Current Events:
Quiz tomorrow: you need a pencil.
Today's lesson plan and HW is available on the blog: http://gmicksmithsocialstudies.blogspot.com/
Email: gmsmith@shanahan.org
The Shanawiki page (http://shanawiki.wikispaces.com/) has updated class information.
LibraryThing has bibliographic resources.
I moved the "Blog Archive" to the top right on the blog page so it should be easier to find the daily lesson, HW, and other class material.
As we left the lesson from last time, we needed to evaluate the Soviets' choice in terms of costs and benefits: was it the best choice at the time?
Our four (4) small groups to answer the following questions with regard to the decisions made by leadership of the Soviet Union:
* What were the considered alternatives at the time of choice?
* What were the perceived benefits of each considered alternative at the time of choice?
* What action was taken; what choice was made?
* What was the opportunity cost of that choice? (Remember that the opportunity cost of one alternative is the perceived benefits of the other alternative - the benefits that are given up. The benefit of doing something becomes the cost of not doing it.)
* All costs lie in the future. With the benefit of hindsight (your knowledge of history), do you think the Soviet leaders made the best choice?
* Did the leaders accurately perceive the benefits and costs?
* Were the benefits worth the costs?
* Who reaped the benefits of the choice that was made?
* Who bore the costs?
Debrief: Emphasize the 3 characteristics of opportunity cost:
* All costs are to someone; people bear costs.
* All costs are the result of actions. (Objects have no cost.)
* All costs lie in the future.
Overhead In-class exercise
1. Read the summaries below of the following events or decisions in Soviet history:
* The Five Year Plans
* The Nazi Non-Aggression Pact
* Consciously emphasizing university education and increasing numbers of educated citizens
2. For each event or decision, answer the following questions:
* What were the considered alternatives at the time of choice?
* What were the perceived benefits of each considered alternative at the time of choice?
* What action was taken; what choice was made?
* What was the opportunity cost of that choice? (Remember that the opportunity cost of one alternative is the perceived benefits of the other alternative - the benefits that are given up. The benefit of doing something becomes the cost of not doing it.)
3. Choose one of the 3 issues you studied and prepare answers for the class. Your preparation should identify alternatives and costs and should make a case for your opinion on the following questions:
* All costs lie in the future. With the benefit of hindsight (your knowledge of history), do you think the Soviet leaders made the best choice?
* Did the leaders accurately perceive the benefits and costs?
* Were the benefits worth the costs?
* Who reaped the benefits of the choice that was made?
* Who bore the costs?
Overhead Student Handout Research Exercise
Directions:
1. Read the summary of the following events or decisions in Soviet history:
* The Five Year Plans
* The Nazi Non-Aggression Pact
* Consciously emphasizing university education and increasing numbers of educated citizens
2. For each event or decision, answer the following questions:
* What were the considered alternatives at the time of choice?
* What were the perceived benefits of each considered alternative at the
time of choice?
* What action was taken; what choice was made?
* What was the opportunity cost of that choice? (Remember that the opportunity cost of one alternative is the perceived benefits of the other alternative - the benefits that are given up. The benefit of doing something becomes the cost of not doing it.)
3. Research one of the following events or decisions in Soviet history:
* Berlin Blockade
* Cuban Missile Crisis
* Space Race
* Exile A. Solzhenitzyn to Siberian gulags and then to US
* Gorbachev - perestroika political reforms
4. Prepare a tabled presentation of your research for the class. Your presentation should identify alternatives and costs and should make a case for your opinion on the following questions:
* All costs lie in the future. With the benefit of hindsight (your knowledge of history), do you think the Soviet leaders made the best choice?
* Did the leaders accurately perceive the benefits and costs?
* Were the benefits worth the costs?
* Who reaped the benefits of the choice that was made?
* Who bore the costs?
The Five Year Plans
In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and World War I, the weakened condition of the Soviet economy was clearly visible. Output in every economic sector had declined: agricultural output was well below pre-war levels; the availability of consumer goods had fallen dramatically; and industrial output faced a long, slow path to recovery.
During the early to mid-1920s, Soviet leaders engaged in a great deal of internal debate about the relative importance of peasant owned and controlled agriculture on the one hand and state-run industry on the other. The essential question concerned the best path to economic growth: Was economic growth - national wealth and prosperity - best achieved through growth of private farms and the agricultural sector or was it best achieved through state-directed investment in industry? Soviet leaders clearly felt that they could not pursue both and that a choice would have to be made.
The Five Year Plan called for investing in industry by limiting the resources available for the production of consumer goods and the farm sector and directing those resources to the production of such industrial essentials as steel and electricity. For this to be accomplished, the profits from agricultural would have to be used for investment in industry, and satisfying citizens' desires for consumer goods and housing would have to be delayed. The alternative was to encourage the use of resources to satisfy the immediate desires of citizens for food and other agricultural and consumer goods. This would mean delaying investment in the capital necessary for heavy industry and future industrial strength.
Consider the Soviet leaders' choice by drawing a table with five (5) rows and three (3) columns:
Given the alternatives and the benefits of each, as they were considered at the time, do you think the leaders made the right choice? Why?
Results of the choice to adopt the First Five Year Plan
By implementing the first of many Five Year Plans, the Soviet leaders clearly chose to push for high economic growth rates through investment in heavy industry and military production. One immediate result of implementing the plan was the seizing of agricultural harvests for redistribution by the state. Farming was collectivized in state-run cooperatives, and there was little or no emphasis on producing consumer goods. In addition, prices and wages were set by the government, which left few consumers with money for consumer purchases, in any case.
Investment in industry rose to 25% by the late 1920s, meaning that effectively one-fourth of the resources of the Soviet Union were being diverted into building an industrial foundation. During the First Five Year Plan (1928-1933) the Soviet economy grew by 48%. Industrial goods grew by 113% and electric power production by 227%. On the other hand, consumer goods grew by only 1%.
With the knowledge of hindsight, discuss the following questions. Be prepared to defend your answers.
* All costs lie in the future. With the benefit of hindsight (your knowledge of history), do you think the Soviet leaders made the best choice?
* Did the leaders accurately perceive the benefits and costs?
* Were the benefits worth the costs? (What was the consequence of the choice that was made?)
* Who reaped the benefits of the choice that was made?
* Who bore the costs?
Nazi Non-Aggression Pact
In the years immediately preceding World War II, Joseph Stalin worked hard to keep the Soviet Union isolated from, although not necessarily neutral in, the growing tensions in Europe. He was very much aware that Hitler's Germany posed a threat to the Soviet Union. He was very much concerned that Hitler's powerful army might invade and take the agriculturally rich Ukraine. He also knew that his own army was no match for Hitler's and that, at the very least, he needed time to prepare to defend the Soviet Union from the Nazis. With these concerns very much in mind, in early 1939 Stalin entered into two sets of negotiations: with the French and British on one hand and with Nazi Germany on the other.
Looking at Soviet history in the years before the war, it is apparent that Stalin was a pragmatist, looking for the circumstances that would be most favorable to the USSR. First, the Soviet Union joined the League of Nations - a move that Stalin had previously opposed - presumably to become more friendly with the Western nations. (However, the known atrocities of Stalinist regime and the perceived weakness of the Soviet military kept the Soviet Union from reaching any agreements with western nations working through the League.) As events heated up in Europe, Stalin had to ask himself whether an alliance with Great Britain and France, and their combined military strength, would deter Hitler, or whether it would only mean that the Soviet forces would be exposed to the fury of German attack from the very beginning of an armed conflict.
Stalin's greatest fear was to be dragged into a war against Germany while other countries like France and Great Britain sat on the sidelines and watched, and an alliance with Germany offered other possibilities. The Nazis proposed the division of Poland between Germany and the USSR in return for not having to worry about attack from the east as they dealt with their foes in the west. From Stalin's point of view, Soviet-Polish relations had never been particularly good, and the Soviet Union had no reason to come to Poland's assistance. Perhaps most importantly, such an agreement would provide an opportunity to stay out of the war. Additionally, the Germans seemed likely to agree to recognize the Baltic area as belonging to the Soviet Union's "sphere of influence," advancing Stalin's perennial goal of extending the Soviet empire.
Consider Stalin's choice by drawing another table with five (5) rows and three (3) columns.
Given the alternatives and the benefits of each, as they were considered at the time, do you think Stalin made the right choice? Why?
Results of Stalin's Choice
The signing of the Non-Aggression Pact between the Soviets and the Germans was announced on August 23, 1939, and came as a shock and surprise to the rest of the world. On September 1, German troops invaded Poland, and shortly thereafter, Soviet troops crossed Poland's eastern boundary to claim their share of the spoils. Later the Non-Aggression pact was extended, allowing Stalin to include Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia within the Soviet "sphere of influence."
With the knowledge of hindsight, discuss the following questions. Be prepared to defend your answers.
* All costs lie in the future. With the benefit of hindsight (your knowledge of history), do you think the Soviet leaders made the best choice?
* Did the leaders accurately perceive the benefits and costs?
* Were the benefits worth the costs? (What was the consequence of the choice that was made?)
* Who reaped the benefits of the choice that was made?
* Who bore the costs?
Emphasis On Education*
*Statistics in this scenario were taken from Hedrick Smith, The New Russians, p. 20.
While the rate of change seemed slow in many areas of Soviet society and economy in the years that followed World War II, this was not the case with the area of education, which was targeted early as a priority for investment. At the time of the 1917 Revolution, Russia was primarily an illiterate peasant society with a primitive work force comprised largely of unskilled manual laborers. It is estimated that the illiteracy rate was 75% and that school enrollment was only about ten million in the early 1920's. In part because of a desire to teach about the writings of Lenin and the achievements of communism, but also to help move the country from an agrarian backward economy to a world power, schools and education were areas where the Soviets invested heavily right from the beginning. In addition, school attendance was given high importance in Soviet society.
Consider the Soviet leaders' choice by drawing a table with five (5) rows and three (3) columns.
Given the alternatives and the benefits of each, as they were considered at the time, do you think the Soviet leaders made the right choice? Why?
Results of the Choice:
By 1980 the literacy rate was one of the highest in the world. The increase in the numbers of people enrolled in higher education institutions was also striking. In 1950 there were 1.2 million university-level students in the Soviet Union; by the mid-1980s, that number had increased to over 5.4 million students being taught by half a million professors and instructors. By 1985 the Soviet Union had one of the largest bodies of scientific researchers in the world: 1.5 million scientists doing research work.
This emphasis on education produced both a blessing and a curse for the Soviet Union. It was a blessing in that the level of literacy, the quality of the labor force and the knowledge of the leadership increased dramatically. It was a curse in the fact that it was much easier for Soviet citizens to learn and read about life in the West, (if they could obtain banned books and newspapers). The university educated, or intelligentsia as they were called in the Soviet Union, became well-read in history and western thought. For this group blindness to the lies of the past and unquestioning loyalty to the Marxist and Leninist ideals were no longer acceptable. After all, the Soviet universities had taught them to think.
Questioning by the intelligentsia was perceived by Soviet leaders as a threat; critics were branded disloyal. Stalin conducted purges that sent many of the intelligentsia to concentration camps in Siberia, or in some cases even to death sentences. While the education system continued to increase the level of literacy and the size of the intelligentsia, it was only in the last years of the Soviet Union that the questioning of the past and present policies of the communist leadership came out in the open. Many observers of the Soviet Union believe that this force of education and the millions of individuals who were literally trained to question the past helped to break the hold that the communist party had on the loyalties of Soviet citizens. Gorbachev, the architect of perestroika, was part of this growing educated middle class, the first university-educated Soviet leader since Lenin.
With the knowledge of hindsight, discuss the following questions. Be prepared to defend your answers.
We will finish up other issues in Chapter Two.
HW email to me at gmsmith@shanahan.org.
You pick another one of the three scenarios to do the HW on. You should have already done one, now you are picking a second of the three scenarios to work on (Cf. the summaries above in the post for today): a)* The Five Year Plans; b) * The Nazi Non-Aggression Pact; or, c) * Consciously emphasizing university education and increasing numbers of educated citizens. Just pick a second scenario and answer the HW questions.
1. * All costs lie in the future. With the benefit of hindsight (your knowledge of history), do you think the Soviet leaders made the best choice?
2. * Did the leaders accurately perceive the benefits and costs?
3. * Were the benefits worth the costs? (What was the consequence of the choice that was made?)
4. * Who reaped the benefits of the choice that was made?
5. * Who bore the costs?
Summary and review of lesson follows.
