Ryan Feczko

Mr. Malone

AP World History

5/17/18

Period Six DBQ Land Reform in Russia and Mexico

In the 19th century and leading up to the early 20th century, many major, powerful

empires declined, especially imperial empires. This led to an increase in nations around the

world, but there were large economic differences in these countries. This led to lower class

revolutions, seen all throughout the world. These revolutions, seen in Mexico and Russia, led to

land reforms and a redistribution of wealth from almost all people in the upper class owning land

to a more equal system between the upper and lower classes. The main similarity between the

land reforms from the Mexican and Russian revolutions is the treatment of the upper-class

landowners and the main difference is that Mexico’s redistribution was slower and less

successful than Russia’s redistribution.

In both revolutions, the upper class is punished harshly when the land redistribution

occurs. In Document 1, written by Zapata, the leader of the peasant revolution in Mexico, he

states that force may be used as the peasants “take back” the landlord’s land. This shows that the

Mexican peasants felt very poorly of the upper class and wanted to even the playing field with

these people. The purpose of this document is important because Zapata focuses on the

punishment for the upper class even more than the gain for the lower classes. This focus shows

that Zapata cares just as much about the peasants gaining the land as the landowners losing it.

This is also very evident in Russia as seen in Documents 6 and 10. In Document 6, Stalin,
totalitarian leader of Russia, states that not only should the kulaks power be taken, but they

should be killed. As outside evidence, it is important to realize that Russia is communist, and the

kulaks, who do not support communism, would be despised by the government, giving them a

reason to want to end the kulaks all together. This approach is much more drastic than in

Mexico, but the main is still to render the upper class virtually powerless. In Document 10, a

kulak boy speaks of what occurred to him during this time in an interview long after. His

account is that his parents would not join the commune, so the government taxed them an

amount that no one would ever be able to pay, so shortly after they had to leave for good. This

document’s historical situation is also important. As a child, he would not have understood

everything that was going on, but it was still evident to him that he and his family were being

mistreated. Overall, both land reforms aimed at exposing the upper classes.

The main difference between these two nations’ land reforms are the pace at which they

occurred. In Russia, as seen in Document 9, 99.1% of agricultural land was under

collectivization in just ten years. In Mexico, though, only 50% was collected in the course of

fifty years, as seen in Document 8. Why the large disparity, then? It comes down to one main

factor: who is trying to achieve these land reforms. In Document 3, you can see that the All-

Russia Congress is making the collectivization decree. The point of view is important here

because it shows that the official government is making these reforms. In Mexico, on the other

hand, peasant revolutionaries who did not start with any power are making these reforms.

Documents 1 and 2 show this idea perfectly. Zapata makes a large decree, but he is not fully

respected and not taken as a powerful leader, so a major political leader responds to him in

Document 2, claiming that landowners still have rights. This could not have happened in Russia,

where the government had the power to kill anyone who disagreed with them. Overall, Russia’s
land reforms were able to move much swifter and be more successful because the government

ran them, while Mexico’s achieved success, but on a much smaller scale, because it was

conducted by peasant revolutionaries.

These land reforms both transformed the economic landscape of their countries, altering

all aspects of people’s lives. For Russia, it fed into the communist beliefs, while in Mexico it

continued a history of wars and constant disputes.