Talk:Five-year plans of the Soviet Union

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Five-year plans of the Soviet Union article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Soviet Union: Russia / History / Economy High‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Russia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 24 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chan Mattice, Zachary Vinson, HR Cat. Peer reviewers: Zachary Vinson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Stub" tag removed

Well, as the "stub" tag is removed, I say it here: what about Five-Year plans after 1955? From what I know, they were until 1991. Cmapm 09:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what about discussing the five year plans in India, China, France, Argentina, and all the other countries that used centralised or limited centralised planning?--192.83.228.65 15:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the role of the USA

This article does not mention that the five-year plans were designed by US bankers. Also that almost all of USSR heavy industry was designed, built, equipped and supervised by US firms. Ford, GM and countless other firms were directly involved. When the second world war was at it's peak, almost all of the USSR war industry was using US production equipment. This goes on after the war, all through the cold war. Factories like the tractor factory in Stalingrad, later Volgograd and the Kama factory for example. All these are American built. Why never any mention of this ? Because this is an inconvenient truth for both the USSR and the US.--noone can catch - "el magnifico" (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article intending to make the same point. I've just been reading Buckminster Fuller's Critical Path, which goes into great detail on this subject. In fact Fuller worked in the U.S "Economic Warfare" department, which drew up modernisation plans for Brazil based on the experience of the American industrialists who had worked on the USSR's first three 5-year plans. This is such old news that I don't see why it should be controversial today. After all, it was long before the Cold War. --Heron (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entered World War II in 1941 ???

It is claimed that one of the five year plans ran from 1938 to 1941, when Soviet Union supposedly joined World War II.

This is a great historical lie! The Soviet Union STARTED World War II in 1939 together with Germany - Germany attacked Poland from one side, and the Soviet Union attacked from the other side shortly after, on September 17 1939. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.40.241 (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC) pure capitalist propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.37.168.33 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement in people's welfare?

"The First Five-Year Plan ended up being a success in the welfare of Russia, the lifestyle for poorer people improved and it was catching up in time with other countries"

A general consensus is that the first Five Year Plan was extremely harsh on industrial workers; quotas were difficult to fulfill, hours increased. Working conditions were poor and hazardous. By some estimates, 127,000 workers died during the four years (from 1928 to 1932). Collectivisation caused a famine. Forced labour was increasingly used and there was greater repression. While some workers experienced better conditions through rewards such as apartments, cars, etc, the vast majority would see a decrease in living standards until the Second Plan at least. --81.153.196.113 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above quote appears as if it would be one from Stalin directly since this is how he viewed the result of the first fve year plan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.170.66 (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is the "source"

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSfive.htm there are some serious copyrighting issues going on.

Thanks for the notification, the copyvio text has been removed. - FrancisTyers 09:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese five year plans

Interesting info [1]. - FrancisTyers 11:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And India [2]

What exactly was done?

This page is terrible, it doesn't actually say what a Five Year Plan is, what it did and how it did it. Ok, Stalin ordered it, the Golzpas ran it and it's aim was to increase industrialisation. How was that done, did it succeed, what exactly was done to achieve these aims and what were they? -User:Dalta

They simply did this; they focused their entire resources on industry. All extra money was reinvested to making more factories. Lots of slave labor was used, this killed two birds with one stone when it got the job done and finished of the political prisoners. Incentives were used to increase output. They told workers to work harder and collectivisation, supported by masses of poor peasants (collectivisation was actually popular to the millions of very poor farmers) ensured that they had the food they needed to feed the workers. Consumer goods were non-existant in a few places but most of the time they were in short supply. Workers would sleep in their un-finished factories. Using their vast amounts of raw materials such as metals in the Urals and oil in the caucasus region, they were able to produce the machinery they needed and hired American and European engineers, such as when constructing dams. I hope that helps.

Why is it that this article does not reference the tremendous human cost that came with the five year plans (particularly the first three, where there was a famine that killed millions that was directly related to how the Kremlin set production goals that were too high and the farmers overstated their crop yields (similar to China))?

major flaming

there seems to be some major flaming, by some angry anti-soviet person.

"The Sixth Plan, 1956-1960 A failure

[edit] The Seven Year Plan, 1959-1965 A failure

[edit] The Ninth Plan!!!!!!!!!!!, 1971-1975 A failure

[edit] The Tenth Plan, 1976-1981 Well dobedo, its : A failure"

why is this relatively obscure aspect of the Soviet Union targeted?

The sith plan involved the Virgin Lands scheme. Include that.

By the way, someone who vandalized that the Soviet workforce arrived drunk? Its true, check out the Party congress excusses for the failure. Its a fact that atleast 15% of the Soviet workforce did in fact arrive drunk. It might sound funny, especially since the figure is probably higher, but its not vandalism

The Soviet Union was an empire obssesed with slave labor and crushing riots such as Hungary.

-Why don't you go talk with some people who worked during the soviet period and ask if they were slaves.

Ever heard of the Gulag camps? And are you seriously kidding me? There were countless slave camps known as Gulags and just recently on the Main page of Wikipedia was the anniversary of the biggest Gulag uprising the Kengir uprising. Check your history before you attack. 68.6.230.65 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, keep the plans empty!

I added a section after the long list of empty five year plans, all genuine information ( no you don't need to cite information regarding the fact that the Soviet press was censored, totalitarian regime etc.) and someone has deleted it. Please explain why because its stupid having those empty five year plans when they clearly involved the Virgin land schemes and failed, under Khrushchev 68.6.230.65 03:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth plan

is there an eighth plan? please mention if they just jump a number or what happened... and was there no plan between 1942 and 1946? mention it too. Martious 09:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to [3] there is an eighth plan from 1966 to 1970. Martious 10:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First five Year Plan

Why is there a seperate article for only the first five year plan? It is about the same size as the bit here and should be stripped for ideas and deleted. Floormatster 03:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could someone possibly write about the social objectives of the first five year plan and how this was a source of fuel for the great purges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.170.66 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also a good point to include alongside Stalin's push for collectivization would be the false grain famine in 1928 where he sold Russias grain on the foreign market for capital —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.170.66 (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: What

"The First Five-Year Plan ended up being a success in the welfare of Russia, the lifestyle for poorer people improved", Hahahahah. Oh, wait you're serious! Let me laugh even harder...

Somebody please modify this article. I cannot believe that the writer(s) omitted the fact that despite being a success on the industrial side, it totally destroyed the agriculture (despite its slow mechanization) and resulted in the death of almost 10 millions people because of the resulting famine (see Holodomor). In my opinion, the best thing to do would be to copy the article on the First'''Bold text''' Five-Year Plan (much more accurate) and paste it here instead of that indecent paragraph.

In the middle of the paragraph, It can be read "The First Five-Year Plan changed the output expected from Ukrainian farms"

Agriculture & Famines

Quote: "During this period, Stalin pursued the policy of "collectivization" in agriculture to facilitate the process of rapid industrialization; this involved the creation of collective farms in which peasants worked cooperatively on the same land with same equipment. This was intended to improve the efficiency of agriculture and eliminate the "kulak" class of landowners, which was deemed hostile to the Soviet regime, while improving the position of poor peasants. The disruption and repression associated with collectivization was a primary cause of the famine of 1932, which resulted in millions of deaths." Actually, there was no shortage of food. Stalin simply decided not to feed the kulaks in order to destroy them as a class. In addition, despite the enormous human costs, the 5-year plans did, in fact, improve the agriculture of the USSR by upwards of 200%. It just took a few extra years for stalin to slaughter the kulaks first. 75.189.132.215 (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely true. This can easily be found on youtube. I am not sure if it is okay to post to youtube here. And I am pleased to see this mentioned here, as for this reason I came to the edit page to see if there was mention of Stalin killing the Kulaks. There actually was a surplus, as mentioned, only Stalin exported the food out of the Ukraine into Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.22.77 (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons??

To what extent were the five year plans aimed at weapon development and production?? Of course, industrialization must precede extensive weapon production, but is that what the plans were for?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.87.134 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Bicycles and watches arrived from Nazi Germany, 1945.Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Payments for liberation?

"However, the USSR did gain reparations from Germany, and made Eastern European countries make payments in return for the Soviets having liberated them from the Nazis." Any source for that or just another urban legend/propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.183.162 (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The USSR bought coal from Poland and around 1956 it acknowledged that the price wasn't fair returning some money.Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popular?

Do we know what effect, if any, the Five-Year Plans had on increasing the popularity of Stalin? Presumably it didn't increase much with the people sent to gulags, the Kulaks etc, but outside that were they viewed positively or negatively? Were they seen as progress, as essential improvement? 89.101.231.2 (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Famine Statistics under First Five-Year Plan section

The article states 3.3-7 million estimated deaths attributed to the Famine caused by the first five-year plan. This only accounts for the Ukranian famine numbers, and does not include the estimated 1-2 million Kazakh deaths due to the famine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.42 (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Five-year plans for the national economy of the Soviet Union be renamed and moved to Five-Year Plans of the Soviet Union.

result:
Moved. Consensus below appears to lean a bit toward the proposed title in sentence case, Five-year plans of the Soviet Union. Kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 01:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Five-year plans for the national economy of the Soviet Union → Five-Year Plans of the Soviet Union – WP:conciseness and WP:commonname, plus harmony with other five-year plan articles. Gaioa (T C L) 15:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposal, support Five-year plans (Soviet Union) as that's what they're commonly known as, but was not the official proper name. (t · c) buidhe 17:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence case please: Not a proper name and not the title of a creative work (also per MOS:HYPHENCAPS). — BarrelProof (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per conciseness. No objection to fixing capitalisation of opting instead for Five-year plans (Soviet Union) above commenters either. FOARP (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but use sentence case. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: If not for consistency I'd suggest Five-year plan (Soviet Union). But look at Category:Five-year plans of the Soviet Union where we have a bet each way depending on whether you look at the category title or content. And also Category:Five-year plans which would suggest the current name is OK both by category title and content. Very difficult IMO. Andrewa (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there a reason why "Soviet five-year plans" can't be used? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just clearer to use the place name and not an adjectival form that may have other meanings (Greek meaning political, ethnic, relating to the Greek language or church?), multiple forms (Dutch or Netherlands, Afghanistan, Afghan, or Afghani), or be awkward or unfamiliar (Democratic Republic of the Congolese, Luxembourgish, Haligonian). Also alphabetizes with the subject and is WP:CONSISTENT. —Michael Z. 17:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support sentence-cased 1) Five-year plans of the Soviet Union for a plain-English title, or 2) Five-year plans (Soviet Union), more busy with the parenthetic disambiguator, but consistent with the individual article titles. —Michael Z. 17:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.