Molly Morris
22.03.2013

‘How successful were the Five – Year plans in transforming Russian Industry in the years up to 1941? (June 2010)

There is no doubt that to some extent, Stalin’s industrialisation process was a success in industrialising Russia as not only did he make use of Russia’s resources and invested them into beneficial industries, such as the massive hydroelectric Dnieprostroi Dam built to generate electricity on the river Dnieper, he also developed heavy industries such as coal, iron, steel and oil in order to increase output, which in turn increased foreign trade and international relations and led to the result of Russia becoming one of the leading industrial powers of Europe, highlighting that the five year plans were successful in industrialising Russia. However, it could be argued that the rushed procedure and ridiculously high targets set by the USSR can also allow the argument that although Russia did industrialise at a fast pace which benefited Russia’s industry, The unrealistic targets that were set meant that managers were more concerned about the quantity of what they produced, not the quality implying that the five year plans only benefitted Russia’s industry for the short term and did not provide Russia with the long term industrialised plans it needed in order to progress suggesting the plans were not a success.

Firstly, there are various factors to suggest the five years plans did successfully industrialize Russia such as Oil exceeding its target output level by 3.4 million tonnes in 1932 highlighting that Russian workers were trying hard to reach their aims and targets and helping Russia industrialise successfully. Furthermore, the Second 5 years plans output results also state that although most industries fell short of their, outrageously high, targets, signs of long term economic growth can be seen supporting the idea the 5 years plans did help successfully industrialise Russia. Additionally, the five years plans aided Russia to industrialise as successful propaganda encouraged workers to migrate from the countryside to the towns to aid the industrialisation effort. Figures to support this state that the population in towns and cities doubled between 1928 and 1941 showing that industrialisation had a positive effect on Russian society. However, the accuracy of the Output results of the second five plans is to be questions due to Stakhanovism movement which was the claim made by Russia that Alexei Stakhanov had mined 102 tonnes of coal in a 14 hour shift – 14x the amount he was expected to produce implying that the results of output from the industries is to be questioned as many reports state that industries lied to the authorities highlighting that the accuracy of the success of output of industries in to be questions leading to the idea that in reality, the 5 years plans were not as successful as made out to be.

Secondly, it could be argued that the success of the five years plans did not only aid the heavy industry, but help industrialise Russia socially. This can be seen as a result of increases output of industry, more money was invested in health care and education, there was an increase in the amount doctors and everybody was entitled to free health care, highlighting the significant improvement in the result of industrialisation had on Russia society suggesting that it was a success. However, although these investments were a positive for Russia, Stalin’s 5 year plans did not aid the living and working condition of the workers during the period of 1928 and 1941 suggesting that the five years plans did not aid Russia to industrialise fully – only industrialise its heavy industry. On the contrary, even though the 3rd 5 years plan did begin to focus on the production of consumer good such as radios and cars but then moved on to the focus of aircraft did show that the 5 year plans did begin to focus in the standards of life’s for the Russian society highlighting that the 5 years plans did at least attempt to transform Russian’s consumer industry from 1938 to 1941.

Furthermore, the success of the five years plans in transforming Russia’s economy between 1928 and 1941 and also be determined from the high employment an increasing production coming from Russia in the great depression highlighting that, through the aid of Stain’s 5 year plans, Russia was beginning to become economically stable and self dependent for the first time in the 20th century showing signs of stability and transformation.

To conclude, there are various factors highlighting that Stalin’s creation of the five year plans for the USSR were successful as many social reforms had been created between 1928 and 1941, heavy industry was developing and becoming successful in reaching output targets and foreign trade and international links were also being developed. However, the extent of the success of the five years plans can be questioned as the output results for heavy industry were often exaggerated to avoid punishment for Stalin and living conditions were not improved suggesting that only the heavy industry and various aspect of social life were transformed by the success of the five years plans between 1928 and 1941.