Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Want help with Russian History essays? :) Watch

  • View Poll Results: Was this thread helpful?
    Yes!
    8
    88.89%
    A little ...
    1
    11.11%
    Nope, sorry, it didn't do anything for me
    0
    0%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi there,

    This is such a helpful thread ! I have an essay question of ' How far do you think the Russo-Turkish war was a turning point in the development of modern Russia?'

    I'm not sure how to go about this, what thmes should each of my paragraphs look into ? Any suggestions and details for paragraphs would be really helpful. Also at the end, my teacher wants me to write a small paragraph to compare the impact of the Russo-Turkish war to the Crimean War.

    ANy ideas and suggestions would be greatly appreciated !
    Thankyou
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by MKS)
    Hi there,

    This is such a helpful thread ! I have an essay question of ' How far do you think the Russo-Turkish war was a turning point in the development of modern Russia?'

    I'm not sure how to go about this, what thmes should each of my paragraphs look into ? Any suggestions and details for paragraphs would be really helpful. Also at the end, my teacher wants me to write a small paragraph to compare the impact of the Russo-Turkish war to the Crimean War.

    ANy ideas and suggestions would be greatly appreciated !
    Thankyou
    Hi there, I've posted this on the first page, which outlines what I can see as the impact from the major wars during the period 1855 - 1964;

    How significant was the role of war in the development of modern Russia in the years 1856 to 1964?

    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.
    This quite nicely sums up the different impact each war had. In honesty I would say that the Russo-Turkish war (1877-78) had little / next to no impact, as I haven't even covered it in the list of wars :P

    In terms of structure, again I have said above the most effective way to organise your essay. I would firstly split the essay into three main themes, economical change, political change and social change. Then I'd start each section with how the Russo-Turkish war affected it. Then I'd go on to give examples from other wars which affected Russia more ( probably go with the first world war). Once I had done this for all three themes, I'd conclude that The First World War had the largest impact on modern Russia and not the Russo-Turkish war.

    I have no idea why or for what purpose your teacher wants you to write that paragraph at the end for, it holds no purpose, I'd leave it out if I were you, and if s/he was adamant they wanted it, don't include it within the essay have it on a different piece of paper,

    Hoped this helped,

    Tom

    N.B.
    If you could quote me next time I'll be able to respond quicker
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    In reality this seriously depends of the war. There were many wars with Turkey.
    Russian Wiki counts at list 11.

    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%...B9%D0%BD%D1%8B
    errrrm....ok cheers. The war is 1877-78. Also I wouldn't use wikipedia as a reference.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    N.B.
    If you could quote me next time I'll be able to respond quicker
    Hi there, don't know if this thread is still up and runing, but if it is I was wondering if you'd ba able to give me any help on the question: “Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationality” – who better embodies this phrase, Alexander II or Alexander III?
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    In reality this seriously depends of the war. There were many wars with Turkey.
    Russian Wiki counts at list 11.

    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%...B9%D0%BD%D1%8B

    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    And all the history books I have are only in Russian language. I don't think the quote of Russian source will be worth in such a way.

    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    Triada of Uvarov. The theory of official narodnosty (nationality).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Uvarov
    Also look the articles about the leaders of Union of the Russian People, Black Hundreds and the Russian Order of Michael Archangel (Russian Wiki has one, at english version, I didn't find special article).
    You may find some information here. Although that's Wiki, but I'm sure if you'll find some information useful, you'll find more authority resources than Wiki.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Dubrovin
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Purishkevich
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LppSk8mm9g
    Please stop posting here it is neither helpful nor relevant,

    Cheers
    Tom.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    Please stop posting here it is neither helpful nor relevant,

    Cheers
    Tom.
    As you wish Brit. Finally our history is much different from what your textbooks say and your teachers, who wrote them, would like to hear at exams.
    I planned to write translation of some quotes of Dostoevsky, Lomonosov, Mendeleev and so on, which prove that all these people support the theory of official narodnosty (nationality). But I won't do it here.
    I'll better make my own small thread in some time, will call it something like the thread of friends of Russian culture. That's the only way, I'll have the freedom of speach at this forum, where French ask me to leave the discussion about Russian language, and you ask me to leave the discussion about Russian history. At school times, I'd represented my common Russian school at district history competitions, during four years.

    There are just no place for a Russian person in the world...
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by hawkinsj)
    Hi there, don't know if this thread is still up and runing, but if it is I was wondering if you'd ba able to give me any help on the question: “Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationality” – who better embodies this phrase, Alexander II or Alexander III?
    I'll answer this question in a couple of hours, just wanted to say I've seen it. I'm hanging like a mofo at the moment so when I feel ok enough to think properly I'll help you out,

    Cheers,

    Tom
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    As you wish Brit. Finally our history is much different from what your textbooks say and your teachers, who wrote them, would like to hear at exams.
    I planned to write translation of some quotes of Dostoyevskiy, Lomonosov, Mendeleev and so on, which prove that all these people support the theory of official narodnosty (nationality). But I won't do it here.
    I'll better make my own small thread in some time, will call it something like the thread of friends of Russian culture. That's the only way, I'll have the freedom of speach at this forum, where French ask me to leave the discussion about Russian language, and you ask me to leave the discussion about Russian history. If you don't know at school times, I'd represented my common Russian school at county history competitions, during four years.
    I look forward to reading your thread 'Friends of Russian Culture'. You were probably asked to leave the other thread for exactly the same reason, the responses you give bear no relevance to the question asked, and you seem to be spouting some kind of 'party line' which no one cares about here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    I'll answer this question in a couple of hours, just wanted to say I've seen it. I'm hanging like a mofo at the moment so when I feel ok enough to think properly I'll help you out,

    Cheers,

    Tom
    Haha, no worries - hope it was a good night! Thanks so much
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Could you please help me with the question:

    How significant was the role of individuals in the making of modern Russia in the years 1856-1964? (OCR Unit 4 Historical Enquiry)
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by hawkinsj)
    Hi there, don't know if this thread is still up and runing, but if it is I was wondering if you'd ba able to give me any help on the question: “Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationality” – who better embodies this phrase, Alexander II or Alexander III?
    sorry, I was hanging all day and actually went out again last night so I've manned up and decided to help you now :P

    Alexander III was definitely the one who sums up the quote.

    Alexander II was a reformist, he didn't believe in full autocracy, he would rather have others make decisions. AII also was unorthodox, he took power away from the established seats of power (the nobles) when he emancipated the serfs in 1861. You could also say that he was a nationalist as he believed in russification and attempted to get the whole population, russian or otherwise, to learn and speak russian. AII was on about to make Russia a kind of constitutional monarchy, showing he was none of the things listed in the quote.

    In contrast, AIII was a reactionary. He was extremely autocratic, and believed in repressing the minorities as he saw them as responsible for the death of his father, and unrest in Russia. AIII did not continue with his father's plans to make Russia a constitutional monarchy, and kept all power to himself (autocratic)

    Sorry if this isn't very helpful, just a general ramblings, I would lay it out like this

    - intro
    -para 1 - autocracy
    -para 2 - nationality
    -para 3 - orthodoxy
    -con

    tom

    P.S.
    You could say it's a good night, I went out in with a halo, wings and a tutu, and remember very, very little :P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    sorry, I was hanging all day and actually went out again last night so I've manned up and decided to help you now :P

    Alexander III was definitely the one who sums up the quote.

    Alexander II was a reformist, he didn't believe in full autocracy, he would rather have others make decisions. AII also was unorthodox, he took power away from the established seats of power (the nobles) when he emancipated the serfs in 1861. You could also say that he was a nationalist as he believed in russification and attempted to get the whole population, russian or otherwise, to learn and speak russian. AII was on about to make Russia a kind of constitutional monarchy, showing he was none of the things listed in the quote.

    In contrast, AIII was a reactionary. He was extremely autocratic, and believed in repressing the minorities as he saw them as responsible for the death of his father, and unrest in Russia. AIII did not continue with his father's plans to make Russia a constitutional monarchy, and kept all power to himself (autocratic)

    Sorry if this isn't very helpful, just a general ramblings, I would lay it out like this

    - intro
    -para 1 - autocracy
    -para 2 - nationality
    -para 3 - orthodoxy
    -con

    tom

    P.S.
    You could say it's a good night, I went out in with a halo, wings and a tutu, and remember very, very little :P
    please could you help me with the question:

    How significant was the role of individuals in the making of modern Russia in the years 1856-1964?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    sorry, I was hanging all day and actually went out again last night so I've manned up and decided to help you now :P

    Alexander III was definitely the one who sums up the quote.

    Alexander II was a reformist, he didn't believe in full autocracy, he would rather have others make decisions. AII also was unorthodox, he took power away from the established seats of power (the nobles) when he emancipated the serfs in 1861. You could also say that he was a nationalist as he believed in russification and attempted to get the whole population, russian or otherwise, to learn and speak russian. AII was on about to make Russia a kind of constitutional monarchy, showing he was none of the things listed in the quote.

    In contrast, AIII was a reactionary. He was extremely autocratic, and believed in repressing the minorities as he saw them as responsible for the death of his father, and unrest in Russia. AIII did not continue with his father's plans to make Russia a constitutional monarchy, and kept all power to himself (autocratic)

    Sorry if this isn't very helpful, just a general ramblings, I would lay it out like this

    - intro
    -para 1 - autocracy
    -para 2 - nationality
    -para 3 - orthodoxy
    -con

    tom

    P.S.
    You could say it's a good night, I went out in with a halo, wings and a tutu, and remember very, very little :P
    haha glad it was good. Thanks so much, I ended up doing the essay yesterday but I went for exactly the same argument as you recommended, with exactly the same structure! So thanks very much, good to know I was on the right lines x
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    Study Help Member of the Month - June 2011

    Thank-you to everyone who nominated me for this; I do it to help people; to be recognised for it is a brilliant bonus


    Russian History Essay help is BACK! - It's back to school for most people now, and it means a new cohort of students starting AS and A2. I am a 2nd year history student at Lancaster University, I enjoy reading about the history of Russia and thought rather than keeping this to myself I'd share it with everyone and try make then get those extra few UMS marks to get into the first choice uni . The majority of essay plans which are outlined below are focused around 19th and 20th C. Russian history, please before posting could you read through to check if I haven't already answered your essay question or a close variant of it. I do appreciate if you've used the material a cheeky positive rep, also if you're going to post a question up a friendly message rather than a blunt question is more likely to get my attention . Well good luck to everyone starting back at school next week I hope you get the grades you need

    Tom

    N.B Anyone who was helped by this in the June examinations how did your results come out?? I'd be interested to know


    How significant was the First World War in affecting the quality of life of the Russian people?

    Also, How significant was repression in the making of modern Russia?

    Thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey!
    I'm doing an essay on
    Assess the view that no Russian ruler in the period from 1885 to 1956 succeeded in improving the lives of the peasants.

    I'm going to argue that no ruler improved the lives of the peasant as life for them it was pretty much bleak for most of the time, right?
    I am a bit confused where to begin though, I mean I know that Emancipation occurred which didnt end up helping them, Collectivization hit them badly but Im not sure how to structure it- like economically, socially? I'm not too sure what to include in those though in the sense of more key information?
    In addition, whats your view, who do you feel improved their lives the most?
    I'm just really confused how to go about this, I've made lots of notes on emancipation and collectivization but my other points are lacking in a focus.
    Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you in advance!
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by SamKar)
    please could you help me with the question:

    How significant was the role of individuals in the making of modern Russia in the years 1856-1964?

    (Original post by fizz113)
    How significant was the First World War in affecting the quality of life of the Russian people?

    Also, How significant was repression in the making of modern Russia?

    Thanks
    Hi, sorry I'm not in the business of writing / giving detailed essay plans anymore. If you want help with something specific I will give you advice,

    Tom
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by stripyskittle)
    Hey!
    I'm doing an essay on
    Assess the view that no Russian ruler in the period from 1885 to 1956 succeeded in improving the lives of the peasants.

    I'm going to argue that no ruler improved the lives of the peasant as life for them it was pretty much bleak for most of the time, right?
    I am a bit confused where to begin though, I mean I know that Emancipation occurred which didnt end up helping them, Collectivization hit them badly but Im not sure how to structure it- like economically, socially? I'm not too sure what to include in those though in the sense of more key information?
    In addition, whats your view, who do you feel improved their lives the most?
    I'm just really confused how to go about this, I've made lots of notes on emancipation and collectivization but my other points are lacking in a focus.
    Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you in advance!
    I would structure it one of two ways, Economic improvement, Political improvement and Social improvement, showing on one hand how it was improved by one or two leaders then showing how nothing changed under the majority, could use an example from the beginning of the period and the end to show no actual significant change.

    or you can be clever, as the question only addresses peasants, but you can look at the peasants who moved to the cities, the new urban workers. (make it explicit in the intro)
    paragraphs -
    Peasants lives improved
    Peasants lives didn't improve
    Workers lives improved
    Workers lives didn't improve.

    I personally feel that Alexander II or Khrushchev improved lives the most, which isn't too helpful for your argument as I would use examples from both of these to illustrate no change (e.g. the crushing of January uprisings 1863 / Hungarian uprisings 1956)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    I would structure it one of two ways, Economic improvement, Political improvement and Social improvement, showing on one hand how it was improved by one or two leaders then showing how nothing changed under the majority, could use an example from the beginning of the period and the end to show no actual significant change.

    or you can be clever, as the question only addresses peasants, but you can look at the peasants who moved to the cities, the new urban workers. (make it explicit in the intro)
    paragraphs -
    Peasants lives improved
    Peasants lives didn't improve
    Workers lives improved
    Workers lives didn't improve.

    I personally feel that Alexander II or Khrushchev improved lives the most, which isn't too helpful for your argument as I would use examples from both of these to illustrate no change (e.g. the crushing of January uprisings 1863 / Hungarian uprisings 1956)
    ahh the thing is that it is for me A2 Russian History Coursework and my teacher said that we cannot have a balanced or two sided view, that throughout the whole essay it has to be a onesided clear and strong viewpoint so she said that throughout the essay I have to either argue that their lives did improve or they didnt but not both?
    When you say to structure it politically, what is there to really say about the peasants politically?
    Because I have to write 3,500 words for this- so should I structure it as in like a few pages for economically, few pages for politically ect? Im just so confused D: thankyou though for your help!
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by stripyskittle)
    ahh the thing is that it is for me A2 Russian History Coursework and my teacher said that we cannot have a balanced or two sided view, that throughout the whole essay it has to be a onesided clear and strong viewpoint so she said that throughout the essay I have to either argue that their lives did improve or they didnt but not both?
    When you say to structure it politically, what is there to really say about the peasants politically?
    Because I have to write 3,500 words for this- so should I structure it as in like a few pages for economically, few pages for politically ect? Im just so confused D: thankyou though for your help!
    Hold on, what exam board are you with?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey! This thread looks awesome
    I was just wondering if you could give me some help on the structure of my essay please.
    My question is:
    'All governments ruled in the same way' between the periods 1855 - 1964.
    I have the basis of a structure at the minute but i would really appreciate anything you could do to help me get started with regards to the structure and themes

    Thanks,
    Mike.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.