The Student Room Group

AQA History HIS3K Triumph and Collapse: Russia and the USSR 1941-1991

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
I did 1 and 3 but ran out of time so I had to rush 3! what about you ?
Original post by mobbiie
I did 1 and 3 but ran out of time so I had to rush 3! what about you ?


Yeah I did those as well! I found the last question quite difficult and I think I lacked detail!
Reply 22
Original post by powerpuff13
1 and 3 what about you? How did you find the exam?


I did the same questions :smile: tbh i thought the exam was pretty decent - the questions, especially the first one, were pretty straight forward

I think everyone i spoke to did the first question :colone:

What about you? how'd you find it
Reply 23
I really liked the exam today. I did question 1 and 2, the Brezhnev question was particularly good. Hope I got an A :smile:
I did questions 1 and 3. Basic outline of what I included in each question, just in case anyone's worried they might've been reaching a little bit with their points:

Question 1 (supporting the notion that USSR recovered significantly):

1.

Paragraph on economic recovery - mentioned the rise in economic production (75% up in 1950, compared to 1940), and contrasted it with the economic crisis in 1942, when capital goods production declined. I also mentioned that capital goods output increased significantly during the post war years, and that greater investment was placed into the defense sector (no surprise there) to make up for the rigors of warfare.

2.

Paragraph on the recovery of industrial showpieces - specifically, the rebuilding of the Soviet railways and of propaganda showpieces such as the Dnepropetrovsk hydroelectric power station. I'm unsure about this paragraph in retrospect, because it didn't seem like there's much difference between the first paragraph.

3.

Paragraph on the morale recovery - transition away from feelings of desperation brought about the vicissitudes of war, to feelings of jingoism and pride for having contributed to the war effort (referring to the Soviet people, obviously).



Question 1 (against the notion that the USSR recovered significantly):

1.

Paragraph on the gender imbalances due to war - x3 as many men as women died, meaning some women never got the chance to marry, while also leading to a sharp rise in inter-ethnic marriage. Also mentioned how the effects of this gender imbalance persisted for a long time after the war, and remain to this day.

2.

Paragraph on the persisting weakness of agriculture - remained the most obvious flaw in the Soviet economy, bad before the war but exacerbated even further when occupied by German forces. Also mentioned how both the Soviet regime and the German forces occupied a policy of scorched earth, which dealt considerable damage to Soviet industrial infrastructure, agriculture included. Threw in the obligatory statistic (1954 grain harvest figures were lower than in 1913, prior to collectivization), of course.

3.

Paragraph on the diversion of income as a means of funding the war effort - mentioned how life was austere because of a combination of wartime hardship, and reduced income for masses of workers. I mentioned how the living standard did not increase considerably until Khrushchev's time, by way of justification.



Question 3 doesn't really have a predetermined structure like question 1, but rather, I ordered it chronologically.

1.

Started off with Khrushchev, mentioned that beneath the veneer of de-Stalinisation, parallels could be drawn between Stalin and Khrushchev, particularly before Khrushchev's premiership, when he championed investment in heavy industry and the defense sector. Also, Khrushchev depended on the mechanism of the 5 year plan that Stalin had pioneered. However, I also mentioned that, unlike Stalin, Khrushchev attempted to decentralize control with the 105 ministries in the outlying provinces, and placed a particular emphasis on agriculture (20% state investment during 1961-1965) and light industry during the formative years of his premiership, even if his reforms didn't necessarily work.

2.

I'm not too sure if it's right in retrospect, but I wrote that Brezhnev's economic policies were most similar to those of Stalin. Mentioned how this came out of necessity, since he had to revert from the unsuccessful Khrushchevian (sp?) system. Like Stalin, utilized the 5 year plan mechanism, centralized power into Moscow, and placed a particular emphasis on the military-industrial complex (25% of state investment during the 1980's). However, also mentioned how he had placed a particular emphasis on agriculture, whereas Stalin shunned doing so, and under Brezhnev the USSR became the world's largest wheat producer during the 1970's.

3.

Left out both Chernenko and Andropov, my teacher told me it's all good since there's not much to be said about them. Gorbachev utilized a 5 year planning system like those before him, but differed considerably when it came to perestroika. During the acceleration phase he decentralized and transferred power to Republics, while simultaneously reducing the influence of the Party on economics (unlike Stalin). Also mentioned how he completely turned the system on its head during the final stage of Perestroika, by commercializing state enterprises, relaxing state control of prices, rejigging the housing market, providing social security measures for vulnerable citizens, and turning the rouble into a fully convertible currency. Also mentioned the Russian Supreme Soviet's law of 1991, which dictated that the private ownership of property was now legal, bringing an end to the planned economy.



Conclusion was basically me explaining how tenets of the Stalinist system remained under all leaders in the form of the 5 year plan, but each leader avoided certain other principles, by varying degrees.

Obviously, with regards to the last question, I spaced those points out over a number of paragraphs. I ended up writing 10 sides, for those who are curious.

Did anyone get anything similar? Better yet, is anyone willing to give me any feedback or criticism?
(edited 9 years ago)
I did questions 1 and 2- I wouldn't of touched question 3 as I always struggled in practice summative questions! Thought the exam wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, would have been nice however if Khrushchev had of come up!
Reply 26
I did questions 1 and 2
Ran out of time so I didn't get to answer question 1 as well as I would have liked to, didn't really mention pre-war statistics as I should have done to show the extent of recovery post-war

Quick Reply

Latest