Advanced Higher History Essay Factors

What are the reasons for the February Revolution?

. Tsar Nicholas II's failings

. WW1

. Socio-economic problems

. Political system (lack of democracy) which could be involved in Nicholas's failings in closing Duma etc

What were some of Tsar Nicholas's failings?

. He dismissed competant politicians if they disagreed with them e.g. the effective Minister of Agriculture in October 1915 for opposing his decision to appoint himself as leader of military.

. When the Duma was recalled during WW1, a group of Octoberists and Kadets grouped together to form the Progressive Bloc. This group supported the Tsar and wanted to advise him by having more control over the war. However, Nicholas refused and instead he closed the Duma.

- Political incompetance alienated those who supported him and made political elite furious and unlikely to take the side of Tsarist regime as was done in 1905.

What is a reason that the Tsar's political incompetance didn't lead to the February Revolution?

. Despite closing the Duma, Nicholas still retained support from many conservatives amongst the aristocracy, military, and Clergy such as Patriarch Tikhon who was the head of Russian Orthodox Church.

- he still had the support of highly powerful and influential people who still viewed Nicholas as a God-like despite everything

Overall, why did Nicholas's failures lead to the February Revolution?

. Despite some support amongst the elite, peasants and industrial workers still made up the majority of Russians between 1914 and 1917, and Tsar Nicholas's indifference to their suffering delivered them open to revolutionary influence, as proven by the rise of the Bolshevik party's membership during World War I.

. The call to remove the Tsarist state was fueled by his denial of the 1917 protests, calling it a "hooligan movement" for lack of interest, giving the public no other choice.

How did WW1 lead to to February Revolution?

. The war started in late July 1914 and during WW1, millions of young men were conscripted to fight against the German Empire. 2 million Russian soldiers were killed and many more were injured with soldiers also put in terrible conditions.

. This fueled demands for reform as millions of disenfranchised young men became dissolusioned to the Tsarist regime, resenting their sacrifices for a system that oppressed them and even hoping for a better life under the Kaiser.

Why did WW1 not lead to the February Revolution?

. Russia's southern armies did relatively well against the Austro-Hungarians.

. For example, the Brusilov Offensive in 1916 captured 200,000 prisoners and cost the Austro-Hungarians 1.5 million men.

- Shows that Russia also had large victories by the end of 1916, taking pressure off Northern Armies and boosting morale of Southern Armies through visible progress.

How was WW1 linked to Tsarist failures in causing the Febuary Revolution?

. Russian involvement in WW1 was ultimately Nicholas's decision as leader of Russia he had ultimate authority when he declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1914 and so the defeats were a symptom of his lack of foreseight since his country was clearly not economically or militarily prepared for a large scale conflict as displayed by Russian military command deemed inefficient until mid-1915 in addition to Russia's national debt quadrupling from 1914-17.

How did Socio-Economic problems lead to the February Revolution?

. Due to the primarily agricultural economy, Russian economy couldn't handle the shortage of labour between 1914-17 as millions of peasants were conscripted, leading to mass famine, prices of bread skyrocketing and Ruble value falling. (By 1916, inflation had reached almost 400%)

What is a reason economic problems didn't result in the Russian Revolution?

. Russia had faced famine previously. For example, from 1891-92, there was a famine in Russia which spread along the Volga river and caused up to 400,000 deaths. Russia also faced another famine from 1901-1902 that affected 49 Governorates.

- Implies this is too simplistic on its own, and suggests that mass poverty and hunger First World War as railways were occupied during this time transporting arms and military equipment in comparison to its previous use which was transporting food.

How were the agricultural famines in Russia linked to Tsar Nicholas's incompetance?

. Nicholas appointed himself as head of Russian Military meaning that after August 1915, he spent very little time in Petrograd, granting the Tsarina and Rasputin authority which they used to fire competant ministers.

. This rapid turnover meant that the socio-economic problems were unable to be fixed as a result with fuel and food shortages growing correlating with the resentment towards the Tsarist system due to Nicholas's mistakes.

What are the factors for the Nature of the October Revolution? (Coup or Popular Revolution)

. Size of the operation (how many people were involved)

. Military involvement

. Level of planning

What are some factors about the Size of the Operation of October Revolution that display a Popular Revolution?

. Bolshevik membership rose from 10,000 in February to 250,000 in October 1917. The bulk of this support came from the industrial proletariat but during the summer, membership of Bolsheviks in the army and navy also rose with as much as 20% of those who joined in 1917 were under 21.

- Suggests that despite the fact that it was carried out by small percentage, these statistics imply a significant portion in society were in support of Bolshevik idea of Revolution, persuading Lenin to act since they wouldn't face backlash from public.

What are some factors about the Size of the Operation of October Revolution that display a Coup?

. The October Revolution involved 20,000 to 30,000 Red Guards and 10,000 Red Sailors in the storming of the Winter Palace in Petrograd on the 25th of October. However, the population of Petrograd where it took place was roughly 2.5 million citizens.

- Less than 2% of city's population in comparison to the masses durinf the February Revolution

Overall, why does the Size of the October Revolution point to a Coup D'etat?

. When they held elections, the Bolsheviks didn't receive a majority and only gained 175 seats out of the 715 with the Socialist Revolutionaries gaining a small majority.

. The Russian people were mainly comprised of peasants who wanted their own land but these were people that were criticised by the Bolsheviks (most notably Trotsky) who thought that giving peasants autonomy would lead to them becoming a capitalist class, therefore not relying heavily on whether peasants supported them enough to overthrow the provisional government.

What are some facts about the Planning/Military Involvement that show the October Revolution was a Coup Revolution?

. The October Revolution took place at night with the Bolshevik soldiers entering the Winter Palace and at 2am they arrested what remained of the Government.

. Richard Pipes argues that the October Revolution was planned on the 10th of October and executed 2 weeks later with the 'masses' not being aware they were taking over until after the evening.

- Safe to assume it was a well operated and planned military mission that was not triggered by a spur-of-the-moment protests like in February.

What are some facts about the Planning/Military Involvement that show the October Revolution was not a Coup D'etat?

. On the 18th of October, Lev Kamenev decided to criticise Lenin's plans for an armed uprising in a socialist newspaper, thus indirectly making Lenin's plans public. This action caused an internal conflict within the party with Lenin calling for the expulsion of Zinoviev and Kamenev for their actions.

Overall, why does the Planning/Military involvement during the October Revolution display a Coup D'etat?

. When analysing the events of the October Revolution

- Key areas of city were seized by the Communist Party's Military Revolutionary Committee (involving sailors and garrison soldiers), including the bridges, telephone exchange, the main railway stations and the power stations

- Estimated that less than 10 people were killed in seizure of Petrograd unlike the 1,300 in the February Revolution, implying training and co-ordination

What are the factors for the Reasons the October Revolution was successful?

. Popularity of the Bolsheviks in their policies

. Bolshevik organisation

. Failings of Provisional Government

Why did the Popularity of Bolsheviks lead to a successful October Revolution

. From February 1917 to October 1917, the Bolshevik party members rose from 24,000 to 250,000 members.

. In addition to this, Lenin created a promise in his April Theses the promises of "Peace, Land, and Bread" which resonated with the hungry and unhappy masses who's problems in life stemmed from the lack of these 3 main things.

- This supported Lenin in his new government and prevented sparking another Revolution.

Why did the Popularity of Bolsheviks not lead to a successful October Revolution

. Once the Bolsheviks had been successful in ousting the Provisional Government, they held elections to elect members for the All-Russian Constituent Assembly. However, the Bolsheviks only gained 175 out of 715 seats with the Socialist Revolutionaries winning a small majority.

- Therefore their large membership is likely due to Russia having a large population at the time with roughly 125 million in 1917 so any success they had is more likely due to their planning to leverage Provisional Government weaknesses not support

Why was the Popularity of Bolshevik Policies linked to the Failings of Provisional Government

. The popularity of the Bolsheviks was largely due to the dire economic and social state Russia was in after the Feb Revolution coupled with the Provisional Government's lack of action to minimise these problems.

. From September to October, the workers in Russia had become highly politicised and radicalised when food was very short and wages couldn't keep up with rapid inflation alongside Liberals in the Provisional Government under pressure from Industrialists not to interfere with prices.

. In addition to this, the Provisional Government's continuation with the war was also heavily unpopular with soldiers who wanted a defensive war at most and wanted the war to end quickly.

Why did the Failings of the Provisional Government result in the October Revolution's success?

. The Provisional Government were made up by unelected representatives which angered the Russian population as this dictatorial body of upper class citizens (first PM was Prince Georgy Lvov), was an embarrasment to what they had fought for.

. During June 1917, Alexander Kerensky (the Minister of War and Navy) launched the Summer Offensive but despite initial gains, the Russian Army suffered 400,000 casualties.

. These losses were met with large protests on the 3rd of July where thousands of factory workers took to the streets in addition to mutinous soldiers, and sailors from Kronstadt whom had killed over 40 of their officers.

. These events exausted Provisional Government resources and displayed the mass discontent, proving to Lenin that people were willing to overthrow the government, sparking him to act whilst they were weak.

Why did the Failings of the Provisional Government not result in the October Revolution's success?

. These protests were short lived since some forces were still loyal. These forces fired upon the protesters and about 400 people were killed during the July Days. This also resulted in Vladimir Lenin - the head of the Bolsheviks - fleeing again to Finland to escape prosecution.

- The provisional government was still strong enough to crush the revolt and force Lenin back into hiding.

Why was the failings of Provisional Government ultimately the cause of October Revolution?

. After the July Days, Kerensky became PM and appointed General Kornilov as head of military.

. However, this resulted in Kornilov attempting a coup in August 1917, aiming for a military dictatorship, forcing Kerensky to arm the Bolshevik Red Guards with rifles to defend Petrograd. Although the coup was stopped, Kerensky's image was damaged by this and the Bolsheviks acquired 40,000 rifles, power, and legitimacy, putting them in a prime position to revolution by October 1917.

Why was the Bolshevik Organisation the cause of October Revolution's success?

. On the night of 24th-25th of October, the Communist Party's Military Revolutionary Committee, including sailors and garrison soldiers were sent out to seize key points in the city - the bridges, telephone exchange, the main railway stations and the power stations.

- Their planning allowed them to control communications and transportation of goods, putting them in a position the Provisional Government couldn't challenge for fear of these systems being damaged, proving the genius of their strategy.

Why was the Bolshevik Organisation not the cause of October Revolution's success?

. Not all Bolsheviks supported the idea of an armed uprising with Lev Kamenev making Lenin's plans public through criticising them in a socialist newspaper on October 18th, thus indirectly revealing the plans to the Provisional Government, eliminating the element of surprise and causing internal conflict within the party.

- Shows members were not united in the decision for an armed uprising, displayed by the infighting caused by Lenin's plan and Kamenev's decision to make this 'secret revolution' public, a crucial error.

How was the Bolshevik Organisation a result of the failure of the Provisional Government

. The fact that the Bolshevik's plans were made public implies that the Provisional Government underestimated their threat in addition to their inability to act sooner due to a lack of resources.

. The mistakes that led to the Kornilov affair resulted in the Bolsheviks being armed whilst the Provisional Government's abolition of the Okhrana after February Revolution removed a key tool for detering revolutionaries and leaving the Provisional Government vulnerable to revolutionaries.

What are the factors for why the Red Army won the Civil War?

. Strengths/Leadership of the Reds e.g. policies

. Weaknesses of the White Army

. Geographical Placement of both sides

Why was the Strengths/Leadership of the Reds the main reason for the Civil War victory

. Trotsky played a large role in the propaganda efforts, helping the Red Army print millions of pamphlets with messages focussed on worker's rights and socialist policies which appealed to the masses and helped with recruitment and troop motivation.

. For example, at its peak the Red Army had 5.5 million soldiers in comparison to 1 million which the White Army had. Trotsky also restructured the Red Army and appointed Political Commissars to oversee troops to prevent deserters.

- Trotsky's leadership coupled with the Red Army's propaganda helped develop a large army that crushed the Whites through brute force.

Why was the Strengths/Leadership of the Reds the NOT the main reason for the Civil War victory

. By 1921, almost 4 million Red soldiers had deserted with a fair amount of antisemitism, and indiscipline as some soldiers engaged in full scale mutinies where Burzhui Officers were murdered and new ones were elected.

- Large numbers of desertion similar to that of White Army and violence towards officers, implying the larger weaknesses of the White Army in comparison is what led to White defeat.

Why were the strengths of the Red Army linked to their Geographical Placement?

. Root cause of why the Red Army was so large in comparison was because the Red Army were geographically placed in the major industrial areas at centre of Russia with 75% of the population living in these cities controlled by the Reds which enabled them to use mass conscription in May 1918.

. While the Whites also used conscription and propaganda, coercion and terror, their geographical placement made it impossible for them to match the Red Army, leading to their defeat.

Why was the weakness of the White Army the reason for their Civil War defeat?

. The leadership was incredibly divided across the political spectrum with Liberals, Monarchists, Socialist Revolutionaries, and more.

. The Whites received international support from Britain, France, and USA. From BRITAIN the Whites received £100 million in aid including 600,000 rifles, 200,000 uniforms, 315,000 artillery shells, and 700 aircrafts.

. But failed to make significant impact and by 1920, British, French, and US troops had withdrawn.

Why was the weakness of the White Army NOT the reason for their Civil War defeat?

. Despite division, the White Army still had notable successes during the Civil War.

. In October 1919, General Yudenich made an advance on Petrograd, getting within a few miles of Petrograd. Although Yudenich wasn't successful, his offensive still panicked Lenin who was reluctant to sacrifice his soldiers to defend what he viewed as a doomed city.

How was the Weaknesses of the White Army linked to their geographical placement?

. Main reason aid was given was because through controlling Petrograd and Moscow, they possessed 70% of Russia's war-related capacity.

. A lack of railway infrastructure on the peripheral areas of Russia hindered the White Army's ability to transport the equipment and supplies.

. Historians estimate less than half of British Aid actually reached troops in combat.

Why was the Geographical Placement of both sides the reason for the Result of the Civil War

. The White forces were spread out over Russia's North, East, and South areas of countryside whereas the Reds populated central industrial areas such as Petrograd and Moscow.

. For example, Admiral Kolchak's forces in Siberia and General Denikin's Volunteer Army in the south were separated by over 3,000 kilometers making communication and movement of troops very slow.

Why was the Geographical Placement of both sides NOT the reason for the Result of the Civil War

. The Red Army were also initially disjointed with inexperienced officers and disorganisation being prominent.

. However, in March 1918, Leon Trotsky was made Commissar for War and was able to enforce strict military discipline and introduce Ex-Tsarist officers which brought military expertise and experience to the army such as Aleksei Brusilov who joined in 1920 and had led the successful Brusilov Offensive in WW1.

Ultimately, why was the Geographical Placement of Both Sides the reason why the Reds won the Civil War

. Many territories under White control were of non-Russian ethnicity and wanted their own autonomy such as Ukraine, Georgia, and Kasachstan who were therefore hostile to the White Army as they were seen to be imposing Russian control which hugely weakened the White Army's support.

. For example, General Denikin was forced to face 30-40,000 Ukranian nationalists which exausted White Army resources further.

. However, the Red Army didn't face this problem since they controlled central Russian cities where ethnic Russians made up majority of population.

What are the factors for why Stalin rose to power?

. Trotsky's failings

. Stalin's Political Skills

. Luck and circumstance

Why were Trotsky's failings the reason Stalin rose to power?

. Leon Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks in the summer of 1917 and during the Civil War, played a significant role in decision making and organisation of the Red Army, crucial to its success.

. However, when it came to personality, Leon Trotsky was arrogant, dismissive of the Russian people, and reluctant to building alliances or compromises within the party.

- This made it inevitable that Trotsky would crumble when faced with significant opposition who could garner support within the party.

Why were Trotsky's failings NOT the reason Stalin rose to power?

. Lenin and Trotsky were still closely aligned politically, sharing the core beliefs of Marxism.

. Trotsky's ranking in the party as Vice Chairman of the Soviet of People's Commissar's put him just below Lenin in the hierarchy of soviet power, leading to a common belief amongst members that he would be Lenin's successor as Lenin's health began to decline after his first stroke in May 1922.

- Despite offensive personality, he was able to rise up in the party only weakness became liability when Stalin became involved

Ultimately, how were Trotsky's failings linked to Stalin's skills/personality

. Stalin acted as the trigger which turned Trotsky's weaknesses into a liability when he took action against them.

. For example, Stalin helped form the Triumvirate and 'The 7' made up of powerful Bolsheviks which he utilised to isolate Trotsky.

. During the Thirteenth Annual Congress, despite giving well-made speeches, Trotsky was easily defeated in votes due to Stalin's manipulation of the party structure where he appointed loyal delegates in addition to his influence in powerful blocs controlled by Zinoviev and Kamenev.

Why were Stalin's political skills the reason why he rose to power?

. In April 1922, Stalin was appointed General Secretary of Communist Party which was intended to be a relatively minor role, leading to the underestimation of Stalin as "the outstanding mediocrity of the party".

. Stalin then used this lack of overseight to form allieships (since people weren't threatened by him) and engage in initiatives such as the Lenin Enrolment of 1924-25 where party membership almost doubled with new members favouring Stalin's practical policies and nationalism that appealed to them.

Why were Stalin's political skills NOT the reason why he rose to power?

. He eventually was forced to stop flying under the radar through making public moves for leadership after Lenin's passing. For example, in 1925, he endorsed "Socialism in One Country" to win over Russian nationalists and make the claim that Russia could attain socialism on its own. Despite gaining him an allie on the Right-Wing of the party (Bukharin), this move angered Zinoviev and Kamenev, leading them to form the 'United Opposition' with Leon Trotsky.

Ultimately why was Stalin's political skill what led him to become leader?

. His political skill coupled with the loyal membership of the Central Committee he had built whilst being underestimated helped him nuetralise his opponents.

. The 'United Opposition' members were expelled from the Communist Party in 1927 due to 'Factionalism' and then the Right-Wing of the party (Tomsky and Rykov) were expelled from the Politburo in November 1929, ruthlessly nuetralising any potential rival that could have blocked him from assuming power.

. By the time his opponents realised he wasn't just a 'grey blur', he had outwitted them.

How did Luck and Circumstance help Stalin to rise to power within the Bolshevik Party

. During the Civil War, the Communist Party's leadership became more centralised in structure with Lenin holding significant party authority, leading to a large power gap when he died.

. Lenin's death also ensured that his Testament was not made public which could have decimated Stalin's political career as it advocated for his expulsion.

Why was Luck and Circumstance not the reason for Stalin's rise to power?

. The suppression of Lenin's Testament was largely driven by the Triumvirate members who all had a vested interest in keeping it private due to its criticisms of them.

. Stalin also used his role as General Secretary to control its circulation and downplay its importance at the Thirteenth Party Congress, while Kamenev and Zinoviev, not seeing Stalin as a threat, supported limiting its reach, displaying Stalin's skill in forming strategic alliances.

How could Luck and Circumstance be linked to Stalin's political skill?

. (The circumstance of Lenin's death createrd a power gap that was opportunity for everyone) Stalin's ability to manipulate situations to his advantage was shown through Lenin's funeral.

. Stalin ensured Trotsky missed the funeral by giving him the wrong date which damaged Trotsky's reputation.

. Stalin perfectly positioned himself as Lenin's heir by being a head pallbearer, delivering a speech, and appearing as the chief mourner, turning Lenin's death into an opportunity to ensure that he would become the next leader of the USSR.

What are the main reasons for the Purges?

. Fear of War/Fascist Threats

. Stalin's Paranoia/Need for control

. Role of NKVD

What role did the Fear of War play in the Purges

. By 1933, there were two main fascist leaders in Europe: Benito Mussolini (1922), and Adolph Hitler (August 1934 Fuhrer) and advocated for militarisation.

. POLAR Opposite ideology led to forseight of war - terror used as a mechanism to pressure development of armaments after workforce suffered from 1st 5 year plan.

- Richard Overy argues that the Purges weren't a result of Stalin's decisions but were instead deeply involved in the perceived threat of invasion created context where repression was necessary to safeguard the revolution.

What is a counter argument to why the Purges didn't result from Fascist Threats?

. On the other hand, it was March 1939 during the 18th Party Congress where Stalin called an end to the 'mass purges'. However, it wasn't until August 1939 that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed between USSR and Germany. Implying Stalin didn't feel threatened.

. Additionally, Germany didn't invade Russia until June 1941, over 2 years after Stalin had called an end to the 'mass purges' with Stalin refusing to listen to the threats from his advisors before Operation Barbarossa was launched - thus displaying that he genuinelly didn't feel threatened.

Overall, why were the Fascist Threats just a smokescreen for Stalin's Paranoia?

. A large portion of the victims of the Purges were political figures and counterrevolutionaries.

. As displayed at the 1st Show Trial in August 1936 which resulted in which Kamenev and Zinoviev alongside 14 others were accused of a 'Military-Fascist Plot' but very little evidence for this as argued by Peter Whitewood, suggesting that Stalin was merely using this as an opportunity to get rid of political rivals.

. Therefore while fascism may not be what he was threatened by, he was clearly terrified and paranoid of other politicians taking his space.

. Whilst the Red Army were purged, the victims were largely made up of men who regularly conflicted with Stalin or were connected to those who did such as Marshall Yegorov, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, and Uborevich.

How did Stalin personally escalate the Purges

. Robert Conquest argues that "The purges were a direct result of Stalin's paranoia and his desire to consolidate his absolute power. Without Stalin's personal intervention, the scale and intensity of the terror would have been impossible."

. Stalin personally signed thousands of execution lists, often adding names and making revisions he also approved Order No. 00447 in July 1937 which set numerical quotas that were overfilled.

. In 1936, Stalin replaced NKVD chief Genrikh Yagoda (seen as too lenient) with Nikolai Yezhov [bloody dwarf], who had a reputation for fanatic loyalty and harshness.

What role did Stalin play in causing the Purges?

. The 1934 17th Party Congress vote (which Seigei Kirov won more support in) and Kirov's subsequent murder by Leonid Nikolayev (likely orchestrated by Stalin) sparked the purges under the pretense of national security. - triggered by his sudden realisation that he wasn't as favoured as he'd previosly thought.

. Stalin exploited the narrative of "enemies of the state" to eliminate threats and bolster his image as protector of the USSR.

. Robert Service: Stalin's personality determined the form the Great Purges took-he was the cause of the purges due to his ideas & vengeful personality.

What are some counter arguments to Stalin causing the Purges?

. This type of persecution and violence was something that existed long before Stalin emerged as leader with Lenin setting up the Cheka during the Civil War and persecuting 'class enemies', suggesting that the purges during the 1930s were just a result of Stalin continuing Lenin's legacy through utilizing the existing infrastructure such as the Gulags and NKVD.

. Dmitri Volkogonov: Lenin was "the true father" of the terror, camps, executions; he created the organs used by Stalin for Great Purges (& gave him the idea as well).

. It is also important to note that during mid-1930s, production figures were slowing down with 5-Year-Plans falling behind schedule. 1936 economic downturn due to poor managment of the economy.

. The Stakhanovite campaign of 1936 actively encouraged workers to increase their productivity and put pressure on managers to raise production rates, being branded as 'wreckers' and sent to Gulags.

. The activities of those in the Gulags often involved carrying out dangerous work such as logging and gold mining through slave labour in inhospitable conditions.

. Sheila Fitzpatrick: The Purges came from "below"-the Purges were the result of decisions made by the Communist leadership in reaction to a series of crises in the mid-1930s.

Ultimately, why is Stalin the main culprit of the Purges?

. I. Deutscher: there is a grain of truth that Stalin sent the men to their deaths as scapegoats for his economic failures but no more, Deutscher argues that Stalin's real motive was to destroy men who represented the potentiality of alternative government.

. Ultimately, when compared to Lenin, Stalin is significantly more violent in spite of economic crisises that Lenin faced throughout the Russian Civil War.

. Under Lenin it is estimated that there was a max of (200,000 executions and 400,000 deaths in prisons and suppression of Anti-Red uprisings)

. However, under Stalin, the Great Purges of 1936-38 estimates 700,000 to 1.2 million deaths with Stalin's other policies such as Collectivisation and Dekulakisation leading to 3.5 million to 7 million additional deaths.

. When commenting on Stalin's leadership throughout WW2, Roy Medvedev summarised Stalin's mentality best that can be displayed across his leadership, stating that Stalin was "short-sighted and cruel, careless of losses".

- Robert Tucker: Anyone who refused to accept Stalin's vision were traitors.

What was the role of the NKVD during the Purges?

. Under Nikolai Yezhov (1936-38), the NKVD aggressively enforced the purges by inflating threats and fabricating charges to meet quotas. Nicknamed the 'bloody dwarf' and was later blamed by Stalin for escalating the Purges and causing unnecessary violence.

. NKVD agents exploited their power for personal gain, creating a climate of fear and expanding the terror beyond Stalin's initial scope.

. In rural areas, the NKVD acted like a mafia, operating autonomously and worsening the violence.

- Lynne Viola argues that the NKVD's actions reflect a failing bureaucracy and a culture of vendetta-fueled terror that spiraled beyond Stalin's control.

Why did the NKVD NOT lead to the Purges?

. Stalin was the one who approved 'Order 00447' (Jul 1937) which instigated mass repression against 'anti-Soviet elements' of the USSR which introduced numerical quotas for executions and imprisonments.

. Stalin also personally oversaw execution lists, observing and adding names when necessary, suggesting top-down leadership.

. J. Arch Getty and O.V. Naumov argue Stalin lacked a clear plan for mass repression, but his guilt was never in question since his fingerprints are all over the documents; he was still the key orchestrator.

Why is the role of the NKVD less significant than Stalin in the Purges?

. The root cause was Nikolai Yezhov appointed in September 1936 over Yagoda who was regarded as 'too soft', implying Stalin purposefully chose a more violent leader to escalate the Purges.

What were the main reasons for Mass Collectivisation?

. Ideology/Pursuit of Socialism

. Economic Needs

What role did Ideology play in Mass Collectivisation?

. Marxist theory opposed private land ownership which meant Stalin's collectivisation aimed to create large, mechanised farms (kolkhozes) that fit the socialist model.

. He claimed kulaks were "class enemies" and collectivisation would liberate the poor peasants. For example, it was Stalin's announcement in late December 1929 of the "liquidation of Kulaks as a class" which marked the beginning of full-scale Collectivization.

- Robert Conquest argues that collectivisation was a tool used to break peasant resistance.

- However, Stephen Kotkin argues that whilst Stalin was aware of the mass cassualties and he didn't intervene, his aim was not to eliminate ethnic Ukrainians or peasantry.

Why was Ideology/Socialism a less important reason for the Rapid Industrialisation?

. Stalin tolerated private agriculture under NEP for years with the shift in 1928-29 was not sudden ideological enlightenment.

. It could be argued that the economic situation with the the Grain Procurement Crisis of 1927-29 was more important as peasants began to resist government policy and weren't sending goods to markets, resulting in bread and meat rationing in cities.

. Ideology could have been a smokescreen for strengthening the USSR's economy to ensure it could compete with the USA, change in policy vision was seen as the next step.

Overall, why was the role of Ideology in the Purges the most significant reason?

. Rather than adjusting NEP, Stalin chose to collectivise - consistent with the long-term Marxist vision of removing class enemies and building socialism.

. The use of language like "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" shows ideological intent rather than just practical concern as the concept of a peasant collective was seen as ideologically correct rather than NEP which was seen as unsound in Marxist terms.

- Martin Malia argues that Stalin aimed realise Marxism in the Soviet Union through creating a nation of workers and that collectivisation was simply one of his methods for achieving this aim.

What role did the Economy play in Mass Collectivisation?

. The state needed surplus grain to sell abroad to buy industrial equipment. The 1927-29 grain procurement crisis revealed how unreliable the free market (under NEP) was.

. Collectivisation enabled state grain requisition and stable export capacity, helping the Soviet Union compete with other industrialised nations such as the USA, becoming a 'Soviet America'.

. Collectivisation was also used as a tool to ensure that the urban industrial areas were prioritised which was essential for achieving the '5-Year-Plans'.

- M. Lewin argues that collectivisation was brought forth as a solution to help solve the grain procurement crisis, albeit an extreme one. (Lewin himself was a collective farm worker)

Why was the Economy not the reason for Collectivisation?

. The economic outcome was disastrous in the short term with grain production falling from 73.3 million tonnes in 1928 to 67.6 million in 1934. Additionally, livestock was slaughtered in masse with nearly 50% of cattle lost by 1932 and yet there was no reversal of this plan, only slowing the initiative down in 1930 where he claimed the officials were being too forceful and overzealous - the policy was then brutally resumed in 1931.

Overall, why is the role of Ideology more significant than Economic success in Collectivisation?

. The long-term goal of ideological state-run economy was met as by the mid-1930s, grain exports resumed, urban supply stabilised, with the economy still pushing towards rapid industrialisation.

. The end result of mass collectivization was that whenever there was a poor harvest, it would be the peasantry who would suffer, not the valued 'proletariat' who were required to transform the USSR into an industrialized nation, ending the peasant stranglehold on the economy.

How did the Fear of War play a role in introducing Industrialisation?

. The rise of Nazi Germany and diplomatic isolation following the 1927 Arcos raid increased Stalin's belief in an ideologically hostile capitalist world encircling the Soviet Union. Industrialisation was seen as a way to build military strength, but also to defend socialism against external capitalist forces.

. Robert Service argues that the desire to build a military and industrial state was what Stalin wanted. He desired to change society from top to bottom.

Why did the Fear of War not lead to Rapid Industrialisation?

. The fear of war may have been used as a propaganda tool to push through harsh policies. There was no immediate invasion threat in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Western powers were focused on economic depression, not attacking the USSR, it wasn't until the 3rd 5 Year Plan where military equipment became a primary focus with Stalin surprised by Operation Barbarossa.

Why was the Fear of War less significant than Ideology in causing Industrialisation

. The emphasis on preparing for war cannot be separated from Stalin’s ideological worldview, which saw capitalist encirclement as an existential threat. Rapid industrialisation was not just about tanks—it was framed as a Marxist duty to protect the first socialist state from imperialist aggression.

What role did the Attack on Peasantry have in causing Industrialisation

. Marxist ideology identified the peasantry, especially kulaks, as a conservative, capitalist-aligned force impeding the advance of socialism.

. Industrialisation, supported by collectivisation, enabled Stalin to suppress this group and shift the social base from peasants to workers.

. The idea was to create a a revolutionary class transformation: turning a peasant economy into a proletarian-led industrial one, aligning with Lenin's goal of building socialism through the working class. "Liquidation of Kulaks as a Class" December 1929 speech.

Why did the Attack on Peasantry not cause Industrialisation

. Stalin had tolerated the peasantry under NEP. His policy shift may have been less about class ideology and more about solving the grain procurement crisis of 1927-28, which threatened urban supply and economic plans.

- Stephen Kotkin also argues that while Stalin was aware about the mass deaths of peasantry and didn't intervene, making the peasants suffer was not intended in his plans.

Overall, why was the aim of Attacking the Peasantry less significant than causing Industrialisation

. The repression of the peasantry through industrialisation and collectivisation was consistent with Marxist ideology, which prioritised the working class as the government’s main gripe with the peasantry was their natural capitalist tendency which was ideologically incompatible, known as ‘petite bourgeoisie’.

. The harshness of the Five-Year Plans (e.g., forced labour, punishing so-called “saboteurs”) reflects a belief in class struggle as a motor of historical progress and transforming the economy to be industrial.

. Chris Ward argues that industrialization did what was intended with the Soviet economy being fundamentally transformed.

What role did Modernisation/Ideology play in causing Industrialisation

. In 1931, Stalin warned that the USSR had to catch up with the West or be destroyed ("We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this lag in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us.")

. Ideologically, the Marxist doctrine demanded the economy to be centrally planned to break free from the Capitalist system. Stalin saw industrialisation through 5YPs as the key to making this transition from NEP's market compromise to a true socialist economy.

. Heavy industry—steel, coal, electricity—was prioritised to lay the foundation for socialism and create a disciplined, industrial workforce as the vanguard of the revolution.

Why did Modernisation/Ideology not cause Industrialisation

. The chaotic implementation—falsified targets, poor-quality goods, over-reliance on brute force which created tension between managers and workers—suggests the main concern was practical control, not ideological perfection. Targets like "doubling iron output in four years" may have been more about beating the West than building socialism.

. Isaac Deutscher: In the process of Russia's intensive industrialisation, many of the traditional concepts of socialism have been thrown overboard.

. Norman Stone: There was no master plan and that the policy of rapid industrialization was just 'one foot in front of the another'.

Ultimately, why is Ideology the main cause of Industrialisation

. Ultimately, this chaos was fought through for the purpose of Stalin using economic planning as a means to destroy private enterprise, create a socialist infrastructure, and accelerate the USSR's transition to a truly Marxist economy.

. Even slogans like "socialism in one country" reflect that the effort was not just material—but doctrinal as a socialist state required state-controlled economy with large-scale industry and agriculture enterprises all directed by the Communist Government.

. While they wanted to compete with Western countries such as the USA, this was deeply rooted in Stalin's superiority complex where he believed he must triumph over these capitalist nations.

What are the factors to consider when determining whether Collectivisation was a success?

. Economic/Modernisation

. Social/Political control

How was Collectivisation Economically successful in Modernising the economy?

. The policy of 'Collectivization' placed peasants into state-controlled farms that were either known as a Kolkhoz or a Sovkhoz. The result of this policy was that from 1928 grain production was 63 million tonnes and this grew to 73 million tonnes.

. In addition to this, collectivisation brought the modernisation of farming with the number of tractors reaching over 200,000 by 1934.

How was Collectivisation Economically unsuccessful in Modernising the economy?

. Collectivisation was unpopular as peasantry felt livelihood had been stolen and in retaliation they slaughtered their livestock and consumed the produce to prevent state procurement.

. By February 1930, around 25–30% of all cattle, pigs, and sheep in the USSR had been killed.

. Although there was a large increase in tractors, it still wasn't enough, leading to shortages and combines with resistance, there was a large drop in gricultural production.

. For example, in Ukraine from 1930-31 there was 22.72 million tonnes of grain produced but during 1932, this had dropped to just 14.65 million tonnes. Exports for the USSR had also dropped around 75% from 1930-31 to 1932-1933.

. Volitility suggests that overall management was unsuccessful

Ultimately, why was Collectivisation Economically unsuccessful in Modernising the economy?

. The scheme of mass collectivization was proven unsuccessful due to the obvious reliance the Soviet government had on the private plots the peasants owned on the Kolkhoz farms.

. The inefficiency is highlighted through the estimations that these private plots provided 52% of vegetables, 57% of fruit, 70% of meat and 71% of milk as well as butter, honey and wool to Soviet consumers.

. Sheila Fitzpatrick argues that the peasants developed all sorts of ways of subverting the farms and turning matters to their advantage. The peasants had been broken by collectivisation but they had not been totally crushed.

How was Collectivisation successful Socially?

. Collectivisation provided rural peasants with state-run healthcare and education to these areas in addition to increasing infrastructure in these areas.

. For example, from 1927-28 to 1932, the amount of hospital beds in rural areas of the R.S.F.S.R nearly doubled to over 82,000.

. Additionally, the Libkez campaign throughout the Soviet Union provided the peasantry with education which meant that by 1939, over 94% of all Soviet citizens were literate.

Why was Collectivisation unsuccessful Socially?

. Many peasants resisted collectivisation as an uprooting of their heritage and the government's excessive grain procurement and food blockades only elevated this tension.

. The result of this was a mass famine from 1932 to 1933 known as the Holodomor with the Soviet government continuing to procure excessive amounts of the peasants' grain and continuing exports despite the famine, worsening the problem and resulting in the deaths of around 3.9 million Ukrainians.

Ultimately, why was Collectivisation Unsuccessful Socially?

. No state-run benefit systems can justify the trauma and suffering the peasantry went through.

. It is estimated that during the Collectivisation program, both indirect and direct deaths totaled to roughly 12 million with mortality rates in areas near Moscow being that of 50%.

. Additionally, life was the same for most, same wooden huts, outdoor toilet, no electricity in spite of social welfare provisions.

. While Stephen Kotkin argues that Stalin didn't intend for the deaths of these peasants, he did however, show an extreme lack of empathy for these deaths at the 1945 Yalta Conferrence where in response he simply shrugged and raised 10 fingers, implying his awareness of the over 10 million deaths of his people.

Why was Collectivisation Successful Politically?

. By 1936, it is estimated that over 90% of peasant households had been collectivized (120 million people).

. Moshe Lewin: A "quicksand society" was created where the state was in control of everyone and all were "equal".

Ultimately, why was Collectivisation Unsuccessful Politically?

. Ultimately, collectivization did control peasants, but since it required the NKVD and state-appointed managers used to enforce it with peasants being prohibited from leaving their farms with internal passports used to enforce this. - Successful in controlling people but wasn't met without significant resistance throughout the policy's lifetime as peasants clearly resented the government.

Why was Collectivisation Unsuccessful Politically?

. It was met with significant resistance with government forced to use violent methods to collectivise farms, especially from 1930-33.

. For example, mass hoardings and illegal grain transferring also took place in addition to violent resistance in 1929 after the Ural-Siberian method [a type of grain procurement that largely represented the methods that were used during War Communism during the Civil War] was used to procure grain.

What are the factors to consider when analysing the successfulness of Rapid Industrialisation?

. Economic transformation

. Workforce and living conditions

How was industrialisation successful in transforming the economy?

. In 1931, Stalin made a speech about the state of the Soviet Union, stating "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall go under."

. Stalin set out to achieve this through 3 sets of 5-Year-Plans which were largely focussed on the rapid industrialisation of heavy industry such as coal and steel.

. For example, coal production in 1928 was 35.5 million tonnes but by 1937, it had reached 128 million tonnes by 1937 with the goal of 75 million tonnes by 1933 being exceeded by 1.3 million tonnes.

. From 1938 onwards, the industrialisation focus was on arms production increases because of build up for war with defence production rising by four-fold.

How was industrialisation unsuccessful in transforming the economy?

. However, not all targets from the 5 Year Plans were actually met with steel production only meeting a mere 5.1 million tonnes by 1933 despite their goal of 10 million tonnes.

. Additionally, the quality of many of these goods were substandard due to the pressure to produce quantity over quality, skipping inspections, and cutting corners - result in WW2 early failures against Germany

Overall, why was industrialisation unsuccessful in transforming the economy?

. The reasoning for this is that whilst this increased production in the short term, this rapid pace created an unstable working society ('Quicksand Society') with the average worker in the coal industry moving jobs 3 times per year.

. In addition to this, rapid industrialisation forcibly moved millions of peasants to urban factories which resulted in high rates of absenteeism and low quality goods due to the resentment from these ex-peasants.

. This displayed how the whole scheme of rapid industrialisation was not carefully planned out and therefore the management of the economy by the Soviet government from 1928 to 1939 was largely unsuccessful due to the long term damage that was done.

How was Industrialisation successful in improving working conditions?

. Rapid industrialisation dramatically reduced unemployment with the number of industrial workers growing from 4.6 million in 1928 to 12.6 million in 1940, providing more stable wages.

. The Stakhanovite movement (1935 onwards) rewarded highly productive workers with bonuses, promotions, better housing, and social recognition. - social mobility

How was Industrialisation unsuccessful in improving working conditions?

. Between 1926 and 1939, approximately 18.7 million people migrated from rural areas to urban centres.

. Housing shortages became acute due to the mass urban migration, resulting in overcrowded communal apartments (kommunalkas), with poor sanitation and limited privacy.

. For example, the average living pace in Moscow per person decreased from 5.5 meters squared to 4 meters squared by 1940. In the Donbas region in the mid-1930s, 40% of workers had less than 2 m² of living space.

Ultimately, why was Industrialisation successful in improving working conditions?

. Workers were often subjected to gruelling conditions, with long hours, strict discipline, and little regard for health and safety.

. For example, lateness became a serious criminal offense that was punishable by imprisonment in 1940.

. Additionally, the Stakhanovite movement contributed to increased productivity but was largely a propaganda effort with most workers not achieving this status with the overall pressure of the 5-Year-Plans affecting workers' home and work lives negatively more than benefitting them.

What are the factors to consider when analysing why the USSR won the Great Patriotic War?

. Stalin's leadership

. Red Generals

. Allied Aid

. Soviet Economy

. Soviet Resilience/Propaganda

How did Stalin's leadership help the USSR win the Great Patriotic War?

. He presented as a strong leader and re-introduced harsh military discipline.

. For example, in July 1942, Stalin ordered Order 227 outlining "Not one step backward" which outlawed cowardice within the military in light of the German advances where the Soviet soldiers must fight to their death.

How did Stalin's leadership NOT help the USSR win the Great Patriotic War?

. After the Molotov-Ribbentrop of 1939, Stalin was naïve to the threat of Nazi Germany and refused to accept advice of Red Army commanders to prepare for German attack as he didn't believe that it would happen.

. However, on the 22nd of June 1941, Hitler launched 'Operation Barbarossa', invading the USSR with large numbers, destroying much of the Soviet aircrafts, and leaving 4 million Soviet casualties and 3 million Soviet POWs by December 1941.

. Stalin's purges of the Red Army ensured that there was a shortage of experienced military generals at hand such as Tukhachevsky who had developed 'Deep Battle' theory that was equivalent to Guderian's Blitzkrieg tactics.

Overall, why did Stalin's leadership lead to the USSR winning the Great Patriotic War?

. This is largely because Stalin eventually began to listen to his military advisers with Generals Vasilevski and Zhukov being given key decision making capabilities and responsibility by Stalin from 1943 onwards.

. This display of delegation and self-awareness played into a key contrast between the personalities of Hitler and Stalin as leaders in wartime, whilst both leaders clearly made mistakes, only one emerged from these mistakes with lessons and a clear understanding of how to improve in the future.

How did the Red Generals help the USSR win the Great Patriotic War?

. At Kursk—the largest tank battle in history—both Georgy Zhukov and Aleksandr Vasilevsky played a crucial role in planning and coordinating Soviet defenses and counterattacks.

. Their meticulous preparation, including the construction of deep defensive belts and the use of intelligence to anticipate German movements, contributed significantly to the Soviet victory in the summer of 1943.

. The battle inflicted an estimated 200,000 German casualties and marked a major turning point on the Eastern Front.

Overall, why was Stalin's leadership more significant than the Red Generals in leading to the USSR winning the Great Patriotic War?

. The only reason why these Soviet Generals had a large impact on the war at all was due to Stalin's eventual delegation of these roles to men with a greater intellectual capacity for military strategy and decision making with Stalin ultimately at the center of Stavka.

. For example, later victories such as Operation Bagration in 1944 were only possible for Zhukov due to Stalin empowering him with responsibility, displaying Stalin's qualities as a leader in contrast to Adolph Hitler who had a reputation throughout WW2 for frequently dismissing generals who dissagreed with him with 26 out of 36 4-star generals involved with Hitler over the course of the war either sacked or executed.

How did the Allied Aid help the USSR win the Great Patriotic War?

. March 1941, US president Roosevelt signed the Land-Lease which involved the USA sending vital supplies to the USSR including goods and resources such as aircrafts, millions of uniforms and boots, 400,000 vehicles, 13,000 tanks, and 4.5 million tons of food. Over the course of the war, the Land-Lease provided over $11 billion worth of goods.

How did the Allied Aid not help the USSR win the Great Patriotic War?

. Only until after the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943 that that the allied aid from the Land-Lease arrived in significant quantities which was after the tide of war had began to turn with the Soviet war machine already recovering by this time.

. For example, large-scale industries were able to out-produce Germany by 1943 in tanks, sub-machine guns and aeroplanes due to 1930s policies of Industrialisation, suggesting that it mearly shortened the time-span of the Great Patriotic War.

Overall, why was Stalin's leadership more significant than the Allied Aid in leading to the USSR winning the Great Patriotic War?

. Stalin's ability to negotiate with the Allies that ensured the supply of these resources in the first place.

. For example, in 1941, the First Washington Protocol involved Stalin sending a delegation led by Maxim Litvinov to provide the list of demands on the Soviet Union's behalf with the meeting marking the beginning of the Land-Lease from the USA to the USSR.

. Stalin's negotiations and pressure to the allies at the Tehran conference resulted in the UK and US's agreement to initiate Operation Overlord (D-Day) in exchange for the USSR's participation in the fighting against Japan after the war was finished.