Depth study debates Flashcards
Alexander II - How liberal was the Russian government from 1855-1181? (Support - it was)
- creation of the Zemtsva - 40% were peasants and did good work in education/public health
- so effective that they were set as the precedent
- education was more open: unis given more autonomy and texts from abroad
Alexander II - How liberal was the Russian government from 1855-1181? (Against - it wasn’t)
- Zemstva was inevitable due to emancipation, and Alexander II regretted it as members started to question ‘administrative monopoly of officialdom’ and were critical of the regime
- Zemtsva only had administrative powers and was dominated by the nobility
- similarly, emancipation favoured the same nobility (kept him in power)
- Tolstoy reversed education reforms
Alexander II - To what extent did reforms made by Alexander II improve the status of Russian peasants? (Support - large extent)
- all privately owned serfs were free - could own property and could marry whoever they pleased
- nobles had to hand over land to the peasants
Alexander II - To what extent did reforms made by Alexander II improve the status of Russian peasants? (Against - small extent)
- redemption payments - took 49 years to fully pay
- the powers of the Mir remained (eg: ensured substinence farming so lack of an incentive)
- peasants were allocated poorer quality land and had Poll tax
- separate legal system
Alexander II - How far were Alexander II’s reforms due to the Crimean war? (Support - they were)
- war revealed weaknesses in the way Nichola I had ruled -> serfdom went against modern warfare
- showed need for modernisation and proved catching up to the industrial West as crucial
Alexander II - How far were Alexander II’s reforms due to the Crimean war? (Against - they weren’t)
- reasons for reforms were linked to Russia before the Crimean war, eg pressure to abolish serfdom, growing peasant unrest and population growth
- Alexander II made reforms out of a necessity to retain autocracy
Alexander II - How far were issues relating to the empire and minorities neglected by Alexander II? (Support - they were)
- Polish Revolt happened as a result of a lank of reforms (against hope) and conscription of Poles
-> reforms after seen as a stepping stone towards more Russification - decrees to stop the publishing and import of Ukrainian books
Alexander II - How far were issues relating to the empire and minorities neglected by Alexander II? (Against - they weren’t)
- introduction of Zemstva to take over the running of local affairs
- liberal policy towards the Baltic Germans
- Jews were allowed to live outside the Pale of Settlement
- reforms towards the poles before the uprising included more agency for Warsaw uni and more Polish autonomy and afterwards reforms benefitted the peasants instead of the nobility
Provisional government - To what extent was the PG doomed to fail from the start? (Support - large extent)
- lack of legitimacy from the beginning due to not being elected
- disagreements between PG and the Soviet on how to handle the war
- creation of the 8 principles allowed the proliferation of protest groups
- Bolsheviks only gained influence following the Kornilov affair (not a huge threat throughout)
Provisional government - To what extent was the PG doomed to fail from the start? (Against - small extent)
- successful in achieving its main aim of preparing for the elections to a new constituent assembly
- initially was ‘popularly accepted’
- it wasn’t the failings of the PG that led to the Oct revolution but the determination of the Bolshevik seizure of power
Provisional government - Why is the PG often viewed as the one reluctant to carry out reform? (Support - it is)
- government could’ve carried out economic and social reforms to maintain their power (unrest due to such issues and reforms weren’t enough to appease the workers and the peasants)
- weak attempt to unite the PG and the Soviet
- land distribution issues, continued involvement with the war and clamping down on workers’ governments showed how the PG was unwilling to make appropriate changes
Provisional government - Why is the PG often viewed as the one reluctant to carry out reform? (Against - it’s not)
- they did carry out reforms such as the 8 principles
- not intended to make lasting reforms but as principles that would aid future political change
- lack of social and economic reforms was justified as they were occupied with the war issue
- meant to be an interim government and were reluctant to make big reforms due to their lack of legitimacy
Provisional government - How far was WW1 responsible for the fall of the PG? (Support - it was)
- if Russia had pulled out of the war then maybe the PG would’ve succeeded
- the war was costly in terms of the impact on land, labor and capital - but the PG had a sense of duty to continue it
- limited support from the Allies
- the war being a priority meant that other issues were ignored which led to unrest
Provisional government - How far was WW1 responsible for the fall of the PG? (Against - it wasn’t)
- the PG was doomed to fail regardless of the war
- people saw the PG as a variation of the tsarist regimes, which was already in danger of disintegrating before WW1
- workers had organised and campaigned for economic and social change before the war and support gained momentum at least a decade before
- Kerensky’s leadership was suspect - he wasn’t trusted by workers and peasants
Provisional government - To what extent did opposition from the national minorities lead to the fall of the PG? (Support - large extent)
- aim was to maintain the cohesiveness of the state, so focused on urban political, social and economic issues in Petrograd and Moscow
-> this was a mistake as minorities became frustrated (slow to create an Assembly which caused resentment), were spurred on by the successes of the workers, took advantage of the 8 principles - organised their own forms of provincial government, like the Central Rada in Ukraine and the Sejm in Finland
- large population of peasants in Georgia, Ukraine and Estonia, so not acting on land issues was naive
Provisional government - To what extent did opposition from the national minorities lead to the fall of the PG? (Against - small extent)
- demands for self rule in the Transcaucasia were met
Khrushchev - How far did de-Stalinisation represent a genuine break from the past? (Support - agree)
- reformed bureaucracy - weakened the state, devolved power from Soviet government to Republican governments -> more effective at dealing with the wants and needs of the population
- little rural unrest - genuine interchange between K and his people
- rejection of the cult of personality
- re-vitalisation of the party
- end of the terror
Khrushchev - How far did de-Stalinisation represent a genuine break from the past? (Against - disagree)
- only changed aspects of the system instead of changing the actual system - constraints of the centralised economy (COmmand economy)
- replacing of Stalin’s supporters with his own - strengthen his power base
- Virgin Lands campaign unappealing for the people
- Khrushchev’s downfall: failure of agricultural policy, Cuban Missile Crisis, deterioration relations with China
- development of a cult of personality himself
Khrushchev - To what extent were the economic and social reforms made by Khrushchev a failure? (Support - large extent)
- poorly thought out: bad planning of the Virgin Lands programme (lack of fertilisers, poor quality land), system of government was too rigid to allow quick change, the reforms weren’t as radical as they needed to be to deal with the challenges left by the Stalinist regime
- failure of education reforms (curriculum change not implemented in 47% of schools)
- failure of reforms for women
- limits to free speech
Khrushchev - To what extent were the economic and social reforms made by Khrushchev a failure? (Against - small extent)
- only in 1963 was a significant fall in grain production and to was due to poor weather
- increase of grain and meat production
- better quality housing in urban and rural areas
- focus on light industry increased living standards
- end to terror - eg: gulags
Khrushchev - How effectively did Khrushchev deal with the challenges posed by the Cold War? (Support - very effectively)
- took initiative to create a more peaceful and secure world - “peaceful co-existence”
- supported the signing of the Austrian State Treaty
- Berlin wall - on one hand ended the issues surrounding it
- praise for his handling of the Cuban Missile crisis - compromise and ‘hot-line’ strengthened peaceful co-existence
Khrushchev - How effectively did Khrushchev deal with the challenges posed by the Cold War? (Against - not effectivel)
- the Berlin wall: seen as an embarrassing failure, oppressive measure than worsened relations
- ruthless suppression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956 - poor advertisement
- “peaceful-coexistence” was viewed by some communists as a betrayal of ideals (eg: CHinese communists)
- criticisms of his handling of the Cuban Missile crisis: nearly provoked the catastrophe of nuclear war
Khrushchev - ‘Courageous failure’ - How valid is this assessment of Khrushchev’s policy towards minorities, satellite states and Asia? (Support - very valid)
- Khrushchev’s attempt to resolve conflict with Tito by granting Yugoslavia more autonomy, this however destabilised the Soviet bloc
- Hungarian crisis 1956: use of Stalinist tactics and communist parties in the West lost support
- construction of the Berlin wall
- De-Stalinisation worsened relations with China
- reversed population transfers but little impact due to Russian in-migration
Khrushchev - ‘Courageous failure’ - How valid is this assessment of Khrushchev’s policy towards minorities, satellite states and Asia? (Against - more of a success)
- Mao’s attempts to manipulate the Soviets failed - Khrushchev was prepared to take a strong position against them
- reversed population transfers
- indigenisation to an extent
- 5 autonomous territories restored
- Kazakhstan and Ukraine were given their own economic council
- rehabilitation of ethnic groups and amnesty for collaborators
