Want help with Russian History essays? :)

Hey Tom

Thanks a lot. Could you possibly look over this essay plan?

The Communist rulers were effective autocrats, the Tsars were not. How far do you agree with this view of Russian government?

Intro
Discuss the meaning of an effective autocrat -
That it is very much individual rule
Large amount of control over the vast country
Maybe introduce how the essay will be structured - 'in order to analyse this question one must look first at...'
Then go on to signpost argument - whilst it is partly true that the Tsars were ineffective
in some ways they were effective, however the communists were much better
(Possibly too long? Also some say that you should give an overview of the period/trends slightly)

First paragraph: Tsars were not effective autocrats:
Could not repress opposition very successfully and therefore did not remain in control:
Examples - Alexander II was assassinated even though the Populist numbers were tiny, and he should have executed them when they went to the countryside, instead he let their numbers grow
Similarly Nicholas was forced to be less autocratic because he was not a successful autocrat - could not control the people which led to the duma which lessened his powers - they were able to stop a law coming in to place...

Explain that this may be caused by their lack of control over the whole of Russia - secret police was small, corrupted civil servants, lack of centralisation

Second paragraph: However, whilst the Tsars did have moments when they could not control Russia single handedly at some points they were pretty effective:

They were effectively autocratic in the sense that it was very much a personal rule - had ministers advise them, but ultimately their decision - no constitutional government as they maintained a lack of democracy - whilst the Duma was forced upon Nicholas, he managed to effectively nullify its powers - manipulated the electorate, passed laws when they were not in session, even under AII with the creation of the zemstvo there was never any desire for real political change, just the more efficient running of local administration
maybe add : (AIII reversed judicial reforms which he felt opened up autocracy to the challenge, getting rid of justices of the peace, replacing them with land captains etc)

(Another paragraph) Also they did largely keep opposition (by repression) to a minimum even considering the examples above -
It was only when Nicholas went away to the front that opposition was successful, previously he had maintained individual, autocratic rule by repressing people - stolypins neckties, duma, (censorship)
AIII - the reaction - crushed the populists for a decade
AII Repressed the poles in the polish revolt

Communists, as the statement suggests were similarly effective autocrats:
Continuity of themes above - lack of democracy - Lenin dissolving the Constitutional assembly, abolishing trade unions, ilegalising political parties
Similarly used repression to maintain control - Every leader used the secret police
Similarly ruled individually - although not officially but Lenin always had the final say, it was his interpretation of marxism that people followed - NEP was his policy which was largely unpopular and Treaty of Brest Litovsk was his idea
Stalin did too - using the cult of personality

Next paragraph - Communists more autocratic than Tsars
Had more control - totalitarian - due to centralisation - e.g collectivisation - enabled greater control of peasants. Grain requisitioning under Lenin and Stalin - something Tsars would never have dreamt of enforcing - too invasive. But the Communists had greater control over the countryside and the factories

More repressive and more successful in being so:
Secret police stronger than ever under Lenin and Stalin, great purges
Ohkrana small, Cheka large
Gulag existed under Stalin and Krushchev (and lenin???)
Better at exiling, under Tsars people just came back - Stalin and Lenin did! But under the Communists they eliminated them
Better at dealing with opposition - Stalin so paranoid that he assassinated any potential threat - Kirov, Trotsky - but Tsars did not eliminate many potential threats

Conclusion
Partly agree with the view - but it is not as black and white - Tsars whilst they did show periods in which they were ineffective autocrats, did maintain power quite well considering the size of Russia. However compared to the Communists they were not very effective. Communists much better.......


So what do you think? Obviously lots of detail in there to back up points. I think it might have been better if I had done it theme by theme - lack of democracy under communists and tsars so I could have compared the whole period in one paragraph.

Thanks in advance, any tips would be greatly appreciated!
Claudia

Hi Tom, Just quickly, as I posted this in another thread, I have some questions for you to answer please

1.the theme by theme structure is great but would you use that throughout for every question or, for example, use a turning point by turning point structure for TP questions? how do you differentiate what structure to use between questions if your answer is yes?

2 . Apart from the 3-4 theme paragraphs do you add a large synthesis paragraph at the end before the conclusion which ties everything up? my teacher told us to do this

3. I need 3-4 themes on the following essays:

-domestic policies

-repression

-general government (autrocracy and communism describe differences/similarity)

-agriculture (did emancipation of serfs have the most important effect)

-war (when looking at one war compared to others such as turning point)

-war (when looking at war's effects such as changing little on russia)

thank you so much!

thats fine thanks dont worry about it, I see, so its like pegex (did you use that in italy?) where you conclude everything in each paragraph? Also the synthesis paragraph is basically, a long conclusion before the conclusion itself, which our teacher said to use in our essay plans, its called the synthesis paragraph which overlooks all of the essay in a synoptic way while making comparisons (synthesis), and the conclusion is the final judgement. I didn't think it was necessary myself, so what do you think, is it necessary?

Heres an example

Intro

First theme

Second theme

Third theme

Synthesis (long bit)

Conclusion (Substantiated judgement)

Hi Tom!
I'm really stuck on a couple of questions and I was wondering if you could help me out if you have time
The first one is
'The assassination of Alexander II was the most important turning point in the development of repressive policies in the period from 1855 to 1964'
- obviously I'd write about the assassination, Lenin's death, destalinisation, 1917 revolution, but how would I include something about Nicholas II?

Also
'Assess the reasons why Russian rulers have limited the political and religious freedoms of its people in the period...'

I was also just wondering if we get an industry question, what is the best way to include Nicholas II?

Thank you so much for your help, and for this thread, it's brilliant!!

Hi Jag,

Rofl this sounds one of the most pointless wastes of time, why would you need a concluding paragraph right before your conclusion? spend your time either on the themes or having a longer conclusion itself, remember you've only got 1hour per question, this includes planning/thinking time before, intro, 3/4 themes, and a conclusion you really don't have time to waste. What's pegex? I did Italy and got an A but I've never heard of pegex lol,

Tom

I'm guessing you're doing the OCR Course 'Russia and it's Rulers 1856 - 1964' :P. The way OCR want you to answer these question to achieve any respectable mark is thematically. The standard three themes that I use for these questions are Economy Society and Politically. Look at the main wars of the period and split the change they brought to Russia.

Crimean war
Social change = emancipation of the Serfs
Political = show's the weakness of the Russia army

1905 revolution (Russo-Japanese war 1904-5)
Social change = october manifesto
political change = Duma, first time political parties were legal in Russia (stopped in 1921), show's the weakness of the Russia army

First World War
Social change = The land the peasants worked on became their own
Poltical = massive change, moved from one diametrically opposed ideology to another, but the actual change in the day-to-day running of the country minimal? also soured the relationship with the West
---> pre-Cold War tensions?(good link)
economic = 1/5 of the pre-war industrial output, but the soviets which were brought in, brought a change in approach from agriculture to industry --> allowed the industrialisation of Russia in the 1930's, never of happened under Tsarism

Civil War
Social = The requisition squads destroyed the agriculture / mass hunger
Political = The agricultural sector resented Communism as it took all their produce seemed unjust to them attempted to hide it and were killed
Economical = Russia refused to pay the US / UK for the goods given in the war hard to get imports, the economy of the USSR was in turmoil because it couldn't produce itself

World War Two
Social = destroyed most of Eastern European part of Russia, 27million died
Political = great victory for the USSR, the first time Russia 'Won' a war for a century
Economic = shifted the heavy industry of Russia from west to more central and east

Cold War
Economic = made the USSR focus on showing it's industrial skill, space race
Political = frosty reception with the West made it more self reliant

Draw all these together into 3 different paragraphs and then say which war was the most important in each, and hopefully you'll have the same war twice or more, then this would be the most significant.

My general argument would be along the lines of war was the integral factor in Russian development; the First World War was the most significant of these as it brought not just a physical change, but a change in attitudes. It facilitated the quickest industrialisation of a country to date, bringing it from a mediocre menace to arguably the strongest and most influential country in the world. Furthermore the change in approach and attitude improved agriculture by the 1950's Russia was rivaling the US for grain produced per capita. Socially it also was key in changing the focus from agriculture to industry.

I hoped this helped, these are only a few basic changes brought by each war, there will be many more, if you need any more help feel free to post back,

Tom

can anyone help me with essay planning, i'm finding it very hard to understand the layout of the exam!
i know you have to let the examiner know what you are going to argue in the introduction aswell as the way you're taking the essay, but i find it hard to fit 110 years of russia into an exam lasting one hour, thinking about change and continuety, pros and cons of my arguments etc. can anyone help clear things up for me and possible show me with an essay example? thanks x

hey tom, i was quite confused about what you meant about the first world war social changes. you said the peasants owned the land they worked on? can you explain what you meant by this? also if you had to pick one of the leaders from 1855-1964 for the best at treating the peasants/working class would you say krushchev?

bump

Thanks for your help- Achieved a high A in the exam!

Nice! Did you get into your 1st choice uni? What you reading at uni?

Yes- Law at UCL!

Really well done! Couldn't live in London personally - I visited my friend who's down there at uni and it's just so busy! I go into Leeds regularly and it made Leeds look like a small town Each to their own, ay

Edit: I've just re-read that and it's come across really negative and it wasn't meant to be! best of luck