Strengths and Weaknesses of imperial Russia in the nineteenth century

Past Questions:

Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of Russia in the second half of the nineteenth century. (May 2008)

Key dates and/or facts/details on this topic:

If you look at the past question, it only considers the second half of the century, so be aware of this.

Timeline over when the Tsars were in office.

Nicholas I Dies 1855

Alexander II 1855-1881Alexander III 1881-1894

Nicholas II 1894-1917

Crimean war 1853-56

Famine 1891-1892 (use as an example of backwardness) . STRENGTHS:

Political -

The only clear political strength that the autocratic system possessed was it total dominance over the legal system in the country. There were no juries or lawyers in courts, and people were presumed guilty until proven innocent. Even though Alexander's II legal reforms limited the state's ability to exericise its power over the legal system, political crimes were removed from the courts and dealt with in special martial courts behind closed doors. The secret police during the reign of all Tsars was also effective, and brutally put down any political opposition in the second half of the 19th century.

Economic-

1881 Law passed to reduce peasants redemption payments (emancipation of serfs) + 1883 peasant landbank established. These two economic measures opened up the Russian economy, and led to greater enterprise.

Strengths of the economy after Witte had become finance minister in 1893.

-Growth of railways led to better communication (establishment of the Trans-Siberian railway)-Proctive tariffs introduced to helped Russian economy. As a result foreign investment in Russia trippled. Rouble set on gold standard. As a result of all of these policies, there was 8 percent growth per year in economy

Social -

During the 19th century the education possibilities became better, between 1856-1878 the number of children attending primary school doubled from 500 000 to one million.

There are no clear strengths!

Military -

In many ways, the state of the Russian army improved after Alexander's II military reforms in 1861. The reforms reduced the length of service from 25 to 6 years and introduced universal conscription for males over 20. This led to that the army became more civilized and efficient. However, the problem of constant lack of weapons + supplies as well as difficulties in mobilizing the army persisted. The seriousness of these problems were highlighted when Russia, a supposed "Great Power" lost a war against the underdog Japan in 1905-1906.

WEAKNESSES:Political -Nature of Tsarist autocratic political system

The nature of the Tsarist system meant that in order for the Tsar to rule the country he had to rely upon the nobility and upon smaller governments. There were in total 13 local governments for different regions in Russia and 114 000 administrators. This meant that the Russian political system was very fragmented, leaving the Russian state in only partial control of the country. The nobles who helped to govern Russia saw government service as a way to increase their wealth by bribery.

The complete lack of political freedom led to that anyone who opposed the Tsar had to resort to the violence. This is highlighted by the growth of political opposition in the end of the 19th century, and have opposition groups, such as the People's will assassinate Alexander II to achieve political change.

Russification:Nicholas I, Alexander III and Nicholas II all exercised the policy of Russofication of the empire's national minorities. Russia is a vast country, where people speak well over 100 languages. When the state during the reign of these three Tsars surpressed the cultures of these minorities in order to maintain the control of the empire, widespread opposition grew in the minority regions in the country, For example, the polish rebelled several times, in 1863-64 and in 1905.

Economic -

Backwards agriculture:-Peasants used medieval farming techniques/equipment -Little knowledge of how to farm your land effectively.-This led to poor harvests and in conjunction with Russia's growing population it also led to severe famines 1891-92.

Industrially backwardness:By 1855 Britain was producing ten times as much Iron as Russia. Russia's failure to modernize + develop can be attributed to an underdeveloped banking system + and the Servile economy that acted as a brake on the Russian economy.Development was also prevented by by Russia's backwards communications and transport system, making the transport of raw materials and goods virtually impossible. By 1860 Russia had 1600 km railway compared to Britain's 15000km.

Social -

During all Tsarist regimes, government spending on the military was always sky-high. During Alexander's III reign, gov spending on military was never less than 50 percent. This led to that the social welfare of the Russian people was neglected. This is highlighted in the famine in 1891-2, where a major cause of the famine is that the government spends money on the army instead of helping peasants to develop much needed farming technology.

The servile social system, wherein about 20 million were private serfs and 20 million state owned serfs hindered Russia from modernizing. For example, it hindered the growth of an urban working/middle class that was essential for the development of Russia. Later on, when the serfs were emancipated in 1861, litte change was brought to Russia. First of all, the emancipation edict was slow to implement. Second of all, Serfs were now indept to landlords + state (redemption payments) and this hindered the development of peasants as consumers in Russia's capitalist economy. This severely slowed down the process of modernizing the Russian economy.

Military -

Here we have to us the Crimean war and not the Russo-Japanese war as it is not within the time frame of the past question.

Weaknesses in the Russian army during the Crimean war. To clarify, Russia lost the war because of its military weaknesses:-Russian soldiers suffered lack of supplies and weapons, due to lack of effective railway communications, disorganization in the army and Russian industry, which could not produce an adequate amount of weapons + supplies. Only 50 percent of soldiers had a gun and only 4 percent had a "modern" gun in contrast to the British who had "modern" guns for 50 percent of their troops.

-Russian army was also ineffective and mobilized slowly. In the Crimean war only 60 000 thousand Russian troops could be summoned out of 1 million soldiers!-The Russian army was not based on conscription (such as the countries in western Europe), instead serfs and peasants were selected by the government to serve in the army for 25 years. This demoralized the troops, as serving in the army was seen as a prison sentence!

Concluding reflections: to what extent do you think the weaknesses outweigh the strengths? Is this important when thinking about how far the 1917 revolutions were "inevitable"?

Weaknesses outweighs the strengths. There were numerous rebellions + uprisings + disastrous and humiliating wars + famines in Russia during the 19 th century. Yes one has to think about the underlying weaknesses (especially political) of Russia when determining if the revolutions were inevitable. It was the long-term economic, social and political conditions in Russia that lay the foundations of the revolutions. However, as AJP Taylor says, "nothing is inevitable before it happens".

Resources:

General details about Russia and its background, essential for this topic: https://sites.google.com/site/ibhistoryrussia/syllabus-overview---imperial-russia/a-background-and-nature-of-tsardom

Tsar Nicholas II (1894- 1917) - 'the last Tsar': 'unfit to run a village post office'?

Past Questions:

“The outbreak of war in 1914 postponed the downfall of Nicholas II but also contributed to his overthrow in the first 1917 Russian revolution.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (Specimen)

Assess the successes and failures of Nicholas II between 1894 and 1917. (Nov 2008)

Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of Russia in the second half of the nineteenth century. (May 2008)

Why did Nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution, but lose his throne in the February/ March 1917 revolution? (Nov 2005)

**MARKSCHEME NOTES**

Key dates of his reign: 1894 - Crowned on May 14, after the death of his father Tsar Alexander the Third 1898 – The establishment of the Russian Social and Democratic Party aspired to put an end to the Tsarist state. However, later on this group split in into the Bolsheviks, under the lead of Vladimir Lenin and the more moderate Mensheviks, in 1903. 1904 – Nicholas the Second faced much opposition due to his defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, which was seen as a great humiliation for the Russians. - Russia and Japan came into conflict over the influence of the Chinese town of Port Arthur (which She acquired in 1898) - Due to poor leadership and supply difficulties for the Russians, the Japanese emerged victorious in January 1905, when Port Arthur had fallen into their hands. Ultimately, Japanese victory was settled after the two week battle at Mukden, only three months later. - Nicholas the Second lost face, and discontent and opposition increases 1905 – The Revolution of 1905 – “A dress rehearsal for the real revolution of 1917” Leon Trotsky - Triggered by the Bloody Sunday (January) – What was to be a peaceful demonstration, including 200,000 men, women and children, ended bloody once the police and troops shot directly at the people, killing 1000 persons. 1906 – The First Duma - In other words, the first ‘parliament’ where Nicholas the Second issued the Fundamental Law of the Empire: “the Emperor of All of Russia has supreme autocratic power” 1907 – Introduced the Mir; a local commune where land was held in common and peasants received their share of land in private property 1917 – Tsar Nicholas the Second’s involvement in the First World War and the February Revolution of 1917 - The Tsar took command of the war efforts on his own, and left his wife in charge of state. This proved to be a complete failure for Nicholas the Second, given that a massive revolution was awaiting him as a result of people’s major discontent of his rule. The February Revolution proved to be the end of Nicholas the Second.

Background - i.e. personality, upbringing, circumstances in which he came to rule

"Nicholas had no knowledge of the world or of men, of politics or government to help him make the difficult and weighty decisions that the Tsar alone must make. The only guided stars he recognised were the inherited belief in the moral rightness of autocracy,

and a religious faith that he was in God's hands, and his actions were divinely inspired." (Historian, Hans Rogger).

Shy, quiet man, later dominated by his wife, the Tsarina. Educated, like his father, by arch-conservative Pobedonostsev. Excellent education, but

as his father, AIII, expected to reign for another 20-30 years, Nicholas was given little practical experience in how to rule before his father's sudden death in 1894.

Faced with expectations that he might relax his father's oppression, Nicholas II dismissed claims of the zemstva for more political responsibility as "senseless dreams". He would face far greater problems than those encountered by his father, and his failure to deal with them led to the collapse of the Romanov dynasty and the imperial tradition of tsarist rule in 1917.

Key aims as Tsar:Main aim was to “maintain the principle of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father”, in addition to modernize without revolution!

In terms of foreign policies, Tsar Nicholas the Second aimed to

To gain a warm water port. To get the Straits of the Dardanelles (the entrance to the Black Sea from the

Mediterranean) reopened to its warships. This had been closed to Russian ships after the Crimean War.

To extend her influence in the Balkans, taking advantage of the decline of Turkish power.

To promote a conservative, religious alliance among Slavs in Eastern Europe (Pan-Slavism) as a cover for expanding Russian control.

To expand eastwards into Asia especially in Iran, Tibet and India

Methods and policies to achieve these: The Fundamental Law of the Empire of 1906 - “the Emperor of All of Russia has supreme autocratic power” (Methods and policies further explained in failures and success) Successes (from whose perspective?)

The Czar turned to advice to Count Witte who urged him to agree to fundamental reform. On 30 October the Czar issued the October Manifesto that promised a constitution and a parliament or Duma elected by the people. The Russians were also promised full civil liberties.

The duma provided an arena in which the various political groups (liberals, SD, SR) could argue and become more divided. This, together with Stolypin’s ruthless suppression of opposition, helped to marginalize the opponents of the regime’s position after 1905.

His main device for resisting revolution was the introduction of land reform. He felt that this could make the better-off peasants loyal supporters of the regime. He introduced reforms in 1906 that allowed peasants to leave the local commune (Mir) where land was held in common and receive their share of land in private property. This would allow them to become permanent owners of their own farms. These reforms had some success and by 1915 about half of the peasants in European Russia owned their farms. He also encouraged smaller farmers to enlarge

their holdings with aid from a Peasant Bank that he established. Peasants were encouraged to settle in Siberia in order to alleviate land shortage.

The policies of Nicholas the Second’s Minster of Finance (1892-1903) Witte strengthened Russia leading up to WW1. Huge capital investment led to considerable industrial and railway developments, bringing clear economic and military benefits to Russia. In this sense, successful economic modernization achieved from a very low base - though it should also be noted there were clear limitations to this economic modernization, it should not be over-exaggerated.

Failures (from whose perspective?) and reasons for his downfall and the collapse of the 300 year old Romanov dynasty in February 1917:

"The 1905 revolution did more than anything else during Nicholas II's reign to undermine support for the regime." Historian Richard Charques.

His stubborn personality limited him in his success. Nicholas the Second failed to deal with Russia’s serious political problems. In addition to his failure to consider reform led to the growth of opposition.

The depth of opposition to the Czar was shown by the events of 1905 that was brought on by defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. The conduct of the war exposed the inefficiency and corruption of the Czarist system of government and contributed directly to the revolution of 1905.

The Czar refused to listen to demands for political change. This led to political discontent caused by the absence of political reform, economic discontent caused by poor wages and increasing taxation, in addition to the defeat and poor management of the war against Japan.

Overall assessment of Nicholas II and historiographyOrlando Figes: “Nicholas had not been blessed with either his father’s strength of character or his intelligence.”

Orlando Figes: “It was not a weakness of will that was the undoing of the last Czar but… a wilful determination to rule from the throne, despite the fact that he clearly lacked the necessary qualities to do so.”

Rasputin: "The Czar can change his mind from one minute to the next; he’s a sad man; he lacks guts.”

Norman Stone: "Russia was not advanced enough to stand the strain of war, and the effort to do so plunged her economy into chaos."

Sergei Witte: “His character is the source of all our misfortunes. His outstanding weakness is a lack of willpower.”

Dimitri Volkognov: “The Russian government’s failings in the war and its weakness at home led to the self-destruction of the autocracy on a wave of discontent"

Resources:

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/russia1.htm#3

https://sites.google.com/site/ibhistoryrussia/syllabus-overview---imperial-russia/nicholas-ii

https://sites.google.com/site/ibhistoryrussia/syllabus-overview---imperial-russia/e-backwardness-and-witte-s-attempts-to-modernize

https://sites.google.com/site/ibhistoryrussia/syllabus-overview---imperial-russia/russo-japanese-war

https://sites.google.com/site/ibhistoryrussia/syllabus-overview---imperial-russia/f-1905-revolution

https://sites.google.com/site/ibhistoryrussia/syllabus-overview---imperial-russia/h-stolpin-and-land-reform

https://sites.google.com/site/ibhistoryrussia/syllabus-overview---imperial-russia/i-the-dumas

https://sites.google.com/site/ibhistoryrussia/syllabus-overview---imperial-russia/h-impact-of-the-first-world-war-on-russia

https://sites.google.com/site/ibhistoryrussia/syllabus-overview---imperial-russia/i-march-revolution-1917

February Revolution 1917 - Why was Nicholas II forced to abdicate?

Past Questions:

Compare and contrast the causes and nature of the two 1917 Russian Revolutions. (May 2010)

“The outbreak of war in 1914 postponed the downfall of Nicholas II but also contributed to his overthrow in the first 1917 Russian revolution.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (Specimen)

Analyse the causes of the 1917 February/March Russian Revolution. (May 2009)

Compare and contrast the causes and consequences of the 1905 and February/March 1917 Russian Revolutions. (Nov 2006)

Analyse the long term and short term causes of the 1917 February/March Russian Revolution. (May 2006)

Why did Nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution, but lose his throne in the February/ March 1917 revolution? (Nov 2005)

To what extent was the revolution of February/ March 1917, in Russia, due to the nature of Tsarism and the policies of Nicholas II (1894-1917)? (May 2005)

**MARKSCHEME NOTES**

Key dates:1891- Famine1904- Defeat in Russo-Japanese war1905- Bloody sunday and revolution1917, February 23rd- International Women's Day + worker's revolt

Long term causesThe Russian People and Russification:

Large parts of the Empire added to Russia only in the 19th century- for example Causcaus 1864.

Russia therefore contained a vast amounts of different nationalities- Russians only half the population.

These nationalities had their own language, culture and traditions which made it very difficult to keep under one rule especially since the Tsar had little, if not none, contorl over these vast areas of the empire.

Many nationalities resented Russian control- especially the policy of Russification which was intensified by Alexander III and kept during Nicholas II's reign.

This policy aimed to suppress other nationalities and minorities than the Russian- use Russian language instead of their own and adapt to Russian customs. Key example in Poland where it became forbidden to teach Polish in schools.

National minorities saw this as discrimination and during the late 19th century, there was an increasing amount of uprisings and strikes for these minorities, seeking greater autonomy.

The social structure of Tsarist Russia:

Middle classes: Small number but growing number of merchants, bankers and industrialists as the industry developed. The professional clamiss (lawyers, doctors) was increasing and beginning to play a significant role in local governments- growing intellectual class who sought more participation in politics!

Peasants: Life difficult as most owned only small patches of land and working on the states of the nobility. Years of bad harvest there would be widespread starvation; in 1891 400,000 died. Most poor, illiterate and uneducated.

Land and agriculture: Methods were inefficient and backwards- still used wooden ploughs and very few animals and tools. Not enough land to go around, vast expansion of

peasant population in the later half of the 19th century led to overcrowding and competition for land.

Urban workers and industry: Around 58% were litterate, twice the national average which meant that they could articulate their grievances and were receptive to revolutionary ideas. Wages were generally low and high number of deaths from accidents and work related health issues. The industry production was very low in the start of the 19th century but increased fast and by 1914, Russia was the fourth largest producer of iron, steel and coal.

Mid-term causes, 1914 - 1917Modernization and its contradictions:

At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was stil a very backwards country and the Tsar wanted Russia to become a world power- Russia had to modernize.

Russia was poor, agriculture hopelessly inefficient and thousands of peasants starved when the harvest was poor.

There were often peasant unrest and uprisings which made the regime unstable and it was essential to modernize agriculture and industry to take the surplus of people from the land into the cities.

However, modernization meant a serious threat to the regime - it was difficukt to maintain Tsarist autocarcy as most modern industrial countries had democracies and parliaments in which the middle class was featured.

Social tensions were created when millions moved frmo land to cities and growing discontent among the workers led to instability.

The need for an educated workforce made people a larger challenge to the government the growth of the middle class created pressure for political change and more representative governments.

Difficult to modernize within the framework of autocracy!

The First World War:

The majority of historians acknowledge that the First World War played a major role in bringing about the February Revolution.

Military failures: There were heavy defeats and huge number of Russians were killed in 1914 and 1915- led to anger about the way the Tsar and the government were conducting war. In September 1917 the Tsar went to the front to take personal charge; he was from then on held personally responsible for the defeats!

Difficult living conditions: The war caused acute distress in the cities, especially Petrograd and Moscow. The war meants that food, goods and raw materials were in short supply and hundreds of factories closed and thousands of workers put out of work. Led to inflation and lack of fuel meant that most were cold as well as hungry- urban workers became were hostile towards the Trsarist government. In the countryside, peasants became increasingly angry about the conscription of all young men who seldom returned from the Front.

Role of the Tsarina and Rasputin: The Tsar made a huge mistake in leaving his wife and the monk Rasputin in charge of the government while he was at the Front. Ministers were changed frequently in favour of friends or people who performed poorly and as a result, the situation in the cities detoriated quickly with food and fuel in short supply. They became totally discredited and were ridiculed by cartoon etc. The Tsar was also blamed for putting them in charge and the higher intelligensia of the society and army generals became disenchanted with the tsar's leadership and no longer supported him- by beginning of 1917, very few people were prepared to defend him.

Failure to make political reforms: During the war, the Tsar had the chance to make some concessions which could have saved his rule- for example a constitutional monarchy which would have taken away the pressure from the Tsar personally. The Duma was fully behind the Tsar in fighting the war. The "Progressive Bloc" emerged who suggested that the tsar establish a "government of public confidence" (letting them rule the country) but the tsar rejected their approach and any other concessions.

Short-term causes, 1917:Impact of the war!- support for the Tsar by the end of 1916 was practically inexistent. the generals told the Tsar that they would no longer support him! (key contrast to revolution in 1905).

International Women's Day:

Frustrations from the workers after the cold and harsh winter of 1916 exploded in the streets of the main cities.

Shortages of food, fuel and other materials- caused by the war- had driven up the prices and strikes and riots had caused hihg levels of tension in the capital, Petrograd.

When news of bread rationing hit the streets towards the end of February 1917, the queues and scuffles over the remaining bread stocks turned into riots.

23rd of February- International Women's Day- the discontent became more focused and women took the lead in politicising a march through Petrograd.

By the afternoon, women had persuaded the men from factories to join them and the protest started to gather momentum.

Over the next three days, the demonstrations grew and the demands for bread were accompanied by demands for the end of the war and an end to the Tsar!

The mutiny of the soldiers:

By 25th and 26th of February, the soldiers joined the demonstrations and most of them were desperate not to be sent to the front line where the Russian army were facing huge losses.

As the Tsar heard of the trouble in Petrograd, he ordered troops to put down the disorder- on Sundat 26th of Febrary some regiments opened fire on the crowds.

The crowds became more hostile and one by one, the regiments moved over to the side of the people and as Orlando Figes states; "The mutiny of the Petrograd garrison turned the disorders of the last four days into a full-scale revolution".

The main struggle took place between the soldiers and police and the revolution had officially begun!

Nature of the revolution (i.e. how planned and organised was it? Who made up the bulk of those carrying out the revolution? Popular?)Planned and organised:

There seemed to be no general organisation of the events as no political party was in charge- all main leaders of the revolutionary parties were abroad or on exile.

However, socialist cells, particularly from the Bolshevik revolutionary party were active in spreading the protest and getting workers out on the streets with their red plags and banners.

Effects of revolution?

After the mutiny of the soldiers and the full-scale outbreak of the revolution, most people looked to the duma, the Russian parliament, to control the situation.

However, the socialists were already forming their own organisation to represent the interest of the workers- the Soviet!

When the Tsar realised that the situation in petrograd had gone out of control, he had ordered troops to march to the capital to restore order. He had also suspended the Duma however the Duma members remained in the Tauride Palace and meanwhile people milled outside demanding that the Duma take control over the situation- on 2nd of March the tsar abdicated for himself and his son in favor of his brother Michael; but Michael realising that the people would not want another autocratic government, refused and the Romanov dynasty came to a swift end!

The Duma started forming a new government- the Provisional Government.

Resources:

http://www.funfront.net/hist/russia/revo1917.htm#A%20SUMMARY

https://sites.google.com/site/ibhistoryrussia/syllabus-overview---imperial-russia/i-march-revolution-1917

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution#Tsar.27s_return_and_abdication

1917 and Lenin's rise to power: the October Revolution

Past Questions:Paper 3

Compare and contrast the causes and nature of the two 1917 Russian revolutions. (May 2010)

Analyse the causes and immediate consequences (up to 1921) of the October 1917 Russian Revolution. (Nov 2009)

Analyse the reasons for the success of the Bolsheviks in the second (October/November) 1917 Russian Revolution. (May 2008)

Why was the Provisional Government in Russia unable to consolidate and maintain its power in 1917? (Nov 2007)

Compare and contrast the roles of Lenin and Trotsky in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and in the foundation of the new Soviet State until 1924. (May 2007)

Paper 2

Analyse the conditions that enabled one left-wing leader to become the ruler of a single-party state. (May 2010)

Assess the importance of economic distress and ideological appeal in the rise to power of one left-wing and one right-wing single-party ruler. (Nov 2009)

“Unpopular rulers or governments, and their overthrow, were responsible for the formation of the majority of twentieth century single-party states.” To what extent do you agree with this assertion? (May 2009)

To what extent did the following aid the rise to power of either Lenin or Mussolini: (a) the First World War (b) weakness of the existing regime (c) ideological appeal? (Nov 2008)

Analyse the rise to power of either Hitler or Lenin. (May 2008)

Analyse the methods used and the conditions which helped in the rise to power of one ruler of a single-party state. (May 2007, May 2005)

“It was personality and not circumstances that brought rulers of single-party states to power.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (Nov 2006)

MARKSCHEME notes for these questions.

Key dates and events in 1917:

March2 Provisional government formed (Tsar abdicates)

June16 June offensive

July3-4 July days

August26-30 Kornilov affair

October25-26 Bolshevik seizure of power

Analysing the factors that caused the October Revolution and which explain how Lenin was able to seize power

1) NOTE: for LONG and MID-TERM causes - Social, Political, Economic - see causes of February Revolution, as these issues which caused the abdication of the Tsar are still present in October 1917 and form the foundation for the ongoing crisis in Russia which Lenin and the Bolsheviks are able to exploit.

Social + political problems

Middle classes: Small number but growing number of merchants, bankers and industrialists as the industry developed. The intelligentsia sought more participation in politics!

Land and agriculture: Methods were inefficient and backwards- still used wooden ploughs and very few animals and tools. Not enough land to go around, vast expansion of peasant population in the later half of the 19th century led to overcrowding and competition for land. Peasants wanted social change!

Urban workers and industry: Around 58% were literate, twice the national average which meant that they could articulate their grievances and were receptive to revolutionary ideas. Wages were generally low and high number of deaths from accidents and work related health issues. The industry production was very low in the start of the 19th century but increased fast and by 1914, Russia was the fourth largest producer of iron, steel and coal. Instability in cities and the misery of the workers led to social + political instability in the towns.

Economic problems:Inflation: From 1914-1917 inflation increased by 400 percent

Crisis in cities : Overcrowded + poor housing + poor living and working conditions (created by economic problems in Russia) led to social tension in Cities

2) Continued impact of WW1 (social and economic problems):

The war caused acute distress in the cities, especially Petrograd and Moscow. The war meant that food, goods and raw materials were in short supply and hundreds of factories closed and thousands of workers put out of work. Led to inflation and lack of fuel meant that most were cold as well as hungry- urban workers became were hostile towards the PG. In the countryside, peasants became increasingly angry about the conscription of all young men who seldom returned from the Front.

3) Weaknesses and failures of the Provisional Government (political problems, interrelated with social and economic problems):

Political problems, interrelated with social and economic problems

The political failures of the government undermined their power and authority, which created the circumstances for Lenin's RTP:

1) Nature of PG helped Lenin to power. PG was not elected by the people, it saw itself as a temporary body, which could not make any binding long-term decisions for Russia.

2) Divisions in PG helped Lenin to power. In PG there were divisions between socialists +

liberals who often blocked each others decisions. This internal weakness of the PG crippled their ability to enforce control over the country.

3) Nature of PG helped Lenin to power. The PG had only power over government affairs, real power lay in the hands of the soviets (worker's unions). Soviets had all the practical power in petrograd such as the control over factories and railways.

4) Government passes legislation that allowed freedom of speech, press as well as the dismantling of the secret police. Now political parties could mobilize publically and attract members more easily. The opposition to the PG got it a lot easier to rebel, and the PG had dismantled the secret police, so they couldnt stop the uprisings.

The four above factors made Lenin's RTP possible, as they made the PG a weak political body, which could not resist any oppostion.

The PG also committed several blunders during the months leading up to the october revolution, which benefitted the Bolsheviks directly.

June offensive:In June PG launched an all out offensive on Germany to put the country in a better position in the war (WW1). The offensive (called June offensive) ended in disaster and PG was deeply discredited. As a result, the Bolsheviks and other political parties got increased support.

July days:In July a spontaneous uprising occured, which consisted of 500 000 soldiers, workers and sailors rebelled in Kronstadt. They later marched to petrograd to demand overthrow of PG. However, the rebellion was dismantled as PG still retained control of some loyal Russian troops. Even though this affair hurt the reputation of the PG, it also damaged the Bolshevik reputation as the PG blamed them for the whole incident. Fitzpatrick argues that "the whole affair damged Bolshevik morale and Lenin's credibility as a revolutionary leader"

Kornilov affair:In August 1917, general Kornilov took his army and marched to Petrograd to overthrow PG. He was discontent with the way PG handled politics and WW1. Alexander Kerensky, leader of PG, panicked and since he was unable to put up an adequate defence by using loyal forces, he armed the Bolsheviks so they could help him. However, Kornilov's army did not reach Petrograd as some of his soldiers mutinied and railway workers sabotaged the railways. Now the PG reputation was shattered and the government started to disintergrate. Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks got more support because they were percieved as the defenders of Petrograd, and they were also armed now compared to other political parties.

4) Ideological appeal of Lenin and Bolshevism, and role of Lenin (appeal of radical alternative, charismatic and dynamic leader, taking advantage of crisis situation in Russia in 1917 with all the problems listed above)Lenin's political ideas attracted widespread support among the Russian people. On 16th of April 1917, Lenin held a speech called the April Theses. The sppech called for a 1)World wide socialist revolution 2) Land reform to peasants 3) immediate end to WW1 3) immediate end to cooperation with PG 4) Urged Soviets to take power.

The ideas in the speech were made into simple but effective and radical slogans such as "all power to the soviets" or "bread, peace and Land". These slogans attracted a lot of support for the Bolsheviks, as they appealed to the workers. They provided the workers with a radical solution to the problems in Russia.

The speech also made the Bolshevik party unique, since their standpoint about the war issue was unique. No other political party wanted an immediate end to the war. The uniqueness of the Bolshevik party attracted them a lot of support among the workers.

In the April Theses Lenin also revised Karl Marx ideas, which claimed that Russia was not ready for a revolution. Lenin however proclaimed that Russia was in fact ready, and revolution had to happen now because the PG was so weak at this point in time! Lenin succeeded to persuade the party, and in the end of April the revolution was being planned. Without Lenin and his speech, the Bolshevik revolution would never have taken place.

Lenin's leadership also inspired the masses to join the party + revolution. Lenin held many speeches during 1917, and his rhetorical skills attracted enormous amounts of public support. Lenin was also a practical leader and could adapt his policies to the wants and needs of the workers. Thus he gained even more support.

5) Role of Trotsky in executing the revolution (ruthlessly efficient organiser)Trotsky was elected Chairman of Petrograd Soviets in 1917, which gave him immense practical power over the city (control of bridges, railways etc.), which was a valuable assest to Bolsheviks. Trotsky also used his position as Chairman to claim that the Bolsheviks were seizing power in the name of the Soviets, and hence workers accepted that Bolsheviks conducted the revolution. It was not until Lenin closed down the new parliament that workers realized that they had been fooled.

Trotsky also played a key role in setting up and organizing the red army, as well as the actual take over of power. Trosky also persuaded Lenin to wait until october to conduct the revolution, when Bolsheviks had firmly established their power in the Soviets.

Trotsky was as also an excellent orator and helped to inspire the masses.

Historiography of the October Revolution and Lenin's RTP - minority coup d'etat vs popular revolution?

Communist view Party's view of October revolution:-Inevitable result of class struggle-Lenin's leadership was vital-Popular revolution, inspired + organized by Bolsheviks and in praticular Lenin

Liberal view of October revolution (e.g. Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes)-Coup d'etat, Bolshevik used the weaknesses of th PG to seize power -Bolsheviks had only limited popular support-Bolsheviks were successful because of the leadership of Trotsky + Lenin

Revisionist view of October revolution (e.g. Orlando figes) -Emphasizes impotance of revolution from below (i.e. popular revolution) -However, Bolsheviks "hijacked" popular revolution and ruthlessly betrayed the people by imposing a single-party dictatorship, surpressing the Soviets

Resources:

https://rudbeckib.managebac.com/classes/10016451/events/10123763

http://www.s114478754.websitehome.co.uk/hostoryasrevisionguiderevolutionaryrussia.htm

Lenin - staying in power and overall achievements

Past Questions:Paper 3

“Lenin abandoned ideology in order to gain and consolidate power.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (Nov 2010)

Analyse the causes and immediate consequences (up to 1921) of the October 1917 Russian Revolution. (Nov 2009)

“The Bolshevik state under Lenin between 1918 and 1924 was a ruthless dictatorship, caring little for the Russian people.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (Nov 2008)

Compare and contrast the roles of Lenin and Trotsky in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and in the foundation of the new Soviet State until 1924. (May 2007)

For what reasons, and in what ways, was a Marxist/Communist state set up in Russia between 1918 and 1928? (May 2006)

Compare and contrast the part played by Lenin and Trotsky in the development of the USSR between 1918 and 1924. (Nov 2005)

Lenin wrote, “One step forward two steps back; it happens in the lives of individuals, and in the history of nations.” To what extent can this quotation be applied to Lenin’s revolutionary career and his rule of the USSR 1918 to 1924? (May 2005)

Paper 2 SPS

Discuss (a) the support for, and (b) the ideology of, one left-wing ruler of a single-party state. (May 2010)

Analyse the nature and extent of internal opposition and the methods used to deal with this opposition by one of the following single-party rulers: Lenin; Hitler; Mao. (Nov 2009)

To what extent was the ruler of one single-party state successful in achieving his aims? (May 2008)

Evaluate the successes and failures of one ruler of a single-party state. (May 2007)

Assess the methods used by either Lenin or Perón to maintain his regime. (May 2007, May 2005)

How successful was either Lenin (1917 -1924) or Mussolini (1922-1943) in solving the problems he faced? (May 2005)

MARKSCHEME notes for these questions.

What were Lenin's aims and ideology? What did he hope to achieve?

Lenin wanted to seize power to establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to achieve Communism.

Spread socialist consciousness among the workers. Destroy and crush all non-socialist idea, especially bourgeois ideas. Spread a Communist revolution around the world!

However, when first gaining power Lenin realised the importance of first securing his rule, before moving towards a socialist state, in order to not trigger a Civil War as soon as the Bolsheviks had seized power in October 1917.What were his chief policies enacted to try and realise these aims?Short term:Lenin could not afford the popular tide of aspirations that had led to the failure of Tsardom as well as the PG, so he gave the people what they wanted in order to secure support for his reign:

Land Reform- Gave the peasants the right to take over the estates of the gentry, without compensation to the landlords, and for themselves decide the best way to divide it up. This however, went against Bolshevik ideology and was the start of the "kulak problem" that Stalin was later to be faced with.

Workers' control decree- gave the workers the right to control production and finance and supervise management. This was neither in line with Bolshevik ideaology and nationalisation of industry. Furthermore, the production sharply fell as the management could not be handled.

Rights of the people of Russia decree- Gave the right to self-determination to national minorities in the former Russian empire. However, it is important to keep in mind that Lenin did not have control over these vast areas anyways!

- All of the decrees above went against Lenin's longer-term aims of Bolshevik ideology however through this he did manage to achieve his short term aims of securing power and stablizing the regime in order to prepare for the coming Civil War. As historian Edward Acton states; " No Russian government had ever been more responsive to pressure from below or less able to impose its will upon society".

Dealing with opposition- One of the first measures enacted by Lenin was closing down opposition press. The Bolsheviks themselves who had pumped enormous amounts of money into their own newspaper in 1917 knew the harm that it could cause them. Closed down opposition parties, starting with the Kadets who had done fairly well in elections for the Constituent Assembly, and by May 1918 all other parties had been banned.

Longer term:

War Communism- helped Lenin achieve his aims of controlling Russia and move towards a more socialist state. The industry was nationalised, grain requisitioning from the peasants to be able to fight the civil war, banning of private trade, labour discipline and the Red Terror. All helped Lenin and the Bolsheviks win the Civil War and so securing their power as well as carry out Bolshevik ideology.

CHEKA- Secret police to crush opposition and also created concentration camps- machinery of terror! Paritcularly active on the countryside through grain requisitioning, thousands of peasants arrested and Cheka was "at war with the peasants". 1918-1920, 300,000 people killed by the Cheka! This helped Lenin centralise the power and was also an aspect of war communism as grain requisitioning is in large parts what made the Bolsheviks able to win the Civil War.

Class Warfare- Lenin encouraged class warfare as a way to intimidate the middle class into submission. The legal system was replaced with "revolutionary justice"; random, class persecution. This was one of the most "authoritating" aspects of Lenin's reign however it was apart of his plan to make the society more egalitatian- wish to end privilege and introduce fairer society- i.e. scrapping of titles. In this sense class warfare was definetly a tool to carry out bolshevik ideology.

What methods did he use to stay in power and maintain control of the country after 1917? Which of these was most effective and why?

War Communism: Made Lenin able to win the civil war and secure his power. It is therefore very possible to argue that Lenin's rise to power was not complete until after the civil war when he had full control over the country.

NEP- The impact on the Russian people after war Communism left the peasants starving due to grain requisitioning and horrible working conditions for the workers. After the Kronstadt Revolt in march 1921; "The flash that lit up reality better than anything else", Lenin realized the society needed to be stabilized and introduced the New Economic Policy.

- Successes: Stabilized the Russian economy and by 1922 there was brisk trade in the markets and the industrial production made a rapid recovery- factory output rose by almost 200% from 1920-23. The peasants did well- great deal of trade between the villages and this greatly reduced

opposition from the countryside. Many western countries also saw this as a step back from Communism and started to invest money in Russia- lifted the economy even further.- Failures: It was a huge step back from Bolshevik ideology and went back to capitalism instead of forward to socialism. The development of Nepmen- private traders- who handled as much as 3/4 of the retail trade. Overall the NEP was a great step back from Lenin's ideologies and therefore prevented his long-term aims of a socialist society. But on the other hand it did fulfill his shorter term aims by securing the regime from the widespread opposition that arose during War Communism. Furthermore, no political changes were made, only economical, and therefore it can be seen as a big short-term success for Lenin and the party. As Bukharin stated; "economic concessions to avoid political concessions". Which of his aims did Lenin achieve in any degree? What were his key successes?

Lenin managed to achieve his aims in securing power over Russia and established a single-party state.

He managed to crush opposition and through the Civil War secured his position as the leader of Russia and could therefore start to move towards a socialist society.

Through class warfare, Lenin also achieved his aims in crushing all (most) socialist ideas!

Which of these aims were not achieved, or only to a small degree? What were his key failures?

Lenin failed with his overriding aim of establishing a socialist society and by the time of his death, the government was in no way near possible to let the state wither away".

Lenin also greatly failed by achieving a world wide socialist revolution as this never happened, and by the time of Stalin's rule, the hope of this has greatly diminished.

Overall judgement and historiography - what impact did Lenin have, and did he play a unique role in history?

Resources:

https://sites.google.com/site/ibhistoryrussia/syllabus-overview---imperial-russia/m-lenin

http://www.s114478754.websitehome.co.uk/hostoryasrevisionguiderevolutionaryrussia.htm

May 2008

8. Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of Russia in the second half of the nineteenth century.This question covers the end of the reign of Nicholas I (1825–1855), Alexander II (1855–1881), Alexander III (1881–1894), and the first few years of Nicholas II (1894–1917). It is hoped that in order to avoid an answer based only on Alexander II and his reforms, candidates will structure their answer thematically, focusing on strengths and weaknesses. They will probably emphasize weaknesses, and may well start with them.

For strengths: the size of Russia and her population; traditional status as a Great Power; the reforms of Alexander II, which were aimed at modernization and catching up with other European powers in areas such as the emancipation of serfs, education, the economy, the army, justice, and to a lesser extent politics; the industrial policies of Witte in the 1890s.

For weaknesses: the size of Russia and the difficulties of governing such a large and inaccessible country; autocracy; repressive policies of Nicholas I; backwardness (especially serfdom); defeat in the Crimean War; unpopularity and failure of some of Alexander II’s reforms; very small middle class; uneducated and untrained population so foreign expertise needed; repressive policies of Alexander III; opposition and terrorism; nature and policies of Nicholas II.

Do not expect or demand all the above (especially comments on Nicholas I and Nicholas II) but the question demands more than Alexander II’s reforms.

[17+ marks] for perceptive analysis and specific evidence of strengths and weaknesses.

February Revolution - Markscheme Notes

May 2010

Compare and contrast the causes and nature of the two 1917 Russian Revolutions.The factual details of the two Russian Revolutions of 1917, are often confused. The first was in February/March, and the second, often called the Bolshevik Revolution, was in October /November.Some areas to compare are: both were against the government in power; both were opposed to the current government; both brought great change; the First World War and the hardships it caused was a factor in both; peasants, workers and the Soviets played some part in both. Economic crisis was also a factor in both.

Areas of contrast could include: the first revolution was a spontaneous mass movement which developed out of an almost general strike, whereas the Bolshevik Revolution was more of a coup, planned by the Bolshevik Party; the first was against the Tsar, the second to overthrow the Provisional Government; the Tsar was overthrown in the first, and killed after the second. There was less bloodshed and violence in the second: five soldiers, one sailor and no defenders were killed. The first revolution was unplanned and spontaneous, the second was a coup d’etat.If only one of the 1917 Revolutions is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [7 marks]

Specimen

“The outbreak of war in 1914 postponed the downfall of Nicholas II but also contributed to his overthrow in the first 1917 Russian revolution.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?Candidates will need to explain the relative weaknesses of Nicholas II after the 1905 Revolution and the failure of the Dumas, etc.; the weakness of the tsarist autocracy, an assessment of the character, policies and actions of the tsar – the extent to which his position was weak in 1914. How did the tsarist system change? Candidates could refer to Stolypin’s reforms, how the tsar could have backed the Duma and given some of the privileged sections of Russian society more concessions. Candidates then need to indicate that war in 1914 caused a wave of patriotic support for the tsar, but the events of 1914–1917 weakened both the tsar and Russia, as well as increasing support for the opposition.[12 to 17 marks] the relationship of the First World War between 1914 and 1917 and the downfall of Nicholas II is analysed in a structured and focused answer.[18 to 20 marks] an extra dimension such as different interpretations of the effects on Nicholas II are evaluated

May 2009

Analyse the causes of the 1917 February/March Russian Revolution.As this is a straight-forward question, which should be well known, expect or demand analysis for a “good” mark. Some suggestions of causes to analyse are: the nature of tsarist rule, which was outdated, autocratic and unpopular, in spite of attempts to reform and modernise it; specific criticism of Nicholas II, Alexandra, Rasputin; economic problems and poverty among the peasants (about 80 % of the population), including inefficient farming methods, and demands for land, and industrial workers suffering from poor conditions at work and overcrowded living conditions; growth and increasing activity of opposition parties; entry into, and losses in, the First World War; immediate events causing the outbreak, strikes, bread riots, behaviour of Nicholas II.[17+ marks] for balanced in depth analysis and/or different interpretations.

Nov 2006

Compare and contrast the causes and consequences of the 1905 and February/March 1917 Russian Revolutions.The 1905 Revolution was linked to defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the breakdown in transportation, an increase in bread prices and the corruption and inefficiency of the government. The 1917 Revolution was linked to military defeat (although the war was still continuing); governmental incompetence; economic inflation; and dislike of the Romanovs (including Alexandra).

The consequences of the 1905 Revolution include the survival of the Tsar, the Duma, the formation of the Peasant Union and the soviets, Stolypin’s reforms, repression, and the desire for autonomy of the non-Russian peoples. The consequences of 1917 include the fall of the Tsar, the formation of the Dual Authority, the granting of some political freedom, the compromise with the soviets, the continuation of the war, the calling of the Constituent Assembly and the return of Lenin.Candidates should identify the similarities and differences between the two revolutions where appropriate.[17+ marks] for fully analytical and relevant answers with detail, insight, perceptive comments and perhaps different interpretations, which address all aspects of the question.May 2006

Analyse the long term and short term causes of the 1917 February/March Russian Revolution.The focus of this question is the causes of the 1917 February/March Revolution in Russia. Candidates are also asked to differentiate between long and short term causes, but allow latitude in deciding where the boundary lies between the two.Long-term causes could include the nature of Tsarist rule but candidates do not need to go farther back than the reign of Alexander II. Probably many will start by noting that he tried to introduce reforms but many failed to satisfy, or gave rise to more opposition. His successor, Alexander III was regarded as a reactionary, thus the backward nature of the economy, lives of the peasants, lack of a national legislative assembly, growth of opposition parties (specific examples should be known), with terror by and against them. The policies of Nicholas II before 1914, the 1905 Revolution, October Manifesto, Dumas, work of Witte and Stolypin, will probably be regarded as short term causes by some and long term by others, but most should agree that Rasputin, the First World War, Nicholas taking over command of the war, military defeats, shortages, strikes, discontent at home, were all short term causes. Revolution erupted with demonstrations, bread riots, firing by police on the rioters, and failure of the army to support the tsar. Candidates should stop at the outbreak of the 1917 February/March Revolution, but need to analyse all causes identified by the candidate in order to score well.[17 + marks] for perceptive interpretation and balance.

Nov 2005

Why did Nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution, but lose his throne in the February/March 1917 revolution?Nicholas II survived the 1905 revolution with his life and title intact, but not his autocracy. Concessions were granted in the October Manifesto, including the granting of a national duma. Reasons for survival included the fact that concessions were promised, the weak and divided nature of the opposition, and the support of the army. The first 1917 revolution resulted in the loss of his position - he resigned, (he was not killed until after the Bolshevik Revolution). Reasons for this defeat and the end of the Romanov dynasty, could include; failure of the concessions, especially the duma to live up to the peoples’ expectations; participation and losses in the First World War; loss of army support; growth and better organization of the opposition.[17+ marks] for in-depth analysis or different interpretations of the reasons.

May 2005

To what extent was the Revolution of February/March 1917, in Russia, due to the nature of Tsarism and the policies of Nicholas II (1894 to 1917)?Candidates first need to explain the nature of Tsarism (this phrase is in the History Guide), and show how far it was repressive, old fashioned and illiberal. There is a question on Alexander II on the paper and only a brief mention of his reforms could be considered relevant/necessary. No candidate should be penalized for not mentioning them. The reign and policies of Nicholas II should be the main focus of the question, especially the 1905 Revolution, the October Manifesto, the considered failure or weakness of the Dumas and policies relating to the First World War. Candidates are asked to assess responsibility, therefore they can briefly refer to other factors that were not the responsibility of Tsarism or Nicholas II.[17+ marks] for in-depth analysis of responsibility, and/or perhaps different interpretations of Nicholas II’s actions.

Lenin’s RTP and October 1917 revolution MARKSCHEME NOTES

Paper 3:

Compare and contrast the causes and nature of the two 1917 Russian revolutions. (May 2010)

The factual details of the two Russian Revolutions of 1917, are often confused. The first was in February/March, and the second, often called the Bolshevik Revolution, was in October /November.Some areas to compare are: both were against the government in power; both were opposed to the current government; both brought great change; the First World War and the hardships it caused was a factor in both; peasants, workers and the Soviets played some part in both. Economic crisis was also a factor in both.Areas of contrast could include: the first revolution was a spontaneous mass movement which developed out of an almost general strike, whereas the Bolshevik Revolution was more of a coup, planned by the Bolshevik Party; the first was against the Tsar, the second to overthrow the Provisional Government; the Tsar was overthrown in the first, and killed after the second. There was less bloodshed and violence in the second: five soldiers, one sailor and no defenders were killed. The first revolution was unplanned and spontaneous, the second was a coup d’etat.If only one of the 1917 Revolutions is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [7 marks].

Analyse the causes and immediate consequences (up to 1921) of the October 1917 Russian Revolution. (Nov 2009)

Causes would include: Russia’s problems in the First World War; the abdication of the Tsar; the problems of the Dual Authority; Kornilov, Lenin and Trotsky’s role in the Revolution and the actual outbreak of the October Revolution.Consequences could include: Lenin’s assumption of control; the Treaty of Brest Litovsk; the Civil War and its consequences, including War Communism and the nature of the Bolshevik state up to 1921.

[14 to 16 marks] for analytical well-focused, relevant, developed and balanced answers focusing on both causes and consequences: some may not address all aspects of the question.[17+ marks] for fully analytical and relevant answers with detail, insight, perceptive comments and perhaps different interpretations, which address all aspects of the question.

Analyse the reasons for the success of the Bolsheviks in the second (October/November) 1917 Russian Revolution. (May 2008)

The Provisional Government consisted of members of the forth Duma and assumed power in a system of dyarchy after the fall of Tsarism in the February/March 1917 Russian Revolution. Reasons for its overthrow, and success of the Bolsheviks in the second (October/November) 1917 Revolution could include: its lack of authority or endorsement; weakness, failure to address problems such as land reform and war; Kornilov affair; the power and rising support for the Soviets; the opposition of Lenin and his determination to oust it; continued participation in the First World War; disintegration of the army; food shortages, riots and general disorder; German support for Lenin, sending him back in a sealed train and giving him financial support; organization of Trotsky and Lenin resulting in the ousting of the Provisional Government in a Bolshevik coup, which enabled the Bolsheviks to obtain power albeit in a limited geographical area in October/November 1917. N.B. Do not expect all the above points.[17+ marks] for well developed arguments and perhaps different interpretations.

Why was the Provisional Government in Russia unable to consolidate and maintain its power in 1917? (Nov 2007)

After the March Revolution the new republic was in the hands of two powers, tolerating but not supporting each other. The Duma did the work of the government while the Petrograd Soviet had most of the practical power. Their inability to deal with the questions of land and the maintenance of the war effort was the first major failure of the government. The July offensive failed and Kornilov’s attempted coup weakened the provisional government even further. Lenin’s arrival in Petrograd in April and his reorganisation of the Bolshevik Party was a major turning point with the pronouncement of the April Theses. Trotsky’s preparations for revolution, the persistent social and economic problems in Russia, and the refusal of the army to support it brought the Provisional Government down.

Compare and contrast the roles of Lenin and Trotsky in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and in the foundation of the new Soviet State until 1924. (May 2007)

This question requires a comparison of the roles of Lenin and Trotsky in the second or Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in October/November 1917, and in the foundation of the new Soviet State, until Lenin’s death in 1924.

For comparison:Both supported staging a second revolution and its timing, in face of some opposition from their party; both supported asserting Bolshevik control after the successful revolution, including the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly; both wanted to end Russian participation in the First World War; both played some part in obtaining peace with Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk; both supported the idea of conscription for labour duties for those not fighting in the army; both contributed to the success of the Reds in the Civil War.

For contrast:Lenin directed the October/November Revolution from the background, Trotsky was the immediate organizer and participator; Lenin was the party leader and driving force in obtaining Bolshevik control of the Constituent Assembly, and of Russia. Lenin ordered Trotsky, who was Commissar of Foreign Affairs, to negotiate for peace with Germany, and insisted that Trotsky agreed to terms that he personally disapproved of; as a result Trotsky resigned. However, during the civil war Lenin appointed Trotsky Commissar for War. Lenin proposed War Communism and other measures, but did not take part in the fighting; Trotsky built up the Red Army, directed operations, and savagely and successfully crushed the Kronstadt Rising. Lenin introduced NEP, Trotsky opposed it.

Candidates could also comment on their different personalities, as well as noting that Lenin probably favoured Trotsky as his successor. Their political aims and views, intellect, writings and oratory could be made relevant, and the impact of these on their respective roles could be commented on.[17+ marks] for balanced analytical comparison and contrast.

Paper 2:

Analyse the conditions that enabled one left-wing leader to become the ruler of a single-party state. (May 2010)

Candidates should analyse the conditions of the state before the left-wing aspirant succeeded in obtaining power, and how these conditions strengthened the appeal of the left-wing party. For conditions of the state, the following could be considered: an unpopular regime, with social and economic problems; an autocratic, corrupt or incompetent ruler or government in power and its weaknesses; an unpopular war. The ability of the aspiring leader to take advantage of these conditions could be examined in terms of analyzing the appeal of the ideology and/or pragmatism of the leader.

Assess the importance of economic distress and ideological appeal in the rise to power of one left-wing and one right-wing single-party ruler.  (Nov 2009)

Popular examples are likely to be Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro as left-wing rulers, and Mussolini, Hitler and Franco as right-wing rulers. Perón is also acceptable as a right-wing leader. Approaches are likely to be either end-on sequential treatments of the two

leaders or they will deal thematically with economic distress and ideological appeal. The latter approach might provide better structured responses.The conditions for each area should be well known and historical knowledge/evidence is essential to convincingly substantiate the response.Economic distress is often the twin of political unrest/extremism and the link between these two needs to be established in terms of examination of the material circumstances of the population. Economic crisis encouraged support for radical alternatives to an existing system which proved unable to meet the challenges of any such economic crisis – or may indeed be responsible for causing such a crisis.The main characteristics or elements of the ideology need to be identified before a convincing assessment of its appeal can be undertaken.

“Unpopular rulers or governments, and their overthrow, were responsible for the formation of the majority of twentieth century single-party states.” To what extent do you agree with this assertion? (May 2009)

Candidates need to understand and address the four demands of this question: unpopular rulers/governments; the nature of their overthrow; “to what extent” other factors led to single party states; and to give their verdict/conclusion on the quotation.The question gives rulers in the plural, so candidates who only give one example will not score well. The question should probably be answered thematically. Candidates should have no problem with finding examples upon which to base their evidence. No doubt Castro, Hitler, Lenin and Mao will be used. Stalin, however, is not a valid choice.

To what extent did the following aid the rise to power of either Lenin or Mussolini: (a) the First World War (b) weakness of the existing regime (c) ideological appeal? (Nov 2008)

The structure for the essay is clearly established in the question. Candidates are required to examine the three main areas and assess the significance of each. For the First World War the impact of the war itself on the chosen state can be extended to also consider the aftermath of the war and the impact of peace treaties/settlements on the situation and the ways in which immediate post-war economic and political developments affected the support provided to either Mussolini or Lenin. Whether war was a “mighty accelerator” for the collapse of the existing regime (and how/why), as well as the ways in which the aspiring leader took advantage of the situation need addressing.Weaknesses of the existing regime: the paucity or inappropriateness of political/economic/social reform could be investigated, along with the errors of existing regimes in failing to fulfill the expectations of either the general population or important sections within the population.The question of ideological appeal requires identification of the main strands of the selected ideology and consideration of how important it proved in garnering support, or whether ideology was largely abandoned or altered by the leader in the quest for power.

This could raise the question of whether ideology or pragmatism was predominant – or a mixture of both.“To what extent” also allows for other factors to be mentioned (for example collusion of vested interests, fear of the alternatives, use of violence, etc.) though the three main areas noted in the question should form the main areas for treatment.

Analyse the rise to power of either Hitler or Lenin. (May 2008)

This should be a popular question and candidates should have no trouble in explaining the post-war situation in Germany, support for the Nazi party, the aims and actions of Hitler, and the mistakes of the politicians that led to his acquisition of office. Similarly Lenin’s views, publications, and actions, before and after the two 1917 Russian Revolutions, which led to his leadership of the Bolshevik party then of Russia/USSR should also be well known. Allow candidates to analyse events up to 1934 for Hitler. For Lenin answers would not be expected to go beyond the outbreak of the civil war. Well analysed and accurate historical details are needed for high marks.

Analyse the methods used and the conditions which helped in the rise to power of one ruler of a single-party state. (May 2007, May 2005)

This question requires candidates to select one single-party state, and first establish and analyse the methods used by the aspiring leader to obtain power. Methods could include: choice and use of an ideology; how support both inside the country, and from foreign sources, was obtained; the appeal of the leader; propaganda; whether legal or violent methods were used. Candidates must also consider how the conditions in the chosen country were ripe for a new regime, for example a lost war, poor economy, weak government etc.

“It was personality and not circumstances that brought rulers of single-party states to power.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (Nov 2006)

Candidates should discuss at least two single party rulers (as the question is stated in the plural) and both aspects need to be analysed i.e. personality and circumstances. Aspects of personality that could be included are leadership style, oratorical skills, strength of character, focus and commitment to political ideals etc. The circumstances that brought the leader to power need to be evaluated for their impact, with reference to specific economic/social/political circumstances that were in place. Some awareness of the impossibility of measuring support and the impact of personality would be an indication of higher level thinking in candidates.

February Revolution - Markscheme Notes

May 2010

Compare and contrast the causes and nature of the two 1917 Russian Revolutions.

The factual details of the two Russian Revolutions of 1917, are often confused. The first was in February/March, and the second, often called the Bolshevik Revolution, was in October /November.Some areas to compare are: both were against the government in power; both were opposed to the current government; both brought great change; the First World War and the hardships it caused was a factor in both; peasants, workers and the Soviets played some part in both. Economic crisis was also a factor in both.Areas of contrast could include: the first revolution was a spontaneous mass movement which developed out of an almost general strike, whereas the Bolshevik Revolution was more of a coup, planned by the Bolshevik Party; the first was against the Tsar, the second to overthrow the Provisional Government; the Tsar was overthrown in the first, and killed after the second. There was less bloodshed and violence in the second: five soldiers, one sailor and no defenders were killed. The first revolution was unplanned and spontaneous, the second was a coup d’etat.If only one of the 1917 Revolutions is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [7 marks]

Specimen

“The outbreak of war in 1914 postponed the downfall of Nicholas II but also contributed to his overthrow in the first 1917 Russian revolution.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?Candidates will need to explain the relative weaknesses of Nicholas II after the 1905 Revolution and the failure of the Dumas, etc.; the weakness of the tsarist autocracy, an assessment of the character, policies and actions of the tsar – the extent to which his position was weak in 1914. How did the tsarist system change? Candidates could refer to Stolypin’s reforms, how the tsar could have backed the Duma and given some of the privileged sections of Russian society more concessions. Candidates then need to indicate that war in 1914 caused a wave of patriotic support for the tsar, but the events of 1914–1917 weakened both the tsar and Russia, as well as increasing support for the opposition.[12 to 17 marks] the relationship of the First World War between 1914 and 1917 and the downfall of Nicholas II is analysed in a structured and focused answer.[18 to 20 marks] an extra dimension such as different interpretations of the effects on Nicholas II are evaluated

May 2009

Analyse the causes of the 1917 February/March Russian Revolution.As this is a straight-forward question, which should be well known, expect or demand analysis for a “good” mark. Some suggestions of causes to analyse are: the nature of tsarist rule, which was outdated, autocratic and unpopular, in spite of attempts to reform and modernise it; specific criticism of Nicholas II, Alexandra, Rasputin; economic problems and poverty among the peasants (about 80 % of the population), including inefficient farming methods, and demands for land, and industrial workers suffering from poor conditions at work and overcrowded living conditions; growth and increasing activity of opposition parties; entry into, and losses in, the First World War; immediate events causing the outbreak, strikes, bread riots, behaviour of Nicholas II.[17+ marks] for balanced in depth analysis and/or different interpretations.

Nov 2006

Compare and contrast the causes and consequences of the 1905 and February/March 1917 Russian Revolutions.The 1905 Revolution was linked to defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the breakdown in transportation, an increase in bread prices and the corruption and inefficiency of the government. The 1917 Revolution was linked to military defeat (although the war was still continuing); governmental incompetence; economic inflation; and dislike of the Romanovs (including Alexandra).The consequences of the 1905 Revolution include the survival of the Tsar, the Duma, the formation of the Peasant Union and the soviets, Stolypin’s reforms, repression, and the desire for autonomy of the non-Russian peoples. The consequences of 1917 include the fall of the Tsar, the formation of the Dual Authority, the granting of some political freedom, the compromise with the soviets, the continuation of the war, the calling of the Constituent Assembly and the return of Lenin.Candidates should identify the similarities and differences between the two revolutions where appropriate.[17+ marks] for fully analytical and relevant answers with detail, insight, perceptive comments and perhaps different interpretations, which address all aspects of the question.May 2006

Analyse the long term and short term causes of the 1917 February/March Russian Revolution.The focus of this question is the causes of the 1917 February/March Revolution in Russia. Candidates are also asked to differentiate between long and short term causes, but allow latitude in deciding where the boundary lies between the two.Long-term causes could include the nature of Tsarist rule but candidates do not need to go farther back than the reign of Alexander II. Probably many will start by noting that he tried to introduce reforms but many failed to satisfy, or gave rise to more opposition. His successor, Alexander III was regarded as a reactionary, thus the backward nature of the economy, lives of the peasants, lack of a national legislative assembly, growth of opposition parties (specific examples should be known), with terror by and against them. The policies of Nicholas II before 1914, the 1905 Revolution, October Manifesto, Dumas, work of Witte and Stolypin, will probably be regarded as short term causes by some and long term by others, but most should agree that Rasputin, the First World War, Nicholas taking over command of the war, military defeats, shortages, strikes, discontent at home, were all short term causes. Revolution erupted with demonstrations, bread riots, firing by police on the rioters, and failure of the army to support the tsar. Candidates should stop at the outbreak of the 1917 February/March Revolution, but need to analyse all causes identified by the candidate in order to score well.[17 + marks] for perceptive interpretation and balance.

Nov 2005

Why did Nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution, but lose his throne in the February/March 1917 revolution?Nicholas II survived the 1905 revolution with his life and title intact, but not his autocracy. Concessions were granted in the October Manifesto, including the granting of a national duma. Reasons for survival included the fact that concessions were promised, the weak and divided nature of the opposition, and the support of the army. The first 1917 revolution resulted in the loss of his position - he resigned, (he was not killed until after the Bolshevik Revolution). Reasons for this defeat and the end of the Romanov dynasty, could include; failure of the concessions, especially the duma to live up to the peoples’ expectations; participation and

losses in the First World War; loss of army support; growth and better organization of the opposition.[17+ marks] for in-depth analysis or different interpretations of the reasons.

May 2005

To what extent was the Revolution of February/March 1917, in Russia, due to the nature of Tsarism and the policies of Nicholas II (1894 to 1917)?Candidates first need to explain the nature of Tsarism (this phrase is in the History Guide), and show how far it was repressive, old fashioned and illiberal. There is a question on Alexander II on the paper and only a brief mention of his reforms could be considered relevant/necessary. No candidate should be penalized for not mentioning them. The reign and policies of Nicholas II should be the main focus of the question, especially the 1905 Revolution, the October Manifesto, the considered failure or weakness of the Dumas and policies relating to the First World War. Candidates are asked to assess responsibility, therefore they can briefly refer to other factors that were not the responsibility of Tsarism or Nicholas II.[17+ marks] for in-depth analysis of responsibility, and/or perhaps different interpretations of Nicholas II’s actions.

Lenin’s RTP and October 1917 revolution MARKSCHEME NOTES

Paper 3:

Compare and contrast the causes and nature of the two 1917 Russian revolutions. (May 2010)

The factual details of the two Russian Revolutions of 1917, are often confused. The first was in February/March, and the second, often called the Bolshevik Revolution, was in October /November.Some areas to compare are: both were against the government in power; both were opposed to the current government; both brought great change; the First World War and the hardships it caused was a factor in both; peasants, workers and the Soviets played some part in both. Economic crisis was also a factor in both.Areas of contrast could include: the first revolution was a spontaneous mass movement which developed out of an almost general strike, whereas the Bolshevik Revolution was more of a coup, planned by the Bolshevik Party; the first was against the Tsar, the second to overthrow the Provisional Government; the Tsar was overthrown in the first, and killed after the second. There was less bloodshed and violence in the second: five soldiers, one sailor and no defenders were killed. The first revolution was unplanned and spontaneous, the second was a coup d’etat.If only one of the 1917 Revolutions is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [7 marks].

Analyse the causes and immediate consequences (up to 1921) of the October 1917 Russian Revolution. (Nov 2009)

Causes would include: Russia’s problems in the First World War; the abdication of the Tsar; the problems of the Dual Authority; Kornilov, Lenin and Trotsky’s role in the Revolution and the actual outbreak of the October Revolution.Consequences could include: Lenin’s assumption of control; the Treaty of Brest Litovsk; the Civil War and its consequences, including War Communism and the nature of the Bolshevik state up to 1921.[14 to 16 marks] for analytical well-focused, relevant, developed and balanced answers focusing on both causes and consequences: some may not address all aspects of the question.[17+ marks] for fully analytical and relevant answers with detail, insight, perceptive comments and perhaps different interpretations, which address all aspects of the question.

Analyse the reasons for the success of the Bolsheviks in the second (October/November) 1917 Russian Revolution. (May 2008)

The Provisional Government consisted of members of the forth Duma and assumed power in a system of dyarchy after the fall of Tsarism in the February/March 1917 Russian Revolution. Reasons for its overthrow, and success of the Bolsheviks in the second (October/November) 1917 Revolution could include: its lack of authority or endorsement; weakness, failure to address problems such as land reform and war; Kornilov affair; the power and rising support for the Soviets; the opposition of Lenin and his determination to oust it; continued participation in the First World War; disintegration of the army; food shortages, riots and general disorder; German support for Lenin, sending him back in a sealed train and giving him financial support; organization of Trotsky and Lenin resulting in the ousting of the Provisional Government in a Bolshevik coup, which enabled the Bolsheviks to obtain power albeit in a limited geographical area in October/November 1917. N.B. Do not expect all the above points.[17+ marks] for well developed arguments and perhaps different interpretations.

Why was the Provisional Government in Russia unable to consolidate and maintain its power in 1917? (Nov 2007)

After the March Revolution the new republic was in the hands of two powers, tolerating but not supporting each other. The Duma did the work of the government while the Petrograd Soviet had most of the practical power. Their inability to deal with the questions of land and the maintenance of the war effort was the first major failure of the government. The July offensive failed and Kornilov’s attempted coup weakened the provisional government even further. Lenin’s arrival in Petrograd in April and his reorganisation of the Bolshevik Party was a major turning point with the pronouncement of the April Theses. Trotsky’s preparations for revolution, the persistent social and economic problems in Russia, and the refusal of the army to support it brought the Provisional Government down.

Compare and contrast the roles of Lenin and Trotsky in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and in the foundation of the new Soviet State until 1924. (May 2007)

This question requires a comparison of the roles of Lenin and Trotsky in the second or Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in October/November 1917, and in the foundation of the new Soviet State, until Lenin’s death in 1924.

For comparison:Both supported staging a second revolution and its timing, in face of some opposition from their party; both supported asserting Bolshevik control after the successful revolution, including the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly; both wanted to end Russian participation in the First World War; both played some part in obtaining peace with Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk; both supported the idea of conscription for labour duties for those not fighting in the army; both contributed to the success of the Reds in the Civil War.

For contrast:Lenin directed the October/November Revolution from the background, Trotsky was the immediate organizer and participator; Lenin was the party leader and driving force in obtaining Bolshevik control of the Constituent Assembly, and of Russia. Lenin ordered Trotsky, who was Commissar of Foreign Affairs, to negotiate for peace with Germany, and insisted that Trotsky agreed to terms that he personally disapproved of; as a result Trotsky resigned. However, during the civil war Lenin appointed Trotsky Commissar for War. Lenin proposed War Communism and other measures, but did not take part in the fighting; Trotsky built up the Red Army, directed operations, and savagely and successfully crushed the Kronstadt Rising. Lenin introduced NEP, Trotsky opposed it.

Candidates could also comment on their different personalities, as well as noting that Lenin probably favoured Trotsky as his successor. Their political aims and views, intellect, writings and oratory could be made relevant, and the impact of these on their respective roles could be commented on.[17+ marks] for balanced analytical comparison and contrast.

Paper 2:

Analyse the conditions that enabled one left-wing leader to become the ruler of a single-party state. (May 2010)

Candidates should analyse the conditions of the state before the left-wing aspirant succeeded in obtaining power, and how these conditions strengthened the appeal of the left-wing party. For conditions of the state, the following could be considered: an unpopular regime, with social and economic problems; an autocratic, corrupt or incompetent ruler or government in power and its weaknesses; an unpopular war. The ability of the aspiring leader to take advantage of these conditions could be examined in terms of analyzing the appeal of the ideology and/or pragmatism of the leader.

Assess the importance of economic distress and ideological appeal in the rise to power of one left-wing and one right-wing single-party ruler.  (Nov 2009)

Popular examples are likely to be Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro as left-wing rulers, and Mussolini, Hitler and Franco as right-wing rulers. Perón is also acceptable as a right-wing leader. Approaches are likely to be either end-on sequential treatments of the two leaders or they will deal thematically with economic distress and ideological appeal. The latter approach might provide better structured responses.The conditions for each area should be well known and historical knowledge/evidence is essential to convincingly substantiate the response.Economic distress is often the twin of political unrest/extremism and the link between these two needs to be established in terms of examination of the material circumstances of the population. Economic crisis encouraged support for radical alternatives to an existing system which proved unable to meet the challenges of any such economic crisis – or may indeed be responsible for causing such a crisis.The main characteristics or elements of the ideology need to be identified before a convincing assessment of its appeal can be undertaken.

“Unpopular rulers or governments, and their overthrow, were responsible for the formation of the majority of twentieth century single-party states.” To what extent do you agree with this assertion? (May 2009)

Candidates need to understand and address the four demands of this question: unpopular rulers/governments; the nature of their overthrow; “to what extent” other factors led to single party states; and to give their verdict/conclusion on the quotation.The question gives rulers in the plural, so candidates who only give one example will not score well. The question should probably be answered thematically. Candidates should have no problem with finding examples upon which to base their evidence. No doubt Castro, Hitler, Lenin and Mao will be used. Stalin, however, is not a valid choice.

To what extent did the following aid the rise to power of either Lenin or Mussolini: (a) the First World War (b) weakness of the existing regime (c) ideological appeal? (Nov 2008)

The structure for the essay is clearly established in the question. Candidates are required to examine the three main areas and assess the significance of each. For the First World War the impact of the war itself on the chosen state can be extended to also consider the aftermath of the war and the impact of peace treaties/settlements on the situation and the ways in which immediate post-war economic and political developments affected the support provided to either Mussolini or Lenin. Whether war was a “mighty accelerator” for the collapse of the existing regime (and how/why), as well as the ways in which the aspiring leader took advantage of the situation need addressing.

Weaknesses of the existing regime: the paucity or inappropriateness of political/economic/social reform could be investigated, along with the errors of existing regimes in failing to fulfill the expectations of either the general population or important sections within the population.The question of ideological appeal requires identification of the main strands of the selected ideology and consideration of how important it proved in garnering support, or whether ideology was largely abandoned or altered by the leader in the quest for power. This could raise the question of whether ideology or pragmatism was predominant – or a mixture of both.“To what extent” also allows for other factors to be mentioned (for example collusion of vested interests, fear of the alternatives, use of violence, etc.) though the three main areas noted in the question should form the main areas for treatment.

Analyse the rise to power of either Hitler or Lenin. (May 2008)

This should be a popular question and candidates should have no trouble in explaining the post-war situation in Germany, support for the Nazi party, the aims and actions of Hitler, and the mistakes of the politicians that led to his acquisition of office. Similarly Lenin’s views, publications, and actions, before and after the two 1917 Russian Revolutions, which led to his leadership of the Bolshevik party then of Russia/USSR should also be well known. Allow candidates to analyse events up to 1934 for Hitler. For Lenin answers would not be expected to go beyond the outbreak of the civil war. Well analysed and accurate historical details are needed for high marks.

Analyse the methods used and the conditions which helped in the rise to power of one ruler of a single-party state. (May 2007, May 2005)

This question requires candidates to select one single-party state, and first establish and analyse the methods used by the aspiring leader to obtain power. Methods could include: choice and use of an ideology; how support both inside the country, and from foreign sources, was obtained; the appeal of the leader; propaganda; whether legal or violent methods were used. Candidates must also consider how the conditions in the chosen country were ripe for a new regime, for example a lost war, poor economy, weak government etc.

“It was personality and not circumstances that brought rulers of single-party states to power.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (Nov 2006)

Candidates should discuss at least two single party rulers (as the question is stated in the plural) and both aspects need to be analysed i.e. personality and circumstances. Aspects of personality that could be included are leadership style, oratorical skills, strength of character, focus and commitment to political ideals etc. The circumstances that brought the leader to power need to be evaluated for their impact, with reference to specific economic/social/political circumstances that were in place. Some awareness of the impossibility of measuring support and the impact of personality would be an indication of higher level thinking in candidates.

Lenin - consolidating power, Civil War and dealing with opposition

Paper 3

Nov 2010

“Lenin abandoned ideology in order to gain and consolidate power.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?Candidates should know about Lenin’s basic aims as he stated them before 1918 (as seen in the April Theses or in his various addresses to the Bolsheviks). For example he was against the bourgeoisie and for the proletariat forming the government. The government would be based on Soviet organizations. Better candidates will be aware that he changed Marx’s ideas on Communismbecause of the size of the peasant class in Russia and he therefore promised “Peace, Bread and Land”. Candidates should consider Lenin’s government, War Communism and the New Economic Policy in comparing his actions with his promises. The role of the Communist party and the establishment of a single-party state is an area that could also be considered, as well as Lenin’sresponse to the Krondstadt Mutiny in 1921.Better candidates may discuss Marx’s ideas on revolution and the nature of the state but these must be linked to Lenin’s policies.

Analyse the causes and immediate consequences (up to 1921) of the October 1917 Russian Revolution. (Nov 2009)

Causes would include: Russia’s problems in the First World War; the abdication of the Tsar; the problems of the Dual Authority; Kornilov, Lenin and Trotsky’s role in the Revolution and the actual outbreak of the October Revolution.Consequences could include: Lenin’s assumption of control; the Treaty of Brest Litovsk; the Civil War and its consequences, including War Communism and the nature of the Bolshevik state up to 1921.[14 to 16 marks] for analytical well-focused, relevant, developed and balanced answers focusing on both causes and consequences: some may not address all aspects of the question.[17+ marks] for fully analytical and relevant answers with detail, insight, perceptive comments and perhaps different interpretations, which address all aspects of the question.

“The Bolshevik state under Lenin between 1918 and 1924 was a ruthless dictatorship, caring little for the Russian people.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (Nov 2008)

Candidates will probably agree with the general sentiments by making reference to the Cheka, suppression of religion, use of force against the civil service strikes, class warfare, continued political repression during the NEP, the crushing of the Constituent Assembly and the Civil War. The question remains whether these were pragmatic

decisions to ensure the survival of the Bolshevik state, which cared little for the Russian people, or that Lenin felt that he was doing the best as he could for the Russian people. Evidence to support this would be the switching from War Communism to the New Economic Policy.[17+ marks] for fully analytical, and relevant answers with detail, insight, perceptive comments and perhaps different interpretations, which address all aspects of the question.

Compare and contrast the roles of Lenin and Trotsky in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and in the foundation of the new Soviet State until 1924. (May 2007)

This question requires a comparison of the roles of Lenin and Trotsky in the second or Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in October/November 1917, and in the foundation of the new Soviet State, until Lenin’s death in 1924.For comparison:Both supported staging a second revolution and its timing, in face of some opposition from their party; both supported asserting Bolshevik control after the successful revolution, including the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly; both wanted to end Russian participation in the First World War; both played some part in obtaining peace with Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk; both supported the idea of conscription for labour duties for those not fighting in the army; both contributed to the success of the Reds in the Civil War.For contrast:Lenin directed the October/November Revolution from the background, Trotsky was the immediate organizer and participator; Lenin was the party leader and driving force in obtaining Bolshevik control of the Constituent Assembly, and of Russia. Lenin ordered Trotsky, who was Commissar of Foreign Affairs, to negotiate for peace with Germany, and insisted that Trotsky agreed to terms that he personally disapproved of; as a result Trotsky resigned. However, during the civil war Lenin appointed Trotsky Commissar for War. Lenin proposed War Communism and other measures, but did not take part in the fighting; Trotsky built up the Red Army, directed operations, and savagely and successfully crushed the Kronstadt Rising. Lenin introduced NEP, Trotsky opposed it.Candidates could also comment on their different personalities, as well as noting that Lenin probably favoured Trotsky as his successor. Their political aims and views, intellect, writings and oratory could be made relevant, and the impact of these on their respective roles could be commented on.[17+ marks] for balanced analytical comparison and contrast.

For what reasons, and in what ways, was a Marxist/Communist state set up in Russia between 1918 and 1928? (May 2006)

The time frame of this question is from the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918 under Lenin, to Stalin in power.

Reasons could include: the Marxist ideology of the Bolsheviks; the Bolshevik victory in the October/November Revolution; as a means for the Bolshevik Party, Lenin and later Stalin, of gaining and maintaining power; to change Russia from outdated Tsarist rule and modernise it as the USSR; as a means of winning the Civil War, and opposing its foreign enemies.Methods could include: securing Bolshevik supremacy; emphasising party unity and discipline; War Communism; peace with Germany; building up the Red Army; winning the Civil War; nationalisation; collectivisation; industrialisation; terror with labour/concentration camps; propaganda; education and state control.The above are suggestions. Do not expect all to be raised, and accept other points, but candidates should be able to give specific examples of actions by Lenin and Stalin.[17+ marks] for balance of both parts, in-depth analysis and perhaps different interpretations.

Compare and contrast the part played by Lenin and Trotsky in the development of the USSR between 1918 and 1924. (Nov 2005)

For comparison candidates could introduce both Lenin and Trotsky as having been in favour of a second revolution, and determined to assert Bolshevik control after it, including the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly. Both contributed to victory in the civil war for the Reds, and both were intellectual theorists who wrote copiously.In contrast Lenin was the accepted leader, had adopted Marxism early, made the important decisions such as peace with Germany, and was never involved in actual fighting.Trotsky had originally been a Menshevik, was Jewish and not popular except with the Red Army, which he successfully commanded in the civil war, originally opposed peace with Germany, but negotiated for the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.[14 to 16+ marks] for a balanced detailed comparative structure, which at the top end is detailed and convincing.

Lenin wrote, “One step forward two steps back; it happens in the lives of individuals, and in the history of nations.” To what extent can this quotation be applied to Lenin’s revolutionary career and his rule of the USSR 1918 to 1924? (May 2005)

This quotation (from one of Lenin’s many political works) is meant to give candidates a structure to use, after thinking through Lenin’s career and regime. They should be able to relate the quotation to his revolutionary career – for example, exile, hopes raised and dashed, return to Russia (by kind permission of the Germans) after the first 1917 revolution, then forced to flee, success in the second revolution, but failure in elections to the Constituent Assembly, control by force, then civil war. This theme could be continued. The Civil War was won but War Communism had to be replaced by the New Economic Policy and continued use of terror. Perhaps the greatest step backwards for USSR in Lenin’s eyes was his early illness and incapacitation and knowing the

problems of finding a suitable successor. The above are some suggestions, but of course keep an open mind and credit all attempts according to their worth.

Paper 2

Discuss (a) the support for, and (b) the ideology of, one left-wing ruler of a single-party state.  (May 2010)

The use of the word “ruler” means that the leader is already in power. Material on the leader’s rise to power would not be relevant except perhaps in a brief introduction, or noting that those who supported the rise had continued to support him while in power.For (a) support, candidates could consider some of the following: political supporters; racial, ethnic or religious support; what the leader offered in exchange for support; the use of propaganda in winning and maintaining support; support of the armed forces; appeal to a certain class; foreign support.For (b) ideology, candidates need to name and define the ideology (for example, Communism, Socialism, Marxism) and assess to what extent the ideology was followed and used or adapted to suit the needs or wishes of the ruler in order to keep him in power.If only (a) or (b) is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [14 marks]. Do not demand that the two are equally discussed, but there should be some balance, so reserve [6 marks] for the weaker section.If a right-wing leader is chosen, award [0 marks].

Analyse the nature and extent of internal opposition and the methods used to deal with this opposition by one of the following single-party rulers: Lenin; Hitler; Mao.  (Nov 2009)Answers should focus on the period “in power”. This can be taken to mean the period of consolidation following the seizure of power by the ruler (or his appointment by semi-legal means) and the subsequent period of single-party rule until the demise of the chosen leader.For “nature and extent”, candidates could identify the types of opposition which the ruler faced: religious; political; military; perceived challenges from groups or individuals within the leader’s own party, and how widespread or significant this opposition was ( i.e. “extent”) in terms of numbers or impact.The “methods” used to counter opposition obviously vary according to the leader but themes/areas for investigation could include: war (e.g. Russian Civil War); use of the secret police/agents provocateurs; propaganda; purge; mobilisation of youth (e.g. China’s Cultural Revolution); the distraction of a population by targeting scapegoats or introducing programmes of reform to win over popular support etc.

Lenin - maintaining power and overall achievements

Paper 3

Nov 2010

“Lenin abandoned ideology in order to gain and consolidate power.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Candidates should know about Lenin’s basic aims as he stated them before 1918 (as seen in the April Theses or in his various addresses to the Bolsheviks). For example he was against the bourgeoisie and for the proletariat forming the government. The government would be based on Soviet organizations. Better candidates will be aware that he changed Marx’s ideas on Communismbecause of the size of the peasant class in Russia and he therefore promised “Peace, Bread and Land”. Candidates should consider Lenin’s government, War Communism and the New Economic Policy in comparing his actions with his promises. The role of the Communist party and the establishment of a single-party state is an area that could also be considered, as well as Lenin’sresponse to the Krondstadt Mutiny in 1921.Better candidates may discuss Marx’s ideas on revolution and the nature of the state but these must be linked to Lenin’s policies.

Analyse the causes and immediate consequences (up to 1921) of the October 1917 Russian Revolution. (Nov 2009)

Causes would include: Russia’s problems in the First World War; the abdication of the Tsar; the problems of the Dual Authority; Kornilov, Lenin and Trotsky’s role in the Revolution and the actual outbreak of the October Revolution.Consequences could include: Lenin’s assumption of control; the Treaty of Brest Litovsk; the Civil War and its consequences, including War Communism and the nature of the Bolshevik state up to 1921.[14 to 16 marks] for analytical well-focused, relevant, developed and balanced answers focusing on both causes and consequences: some may not address all aspects of the question.[17+ marks] for fully analytical and relevant answers with detail, insight, perceptive comments and perhaps different interpretations, which address all aspects of the question.

“The Bolshevik state under Lenin between 1918 and 1924 was a ruthless dictatorship, caring little for the Russian people.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (Nov 2008)

Candidates will probably agree with the general sentiments by making reference to the Cheka, suppression of religion, use of force against the civil service strikes, class warfare, continued political repression during the NEP, the crushing of the Constituent Assembly and the Civil War. The question remains whether these were pragmatic decisions to ensure the survival of the Bolshevik state, which cared little for the Russian

people, or that Lenin felt that he was doing the best as he could for the Russian people. Evidence to support this would be the switching from War Communism to the New Economic Policy.[17+ marks] for fully analytical, and relevant answers with detail, insight, perceptive comments and perhaps different interpretations, which address all aspects of the question.

Compare and contrast the roles of Lenin and Trotsky in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and in the foundation of the new Soviet State until 1924. (May 2007)

This question requires a comparison of the roles of Lenin and Trotsky in the second or Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in October/November 1917, and in the foundation of the new Soviet State, until Lenin’s death in 1924.For comparison:Both supported staging a second revolution and its timing, in face of some opposition from their party; both supported asserting Bolshevik control after the successful revolution, including the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly; both wanted to end Russian participation in the First World War; both played some part in obtaining peace with Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk; both supported the idea of conscription for labour duties for those not fighting in the army; both contributed to the success of the Reds in the Civil War.For contrast:Lenin directed the October/November Revolution from the background, Trotsky was the immediate organizer and participator; Lenin was the party leader and driving force in obtaining Bolshevik control of the Constituent Assembly, and of Russia. Lenin ordered Trotsky, who was Commissar of Foreign Affairs, to negotiate for peace with Germany, and insisted that Trotsky agreed to terms that he personally disapproved of; as a result Trotsky resigned. However, during the civil war Lenin appointed Trotsky Commissar for War. Lenin proposed War Communism and other measures, but did not take part in the fighting; Trotsky built up the Red Army, directed operations, and savagely and successfully crushed the Kronstadt Rising. Lenin introduced NEP, Trotsky opposed it.Candidates could also comment on their different personalities, as well as noting that Lenin probably favoured Trotsky as his successor. Their political aims and views, intellect, writings and oratory could be made relevant, and the impact of these on their respective roles could be commented on.[17+ marks] for balanced analytical comparison and contrast.

For what reasons, and in what ways, was a Marxist/Communist state set up in Russia between 1918 and 1928? (May 2006)

The time frame of this question is from the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918 under Lenin, to Stalin in power.Reasons could include: the Marxist ideology of the Bolsheviks; the Bolshevik victory in the October/November Revolution; as a means for the Bolshevik Party, Lenin and later

Stalin, of gaining and maintaining power; to change Russia from outdated Tsarist rule and modernise it as the USSR; as a means of winning the Civil War, and opposing its foreign enemies.Methods could include: securing Bolshevik supremacy; emphasising party unity and discipline; War Communism; peace with Germany; building up the Red Army; winning the Civil War; nationalisation; collectivisation; industrialisation; terror with labour/concentration camps; propaganda; education and state control.The above are suggestions. Do not expect all to be raised, and accept other points, but candidates should be able to give specific examples of actions by Lenin and Stalin.[17+ marks] for balance of both parts, in-depth analysis and perhaps different interpretations.

Compare and contrast the part played by Lenin and Trotsky in the development of the USSR between 1918 and 1924. (Nov 2005)

For comparison candidates could introduce both Lenin and Trotsky as having been in favour of a second revolution, and determined to assert Bolshevik control after it, including the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly. Both contributed to victory in the civil war for the Reds, and both were intellectual theorists who wrote copiously.In contrast Lenin was the accepted leader, had adopted Marxism early, made the important decisions such as peace with Germany, and was never involved in actual fighting.Trotsky had originally been a Menshevik, was Jewish and not popular except with the Red Army, which he successfully commanded in the civil war, originally opposed peace with Germany, but negotiated for the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.[14 to 16+ marks] for a balanced detailed comparative structure, which at the top end is detailed and convincing.

Lenin wrote, “One step forward two steps back; it happens in the lives of individuals, and in the history of nations.” To what extent can this quotation be applied to Lenin’s revolutionary career and his rule of the USSR 1918 to 1924? (May 2005)

This quotation (from one of Lenin’s many political works) is meant to give candidates a structure to use, after thinking through Lenin’s career and regime. They should be able to relate the quotation to his revolutionary career – for example, exile, hopes raised and dashed, return to Russia (by kind permission of the Germans) after the first 1917 revolution, then forced to flee, success in the second revolution, but failure in elections to the Constituent Assembly, control by force, then civil war. This theme could be continued. The Civil War was won but War Communism had to be replaced by the New Economic Policy and continued use of terror. Perhaps the greatest step backwards for USSR in Lenin’s eyes was his early illness and incapacitation and knowing the problems of finding a suitable successor. The above are some suggestions, but of course keep an open mind and credit all attempts according to their worth.

Paper 2

Discuss (a) the support for, and (b) the ideology of, one left-wing ruler of a single-party state.  (May 2010)

The use of the word “ruler” means that the leader is already in power. Material on the leader’s rise to power would not be relevant except perhaps in a brief introduction, or noting that those who supported the rise had continued to support him while in power.For (a) support, candidates could consider some of the following: political supporters; racial, ethnic or religious support; what the leader offered in exchange for support; the use of propaganda in winning and maintaining support; support of the armed forces; appeal to a certain class; foreign support.For (b) ideology, candidates need to name and define the ideology (for example, Communism, Socialism, Marxism) and assess to what extent the ideology was followed and used or adapted to suit the needs or wishes of the ruler in order to keep him in power.

If only (a) or (b) is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [14 marks]. Do not demand that the two are equally discussed, but there should be some balance, so reserve [6 marks] for the weaker section.If a right-wing leader is chosen, award [0 marks].

Analyse the nature and extent of internal opposition and the methods used to deal with this opposition by one of the following single-party rulers: Lenin; Hitler; Mao.  (Nov 2009)Answers should focus on the period “in power”. This can be taken to mean the period of consolidation following the seizure of power by the ruler (or his appointment by semi-legal means) and the subsequent period of single-party rule until the demise of the chosen leader.For “nature and extent”, candidates could identify the types of opposition which the ruler faced: religious; political; military; perceived challenges from groups or individuals within the leader’s own party, and how widespread or significant this opposition was ( i.e. “extent”) in terms of numbers or impact.The “methods” used to counter opposition obviously vary according to the leader but themes/areas for investigation could include: war (e.g. Russian Civil War); use of the secret police/agents provocateurs; propaganda; purge; mobilisation of youth (e.g. China’s Cultural Revolution); the distraction of a population by targeting scapegoats or introducing programmes of reform to win over popular support etc.

To what extent was the ruler of one single-party state successful in achieving his aims? (May 2008)This is a straight-forward question that demands that candidates should select one ruler of a single-party state, express his aims and assess how they wereImplemented and thus show to what extent the ruler succeeded in achieving them. “To what extent” also requires that failure to achieve some or all aims should also be examined. Able candidates could also query “successful” by asking for whom, the ruler

or the country. Specific material will depend on ruler chosen. All aspects of his rule, including the aim “to stay in power”, could be made relevant; but rise is not asked for.

Analyse the successes and failures of the political career of either Lenin or Nyerere. (May 2008)For Lenin, candidates should analyse: Lenin’s actions as a revolutionary leader before the 1917 revolutions, for example his writings and leadership of the Bolshevik faction; his contributions to the October/November 1917 Bolshevik Revolution; his return to Russia;his slogans, especially “peace bread and land”; his determination, against party opposition, to stage the second 1917 revolution and finally his “rule” from 1918 to his death. This last section will probably be the longest, with his establishment of Bolshevik power, civil war, War Communism, and the New Economic Policy. Candidates should be well informed about all the above, and must analyse his policies and actions for successes and failures for top bands.It is expected that candidates will include material from before the chosen leader achieved power, but award what is there without penalising omissions.Evaluate the successes and failures of one ruler of a single-party state.  (May 2007)Candidates should be well prepared and well informed for this question. They need to state their ruler and analyse all aspects of his rule, giving judgment on which policies, actions etc. were successful and which were failures. Expect accurate chronology and some wider assessment for the top bands. Domestic and foreign policies should be considered. Better candidates might point out the difference between success for the country as a whole, and success for the ruler. No doubt the most popular choices will be Castro, Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Mussolini and Stalin.

Assess the methods used by either Lenin or Perón to maintain his regime. (May 2007)Candidates might begin with how the chosen leader established his regime – that is, the immediate circumstances of the end of the previous regime – and constitutional and other measures taken to establish the regime. They should then assess methods, policies, actions, alliances etc. by which the regime was maintained. Lenin established his rule by overthrowing the Provisional Government in the second 1917 Russian Revolution and by dissolving the Constituent Assembly in January 1918. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the murder of the Romanovs followed. He introduced War Communism, won the Civil War, changed to NEP and controlled the Party and country by increasingly repressive methods. Candidates could note that Lenin was not always in control after his first stroke, and died in 1924.Analyse the methods used to maintain power in two single-party states, each chosen from a different region. (Nov 2006)A thematic rather than a narrative approach would be likely to obtain more credit. The themes that could be used include: use of military/police; curtailment of citizens’ freedoms; treatment of opposition, manipulation of education; social/economic/cultural propaganda; control of the legal system; social and/or economic policies; creation/exaggeration/use of external threat etc. Not all need to be addressed and others could be discussed, but depth of detail and analysis of what methods were used, why and with what success, need to be present if the candidate is to achieve the best marks.

How successful was either Lenin (1917 -1924) or Mussolini (1922-1943) in solving the problems he faced? (May 2005)Candidates could identify the major problems of the previous regime before undertaking an assessment as to how/if such problems were successfully addressed. Having identified the problems to be investigated, specific detail is needed of the policies/methods used to attend to the issues. Descriptions of policies need to be followed up by reference to the element of ìsuccessî achieved.  It may be the case that in resolving such problems new difficulties resulted.

For Lenin, problems could include: challenges met in coming to power in October/ November 1917; disastrous Russian participation in the First World War; civil war; agrarian problems; economic underdevelopment; hostility of foreign powers; peasant/military revolts etc.Solutions/policies = Brest- Litovsk, War Communism, Red Terror/Cheka, land reform, NEP etc.For Mussolini problems could include: discredited parliamentary system; North/South economic imbalance; fear of the Left; ‘Mutilated Peace’; inflation/unemployment etc.Solutions/policies = ‘Battles’ for Births/Grain/Land, Corporate state, Lateran Accords, aggressive foreign policy to restore national pride and personal prestige etc.