Homestudy 18th January 2011

Essay Question
Explain how far the views in Source B differ from those in Source A in
relation to the impact of collectivisation. (12 Marks)

Collectivisation transformed the lives of many Russians in the early

1930s, thereby generating mixed opinions about whether the
repercussions were positive or in fact negative. Source A is written by
Robert Thurston in 1996 in Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia 1934-1941. It
is clear that Thurston is an American historian, writing in hindsight of the
events. Although writing in hindsight may allow him to base his writing on
a multitude of sources over time, it may also mean that Thurston cannot
be truly accurate as he is writing purely from secondary information from
a country that he was not even born into. Source B, on the other hand, is
written by historian Dmitri Volkogonov in 1988. Volkogonov was writing
soon after the introduction of the glasnost or ‘openness’ in the USSR, a
time when Russian historians were just beginning to give insights about
their past. This may mean that Volkogonov had a superior and practically
first-hand knowledge of the impact that collectivisation had on the
Russian people, comparatively to Thurston’s.
It is clear that both writers focus on different aspects of
collectivisation altogether. Thurston in source A goes into detail about the
way in which collectivisation effected production and created a slow rise
in “living standards”. He also mentions that “collective farmers had
gained more say over who their chairpersons would be.” It seems that
Thurston is attempting to convey the benefits that collectivisation had for
the peasants, as insignificant as they may seem. On the other hand,
Volkogonov aims to criticise the “recourse to the terror” and the
“tragedy” that it caused on the Russian people. He, unlike Thurston,
mentions Stalin himself and implies that his “Agrarian revolution
condemned Soviet agriculture to decades of stagnation”. This completely
contradicts the way in which Thurston attempts to inform the reader that
collectivisation made improvements within the USSR’s economy.
Volkogonov then proceeds in discussing the “millions of lives” that were
lost as a result of Stalin’s “bloody revolution”. Volkogonov clearly puts the
blame on “dictator” Stalin and believes that it him who should be blamed
for the immense destruction that was caused, with little or no
improvements made in return. This cannot be said for Thurston who does
not mention Stalin, and seems to glaze over the fact that millions of
peasants died or had their lives totally disrupted as a result of the new
Stalinist regime.
Both sources are similar in that they contain very little facts or
statistics and are written as an opinion of the events that occurred. In
source A, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the way that Thurston
writes with a repetition of the word “may”. This suggests to the reader
that he is not adequately informed on the subject and is merely making
assumptions. He diminishes the terror inflicted on the peasants and states
Homestudy 18th January 2011

that higher demands “stirred up some dissatisfaction” as if to imply that

there was little contention. This was not the case as there were numerous
riots and armed resistance from the peasantry, revealing their sheer
hatred for Stalin and collectivisation. He states “improvements hardly
produced a comfortable lifestyle” yet makes no effort to describe the
actual lifestyles of the peasants, particularly the kulaks who either lived in
fear of losing members of their family to a Gulag, or were killed for
resisting collectivisation. It is this ignorant tone that suggests that
Thurston is either inadequately informed of conditions in Russia at the
time, or completely ignorant that so many people lost their lives as a
result of “liquidation of the kulaks.” In source B, Volkogonov clearly
maintains a difference stance towards collectivisation. He boldly states
“The first victim of Stalinism was the peasant” implying that Stalin was a
“villain” in the way he persevered with collectivisation, despite the
extortionate amount of his people who were being killed or held in camps
or collectives against their will. He continues, “Stalin cut the veins of a
vast social group that had greatly benefited from the revolution and could
have made good use of that benefit.” This imagery conveys how he
believes that Stalin brutally destroyed the lives of those who could have in
fact improved agricultural conditions in the USSR and therefore boosted
the economy. It is here that the reader can emphasise with Volkogonovs
emotive language as they realise the way in which Stalin wasted the lives
of many hardworking and talented Russians in vain hope that he would
consequently lead Russia to be a strong, productive and wealthy
Communist State.
In conclusion, I believe that it is the context that each source is
written in that defines the different tones that each writer has when
discussing the impact of collectivisation. The way in which Volkogonov
was much closer to the impact of collectivisation causes him to be
extremely passionate and enraged at Stalin, conveyed by his profuse use
of emotive language. However Thurston in Source A seems to pay less
attention to the misery endured by many Russian people during this time,
and therefore sees collectivisation and its repercussions in a different and
more positive light.