Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

OCR History 2591 Russian Dictatorship 1855-1956

Scroll to see replies

Bartyl

Its not about the answer that you come to, but how you get there. The examiner does not care which turning point you think is the most important

True, but there is a limit. For example, it would be pretty silly to claim the 'de-stalinization' speech of 1956, or Nicholas II's ascendancy, as the most important turning points.

Reply 61

jstar357

well okay there pherhaps is a few more obvious paths to take for the answer lol

Reply 62

Bartyl

Ive done this essay plan, just wondering where could improve it? what else to add?

How far do you agree that the establishment of Stalin in power was the most important turning point in the development of Russian government in the period from 1855 to 1956?

Intro: key turning points in dev of government, Death of Al II, Abdication of Nicholas II, October Revolution

• Type of Government
- Stalin – More brutal and effective than before
- However, Death of Al II – quite significant – ended any hope of more liberal government with accession of Al III
-Also Feb Revolution – hope of change – provisional government important turning point – more democratic and liberal – end of Romanov dynasty
- Oct Revolution – ideological shift – Tsarism to Communism

• Repression + Dealing with Opposition
-Stalin – important- massive increase in extent and level of repression
-NKVD
-‘Great Terror’ + the Purges
-Huge Death tolls( 20 million)
-However, Death of Al II significant – massive increase in level of repression again due to Al III
-Also, Feb revolutions increased hope of end of autocracy – end of censorship and use of secret police – period of more liberalized society.

Conclude: Whilst Stalin’s accession was important in some respects, eg level and extent of repression and centralization, the Feb Revolutions of 1917, are the MOST important because of the potential for change in government. Although ultimately, the government quickly returned to Dictatorship under Lenin, the opportunity for liberal change makes it the most significant.

Reply 63

LittleTee

Olie

Somewhere I think they have had a war causing change question as there is one that includes Trotsky's quote of it being a 'locomotive of history' on the previous exam questions sheet my teacher gave to me, the other questions have been on previous exams that I've seen, maybe it was a question before 2005 or something :confused:

If that comes up im avoiding in like the plaaague!! I'm praying for the 'turning point in Russian government' question. Thats come up loads before though :s

Reply 64

jstar357

Key Themes for autocracy are
-Absolute power
-Methods of control
-Ideology
-Reasons for reforms if you link it in to the question

however i'm finding it hard to find examples and think of it as essay ..any help on autocracy please?

Reply 65

User188463

jstar357

This would be my structure.

'Autocracy to autocracy'.

Autocracy = system of government in which all power is invested in an individual; if we translate this in to a Tsarist Russian context, this meant the Tsar had all authority. Russian government effectively did pass from one form of autocracy to another

Creation of policy and top-down reform
Similarities
Always from above - ‘better to emancipate the serfs from above rather than wait until they abolish serfdom from below’ (AII) === Launching of NEP 21 and treaty of B-L 18 Lenin === Collectivisation (programme was described by propaganda as voluntary, but really only a minority of poor peasants were willing to comply).
Even the Feb 1917 rev - key element in the decision was taken from above by Duma and military leaders
Tsars there was no tradition of democratic institutions === Stalin ruled by a Soviet Democracy where the 1936 constitution allowed direct election of all government bodies BUT this was only in cases whereby it was in line with Party policy
Economic initiatives - Witte’s ‘Great Spurt’ led and directed by state === Lenin and state-controlled industry and agriculture === Stalin, the level of state control over industry was amplified greatly
Differences
Khrushchev made attempts to allow some decentralization and more local initiative in both industry and agriculture eg VLS
Perhaps NKVD even exceeded Stalin’s power and got out of control in it’s mad search for victims of the state
Strikes and demands had a hand in the 1905 manifesto and could be said for emancipation

Control of the people and weakness of liberal tradition
Differences
Alexander II who relaxed censorship laws + Kruschev who ‘desalinization’ of 56
Similarities
Stalin - dichotomy of ideology and reality - red tsar - tremendous personal power was in the hands of the leader – (Bukharin - ‘Stalin is a Genghis Khan, an unscrupulous intriguer who sacrifices everything to the preservation of his power’) === Tsars’ divine status, as demonstrated by the Fundamental Laws + lavish celebrations of the tercentenary of Tsarism in 1913 - icons of ‘the little father
Lack of free speech, political freedom (with the exception of the years 1906-18 Dumas - joke) and censorship of the press. ‘No Bourgeois, no democracy’ - Barrington Moore. Western ideals ran counter to Tsarist and communist ideology
Tsars’ internal passports, residence permits and visas == Stalin used internal passports but on the urban workers instead of peasants
Russification - 1863 Ukraine Dorpat === Stalin 38 Russian compulsory in all schools and invasion of Georgia in 1922
Though the scale and priority differed measurably, the fact that there were attempts at industrialisation under the Tsars illustrates the similarity in the two systems.

Repression of political opponents
Similarities
Secret Police – the Third Section under Alexander II; Okhrana 81; Cheka under Dzerzhinsky 1917-22, OGPU 1922-34 and NKVD 1934-1954
Internal and external exile - 1901, there were only 3,900 political exiles in siberia (with 50,000 between 1826 and 61) --- hundreds of thousands banished to gulag under stalin
Stolypin’s necktie --- after Kronstadt 21 wiped out + ban factions
Pogroms in Tsarist era --- 1953 Zhdanov’s attack on Jews
Differences
The scale of repression - whereas Okhrana killed 14,000 from 1881 to 1917, Cheka killed 140,000 from 1917 to 1922. Under Stalin the figure could be anything from the admitted 681,692 deaths to Robert Conquest’s estimate of 20 million.
Figures executed between 21 and 53 exceeded the entire number of British killed in WW1 and 38-39 more than whole period - AII didn’t exert anything like that upon his people
Provisional Government of 1917 - lack of secret police - however its swift failure.
Political policed controlled tightly under Krushchev
Party and army purges - stalin - by 1938, with 8 senior admirals and 75 out of 80 members on the Supreme Military Council executed, to go with 35,000 officers (half the entire officer corps) executed or imprisoned// 33 - purging of party - around 400,000 expulsions
Some relaxation during NEP. However, internal exile still used or deportation for ‘political undesirables’

Use of the nobility to control the regions
Similarities
Tsarism state run by privileged bureaucracy === Lenin in 20s around 5000 communist Elites resided in the Kremlin --- ‘Nomenklatura’ – EG the 1925 army promotion of Voroshilov === dominance of communist elite during Kruschev
1850 to 1900, the civil service grew from 100,000 to 500,000 – again this was virtually all members of the nobility. Similarly, under the Bolsheviks there grew to be a generally trusted force of regional party leaders – partly down to the purges: it can be argued Stalin did not have control of all the Soviet Union’s local regions, so needed the purges to happen to add to his control of the population centres.
In 1889 Land Captains were introduced – local governors who replaced the Zemstva, they were all members of the nobility, trusted and in need of compensation for 1861.
Differences
being promoted to the status of ‘Nomenklatura’ actually increased the risk of being destroyed, differing from under the Tsars where if you were appointed a position you were unlikely to be troubled by the Tsar.
Overall it can be seen that although the Tsars and Bolsheviks were given support of different elite bodies, they served very familiar roles and fulfilled similar purposes.

Although the period appeared to have been bookended by two more liberal-minded governments, broadly, autocracy had maintained itself in homologous yet rebranded forms, resonating with eerie moans of the exploited from the draconian regimes of Alexander II, III and Nicholas II.

Reply 66

netprime

T-o dore

I don't see how the argument that Alexander II was stopped in some pathway of liberal reform can be supported. He was clearly more liberal-minded than his forebears, however he was firmly rooted in the principles of Tsarism. After the so-called 'emancipation' in 1861, 647 peasant riots sprang out across Russia within four months, to which Alexander responded by stamping down his authority: "There will be no more emancipation than the one I have given you". It is true that there were 'Loris-Melikov' proposals for a constitutional assembly made in Alexander's reign, however they remained as such - merely proposals. As he began to discover that consolation only resulted in an increased demand (with an increase in Social revolutionary activity and polemics such as Bakunin's 'Catechism of the revolutionary' and Chereshevsky's 'What is to be done'), he began to take a firmer attitude towards his people. Also, whilst he may have relaxed censorship laws, he also employed the same machinery of repression characteristic of despotism; 50,000 were exiled between 1824 and 61.

Wow i'm surprised i remembered all that. :biggrin:

And that's the argument right there. The only way you can describe Alexander II as 'the Tsar Liberator' is in the Russian and narrow-minded viewpoint.

I only mentioned it as stating this debate in the exam will get some good marks (in theory)!

Reply 67

jstar357

so in theory the tsar AII being killed in 1881 is not a turning point in liberl reform dying out.. because in reality he turned away from it and his principles reaminedwith tsarism and autocracy?

Reply 68

snakesandladders

jstar, you're correct. Alexander II was what he was. emancipation didn't suddenly lead to not using force to quell the rebelling peasants.
I am worried about the turning point questions. I'm banking largely on methods of control themed questions.
Whoever posted that big theme table, you are a GOD.

Reply 69

jstar357

Turning point may not come up it could be on autocracy inside :| or on one leader and whether they are sucessfull :|

Reply 70

eriddell

I'm praying for war and peasantry.....I'm terrified of an autocracy one or a turning point one...does anyone know the likelihood of an economy and social essay coming up??

Reply 71

netprime

Looking at the past papers, chances are we'll have a government/autocracy themed question, probably a living/working condition themed question and then who knows what the other one may be...

And to add a bit more for emancipation - it was reform from above, not from below. Alexander II, although taking 5(?) years to issue the decree he did not consult the serfs themselves, not even the village Mir was consulted. It was very much him, his advisors and the aristocracy. When the decree was announced it was done by priests with an armed police unit nearby. Some liberal. Though I suppose for the peasantry of Russia, he would have been a nice guy.

Reply 72

Incoherence

Looking through the past years, they've basically asked about all the 4 major turning points so if that's popping up, I have no idea what else they could ask on it :s-smilie:

Lol. I hope war isn't coming out, though it's not that difficult but I haven't revised enough for it yet. Peasantry seems like a pleasant choice so I'm aiming for that. And autocracy. Will be pretty much screwed if they asked an economy and social essay :frown:

Reply 73

jstar357

does anyone know much on reform from below and above?

Reply 74

netprime

A bit. Anything specific you want to know?

Reply 75

User188463

Was there any noteworthy reform from below?

Reply 76

netprime

Not really. I suppose the purges in the 1930s were from below as local NKVD members and local communists had to give names to the death lists, so long as the quotas were filled they could be anyone.

I think thats about it. Not even the abdication of the Tsar or the Bolshevik revolution was from below.

Reply 77

jstar357

The nep was from below and one other thing the rest was from above...if everything was about with the Communists leaders as well can this show autocratic behaviour?

Reply 78

netprime

Yup, in autocracy reform tends to be from above.

And the NEP could be argued to be from below in the respect it was a response to the Kronsdat Rising. Of course, it was Lenin's own policy, it faced opposition in the Party Politburo and it was only passed when he threatened to resign. It's still more above rather than below I think.

Reply 79

jstar357

so to show the communists were just as autocratic you would i.e. talk about police...opposition...reforms/repression and ermm can't think of anything else?