“By 1941, the five year plans had ensured that the USSR was prepared to face the

challenges of
war.” Explain why you agree or disagree with this view. (24 Marks)
Christopher Cooper

I believe that, by 1941, the USSR was not prepared for the challenges it would face during the War.
Stalin had used the five year plans to prepare for the eventuality of war with the Germans –
something which he knew could not be avoided for much longer. The five year plans pushed rapid
industrialisation to the forefront of Communist policy, allowing other areas to decline.

One of the areas allowed to decline was the production of consumer goods. Consumer goods
(clothing, food, etc.) were ignored under the five year plans as the main focus was on pushing
forward heavy industry. As a result, the production of grain was allowed to decline by the value of
almost 1,000,000,000 Roubles (from 4,566,000,000 Roubles at 1926 prices to 3,641,000,000 Roubles
at 1926 prices). The lack of food production led to huge queues for the most basic of supplies in
most of Russia’s cities – even though under the second five year plan there were limited
improvements in Bakeries and Meat Packing plants. Other consumer goods also improved – notably
footwear production – under the second five year plan, however, these improvements were limited.
The production of consumer goods was as vital for the army (who would have taken priority in the
event of war) as it was for the civilians within the USSR, as their morale and capability to push arms
and munitions manufacturing at home would have been as vital to the war effort as the efforts of
the soldiers themselves. As well as this, the USSR had to try and keep civilians happy, as they could
not have withstood a revolution like the one that put them in power in the first place (disgruntled
citizens taking over whilst the army is absent). Moreover, as the USSR was not producing enough
grain to feed its rapidly growing population, it must have relied on imports, which would have been
disrupted by the outbreak of war. Having said that, the retail industry had expanded under the five
year plans, but without anything to sell to the workers or peasants, this was of little use.

Also, with increases in urbanisation, as people moved closer to the factories, came a decrease in
living standards. As people moved into the cities from the countryside, the infrastructures of the
cities they now inhabited became overstretched, with buses and trams packed. The rapid increase in
urbanisation also led to overcrowding and poor sanitation, as evidenced by M Fainsod in ‘Smolensk
under Soviet rule’ – “The workers’ barracks were described as overcrowded, and in a state of
extreme disrepair, with water streaming from the ceiling ‘straight onto the workers’ beds’. Heat was
rarely provided in the barracks; bedding went unchanged; and sanitary work was almost non-
existent” – and, on top of all this, the houses themselves were often underdeveloped and sub
standard. Also, wages were often not paid on time, and all of this, as Fainsod asserted, led to “’fully
justified dissatisfaction’ and bitterness on the part of the workers”. This would have been very
negative for the Soviet Government, as it would have led to popular discontent, and the possibility
of civil disruption, as well as low morale. This would have undermined the Soviet war effort.
Urbanisation would have also, however, benefitted the Soviet war effort, mainly due to the new
base of workers available to the inner city factories – especially important in heavy industry, which is
a vital area for development in war of munitions and tanks and the such like.

This increase in the efficiency of the heavy industry sector would have benefitted the Soviet war
economy. Production of coal and steel increased – in the case of coal, from 35 million tons in 1927 to
150 million tons in 1940, and in the case of steel, from 3 million tons in 1927 to 18 million tons in
1940 – allowing for more munitions to be produced. Also, the increased production of tractors and
Lorries would have benefitted the war economy, as the lorries would have gone some way to solving
the logistical nightmare of waging total war, by moving munitions to the front. An increase in the
production of tractors would have, in the long term, affected farming practices, increasing the grain
output. In addition to this, the sort of manufacturing processes in vehicle production would be
similar to the production of, say, tanks. These factories could be easily turned to war work.

The Soviets had a very sophisticated base for the production of propaganda. Propaganda is a useful
tool in war as it increases the morale of society, and increases awareness of important issues. Pre-
war propaganda painted the USSR as a an attractive and efficient country abroad – really as one of
the good guys – something very conducive to making alliances, even despite the distrust of
communism in most of the western world. They also improved relations between the government
and the people, by telling the people (using the words of historian Sean Lang) “Russia can build its
industrial base and create a fairer, more equitable society at the same time”. In addition to this, the
easy to understand posters showed workers the examples of model workers whose production
output (often doctored to increase impact) outstripped the others, thereby improving work ethics
throughout Russia. These exemplar workers would be used to great effect in wartime, and would be
promoted (along with military personnel) as the heroes of communism. Part of the propaganda
machine involved the censorship of foreign media, allowing the government to dictate to the people
a view of the war, and allowing them to present a positive image to quieten discontent and
disillusionment among the public – even if the war wasn’t going well.

To conclude, despite successes in heavy industry, and a complex and sophisticated propaganda
machine, the Soviet economy and people were not adequately prepared for the challenges of war.
The focus on heavy industry had starved the civilians of vital resources, so led to low morale and a
dependence on foreign trade that could not be sustained in war. The army would have also
requisitioned these consumer goods, and therefore undermined the relationship between the
military, government and public. Of course, the decrease in living standards (partially as a result of
the lack of consumer goods and food, but also due to the government’s industrialisation plans)
would have undermined these relationships further, and put the entire nation on a poor footing for
war conditions.