History A-Level NEA

I’ve finished mine it’s not on Russia however I can help you with structure or the jist ect

yes, that would be really helpful thanks! maybe some idea of how to go about writing it and what order to put my ideas in etc

Yes for sure
So Introduction just state your argument and maybe a sentence or two of background information. Then I traduce your Interpretations with one arguing then the other opposing. So and so believes blah whereas… whoever believes. Then end of ur intro write ur overall judgement.

The have ur Interpretation paragraphs there should be one support one against. Include context of the time value info about the historian etc credibility and limitations for both

Then the main body is ur argument for and against but make sure not to do it in order of time as it’ll look like a story have like paragraphs on different topics. In the main body weave in ur 3 sources. These can be letters speeches etc which support ur argument talk about the value and how they support ur point

Then ur conclusion
If u have any questions just drop them

Ooooo Russia. Like, Russian Revolution(s)?

yess exactly

It's a great topic for coursework because you've got very established historians who completely disagree on the fundamentals of it. Some of the classic debates around it:
- was Tsarism on its way towards collapse by 1914 or was it quite stable? On the one hand, huge display of patriotism at the outbreak of war and Romanov tercentenary celebrations, on the other, increased street protest, massacre of strikers at Lena. I think Figes and Catherine Merridale both support the idea that collapse was 'inevitable', although given that it literally did inevitably happen that's quite easy to argue.
- factors behind the February revolution; I think one coursework title we had available to us was whether frustration from liberals was the most important.
- the nature of the October revolution; my coursework was on the extent to which it was a Bolshevik coup. This means looking at evidence for popular support and the motives of its leaders. Richard Pipes is very much a proponent of it being a clandestine coup that nobody wanted, Robert Service is critical too, Soviet historians obviously disagree (Neil Faulkner is a modern historian who argues it was a popular revolution), other modern revisionist historians like Edward Acton and Orlando Figes strike a bit of a balance between the two.
- factors behind the Kronstadt revolt; war communism being the main cause?

Which exam board is it for? My essay for OCR just took four historians and did a lengthy explanation and review of their arguments. Might feel weird sort of attacking established historians but you will have things to say. Look at the primary evidence they use, look at what sort of evidence it is (before the fall of the USSR, western histories were quite reliant on defectors from the USSR) and back it up or refute it with your own evidence.

ooh sounds like you had loads of points! Mine's for AQA, my question is about brutality as a method of control in Russia, I've found lots of sources, I'm just struggling to find contrasting interpretations for Stalin!

What is the title specifically?

To what extent was brutality the key method of maintaining control of Russia in the years 1855-1953?

ooh sounds like you had loads of points! Mine's for AQA, my question is about brutality as a method of control in Russia, I've found lots of sources, I'm just struggling to find contrasting interpretations for Stalin!