Howdy, folks! I wanted to try a little experiment on these forums with some discussion of history. Seeing as how I have a test I am not funny tomorrow, I figured it would be interesting to see some discourse on the subject from the resident history buffs on the forums. May even help me in the studying process.

For some topics to start with, I'll give you what I'm thinking the potential essay question may be on my test:

1) Lenin's New Economic Policy and the characteristics of that era
2) The Rise of the Stalinist Dictatorship
3) Stalin's Revolution from Above (Probably can include the Great Terror)

Also, feel free to talk about any part of Russian history, or any history for that matter. I'm not sure how this thread will work out, but I thought I would give it a go.

Obviously, its best to stay apolitical in accordance with the forum rules. Also, though this thread may seem like an open door for them, no silly Soviet Russia jokes.

Sorry, but no politics.

These are pretty huge topics, maybe if you narrowed down some of your questions somebody might be able to help you out. Like when you mention NEP, maybe you could ask how effective it was, whether it was a breach of ideology (not sure if allowed by forum rules though), or you could ask what the New Economic Policy was if you aren't entirely sure about that.

I see some moderators are peering over this topic now. In the hopes that it stays historical and not political, I'll post...

One of the more interesting aspects in the start of the Soviet Union is the conflict between Stalin and Trotsky. Both had different views. And it's the way Stalin "won" is study worthy, I think.

Have you read the book "Animal Farm"?

Problem is, even the questions you have asked cannot really be discussed without bringing politics in. And the Soviet era is still fresh enough in enough minds that talking about that piece of 'history' can stir up all sorts of stuff.

I think about the most recent you can reliably go around here is the 1800s . But sometimes the mods go easy and give things some slack + extra attention so you may get lucky .

Just because it involves politics does not make it against the rules in this sense. This is straight, hopefully unbiased history we're attempting to deal with. It would certainly be more political if I simply said," I approve of Marxist-Lenninist Socialism, so capitalism can svck it." However, I am not. It is a discourse on the past which happens to involve a political system. We're not saying whether we agree with it or not.


Yeah, I apologize for that. I tend to go broad when I study so I can consider all the important points. Once I have a hold on things, I usually narrow my focus.

We'll go with your NEP question. Why did it come about? What did it entail? How did it effect the Russian population? Was there dissent within the Bolshevik party or unanimous support? What were the negative aspects of NEP? Was it effective?


No, I have not read Animal Farm, but I am aware that it is a sort of allegory by Orwell. Stalin's rise in power is interesting, I agree, especially considering how he often flip-flopped on certain policies.


While I agree that certain subjects may demand careful consideration because of how fresh they may be in human history, I have to say that the early Soviet period is probably okay to touch on.

Everything I needed to know about the Soviet Union I learned from http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=11391&page=1.

Soviet history is easy, you just need to remember the following:

Lenin: bald
Stalin: hairy
Khrushchev: bald
Brezhnev: hairy
Andropov: bald
Chernenko: hairy
Gorbachev: bald
Yeltsin: hairy

They switch back and forth, the pattern is scary.

More seriously, while a historical discussion is fine I agree that most issues are difficult to discuss in any meaningful manner while staying away from politics. I'm willing to leave this open to see if it works out, rather than locking it pre-emptively, but you may find few people are willing to jump in because they don't wish to discuss the matter with shackles.

I should just put that on the exam.

Thanks for allowing it to remain open. Hopefully folks will remain fearless and jump into discussion!

Great observation! And Putin is at least balding. Though he is the leader of Russia and not the Soviet Union.

In fact that is another point. It isn't "Soviet Russia", it's the "Soviet Union" that's an important distinction I think. As you probably know, Stalin was from Georgia, not Russia.

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. It is an important distinction given the many different nationalities and ethnic groups in the Soviet sphere.

And seriously, I do recommend reading "Animal Farm"

I'm afraid I can't take credit for that observation. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94340197

They set it to music, it starts around the one minute mark.

I wouldn't call it an "important distinction", since they had no real autonomy.

@Hade
I'd say NEP came about as a result of grain shortages and civil discontent, the most prominent example of discontent being the 1921 Kronstadt Mutiny in which the sailors at a naval base rebelled against what they percieved to be a the communist dictatorship. The grain shortage arose from the devastation following the first world war (in which peasants were conscripted and so were unable to work the land) and the chaos and destruction that came about due to the Civil War. There was a drought and then severe winter in 1920 followed by another drought in 1921 which lead to famine. To put the scale of the grain problem into context, Ukraine, which was commonly regarded to be the Empire's Breadbasket was now only producing 20% of what it had been producing before the civil war. An estimated (and estimates will vary greatly depending on your source) 5 million died in this famine.
The main aims of NEP seems to be to end grain shortages and famines, as such it involved a tax on the peasants of 10% of their grain, the introduction of a limited free market in which peasants could sell surplus grain and the legalisation of small enterprises. A new currency was also introduced in 1922 to replaced the old devalued currency. However in keeping with the government's ideology, heavy industry, transport and banking remained under state control.
There was opposition to the New Economic Policy but thanks to Lenin's immense authority within the party and the 1921 Decree on Party Unity, which banned factions within the party, Lenin was able to ensure it's acceptance. Trotsky spoke out against NEP, the more left leaning communists viewed NEp as an obstacle to socialism as it created a wealthy peasant class which they regarded to be bourgeoisie. NEP found support among right-wing communists such as Bukharin, who believed it would be economically irrational to try and organise the peasants so early.
Theres probably more to talk about but its 1 am here and I'm struggling a little. If anybody notices a factual error or error in logic feel free to point it out. Also I'm sorry if there are any political opinions expressed in this post, I don't think there are, I attempted to be as objective as possible, if I did not succeed then I apologise in advance.

Nice! So certainly NEP was Lenin's answer to civil discontent brought about when the Bolsheviks tried to institute War Communism. In short, it appeared as if the Soviet state was not fully ready for its implementation (I'm assuming in part because it was still a backwards, agrarian society, not an industrialized one), and Lenin had to compromise with a mixed market system that would stablize both the economy and population. Correct me if I'm mistaken!

Their main concern at such an early stage is simply to hang on to power. In the cities this meant providing food, which they managed by implementing grain requisitioning. Grain requisitioning wasn't sustainable however, firstly because it starves the people that produce your food (the problem here should be obvious) and secondly because it angers them which leads to events like the Kronstadt Mutiny. NEP served to provide grain to the cities (which helps keep workers happy) and bring in a little income to the peasants, which made them a little less angry. I agree with your view that the Bolsheviks weren't ready to implement a command economy right away, with one communist group for every 1200 square kilometers of Russian countryside and the poor state of transport and communication its easy to see how the communists might struggle to implement a command economy so early.

I think the link is broken (but it could be me).

Edit: It was me and I fixed it.

Gah, I had a difficult time with this subject. I never took a course directly on this but I wrote a paper a few weeks ago and I did terrible on it. Not failing but not great. I wish I could provide some insights, but this is one area of history I dislike.

You rang?

Yes, I recommend reading Animal Farm too, it's one of the things that got me interested in the Soviet Era and stuff.

Sadly our school is still stuck studying American history instead of spreading to world history already or else I could help more.

I am not funny. Homework studies you.

Other than that. Yeah, I've got nothing. Sorry.

Too late anyhow! Already took the test. The essay question concerned Stalin's economic reforms, why he chose to undertake them, and their effects.

I suppose this thread never really took off, but thanks for all who helped.

EDIT: Hell, thanks everyone!

Hey, someone changed my post. Awesome. Most likely a mod who was in a bad mood.

It was the cyber chinchillas .

No, it was the autocensor.

Seriously, it's not funny. Never has been, never will be.