AS Russia
Revision
Booklet
1
Why did Tsarist Russia end in February 1917?
•
•
•
•
•
In 1894 Tsarist Russia was backward, impoverished and its multi racial make-up caused hostility. However, the
majority of Russians still believed in Tsarist rule and had no intentions of revolution. Many Peasants saw the
Tsar as a God and had a picture of him in their huts. Tsarist Russia ended because the decreasing support for
Nicholas II was emphasized by WW1 but most importantly it ended because Nicholas lost the support of the
nobility and the army.
DECREASING SUPPORT FOR NICHOLAS II
IMPACT OF WW1
Despite the build up of frustration with the system there was
The nobility were powerful landowners. They
no sign of revolution in 1914. Economic recovery and the
were advisors to the Tsar and had a big
brutality of the secret police (1,144 hangings in 1907)
influence on the running of the country. Tsar
subdued revolutionary unrest. Although the number of
Nicholas II took the throne in 1894 and seemed
strikes went up, they were over working conditions and were
like the wrong man for the job. He was
not attempts to overthrow the government. Trade Unions
indecisive, unorganized and indifferent towards
and political opposition (made legal in the 1905 constitution)
his job and the rich and powerful were worried
had small memberships and remained unorganized. In 1914
about his ability to lead their country. These
Lenin said “We will not see revolution in our lifetime.” It is
therefore undoubted that the Impact of World War One
worries became real during the war. Whilst the
was the most important cause of the downfall of
Tsar was on the front line, the Tsarina and
Rasputin were inept and began dismissing noble Tsarism
• Political impact - The war brought chaos to the ruling
advisors. Consequently the Tsar lost the faith of
class of Russia. Nicholas II went to the front line and so
his, traditionally, closest supporters.
foolishly took on full responsibility for any defeat. He also
The liberals were the dissatisfied nobility who
left an inept wife and corrupt advisor in charge. They
actually formed opposition parties against the
quickly brought disorder and unrest by dismissing capable
Tsar. They mainly wanted more political
advisors and hiring inexperienced friends and the system
influence and a democratic parliament. The
became so unorganized that few decisions were made.
The nobility had always supported the Tsarist system as it
introduction of the Duma in 1906 seemed like a
gave them the privileged life they led however now the
great leap in the right direction but the
system threatened them. Moreover the nobles who
consequent fundamental laws restricted its
wanted more political power saw their chance.
power. Overall therefore the Nobility had lost
• Economic impact – Factory owners lost workers and so
faith in the Tsar and were frustrated by their lack
went out of business, workers lost their jobs, peasants had
of power.
their food and horses taken for the army and it was all for
The Industrial classes – In the 1890s Russia
nothing as the army were getting slaughtered by the
went through rapid industrialization under
Germans. The economic hardships radicalized the
Finance Minister Witte which created a middle
masses and made them aware of the failings of the Tsarist
system.
(factory owners) and working class. The working
class became radicalized in favour of change
CONCLUSION
(economic) due to their terrible living and
working conditions and the fact that they all lived By 1917 the middle class, working class, farmers and
minorities were all acutely unhappy with the government.
in close proximity and so could see their shared
They could lead strikes and protests but they were not in the
grievances. The war meant a lack of labourers
social or geographical position to change the system of
and the closure of non-essential industry and so government. Most of these groups just wanted an end to the
both classes were angry with the regime.
war and economic change and had no interest in politics or
power. The two key groups were the nobility and the
The peasantry – The image of the Tsar as the
soldiers.
“little father” was smashed when he ordered his
• The nobles in Petrograd were powerful and influential and
troops to open fire on the crowds in 1905.
ran the country for an incapable Nicholas.
However it was the war which really turned the
• The nobles in the armed forces were officers and
peasants against the Tsar. The war caused
generals and so had military power.
great economic hardships for the farming
The peasant soldiers were the people expected to crush
•
peasants but there was very little they could do
any uprisings.
to change the system of government in terms of
If the Tsar lost the support of these two groups then he lost
their geographical and social position. It was the
the means to run the country and to defend it. This was the
peasants fighting on the front line who had real
case for Nicholas II by 1917. The nobles in the Duma used
power. If the Tsar’s army turned against him
the excuse of widespread discontent to set up their
then he had no power to crush an uprising.
provincial government.
The Minorities had become increasingly bitter
th
over the policy of Russification since the late 19
century.
2
Why were the Bolsheviks able to seize power by October 1917?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The mistakes of the Provisional government
They publicized their provisional nature and used it as a reason not to deal with important issues.
They failed to deal with the two key issues by continuing the war and holding back the distribution of the land. The
workers and peasants had been hit hard economically by the war and they associated the end of the Tsar with peace
and progress. The failure to deliver these assumptions caused widespread discontent for the PG
The PG allowed itself to be dictated to by the Soviets (workers’ councils) who also had control of the army
The noble Kadets were happy with their increased power and didn’t want to share it. The Mensheviks and the Social
Revolutionaries lost sight of their Communist/Socialist vision as they became content with their influence over the
government through the Soviets. They both preferred a slow transformation to Communism without revolution
In the summer of 1917 Kerensky and the PG made a number of crucial mistakes. He failed to take an opportunity to
destroy the Bolsheviks after the July crisis and the Kornilov affair lost the PG the support of the army and reinstated
Bolsheviks’ credibility for having saved the PG from a military coup.
By the autumn the political make-up of the PG Had moved further to the right leaving it open to criticism that it was a
“parliamentary bourgeois republic”
Lenin’s leadership
Lenin adapted Marxism to make it applicable to the unindustrialized Russia and he convinced the doubters in his party
that revolution was the right option.
By staying out of the PG Lenin set the Bolsheviks up as the only alternative. When the PG failed to address the key
issues Bolshevik membership and support soared. Plus Bolsheviks’ loyal attendance at the soviets paid off, over time
attendance at the soviets diminished significantly giving the Bolsheviks a disproportionate amount of influence in the
soviets.
Lenin promised the people what they wanted in bread, peace and land and all power to the soviets. The promise of
peace attracted the army, land distribution gained the support of the peasants, bread the industrial workers suffering
from food shortages. Power to the soviets distanced the Bolsheviks from the PG and the bourgeois corruption Lenin
claimed they were involved in
Bolsheviks increasingly developed their influence over the Petrograd barracks and the workers soviets
Trotsky’s organization
Trotsky used the Kornilov incident to increase his support. He became president of the Petrograd Soviet and Bolshevik
majorities were gained in the Petrograd and Moscow Soviets.
Trotsky passionate support for Lenin’s revolution helped to convince the doubters in the party.
Trotsky was in charge of the Bolshevik’s military Revolutionary Committee (MRC). By late October 1917 the MRC had
already infiltrated the Petrograd Barracks and ordered the army not to attack the revolutionaries.
He planned the details of the seizure of power. Red guards took control of the key points of commerce and
communication first: the power stations, banks and bridges.
Leaving the winter palace until last, a joint attack was initiated by a shot by the cruiser Aurora. Taking the PG all at
once resulted in little resistance.
He organized the Bolshevik red guard, taking responsibility for recruitment and discipline
He was a great speaker and motivator of his men.
Conclusion – Was it a revolution of the masses?
The October revolution was nothing more than a military coup by a highly organized and well motivated armed minority.
However the ease of the revolution suggests that the Bolsheviks did have support. The people and soldiers of Petrograd did not
stand in their way and many supported them in the ensuing Civil War. If Lenin believed that force and organization were the
only important factors then he wouldn’t have wasted time campaigning for support through his April thesis. The failures of the
PG and the ability of Lenin to see exactly what the people wanted swung opinion towards the Bolsheviks. Therefore although
October was a coup it was also a response to a popular movement.
3
Why did the Bolsheviks win the Civil War between 1917 and 1921?
Red Army (Bolshevik) Strengths
a) Exploitation of the situation and the Russian people
– Lenin used the fear of invasion to impose a dictatorship
which would not have been accepted during peace time.
Lenin closed the assembly in Jan 1918 and gave all power
to the Bolsheviks so they might protect mother Russia
against the Whites and their Western allies. To win the Civil
War the Bolsheviks knew they needed the support of the
wider public:
• They allowed the peasants their private land
• They promised independence to the minorities. Lenin
called Imperial Russia the “prison of the peoples” and in
November 1917 Stalin (as Commissar of Nationalities)
granted independence to Finland and Poland. The White
armies were stationed in non-Russian areas and the
locals support for the Bolsheviks did not make their job an
easy one
• They promised to protect mother Russia against foreign
invasion
People supported these policies and so either joined or
helped the Red army. At worst the Bolsheviks were seen as
the lesser of two evils, especially as the Whites had no
clear goals and were getting help from Western powers.
The peasants believed the Bolsheviks when they told them
that a White victory would mean the return of the landlords
b) Terror and the Cheka (secret police) – apart from
rallying support, the Bolsheviks also used terror to subdue
their opposition. This created loyalty through fear and was a
powerful unifying force. In December1917 a Secret Police
(Cheka) was established. The Cheka used all means
necessary to ensure the survival of the revolution. It
infiltrated White areas and made mass arrests and
executions. Its head was Felix Dzerzhinsky, an incorruptible
Polish communist. The Cheka acted according to its
‘revolutionary conscience’ and in practice it arrested and
arbitrarily shot those considered to be dangerous ‘bourgeois
elements’. By the summer of 1918, the “Red Terror” was in
full flood and whole sectors of the community were being
dealt with in the wave of Left S.R. assassinations. In 1919
8000 people were shot including Nicholas II and his family.
An attempt on Lenin’s life in 1918 only intensified the terror.
The Bolsheviks were a minority party and so were very
insecure about their power. They came to power during a
time of world and civil war and so using violence and death
to solve problems became normal practice. This ethos
continued into Stalin’s era. It is estimated that 200,000
people were killed between 1917 and 1923.
c) The Bolsheviks’ tactical advantage - The Bolsheviks
controlled the industrial heartland of the country and
therefore had short and effective lines of communication as
well as the most efficient transport routes. Trotsky was an
effective military leader. He was ruthless and recruited
50,000 former Tsarist officers either through ideological
persuasion or through force, their families often being held
as hostages for good behaviour. Desertion or military
failures were both treated sternly. Trotsky's
uncompromising methods, his assistants’ skill in conjuring
up munitions and the combination of professional competence at command level with the still strong revolutionary
enthusiasm were all contributory factors towards Red
success
White Army (counter revolutionary) weaknesses
a) The Whites’ failure to generate enough public support –
Unlike the Bolsheviks, the Whites were not united and so had no
real clear goals or policies except the destruction of Bolshevism.
The Whites did not show the Russian people what the future
would hold after a White victory and people are rarely willingly
fight and die for an uncertain goal. The Reds were able to play
on this ambiguity and accuse the Whites of treacherous dealings
with foreign powers and warn the public that a White victory
would mean the return of the Tsar and misery. Furthermore, the
Whites generally advocated a united Russia (like under the Tsar)
and so drastically underestimated the desire of the non-Russians
to seek independence. The Whites were operating in nonRussian areas and so consequently received little local support
and regular hostility. The Whites’ failure to generate public
support meant it was difficult to generate enough resources to
supply their campaign. The Whites also failed to appeal to the
peasantry as they were seen as inconsequential to the winning of
a military conflict and so could be dealt with afterwards. The
Whites’ mainly aristocratic background meant they had no
natural affiliation with the peasants and their arrogance and
ignorance towards them didn’t help. White armies actually helped
ex-landowners to re-gain land from the peasants and so when
they finally realised their campaign needed resources from the
land, it was too late as all possible ties with the peasants had
been severed.
b) The Whites’ disunity and tactical disadvantage – the
Whites were only united in their hatred of the Bolsheviks and
each faction had different ideas regarding how the Civil War
should be fought and how Russia should be ruled afterwards.
The Western allies wanted revenge for the betrayal of the
Eastern front, remuneration for Tsarist debts and influence over
Russia in the aftermath. Russian forces were made up by
Socialists resentful of Bolshevik domination (Mensheviks and
SRs) and ex-army officials who felt betrayed by the peace treaty.
All these groups and even individuals had very specific reasons
for fighting Bolshevik rule and so were distrusting and unwilling to
help each other. Furthermore, tactically, the whites were at a
disadvantage. There were various White commanders and
various fronts which made it impossible, given the size of the
country, to co-ordinate their attacks. The Whites were also
always on the periphery, often dependent on the Allies supplying
them with arms and equipment. This led to the Bolsheviks
labelling the Whites as traitors to Russia, selling out to western
imperialism. The main armies were separated from each other by
great distances. Ulam (A History of Soviet Russia) says ‘the
Whites' offensives were not so much defeated as exhausted in
long marches through partisan-infested territory’. Cholera and
typhus epidemics also took their toll
4
What affect did Lenin have on Russia?
Lenin died in 1924 but what legacy did he leave. How had he affected Russia for the good and the bad?
POSITIVE
War Communism
• The Red Army was fed well and so
won the Civil War. Therefore Lenin
saved Russia from the return of the
Tsarist Whites who would return the
land owners to their position of power
over the peasants
• War Communism made the Russian
economy socialist and so tied in with
the ideals of the party regarding the
future of Russia.
E
C
O The New Economic Policy
N • The NEP showed that Lenin was willing to
compromise with his ideals for the
O
good of the people (and to save his
M
party from widespread uprisings and
collapse).
I
• The incentives created by privitisation
C
and capitalism returned agricultural
and industrial levels to their 1913
figures and so saved Russia from
economic ruin.
S
O
C
I
A
L
• The family was seen as a symbol of
Western capitalism and so the 1918
family code made Divorce easy and
abortion legal
• Women were given equal rights to men
and were encouraged into the labour
force; women’s sexual rights were also
encouraged.
• The party crushed the power of the
Church which had been a large
landowner and oppressor of the people
under the Tsar
• Better schooling meant more people
could read
• Lenin was a fan of ‘high culture’ and
initially encouraged artists to express
themselves within the folds of the party
and its ideology.
• Lenin encouraged people to enjoy
many art forms and radio, theatre and
cinema exploded across the country.
NEGATIVE
War Communism
• War communism reduced many people, in
both town and country, to starvation levels,
and there were numerous peasant uprisings
against the extremes of the policy. Food
became so scarce in the towns that there
was mass migration to the countryside on a
scale inconceivable in Western Europe.
Petrograd’s population fell from 2.5 million in
1917 to around half a million in 1920. War
communism was an economic disaster.
Famines in southern Russia alone caused 5
million deaths, and associated disease
perhaps as many again. Industrial production
crumbled, with the coal industry at a quarter,
steel at one-twentieth and pig-iron production
at one-fortieth of their pre-war levels.
The New Economic Policy
• The NEP was an admission by Lenin that the
Communist Economic experiment had failed
and that he could no longer wait around for
other countries to turn Communist so he
might find some help. He sold his soul and
his ideals to save himself and his party. The
NEP created great divisions in the party and
in society as people began to resent the
NEPmen and the Kulaks.
• Many women were left without any money
and became homeless and gradually orphans
began to roam the streets in greater numbers
• Sexual diseases spread and many women
could not support themselves on their own
with children
• People lost their religious freedom and had to
worship in secret. Communism was the new
religion and children were indoctrinated at
school
• As time went on more and more constraints
were placed on artists and so a lot of Russian
talent left the country and people only had
access to pro-Bolshevik pieces of work.
• Lenin used new media like radio and cinema
to further indoctrinate the Russian masses.
5
Why did Stalin emerge victorious in the struggle for power after Lenin’s
death?
Weaknesses of Opponents
Strengths of Stalin
a) Trotsky’s personality
Trotsky was a formidable intellect and master
tactician which is why many in the party feared he
would try to create a dictatorship. He was seen as
arrogant and individualistic and therefore not loyal
to the party especially as he had only joined from
the Mensheviks in the summer of 1917.
b) Trotsky’s position
Trotsky was commissar for War until 1925. This
meant he was often away from Petrograd and so
had little to do with the day to day running of the
party. He lost peasant support during the Civil War
as he was in charge of grain requisition and his
control over the army led many party members to
fear his ability to lead a military takeover.
c) Trotsky’s mistakes
• Trotsky felt he was above party politics and so
made no effort to gain support amongst the
members. He rarely attended meetings and
would rather stick to his principles than follow the
popular line. He openly attacked the bureaucracy,
corruption and patronage of the party and so
obviously lost support.
• Trotsky misread the support for Lenin after his
death. He didn’t turn up to the funeral and
attacked Lenin’s NEP in his essays Lessons on
October (1924).
d) Weakness of the left and right
• Lenin had made factionalism (creating your own
group within the party) illegal in 1921 and
punishable by death. The left and the right were
scared that Stalin would use this against them
and so never really openly rallied for support. The
United Opposition (Trotsky, Zinoviev and
Kamenev) never really liked each other and when
the party voted against their ideas at the 1926
conference Zinoviev and Kamenev deserted
Trotsky and swore their alliegence to the party.
• The leftists and the rightists had political beliefs
that they weren’t willing to change. The leftists
were supporting a communist economy too soon
after the horrors of war communism and were still
perusing the unrealistic goal of world revolution.
Later on, the rightists were supporting a
continuation of the capitalist NEP when most of
the party were now getting upset about the
profiteers in society. In contrast, Stalin simply
towed the popular line.
a) Stalin’s position in the party
•
Stalin got into the upper ranks of the party
in the first place because Lenin liked his ruthlessness,
his loyalty and love for the party (shown by the fact
that he was willing to rob banks to fund the party) and
his peasant background. Stalin had used his position
as General Secretary (1922 onwards) to gain
information and influence over most areas of the
party. By 1924 Stalin new exactly how the party
functioned. It allowed him to monitor all party
members but also to appoint his friends to powerful
positions, this meant he could always get his way in a
vote. Many had turned down this role as it was too
administrative and boring but it suited Stalin’s skills.
Many called him “Comrade Card Index” and made fun
of his mundane job, all this gave party members a
false sense of security about Stalin’s ambitions.
• Lenin’s enrolment campaign between 1921 and 1925
saw many new proletariat members. Stalin was in
charge of recruitment and promotion and so many of
these new members needed to be totally loyal to
Stalin if they wished to rise up the ranks of the party
or receive any privileges. They also admired Stalin’s
own humble background.
b) Stalin’s political ability
• Stalin was very politically intelligent. After his death,
Lenin became a god like figure and it made political
sense for Stalin to align himself with the continuation
of Lenin’s policies. Stalin seemed like the most
trustworthy candidate to do this as he seemed to
have no ideas of his own. He gave a speech at the
funeral, inaugurated the Lenin institute and gave a
series of lectures on Leninism at Moscow University.
• Stalin simply aligned himself with popular ideas and
used his support in the party to force his rivals out.
Between 1924 and 1927 he supported Lenin’s NEP
and “Socialism in one Country” at a time when Lenin
was seen as a God and foreign invasion seemed
likely. BY 1927 the left had been crushed and so he
completely changed his ideas to crush the right. He
began supporting the end of the NEP at a time when
people were beginning to get fed up with the profit
making Kulaks and NEPmen. Stalin cleverly changed
his policy to get rid of his opponents but also to fit in
with what was popular at the time.
6
What were the reasons for Modernisation?
General reasons for modernisation
• Solidifies Stalin’s power by spreading his influence and control over the whole of Russia, by getting rid of
the right (Bukharin) and by appeasing his party. Stalin also strongly believed in the goals of industrialization
and Communism.
• The attitudes of the rank and file members were that the capitalist NEP had gone on long enough. They
were sick of the profit making Nepmen and Kulaks and were frustrated by the failed promise to transform
Russia into a Communist state. Communist industrialization would rid the country of capitalism and ensure
the survival of the revolutionary principles of 1917.
Specific Reasons
The Five Year Plans
Collectivisation
• The fear of Foreign Invasion - This was the
• A growing resentment of the peasantry within the
driving factor. The support of the Whites by the
party was shown by the widespread support for
Western powers during the Civil war and
collectivisation. Peasants were being seen more as the
constant anti-communist actions throughout the
enemy of the Proletariat. Greedy Kulaks were hoarding
1920s had convinced Stalin that the West would
grain to push up prices but more importantly they were
seek to destroy communism at some point in the
holding Russia back from its Communist destiny.
near future. If Russia was going to defend itself
• Economic Factors - Huge, machine worked farms
then it needed to industrialise fast! The fear of
would be far more productive and efficient then small
foreign invasion therefore explains the absurd
manually run farms and would release workers for
speed at which industrialisation was planned
industry.
• The link with Industry - Stalin’s industrialisation was
• Economic Reasons
reliant on the improvement in agricultural efficiency.
The NEP had stabilised the economy but Russia
The new workers and increasing population needed
was still far behind the West in industrial terms.
large amounts of food. The government needed surplus
As trade with the West had dried up the party
grain to swap with other countries for industrial
needed to strictly control Russia’s resources and
machines and agriculture itself needed to start using
use them efficiently to allow the country to be
machinery and become more efficient so that peasant
self sufficient and affluent. The NEP just would
men could move to the cities and become industrial
not facilitate mass industrialisation. It was not
workers. The trouble with the NEP was grain production
producing enough food and to amicably
was going down. The peasantry could not afford
convince the peasants to work harder the
industrial or consumer goods and so saw no point in
government would have to offer them money or
making surplus grain for profit. The price of goods could
consumer goods which would take valuable
not go down until production increased and production
money away from heavy industry.
couldn’t increase until surplus food was provided. This
problem was known as the Scissors crisis and Stalin’s
solution was forced collectivisation.
Was Modernisation forced on the Russia people?
YES
Propaganda used war like language to install fear
in the lazy worker. Anyone who was lazy or
complained was labeled a Menshevik or an enemy
of the country and was sent to the Gulags.
Industrial saboteurs and failing managers were
often shot without trial and as absenteeism rose
the party sent in Slave labour to take over.
Collectivisation saw widespread protest. Millions of
livestock were slaughtered and millions of
peasants were labeled Kulaks and so were shot or
sent to Gulags (labour camps.) Some historians
estimate that 12 million people died in the Russian
Gulags.
NO
Propaganda, indoctrination and new responsibility
captured the minds of many young Russians. Through
the Soviet Youth many were inspired by the chance to be
government informants, worker of the week or a student
studying skilled labour. Enthusiastic workers joined shock
brigades who strove to beat records and prove what
could be achieved. These workers received special rates
of pay and better housing. Some of the very best workers
were awarded medals for service to the state. These
were called Stakhanovites after Alexei Stakhanov the
Georgian miner who supposedly organized his fellow
workers to cut 102 tons of coal in a single shift.
7
Was modernization a success or failure?
In an essay on the effects of modernization the economic accomplishments must be weighed against the
human cost.
SUCCESS
FAILURE
• Production in heavy industry vastly increased
• The neglect of consumer goods, textile industry and the
F
under the first two five year plans. They both
housing industry made life extremely hard for workers who
I
improved
the
efficiency
of
existing
industrial
areas
were expected to put up with it simply due to their love of
V
as
well
as
creating
new
ones
and
they
created
Lenin and the revolution. There were some improvements in
E
Y
E
A
R
•
P
L
A
N
S
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C
O
L
L
E
C
T
I
V
I
S
A
T
I
O
N
•
•
•
•
•
new ways of powering factories via the creation of
huge Dams
Russia’s ability to withstand the Nazi invasion
suggests that the Five Year Plans were
successful
Overall there was a huge increase in production 4 times steel and 6 times coal.
Huge industrial centres were created from nothing
Excellent workers were rewarded with higher
wages and nicer homes
Established a Communist economy and the party
now had widespread control over the country
Huge growth in the number of industrial workers
Capitalist classes removed – Nepmen and
bourgeois experts
Strengthening of Stalin’s position as those
opposed to the five year plan were removed
Training colleges were opened and by the mid
1930s the general skill of workers had improved
Most cities and towns doubled or tripled their
populations throughout the 1930s
Huge improvements in transport with the building
of canals, railways, roads and the Moscow Metro.
There were improvements in living conditions
after 1935 however, with cheap food in the
canteens and free working clothes
Centralised control of agriculture and rid the
country of capitalist Kulaks
Appeased the party members who were frustrated
with the failure to implement Communist ideas –
by 1937 93% of peasant households had been
collectivised
The youth were empowered by responsibility to
spy on their village creating a new generation of
loyal Communists
Removal of old social controls within the village –
Church and village elders
More machinery was used after mid 1930s and
production began to improve
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
footwear and food packaging but overall the economy’s focus
on heavy industry and armaments meant that there were huge
shortages and suffering across the country.
Decline in working conditions – pay, safety etc
There was widespread discontent and many didn’t turn up to
work
Very few workers actually saw rewards
The insistence of the government to control everything
centrally meant local managers had little freedom to
implement reforms which may have cut down on waste and
the unrealistic targets led to corruption, bribery and cheating.
Factory managers stole and bribed so they would reach their
quota dictated to them from the centre.
Introduction of passport system to prevent workers leaving
jobs
Many industrial experts who had been around for a long time
were accused of treason and sabotage and unfortunately they
were replaced by inept loyalists which stunted production.
Living standards for the first five year plan were horrendous.
Workers lived in tents and there was little clothing or food
• Many peasants burnt their land and killed their livestock (half of
Russia’s cattle were destroyed) rather than hand it over to the
government. This created a huge setback.
• Anyone unwilling to join a collective was labelled a Kulak and killed or
sent to a Siberian Gulag (labour camp). 15 million Kulaks, who were
Russia most productive farmers, were eliminated
• The OPGU crushed any resistance brutally and in extreme cases
whole villages were destroyed. Many were killed which also meant a
lack of workers and a further drop in production. Stalin was shocked
and in 1930 he published an article entitled “Dizzy with success”
where he blamed the horrors on over enthusiastic party officials. It is
questionable whether the terror of collectivisation got out of Stalin’s
control but by 1932 the drive had restarted and by 1937 93% of
peasant households had been collectivised
• Not enough tractors were made
• Many able bodied men were either killed, exiled or sent to work in
industry leaving no one to farm
• Collectivisation was managed by incompetent party officials
• All food was taken away from the peasants to feed workers or trade
with other countries for machinery - famine killed 4 million people in
1933 alone
• Shortage of meat and milk
• Russia’s cattle were reduced from 70 million in 1928 to 39 million in
1933 and grain production fell from 73.3 million tonnes in 1928 to 67.7
million tonnes in 1934. It seemed like the right’s prediction that a
coerced economy would lead to disaster had come true.
8
What were the reasons for and impact of Stalin’s purges?
The Purges saw over a million people murdered but who is to blame. Many have blamed Stalin’s paranoia and power hungry
nature and Trotsky said it was part of Stalin’s betrayal of the revolution. However, the purges happened on such a wide scale that it
is difficult to blame one individual.
REASONS
1) Stalin’s personality
There is no evidence that Stalin became mentally ill but after
the suicide of his second wife in 1932 he certainly became
reclusive. He once said “I trust no-body, not even myself.”
After 1934 Stalin personally signed many death warrants
and liked to humiliate his victims before their execution.
Stalin signed 366 death warrants in 1938 alone which led to
over 44,000 deaths. The importance of Stalin’s paranoia is
obvious in the fact that he purged the purgers (The Secret
Police) The fact that Yagoda and Yezhov (Heads of NVKD)
were both killed maybe points to Stalin not wanting the truth
to emerge.
2) Political reasons
It can be argued that Stalin had genuine political reasons for
the Purges. The party’s faith in him was failing and secretly
some were calling for Kirov to take over as General
Secretary or for the retrun of Trotsky. He also wanted to
cleanse the party of “old Bolsheviks” who were loyal to Lenin
and not him. The Purges through “show trials” would show
he was in total control and so warn off anyone who planned
to stand against him. Stalin’s political motives are seen by
the fact that he killed Kirov, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin,
Rykov and Trotsky, all potential threats.
3) Economic reasons
Most of the purges were focused on opponents of Stalin’s
economy and so had genuine reasoning. Opponents argued
that Stalin had too much power, that a coerced economy
would not work, that the targets were unrealistic, that
collectivisation would shatter the morale of the (peasant)
Red Army and that Russia should introduce capitalism and
trade more with the West. Some historians argue that Stalin
was rational not paranoid and that he believed his actions
would root out the capitalist enemy within and ensure the
continuation of modernisation and the survival of the
revolution. The fact that Stalin killed many supposedly
inefficient party officials and mutinous military men supports
this view.
4) Historical tradition
The Bolsheviks were a minority party in 1917 and so had to
establish a system of force and terror if they were to
maintain control over the country. Stalinism was simply a
continuation of this tradition. Moreover, some historians
have called Stalin the Red Tsar as he comes from along
line of murderous dictators who felt that terror was the only
way to control such a huge and impoverished nation.
5) Stalin’s lack of control
Although Stalin may have initiated the purges there is an
argument that it got out of his control. Blame also has to go
to Yagoda and Yezhov (Heads of the NKVD) and to party
officials who simply used the period as an excuse to get rid
of rivals or people they just didn’t like. The purges grew out
of control and in the end wives were informing on husbands
and children on parents. Surely, the sheer scale of the
purges must mean that Stalin did not have complete control
IMPACT
• Although people were too scared to voice their opinion
the Russian public lost a lot of faith in the CPSU as a
result of the Purges. Revolutionary spirit had been
crushed and a culture of fear had been created
• The worldwide image of Russia was crushed as
foreign press reported on the atrocities and the
millions of people either killed or sent to labour camps
• The Purged officials were replaced with younger
indoctrinated members from whom Stalin could expect
total loyalty. However their lack of experience meant
the bureaucracy became highly inefficient.
• The purge of teachers and intellects affected
education of all age groups.
• The purge of managers and experts affected industrial
productivity
• The purge of commanders and officers left the armed
forces with no leadership only a few years before
Hitler’s invasion
• Overall the Purges had a very negative affect on
society as a culture of fear, suspicion and
backstabbing emerged. Many institutions lost skill and
organization and people’s spirit to work hard for the
party had been crushed.
CONCLUSION – WHY DID THE PURGES
HAPPEN?
Conclusion
Stalin’s paranoid megalomaniac personality meant the
purges were often a personal drive for power. However
there were other factors. Terror was necessary because
the party were forcing an unpopular economic policy on
the people for the eventual greater good of the country.
Stalin therefore justified the purges because he needed
to rid the country of economic opponents and so keep the
Plans heading towards their targets. Moreover, the fear
of invasion and the fear of the enemy within led the
purges to snowball beyond Stalin’s control. Therefore the
purges were not just paranoid scapegoating to solidify
one man’s power. They were a practical way for a
minority party to force its policy and for other local
individuals to settle their own disputes.
9
To what extent was Stalin a dictator?
•
•
•
•
•
•
TOTAL POWER/CONTOL
Stalin used his influence as General
Secretary. By 1930 he had used his support
to remove the other 6 members of the
Politburo and replaced them with his most
loyal supporters.
Stalin’s policies (Five Year plans,
Collectivisation, The Purges all increased
his power and control of Russia.
The Constitution of 1936 supposedly gave
votes and personal rights and liberties to all
Russians but it was a farce. In truth it simply
maintained the Bolshevik party as the only
legitimate party in Russia and therefore
Stalin was the only legitimate ruler.
Stalin continued the Leninist trend of limiting
the powers of the Party Congress and the
Central committee. The Committee was
supposed to be the decision making body
and elect members of the Politburo however
these elections were controlled so that
Stalin’s supporters were put in the right
positions. By 1934 the Committee met only
once every three months and the Congress
met only twice between 1930 and 1952.
Stalin also reduced Politburo meetings from
once a week to only nine times a year.
Stalin preferred to meet in small groups and
he would walk around the room to
intimidate. There was a real fear that if you
said the wrong thing in a meeting you might
be executed.
The Use of terror – The culture that no one
was safe, even the secret police
themselves, led to complete loyalty to
Stalin. Most of Stalin’s opponents were
executed. However the use of Terror was
not new. Lenin certainly used it as a tactic
during the Civil war but Stalin did take it to
another level. Both Lenin and Stalin claimed
to be getting rid of opponents to socialism
but Lenin was working during a time of war.
The Great Purges in 1934 seemed to come
at a time when the party was secure.
Therefore Stalin was using terror to secure
his own position and not the party’s.
Propaganda and indoctrination played a big
role in solidifying Stalin’s position as they
set him out as a God like figure.
•
•
•
•
•
LIMITED POWER/CONTROL
Personal limits – One man cannot govern a
country on his own. Stalin needed to prioritise the
issues he wanted to concern himself with and
delegate the rest to trustworthy colleagues.
Moreover, the size of the USSR meant Stalin had
little influence or control over large areas
Limits imposed from within the leadership –
after Stalin got rid of the old Politburo, he replaced
them with his friends like Molotov and Kalinin.
Although these men were loyal to Stalin there are
some examples of moments where they checked
his power.
 They forced Stalin to re-draft the
unrealistic targets of the second Five Year
Plan.
 A number of the Politburo expressed
concerns about Stalin’s use of terror
creating divides in meetings.
On the whole the Politburo and other leading
Bolsheviks had little influence on changing Stalin’s
policies, however, he needed to give them power
to carry out his commands and some men used
this power to follow there own agendas, e.g.
Yezhov’s terror campaign as head of the secret
police.
Limits imposed from below – Many party
members were frustrated and wanted a speedy
move towards socialism to protect the USSR
against enemies both at home and abroad. Thus
Stalin was simple aligning himself with the wishes
of the rank and file members. In 1930 Stalin had to
try and calm local officials’ approach to
collectivisation and local purges were often for
local reasons and were not controlled by the
centre.
Only three types of people actually supported
Stalin:
1) Careerists – those who wanted promotion
2) “Radishes” – Red on the surface but white on the
inside.
3) Apparaticks – Those who were privileged by the
party machine.
10
Did Stalin continue or neglect Lenin’s principles?
In 1938 the History of the All Union Communist party was written and it predictably painted Stalin as a socialist hero who
had preserved communism in Russia despite enemies without and within. He had continued Leninism and adapted it to
speed up socialism, necessarily purging opponents along the way. Around the same time, exiled Russians including Trotsky
were writing a counter history. In 1937 Trotsky published his Revolution Betrayed where he claimed Stalin had betrayed
communism for his own ends. Traditional Western history depicted Stalin as a ruthless totalitarian ruler who should bear full
responsibility. However, revisionist historians of the 1970s and 1980s, who had access to a wider range of sources have
realised that there were other factors involved. Stalin was not just simply acting on a personal greed but also reacting to
social and economic factors as well as aligning himself with the views of the rank and file members.
CONTINUE
• Lenin was the intellect and the man who
interpreted Marxism to suit Russia. He envisaged
Communism through Collectivisation and
Industrialisation, Stalin was simply carrying
through these ideas
• Lenin “rooted out class enemies” (Tsarists) during
the Civil War and Trotsky did the same to the
Nepmen and Kulaks
• Both stated that the party should work in the
interests of the workers
• The bureaucracy had grown under Lenin and
Stalin merely built on this.
• Lenin used terror and loyalty through fear and
purged party members as well as opponents. This
became normal political practice during the Civil
War and Stalin was influenced by this culture.
• The authoritarian tendencies of Bolshevism were
evident from the start due to their minority status
and Stalin simply highlighted this nature. This
view is shared by liberal and post glasnost
Russian writers
• Stalin came from a long line of despotic rulers and
in fact many of his practices were consistent with
Russian tradition.
CONCLUSION – Who was the best Communist?
NEGLECT
• Stalin worked in the interests of himself, not the workers.
Trotsky argued that he turned a dictatorship of the
proletariat into a personal dictatorship.
• Lenin’s use of terror was justified as the civil war
threatened the very existence of the regime; Stalin’s
terror cam at a time of relative security for the party and
so must have been for personal ends.
• Lenin realized that forcing people to work isn’t effective
and so compromised with the NEP. Stalin ignored the
historical warning of War Communism and continued
with forced collectivisation despite the millions of deaths
and the drop in productivity. The move away from the
NEP can be seen as Stalin moving away from Lenin.
• Lenin was tolerant of a certain amount of debate within
the party. Stalin wanted total obedience.
Lenin was the founder of the party and the man responsible for the revolution. He was an intellect with a
deep knowledge of Communist theory which he adapted to make it popular to his party. He constantly argued
that his dictatorship was a temporary measure so the revolution could be secured before power was handed
to the Proletariat. In power, he aimed to rid the country of the old landed Tsarists and take central control
of food and land so it might be distributed evenly. HOWEVER, Lenin did compromise his principles to save
himself (NEP). When he died, International Communism had failed (upon which he had put so much faith) and
the Russian economy was capitalist under the NEP. It seems his goals were far from complete.
Stalin on the other hand would not compromise his Communist vision. He was willing to risk millions of lives
for the protection of Communist Russia against enemies both foreign and internal. Marx had argued that
industrialization was necessary for a Communist state and Stalin industrialized Russia in ten years. He
installed a communist economy where everything was centralized and encouraged pro-Communist
entertainment and art. HOWEVER, the big question is whether Stalin did it for the love of the revolution
or for the love of himself. All his actions solidified his power and control over the country and he sanctioned
often needless violence. The vision of a dictatorship of the people became the complete opposite.
11
What was the impact of the Cultural Revolution?
From 1928 onwards the Soviets began to introduce a Cultural Revolution. They were no longer willing to compromise with the
peasants and any supporters of capitalist principle. All traces of bourgeois culture were to be removed and the achievements of
socialism were to be glorified. Later the emphasis changed with the cult of personality and the need for patriotism in the build up
to war. Through media propaganda and educational indoctrination the party aimed to create a population of loyal communists who
all had aspirations to fit in to the government’s vision of the ideal Soviet Citizen.
POSITIVE IMPACT
• Class enemies like Kulaks, Nepmen and bourgeois
experts were taken out of society which followed
Communist principles and united the party and the lower
classes behind a cause.
• The purging of “bourgeoisie experts meant there was
room for rapid promotion for the working class
• The working class expanded as people moved to the
cities for better living and job opportunities
• At first there were lots of jobs to chose (before the
Passport system was introduced) and there was zero
unemployment
• Women were given greater equality with men and many
worked in industry. The improvements in education led to
an increase in trained women, especially in engineering,
medicine and education.
• After the revolution the family unit was discouraged as it
was seen as a sign of capitalism but it led to led to
women being left with nothing and orphans roaming the
streets so in the 1930sthe party did a U-turn. It was called
the Great retreat as the government started to give
mother-heroines awards to mothers of large families and
encourage traditional family values.
• The Russian youth were at the forefront of the Cultural
Revolution as members of the communist youth
organisation (komsomol). They were often in charge of
rooting out ‘enemies of the people’ and young, loyal
communists took jobs from the “old guard.”
• In 1935 the government started to take more of an
interest in the troubled education system. The quota
system introduced to higher education in 1929 (which
reserved 70% of places for the working class) was
abolished and the standard went up. Courses were
focused on technology and science to benefit the five
year plans.
• The drive for indoctrination through propaganda restricted
freedoms but it did give Russians a social life. “High
culture” was replaced with more accessible, worker
friendly art to allow for wider reception and so more
government influence. Government manipulation and
support of the arts served a range of functions: it was a
source of information, it provided entertainment,
escapism and a chance to socialise. Leisure activities
were also run by the government and through the 1930s
they became very successful with a big drive on sport
and by 1940 there were over 28,000 cinemas in the
USSR
NEGATIVE IMPACT
• Millions were murdered
• The class enemies were those making profits and so getting rid
of them meant getting rid of experts and productive workers
which had devastating affects on the economy
• Workers who took up managerial positions were not experience
or skilled enough to do the job
• The Nomenklatura system of promotion was based on favours
and friendships and so was open to bribery and corruption. It
meant that the people at the top were not necessarily there on
merit and so were not the best men for the job.
• The rush to the towns and cities left a shortage of labour on the
farms
• Living and working conditions worsened as more people moved
to the towns and there was no consumer industry.
• The education system went to ruin in some areas as kids
refused to be taught by “old guard” teachers.
• New school textbooks were written like The Short Course
(Socialist history of Russia), designed to indoctrinate children
into a socialist way of thinking and Communist theory became a
compulsory subject.
• The Church represented a different ideology to the party and so
was attacked by Komsomol. Priests were hounded out of
villages. Many Bishops were arrested during the purges 19361939
• From 1928 onwards artistic freedom was eradicated and all art
forms had to support Socialist ideas and the party. All media
supported the glorifying of the life of the honest worker/party
member and this went a long way in indoctrinating the public to
support the party.
• By the end of the 1930s media and art was no longer just
supporting the glorification of socialist ideas but was also the
image of Stalin as a God and saviour of Russia. This was called
the cult of personality. The amount of propaganda certainly
had the desired affect as support for Stalin increased. Many of
the rank and file members saw Stalin as the saviour of
socialism against the capitalist enemies within and this support
was built on through propaganda. Posters represented Stain as
a down to earth man of the people (although he rarely met with
the public). Russians were used to their country being
personified through one man and this worked in Stalin’s favour,
especially when he needed to rally support during WW2.
• In the build up to WWII radio was heavily censored and
programmes became very patriotic. People were not allowed
access to foreign station
Conclusion – How successful was the Cultural Revolution?
The Cultural Revolution built on existing support for Stalin as the man to continue Lenin’s work and save the revolution and on
existing fear of the “enemy within.” It used propaganda successfully through many channels to inspire or at the very least offer a
form of escapism and by the late 1930s the government had a tight grip on society. HOWEVER Not all sectors of society were
indoctrinated and of course rural areas affected by collectivisation and had a deep rooted hatred of the government. Moreover,
there was underground satire, music, art and religion. Loyalty through terror possibly played a far bigger role
12
Explain the deterioration in Russia’s international relations between 1917-1941
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1917 – Russian Revolution
1917 – Comintern and refusing to honour Tsarist debts
1917-21 – Russian Civil War
1922 – Treaty of Rapallo
1920s – Russia was not involved in Locarno era
1930s – West could not move closer due to murderous regime and Comintern sabotage.
1931 – Japan invades Manchuria and threatens Russia’s borders
1933 – Anti-communist Hitler comes to power.
1936 – Spanish Civil War
1937- Anti-Comintern Pact
1939 – The Nazi-Soviet Pact
Exam technique practice: Practice on these mock and past
paper questions:
Jan 2012
a) Explain why there was a Bolshevik revolution in Russia in October 1917
b) To what extent were agricultural workers the group most affected by the communist Revolution in Russia in
the period 1917-1941?
May 2011
a) Explain why Stalin introduced the Five Year Plans.
b) To what extent was collectivisation of agriculture the most significant
development in Russia in the period 1917-1941?
Jan 2011
a) Explain why Lenin stayed in power after 1917.
b) To what extent did economic policy have the most significant impact upon Russian
society in the period 1917-1941?
May 2010
a) Explain why Stalin carried out political purges
b) To what extent was the peasantry the group most affected by the Communist revolution in the period 19171941?
Type (a) questions; You are explaining reasons why…..
Use phrases such as: In order to, because, so that, resulting in, as a consequence of
Give 4/5 reasons and link them by theme or chronology, make sure you cover the whole period
Explain why Stalin modernised Russia between 1928 and 1941
Explain why Tsarist Russia collapsed in 1917
Explain why the Bolsheviks were able to seize power in 1917
Explain why the Bolsheviks won the Civil War
Explain the deterioration in Russia’s international relations between 1917-1941? (unlikely as a
question)
Type (b) questions; You are evaluating….. use words such as more importantly, less significantly,
equally as important ….mention 5 factors in your evaluation. Likely themes: political change,
economic change, social change, cult of personality and autocracy.
To what extent were the purges the most important development in Communist Russia between 1917
and 1941?
To what extent was modernisation the most important development in Communist Russia between
1917 and 1941?
To what extent did Stalin continue in Lenin’s legacy ?
13