The reaction of the Western world to the assassination of Sergei Kirov, and the subsequent trial and purges were mixed. In Canada, specifically Toronto, the two prominent newspapers, The Globe and The Toronto Daily News, reported the incident as front page news. At this time both of these papers were primarily Liberal papers, and published a lot of comment on current events. News of the assassination, the trial and the subsequent purges were carried as front page news, and were carried a number of times in the editorial section. When carried on the front page, the articles were placed generally toward the middle of the page and were fairly long compared to other articles. This suggests that this news was generally important to working class Canadians. In these articles and editorials there were many suggestions made that the authors of the articles did not approve of the actions being taken by the Stalin and his government. The actions were described as “merciless liquidation,” and as a “wholesale slaughter.” These papers are also shown to dislike Stalin and his policies because they constantly comment on how Russia has exiled its two most brilliant politicians Trotsky and Zinoviev. By commenting on Trotsky’s brilliance, it informs the educated reader that the author does not like Stalin because Stalin and Trotsky are arch enemies. These papers also claim that the confessions were alleged, meaning that they were possibly constructed by the government and passed out to the media. The main argument that is made in a number of editorials comments on the Russian population in Toronto. At this time, people (especially of Russian descent) were up in arms about many verdicts that were established in Toronto. These articles simply state the idea that if you do not like the verdicts coming from the fair trials in Canada, then people should move back to Russia and deal with the trials there.
There was a similar reaction to these actions in the United States, particularly in New York city. The most influential paper in the city, and the country during the period of the Kirov assasination was The New York Times. This paper was directed primarily at the best educated and most affluent people in the nation. This papers articles on the events in Russia were common to the articles in the Toronto papers in terms of length, frequency and the importance of the issue, however these articles were generally longer and were directly in the middle of the front page. Although the articles were very long, there was no real commentary on the events, only reporting. The only commentary was in a letter to the editor. In this letter, the author, who submitted his name as ‘Student,’ establishes the idea that the purges were not in revenge of Kirov’s death, but instead came as a “result of the recent evolution in the Communist party and the food situation.” The fact that The New York Times did not analyse the situation was expected in accordance with an article published on the history of The New York Times. In this article it was stated that “coverage was heavy on…world affairs, but short on analysis.” The only thing that could be discovered about the views of the newspaper through the articles is that the authors saw the actions by Stalin and the Communist Party to be ruthless.
The reaction in the UK, particularly London, was completely different to the reaction in the USA and Canada. In the newspaper called The Times, there were a number of articles, that were relatively short and placed around ten through fifteen pages into the paper. It can be suspected that these articles were viewed with high importance in relation to international news, but the paper was situated so that there was barely any news in the first ten pages, and after that there was primarily local coverage before any world news. The content of these articles suggest that these events sparked a new ‘Red Terror’ in Russia. Another main idea that was seen in many articles was the government had introduced this terror to deal with the beginning of a labour flux that prompted a rise in food prices. Other claims include the idea that the confessions of the accused were fabricated by the government, and that Trotsky is brilliant, which shows an opposition to Stalin. In a summary, by reading articles about the trials and purges in The Times, it can be observed that the paper did not approve of the actions and saw them as inhuman acts of violence.
These three Western countries newspapers all view the events in a very similar light. They claim that they believer that the confessions of the accused are fraudulent, they show dislike for Stalin by expressing there accolades for Trotsky and they all feel that the actions taken by Stalin against the accused to be very harsh and unfair considering the fact that they were not given a fair trial. The major difference that can be observed is that in The Times (London), there is mention of the idea that the purges were an instrument to deal with labour fluxes and a raise in food prices. This idea is touched on in The New York Times, but it might only be the opinion of one man considering the fact that it is a letter to the editor, and this issue is not even mentioned in either of the Toronto papers. Another difference is that the Toronto papers have greater amount of editorial comment on the situation in the Soviet Union, than the other two papers. In a summary, it can be said that the main idea expressed by the Western world is that these trials and purges were wrong because people were not given a fair trial and were often not even linked to the crime that was being investigated, but were instead made examples by their own government.
“The Fall of the Provisional Government was due to its own Weakness not the strengths of the Bolsheviks” . Do you agree with this statement?
After the revolution of 1917 which saw the fall of tsarist and system of autocracy a Provisional government was set up was set up, consisting of members of the tsar’s forma Duma or representative assembly. The government was only in power for a few months. The quotation is interesting because how can something fall when it has so little power and was there for so little time then how could it be classed as falling. Evidence suggests that even thought the provisional government was weak and the Bolsheviks strong both equally contributed to the fall of the new provisional government
When the tsar abdicated in 1917 Russia was left virtually bankrupt. The provisional government only hope was to keep fighting in the war in some chance that the allies would offer help to rebuild Russia and invest the money to rebuild to economy. This was an unpopular decision, which left the provisional government in an unstable position. In July 1917 Kerensky became war minister. Though staying in the war contributed to making the government weak Kerensky had a strong personality and was a superb speaker and his strong determination and the provisional government organisation ment they were not as weak as made out and at least the leaders were in the country. Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders were not even in the country during 1917, though when Lenin did return in April that year it spread hope in petrograd.
The Bolsheviks continually criticised the provisional government for failing to call a constituent assembly and failure to stop peasants from taking land. Not only did this put pressure on the provisional government and it regime but also highlighted the problems faced. Though the provisional government was only a temporary solution they should not have fallen so soon. Maybe if Kerensky had called a constituent assembly then the Bolshevik wouldn’t have seized power so easily.
Thought at the start of the provisional government rule the provisional government was popular due to the fact that, all political prisoner were freed, an eight hour day was introduced for industrial workers and the Tsars secret police was abolished.
The provisional government could never of had any power as they had little/no control over the army. All soldiers were ordered to set up committees to take control of all weapons and other equipment. This ment that the soviet were basically in control of the army leave the provisional government powerless. But the provisional government gained some vital support due to the July Days. The Bolsheviks lead protests demanding to over throw the provisional government. Many Bolsheviks were in disagreement to if it would be better to wait or support the demonstrations. The lack of organisation resulted in blood shed and Bolshevik losing support. Kerensky used this as a way to “blacken the Bolshevik name” and increase the provisional government power, thus proving that the provisional government was not as weak or unorganised as originally thought. Yet the provisional government proved how weak they truly were by allowing the Bolshevik leaders back into Russia to defeat General Kornilov. The provisional government was merely too weak to stop Kornilov from taking control of Pertograd. The Bolsheviks defeated Kornilov, and the Bolsheviks were now seen as heroes and stronger than ever. Leaving the provisional government with little power or support and later lost more supports from the people when it tried to ban the Bolsheviks. Instead the Bolsheviks received support and sympathy leaving them just as strong as ever.
When Lenin arrived back in Russia in April he used a slogan which united the people of Russia and helped gain support, “peace, bread and land”. This was just one example, which shows how determined he was to gain support for a Bolshevik revolution. Lenin was a very determined man and followed the Bolsheviks and was a major Bolshevik leader from the early stages of the Bolsheviks right through up until his death. Lenin had been force into exile/hiding many times yet he did not give up fighting for his cause. His determination not only kept the Bolshevik together it also kept them strong. Lenin’s slogans were simple but got peoples attention and help gather support and power for the Bolsheviks.
Evidence suggests that even thought the provisional government was weak and the Bolsheviks strong both equally contributed to the fall of the new provisional government regime. Though the provisional government was only a temporary solution they should not have fallen so soon. Maybe if Kerensky had called a constituent assembly then the Bolshevik wouldn’t have seized power so easily
An analysis of the power structure in Russia between February 1917 and October 1917
The February revolution in Russia in 1917 was a spontaneous event caused by rioting, which at the start, was for economic reasons, but soon developed and took on a political nature. The revolution was not planned by either the bourgeois politicians of the Duma or by the socialist parties in Russia at that time. Once the Tsar and the old autocratic system of government had been replaced there were two separate power bases set up in Russia. These were the Provisional Government, which was made up of the Duma politicians, and the Soviets of soldiers and workers deputies, set up by the people of Russia and headed by the socialist parties. It was because of this fact that the term "dual power" is used to describe this period of Russian history.
It can be argued that dual power is an apt description of this period because of the nature of the February revolution there was no clear leader of Russia. The elites, such as the Duma politicians and the Generals wanted a bourgeois lead government and the people wanted their own style of government based on the Soviets. So therefore in to the vacuum of power two types of government emerged, neither of which had the appeal or resources to assume total control. This does not mean, however, that dual power was a workable option and that it could have lasted indefinitely because of the fact that the October revolution took place and the Bolshevik party under Lenin gained control of Russia.
The main reason for the system of dual power coming into effect was the nature of the series of riots culminating in the February revolution. The riots were not part of any plan by a revolutionary party and events gathered a momentum of their own, with factory workers going out on strike to support the protesters. When the soldiers came out in support of the insurgent masses the Tsarist regime could do little to stop the revolution. The Duma politicians used these events to take set up a government to fill the vacuum left by the Tsar once he had abdicated. However, the people of Petrograd had taken it upon themselves to set up Soviets, or workers committees in factories, garrisons and on naval vessels. This is where the basis of dual power came from.
The Provisional government had inherent structural weaknesses. The most fundamental, it can be argued, is that of legitimacy. The Provisional government had simply assumed power when the Russian monarchy fell, and was not voted upon by the people of Russia. The setting up of the Soviets showed that the insurgent masses had alternative ideas about the way that Russia should be governed. This would mean that the people of Russia, conceivably would pay attention to and carry out the decrees of a government which they felt to be legitimate. It was, after all, the acts of the insurgent masses which brought about the revolution in the first place.
The attitude of the soldiers to the Provisional government was of vital importance to the concept of dual power. The soldiers, because they failed to put down the insurgent masses, in a sense, turned the insurgency into a full scale revolution. The soldiers also set up their own Soviets in garrisons, as did the sailors on the ships. So with the soldiers backing the Soviets there was no way the Provisional government could enforce its decrees to any great extent because of the limited powers of co-ercion which it could lay claim to. The secret police systems of the Tsarist regime were gone and the rank and file of the army were supporting the Soviets, so there was little that the Provisional government could do. On the other hand the Provisional government had the support of the military high command. This fact would help to reduce the fact of a counter revolution, and would also help the fledgling regime to gain international recognition.
Dual power, as a concept was, from the start compromised by the entry of Kerensky, a Truvodnik leader in to the Provisional government. He was a member of, and more importantly vice-president of, the Petrograd Soviet. This meant that there was a link between the two governmental systems from the outset of their existence. This fact would make it hard for the Soviets to criticise the Provisional government if there was, in fact, a socialist within it.
This link between the Soviets and the Provisional government was strengthened after the April crises following Milyukov's note on 18th April. Milykov's note was a document which proclaimed Russia's commitment to the Allied war effort and the continuation of war against Germany to the extent of gaining territory, this lead to an outcry from a war weary Russian public and Milyukov's resignation. The Kadet party, to which Milyukov belonged, did not back him or this policy and swung around to the Soviet policy of "peace without annexations or contributions". After the April crisis there was an influx of socialists into the Provisional government in the form of two Socialist Revolutionary ministers, two Menshevik ministers and two independent socialist ministers, the government was still headed by Prince L'vov. This was a significant event when the concept of dual power is being considered because it brought the socialist leaders of the Soviets even further to the Provisional government because they were participating in it. By definition therefore any criticism levelled at the Provisional government by the Soviet, was criticism against fellow socialists. Marc Ferro backs this up when talking about the April crisis,
"Thereafter, soviet and Provisional government were not separate, but associated bodies;"
It can be argued that this was the end of dual power almost at its outset because the two entities had combined. Although they were said to represent different interests and social groups, the fact that they had formed a coalition government meant that there was a middle ground in which the representatives of the bourgeoisie and the workers and soldiers could work together.
In June 1917 there was a boost for the idea of dual power by the All Russian Congress of Soviets which gave a vote of confidence in the Provisional government. However it went further than that, to the extent of rejecting a Bolshevik resolution which demanded the giving of all state power to the Soviets. The fact that the Soviets gave as vote of confidence to the Provisional government is really of no surprise when one considers that were ministers such as Kerensky in the government who were socialist by background. It could be argued that the Soviets would want to be seen as supporting their politicians within the government.
When the Bolshevik resolution was rejected, it shows the marginalisation of the Bolsheviks views within the Soviets. Some factions within the Soviets, especially some parts of the Menshevik party believed the February revolution was the start of the bourgeois revolution, and that this needed to take its course before there could be a proletarian revolution. This was against what the Bolsheviks who were saying that the proletariat should take power, with the slogan "All power to the Soviets" and who believed in immediate peace not the defensive war of the Mensheviks and SRs.The Bolsheviks, under Lenin, did not believe that dual power was a workable option like the other socialist parties did with their 'bourgeois revolution' theory. Lenin, quoted by E.H. Carr said,
"There cannot be two powers in the State".
This shows that the Bolsheviks did not subscribe to the notion that dual power was a workable option. It also helps to explain the appeal of the Bolsheviks to the people of Russia during the disruptions which became known as the July days. There is another reason why the month of June is important when considering dual power.
The June offensive brought further problems for dual power in Russia. The offensive, which was the idea of Kerensky, as minister for war, under the prompting of the Allied forces. The Gailician offensive was a fiasco with casualties estimated at 200 000, this brought about a loss of morale in the army and an increase in desertions. It can be argued that the military disaster of the June offensive undermined and discredited the Provisional government, not just because of the fact that there had been great Russian casualties in the offensive, but because of the fact that the people were war weary and wanted an end to the war not an extension and prolongation of it. It seems odd that Kerensky should push for an offensive when the controversy surrounding Milyukov's note is considered.
The failure of the June offensive caused more problems for the government than just the dissatisfaction of the people. At the start of July the shaky foundations of dual power were rocked even further by the withdrawal of the Kadets (Liberals) from the Provisional government and the resignation of Prince L'vov as leader of the government. This show of weakness within the government gave the spur to the so-called "July days" of early July 1917.
The July days were a turning point in the period of dual power because the disturbances signified a popular dislike of the system and showed that there was the popular desire for insurrection among the masses. There appeared to be a strong Bolshevik flavour to the disturbances, the crowds adopting the slogan "All power to the Soviets" and heading to the Bolshevik Headquarters at the Kseshinkaya Palace. However when the Bolsheviks failed to take up the gauntlet of further revolution the crowds soon dispersed. The reason why this is significant is that it showed that the people were turning their backs on dual power, going against the Soviets , who were meant to be representing them and attempting to take power, for the Soviets themselves. The Soviets were issuing orders to the soldiers who were demonstrating which forbade them to even take part in the demonstrations. This, it can be said, shows the disaffection between the people who wanted action and the Soviets who were prepared to wait for the bourgeois revolution to carry out its course. For example the telegram of July 3rd,
"The executive Committee confirms its previous instructions that demonstrations by the armed forces are not permitted. This order must be strictly obeyed.".
This change in the nature of dual power is described by Marc Ferro as,
"the chief conflict did not reflect the duality of power; it was rather between the dual system and the forces on its periphery".
`
`This is a very important point because it illustrates the fact that dual power had become, during the July days, a battle between the masses, pushing for a total adoption of the Soviet system, and the two governmental systems trying to restore order. We can almost say that the masses were working against the Soviets at this point, even though they were pushing for a socialist system. This goes along way to explain the rise of support for the Bolsheviks in the period after the July days, because the Bolsheviks seemed the only party pushing for a way out of the system of dual power.
The Kornilov revolt of August 1917, was an attack on dual power from the right. The coup was lead by the General Lavr Kornilov, in an attempt to create a basis for a strong government, under Kerensky and to put an end to the unrest that there was in Russia during this period. The coup failed because of the fact that the Army could not be depended on to carry out orders properly because of order no.1 and the fact that the workers in key areas such as the railways stopped or diverted trains which had troops on thus not allowing the troops to get to Petrograd. The significance of the failure of the revolt was that it enabled the left, and especially the Bolsheviks to consolidate support amongst the working class. Now that the threat of counter-revolution was real and tangible it can be seen as giving great weight to the argument of armed insurrection to get to Soviet state that the masses and the Bolshevik party wanted. This insurrection came to fruition in October and meant that the dual power system was finished when the Bolshevik party took over.
The term "dual power", it can be argued, was accurate only until the time that the socialist parties joined the coalition government. After that time the two entities of the Provisional government and the Soviets of soldiers and workers deputies were too closely linked. This is perhaps illustrated by the fact that during the July days there was real pressure for change on the part of the urban masses and the Soviets, far from gripping the chance to take power actually put pressure on the people to stop demonstrating. This, therefore could almost be seen as a single powerbase in Russia. Ferro sums this up well as quoted above, the attitude of the people, going out on to the streets shows a dissatisfaction with the Soviets which derives, it could be argued from their position regarding the Provisional government.
`The term dual power suggests two separate bodies working together, for a common aim, this therefore cannot be an accurate description of dual power in Russia. Even though during the July days there was no push by the Soviets to get power they believed that the February revolution was the start of the bourgeois revolution in Russia and, according to Marxist doctrine the Socialist revolution would follow later. Therefore by supporting the Provisional government for ideological reasons the socialists would seem to be supporting dual power but in reality they would only be supporting it until its downfall in the Marxist view of historical progression.
The fact that neither group pushed total power in the first place is perhaps the most important reason to consider when looking at dual power. Hasegawa feels that the Provisional government over-estimated the control that the Executive Committee of the Soviets held over the mass of the people. This, combined with the idea that the Soviet should not take total power due to Marxist doctrine shows that neither felt that they could take total power on their own and entered into this system of dual power. It is therefore no surprise that socialist entered the coalition government from the Soviets. The July days and the Kornilov revolt were signals, it can be argued, of popular and elite opposition to the political system. A dual system such as this could only survive with widespread support from the population of a country. It is of no surprise that the Bolsheviks seized upon the popular discontent with the system and took over in October.
Dual power, it can be said, is not an accurate description of the state of Russian politics between February and October 1917. It is not accurate because the two halves of the dual system were moving ever closer, first with the appointment of Kerensky and the other socialist ministers and then with the actions of the Soviets, supporting the Provisional government during the July days. It was the distance between the system of dual power and the people that it was meant represent which showed the true duality of the system, not the traditional view of dual power split between the bourgeois Provisional government and the socialist Soviets.
Assess the impact Stalin had on Russia and on the Russian people.
Stalin came into power very controversially when Lenin died. Before Lenin had died he wrote a letter saying that he had serious worries that if Stalin came into power he would let the power go to his head. Stalin still managed to become head of the communist party after a big struggle for power with another person high up in the communist party called Trotsky. Stalin managed however to persuade the rest of the communist party that he was the rightful leader after Lenin. After he won he expelled Trotsky from the party. Trotsky was later assassinated by one of Stalin’s agents.
Stalin main aim was to transform Russia into a completely industrial country that could compete with the rest of Europe. When Stalin took over Russia, Lenin had completed a few of his ideas but it was nowhere near where he had wanted it to be. Most of the country’s produce was agricultural. Stalin wanted Russia to be a leading industrialized country. In Russia then there were three classes of people: the very rich, the better off peasants (Kulaks) and peasants. In order to complete this plan he had to kill all of the Kulaks because he knew that they would never get used to being at the same level as the really poor peasants and as there were so many of them he couldn’t find any other way. There were the very rich but they were such a small number that they didn’t pose any threat. But there were many Kulaks. He could only think of three ways of dealing with them. These were: firing squads, moving them to Siberia, or downgrade them to peasant level. So Stalin did this. It was estimated that he killed 14 million or more of the kulaks which wiped out their class in society.
Stalin was willing to invest most of the countries money into getting it industrialized. He wanted to do this in five years. He called it the five year plan. This was an almost impossible task as most countries have gradually become industrialized after about 50 years.
The plan worked but at the great cost of human lives. Anyone that thought the plan wouldn’t work and thought that it was a waste of money was dealt with by the police. People that had moved to the cities that Stalin had just built often lived in inhuman conditions putting up with problems such as not having a toilet and the house being tiny often with far too many people living in it. People that had been farmers all their lives didn’t want to move because someone told them to. So Stalin used brute force to move them to factories where they helped build railways or help in the production of coal, iron and steel. Starvation occurred in many parts of the Soviet Union because there was not enough food being produced. Up to 7 million people died because of starvation. Disease was very widespread as there weren’t many sewers.
Many of the things that people had enjoyed before communism had been stopped, such as religion. Stalin had really cracked down on anyone who was involved in religion. People were being persecuted for what they believed in. The secret police were usually the people that found out if any one was having secret masses. They usually dealt with it by exile or even death. Stalin was so strongly anti-religion because of his Marxist beliefs. Also because the Russian Orthodox Church had links with the tsars.
Stalin changed so much about the way people worked. It must have come as a great shock to the people of Russia. For example if you wanted to change job in 1926 you needed the permission of your boss. He however was likely to say no unless you were a bad worker. Then he would tell the police and you could be prosecuted because you didn’t like your job. If you wanted to join an association it had to be approved by the government otherwise you could be arrested. You could not set up your own business otherwise again you would be arrested or killed. If you were clever and you had a degree then you would be sent to work in an awful job in a place like Siberia or Kazakhstan, which required no intelligence because Stalin was scared that you might start an organization or a group against him. If you were able to work but did not want to work then you would be condemened as a social parasite. This means that you live off other people. You would be moved away from the city and into the country where if you did not work you would starve.
When Hitler came to power in Germany, Stalin was scared of what might happen especially when Hitler looked towards the Sudeten land to recapture it. So Stalin turned to England and France. He was very annoyed though that they gave in to Hitler without a fight as long as he didn’t take over any more countries. Stalin secretly was in negotiations with Germany whilst also speaking with England and France as well. On August 23, 1939 Russia signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis. Stalin did this because he wanted to expand communism and he thought that as the Nazis were planning to take over a lot of countries then he could spread communism in those countries. When Germany invaded Poland this was the start of the 2nd world war. The soviet union was also expelled from The League of Nations because it was starting war with Finland. Russia won the little war which gave them a little bit of Finland. By now The Soviet Union was very big and communism was spreading along with Germany. Stalin was becoming a little bit weary of Hitler now and was scared that he might invade Russia. So Russia signed a pact with Japan.
Stalin was right about feeling cautious with Hitler because in 1941 Hitler invaded Russia. Stalin was not expecting it at all and his army was already weak after taking over countries. The German assault seemed at first successful but was eventually stopped about 20 miles from Moscow.
Stalin had been very paranoid all through his life and towards the end he became extremely paranoid. He started executing members of the opposing governmental parties as he thought they were plotting to assassinate him. He executed between 1.5 and 7 million of his opponents in this 2-year period from 1936 to 1938. This was called the great purge.
Stalin was one of the most brutal dictators in all of history but ignoring all the bad things he did there were some big changes made in Russia when he was leader. Amy Knight is a Research specialist on The Soviet Union and this is what she said, “Stalin’s historical legacy is overwhelmingly negative. Although his policies transformed the USSR from an agrarian-based society into an industrialized nation with a powerful military arsenal, the transformation was accomplished at the cost of millions of lives. Stalin’s militant distrust of the West and his assertion of Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe gave rise to the Cold War. His purges of society through violent police terror left a permanent scar on the collective memory of the people under his rule. Although admired by some Russians, most would agree with the assessment in the West that Stalin was one of the cruelest dictators in history.”
Assessment of Achievements of Alexander II’s Reign.
As an autocrat, Alexander II recognised it as his duty to rectify a system that had manifestly failed Russia (in the Crimea as well as at home), yet he was uncertain how best to go about the task. Following the war political prisoners were released, censorship was relaxed, tax arrears were cancelled, serfdom was abolished and some of the liberties of Poland and of the Catholic Church were restored. The Crimean war had also illustrated faults in the social and governmental system of Russia which Alexander tried to correct by instigating a number of reforms which were motivated by a desire to strengthen the autocracy. Alexander II marked the opening of a period of reform in Russian politics and social issues, in which such reforms were to have implications for the future of Russia.
“Existing order of serfdom cannot remain unchanged. It is better to abolish it from above than to wait for the time when it will begin to abolish itself from below” This speech was given by Alexander to the nobility of Moscow in April 1856, and was to be the introduction of arguably the grandest social reform of the19th century in Russia. The Emancipation of Serfs was introduced five years after the speech above and ultimately granted the serfs their personal freedom over a period of two years, and the land which they had previously worked. However domestic serfs who did not work the land were not entitled to land which created further hostility. For state peasants the period of transition to freedom was five years. The landowners were not expected to surrender land freely, in compensation for the land that they transferred to the peasants they received payment in the form of government bonds. To recoup their losses the government charged peasants ‘redemption dues’ in the form of regular repayments over a period of 49 years.
This had considerable impacts on the population, firstly the process was slow, dictated by the needs of the individual landowner, secondly, the land settlement made upon the ex-serfs was usually un-satisfactory. The areas granted to them were often too small, and they were charged sometimes nearly three times the value of the land obtained with added pressure of ‘redemption payments’ foreshadowing an unhappy ‘freedom’.
Further administrative reform was needed as a consequence to the emancipation of serfs, this was combated by the establishment of the zemstvos. These were rural district and provisional assemblies whose functions included the administration of primary education, public health, poor relief, local industry and the maintenance of the highways. Alexander saw these zemstvos as props for the autocracy. Both the system of voting and their established local reputations made it easy for the conservative nobility to dominate these assemblies and at provincial level they occupied 74% of all zemstvos seats in 1865-67.
The emancipation of the serfs also necessitated substantial reform of the Russian legal system, now that the summary justice of the landlord could no longer be so easily applied in the localities. From 1865 onwards measures were introduced to ensure that legal proceedings were conducted in public, that they were uniform for all classes of society, that the jury system prevailed for the trial of all charges and that judges were independent of the government.
Further reforms were made especially in the military section and were conducted by the minister of war Dmitri Milyutin. He reduced the term of service in the army from 25 years to a period of six years. Milyutin also introduced universal military service in 1874 to which all males were now liable at 20 years of age, without the loopholes that had frequently allowed the nobility and the richer classes to escape the obligation to serve their country. The abolition of more brutal forms of punishment and of military service as a form of punishment for criminal offences went far to humanise conditions in the Russian army.
The minister of education A.S.Norov, reversed most of the repressive measures of the previous reign. The number of university students were allowed to rise again (1855) and lectures were permitted once again on philosophy and on European government. A new University Statute (1863) gave the universities more autonomy in the conduct of their affairs than at any previous point in their history.
These reforms did not (arguably) strengthen the Tsarist regime as hoped but still managed to acclaim Alexander II the title of ‘Tsar Liberator’. The reforms imposed on Russia were met with resentment and criticism from conservatives as they had lost their ‘influence and privilege’ while the liberals became frustrated as the Tsar wouldn’t take his reforms to their logical conclusions. These two sectors of the political spectrum fuelled with dislike for the Tsarist regime were encouraged and benefited by Alexander's reforms as they enabled ‘freer political’ ideas and atmosphere to be created.
Collectivisation
Changes in agriculture accompanied Stalin’s policy of industrialisation The Five-Year Plans included the policy of collectivisation.
Collectivisation is the policy of creating larger agricultural units where the peasants would farm collectively rather than on individual farms.
It was a policy, which had fundamental consequences for the rural population of the Soviet Union.
What were the reasons for collectivisation?
The NEP left agriculture largely unchanged since the revolution of 1917. By 1928 agriculture in the Soviet Union was still run largely on an individual basis by peasant households under the supervision of the MIR.
MIR- an organisation made of village elders that controlled agricultural life in the villages. Since the revolution it had become a genuine peasant body but the Communist Party found it difficult to influence
By 1928 economic and political forces were pushing for the abandoning of the NEP and forcing peasants into the collectivisation of farming
The link with industry
Industrial development would be possible only if it was supported by an increase in agricultural productivity. Industrialisation would lead to an increase in population of towns and cities, a population that would need to be fed by an increase in food supply. The new industries could also require some technology from abroad and the Soviet Union would therefore need a source of foreign exchange to pay for this, thus the government needed food surpluses to export in order to get foreign exchange.
In 1928 arguments arose, Stalin had become convinced that the state of agriculture and the attitudes of the peasantry were holding back industrial progress. State Procurements had been falling since 1926.
State Procurements – The amount of surplus grain, which had to be given to the government by the peasants.
The peasants became wary of growing too much food, as they knew it would be sized by the state at a law price. The problem for the government was that industrial production could be increased only if food production rose. This problem (‘scissors crisis’) provided the government with its central economic dilemma.
Scissors Crisis – the widening gap between prices for industrial goods and those for agricultural goods. The increase in prices for industrial goods meant that peasants had less incentive to grow food for a surplus.
Stalin saw the solution as a forced policy of collectivisation to raise food production.
Economic Factors
The creation of collective farms would create economies of scale; the larger units of farms would make the use of machinery viable and cost-effective. The use of machinery would enable food production to be increased and reduce the labour requirements of agricultural production. This would therefore release much-needed workers for the growing industrial plants.
Political Factors
Collectivisation would help extend socialism to the countryside. It provided the opportunity for getting rid of the Kulaks – who, eyes of the communists, hoarded food for their own consumption. This led to pressure on the government to rid the country of this capitalist class. To fall to do so would hold back the progress towards socialism.
The Role Of Stalin In The Launching Of Collectivisation
The policy of collectivisation also allowed Stalin to rid the party leadership of the Right (those who had been in favour of NEP). Thus, the decision to collectivise, like that of the 5-year plans, was aimed at increasing his position.
Stalin and many other leading members saw collectivisation as an economical and political necessity. It would sweep away the remaining elements of capitalism. It would ensure the Soviet Union was modernised in order to defeat the threats to the revolution form both inside and outside the country.
What were the results?
The process of collectivisation involved local party officials going into villages and announcing the organisation of a collective farm (kolkhoz) and lecturing the peasants on the advantages of farming a collective.
The implementation of collectivisation led to violent opposition from a large number of peasants. Rather than hand their property to the state many kulaks set fire to their farms and slaughtered their animals. Party officials were sometimes murdered on arrival in the villages. Dekulakisation squads were used to help, forcefully, organise collectives.
Dekulakisation squad – loyal party members sent into countryside to force peasants into collectives. In practice Dekulakisation covered a range of methods for eliminating the kulaks, including murder.
The OGPU – Secret police were also used to round up kulaks that refused to co-operate. They (kulaks) were deported to remote regions of the USSR, often to labour camps. On some occasions the Red Army brought in.
The peasant’s opposition led to a temporary back down form Stalin. Some concessions were made to the peasantry. Members of the collectives could have some animals and a small garden plot of their own, but the programme of collectivisation continued to be passed. By 1932 62% had been collectivised – rising to 93% in 1937.
The effect of collectivisation was substantial. 1930 the MIR was abolished and replaced by the Kolkhoz administration members of the Communist Young Pioneers organisation used wooden watchtowers to spy on the peasants in the fields to ensure they did not steal food to feed their own families.
The total cost in lives is difficult to quantify. Historians estimate between 5-10 million.
Although the political aim of ridding Soviet society of the kulaks was achieved, the economic results of collectivisation were more mixed. The slaughtering of animals by the kulaks had a serious effect on livestock numbers – 50% reduction in the cattle. The consequence of this was a shortage of meat and milk. Grain production also fell – 73.3 million tonnes – 67.6 million.
The aim of producing enough food to feed the towns and Red Army was achieved but only by talking much-needed supplies from the countryside. The result was a widespread famine 1932-33 (particularly affected Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Causcasous)
The government officially denied any existence of famine; a claim supported by foreign visitors but they had been escorted to model collectives well away from the famine areas.
The economic failure of collectivisation was partly due to inadequate planning and chaotic implementation of the policy. The collectives were too large and suffered from too much central control – with party officials in Moscow giving orders to collectives which took little account of conditions on the ground.
The divide between town and countryside was deepened by collectivisation.
The Tragedy Of Collectivisation
1. There were 120 million people were affected by collectivisation.
2. 25 Million holding were consolidated.
3. There were 240,000 state controlled collectives set up in the first few months of 1933.
4. According to Robert Conquest the human toll was “higher than the total deaths for all countries in World War 1”
5. By living Standards, Russia was not ready for mass collectivisation, as he had argued that there would be a need for 100,000 tractors and cultural development in the peasantry and in 1927 there was only 28.000 tractors and illiteracy was 70% to 85%.
6. The peasantry made up 80% of the population. The communist Party had to work grip on the countryside and therefore a weak grip on the majority of the population. They system of small individual farms gave way for class divisions; collectivisation would bring the peasant much closer to socialism. The peasants could farm enough grain to feed the cities, the yield surplus workers and still have enough to export to generate capital for industries – if they were moved into mechanised agriculture. Therefore it was natural to see the peasantry as a force against modernisation.
7. Grain was need for export for economic reasons – to boast the Soviet Union’s economy. I.e. for the foreign currency. But peasants didn’t want to give away their grain, as market prices were low. By early 1929 USSR were forced to import grain and introduce bread rationing.
8. Molotov illustrates the fear of foreign invasion was why the policy of collectivisation was introduced, as he said. “The imperialists have not so far decided to attack us directly”, therefore, “we must utilise this moment for a decisive advance”. Thus collectivisation provided a ready solution to both short-term and long-term economic problems of the countryside.
9. It was the poorest peasants who volunteered to go into collectives as they had least to lose.
10. Stalin justified his decision to ‘liquidate the kulaks’ by arguing that he found the authority to do it in the Lenin of “War Communism” that Lenin who called the Kulak, “bloodsuckers, vampires, robbers of the people”.
11. By saying the term Kulak was elastic means that it could be applied to any peasant resisting collectivisation, as a Kulak class barely existed by the late 1920’s.
12. Historians J. Arch Getty and Lynne Vola are insistent that the social upheavals were not simply imposed from above, but that Stalin’s plans found clear resonance ‘below’, in the party and in Society.
13. Tractors, kerosene, salt, matches and soap were all promised to the peasants if they joined the Kolkhoz.
14. Right deviationists were the term used to describe peasants who didn’t work enough.
15. Between Jan and March 1930 the number of collectivised households raised form 4.4 Million to 14.2 Million.
16. OGPU and the Red Army were called in if active resistance flared up. They caused mass shootings, arrests and deportations seen followed.
17. The mass slaughter of livestock took place by the peasants to show resistance to the collectivisation. In five years, 46%of cattle, 47% of the horses and 65% of the sheep were lost.
18. The purpose of the article ‘Dizzy with success’ was to clear Stalin from what had happened in the countryside. Stalin blamed the recent excesses on party activists and restated that collectivisation must be voluntary.
19. By the end of 1934 90% of the town acreage of the USSR was collectivised.
20. The MTS – Machine Tractor Stations – were established in order to provide tractors, but its main significance was political. It was a proletarian bastion in the countryside, staffed by workers including the ‘political department’ of the OGPU.
21. The peasants were denied internal passports as the Government wanted/needed them to stay in the countryside to produce food for the country.
22. The increase in procurements from 18.2 million to 27.5 million was not due to improved efficiency but at the expense of peasant living standards as harvests had actually declined.
23. The ‘five stalks law’ were passed by Stalin whereby stealing of any Kolkhoz property was punishable by a minimum of ten years imprisonment with no amnesty and a maximum penalty of death by shooting.
24. By saying the famine was ‘a deliberate instrument of policy’ it is suggesting that a famine was created to show the peasants, “who is master here”.
25. 7 million were said to have died due to the famine, but that was only half of the final human cost of the collectivisation campaign.
26. An estimate of 6.5 million died in the extermination of the kulaks.
27. The historian Alec Nove explains Stalin actions were, ‘necessary’. None argued that, given the Tsarist inheritance and party ideology, it is difficult to conceive that there were viable alternatives to the path Stalin took.
28. James R. Millar does not agree with Nove’s view saying the grain crisis was resolvable and called collectivisation an ‘economic policy disaster’.
The Purges
1. Provide definitions for – ‘The Great Purges’
‘Show Trials’
‘Enemy of the people’
The Great Purges: The term used to describe the wave of terror, which Stalin and his supporters used to remove enemies. The targets were so-called enemies of the state or people who were accused of crimes they often could not possibly have committed. Victims of the purges were either esent to labour camps or shot.
Show Trials: Public Trials of leading enemies of the state. The proceedings were often filmed so that they could be used as propaganda in the cinema’s. In this way they could be used to justify the actions taken against leading party members as well as being a warning to others.
Enemy Of The People: This term was used to describe those who were victims of the purges. Although it was a typical; communist phrase, it was a vague term that enabled the government to take action on a range of supposed offensives.
Why did the Great Terror of the 1930’s take place?
The role of Stalin’s personality
The purges have been seen as evidence of Stalin’s paranoia. Psychological evidence of mental instability is difficult to prove but it is true that Stalin’s behaviour became increasingly erratic, as he got older. Stalin saw opposition everywhere. He erratic as he got older. Stalin saw opposition everywhere. He told Khrushchev: ‘I trust nobody, not even myself’.
The assassination of Kirov in 1934 was used as an excuse to strike against opponents. In the terror that followed, Stalin personally signed many death warrants.
The Historical Roots
Bolshevism – Stalin’s use of terror has been seen as a continuation of the trends established by Lenin after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. A regime, which was highly centralised around its leader and relied on terror to maintain itself in power. This viewpoint has been argued by liberal school of historians prominent in the west after 1945. They have seen all aspects of the Bolshevik regime in a negative light Stalin, according to this view, grew out of the authoritarian lendencies in Bolshevism.
Russian Traditions- Some historians see Stalin as one in a long time of Russian despots imposing their will on the people by means of brutality. In this respect Stalin was similar to Ivan the terrible and Peter the Great. This comparison has led to stalin to Stalin being referred to as the Red Tsar. It assumes that there were conditions related to Russia’s economic backwardness that made terror necessary. This approach has been criticised by scholars as simplifying the starvation by ignoring the different circumstances within which each leader had to rule
The Purge Of The Right
1. What was meant by the ‘Right Opposition’
2. What were they accused of?
3. Why was Bakharan seen as a threat to Stalin?
1. Right Opposition – Those party members who had wanted to keep the NEP and criticised Stalin’s rapid industrialisation under the five-year plans as harsh and, in economic terms, necessary. The leading member – Bukharin whose criticism of Stalin’s economic polices sealed his fate he was executed in 1935.
2. They were accused of forming a ‘Trotskyite- Rightist Bloc’
3. Bukharin was a threat to Stalin because of his outspoken criticisms of Stalin’s Economic policies.
The Purge on the left
1. What is meant by the ‘left opposition’
2. What was Zinoviev and Kamenev accused of?
3. Why did they confess?
4. Who did they implicate?
1. The Left Opposition – Those in the party who had supported the call for ‘Permanent Revolution’ in the 1920’s. This put them against Stalin who had called for ‘Socialism in One Country’. The Left had also called for rapid industrialisation and the abandonment of the NEP before Stalin was ready to do so. Because the left were associated with the views of Trotsky it was relatively easy to attack them as enemies of the state. Trotsky continued to denounce Stalin Zinoviev and Kamenev were the two most prominent members of the left.
2. Zinoviev and Kamenev were accused of working as Trotsky’s agents to undermine the state.
3. They confessed to crimes that they could not possibly have carried out they were wider severe pressure from the NKVD.
4. Zinoviev and Kamenev also implicated others in the conspiracy including the former leaders of the right: Tomsky, Bukharin, Rykov.
The Purge Of The Soviet Police
1. What and when was the ‘Yezhovschina’
2. Why did it come to an end?
3. What impact did the purges have on ordinary Russians?
4. How many people were sent to the Gulag?
5. How many were executed?
1. Yezhovschina was the most violent stage of the purges. It looked from 1936-1938. It was name after Yezhov, the head of the NKVD at the time.
2. Yezhovschina came to an end when Yezhov was dismissed in 1935 his arrest in early 1939 was partly due to Stalin’s need for a scapegoat for the excesses of the purges.
3. The old class enemies - the kulaks and Nepmen were rooted out. Children were encouraged to inform on their parents if they suspected them of ‘capitalist lendencies’. Malice was responsible for some of the accusations, also the realisation that job opportunities were opened up by the removal of ‘unworthy’ comrades.
4. There were approximately 1.3 million people sent to Gulags.
5. There were nearly ¾ people executed rather than imprisoned.
bran November 15, 2002 This essay downloaded from coursework.info http://www.coursework.info/
Why was there a Bolshevik revolution in October 1917?
There are many reasons for the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. In brief these are the strong influence of Marxism, unhappiness caused by the varying poor living standards of the peasants and working class, the population and structure and the conditions created by the Absolute Monarchy and the Provisional Government. Other reasons for the revolution are possibly Bloody Sunday, the Russo-Japanese War, and the 1905 Revolt by the working class. In addition there was the unsuccessful Duma in 1906, the conflicts between powers, World War One and more importantly the rise of Lenin and the increasing support of his Bolshevik Party.
In the time before the 1917 Revolution Marxism was growing in support. Marx’s theory that the state will whither away was attractive to many and once Capitalism had set into Russia more and more people turned to Marxism. In 1872 the first volume of Marx’s ‘Capital’ passed the censor in Russia. Many began to read his theories and it gained more support from anti-capitalists and those against western policies. Industrialists in St. Petersburg also liked it as it described the type of factory system their rivals in Moscow were trying to imitate. It was also very popular with intellectuals. Lenin eventually adopted Marx’s theory, along with Martov. Political parties were formed which played roles in the strikes of 1895, 1896 and 1897. These all display a feeling of discontent in Russia.
Living and working standards were very poor in Russia. By 1914 there were 125 million people living in Russia, of which a massive 77 per cent were peasants and those in the hereditary nobility accounted for a mere 1 per cent. The peasants lived and worked in appalling conditions on Communes called mirs, which a third of the land was owned by Kulaks. All the peasants desired was land of their own and bread to eat. The Working Class wanted a shorter working day, better working and living conditions, bread and the right to strike and have unions. However, the Middle Classes wanted political power, a Constitutional Monarchy and Democracy. They were not in favour of the Working Class vote. Nobility in Russia also wanted a Democracy but they wanted more power.
Russia was living under a feudal system, disliked by many. The Tsar had absolute power. He could choose the ministers in the Duma, make and break laws as and when he pleased and could appoint whom he wanted as army leaders. In 1906 a Constitutional Monarchy was formed with the Duma moving towards Democracy. However, in time the Tsar began to take back the concessions he made to strengthen his position, so no real change had been made and the Duma was a disaster.
In 1904 to 1905 Russia was involved in a war with Japan (the Russo-Japanese War). Russia encountered a humiliating defeat. Most of their torpedoes missed and there was a time where Russia could have won the war in a day, but ceased to take advantage of the opportunity. The first big battle was at Yalu where the Russians were out-numbered by three to one and was being led by Stoessel, a man renowned for incompetence. In May 1905 the entire Russian squadron was annihilated. This was the first European defeat by an Oriental country in over 700 years. The war shook the Tsarist regime and left the Russians united in feeling disappointed and angry with Nicholas.
This discontent amongst many Russians of all classes led to an event called Bloody Sunday. In St. Petersburg an Orthadox priest named Gapon with the support of the police and Social Democrats, set up a union for industrialist workers. Gapon’s aim was to reduce the number of Marxists. In January 1905 Gapon organised a march to Winter Palace to present a petition to the Tsar. However the Tsar was not at his palace and the thousands of marchers were immediately shot down by troops. News of this event spread causing a wave of sympathy strikes across Russia and its Empire. General unhappiness led to a railway strike in October 1905. Strikes began to spread to other industries, peasant revolts were more common and troops were causing disturbances whilst in transit from Manchuria. Action needed to be taken which Nicholas did do, in the form of the October Manifesto. This brought about the Duma, freedom of speech, conscience, association and freedom from unwarranted arrest. This was known as the 1905 Revolt. The Duma created in 1906 proved unsuccessful and inadequate in that voting for the assembly was not direct or equal, the ministers would not be responsible for the Duma and it did not have the right to legislate laws. The Tsar still had the majority of power and began taking his concessions back.
Russia also became involved in World War One. The Russian economy was not strong. Russian coal production was only 10 per cent of that of Britain’s, steel production was only 50 per cent of that in Britain and one-eighth of that in the USA. A weak economy meant a weak military. The war meant many peasants and workers were conscripted, so little food was produced and industry slowed. During the war German troops penetrated into Russian territory, the Russian response was insufficient and supply of raw materials and food was severely disrupted. The war caused instability within the regime and an unstable army. The war was cracking Russia and the Bolsheviks were the only party wanting an end to the war.
Whilst this havoc overwhelmed Russia, the likes of Trotsky and Lenin began to display their potential to provoke a change in Russia. Trotsky participated in the events of 1905 and won great distinction. He gained Lenin’s respect as a great speaker and intellect. Trotsky’s skill as an orator was unrivalled by any other socialist. He was often described as having ‘the oratorical skill to set his listeners on fire’. Lenin was skilled in arguing but was unable to arouse the Proletariat causing it to follow their leadership. However, Trotsky remained with the Mensheviks until 1917. Lenin led the Bolsheviks from Germany whilst he was in exile until April 1917. On his return to Russia Lenin was ‘engulfed by the greeters’ and described as ‘a leader purely by virtue of intellect...with the power of explaining profound ideas in simple terms, of analysing a concrete situation...and the greatest intellectual audacity’. This was despite a miserable and colourless appearance, so Lenin was a unique man.
However, before Lenin’s return in April 1917 there had been a revolution in February. Many factors caused this. There was overcrowding in the countryside causing food shortages, no changes had been made since the introduction of the Duma and on February 22 a large metalworking factory in Putilov closed, forcing many into unemployment. Many riots broke out in Petrograd due to anti-government sentiments, food shortages and street demonstrations. There was a huge shortage in bread, causing long queues lining the streets in the ice-cold weather. Rodzianko, the President of the Duma, asked Nicholas to form a responsible government. Nicholas responded by destroying the Duma. More people joined the riots until violent action was called for. Troops were being sent to Petrograd by train but Rodzianko ordered it be stopped, which it was by railwaymen and managers in the ministry. However many soldiers chose to join the workers and the military lost control. This event led to Nicholas’ abdication on March 2nd and the Romanov Dynasty had ended. A Provisional Government was set up in its place, giving the Bolsheviks the perfect opportunity to seize power.
In July 1917 large angry crowds surrounded the Petrograd Soviet and demanded the Bolsheviks take power, however this revolt was crushed, many were injured or killed and Lenin went into hiding. They had made a move too soon and failed. These days were known as the ‘July Days’. However, it displayed the feelings of unhappiness within Russia, and that the Bolsheviks had some support.
Another factor aiding the Bolshevik’s Revolution was the Kornilov Affair. After the February Revolution Kerensky was made the Prime Minister of the Provisional Government. He was also vice-chairman of the Soviet. He appointed General Kornilov as Commander-in-Chief. In August Kornilov started moving away from the western front eastwards towards Petrograd to prevent an expected Bolshevik rising. This was against the wishes of Kerensky who suspected he wanted to seize power so he dismissed Kornilov who continued to advance. Kornilov and his troops were stopped by railwaymen, forced to surrender, arrested, and left humiliated. Kerensky called upon the citizens to defend the revolution and arms were given to the workers who wee to become the Red Guard. This event revived the Bolshevik Party from the embarrassment of July.
Meanwhile the Bolsheviks were gaining power due to the weak social and political conditions between February and October and the Bolsheviks’ ability to take advantage of the situation. After the abdication of the Tsar the citizens of Russia were left optimistic and with great expectations of the forthcoming Constituency. However the Russians had not experienced such freedom and power before so were in a state of flux. They swayed between the political ideas and parties that appealed to them. The Provisional Government was always in disagreement due to different wants and the problem of who was in control of the army and factories was another problem to face. Social divisions were becoming visible and Petrograd Soviets who held the majority of the power were beginning to turn towards the Bolsheviks. Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks in July also. Lenin and Trotsky together began taking advantage of the situation and the vulnerability of their opponents and the resentment of the citizens due to the war. They promised an end to the war, and Lenin adopted the quote ‘Peace, Land, Bread’, which appealed to the masses. All eyes were on the Bolsheviks. Action was expected and Kerensky used troops to close the Bolsheviks’ printing press, enabling Trotsky to claim counter-revolution. Late at night on October 25 the Bolsheviks took the Winter Palace. Kerensky had no support and it was announced that power had been passed to the Soviet and a new government was set up with Lenin as the Chairman- ‘The Council of Peoples Commissars’.
Overall, all of these factors led to the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917. However, not all factors were as influential as others were. The particularly significant events were the February Revolution as this produced a weaker power making it easier to overthrow. Also, the wars in 1904/5 with Japan and 1914 involving the great powers were important as they shook the regime and disrupted the economy. Bloody Sunday and the 1905 Revolt were influential as they displayed mass dissatisfaction, enabling the Bolsheviks to gain power. Furthermore, Marxism played a leading role in the revolution as it formed the basis of the Bolshevik Party and its ideologies. Yet, arguably, the revolution would not have occurred without Lenin who was the mind behind the Bolshevik strategies and timing. Perhaps Trotsky was also responsible as he had the oratorical skills to persuade the citizens to support him. Factors with smaller roles in the revolution are the population and structure, the July days and the Kornilov Affair.