Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

OCR A2 History: Russia and its Rulers 1855-1964 discussion thread 10 June

Scroll to see replies

Thank you for your help and encouragement! Would you be willing to post any old revision notes/documents/scans you have please? Many thanks in advance.

I'm busy until Thursday, but on Thursday I'll try and get to Uni (I live off campus) and scan some stuff in. Not sure what I have laying about.

Reply 481

RedTiger

I do Russia as part of history at degree and not gunna lie, I am stealing lots of this.

Reply 482

gemnomnom

Original post by CUFCDan

I'm busy until Thursday, but on Thursday I'll try and get to Uni (I live off campus) and scan some stuff in. Not sure what I have laying about.

Cheers!

Reply 483

gemnomnom

As we speak I am typing up my Chapter Four notes in a synoptic way. If anyone has any notes they'd like to share, please post up :smile:

Reply 484

elkiemyers

hi does anyone know what the jan 2012 questions were?? thanks !!

Reply 485

SheldonC

Original post by elkiemyers

hi does anyone know what the jan 2012 questions were?? thanks !!

The questions on the January 2012 paper were:

‘Lenin was more successful in dealing with opposition than any other ruler of Russia in the period from 1855 to 1964.’ How far do you agree with this view?

‘The development of Russian government was influenced more by war than any other factor.’ How far do you agree with this view of the period from 1855 to 1964?

To what extent did Russian people lose more than they gained from economic and social changes during the period from 1855 to 1964?

Hope this helps :smile:

Thank you so much!!

My teacher told us that we should analyse the views of historians in our essays to get top grades. Yet mark scheme does not really mention it.

Can anyone tell me whether I should use historians if my target is 90%+ in this module?

Reply 488

sushi678

Hi! I've got this exam in 10 days and I'm panicking! I've just got a few questions...
-Is it important to include historians' views in every one of your paragraphs?
-Do i HAVE to talk about the PG?
-How many paragraphs would you recommend writing for each essay?

Thank you!

Reply 489

Minusthevolta

Original post by Kwak

Well, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to mention some, but my teacher is one of the top examiners for this exam and has never specifically mentioned that we need to include historian viewpoints, so I wouldn't worry too much! Maybe remember a couple and try and apply them where possible, but don't go out of your way to make sure you include them, a well structured coherent essay is much more important!

Reply 490

Minusthevolta

What does everyone think is going to come up on this exam?

Reply 491

Filoux

Seeing as there were no questions on methods of government in January, hopefully we'll see one on the 12th! Would love something along the lines of, 'the communists were effective autocrats; the tsars were not'.

Reply 492

Minusthevolta

Original post by Filoux

Yeah that'd be good! I hope there's a peasant or workers question too, would be easy!

Out of interest, how would you go about structuring your 'the communists were effective autocrats; the tsars were not' essay?

Reply 493

dramdunda

Easy! Look at those which fit the statement...Stalin/Nicholas II/Lenin but then say AII and AIII were clearly effective within their own terms, implemented the policies they wanted, moderate economic success etc-to this can be added the fact that their autocratic status was never in doubt, they expected and largely received total and willing submission of subjects. Ignore assassination of AII as the People's Will assumed a role out of proportion with their numbers. Then finish by saying K was not effective-virgin land programme was a disaster, massacred thousands at Novocherrask and his lack of success is aptly demonstrated by his removal from power in 1964, thus displaying neither effective nor autocratic qualities. Conclude by saying although the statement does run true for certain rulers, it brings with it a danger of oversimplyfing this period of Russian history.

Reply 494

Minusthevolta

Yeah that sounds like a sensible approach, thanks!

Reply 495

Filoux

Original post by Minusthevolta

dramdunda's approach sounds nice!

Personally, in my introduction I'd agree with the statement, but establish that it is somewhat over a simplification. A theoretical historian would not call the communists 'autocrats', but as pragmatists say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck... Introduction would define the 'effective autocrat' (a leader that keeps all subjects in line, focusses on the short term aim of preserving their reign whilst modernising the state) then suggest that on balance, there were more instances of autocrats being 'effective' during the communist period because the superstructures they employed to assert authority were more pervasive and grandiose.

One paragraph assessing how the tsars and the communists maintained control over organs of government (nods to democracy under both in the form of the Duma and the Soviet of the Union/Nationalities).
One paragraph assessing coercion and terror.
One paragraph assessing censorship and the promotion of 'big ideas'.
One paragraph assessing modernisation of the state.

And conclude!

Reply 496

dramdunda

Original post by Filoux

I like the structure as it produces a more synoptic essay, you will have many paragraphs which span across the entire period which I believe is exactly what the examiners are looking for.

I just had a few questions: would it not be better to define the words "effective" and "autocrat" separately, after all it is possible to be an effective ruler of Russia without having absolute and total power concentrated in your hands, one could point to Lenin who had to argue at the 10th Party Congress to implement NEP, contrasting to Stalin whose wish became a command instantaneously.
And I'm not sure how the use of coercion/terror/censorship can determine how autocratic/effective a ruler is? These mechanisms demonstrate authoritarianism/totalitarianism and the use of these doesn't make a regime effective (although they can be use effectively), after all if you need to resort to oppression then it is probably because your regime lacks legitimacy of some sort.

Sorry for that! I am sure that you are correct I was just wondering if you could shed some light on the matter for my benefit. Thanks.

Reply 497

barneybewick

can anybody help me with how to structure a question on the extent of economic change, and the extent of social change?

similar to above what to include in each paragraph would be much appreciated!