Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hey guys,

    So I am due to start the AS level History course in September, and I have attempted to write an essay more coherent to the A level specification. It is not yet finished (and I am yet to actually be taught content) but I am basing it off some summer reading I have started on Russian History.

    My apologies if the essay is not exactly brilliant, it is my first attempt at an A level essay.

    How far do you agree that the main reason for the failure of the Provisional Government was the decision to continue fighting in the First World War.

    I agree that the decision to continue fighting in the first world war was indeed a contributor of the provisional government failure. However I feel its significance carries less weight when evaluated against other political, economic and social factors.

    The provisional government was devised from members of the previous state Duma. They carried no true legislative or administrative power, they had previously only had limited advisory and legislative power. The body had not been democratically elected and thus lacked a degree of legitimate authority. In relation to the question at hand, an evaluation must be made that the body began as illegitimate and weak. When considering this against the First world war the observation must be considered that the administration and political leadership was already challenged. The body lacked authority continually and is arguably a reason for the formation of the “dual authority”. The Soviet order 1 gave a newly developed body a veto over the newly established government and thus made it ineffective at passing legislation. Compromise would have to be made with the PS.

    Secondly, the provisional government made no progress in efficiently solving the countries chronic land distribution issue. After the establishment of the provisional government, the peasantry had been lead to believe that the land estate land would be reallocated effectively to combat the issue that had been troubling the peasantry since the emancipation of the serfs (1861). The provisional government cabinet consisted of individuals from propertied backgrounds, a reallocation of land could risk family interests. This inspired the Apirl thesis and the ideology of mobilizing and using the peasantry (4/5th of the population as a weapon against the government. Relating this back to the question, the fracture that was created by the inability to provide a sufficient domestic policy relating to land was exploited by the Bolshevik party when dividing the “land to the peasants” campaign. The simple ignorance and domestic turmoil caused by a lack of effective policies was far more detrimental to the provisional government than the war.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Piña colada)
    Hey guys,

    So I am due to start the AS level History course in September, and I have attempted to write an essay more coherent to the A level specification. It is not yet finished (and I am yet to actually be taught content) but I am basing it off some summer reading I have started on Russian History.

    My apologies if the essay is not exactly brilliant, it is my first attempt at an A level essay.

    How far do you agree that the main reason for the failure of the Provisional Government was the decision to continue fighting in the First World War.

    I agree that the decision to continue fighting in the first world war was indeed a contributor of the provisional government failure. However I feel its significance carries less weight when evaluated against other political, economic and social factors.

    The provisional government was devised from members of the previous state Duma. They carried no true legislative or administrative power, they had previously only had limited advisory and legislative power. The body had not been democratically elected and thus lacked a degree of legitimate authority. In relation to the question at hand, an evaluation must be made that the body began as illegitimate and weak. When considering this against the First world war the observation must be considered that the administration and political leadership was already challenged. The body lacked authority continually and is arguably a reason for the formation of the “dual authority”. The Soviet order 1 gave a newly developed body a veto over the newly established government and thus made it ineffective at passing legislation. Compromise would have to be made with the PS.

    Secondly, the provisional government made no progress in efficiently solving the countries chronic land distribution issue. After the establishment of the provisional government, the peasantry had been lead to believe that the land estate land would be reallocated effectively to combat the issue that had been troubling the peasantry since the emancipation of the serfs (1861). The provisional government cabinet consisted of individuals from propertied backgrounds, a reallocation of land could risk family interests. This inspired the Apirl thesis and the ideology of mobilizing and using the peasantry (4/5th of the population as a weapon against the government. Relating this back to the question, the fracture that was created by the inability to provide a sufficient domestic policy relating to land was exploited by the Bolshevik party when dividing the “land to the peasants” campaign. The simple ignorance and domestic turmoil caused by a lack of effective policies was far more detrimental to the provisional government than the war.
    There seems to be quite a lot of narrative and although there is some analysis in relation to the question, it often does not outweigh the narratives

    The best way to attack a question is to first decipher what it's asking. It's asking whether X is a factor in causing Y, so you need to come up with other factors. You'll notice the factor given in the question is quite specific, this isn't indicative of how specific your own factors should be. Your factors should be thematic (economic, political etc) or specific to an event/piece of evidence. I would suggest you do a mixture.

    Your introduction is good because it says your argument, but your argument is quite vague. You don't need to go into a huge amount of description, but you need to be more explicit in the other factors and how they weigh against each other.

    Furthermore the introduction is the best place to set your criteria, this helps to keep your essay focussed on answering the question and it ensures your paragraphs are fairly long and in depth. Criteria are basically ways to measure up each factor, usually three are best but two will do the job. Criteria also need to be specific to the question. If you're struggling to come up with criteria, a good way to still answer is answer when you remove X could Y still happen. You're not trying to come up with some alternate history, you're merely illustrating its impact and significance.

    General essay structure is good. Introduction, 3-4 points and a conclusion is the way to go but I'd suggest mini intros and conclusions, repeating the question, to ensure the examiner knows you're answering the question and that if you run out of time you can still get marks for complete analysis.

    Lastly some general pointers. This might be nitpicking but do NOT put anything in brackets, anything in brackets can simply be ignored because usually the point of brackets is that what's within them can be ignored. Also try not to say stuff like "relating back to the question", although it does show the examiner that you're answering the question you don't need to hold their hand. It's best just to repeat bits of the question.

    Overall though it's a very good start, especially with little help from teachers! Good luck with your GCSE results and the start of your A levels! If you need any more help just PM me, I got an A at GCSE, A at AS and predicted an A at A2
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I tried to revise the top paragraph to be more evaluative in relation to the question. I tried to corner this paragraph to be a more political sided argument, I think paragraph 2 will the focus on the significance of the economic failures.

    The provisional government was devised from members of the previous state Duma. They carried no true legislative or administrative power, they had previously only had limited advisory and legislative power. The body had not been democratically elected and thus lacked a degree of legitimate authority. In relation to the question at hand, an evaluation must be made that the body began as illegitimate and weak. When considering this against the First world war the observation must be considered that the administration and political leadership was already challenged. The body lacked authority continually and is arguably a reason for the formation of the dual authority. The Soviet order 1 gave a newly developed body a veto over the newly established government and thus made it ineffective at passing legislation. Compromise would have to be made with the PS. In conclusion to this point, through the brief period of administration from the Duma, it lacked legitimacy and authority. who elected you lot thenwas shouted to Milyukov after the provisional government took power showing the general animosity towards the newly formed government. The name reflects the poor administration issued by the cabinet,provisional insinuates it would be possibly changed later. I feel this attitude and inability to act effectively is the main failure of the provisional government. The first world war was a tedious military endeavor for Russia, but a rectification of military strategy (such as Kerensky's disastrous offensive attacks) could have changed many factors. If you remove the factor of war, the administration would still have failed due to a lack of a proper,coherent and efficient leadership. Without the provisional government making the concessions to meet the “peace, and bread, it would have always been destined to fail regardless of the countries conflict status.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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.