Yes, you do make a valid point. Certainly, the Zemstvo's were part of the GO&S - I included the Soviets role in Bolsheviks GO&S. However, the Soviets had a more direct-effect on central government through it's power to elect the Peoples Commissioner's etc. Your other comment is absolutely valid about it giving some 'political education for peasants'. One could say this marked a stark change from the past, were no attempts & in-fact, it was preferred to have an illiterate peasant populous to maintain serfdom. However, one could question their peasant status before the Emancipation Edict, as they certainly were enslaved & thus, more like a slave-class - you don't educate slaves.
Additionally, you could say that this laid the foundations for the Bolsheviks educating of the peasant class decades later - the Emancipation Edict as a whole. Thus, arguing that the Bolshevik change in the educating of peasants was not as significant as it would first seem. However, one could argue that with the Bolsheviks it was done on a much more larger/formal/organised way & thus, it was more substantial, more significant. One could also question whether that was an intended outcome of the Zemstvo's.
‘Political parties only posed a serious threat to the stability of Russian government during the period of the First World War (1914 – 18).’ How far do you agree with this statement?Firstly, you should note the type of question & thus, you will be able to discern what type of structure the question is requiring. This question is basically asking you for a yes and no argument. Another way to put it is as a for and against argument - it is basically the same thing this allows you to show 'How far do you agree...'. It appears to be a turning-point question in the way that it focuses on the First World War? - I think I'm right in saying this. Thus, you would argue as a part of your first paragraph a 'yes' argument towards WW1 in-relation to the question but also in the same paragraph you would produce a 'no' argument towards WW1 in-relation to the question. After doing this you would then argue that there were of-course other periods that maybe are more significant in-relation to the question and also that there were other periods which were not and thus, you can use them to argue that WW1 was then the most significant - again, its all about YOUR judgement.
The next thing that should catch your attention with-in this question is its focus on 'Political parties'. Therefore, do not start talking about opposition from individuals & cliques or peasants, workers & national minorities. Additionally, I said that this question was interesting and this is because of the amount of discriminators it contains. Firstly, you have 'only...during the period of the First World War' secondly you have 'a serious threat' and thirdly you have 'to the stability of Russian government'. In-particular the 'stability of Russian government' needs some sort of defining. Basically, what would you class as a stable government and what would you class as an destabilized government. If you define this, it will allow you to make judgement's by using this as a gauge when looking at the stability of Russian governments throughout these many periods. Other periods you would discuss could be during the 1905 'revolution, the Civil War, Alexander II assassination and the Crimean war period. Though I would struggle to think of anymore? If anyone has any suggestions again, please feel free to suggest them in any reply.
What I found strikingly interesting about this question was the way it focuses on 'Political parties'. These didn't exist after Lenin's 'ban-on-factions' and of-course, we all know that the USSR was a one-party state until its bankruptcy in 1991. Therefore, I really don't understand how you could cover the whole hundred years in this question? If I'm missing something here with that judgement, please feel free to suggest why in any reply.
Essay Structure - Turning-Point
INTRO - define all of of the words that need defining and give a general line about what you think differs throughout the different periods in the 100 years. For example, recognizing that the extent and scope of threat differs through the period? and that you are going to factor that in-to your answer etc. Remember! This is an introduction, keep it short! and keep it smart!
WW1 - yes and no arguments for it as a turning-point and recognize that that there were also other periods that one must consider(seen below).
1905 'REVOLUTION' - show why it was and why it was not using themes of continuity and change and thus, these will allow you to judge the overall significance of it against what you should have already judged the importance of the WW1 period to be ie. this structure allows you to take a comparative approach(do this for following three also).
CIVIL WAR
CRIMEAN WAR?
ALEXANDER II ASSASSINATION
CONCLUSION - a final judgement either agreeing or disagreeing with the question being posed substantiated by the judgments in the previous paragraphs.
My Conclusion/General Lines of ArgumentI would be inclined to agree with this statement but only to an extent of-course. This because one could argue that it was actually the army strikes/revolts etc. during WW1 that posed the most serious threat to the stability of Russian government because of there importance in maintaining an authoritarian regime & thus, one-line of argument would be that without the army mutiny's the political parties wouldn't have been able to achieve the destabilization of Russian government. Basically, the argument argues that the 'Political parties' did not pose a 'serious threat' by there-selves, even Trotsky admitted that if even just one battalion of the army remained loyal to the Prov. Gov. the revolution would have been lost. It was a myriad of circumstances that came together that provided the Bolsheviks the opportunity to destabilize the Prov. Gov. and only then could they pose a 'serious threat'. However, it is these circumstances that one could use to argue in-favor of the First World War - as this period brought them to bare. The Civil War did present a major/real threat to the Bolshevik government through armed conflict but one could question how serious a threat this actually was due to the 'reds' possessing so-many advantages over the 'whites'. The fact that Alexander III transitioned to power with ease after his fathers death showed how little his assassination had actually threated the stability of government. Again, I would argue that the army staying loyal during the 1905 'revolution' meant that political parties could never really pose a serious threat to the stability of Russian government - autocracy was preserved. Though one could argue that the 'October Manifesto' proved that they did certainly pose a 'threat'. Also, one could argue that 'Political parties' that formed in the period just before the 1905 'revolution' like the SR's and SD's were Marxist political parties & thus, through there very nature they made Russian government less-stable than it had been in the past, as there are now 'Political parties', who do not just question the Tsars absolutist power & maybe want a constitutional settlement, they want a 'revolution' - they want Nicholas II dead(if not dead then at-least exiled to Britain!). However, it took around another two decades to see this realized at Yekaterinburg on July 17, 1918 & thus, surely WW1 gave the revolutionaries the conditions for a 'revolution' but it was certainly not the only time they could have posed at least a 'threat' to the stability of Russian Government. The SR's of-course managed to kill 2,000 officials before WW1 including Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia(Alexander III brother) - & thus, there can be no-doubt they posed an all to real and significant threat but was the Russian autocratic machine going to collapse because of this - no it wasn't or didn't. Possibly citing some points were the Tsar Nicholas II flexed some of is authoritarian powers like the dissolutions and suspensions of the Duma or when he changed the electoral system unhindered(refer back to the prev. posts for details). Another thing I would certainly note would be how in-effective the Bolsheviks were until WW1, the SR's were the strong populist movement before it. The Bolsheviks before WW1 were absolutely insignificant as an opposition in-comparison to the SRs in-terms of posing direct 'threat'.
If anybody else has been assigned an essay and would like me or anyone who feels like they can contribute to discuss and talk about the structure of that essay similar to the degree that I have just done to the one above. Feel free to post it to this thread in any reply. However, if you see a question that has already been posted but not answered by me or someone else - anybody can chip in. Then please refrain from doing so, until you have seen a reply to that question! Thanks.
Remember! I'm not going to basically tell you all the content that you should include, just the structure and general lines of argument that can be taken with the question!