Economic problems in the USSR after the Second World War ...
“Neither Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev successfully dealt with fundamental financial problems which will increasingly dogged the USSR after the Second World War” How far do you really agree with this kind of statement?
After the war, the USSR was destroyed both equally physically and economically. The challenge for Stalin therefore was going to attempt to restore the USSR, particularly focusing on industry plus the economy in order to ensure that Russia would continue to be a world superpower. By the end of Brezhnev’s era however , the situation was very different.
Only $13.90 / page
The country experienced undergone an interval of stagnation whereby our economy had did not improve and grow above his period in electrical power. This was due to his lack of willingness to implement fresh policies in preference of the “period of stability”. I recommend that even though Brezhnev obtained very little, adjustments were executed under the two Stalin and Khrushchev. Nevertheless , these adjustments were generally not always excessively successful.
Stalin did attempt to address the economic damage that the battle had caused and therefore make an effort to rebuild the economy. One way in which he did this was to alter the systems in place previously in order to handle the new problems faced. For example , he addressed the developing complexity of the economy by creating more economic ministries.
Further than this kind of at the end of 1947, he adapted Gosplan in order to make this more focused around the economy and for that reason limited the state of hawaii Planning Commission payment to only planning (therefore transferring its earlier responsibilities to prepare the necessary supplies elsewhere). This individual also adapted where expenditure was given away to following your war such as early expense after the battle went to parts which was occupied by Germans (for example, Donets Region). Stalin also developed new policies in order to boost the economy and increase development, in the form of the fourth year plan.
This was effective in the way which it effectively developed large amounts of raw materials just like coal (149 million tons in 1945 to 261 mil tons in 1950) and oil (19 million tons in 1945 to 40 mil tons in 1950). He used shorter term targets for individual enterprises in order to meet. P Kenez said “even if we think about the exaggerations built into soviet statistics, it is still undeniable that the Stalinist methods performed, and that the rate of renovation was impressive”.
Overall the USSR were able to produce a 73% increase around the production of 1940 which shows its extensive success and therefore disagrees with the affirmation that like a leader he failed to addresses the financial problems confronted. Although it may be suggested that Khrushchev experienced less of challenge than Stalin, he still released new economical policies which usually had large spreading effects. An example of this really is introducing the minimum income in 1956 which assured the workers an increased standard of living and prevented fermage.
Foreign control hugely elevated under Khrushchev due to his extended relationship with the west. Two thirds of the foreign control was with Comecon countries in Eastern Europe that has been also good for communist relationships. Unlike under Stalin, Khrushchev successfully tackled the poor living standards and increased these kinds of considerably.
Whilst they were still backwards in comparison to other western countries, for example in 1964, only 5 in you, 000 residents owned a vehicle; his plans combined with the recovery of the USSR since 1945 did indicate improvements were made. Working conditions also increased with shorter working hours, more holiday seasons, better retirement benefits and other cultural benefits. Khrushchev is often blamed for his failings in agriculture (as addressed below) but Steve Keep suggests that he for least “kept peasant affairs at the hub of interest for a whole decade. Zero other leader had ever before done so, or would perform so”.
This really is evidence that Khrushchev do address some of the problems that the USSR were facing during the time. Filtzer as well stated that that these reforms were based within the assumption that agriculture will receive much more resources than he would get due to them being diverted to other areas of the overall economy. Arguably then simply Khrushchev did attempt to talk about these issues. Brezhnev’s time in electric power is often identified as an “economic stagnation” due to the failure in economic development at this time.
However , he did introduce a small number of new policies which will had evenly limited successes. He effectively addressed that Khrushchev’s harmful agricultural plans should be turned, for example in September 65 Khrushchev’s sovnarkhoz reforms of 1957 had been ended. He did successfully increase foreign trade nevertheless, for example transferring oil and gold all-natural resources coming from Siberia plus the period of dï¿½tente led to the high priority of american technologies getting imported.
Although the Stalinist monetary reforms effectively improved outcome there are also criticisms that can be increased as facts that Stalin failed to address the economic problems. The fourth year plan is falsely accused to have recently been inflexible as it focused on weighty industry instead of light buyer goods. These materials were what the country genuinely needed following it had been damaged by the battle but rather industry was based on federal government priorities. Further than this, the emphasis was put on amount rather than quality and therefore most of the goods produced were not from the highest quality.
For instance , in order for factory workers to achieve their targets, they will produce more pairs of shoes of modest amounts as it was quicker and had smaller production costs. Stalin also presented a money reform which was generally unsuccessful. It made life challenging for the workers as it decreased how much money is at circulation and thus consumer items such as clothing and shoes were possibly scarcer than during the war. Due to the change the dark-colored market started to be more energetic which elevated corruption and crime.
Additionally it is suggested that Stalin’s economical policy was less successful towards the end of his time in power. The sixth five season plan should have begun in 1951, but it was not drafted and approved till October 1952. Perhaps Stalin’s significant failing within financial policy was at agriculture. Despite the huge being interrupted of the conflict in development, Stalin did not focus on this policy area.
Instead the peasants had been treated terribly and the sum of express procured wheat increased to 60-70% from the harvested grain produced. Investment into farming also failed to be resolved. These problems lead to meals shortages which usually further increased the problems of the black markets.
Alex Nove suggests that Stalin’s final years were “ill judged surgery of authority, excessive centralisation of decisions, not enough investment and lack of enough incentives”. Khrushchev introduced brand new reforms to try and improve sector which were pretty unsuccessful. The Sovnarkhoz reforms ended up causing another coating of bureaucracy and just formed an alternative competition (between areas rather that industry). The black marketplace also grew under Khrushchev as it intervened to satisfy repressed demand.
Probably Khrushchev’s biggest failures had been within agriculture however. This individual insisted after forming his own plans without any experts advice and then pushed them through paperwork rather than trialling them out to see if they can be successful. An obvious example of this is actually the Virgin Countries Campaign whereby land that was not well suited for crop progress was used for extra agricultural land. Although it did enjoy primary success the weather conditions quickly destroyed virtually any crops that had produced and the marketing campaign had to be deserted. Many of Khrushchev’s failures are attributed to him personally, particularly the lack of powerful planning from the reforms and the confusion which in turn sometimes arose.
Therefore they can be partly personally blamed for the failures to cope with the economical problems confronted by the USSR. The failures seen within just Brezhnev’s period are not so much destructive but instead a period of stagnation whereby the economy failed to improve. Evidence of this is present in the NMP (net material product) fell from 10.
2% in 1950 to 3. 6% inside the 1980s. It has been suggested the leadership didn’t have an appropriate view of economic efficiency as they weren’t educated well at economics and GOSPLAN was inefficient for reporting studies. An example is among the “top” producing factories would not in fact are present when GOSPLAN attempted to give them an award for production. In fact the “factory” was run on the black marketplace.
Brezhnev’s defence costs also affected our economy adversely. By simply 1980 the USSR was spending more on defence than the USA even though their economy was about one third with the size! Most likely his greatest failure was not to address the problems with the centralised planning system where many of the economic complications initially sprung from. Underneath Stalin this was successful although by this time our economy had become far too complex to become centralised.
Market also did not modernise. For example , using the plan of “storming” was used whereby old gear was work non-stop before the end of the plan which will damaged products and thrown away resources. Thompson suggests that “in structural terms, soviet organizers by 80 had debatably created the world’s largest and the most advanced nineteenth-century economy”. To conclude, the degree to the market leaders successfully dealt with the economic problems in Russia was variable under the different personas. Stalin debatably faced the most important challenge and due to the fact he did have the ability to increase production to these kinds of a large extent suggests having been the most successful.
Although Khrushchev did not solve all of the complications faced, and his agricultural plans caused even more harm than good, he did make an attempt to address the down sides that the USSR were facing. On the other hand, Brezhnev’s rule did not show any improvement, and further than this he did not show virtually any attempts to enhance the problems. For that reason Brezhnev can be suggested to be the least successful.