“The Communist government faced similar difficulties in the Civil War to the Tsarist government in the First World War in feeding and equipping soldiers and workers, but responded very differently.”

To begin with, the peasantry had suffered greatly between the years of 1914-1918, during World War One. Within the mir, elderly and more traditional members of the peasantry chose the conscripts within their community, forcing the peasants to fight in a war that was poorly organised and took little care of them. These soldiers had even suffered a lack of organisation during the war as officers were chosen based on loyalty to the Tsar, resulting in poor welfare including a shortage of supplies and equipment. This reduced the morale of the peasants in fighting the war as around 8 million people were being killed and many misguided in war that they fought for out of their patriotic desire to do so. Furthermore, the shortage of available goods had led to severe inflation. This inflation had meant peasants could buy less food with the money they made in factory work as the prices of food had quadrupled at the same time that wages had only doubled, leading to suffering peasants at home due to anger at food shortages. This was evident through a rise in uprisings in both frequency and military between 1915 and 1916, which had been brutally suppressed by the regime, inflicting suffering as peasants were unable to feed themselves or their families, living in deteriorating living conditions too as a result of German refugees occupying the area. Peasants at the front suffered from inflation too as peasants at home had hoarded grain due to the rising prices, which had impacted the transport of food supplies to those at war.
However, the peasantry did not suffer as greatly during WWI as is often perceived. According to Norman Stone, the army had remained intact as a fighting force as opposed to being on the verge of collapse, implying they did not suffer so much from a feeling of betrayal by the Tsarist government towards them, and instead making them feel pride at the number of victories Russia had contributed to the Allies. Furthermore, despite the disorganisation and brutal conditions of the war, many peasants were disillusioned by the Tsarist government in believing that it had been a help rather than a hinder. This is due to the fact that the autocratic regime influenced peasants to believe their God-appointed ruler would not misguide them, leading to less suffering than previously as they were oblivious to the true nature of the rule.Overall, the peasants mostly did suffer from war due to lack of food shortages and lack of belief in the military that was leading them through the war. Although the Russians had mounted several successful attacks on the Eastern Front, this is not as reflective of the peasant’s state as inflation was, both for peasants at home and at war.The peasants had also suffered greatly under the Provisional Government of 1917. The peasants saw the February revolution as an opportunity to redistribute the remaining land from great estates, but this process had been refused to be legitimised by the Provisional Government as they wanted to wait for a Constituent Assembly to be elected first. Furthermore, despite Chernov calling for this process to be legitimised, it was refused by liberals in the Provisional Government. This led to suffering as peasants from war had risked abandoning the war effort in order to gain land that they were legally unable to seize, the impact of which is evident in the 237 cases of land seizures during July 1917, as well as rising violent attacks on landlords as a result of resentment. This hostility was only increased by the Provisional Government trying to coerce the peasants into lowering grain prices to feed the cities, the prices of which were so low that the peasants refused. Further suppression ensued as the army was sent to requisition supplies and and suppress disturbances, causing suffering as a result of the lack of sensitivity by the Provisional Governments to the needs of the peasantry.
During the rule of the Provisional Government, it can also be argued the peasantry had not suffered greatly. Following the October Revolution, Lenin had proposed a radical alternative to the Provisional Government’s indifference to the peasants, where his socialist ideology would give land and power to the peasants. Edward Acton agreed that ’No Russian government had ever been more responsive to pressure from below,’ which is evident in the Decree of Land that Lenin introduced. This reduced the peasant’s suffering as they were given hope of land reform, where the land belonged to the ‘entire people’ as well as being given the rights to take over the gentry’s estates without compensation.Thus, during the Provisional Government’s rule, they did suffer greatly throughout due to the hardships they experienced in reality as a result of not having their needs of land catered to by the government. However, this was minimised by the hope of socialist revolution through Lenin, although this was only towards the end of 1917 and a lot of Bolshevik measure were not implemented everywhere all at once.
War Communism and the NEP can also be argued to have caused great suffering among the peasantry. By 1918, the inflation crisis had worsened further, and peasants refused to give food to the cities when this was not in exchange for any goods. As part of War Communism, the Bolshevik government, which they believed to have been in favour of the peasantry, had responded in May 1918 by setting up a Food-Supplies dictatorship, causing suffering among the peasantry as units of Red Guards and soldiers had forcibly requisitioned grain from those peasants who resisted. Furthermore, they suffered between the years of 1918-1920 from the Red Terror, as the Cheka had assisted requisitioning brigades in requisitioning peasants grain. This caused even more suffering as this was despite the fact that peasants were left starving and thieved of their own grain. Many peasants had resorted to violence, one case being a Cheka man found dead with his stomach slit open and stuffed with grain. In addition, physical harm on the peasants had occurred as many were sent to labour and concentration camps as a means of political control, the death count being to such an extent that no accurate records exist to account for a number. In addition, in 1922, the NEP had produced minimal results for the workers as agriculture was still backwards and the surplus grain that the peasants were allowed to sell had proved of little use to them as they were unable to purchase many goods. They still continued to hoard grain in hope of the prices to rise.
However, the peasantry did not suffer as much during the Civil War as part of the implementation of the NEP. With ex-peasant Konstradt soldiers forming a manifesto in 1917 which called for ‘free speech,’ the ‘liberation of political prisoners,’ and that ‘peasants be given the right of freedom and action,’ their suffering was reduced by the fact that Lenin regarded this as the ‘flash that lit up reality more than anything else.’ The government introduced NEP as a result, as Lenin realised some concessions on the peasants was essential to survival of the regime. This included the abolition of grain requisitioning which was replaced by a ‘tax of kind,’ reducing suffering as the peasantry now only had to give a fixed proportion of their grain to the state, which was much less than previously, as well as being able to sell surplus grain. This improved their scope of survival as they were now able to profit off their own grain too.
Overall, the aftermath of the Civil War had inflicted suffering on the peasantry during War Communism as they were now being denied of their rights by Lenin, whom they strongly believed would grant them the land they desired during WWI. This increased suffering as they experienced betrayal again, although this was reduced under the NEP. However, despite this, it is still likely they experienced suffering as the abolition of grain requisitioning was for the purposes of regime survival as opposed to genuine concern for the welfare of the peasants, who had posed great threats to the regime. Furthermore, the NEP had not given great results despite being more lenient to the peasants.
During Stalin’s dictatorship, the peasants had suffered in collectivisation too between the years 1928 and 1941. The offensive against the kulaks in particular had caused the most suffering as the process of dekulakinisation involved the mass deportation and execution of those peasants who were deemed counter-revolutionaries, as well as peasants being killed if they weren’t kulaks due to quotas needing to be filled. It is estimated that around 310,000 people arrested and 21,000 people shot. The peasant upset resulted in an outbreak of over 13,000 uprisings in 1930, of which many troops had to be brought in to suppress them. The peasants also suffered from famine due to theft of grain, causing suffering as this had further increased the death tolls involved with de- kulakinisation. Collectivisation had transformed a way of life of peasants that was lived for over 500 years, creating suffering as their tradition had been destroyed forever. The resentment was clear, as pointed out by Sheila Fitzpatrick who said ‘they wished him dead, his regime overthrown and collectivisation undone, even at the cost of war and foreign occupation.’ This highlights that the extent to which the peasants suffered was so great that they would have preferred other hardships such as war, which they had already experienced and suffered within.To conclude, between the years 1918 and 1941, the peasantry suffered greatly as the leaders of the regimes they had lived through had seldom put their needs first. Although the Bolshevik party had given peasants hope during the rule of the Provisional Government in the midst of the land crisis, Lenin had not met their needs to the extent to which was hoped. Furthermore, their suffering was maximised during collectivisation, where Stalin had imposed forced labour and death on those who he viewed as a threat to his new dictatorship.