Lenin had a greater impact on Russia’s economy and society than any other Ruler. How far do you agree with this view of the period from 1855 to 1964?

Propaganda flourished in the public as posters, newspapers, and other print media all praised Stalin, communism, the military, and his ideals. Soviet schools were controlled by Stalin from nursery to college. [“Censorship under Stalin.”] Industrialization allowed women to gain more rights in the workforce (factories). Other groups were not as lucky. From 1941-1949, Stalin ordered mass deportations and sent 3.3 million Ukrainians, Poles, Koreans, Greeks, Bulgarians and Jews to Siberia and Central Asian Republics. [Languages Of The World, 10 Mar. 2015,] Collectivism and industrialization were his two biggest economic policies under his Five Year Plan implemented in 1928. The idea of collectivization was meant to allow peasants to grow crops on the farms using machinery tractors from the state. Peasants would be compensated and they would keep a small plot of land near their homes for personal use. Stalin wanted to see increases in the USSR’s crop growth quickly. By the end of 1931, the goal set for grain was met but there was a drop in the grain production. Many factors that caused this. Stalin’s activists did not have a wide range of farm knowledge or the skills. Also, the amount of animals were not enough to pull the plows because the hungry peasants ate them. A drought occurred throughout large parts of the USSR and Ukraine during 1931-32. Because all of this, collectivism ultimately failed.

Many historians argue The Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861, to be a key turning point within Russian history. It drastically altered Russia’s economic, political and social stipulation. One could propose the argument that this event lead to the fall of communism in 1990, further more suggesting the extent to which this event affected Russia. Hence this is ‘perhaps the most defining moment in Russian history, with its impact being seen many years after the event itself’. Although historians identify short term effects of this event, the significance to which this event

In conclusion to the fall of the Romanov dynasty, it is shown that Nicholas had the biggest impact of Russia becoming a communist country as he did not have a greater understanding on the way to run his country, he also didn’t take full responsibility for his people and the soldiers in WW1,

Lenin was able to consolidate Bolshevik rule in Russia by combining popular policies and repression: To what extent do you agree with this statement.

Stalin’s policy priorities were not building a ‘worker’s paradise’ or a classless society, but protecting Russia from war and invasion. In 1928, Stalin launched the first of two ambitious five-year plans to modernize and industrialize the Soviet economy. These programs brought rapid progress – but also significant death and suffering. Stalin’s decision to nationalize agricultural production dispossessed millions of peasants, forcing them from their land to labor on gigantic state-run collective farms. Grain was sold abroad to finance Soviet industrial projects, leading to food shortages and disastrous famines in the mid-1930s. Soviet Russia was dragged into the 20th century, transforming from a backward agrarian empire into a modern industrial superpower – but this came at extraordinary human cost.

With the October revolution in 1917, Lenin managed to execute a successful coup d’état against the provisional government of Russia and with the death of the constituent assembly early 1918; Lenin and his Bolsheviks had finally control over Russia. However this was just the beginning of various problems he would be facing. This raised the debate on whether Lenin could deal with these problems or not. Many of the quarrels originated from the Tsar’s regime and the provisional government such as Russia’s participation in WW1 as well as economic underdevelopment. Immediate problems such as the raging civil war existed as

Stalin was more effective than any other ruler of Russia in the period 1855 – 1964 in dealing with opposition. How far do you agree?

Money was required for Russia to build their own industrial base to support themselves. To build this infrastructure they had to borrow money from other countries. In exchange Russia would give them grains. Hence, Russia’s economy depended on the peasant who had to feed themselves & the bourgeoisie.The peasants weren’t productive enough. As a result, Stalin started to collect agriculture to finance industrialization (New World Encyclopedia contributors, 2014). Economics historians believe it to be the fastest economic growth rate ever achieved. In 1932-1933 the 4th greatest famine occured in the USSR due to collectivication (Fitzgerald, 2013). The workers building and working in these industries were unpaid laborers and prisoners (New World Encyclopedia contributors, 2014). Because there was about ~7 million - 15 million prisoners in labor camps and they were working in industries, those camps were now necessary for the prosperity of Russia’s economy (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, n.d.). With all those measures in place the productions of coal, pig iron & steel increased (New World Encyclopedia contributors,

As he attempted this goal, he disregarded all those he would affect in the process, even if it meant the death to millions through genocide. This would eventually depict the negative aspects of Stalin’s tendentious rule. Josef Stalin’s first negative method of attempting to increase the power of Russia can be seen as his idea of collectivization. As seen in Document Four, collectivization is the Socialist way of an agricultural economy. “[The Government] is to set up collective farms and state farms…[through] the joining together of small peasant farms into large collective farms.” This method completely abolished any means of capitalism within society, such as the idea of individual gain. This would put the country in a state of great famine for peasants, as well as wealthy farmers, would revolt against the idea of a community farm. Working for the state instead of working for their individual self seemed to be an absurd idea, leading to a decrease in agricultural production for farmers refused to work under these conditions. Along with this, Stalin also introduced the “Great Purge” to the nation of Russia during his rule. The “Great Purge” is seen as the torture, exile, or execution of any being that opposed or threatened the ruling of Stalin. This was a method of instilling fear in his people in order to let Stalin rule in

How far do you agree that the use of repression was the main reason for the weakness of opposition to Tsarism in the years 1881 – 1914?

Russia was a country rich in raw materials that had been undisturbed by modern extraction and refining techniques until then, however, the majority of the countries resource rich areas were nowhere near any railways, with the bulk of the heavy materials such as steel, iron, coal and copper being in the Urals, almost 1,000km away from the nearest railway system in 1860. Oil, another key ingredient in industrialisation was almost 1,500km away to the south, in the Caucasus area3. This lack of transportation in a period when steam powered machines were producing the goods and steam powered trains were delivering them and leading the industrialisation in other countries like Britain, the USA and a future foe in Germany is an indicator of the distance that Russia was behind its rivals under the leadership of the Tsar. So the Tsar’s Russia was largely an agrarian one, but even in the agricultural sector Russia was lagging far behind the rest of the West in terms of the methods employed by farmers, little fertiliser was used and the labour saving machines used in countries with enormous agricultural output like the US were nowhere near as widespread in Russia. The weaknesses of the Tsar’s management of the agricultural sector were highlighted in 1891 when famine hit. Due to the heavy tax on consumer goods, peasants had been forced to sell more of their

Historians argue that the 1917 Russian Revolution represents a major turning point in world history. Two specific pieces of evidence that support this argument is that the Revolution led to the spread of communism with the formation of the USSR and the emergence of Russia as a world power. Both of the pieces support the argument. The Revolution led to the formation of the USSR, otherwise known as the world’s first nation to base its government on the teachings and writings of Karl Marx. This event would not only be groundbreaking for Russia, but the entire globe. The formation of a communist nation meant a new battle was about to start -- the battle between communism and capitalism. The formation of the USSR would directly lead to the Cold

The Russian Revolution of 1917 set the country on a course that few other countries took in the 20th century. The shift from the direction of a democratic, parliamentary-style government to a one party communist rule was a drastic change that many did not and could not predict. Looking back on this key moment in Russian history, many historians ask the question ‘why did the political power in Russia shift to the Bolsheviks’? Since the revolution in 1905 Russia was becoming progressively more democratic, distributing power throughout the political sphere. This came to an abrupt halt when Vladimir Lenin was put into power by the Bolshevik takeover of the Provisional Government. Many authors have had different takes on this event. Two particularly interesting ones were Arthur Mendel and John D. Basil. Their pieces On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia and Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution give various perspectives on the Russian Revolution and attempt to answer the question of the power shift. This key point in Russia’s history sets the tone for the next 100 years. Russia became a superpower, an enemy of the United States, started multiple wars directly and indirectly, and started using an economic system used by various countries around the world. Today we still see the effects of the 1917 Revolution. Looking at both Mendel’s and Basil’s attempt to answer why the power shifted to the Bolsheviks. Since both historian 's account of the events is different they cannot

Compare and contrast the ideologies and the political and economic practice of Lenin and Stalin.

Adding to the deplorable oppression borne by the proletariat during the Five Year Plans, Stalin introduced a collectivisation campaign which not only sparked a persecution of kulaks, but also induced a widespread famine. The Stalin government’s compulsory agricultural policy was largely a failure with regard to its goals. Beginning in 1929, all farms were to be collectivised, with the aim of improving agricultural output and hence, industrialisation. The USSR’s initial system of farming was inefficient, but the introduction of fertilisation and tractors modernised agricultural techniques, increasing the nation’s capacity for production, supporting Historian Jamieson’s statement. However, the policy was catastrophic due to the mass movement of peasant resistance that saw farmers defiantly burning crops and slaughtering livestock, regarding the campaign as a violation of their freedom. By 1933, agricultural production fell dramatically; grain by 17 million tonnes and cows and pigs by a total of 23 million, to below what it was in 1913 (Downey, 1989, p. 19). This