Marcin Świtalski

Mr. Andrzej Michalczyk

History, IB 2b

17.12.2010.

“To what extent do you agree that the Stalinist Great Turn transformed Russia into modern state
up till 1941? “

Great Turn describes the radical change of Russia’s domestic policies that consisted of
abandoning The New Economic Policy (NEP) and moving into rapid Industrialization and
Collectivization. It’s often considered as the “Revolution from Above” and was seen by Stalin as a way
of increasing the level of Russian development and as a result its position in the world arena. To
achieve this three 5-Year Plans were introduced between years 1928-1941 for attempt to
industrialize Russia. In addition the Great Turn consisted of Collectivization that focused mainly on
the rural areas. These two elements by some may be seen as a leap forward into a modern state but
for others as a brutal act of terror. Both elements of the Great Turn so Collectivization and
Industrialization had some positive and negative consequences.

The Stalin’s Five Year Plans have achieved notable successes in Russian industry. These plans
encouraged very quick and rapid development of Russian industry for raising the output of produced
goods. This would help the economy by earning capitol for development. The successes of these
programmes may be categorized in tow spheres: Industrial and economic.

The Five Year Plans have succeeded in increasing the industrial output. This can be shown by
statistics and values. For instance between the years 1928 to 1940 the coal and electricity production
in Russia increased by four times and steel by six times. The oil production doubled in these years
however it already put Russia as the leader in that sphere of export. These increases in productions
have resulted in the Gross National Product being higher by three times in the periods of the Five
Year Plans. This was a great achievement as most of the Western countries were still having
difficulties with recovering from the Great Depression. These statistics have put Russia in terms of
industrial output as the leading one, only behind USA. The amount of production of Russian industry
is clearly an evidence of success of the Five Year Plans being the elements of the Great Turn
introduced by Stalin. Another sphere in which the Five Year Plans might be seen as successful is the
social element of Russia. In the euphoria of rapid industrialization many prestigious projects were
built like Moscow Metro or Dnieper Dam in addition to 8 000 new industrial facilities. The scale of
this gave Russia not only prestige on the world arena but also gave workplaces to many people and
gave Russia a chance to create and industrial society that Stalin so desperately desired. From 26
million urban dwellers in 1926 56 million were living in the cities at the end of 1939. This increase
gave Russia the work force and followed the Marx concept of society of workers. In addition to this
the Bolshevik Party under the pressure of need of educated work force when facing Great Turn have
succeeded in increasing the literacy rate from 51% to 81%. This was a result of many libraries and
schools built in Russia at that time.
On the other hand the Five Year Plans could be seen as failure in the aspect of quality of goods, the
uselessness of many expensive projects and dominance of heavy industry in the society. The output
of industry surely did increase significantly however it did not mean that the quality also improved.
The durability of many Russian products was really short. It proved the focus of Bolshevik
Government on the amount not the quality that could result from the inexperienced workers. Many
evidence can be found for the prestigious projects being totally useless and ineffective. Good
example of that is the Belomor Canal which was too shallow for war ships. This shows that Stalin
aimed in showing the greatness and strength of Russia without necessarily practicality of such
project. Also the Five Year Plans could be seen as failures as the industry was mainly dominated by
heavy industry. In comparison to western countries where the types of industries were balanced,
Russia stayed behind.

Collectivization is another element of Russian Great Turn introduced by Stalin. It may contain
both positive and negative impacts on that countries society. It led to a massive increase in the
urban population. This gave Russia workforce for the later Five Year Plans. Also it to some extent
succeeded in delivering food for the urban dwellers, however with the cost of the rural areas. This
‘squeeze the peasants’ tactic allowed not only for feeding workers but also exporting grain abroad
that allowed Russia to gain capitol for industrialization and keeping up with the Western powers.

On the other hand the collectivization process as the element of the Great Turn had some negative
impacts on Russian society. It have caused the production of grain in general to increase only in very
small amount. This could be explained by lack of motivation for the peasants to work on collective
farms. Also the famine caused by forced taking of the grain cause over 5 million deaths and loss of
massive proportion of live stock. The scale of these horrible consequences have been an evidence of
the negative impact of collectivization on Russian society.

In conclusion the Great Turn might have only caused Russia to transform into the modern
state up till 1941 only in few aspects. Industrialization consisting of Five Year Plans gave a great
increase in the industrial value and prestige of Russia on the world arena. Also it created many job
places and increased the literacy rate in Russia. However on the other hand it resulted in poor quality
of goods produced and the dominance of heavy industry as the only mean of export to other
countries. The Collectivization process as the other element of the Great Turn gave Russia food for
export and workers living in the urban areas but on the other hand it caused the Great Famine, loss
of livestock and no real increase in efficiency of farming. All together the Great Turn succeeded only
in transforming Russia into a modern state only in the sphere of development of heavy industry
however in the social aspect it was a total disaster.