Want help with Russian History essays? :)

I've just read over this essay and it's quite good. It comes a conclusion that has been drawn form a sustained argument throughout. The only slight slight thing I'd say (and it takes 2 seconds to correct) is you've mentioned every leader by name bar Alexander III ( besides a fleeting comment about him making university entry harder). When you mention Count Witte ( how'd you pronouce that, i sat it like Vit but other people say Vitter digressing :P ) say under Alexander III and you will be fine, good essay

Tom

If you've stuck with a Russian History essay here's the place for you! Post up what you're stuck with and I'll give you a hand where I can. Quote me or inbox me for a quick(er) response, oh, and positive rep is always welcomed

roughly what grade would you have given it?

What were the different reasons why the rulers introduced economic reforms?
I know that I could talk about the want to catch up with the west, become a super power? I'm not too sure though. Really struggling! What reasons was there and how would I go about talking about it in an essay?

Hi, when doing a turning point essay, should repression be classed under political or social change or should it be tied in with both? Thanks

Show Russia's inadequacies by the way they were beaten in war or with economic output stats. A good example is how they were beaten in the Russo-Japanese way in 1904-05, a much smaller country managed to humiliate a huge nation. or use the pre-First World War economic stats to show why Russia was no where near a super power (I've included some in an essay plan on the first page)

I hope this helped if you're still struggling feel free to post back some more questions,

Tom

The simple answer is that it can go in either , if you've got a paragraph which is lacking on content (try have balanced paragraphs) use it with that. If both are of similar size, use it as a link between both, I.E political repression (political parties were only legal in Russia between 1905 and 1921) and social repression (the NKVD / CheKa) I hope this has helped a little,

Tom

cheers I'd give you rep but it won't let me because I did recently, I'll just owe you for now

Hi Cluadia, could you explain how you're currently structuring your essays? possibly with a quick essay plan for one you've already written and I'll try help you where you're going wrong. All I can say is that you, within each theme, should give a balanced argument, so that you've got within each theme where it agrees and contradicts with the given statement.

For example with something along the lines of 'Opposition was ineffective in Russia between 1855 and 1964 discuss.' You would identify three or four different areas of opposition. Then within each theme show primarily where it was ineffective but then where there was limited success, coming to a balanced conclusion within the theme. For your overall conclusion draw together these smaller conclusions on the effectiveness of different opposition to gain a balanced and sustained argument.

If you want to get above a C you need to be doing these essays thematically. It is harder than giving a straightforward two sided essay, as you are forced not to approach the essay chronologically. Stick with the thematic approach.

Im not sure what your last question is asking, if within each theme you're concluding that the premise in the question is invalid then you're A) having a continuous argument, and B) as long as you attempt to consider the reverse side of the argument as you seem to be doing by 'shooting [it] down',

If you need any more help feel free to post back,

Tom

Hey Tom

Thanks for the reply - it was really helpful. I am currently structuring my essays thematically, normally going along the lines of social, political, economic etc. For example with the question "Lenin described the Tsarist Russian Empire as a "prison of the peoples" To what extent could that verdict be equally applied to Russia throughout the period from 1855 to 1956? I would approach it in a thematic way looking at lack of democracy, repression, censorship, use of secret police in individual paragraphs weighing up whether or not Bolsheviks were more repressive. Due to the nature of this question (it is pretty one sided) I would probably start looking at the converse argument in each paragraph e.g Tsars were pretty repressive and then go on to counteract this. But then the argument appears very one sided and also like a series of mini essays which leads to comments such as 'would be better with more sustained argument'/ 'more signposting'.

I also have a similar problem with the essay title; "Trotsky described war as the "locomotive of history' Can it be argued that change in Russia in the period 1855 to 1956 was caused only by involvement in wars". I would naturally structure this into social change, political change, economic change etc and weigh them up again, coming to a conclusion. But my teacher says it is easier to get better marks by doing it sort of two sided - looking at economic, social, political on one side in a series of paragraphs and then looking at them again on the other side - the side of the argument that you are arguing and then concluding. I think that this is because the statement is true applied to certain themes and not others - applies to political change but less to the others. I am really confused - to me it is just easier to get each theme all in to one paragraph and then weigh it up - but apparently there are better ways to do it!


Thanks again!
Claudia

Hello again, im trying to find more themes to include if a industrialisation question comes up. So far you've said to mention Growth and Development, the Status of the Russian economy, and War. What else could I mention?

Hiya Katie,

Pace / speed.

This is hugely important when looking at communist advances, time constrains on spectacularly ambitious aims were imposed (Stalin's Five Year Plans ect).

It's easier if you give me a question that you're working on so I can help you with the specific themes related to that question,

Tom

Hi Tom,

Just wondering how you would structure: 'The rulers of Russia preferred repression to reform'. How far do you agree with this view of the period 1855 to 1964?

Knowledge isn't really the problem e.g. Alexander III and repression, Alexander II and Emancipation etc.

However, this seems to lend itself towards an argument based approach...

Thanks!

So would that include the production targets and the speeding up of industrialisation of 100 years in just 10? How would I go about evaluating it?

Questions that I'm struggling on are things like:
Assess the view that in the period from 1855 to 1956 the communist rulers tried to modernise Russia whereas the Tsars did not
and
The need to modernise their backward economy was the most important reason why the rulers of Russia introduced reforms'. How far do you agree with this view of the period from 1855-1964


Also, I really dislike the questions - 'Reluctant reformers'. How far do you agree with this view of the rulers of Russia in the period from 1855-1964

Thanks

Hi MC

I would structure this in the classic Social, Political and Economical style.
Political repression = political parties only legal between 1905 and 1921
political repression evident under Stalin = purges
political repression under Alexander III = after death of his father
however, not so much under Alexander II = was going to make Russia a constitutional monarchy until assassinated
not so much under Khrushchev = de-stalinisation
Not repressive = Provisional Government

Ect. ect. I would do this again for social and economical repression and come to a drawn conclusion along the lines of 'Although the areas in which Russia was extremely repressive have been long stated, there were clear areas where repression was not favoured over repression such as under Khrushchev'

I hope this has helped,

Tom

Hi Katie,

With the first and last question are not just looking at economic reform, but wanting you to look at Social and Political reforms as well. If you have a quick look at the essay I've outlined above this post it should go something along the same lines as that.

The middle question is a more difficult question. It's looking at the reasons why the Tsars wanted to reform their country. One reason was, as is stated the need to modernise their economy which was brought about by defeats in war. Another reason they wanted to reform was to avoid social unrest (for example 1905 and 1881 and Khurshchev). if you repeat this with one or two more reasons why the Tsar wanted to reform and look across the whole period you should be fine,

I hope this has helped,

Tom