OCR A2 History: Russia and its Rulers 1855-1964 discussion thread 10 June
Scroll to see replies
Anyone got any good revision material they can share online?
Also, what are the predicted questions? Cheers
Also, what are the predicted questions? Cheers
http://history-groby.weebly.com/a2-history-russia-1855-1964.html I've found this website and it looks pretty good.
Original post by Oiseaux
http://history-groby.weebly.com/a2-history-russia-1855-1964.html I've found this website and it looks pretty good.
Looked through it before, it's relatively unhelpful for how it organises it.
How's everyone else revising for this exam?
Original post by NOP97
Anyone got any good revision material they can share online?
Also, what are the predicted questions? Cheers
Also, what are the predicted questions? Cheers
I want to know the predicted questions too pls
Hey Guys here is all of my revision note spanning all four chapters of the little red book i hope it is useful! if the attachment does not work message me and i will send you it!
GOOD LUCK
GOOD LUCK
Original post by nop97
anyone got any good revision material they can share online?
Also, what are the predicted questions? Cheers
Also, what are the predicted questions? Cheers
here you go good luck
Does anyone have the june 2015 questions for Russia and its rulers (ocr). Or if they know of any questons that came up last year, that would also be helpul. Thanks o lot.
What questions came up in 2015 for this paper?
Revision is going good so far. However i would say im more confident on Russian politics and economics than the social aspect.
Do know what last year's questions were?
Do know what last year's questions were?
Anyone have any predictions for this year?
June 2015 exam with questions, mark scheme, and examiner comments. Good luck.
10. ‘There was more continuity than change in the domestic policies of Russia’s rulers in the period from 1855 to 1964.’ How far do you agree with this view? Stronger answers will adopt a Thematic approach, considering political, social and economic domestic policies. Such an approach, with regular synoptic comparisons between different periods and rulers throughout the essay, should be rewarded in the higher levels for AO1b. Stronger answers will also consider both sides of the proposition. Candidates might consider the policies of Alexander II, the Provisional Government, Lenin and Khrushchev represented change more than those of Alexander III, and Nicholas II. Candidates may see Stalin as the direct heir of Lenin simply embedding many of Lenin’s policies whereas others may see Stalin’s policies as significantly different. Arguments in favour of continuity might include autocratic / dictatorial government, the use of terror and centralized control of the economy. Both regimes tended only to reform under pressure. Candidates may choose to assert that the Tsars were predominantly opposed to change whereas the communist dictators introduced sweeping changes. Lenin seized power in 1917 during the October Revolution and his Marxist-Leninist creed rid Russia of most of the trappings of the Romanov regime. Candidates could argue that Stalin was even more revolutionary, arguing that his economic and social policies in the 1930s utterly transformed the USSR which post-1945 was emerging as a global super-power. Candidates are likely to argue that Khrushchev supported political change (de-Stalinisation) and economic change. The Provisional Government are also likely to be seen as favouring all types of change, most certainly political, though some candidates may argue that their caution in going ahead with land re-distribution puts a question mark against their enthusiasm for social and economic change. In terms of arguing that there was more change than continuity in the domestic policies of Russia’s rulers, candidates might focus on the fate of the old elite and the Orthodox Church. Candidates may argue that whilst there was continuity in policy there were considerable differences of scale, for example in terms of economic progress, urbanisation and the use of terror. It might be argued that the communists represented a more ruthless and efficient twentieth century variant of Russian authoritarianism than the Tsars. Candidates may also assert that despite the revolutionary nature of their doctrine, Lenin and Stalin both exhibited reactionary tendencies, pursuing policies that have led many historians to refer to communist dictatorship as simply another version of autocratic authoritarianism.
This was a very popular question and was generally handled effectively. Most candidates realised the need to deconstruct ‘domestic policies’ by adopting, at least, an economic, social and political factor based framework for analysis. The very best responses broke the factor headings down into sub strata: for example, economic became agricultural and industrial policies. Despite this, some candidates were clearly more secure when discussing economic and political issues than those of a social nature. The latter often involved discussion of educational provision, living conditions (especially housing) and religion. In fact, some candidates still seem to have problems in defining the economic, social and political. Once a factor-based structure was adopted, the best answers then focused on the extent to which policies changed or remained the same. A significant number drifted to looking at changing motives for policies (that is, why there was change), whilst others described how policies altered over time. These approaches were not what the question demanded, and in some cases reasonably well informed answers had to be confined to the lowest Levels as they were deemed to be more on the topic. Also, this question drew responses that clearly illustrated how candidates had been drilled to use connectives (for example, ‘similarly’, ‘comparatively’) but without the necessary explanation and development to make the link words ‘work’. Thus, for example, to state that Stalin’s industrial policies were similar to those of Witte does not equate to synthesis; the link between the two would need to be fully explored for such a point to be recognised of being of Level II (and above) quality.
11. ‘Stalin 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? Strongest responses will adopt a Thematic approach, comparing how various rulers dealt with opposition throughout this period. Such an approach, with regular synoptic comparisons between different rulers throughout the essay, should be rewarded in the higher levels for AO1b. Stronger answers will also consider both sides of the proposition and may define ‘successful’. Candidates who clearly define different ways of dealing with opposition, for example repression, reform and the policy of ‘divide and rule’ are most likely to be successful. Others are likely to structure the essay around the various rulers of Russia, perhaps arguing that some rulers were much more successful at dealing with opposition than others. This approach is likely to be more successful if comparisons are made throughout the essay than if they are largely left to the conclusion.
Candidates may well see Alexander III, Lenin and Stalin as more successful at dealing with opposition than either Alexander II (who faced a growing tide of opposition and was ultimately assassinated) or Nicholas II (under whom the Romanov dynasty ended) or Khrushchev (despite his evident success in the power struggle after Stalin’s death as he was forced to retire by the Central Committee in 1964) or Prince Lvov / Kerensky (who were swept aside in 1917). Candidates may well argue that Stalin was more successful at dealing with opposition than any other ruler. Stalin defeated all of his rivals during the power struggle with consummate skill and exterminated real and imagined opponents with bloodcurdling efficiency for the next 25 years and his chilling terror may well lead candidates to argue that he was the most successful ruler at dealing with opposition. Candidates are likely to see Stalin as the most effective user of repression of all Russia’s rulers in this period. However, candidates must also consider whether other rulers dealt with opposition more successfully than Stalin did. Most candidates are likely to concentrate their alternate arguments on Lenin and Alexander III when considering whether Stalin was the most successful ruler at dealing with opposition. Some candidates may well argue that Lenin was even more successful because he cut a swath through the other parties that aspired to power in 1917 and successfully defended his revolution during the Civil War. He created the world’s first communist state and died with his party securely in power. Other parties were all banned, as were factions within the Communist Party. Alexander III came to the throne after the assassination of his father, whose reign had seen opposition spiralling out of control. His imposition of ‘the Reaction’ drove opponents underground or abroad. Candidates may well compare his achievements with the failure of both his father and his son to control opposition. Amongst these latter-day Tsars he was undeniably most successful at dealing with opposition. Candidates who choose to differentiate between dealing with opponents and dealing with the reasons for opposition may see Alexander III in a different light. They may wish to argue that the granting of concessions was a more successful way of dealing with opposition than ruthless repression. It can be argued that his imposition of ‘the reaction’ from 1881 bequeathed Nicholas II a revolution.
Most responses started with discussion of Stalin’s policies and at least attempted to compare them with those of other leaders. The very best essays offered a clear definition of ‘successful’ and linked this to different types of opposition and the various methods used to deal with it. Most focused on domestic (internal) opposition (for example, peasants, workers, elites) and some looked at external opposition (for example, via warfare). Thus, generally, candidates were comfortable in using a range of material to cover the whole time period. Some responses fell down by, as with answers to question 10, not fully explaining comparisons between leaders. Also, some of the end judgements about Stalin in particular were rather simplistic. Many argued (or asserted) that he was the most successful leader as he killed most of his opponents
12. ‘The development of Russian government was influenced more by revolution than any other factor.’ How far do you agree with this view of the period from 1855 to 1964? Strongest responses will adopt a Thematic approach, comparing the importance of revolution against the other dominant factors in the development of Russian government during this period. Such factors may include war, reform and the aims and policies of rulers. Such an approach, with regular synoptic comparisons between different factors throughout the essay, should be rewarded in the higher levels for AO1b. Candidates who discuss aspects of Russian government such as the fate of opposition, changes in ideology, the absence of democracy, the one party state and compare the relative influence of revolutions on these developments are most likely to be successful. Examiners must not expect to find reference to all these aspects in candidate answers
Candidates may argue that the development of Russian government was influenced more by revolution than any other factor using a variety of evidence. When arguing in support of this view candidates are likely to draw most of their evidence from the 1905 Revolution (the October Manifesto and the introduction of the Duma; in a pure sense the abandonment of absolutism) and the twin revolutions of 1917. The February Revolution ended over 300 years of Romanov rule and the establishment of the Provisional Government intent on bringing constitutional government to Russia. October 1917 and the triumph of Bolshevism crushed all possibility that a liberal democracy might emerge in Russia and transformed Russia into the Soviet Union – the world’s first communist state. However, some candidates may argue that whilst the revolutions of 1917 swept aside the Romanovs and introduced Bolshevism, they had a limited impact on the development of Russian government as one form of autocracy was replaced by another. Candidates may well choose to argue that war had an important influence on developments in Russian government. Arguably, the horrific impact of the First World War, both at the front and at home, sealed the fate of the Romanovs and, in turn, the Provisional Government in 1917. Candidates may argue that the appeal of the Bolsheviks in 1917 and the triumph of Lenin were directly related to the impact of the First World War. War can therefore be viewed as the prime cause of the end of autocratic government and the failure of the temporary move towards constitutional government. Defeat in the Crimean War can be seen as the trigger for Alexander II’s programme of reform and the introduction of Zemstva as a new system of post-Emancipation local government. Similarly the Russo-Japanese War led to Nicholas II’s announcement of the October Manifesto and the formation of the Duma. Arguably, victory in the Second World War entrenched Stalin’s dictatorial power and had a brutal impact on the government of many of the outlying ‘republics’ of the USSR. However, candidates may still argue that revolution had a greater impact on the development of Russian government than war. The impact of the First World War was not the only cause of either the October or the February revolutions of 1917, nor was defeat by Japan the only cause of the 1905 Revolution. As the revolutions were multi-causal candidates may argue they had the most important impact on the development of Russian government in this period. Candidates may well see other factors such as the impact of reforms and the personalities of the rulers as playing an influential role on the development of Russian government.
Some candidates struggled with this question, for two reasons. First, they found it difficult to compare and contrast the importance of factors as they influenced government. Second, and despite comments made about this on previous reports, they drifted to looking at issues not related to government (that is, of an economic and social nature). There were a significant number of very good responses that did avoid these pitfalls though. The very best argued how revolution could not be divorced from other developments especially war but also the ideologies of particular leaders. Such responses were invariably well informed about the different facets of government, including ideology, tools of government and governmental structures. Some candidates were less well versed in Russian politics and government and ended up making gross generalisations about authoritarianism, dictatorships and totalitarianism. Overall, success on this question depended on how much thought was given to the key terms involved and how an answer could be planned to cover all the key variables effectively.
10. ‘There was more continuity than change in the domestic policies of Russia’s rulers in the period from 1855 to 1964.’ How far do you agree with this view? Stronger answers will adopt a Thematic approach, considering political, social and economic domestic policies. Such an approach, with regular synoptic comparisons between different periods and rulers throughout the essay, should be rewarded in the higher levels for AO1b. Stronger answers will also consider both sides of the proposition. Candidates might consider the policies of Alexander II, the Provisional Government, Lenin and Khrushchev represented change more than those of Alexander III, and Nicholas II. Candidates may see Stalin as the direct heir of Lenin simply embedding many of Lenin’s policies whereas others may see Stalin’s policies as significantly different. Arguments in favour of continuity might include autocratic / dictatorial government, the use of terror and centralized control of the economy. Both regimes tended only to reform under pressure. Candidates may choose to assert that the Tsars were predominantly opposed to change whereas the communist dictators introduced sweeping changes. Lenin seized power in 1917 during the October Revolution and his Marxist-Leninist creed rid Russia of most of the trappings of the Romanov regime. Candidates could argue that Stalin was even more revolutionary, arguing that his economic and social policies in the 1930s utterly transformed the USSR which post-1945 was emerging as a global super-power. Candidates are likely to argue that Khrushchev supported political change (de-Stalinisation) and economic change. The Provisional Government are also likely to be seen as favouring all types of change, most certainly political, though some candidates may argue that their caution in going ahead with land re-distribution puts a question mark against their enthusiasm for social and economic change. In terms of arguing that there was more change than continuity in the domestic policies of Russia’s rulers, candidates might focus on the fate of the old elite and the Orthodox Church. Candidates may argue that whilst there was continuity in policy there were considerable differences of scale, for example in terms of economic progress, urbanisation and the use of terror. It might be argued that the communists represented a more ruthless and efficient twentieth century variant of Russian authoritarianism than the Tsars. Candidates may also assert that despite the revolutionary nature of their doctrine, Lenin and Stalin both exhibited reactionary tendencies, pursuing policies that have led many historians to refer to communist dictatorship as simply another version of autocratic authoritarianism.
This was a very popular question and was generally handled effectively. Most candidates realised the need to deconstruct ‘domestic policies’ by adopting, at least, an economic, social and political factor based framework for analysis. The very best responses broke the factor headings down into sub strata: for example, economic became agricultural and industrial policies. Despite this, some candidates were clearly more secure when discussing economic and political issues than those of a social nature. The latter often involved discussion of educational provision, living conditions (especially housing) and religion. In fact, some candidates still seem to have problems in defining the economic, social and political. Once a factor-based structure was adopted, the best answers then focused on the extent to which policies changed or remained the same. A significant number drifted to looking at changing motives for policies (that is, why there was change), whilst others described how policies altered over time. These approaches were not what the question demanded, and in some cases reasonably well informed answers had to be confined to the lowest Levels as they were deemed to be more on the topic. Also, this question drew responses that clearly illustrated how candidates had been drilled to use connectives (for example, ‘similarly’, ‘comparatively’) but without the necessary explanation and development to make the link words ‘work’. Thus, for example, to state that Stalin’s industrial policies were similar to those of Witte does not equate to synthesis; the link between the two would need to be fully explored for such a point to be recognised of being of Level II (and above) quality.
11. ‘Stalin 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? Strongest responses will adopt a Thematic approach, comparing how various rulers dealt with opposition throughout this period. Such an approach, with regular synoptic comparisons between different rulers throughout the essay, should be rewarded in the higher levels for AO1b. Stronger answers will also consider both sides of the proposition and may define ‘successful’. Candidates who clearly define different ways of dealing with opposition, for example repression, reform and the policy of ‘divide and rule’ are most likely to be successful. Others are likely to structure the essay around the various rulers of Russia, perhaps arguing that some rulers were much more successful at dealing with opposition than others. This approach is likely to be more successful if comparisons are made throughout the essay than if they are largely left to the conclusion.
Candidates may well see Alexander III, Lenin and Stalin as more successful at dealing with opposition than either Alexander II (who faced a growing tide of opposition and was ultimately assassinated) or Nicholas II (under whom the Romanov dynasty ended) or Khrushchev (despite his evident success in the power struggle after Stalin’s death as he was forced to retire by the Central Committee in 1964) or Prince Lvov / Kerensky (who were swept aside in 1917). Candidates may well argue that Stalin was more successful at dealing with opposition than any other ruler. Stalin defeated all of his rivals during the power struggle with consummate skill and exterminated real and imagined opponents with bloodcurdling efficiency for the next 25 years and his chilling terror may well lead candidates to argue that he was the most successful ruler at dealing with opposition. Candidates are likely to see Stalin as the most effective user of repression of all Russia’s rulers in this period. However, candidates must also consider whether other rulers dealt with opposition more successfully than Stalin did. Most candidates are likely to concentrate their alternate arguments on Lenin and Alexander III when considering whether Stalin was the most successful ruler at dealing with opposition. Some candidates may well argue that Lenin was even more successful because he cut a swath through the other parties that aspired to power in 1917 and successfully defended his revolution during the Civil War. He created the world’s first communist state and died with his party securely in power. Other parties were all banned, as were factions within the Communist Party. Alexander III came to the throne after the assassination of his father, whose reign had seen opposition spiralling out of control. His imposition of ‘the Reaction’ drove opponents underground or abroad. Candidates may well compare his achievements with the failure of both his father and his son to control opposition. Amongst these latter-day Tsars he was undeniably most successful at dealing with opposition. Candidates who choose to differentiate between dealing with opponents and dealing with the reasons for opposition may see Alexander III in a different light. They may wish to argue that the granting of concessions was a more successful way of dealing with opposition than ruthless repression. It can be argued that his imposition of ‘the reaction’ from 1881 bequeathed Nicholas II a revolution.
Most responses started with discussion of Stalin’s policies and at least attempted to compare them with those of other leaders. The very best essays offered a clear definition of ‘successful’ and linked this to different types of opposition and the various methods used to deal with it. Most focused on domestic (internal) opposition (for example, peasants, workers, elites) and some looked at external opposition (for example, via warfare). Thus, generally, candidates were comfortable in using a range of material to cover the whole time period. Some responses fell down by, as with answers to question 10, not fully explaining comparisons between leaders. Also, some of the end judgements about Stalin in particular were rather simplistic. Many argued (or asserted) that he was the most successful leader as he killed most of his opponents
12. ‘The development of Russian government was influenced more by revolution than any other factor.’ How far do you agree with this view of the period from 1855 to 1964? Strongest responses will adopt a Thematic approach, comparing the importance of revolution against the other dominant factors in the development of Russian government during this period. Such factors may include war, reform and the aims and policies of rulers. Such an approach, with regular synoptic comparisons between different factors throughout the essay, should be rewarded in the higher levels for AO1b. Candidates who discuss aspects of Russian government such as the fate of opposition, changes in ideology, the absence of democracy, the one party state and compare the relative influence of revolutions on these developments are most likely to be successful. Examiners must not expect to find reference to all these aspects in candidate answers
Candidates may argue that the development of Russian government was influenced more by revolution than any other factor using a variety of evidence. When arguing in support of this view candidates are likely to draw most of their evidence from the 1905 Revolution (the October Manifesto and the introduction of the Duma; in a pure sense the abandonment of absolutism) and the twin revolutions of 1917. The February Revolution ended over 300 years of Romanov rule and the establishment of the Provisional Government intent on bringing constitutional government to Russia. October 1917 and the triumph of Bolshevism crushed all possibility that a liberal democracy might emerge in Russia and transformed Russia into the Soviet Union – the world’s first communist state. However, some candidates may argue that whilst the revolutions of 1917 swept aside the Romanovs and introduced Bolshevism, they had a limited impact on the development of Russian government as one form of autocracy was replaced by another. Candidates may well choose to argue that war had an important influence on developments in Russian government. Arguably, the horrific impact of the First World War, both at the front and at home, sealed the fate of the Romanovs and, in turn, the Provisional Government in 1917. Candidates may argue that the appeal of the Bolsheviks in 1917 and the triumph of Lenin were directly related to the impact of the First World War. War can therefore be viewed as the prime cause of the end of autocratic government and the failure of the temporary move towards constitutional government. Defeat in the Crimean War can be seen as the trigger for Alexander II’s programme of reform and the introduction of Zemstva as a new system of post-Emancipation local government. Similarly the Russo-Japanese War led to Nicholas II’s announcement of the October Manifesto and the formation of the Duma. Arguably, victory in the Second World War entrenched Stalin’s dictatorial power and had a brutal impact on the government of many of the outlying ‘republics’ of the USSR. However, candidates may still argue that revolution had a greater impact on the development of Russian government than war. The impact of the First World War was not the only cause of either the October or the February revolutions of 1917, nor was defeat by Japan the only cause of the 1905 Revolution. As the revolutions were multi-causal candidates may argue they had the most important impact on the development of Russian government in this period. Candidates may well see other factors such as the impact of reforms and the personalities of the rulers as playing an influential role on the development of Russian government.
Some candidates struggled with this question, for two reasons. First, they found it difficult to compare and contrast the importance of factors as they influenced government. Second, and despite comments made about this on previous reports, they drifted to looking at issues not related to government (that is, of an economic and social nature). There were a significant number of very good responses that did avoid these pitfalls though. The very best argued how revolution could not be divorced from other developments especially war but also the ideologies of particular leaders. Such responses were invariably well informed about the different facets of government, including ideology, tools of government and governmental structures. Some candidates were less well versed in Russian politics and government and ended up making gross generalisations about authoritarianism, dictatorships and totalitarianism. Overall, success on this question depended on how much thought was given to the key terms involved and how an answer could be planned to cover all the key variables effectively.
Wow. Thanks for taking the time to write all this. Much appreciated. Are you doing this exam on the 19th as well?
Hey, I was wondering how many past papers you guys have already done/are gonna do by the exam? Just so I have an idea of how many more I should do
Original post by A Wild Student
Hey, I was wondering how many past papers you guys have already done/are gonna do by the exam? Just so I have an idea of how many more I should do
I really dont know. My teacher made me do them as we went along in the course which was great. I am still doing them. What i have done is printed all of the past paper questions and planned for each them. From these questions i am mostly focussing on the social aspect of the course more than the economics and politics. Right now im only doing social themed questions. Im not so much focussing on the number of past papers i do. I think you will know when you have done enough. I dont know if that answered your question but this is what im doing. Hope it helps.
Let's say a question on how peasant lives have improved/changed throughout the period comes up. How would you structure this? I would use the generic social economic political theme structure but then I can't find much (if anything) to talk about in the political section. Any help? 
Original post by Oiseaux
Let's say a question on how peasant lives have improved/changed throughout the period comes up. How would you structure this? I would use the generic social economic political theme structure but then I can't find much (if anything) to talk about in the political section. Any help?
In this question for the political section, i would look at people power, whether the peasantry got any say in governement affairs. So i would look at voting. There are lots of examples you could give e.g,
AII: Dumas 1864 and Zemstvas 1864 - peasants only formed 10% of total membership, compared to 74% for the nobility. Peasants were also subordinate to other classes so although they were members they didnt have any real say in local government affairs.
AIII: 'Reactionary period': Restricted funding for zemstvas, Land Captains 1889 - political lives certainly deteriorated under AIII.
NII: First official elections to the Dumas in 1906 using the Curia system - only time in this period that people could actually vote for political parties. But after the fundamental laws of 1906, their votes didnt matter as tsar retained ultimage power. Nevertheless, the peasantry still got the freedom to vote.
Lenin: Closing of the Constituent Assembly and banning of all other political parties eradicated any chance of democracy occuring under the communists.
Elections to local and district soviets -everyone could vote but only choice was cummunists as they dominated the soviets.
This continued throughout Stalin and Khruschev's reign as both adopted the same political governmental structure planted by lenin.
So their political lives did not improve at all thought this period. This is not all surprising as Russia remained under autocratic rule for the most part of this period and any political freedom to the most abundant social group, i.e the peasants would have proven too hostile to the regime.
Hope this helps.
Original post by shazaib9696
In this question for the political section, i would look at people power, whether the peasantry got any say in governement affairs. So i would look at voting. There are lots of examples you could give e.g,
AII: Dumas 1864 and Zemstvas 1864 - peasants only formed 10% of total membership, compared to 74% for the nobility. Peasants were also subordinate to other classes so although they were members they didnt have any real say in local government affairs.
AIII: 'Reactionary period': Restricted funding for zemstvas, Land Captains 1889 - political lives certainly deteriorated under AIII.
NII: First official elections to the Dumas in 1906 using the Curia system - only time in this period that people could actually vote for political parties. But after the fundamental laws of 1906, their votes didnt matter as tsar retained ultimage power. Nevertheless, the peasantry still got the freedom to vote.
Lenin: Closing of the Constituent Assembly and banning of all other political parties eradicated any chance of democracy occuring under the communists.
Elections to local and district soviets -everyone could vote but only choice was cummunists as they dominated the soviets.
This continued throughout Stalin and Khruschev's reign as both adopted the same political governmental structure planted by lenin.
So their political lives did not improve at all thought this period. This is not all surprising as Russia remained under autocratic rule for the most part of this period and any political freedom to the most abundant social group, i.e the peasants would have proven too hostile to the regime.
Hope this helps.
AII: Dumas 1864 and Zemstvas 1864 - peasants only formed 10% of total membership, compared to 74% for the nobility. Peasants were also subordinate to other classes so although they were members they didnt have any real say in local government affairs.
AIII: 'Reactionary period': Restricted funding for zemstvas, Land Captains 1889 - political lives certainly deteriorated under AIII.
NII: First official elections to the Dumas in 1906 using the Curia system - only time in this period that people could actually vote for political parties. But after the fundamental laws of 1906, their votes didnt matter as tsar retained ultimage power. Nevertheless, the peasantry still got the freedom to vote.
Lenin: Closing of the Constituent Assembly and banning of all other political parties eradicated any chance of democracy occuring under the communists.
Elections to local and district soviets -everyone could vote but only choice was cummunists as they dominated the soviets.
This continued throughout Stalin and Khruschev's reign as both adopted the same political governmental structure planted by lenin.
So their political lives did not improve at all thought this period. This is not all surprising as Russia remained under autocratic rule for the most part of this period and any political freedom to the most abundant social group, i.e the peasants would have proven too hostile to the regime.
Hope this helps.
That's really helpful, thanks!
I think a question on workers or peasants will come up. Probably workers because peasants has come up more often. Maybe that's wishful thinking though 
Original post by Oiseaux
I think a question on workers or peasants will come up. Probably workers because peasants has come up more often. Maybe that's wishful thinking though
Structure for such questions in my opinion will be difficult. I attached some comments for each of the questions in the hope it may help some people.
I would structure the peasantry question like so:
Theme 1: Social policies
Peasantry conditions were not transformed to a large degree. Whilst there were some improvements under Alexander II and Khruschev through the little use of repression, subjugation of minorities, and censorship, the terror was not present to the peasantry as it was under Lenin, and Stalin specifically. You can also bring NII, AIII and PG here.
Theme 2: Economic policies
Economic policies had transformed the condition of the peasantry, but transformed via deterioration. There was continuity in poor conditions, little equipment for farming, and low productivity. You can use policies such as War Communism, Collectivisation, and the stagnant Mir system as evidence for that. You can use NEP, Khruschev's virgin land scheme, and Stolypin's wager on the strong as glimpses of hope in the improvement of the condition, but all three didn't show continuity.
Theme 3: Demands of state
This is a weird theme, and in my opinion there is more useful information to speak about than political conditions (if you want to do political improvements, like suggested above, you can).
By demands of state I mean that the demands by the state created a block for reforms to occur, which stagnated the conditions of the peasantry - and in some periods, made it considerably worse. Wars created 'total war'; civil war and war communism led to famine in 1921, Stalinist collectivisation and requestioning led to national man made famine in early 1930s (especially in Ukrainian holodomar). These total wars absolutely transformed the condition of the peasantry by deteriorating it. As you always need a counter, I would say that WW1 and WW2 especially created the need to industrialise, which led to mass westward migration into the cities from the countryside. In some ways this was beneficial as it created urbanised peasants which Russia desperately needed to modernise, and although conditions were poor due to overcrowding, peasants had an improvement in terms of earning slightly more. Of course, this backfired once WW1 inflation occured, and little standards in law were organised for working/living conditions by the Tsar. This continued under Stalin who didn't enact any policies of set requirements for health/safety conditioning in the work place, but rather inspired workers through propaganda and Stakhonivite movement. It is important to not focus too much or urbanised peasants, as the line between them and the proletariat (actual working class) is blurred.
Peasants:
10 Assess the view that the condition of the peasantry in Russia was transformed in the period from 1855 to 1964. [60]
Candidates should focus on the similarities and differences between the condition of the peasantry and the treatment that the peasants received, both before and after 1917. Transformed is the key word in this title; candidates may well consider how valid this premise is. Candidates may well argue against the condition of the peasantry being transformed. It could be argued that the peasantry made little progress in many ways during this period and that predominantly their living and working conditions remained bleak. Peasants were only serfs under the Romanovs, but some candidates may argue that there was little real improvement and / or that collectivization was a ‘second serfdom’. Before and after 1917 there was harsh treatment of the peasantry by both regimes; in both periods they were ‘squeezed dry’ to finance industrialization. Famine hit, e.g. 1891, 1921 & 1932, regardless of regime, although arguably Stalin’s denial of the famine of the 1930s made its impact worse. Control over their lives, whether exercised through the Mir, the Land Captains or the Kolkhoz was a common feature, although distinctions may clearly be made. However there were periods of reform both before and after 1917 that should enable candidates to successfully support the view in the question. The peasants were given glimpses of reform, e.g. Emancipation in 1861, the Peasants Land Bank from the 1880s, the Decree on Land in 1917 and the NEP from 1921. All of these changes led to improvements, although some were temporary, in their living and working conditions. Both regimes had a temporary Kulak policy under Stolypin from 1906 & under the NEP from 1921-28 as peasants were encouraged to ‘enrich themselves’. Arguably the communists did much more to introduce social reform, for example in the sphere of education, than the Tsars. Candidates may argue that whilst some peasants suffered dreadfully under Stalin because of collectivisation and de-kulakisation the survivors had significantly better health care and education than their predecessors. And their prospects were further enhanced by Khrushchev’s Virgin Lands Scheme.
The best candidates followed a purely thematic approach which led to the use of much synthesis. Most challenged the statement and were able to identify instances of continuity rather than change. Chronological routes work far less well than thematic since, all too often, comparative analysis was omitted or added as an after-thought. There seemed to be a good depth of knowledge from many, although some seemed rather hazy over Lenin and the reasons for the NEP. The vast majority made a good attempt at this question and were able to come to a supported conclusion. Some candidates seemed to have been coached into an emphasis on synthesis and were able to link the different regimes, but offered very limited factual evidence in support. The key word that candidates needed to focus on was transformed, and this was overlooked by some - who simply discussed change and continuity and appeared to assume that change was the same as transformed. Quite often candidates wanted to assess whether life was bleak or miserable, as has been asked in previous questions. This is an important message for candidates who want to achieve the high levels: they must focus on the key word or phrase in the question. Better answers were thematic, whereas weaker candidates just went through the rulers one at a time. Some students overlooked Stalin or Stolypin, and many responses neglected the postStalin years, whilst others seemed to be desperate to talk about industry and the proletariat. Too many candidates were unable to differentiate between the better off peasants and the rest. Far too many wrote about the kulaks and their fate in the early 1930s without saying when and how this class of peasant came into existence thereby overlooking a key element in the transformation of peasant life in this period. Alexander II and Stalin were seen as having the biggest impact on peasant life. Living and working conditions featured, often well; repression was a major theme; the attitudes of the State and its rulers, exploitation , military demands, fiscal pressures, the nature of state-driven reforms, featured, more unevenly. More could have been made of the better or even good times, the improvements (educational, health, life expectancy, working practices and conditions, even areas of welfare), set against the obviously bad times. Collectivisation still needs to be examined more closely. A few candidates spotted generational issues in all this, with younger peasants more receptive to state-led changes. Much is written about political areas but it is moot point just how much those areas really mattered to most peasants. Overall, many cogent arguments for change or continuity in the condition of the peasantry were put forward – although only a minority really got to grips with the ‘transformation’ as mentioned in the question. This was a surprise as change and continuity is at the core of the unit and put in such extreme language one would think that the question form would prompt a direct engagement of this aspect of the mark scheme.
Working class:
11 Assess the view that Russia’s communist leaders did less than the Tsars to improve the lives of the working class in the period from 1855 to 1964. [60]
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period. Candidates should focus on the living and working conditions of Russia’s industrial and urban working class. Candidates should compare the experience of the working class under the tsars with their experience under the communists. Candidates may wish to compare the expectations the working class had from their ‘Little Fathers’ with their expectations under the Bolsheviks. Some candidates may compare and contrast Marxist ideology with the actual experience of life in the USSR. Candidates are likely to compare the impact of industrialization on the lives of the people, both before and after 1917. Similarities could include the grim experience of industrialization experienced by the proletariat, both as a consequence of Witte’s ‘Great Spurt’ and Stalin’s Five Year Plans. Candidates may wish to compare the scale of the suffering under Lenin and Stalin with that experienced before 1917. Candidates may argue that the working peoples gained benefits from Soviet rule, for example in the sphere of education. Candidates are likely to limit their evaluation of life for the proletariat under the Tsars from around 1890 as there were comparatively few urban workers prior to Witte’s ‘Great Spurt’. However, some candidates may deal with the whole period from 1855 as there were serfs working in factories prior to Emancipation in 1861. Candidates may treat Russia’s peasants as part of their discussions as the growing proletariat consisted largelyof urbanised peasants, but the main focus should involve a consideration of the experience of Russia’s industrial working class or proletariat and candidates who fail to discuss the industrial and urban workers should not be put into Levels (i) or (ii) or (iii) . Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their Team Leader.
Candidates frequently turned this question into one about the treatment of the Russian peasantry and while many peasants did indeed become ‘working class’, living in towns and working in factories, many candidates knew little about how industrial developments affected the lives of Russians. Others made perfunctory references to the industrial workers, relying on assertions and generalisations. The better candidates were clearly able to make the necessary distinctions and focus on the question at hand. Several candidates were very well informed on employment statistics in the Stalinist period and housing and working conditions. The best answers examined living and working conditions, personal freedom, civil rights and electoral opportunities, social and cultural changes, especially in health and educational opportunities, how the lives of women improved over the period, and made effective contrasts between the Tsarist and Communist periods. Such answers were often detailed, using good illustrative knowledge about living and working conditions, prices and wages, working hours and practices, trade unions, factories and the demands of the state. Many gave good assessments of life under Stalin and Khrushchev but knowledge of developments under Alexander III and Nicholas II was less assured and, surprisingly, few analysed changes under the Provisional Government. Strong essays organised ideas thematically; weaker responses tended to adopt a chronological and descriptive approach.
(edited 7 years ago)
Does anyone have any tips on keeping the essay synoptic? My essays are arranged theme-by-theme but I somehow keep reverting to chronology. For example if I have a paragraph on economic policies, within that paragraph I tend to go ruler by ruler (in order) listing their policies although I do compare a few of them with each other. This is wrong, right? Can someone share a few model paragraphs or even a few sentences?
Sorry, I've gotten literally no help on essay structuring due to an incompetent teacher.
Sorry, I've gotten literally no help on essay structuring due to an incompetent teacher.
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]
- Ocr alevel history paper 3
- OCR A Level History Britain 1930-1997 PDF?
- Exam predictions OCR History Russia
- OCR A-Level History Unit 3 (Y301-Y321) - 24th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- AQA history coursework on Russia 1855-1964
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- a level study buddy!!
- OCR A-level History British period study and enquiry: All exams 10th Jun 2022
- Evaluate the interpretations
- Good History A-Level resources
- Can someone pls give me feedback on my crime and punishment 16 mark q?
- A-level History Study Group 2022-2023
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- OCR A Level History Non-British period study: All Exams - 22 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- year 13 gyg journal : trying not to become an academic victim 🤡📖
- mauufey v a-levels gyg 2024 🌺🍵
- A-level History Study Group 2023-2024
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 5 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and ChallengeLast reply 3 months ago
AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 5 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and ChallengeLast reply 3 months ago
AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023
