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

    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!
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sophie.atlanta)
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    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

    That's great thank you!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    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
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jawain04)
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    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
    ok cheers just checking so i dont miss a section if it should be there and vice versa
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi there
    I'm stuck on two essays:

    'To what extent was the industrial and urban working class of Russia failed more by Commnist rulers than the Tsars in the period 1855-1956?'
    I always find it difficult to write essays just about urban workers I much prefer general welfare questions!

    Also: 'How far do you agree that the Communist takeover in 1917 was the most important turning-point in the development of Russian government in the period 1855-1956?'
    I'm just not sure about how to structure turning-point essays so any tips would be welcome!

    Thanks in advance! xxx
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    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
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Claudia.lethem)
    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
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    [SIZE="3"]How significant was the role of war in the development of modern Russia in the years 1856 to 1964?[/SIZE]

    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
    can you please explain what you meant by the first world war social changes? you said that the peasants now owned their land? i couldnt find it anywhere in any of my textbooks? please help
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    'Russia's defeats in wars was the most important reasons why the rulers of Russia introduced reforms'.

    Any guidance to how I would answer that is appreciated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ''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
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    To what extent was Gorbachev or Yeltsin more responsible for the break up of the USSR?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sophie.atlanta)
    ''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

    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
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hbk123)
    To what extent was Gorbachev or Yeltsin more responsible for the break up of the USSR?
    This question doesn't make sense,

    Tom
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katielou1993)
    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.
    Thank you thats really helpful!
    I also agree with your question on how to answer '
    Russia's defeats in wars was the most important reasons why the rulers of Russia introduced reforms'. I need help with that too!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi,
    i'm finding the questions on war and how it affected economic, social and political polices. please can i have some help?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    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

    Hey Tom

    Thanks a lot. Could you possibly look over this essay plan?

    The Communist rulers were effective autocrats, the Tsars were not. How far do you agree with this view of Russian government?

    Intro
    Discuss the meaning of an effective autocrat -
    That it is very much individual rule
    Large amount of control over the vast country
    Maybe introduce how the essay will be structured - 'in order to analyse this question one must look first at...'
    Then go on to signpost argument - whilst it is partly true that the Tsars were ineffective
    in some ways they were effective, however the communists were much better
    (Possibly too long? Also some say that you should give an overview of the period/trends slightly)

    First paragraph: Tsars were not effective autocrats:
    Could not repress opposition very successfully and therefore did not remain in control:
    Examples - Alexander II was assassinated even though the Populist numbers were tiny, and he should have executed them when they went to the countryside, instead he let their numbers grow
    Similarly Nicholas was forced to be less autocratic because he was not a successful autocrat - could not control the people which led to the duma which lessened his powers - they were able to stop a law coming in to place...

    Explain that this may be caused by their lack of control over the whole of Russia - secret police was small, corrupted civil servants, lack of centralisation

    Second paragraph: However, whilst the Tsars did have moments when they could not control Russia single handedly at some points they were pretty effective:

    They were effectively autocratic in the sense that it was very much a personal rule - had ministers advise them, but ultimately their decision - no constitutional government as they maintained a lack of democracy - whilst the Duma was forced upon Nicholas, he managed to effectively nullify its powers - manipulated the electorate, passed laws when they were not in session, even under AII with the creation of the zemstvo there was never any desire for real political change, just the more efficient running of local administration
    maybe add : (AIII reversed judicial reforms which he felt opened up autocracy to the challenge, getting rid of justices of the peace, replacing them with land captains etc)

    (Another paragraph) Also they did largely keep opposition (by repression) to a minimum even considering the examples above -
    It was only when Nicholas went away to the front that opposition was successful, previously he had maintained individual, autocratic rule by repressing people - stolypins neckties, duma, (censorship)
    AIII - the reaction - crushed the populists for a decade
    AII Repressed the poles in the polish revolt

    Communists, as the statement suggests were similarly effective autocrats:
    Continuity of themes above - lack of democracy - Lenin dissolving the Constitutional assembly, abolishing trade unions, ilegalising political parties
    Similarly used repression to maintain control - Every leader used the secret police
    Similarly ruled individually - although not officially but Lenin always had the final say, it was his interpretation of marxism that people followed - NEP was his policy which was largely unpopular and Treaty of Brest Litovsk was his idea
    Stalin did too - using the cult of personality

    Next paragraph - Communists more autocratic than Tsars
    Had more control - totalitarian - due to centralisation - e.g collectivisation - enabled greater control of peasants. Grain requisitioning under Lenin and Stalin - something Tsars would never have dreamt of enforcing - too invasive. But the Communists had greater control over the countryside and the factories

    More repressive and more successful in being so:
    Secret police stronger than ever under Lenin and Stalin, great purges
    Ohkrana small, Cheka large
    Gulag existed under Stalin and Krushchev (and lenin???)
    Better at exiling, under Tsars people just came back - Stalin and Lenin did! But under the Communists they eliminated them
    Better at dealing with opposition - Stalin so paranoid that he assassinated any potential threat - Kirov, Trotsky - but Tsars did not eliminate many potential threats

    Conclusion
    Partly agree with the view - but it is not as black and white - Tsars whilst they did show periods in which they were ineffective autocrats, did maintain power quite well considering the size of Russia. However compared to the Communists they were not very effective. Communists much better.......


    So what do you think? Obviously lots of detail in there to back up points. I think it might have been better if I had done it theme by theme - lack of democracy under communists and tsars so I could have compared the whole period in one paragraph.

    Thanks in advance, any tips would be greatly appreciated!
    Claudia
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    This question doesn't make sense,

    Tom
    Ah, it was a question that our teacher gave us. Dosent matter
    How about this one:
    'To what extent was the failure of the Soviet leadership to address the potential threat from nationalism early enough, responsible for the break-up of the Union in 1991?'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crimsonchilli)
    "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. =]
    That's not OCR is it by any chance?
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.