• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How valid is the view that, in the period 1855 1964, the lives of the peasants in Russia were constantly miserable?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How valid is the view that, in the period 1855 - 1964, the lives of the peasants in Russia were constantly miserable? The statement in the question argues that, throughout the whole period of Russian history being studied, the lives of Russian peasants remained constantly miserable. This therefore suggests that all of Russia's peasants suffered the same amount throughout this period. It could also argue that the level of suffering remained the same for all peasants in this period. It is obvious that Russian peasants did suffer throughout this period. Whilst in power, both Tsars and Communists exploited the peasantry, beginning at the end of the Crimean War when it was clear that Russia needed to catch up with the rest of Europe and modernise. ...read more.

Middle

It would therefore seem that the evidence given so far would agree with the statement in the question. There were moments throughout this period that show the lives of the peasants were not constantly miserable. There were moments of reform where things seemed to get better for the peasants. During this period, Khruschev was the only leader to come from a peasant background. It is understandable then that it was him who undertook the most sincere reform of the period. The Virgin Lands policy gave peasants a new start, farming in the area of Siberia. However, this policy inevitably failed, as did most in this period. Stolypin attempted to put in place reforms that would also help the peasantry, especially in agriculture. ...read more.

Conclusion

Having to deal with redemption payments and losing rights that serf's had to farm on the Mir's land. When grain requisitioning was introduced, starting initially under Vyshnegradskii. An important factor in the lives of peasants was the First World War. Peasants were sent into battle poorly equipped and inevitably led to slaughter. It is correct to suggest that suffering was a dominant factor in the lives of the peasants throughout this period. However, it appears that the level of suffering amongst all the peasants was not entirely the same, an example of this being the Kulaks. However, the Kulaks suffered when Stalin came to power as he saw fit to try and extinct the Kulaks as a race. There were brief moments of reform, although these very rarely came to something. Peasants did suffer, but the level varied throughout the period. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    To what extent does Stalin deserve the title of Red Tsar when assessing his ...

    5 star(s)

    Although Lenin and Stalin had some similar values, as their core beliefs were derived from the teachings of Marx. However Lenin never attempted to build a cult of personality and disliked the term 'Leninism', as he thought of himself as a "Marxist" unlike Stalin, who wanted to develop the personalities of the population under his own glorification.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Assess the view that the lives of the peasants in Russia did not improve ...

    4 star(s)

    Conditions under Stalin had severely declined compared with Tsarist Governments. Crops were destroyed in protest, livestock was returned to the collectives and after 1936 the effect of the great purges sunk in. The people who could have helped the peasantry improve their quality of life, such as academics and local

  1. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    Trotsky became the villain and Stalin himself the hero of the Revolution and the Civil War. * The Cult of Personality created a plethora of streets, buildings and even cities and towns being renamed in the honour of the 'wisest man of the twentieth century'.

  2. 'Communists and Tsars ruled Russia in the same way.' How far do you agree ...

    Tsars had also used military force in containing the peasantry, with Stolypin's necktie under Nicholas II and Alexander II continually employing military force prior to the Emancipation Act. The army was very important to the state, as their loyalty in the 1905 revolution demonstrated, and their continuing deployment further validates

  1. "The first world war was the result of long-standing rivalries between the great powers". ...

    I believe the scramble for Africa cannot be considered to be an important long-standing rivalry between the European powers, due its effects. With respect to its time period, the scramble for Africa can be considered a long-standing rivalry, with respect to its consequences; it made for a weak and ineffective rivalry when considering its significance in bringing about war.

  2. Opposition to Russian governments was ineffective in the period from 1855 to 1964. How ...

    The lack of opposition in this sense continues into the early years of the reign of Nicholas II. However around the turn of the century groups such as the Social Democrat Party (SDP) and the Social Revolutionaries, who completely opposed the Tsarist regime, began to form.

  1. "The Wannsee Conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust" How valid is this assessment ...

    link of ?Operation Barbarossa? with genocide directly opposes the statement that the Wannsee conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust. There is something else that throws mystery over the Holocaust in itself, in terms of Hitler's leadership was that he hardly gave specific orders; to the contrary he would issue

  2. How far could the fall of the Tsars be considered the most significant turning ...

    However, since Hill was an English Marxist who joined the Communist Party of Great Britain, he is not an entirely reliable source as his political beliefs would obviously favour the Bolsheviks which suggests that his opinoin on the fall of the Tsars could be rather one sided.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work