Want help with Russian History essays? :)
This poll is closed
Was this thread helpful?
Yes! 89%
A little ... 11%
Nope, sorry, it didn't do anything for me :(0%
Total votes: 9
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 
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
(edited 12 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by crocker710
Right; back home from Uni for New Years and so I thought I'd try help a few people out with their Russia essays, as, as sad as it sounds I love History
Post any Questions you have here; I'll try get back to you ASAP, It'll prob. be quicker if you quote me, or quicker still if you inbox me,
fire away!
Post any Questions you have here; I'll try get back to you ASAP, It'll prob. be quicker if you quote me, or quicker still if you inbox me,
fire away!
"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. =]
Original post by crocker710
Right; back home from Uni for New Years and so I thought I'd try help a few people out with their Russia essays, as, as sad as it sounds I love History
Post any Questions you have here; I'll try get back to you ASAP, It'll prob. be quicker if you quote me, or quicker still if you inbox me,
fire away!
Post any Questions you have here; I'll try get back to you ASAP, It'll prob. be quicker if you quote me, or quicker still if you inbox me,
fire away!
How far was nicholas tsar to blame for the tsardom brink of collapse?
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. =]
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. =]
Assess the view that the failures of the Provisional Govt were the main factors in enabling lenin and the bolsheviks to seize power
The first thing to do with a question like this is tackle the named factor. The Bolshevik slogan 'Peace, Land and Bread' showed where the weakness in the Prov. Govt. lied. The provisional Govt. continued the war which pushed the strained country to breaking point with a futile war. The food shortages continued under the Prov. Gov. and the spark in the frying pan of revolution was at a bread protest. Finally the peasants still felt aggrieved with the land situation as it resembled greatly the Tsarist regime, the bolsheviks exploited this by saying that the land which the peasants had would become solely theirs if they took power. Finally I would conclude this with the fact that the Prov. Gov. was just that; provisional. It was not a fixture in Russian politics, it was a stop-gap until the Russian people chose what to replace it permanently.
Could also mention that they relaxed the strict political laws of Russia allowing free speech i.e radical new political styles (Bolshevism) to be openly considered as realistic styles of govt. Furthermore you can say that the Prov. Gov. allowed polticial exiles to return to Russia and this is how Lenin was allowed to come back with his April Thesis (with the help of the Germans and a sealed train).
I hope this helped
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by nerimon18
How far was nicholas tsar to blame for the tsardom brink of collapse?
Could you clarify the question please
Original post by crocker710
Could you clarify the question please
Basically was nicholas tsar to blame for the tsar government collapsing?
To what extent did Soviet military power shape the development of the Cold
War in Europe between 1945 and 1949?
War in Europe between 1945 and 1949?
Original post by nerimon18
Basically was nicholas tsar to blame for the tsar government collapsing?
Give me the full title :P the wording is important in working out what the question full wants you to answer
Original post by crocker710
Right; back home from Uni for New Years and so I thought I'd try help a few people out with their Russia essays, as, as sad as it sounds I love History
Post any Questions you have here; I'll try get back to you ASAP, It'll prob. be quicker if you quote me, or quicker still if you inbox me,
fire away!
Post any Questions you have here; I'll try get back to you ASAP, It'll prob. be quicker if you quote me, or quicker still if you inbox me,
fire away!
How significant was the role of war in the development of modern Russia in the years 1856 to 1964?
Ive mentioned the crimean war, WW1, the civil war, WW2 and a little bit on the Cold war with other factors including economic reform and the influence of individuals having an impact.
My line of argument is something along the lines of: Russia was modernised primarily through the influence of war in creating a climate of opinion which supported the reformation of Russian society, enacted by the individuals and necessitated by economic stagnation a modern Russia was born.
Original post by givethanks
To what extent did Soviet military power shape the development of the Cold
War in Europe between 1945 and 1949?
War in Europe between 1945 and 1949?
To what extent did Soviet military power shape the development of the Cold
War in Europe between 1945 and 1949?
War in Europe between 1945 and 1949?
Military
- Korean invasion by Russia / Containment adopted by Truman to stop communist spreading. Showed that Soviet military might was a serious thread to the Western bloc. (Although not in Europe certainly shaped the US / Britain's approach to Russia in Europe)
-Russia annexed large parts of Eastern europe (eastern Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania part of eastern Finland eastern and Romania) left the US / Britain worried that it would attempt to spread further into Europe, and Britain was worried that they would attempted to dominated the Med. (internal Greek civil war between Royalists and Socialists Britain backed Royalists with money / arms).
Economic
-Marshall Plan attempted to rebuild Europe under the US wing. USSR saw this as a thread to the newly gained countries; and therefore distrusted it. It clearly separated the East and West of Europe, because Stalin denied any of the Soviets to accept US aid. Where as Greece who accepted the aid won the Civil War against Socialists (could use this as a link between paragraphs) and Italy kept out a strong socialist party with the backing of the US.
Political
- Two diametrically opposed ideologies meeting in Europe in 45 inevitable that there was going to be a clash. Stalin openly stated that if he co-operated with capitalist states he was regressing communism in the USSR (ComIntern called for communist revolutions abroad)
- Yelta conference in Feb. 45 failed to agree with the USSR a way for dividing post-Second World War Europe. West wanted democratic states where ever possible, whilst the USSR wanted to keep all the land it gained to strengthen it's position.
I hope this helped, feel free to post back anything that wasn't clear or that you've not covered, If you quote me I'll be able to get back to you quicker,
Tom :P
Original post by JakeNielen
How significant was the role of war in the development of modern Russia in the years 1856 to 1964?
Ive mentioned the crimean war, WW1, the civil war, WW2 and a little bit on the Cold war with other factors including economic reform and the influence of individuals having an impact.
My line of argument is something along the lines of: Russia was modernised primarily through the influence of war in creating a climate of opinion which supported the reformation of Russian society, enacted by the individuals and necessitated by economic stagnation a modern Russia was born.
Ive mentioned the crimean war, WW1, the civil war, WW2 and a little bit on the Cold war with other factors including economic reform and the influence of individuals having an impact.
My line of argument is something along the lines of: Russia was modernised primarily through the influence of war in creating a climate of opinion which supported the reformation of Russian society, enacted by the individuals and necessitated by economic stagnation a modern Russia was born.
How significant was the role of war in the development of modern Russia in the years 1856 to 1964?
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
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by crocker710
Give me the full title :P the wording is important in working out what the question full wants you to answer
Was Nicholas Tsar to blame for the collapse of the tsar government?
Please helpOriginal post by nerimon18
Was Nicholas Tsar to blame for the collapse of the tsar government? Please help
Please helpWas Tsar Nicholas to blame for the collapse of the Tsarist government?
The easiest way to answer this question is to have three paragraphs, social economic and political. answer it along the lines of how the economy for example, contributed to the collapse of the Tsarist regime then explore whether Nicholas II was influential in that factor.
I.e politically the Tsarist regime collapsed because of poor military performance and weak government at home (he left his wife and Rasputin in Moscow to run internal affairs) therefore you can say that he was to blame for the political failure. This is a very basic paragraph you would need to explore in more depth what i've put above but if you did this for the economy and society and draw the conclusion from each paragraph together to give you your conclusion you should have a sound essay
hoped this helped
tom
Original post by crocker710
The easiest way to answer this question is to have three paragraphs, social economic and political. answer it along the lines of how the economy for example, contributed to the collapse of the Tsarist regime then explore whether Nicholas II was influential in that factor.
I.e politically the Tsarist regime collapsed because of poor military performance and weak government at home (he left his wife and Rasputin in Moscow to run internal affairs) therefore you can say that he was to blame for the political failure. This is a very basic paragraph you would need to explore in more depth what i've put above but if you did this for the economy and society and draw the conclusion from each paragraph together to give you your conclusion you should have a sound essay
hoped this helped
tom
Was Tsar Nicholas to blame for the collapse of the Tsarist government?
The easiest way to answer this question is to have three paragraphs, social economic and political. answer it along the lines of how the economy for example, contributed to the collapse of the Tsarist regime then explore whether Nicholas II was influential in that factor.
I.e politically the Tsarist regime collapsed because of poor military performance and weak government at home (he left his wife and Rasputin in Moscow to run internal affairs) therefore you can say that he was to blame for the political failure. This is a very basic paragraph you would need to explore in more depth what i've put above but if you did this for the economy and society and draw the conclusion from each paragraph together to give you your conclusion you should have a sound essay
hoped this helped
tom
Cool so roughly how many words should it be around?
Original post by crocker710
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
How significant was the role of war in the development of modern Russia in the years 1856 to 1964?
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
thanks for giving up your time to help others, seriously nice of you. helped a lot. more confirmed that what i have put in my coursework is right and gave me a couple of ideas to talk about and different tangents i can take my essay.
QUALITY!
Original post by JakeNielen
thanks for giving up your time to help others, seriously nice of you. helped a lot. more confirmed that what i have put in my coursework is right and gave me a couple of ideas to talk about and different tangents i can take my essay.
QUALITY!
QUALITY!
Ahh it's no problem, I'm glad it's useful to you. If you need anymore help on anything give me a shout :P
Tom
Original post by crocker710
- Korean invasion by Russia / Containment adopted by Truman to stop communist spreading. Showed that Soviet military might was a serious thread to the Western bloc. (Although not in Europe certainly shaped the US / Britain's approach to Russia in Europe)
-Russia annexed large parts of Eastern europe (eastern Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania part of eastern Finland eastern and Romania) left the US / Britain worried that it would attempt to spread further into Europe, and Britain was worried that they would attempted to dominated the Med. (internal Greek civil war between Royalists and Socialists Britain backed Royalists with money / arms).
-Marshall Plan attempted to rebuild Europe under the US wing. USSR saw this as a thread to the newly gained countries; and therefore distrusted it. It clearly separated the East and West of Europe, because Stalin denied any of the Soviets to accept US aid. Where as Greece who accepted the aid won the Civil War against Socialists (could use this as a link between paragraphs) and Italy kept out a strong socialist party with the backing of the US.
- Two diametrically opposed ideologies meeting in Europe in 45 inevitable that there was going to be a clash. Stalin openly stated that if he co-operated with capitalist states he was regressing communism in the USSR (ComIntern called for communist revolutions abroad)
- Yelta conference in Feb. 45 failed to agree with the USSR a way for dividing post-Second World War Europe. West wanted democratic states where ever possible, whilst the USSR wanted to keep all the land it gained to strengthen it's position.
I hope this helped, feel free to post back anything that wasn't clear or that you've not covered, If you quote me I'll be able to get back to you quicker,
Tom :P
To what extent did Soviet military power shape the development of the Cold
War in Europe between 1945 and 1949?
War in Europe between 1945 and 1949?
Military
- Korean invasion by Russia / Containment adopted by Truman to stop communist spreading. Showed that Soviet military might was a serious thread to the Western bloc. (Although not in Europe certainly shaped the US / Britain's approach to Russia in Europe)
-Russia annexed large parts of Eastern europe (eastern Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania part of eastern Finland eastern and Romania) left the US / Britain worried that it would attempt to spread further into Europe, and Britain was worried that they would attempted to dominated the Med. (internal Greek civil war between Royalists and Socialists Britain backed Royalists with money / arms).
Economic
-Marshall Plan attempted to rebuild Europe under the US wing. USSR saw this as a thread to the newly gained countries; and therefore distrusted it. It clearly separated the East and West of Europe, because Stalin denied any of the Soviets to accept US aid. Where as Greece who accepted the aid won the Civil War against Socialists (could use this as a link between paragraphs) and Italy kept out a strong socialist party with the backing of the US.
Political
- Two diametrically opposed ideologies meeting in Europe in 45 inevitable that there was going to be a clash. Stalin openly stated that if he co-operated with capitalist states he was regressing communism in the USSR (ComIntern called for communist revolutions abroad)
- Yelta conference in Feb. 45 failed to agree with the USSR a way for dividing post-Second World War Europe. West wanted democratic states where ever possible, whilst the USSR wanted to keep all the land it gained to strengthen it's position.
I hope this helped, feel free to post back anything that wasn't clear or that you've not covered, If you quote me I'll be able to get back to you quicker,
Tom :P
omg Thanks so much!!
Original post by crocker710
Right; back home from Uni for New Years and so I thought I'd try help a few people out with their Russia essays, as, as sad as it sounds I love History
Post any Questions you have here; I'll try get back to you ASAP, It'll prob. be quicker if you quote me, or quicker still if you inbox me,
fire away!
Post any Questions you have here; I'll try get back to you ASAP, It'll prob. be quicker if you quote me, or quicker still if you inbox me,
fire away!
Hey a few questions. Any books to recommend a novice in Russian history? Do you speak ????????
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What Should I pick for my Year 13 History Option
- Evaluate the interpretations
- History coursework
- A-level russian
- Advance higher history - Essay trouble
- Oxford language applicants - 2024 entry
- biology, chemistry and history alevel combination ?
- Russia (1801 - 1917) NEA
- Cambridge Law Application Journey
- A-level History Study Group 2023-2024
- alevel history
- Should I take 5 A-levels?
- How many hours should I spend writing my NEA?
- Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)
- A-level History Coursework Subjects
- Asian and Middle Eastern Studies (AMES) at Cambridge
- A level Russian
- Your Supercurriculars for Oxbridge
- A level history without gcse
- Stress stress stress for 2023 GCSEs, please help
Latest
Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 5 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and ChallengeLast reply 3 months ago
AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 5 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and ChallengeLast reply 3 months ago
AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023
