Want help with Russian History essays? :)

Hi

I'm struggling with the question ''Stalin changed the nature of russian government more than any other ruler'. How far do you agree with this view of the period 1855 to 1964?'

What themes would you recommend for this question?

Thanks!

Repression
Size
Ideology
autocracy / democracy

ect. ect. there's loads of different areas you could look at under nature of Government, choose three or four you're comfortable explaining,

Tom

Repression
Size
Ideology
autocracy / democracy

ect. ect. there's loads of different areas you could look at under nature of Government, choose three or four you're comfortable explaining,

Tom

in these type of questions could you mention stalins changes to the economy (being more than all th eother rulers) or is that moving away from nature of government?
thanks in advance

Hiya Jawain,
I think this is moving too far away from the nature of government. It's not concerned with any power wielding bodies in Russia (not classing influence wealth does inevitably bring) ,

Tom

Hiya Claudia,

In response to your first essay, I would read the question as saying that Tsarism was very repressive as lenin described and then it's asking you to A) confirm that's the case and B) analyse if Russia between 1917 and 1964 [I'm presuming you mean 1964 and not 1956 never forget Khrushchev especially with this question] was as repressive and then to what extent was it more repressive. So a generic paragraph would go like this,

Yes Tsarism was repressive
example one
example two
Tsarism was liberal to an extent
example one
Communism was as repressive as Tsarism
example one
example two
Communism was more repressive than Tsarism
example one
(depending on certain paragraphs) Khrushchev provided the 'liberal' side of communism but this wasn't typical of the views of leading communists as he was removed for power in 1964 unlike any other leader who all died in office (officially, you could say a lot of them lost true power before they died but that doesn't help your argument lol)

repeat this three times, concluding that A) lenin was right when he said what he said, but once communism established itself in 1917 it wasn't just the jailer at the prison gate but the firing squad in the execution yard with Khrushchev holding the only blank bullet {oooo I like that analogy I'm going to try use this somewhere else haha}

You seem to know your way around a thematic essay and you should definitely stick to it. If you address the change brought (and not brought) about by war in the three themes you have named you'll be absolutely fine. If you repeat the same theme twice in different parts of the essay it doesn't flow and you're in danger of repeating yourself. If you've got an essay you've already written I can have a look at it and see what exactly your teacher is trying to say, it might not be a structural issue more style.

Remember this is a national examination, and because 1 teacher in 1 classroom says their way is best it doesn't mean it is. The majority of people will be told to approach this theme by theme

Hope this helped a bit more,

Tom

Hi Tom

Thanks for all the help - I think I get it now!
Just one more thing - I am really struggling with the theme of change and continuity in central administration. Does it roughly go like this?

Alexander II - Loosened central administration with the creation of the Zemstvos which were meant to enhance local administration (also were the Zemstvos the first taste of democracy of the period or is that the Dumas?)


Alexander III - Tightened central administration - reduced Zemstvo control (yet under the Tsars it was state capitalism so does this meant that railways/industry was owned privately or by the state??

Nicholas II Kind of kept it the same as Alexander III but with less pressure. Then encouraged more private enterprise through Witte's policies (loosening central administration?)

Provisional Government - accepted workers control of factories, not much control/centralisation?

Lenin - Started off accepting workers control/private enterprise with the decree on workers control and nationalisation and then under war communism reverted back to taking factories back under state control. But then under NEP changed back and encouraged private enterprise

Stalin - Again reversed this, centralising more with collectivisation and enhanced control over the factories

Khrushchev - Less centralisation?

Sorry to keep bothering you but it would really help!

Claudia

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

''There was more change than continuity in the ways that Russia was ruled in the period from 1855 to 1964' How far do you agree with this view?'

So far I've got the themes;
Repression
Autocracy
Ideology

But i think I could do with one or two more? Any ideas on more themes would be appreciated

To what extent was Gorbachev or Yeltsin more responsible for the break up of the USSR?

You could also mention how the tsars and communists both used similar organisation and administrative structures. both the tsars and communists used a very hierarchical 'top down' structure to rule.
A2 + A3 - Committee of ministers
N2 - some change, in theory, with the creation of duma, not truly democratic in the sense that the tsar could look over any recommendations.
Sovnarkom - bit like the duma in the sense that it was democratically elected by the russia people. in reality little authority as it was dominated by bolshevik memebers who in turn were obliged to show total obedience to the party leaders. then go on to say how some amendments were made under stalin's 1936 constitution.


then perhaps the use of reforms were both used?
Tsars
concern to modernise russia
- emancipation
- witte's great spurt
- stolypinsland reform
appease opposition
- 1906 duma
Communists
concerns to modernise russia
- stalins five years plans and collectivisation
- Khrushchevs virgin land campaign
appease opposition
- NEP.


you could also use censorship and propaganda




see you at five on skype.

Hi Claudia,

I would say that the Zemstvos were the first taste of democracy / political power that the Russian peasants had. Under Alexander III I believe the economy such as the railways to be funded by the state, i.e if they funded a % of the railway then the areas where it went would become more industrious and therefore more tax ect. ect. I would say that NII loosened central power as you said, but with the creation of the Duma, but pulled back the reigns after the 3rd session of the duma. Khrushchev I would say definitely wanted to lessen central control but I can't think of a decent example to show this , It all looks correct for governance,

hope this has helped,

Tom

This question doesn't make sense,

Tom

"assess the view that the failures of the Provisional Govt were the main factors in enabling lenin and the bolsheviks to seize power"

If got a few ideas so far, obviously mentioning the failure of the PG, Lenin and the Bols, but also mass radicalisation and "events" such as the Kornilov march etc.

cheers. =]