This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- University of Surrey Accommodation Band D subclasses
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- Unit 7 health and social care level 3 task 2 merit and distinction
- Official University of Surrey Accommodation Thread
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2023
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- IGCSES
- How many GCSEs are you getting?
- What are the est art gcse themes
- Edexcel GCSE English Language Paper 1 (1EN0 01) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 2 (1HI0 2A-2W) - 4th JUNE [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 3 (9HI0 30-39) - 11th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- WJEC A Level History Paper 2 - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- IAL repeats cash in.
- A-level History Study Group 2022-2023
- What's the hardest exam you've sat so far?
- History topics
- How can I get a 9 in GCSE history?
Edexcel AS History 1 Option D3/D4 - 2nd of June
Scroll to see replies
sdiana91
hey guys, i've got mine tomorrow and really worried! i've done my revision but forgotten a lot of it already and gonna go revise again in a bit,lol.... does anyone know what the exact questions that came up in Jan 2009 paper?? So I don't really revise those areas so much....???
JAN PAPER 2009
D3: How far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905
OR
D3: How far was the Provisional Government responsible for its own downfall
D4: How far were economic problems responsible for Stalins decision to replace the NEP in 1928 with the first FYP
OR
D4: How far was the dramatic development of a war economy responsible for the USSRs victory in the Second World War
Sorry missed out a possible D3 topic...
Lenin's Legacy
Doing this on essay qus...
How far was Lenin a Red Tsar?
Or
How far did the Russia of 1924 differ from the Russia of 1900?
Lenin was a Red Tsar/little difference
Lenin wasn't
Conclusion - acted like a Red Tsar but some drawbacks and he didnt mirror policies.
These points can also be moulded to fit:
How far was Lenins rule 'Power to the People' and not 'A People's Tragedy'.
Would not like this topic....
Lenin's Legacy
Doing this on essay qus...
How far was Lenin a Red Tsar?
Or
How far did the Russia of 1924 differ from the Russia of 1900?
Lenin was a Red Tsar/little difference
•
Repression - Kronstadt/Tambov
•
Central Government - Sovnarkom and the Politburo
•
Political Parties/Press - 2 Kadets killed and press obliterated
•
Stubbornness - consolidation is an example
•
Reform only after repression - AIII compared to Lenin = kronstadt repression THEN NEP
•
Cheka/OGPU
•
Non caring attitude - grain requisitioning
Lenin wasn't
•
Not absolutist rule - politburo
•
did allow art etc to flourish
•
power to the people - land decree et
Conclusion - acted like a Red Tsar but some drawbacks and he didnt mirror policies.
These points can also be moulded to fit:
How far was Lenins rule 'Power to the People' and not 'A People's Tragedy'.
Would not like this topic....
sh2009
Just smashed D3....about to start D4 now...
Thanks for everyones info over the few days, its been a BIG help
I'm learning some good quotes from historians to boost my marks, Richard Pipes and Norman Stone are two good ones, if anyone needs relevant quotes posting, just reply!
Good luck tomorrow everyone!
Thanks for everyones info over the few days, its been a BIG help
I'm learning some good quotes from historians to boost my marks, Richard Pipes and Norman Stone are two good ones, if anyone needs relevant quotes posting, just reply!
Good luck tomorrow everyone!
Yes pleaseee!
Bellrosk
Does anybody have an A grade essay on their computers that I could read? I've been struggling with essay technique to reach the higher grades and some direction would be great.
I have the following essays which my history teacher marked at 'A-'
The main cause of the Bolsheviks coming to power was the failure of the Provisional Gov. Discuss
What problems faced Nicolas II on his ascention to the throne
How far do you agree that the Bolsheviks won the Civil War because they controlled more weapns and has access to more people
And I got a B- on
How far was the First World War the main cause for the Romanovs downfall in February 1917
If anyone needs these I have the word documents, and think they're really useful for revision, well the A graded ones are. If anyone wants to take a gamble with my messy work, reply!
A-Man...
Do you have those brillant notes on 'How far does Stalins position as General Secretary explain his success in defeating his rivals in the years 1924-29;... 'How far did the priorites of the three FYPs change in the years 1929-41'
Would be extremely appreciated if you have the time!
Do you have those brillant notes on 'How far does Stalins position as General Secretary explain his success in defeating his rivals in the years 1924-29;... 'How far did the priorites of the three FYPs change in the years 1929-41'
Would be extremely appreciated if you have the time!
sh2009
A-Man...
Do you have those brillant notes on 'How far does Stalins position as General Secretary explain his success in defeating his rivals in the years 1924-29;... 'How far did the priorites of the three FYPs change in the years 1929-41'
Would be extremely appreciated if you have the time!
Do you have those brillant notes on 'How far does Stalins position as General Secretary explain his success in defeating his rivals in the years 1924-29;... 'How far did the priorites of the three FYPs change in the years 1929-41'
Would be extremely appreciated if you have the time!
If you look back at the last page, then the first one is there.
My Five Year Plan/collectivisation one is coming right up.
sh2009
I have the following essays which my history teacher marked at 'A-'
The main cause of the Bolsheviks coming to power was the failure of the Provisional Gov. Discuss
What problems faced Nicolas II on his ascention to the throne
How far do you agree that the Bolsheviks won the Civil War because they controlled more weapns and has access to more people
And I got a B- on
How far was the First World War the main cause for the Romanovs downfall in February 1917
If anyone needs these I have the word documents, and think they're really useful for revision, well the A graded ones are. If anyone wants to take a gamble with my messy work, reply!
The main cause of the Bolsheviks coming to power was the failure of the Provisional Gov. Discuss
What problems faced Nicolas II on his ascention to the throne
How far do you agree that the Bolsheviks won the Civil War because they controlled more weapns and has access to more people
And I got a B- on
How far was the First World War the main cause for the Romanovs downfall in February 1917
If anyone needs these I have the word documents, and think they're really useful for revision, well the A graded ones are. If anyone wants to take a gamble with my messy work, reply!
Yes please! Please can u attach
Also, tell me if this paragraph is analytitcal/non narrative enough:
The ongoing war with Germany was a major factor in the fall of the Tsar and is perceived by many as the catalyst of the revolution. It became increasingly obvious from the start of the war that Russia could not withstand a lengthy battle consuming its resources, despite the innitial surge of grain production. Throughout the war, 7 million died, and the deaths were not only confined to the battlefields as horse and food procurement to provide for the troops led to severe shortages and ultimately famine during the war. The war was run by backwards, inefficient generals whom led Russia's people ultimately to their death - causing uproar at home. The importance of the war was that it highlighted once again the inadequacy of Russia and the fact that its people were being failed by the Tsar. The war is seen by many historians as the catalyst or the spark for the revolution; an event that exemplified the problems with Russian society as they were brought to the brink of collapse, and that Russia may have been able to reform and avoid revolution. However, there is a second school of thought that suggests that a revolution was inevitable and that the war simply hurried the process. The two theories however are simply theories and we cannot in any way presume what would have happened, what is clear however is that the war brought Russia close to collapse, which incited anger and distrust amongst the population whom resultedly stemmed their anger at the Tsar and called for revolution.
The ongoing war with Germany was a major factor in the fall of the Tsar and is perceived by many as the catalyst of the revolution. It became increasingly obvious from the start of the war that Russia could not withstand a lengthy battle consuming its resources, despite the innitial surge of grain production. Throughout the war, 7 million died, and the deaths were not only confined to the battlefields as horse and food procurement to provide for the troops led to severe shortages and ultimately famine during the war. The war was run by backwards, inefficient generals whom led Russia's people ultimately to their death - causing uproar at home. The importance of the war was that it highlighted once again the inadequacy of Russia and the fact that its people were being failed by the Tsar. The war is seen by many historians as the catalyst or the spark for the revolution; an event that exemplified the problems with Russian society as they were brought to the brink of collapse, and that Russia may have been able to reform and avoid revolution. However, there is a second school of thought that suggests that a revolution was inevitable and that the war simply hurried the process. The two theories however are simply theories and we cannot in any way presume what would have happened, what is clear however is that the war brought Russia close to collapse, which incited anger and distrust amongst the population whom resultedly stemmed their anger at the Tsar and called for revolution.
Bellrosk
Also, tell me if this paragraph is analytitcal/non narrative enough:
The ongoing war with Germany was a major factor in the fall of the Tsar and is perceived by many as the catalyst of the revolution. It became increasingly obvious from the start of the war that Russia could not withstand a lengthy battle consuming its resources, despite the innitial surge of grain production. Throughout the war, 7 million died, and the deaths were not only confined to the battlefields as horse and food procurement to provide for the troops led to severe shortages and ultimately famine during the war. The war was run by backwards, inefficient generals whom led Russia's people ultimately to their death - causing uproar at home. The importance of the war was that it highlighted once again the inadequacy of Russia and the fact that its people were being failed by the Tsar. The war is seen by many historians as the catalyst or the spark for the revolution; an event that exemplified the problems with Russian society as they were brought to the brink of collapse, and that Russia may have been able to reform and avoid revolution. However, there is a second school of thought that suggests that a revolution was inevitable and that the war simply hurried the process. The two theories however are simply theories and we cannot in any way presume what would have happened, what is clear however is that the war brought Russia close to collapse, which incited anger and distrust amongst the population whom resultedly stemmed their anger at the Tsar and called for revolution.
The ongoing war with Germany was a major factor in the fall of the Tsar and is perceived by many as the catalyst of the revolution. It became increasingly obvious from the start of the war that Russia could not withstand a lengthy battle consuming its resources, despite the innitial surge of grain production. Throughout the war, 7 million died, and the deaths were not only confined to the battlefields as horse and food procurement to provide for the troops led to severe shortages and ultimately famine during the war. The war was run by backwards, inefficient generals whom led Russia's people ultimately to their death - causing uproar at home. The importance of the war was that it highlighted once again the inadequacy of Russia and the fact that its people were being failed by the Tsar. The war is seen by many historians as the catalyst or the spark for the revolution; an event that exemplified the problems with Russian society as they were brought to the brink of collapse, and that Russia may have been able to reform and avoid revolution. However, there is a second school of thought that suggests that a revolution was inevitable and that the war simply hurried the process. The two theories however are simply theories and we cannot in any way presume what would have happened, what is clear however is that the war brought Russia close to collapse, which incited anger and distrust amongst the population whom resultedly stemmed their anger at the Tsar and called for revolution.
That's analytical but I wouldn't worry about the schools of thought thing - it just makes ur essay seem to artificial - make it YOUR interpretation and say the other argument.
Collectivisation
Why?
Economic - Scissors Crisis, Kulak Grain Strike, production was low.
Ideological - Move away from Bukharin, appeal to the Left - peasants were too consrvative and needed to be more socialist.
Political - To make his mark.
Course
Visited the Urals and started grain requisitioning - Urals-Siberia method.
This was used all around the country and to collectivise the peasantry - into kolkhoz (collective farms).
BUT - resistance. Kulaks killed livestock etc. As a result - Stalin ordered liquidation of the kulaks; 4-5 million killed, 10 million exiled.
This caused a famine - they were good peasants! - 10 miillion dead because of 1931 famine.
Stalin paused - 'Dizzy with Success' but in reality it continued and he enlisted the help of the 25000-ers - hardcore of factory workers.
Consequences
It was done - more socialist. Production levels did return, Stalin had made his mark alright!
Success or Failure - How far was collect a failure?
FAILURE
SUCCESS
Conclusion - Failure for humanity, brilliant for Stalin and Communism - the proletariat had finally been targetted.
Possible essay qus... How far were ideological factors responsible for the change in economic policies? How far was collectivisation a success? How far was collectivisation detrimental to Communism? Why is collectivisation typically seen as a failure for humanity?
Why?
Economic - Scissors Crisis, Kulak Grain Strike, production was low.
Ideological - Move away from Bukharin, appeal to the Left - peasants were too consrvative and needed to be more socialist.
Political - To make his mark.
Course
Visited the Urals and started grain requisitioning - Urals-Siberia method.
This was used all around the country and to collectivise the peasantry - into kolkhoz (collective farms).
BUT - resistance. Kulaks killed livestock etc. As a result - Stalin ordered liquidation of the kulaks; 4-5 million killed, 10 million exiled.
This caused a famine - they were good peasants! - 10 miillion dead because of 1931 famine.
Stalin paused - 'Dizzy with Success' but in reality it continued and he enlisted the help of the 25000-ers - hardcore of factory workers.
Consequences
It was done - more socialist. Production levels did return, Stalin had made his mark alright!
Success or Failure - How far was collect a failure?
FAILURE
•
Liquidation of the kulaks - disastrous not just socially but also economically: 10 million dead from 1931 famine.
•
Livestock killed and crops burnt as a result
•
Foreginers saw the start of stalins reign of terror
•
Discontent from the peasantry
•
Production was slow to start and did not recover to pre 1913 levels unti 1950
•
MTSs were slow to start and encountered many problems
•
Standard of living in cities dropped but not dramatically
SUCCESS
•
For Stalin - it was brilliant!
•
Peasants were terrified and could do bidding/work in FYPs
•
Focused on the industrial worker - 50% in the cities
•
brill for communism too
•
economically - better than nep/tsarism
•
did stabilise eventually
•
all farms were kolkhoz by 1941 - remarkable
•
MTS did pick up eventually - Kharkov tractor factory - FYPs helped
Conclusion - Failure for humanity, brilliant for Stalin and Communism - the proletariat had finally been targetted.
Possible essay qus... How far were ideological factors responsible for the change in economic policies? How far was collectivisation a success? How far was collectivisation detrimental to Communism? Why is collectivisation typically seen as a failure for humanity?
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- University of Surrey Accommodation Band D subclasses
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- Unit 7 health and social care level 3 task 2 merit and distinction
- Official University of Surrey Accommodation Thread
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2023
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- IGCSES
- How many GCSEs are you getting?
- What are the est art gcse themes
- Edexcel GCSE English Language Paper 1 (1EN0 01) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 2 (1HI0 2A-2W) - 4th JUNE [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 3 (9HI0 30-39) - 11th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- WJEC A Level History Paper 2 - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- IAL repeats cash in.
- A-level History Study Group 2022-2023
- What's the hardest exam you've sat so far?
- History topics
- How can I get a 9 in GCSE history?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]
