User:Mr917/sandbox

Evaluating an Article
The First five-year plan article does not appear to be neutral after analyzing its contents. The introduction piece uses language and words that are often associated with negativity. For example, the sentence saying "His desire was to rid the country of all record that capitalism once existed there under the New Economic Policy." can be translated to "Stalin desired to end inequality by means of removing all capitalistic aspects of New Economic Policy." Nearly the entire introductory stage of the article mentions basic facts followed by criticisms of the plan. The verbiage of "destroyed," or "rid," are used frequently when describing Stalin's intentions. The introductory portion, rather than pointing out the changes deemed necessary by Stalin explain the destruction of the previous era. The plan itself is only briefly discussed, its successes completely unmentioned, and its criticisms prominent in this article.

The introductory paragraph becomes even more interesting when the reasoning of the Five year-plan is discussed in the second header. The article presents the idea that the Soviet Union was in atrocious shape, as problems were constant and increasing. Completely unmentioned are the positive reasons that the plan was constructed. For example, the USSR was capable of industrialization, but needed guidance in its completion. This goes unmentioned. When bringing up the introductory portion of the article, one may be confused as to why the things that were "destroyed" were actually beneficial to the USSR, as the second header gives the reader the idea that the USSR was in shambles.

The next header goes completely in the opposite direction, as the "Rapid Growth of Heavy Industry" points toward only the positive outcomes of the Five year-plan within the industrial economy. In this heading, not one negative aspect of the industrial growth is discussed until the final sentence, where it mentions that workers became "paranoid." Some negative aspects of the industrialization of the USSR could have been discussed here.

The next header takes a negative tone toward "Agricultural Collectivization," which is perfectly reasonable. Not too many positive outcomes came from collectivization during the First five-year plan. After that, the section of "Prisoner labor" is presented, seemingly in a fair tone. The article shows that prisoner labor was beneficiary in the completion of the plan, but caused many wrongful arrests. This analysis is fair.

The next two sections, mentioning the successes and failures of the plan, are extremely telling. The fact that the failures are described at far greater length than the successes is quite unfair. Essentially, the article says "yes, the USSR became a superpower, but its goals were not stated properly, the plan caused a massive famine, and the people suffered." This is not exactly true, as the Russian people were arguably in a better position than they were prior to the plan's execution. Furthermore, the fact that the USSR became a superpower benefited the people enormously.

I believe that the article regarding the First five-year plan is biased against the subject. The overall emphasis on the people suffering while the economy expanded and the USSR became a superpower, defies some levels of logic. While many Soviets did suffer throughout the plan, the majority of the population benefited in the end.

First five-year plan

Choosing your Wikipedia Article/Group Sources
Articles:

First five-year plan

GROUP: Shakhty Trial

Pg 39

The prosecution demanded the death sentence for 20 of the accused. It was the first of the big show trials, and a turning point in Soviet policy towards the intelligentsia. Hitherto the 'bourgeois specialist' had been under party control, but also under party protection because his skills were needed at all levels of industry and industrial administration. Now he was officially under suspicion as a potential saboteur and agent of international capitalism; due for replacement by the young proletarian communist specialist trained in Soviet schools.

Pg 40

In April 1928 the Central Committee and Central Control Committee of the party met in joint session to discuss the Shakhty affair and resolved, apparently on Stalin’s suggestion, to review the whole system of technical education in order to increase the output of young proletarian specialists from technical schools and universities.

Fitzpatrick, Sheila (Jan 1974). “Cultural Revolution in Russia 1928-32”. Journal of Contemporary History. 9: 33-52 – via JSTOR.

The “classic” show trials left an indelible impression of Stalinism, but they were not entirely creations of Stalin’s era. Contrary to accepted wisdom, the classic show trials were not just the culmination of a linear process that began with the 1928 “Shakhty” trial. Current research reveals that show trials were part of the Revolution from the start. Between the trial of thirty-four Socialist Revolutionaries in 1922 and the Shakhty affair, many show trials were produced to influence or instruct the public.

Argenbright, Robert (Apr 2002). “Marking NEP’s Slippery Path: The Krasnoshchekov Show Trial”. The Russian Review. 61, No. 2: 249-275 – via JSTOR.

At the beginning of April, a Central Committee plenum met to discuss the Shakhty affair. The plenum showed the continuing division of opinion on economic policy. In a speech introducing the issue, A. I. Rykov observed that “since the conspiracy was uncovered, some party comrades have thought that the affair was blown out of proportion.” Rykov insisted that, as the investigation proceeded, it was becoming clear that the seriousness of the conspiracy was, if anything, initially underestimated.

Harris, James (2001). “Dual subordination? The political police and the party in the Urals region, 1918-1953” Cahiers du monde russe. 42: 2-4 – via Google Scholar

The Shakhty Trial and all the subsequent show trials were not primarily to educate and agitate, but to punish. Their targets were not selected by local agitation committees in workers' clubs but by the Central Committee. The purge trials drew on some of the traditions of the agitation trials, but Wood perhaps assumes too much in suggesting the one prepared the way for the other.

Sanford, George (Oct 2007). “Reviewed Work: Katyn and the Soviet Massacre of 1940: Truth, Justice and Memory by George Sanford”.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/25479145 . 85, 4: 790-792 – via JSTOR

At the beginning of the industrialization drive, Stalin led the party on a witch-hunt against engineers and other "bourgeois specialists" with technical expertise.

Module 4 Assignment:
Add to Important Groups - Article: First five-year plan

Source:

"The First Five Year Plan, 1928-1932". Special Collections & Archives. 2015-10-07. Retrieved 2019-02-23.

https://uwaterloo.ca/library/special-collections-archives/first-five-year-plan

References for Five Year Plan
Exercise

First five-year plan

"The First Five Year Plan, 1928-1932". Special Collections & Archives. 2015-10-07. Retrieved 2019-02-23.

https://uwaterloo.ca/library/special-collections-archives/first-five-year-plan

www.jstor.org/stable/1225716

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2495959

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2497515

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25353180

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2501629

https://www.jstor.org/stable/131933

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/coll.html

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2123788

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=b67ace9e-f344-4d6c-8fcc-1a41681d4fa7%40pdc-v-sessmgr06&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=134514926&db=aph

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ukra.html

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1933/01/07.htm