USSR’s defense and also enabling pride among the USSR
people. Hence, Stalin’s policies allowed for women's rights, allowed certain standards of living to
be improved, and brought about pride in the nation. Hence, Stalin’s economic and social policies
did create a better society.

In conclusion, Stalin’s economic and social policies did not create a better society. He only
improved some areas like education, housing, and women but he caused the entire USSR
society to live under fear and terror and the sheer number of lives lost in the millions under his
policies show that society was not better but endured hardship and suffering.
4. Stalin’s policies in the 1930s were totally
beneficial to his leadership of the Soviet Union.
HFDYA.
Stalin’s policies were totally beneficial to his leadership. His education policies in controlling
what children were taught such as that Stalin was the Great Leader and where large portions of
Soviet history were re-written to boost Stalin’s status and discredit counter-revelations. Even
photographs removed those who were purged by him. Children were encouraged to join the
Young Pioneers. Teenagers joined the Komsomol which took them to outdoor activities and on
political campaigns to collective farms, teaching them to be loyal to Stalin. Stalin insisted on
technical subjects to help Stalin’s policies of industrialisation. Growing literacy helped to spread
communist propaganda. Stalin’s propaganda aimed to build a personality cult. He held huge
rallies in his honour, promoting Soviet realism, where photographs showed him opening
factories and meeting children. Places were named after him, while he gave himself titles like
‘Father of nations’ and ‘Great Architect of Communism’. His cultural revolution attacked the
intellectuals and religious leaders. His creation of the New Soviet Man and Stakhanovism
created the ideal Soviet citizen proud of being part of the modern industrial society and willing to
serve the state selflessly. Since Stalin’s policies in education, promoting industrialisation, Soviet
realism, the New Soviet man helped to build his own personality cult where Soviet citizens were
blindly loyal to Stalin’s leadership as they were indoctrinated to do so. His education and
propaganda supported his policies of industrialisation which were used to remove the kulaks
who could oppose him, to get rid of his political opponents like Kamenev, Bukharin, and Zinoviev
over disagreements in collectivisation and New Economic policy, hence allowing Stalin to control
the people to believe in his policies, hence beneficial to his leadership.

Stalin’s policies were not totally beneficial to his leadership but also beneficial to the nation. His
5 year plans focused on industrial goods setting quotas, building industrial cities like
Magnitogorsk, and motivating people to work hard for the nation through Stakhonovism. All of
this resulted in an increase in industrial output. There were signs of improved living standards in
education, welfare, and housing for collectivisation, as most farms were small strips of land,
collectivisation joined them into larger plots, introducing mechanised farming which resulted in
higher yield in the long run and revenue to support industrialisation. The Soviet constitution
guaranteed equal rights to women and encouraged women to enter the workforce and become
productive members of the economy. Hence, Stalin’s policies were beneficial in solving the
USSR’s problems of being threatened by a hostile West, building a strong Soviet economy that
was able to defend itself against Germany in the long run. Its social policies also had some
benefits in improving living standards. Hence, Stalin’s policies were not totally beneficial to his
leadership but also to the nation.

In conclusion, Stalin’s policies were totally beneficial to his leadership. Even though his policies
did benefit the country, they did not have a big impact. Living standards eventually fell in the
long run because of the lack of consumer goods. Military leaders that were experienced were
purged by Stalin who promoted inexperienced leaders which almost caused USSR to lose the
war with Germany. Industrialisation was done at the cost of millions of human lives because of
the famines caused by collectivisation. Stalin’s main aim was to consolidate his leadership and
not benefit his nation.
5. Was Stalin’s totalitarian rule over USSR
necessary?
Stalin’s totalitarian rule over USSR was necessary. As most farms were small strips of land, it
was impossible to introduce mechanised farming to increase the yield of the crops to ensure he
had enough to sell for money to industrialize and feed his workers. Hence, in order to combine
land and form state collective farms, Stalin needed to eliminate the kulaks and confiscate their
land, taking control of the USSR’s agriculture. As USSR was 50 years behind the advanced
countries, USSR needed to catch up within 10 years through industrialisation. USSR, which was
threatened by the West, Finland, and Poland who all hated communism, was excluded by the
League of Nations and was the only communist country in the World. Hence in order to increase
oil, iron, and steel production needed to support the military against a hostile world, Stalin
needed to control the economy by imposing quotas and punishments (sending Russians to
labour camps to ensure that Russians) would work hard to increase production of industrial
goods. Since USSR was a communist country, in order to create a socialist state economy
where the state could control the food supply for industrialization and to feed the army, Stalin
had to eliminate the kulaks and take control of their farms. Hence, Stalin’s totalitarian rule solved
the problem of a hostile world against the USSR as USSR was able to defend against Hitler and
benefitted itself since other countries had to respect its quick recovery from the civil war,
allowing the USSR to survive and prosper as the first communist country.

Stalin’s totalitarian rule was not necessary because it affected the future leadership of the
country. Stalin had planned Kirov’s murder to give him an excuse to purge his opponents.
Leading party members such as Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Bukharin were tortured and their
families threatened at show trials. Since Stalin was suspicious of the Red Army because of
Trotsky’s connections, around 25000 army officers were purged, promoting inexperienced
members of the Party to ensure their loyalty. Hence, Stalin’s totalitarian rule in getting rid of his
political opponents created more problems for the country as there was a lack of inexperienced
leadership, especially for a country as big as the USSR. This was evident when USSR nearly
lost to Hitler in WW2. Hence, Stalin’s totalitarian rule was necessary.

Stalin’s totalitarian rule was also not necessary because of the harmful consequences as seen
from the massive loss of lives. People knew they were being watched and judged by Stalin’s
secret police the NKVD, and if anyone stood out against Stalin’s policies, they would be killed or
sent to labour camps where many worked in terrible conditions and 12 million died. The kulaks
who resisted Stalin’s collectivisation often burnt their crops and killed their livestock, leading to
massive famines. Hence, Stalin’s totalitarian rule through fear and terror was not necessary
because of its harmful effects, massive loss of lives was a loss of manpower. Collectivisation
only created more problems with resistance and shortage of food and was not necessary since
Lenin’s New Economy Policy was a possible successful alternative. Hence, Stalin’s totalitarian
rule was not necessary.
In conclusion, Stalin’s totalitarian rule was mainly unnecessary because it would not sustain
itself in the long run. It was needed in the short run to defend itself from other hostile nations,
but in the long run, it would lose the support of its own citizens, as seen from the low standard of
living from the 5-year plans and the resistance from the people culminating at the end of
communism and the unpopularity of communism once the state loosened control under
Gorbachev.