A very significant contributing factor to Nicholas' downfall was the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-05. Russia and Japan went to war over control of Manchuria and Korea. Russia was alleged to have a quick and decisive victory over Japan. However the war did not go to plan and Russia was defeated. Japan destroyed Russia's army in May 1905 at Tsushima later in September 1905 Russia accepted Japan's treaty. The Japanese then had control of Korea and most of Manchuria. This made the Russian government and especially Nicholas very unpopular and although it could be said that it was not directly Nicholas' fault that the Russian armies were defeated this did contribute greatly to his downfall.
This was called collectivisation. The Five-Year Plans were originally drawn up by the GOSPLAN, the state planning organisation that Lenin set up in 1921. They set ambitious targets for production in the vital heavy industries (coal, iron, oil, electricity). The plans were very complicated but they were set out in such a good way that by 1929 every worker knew what he or she had to achieve: GOSPLAN set overall targets for an industry, each region was told its targets, the region set targets for each mine, factory etc , the manager of each mine, factory etc set targets for each foreman, the foreman set targets for each shift and even for individual workers est.
Good conclusions usually refer back to the question or title and address it directly - for example by using key words from the title.
How well do you think these conclusions address the title or question? Answering these questions should help you find out.
Do they use key words from the title or question?
Do they answer the question directly?
Can you work out the question or title just by reading the conclusion?
"In conclusion, no socialist revolutionary faithfully followed the communist manifesto and Marx's ideology because it is almost impossible to implement an ideology written half a century ago under totally different conditions and a totally different situation. Every revolutionary had a their own adaptation of Marxism, this is evident with all the varying 'isms' developed out of Marxism like Trotskyism, Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism."
"Stalin's right hand man Khrushchev backs the argument of collectivisation as a failure. Khrushchev states: 'Stalin's brand of collectivisation brought nothing but brutality and misery'. This source is a quote from Khrushchev after Stalin's death. This is a source of good utility and reliability as it is said by Khrushchev after Stalin's death when he was in power so he could say what he wanted to, secondly Khrushchev was Stalin's right hand man so he was present around the time of collectivisation and would probably have know as much as Stalin. This source has a good level of validity because it is on collectivisation and what Khrushchev believed it achieved. It is trustworthy as it is a direct quote from Khrushchev himself. The motives of this source can be slightly questioned. As it is post Stalin, when Khrushchev encouraged openness on Stalin, plus he criticised and distanced himself from him. So it might have been said by Khrushchev to enhance his popularity and show him as less of a tyrant than Stalin was. This source shows a view of collectivisation agreed on by a great many people in the Soviet Union and it is also the view of historians.
Figures do not support any success in collectivisation theses figures taken from a history learning site from the UK:"
"In conclusion, when Alexander II came to the throne in 1855 he faced many problems, the most drastic I think was the existing serfdom system. Alexander decided to resolve these problems b introducing new reforms, the most famous and most needed in my opinion is the abolishment of serfdom. But as actual abolishment was after 1855, Russia's serfdom community was still very much alive consequently was still a huge weakness, and illustrated their backwardness in 1855. So overall after weighing up the strengths and weakness of Russia at that time, I would definitely consider there to be more weakness in the Russian empire. I do acknowledge that Alexander II employed some key reforms; however Russia remained 50 - 100 years behind the west in sheer development of the country in 1855."
Marked by a teacher
This document has been marked by one of our great teachers. You can read
the full teachers notes when you download the document.
This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay
reviewing squad. Read the full review on the document page.
This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student document
reviewing squad. Read the full review under the document preview on this page.