• 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...


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.


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.


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

    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

  2. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    * It included an extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, as well as extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission and silence political dissent. * Stalinism resulted in the USSR becoming one vast labour camp, where the sole aim of

  1. '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

  2. The need to modernise their backward economy was the most important reason why the ...

    boost for the Russian economy, an important reason for such reforms being implemented in the first place. The need to modernise their backward economy was undoubtedly an important reason why the rulers of Russia introduced reforms, however it is not the most important reason as most reforms were to address problems highlighted by war.

  1. Trotsky described war as the 'locomotive of history'. Can it be argued that change ...

    and communism, in a similar manner to Alexander II introducing sweeping reforms in the aftermath of the Crimean War. Lenin needed to defend his revolution in the Civil War, this forced the Bolsheviks to adopt brutal repressive measures, setting the precedent for future Bolshevik rule.

  2. "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.

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

    so effectively that it guaranteed the very survival of the Soviet Union?[10] showing that without Stalin and his Plan, Russia would not have been capable of surviving World War two. This argument is given weight by another British historian, Oxford University tutor Robert Service who, regarding the second Five Year Plan, wrote ?gross industrial output in 1937 ...

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

    However, regardless of this, the event is certainly of some overall significance. This sources however brings fourth another important question about the extent to which the Nazi's supported were supported in their murderous actions. Also at what point can we accurately say that a policy for mass-annihilation was drafted up

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