How far could the fall of the Tsars be considered the most significant turning point in the development of modern Russia, during the period 1856 1964?

        A strong argument would be that World War One was actually the most significant turning point in the development of modern Russia between 1856 and 1964 because it “exposed the weakness of Nicholas II's government”2 so it could be seen as the trigger of the fall of the Tsars. This weakness in the government can be seen when Nicholas decided to take direct command of Russia’s armed forces in 1915, leaving his wife Alexandra in charge, which led to the greater political influence of Rasputin. It can be seen from the historian Alex De Jonge that Rasputin’s power was not appreciated by Russia as he wrote that Rasputin’s enemies charged him of being “cynical”8 and of “using his religion to mask his drive for sex, money and  power”[8]. This weakness, when looked at with the other impacts of the war such as food shortages and economic problems, makes World War One a key turning point as it triggered the unpopularity of the government and made way for the rise of opposition.

        The politics of Stalin could also be viewed as a significant turning point in the development of modern Russia as the first Five Year Plan was created to “catch up with the rest of the industrialized world”[9] and the plans could be seen as very affective, as Stephen J Lee (a British historian who has written many books on Europe during this period, strengthening his argument) states that “industrialisation was accomplished rapidly and an infrastructure was built up 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 ... had increased by three fifths over output in 1932”[11]. This was definitely necessary to do before the war as Stalin had to equip Russia’s large army, so had to modernise the country industrially. It could also be seen that Stalin’s politics regarding the Five Year Plans modernised the education of Russia as the initial ideas of Lenin and the Bolsheviks included an “attack on book learning and traditional academic standards”[12]. This then meant that during the time of Stalin, people were entering the work place with inadequate education. To address this problem, Stalin introduced a new education system during the 1930s, which included ten years of compulsory education for children and a curriculum which taught the key subjects, so that they were prepared to join the workforce and help modernise Russia.

        Additionally, it has been suggested that it was Khrushchev’s reign from 1953 and not that of the Bolsheviks which was a key turning point in the development of modern Russia as Khrushchev criticised Stalin for his personality cult and therefore, the de-Stalinisation of the Soviet Union began. This view is supported by Glenn E. Curtis, “Khrushchev denounced Stalin's tyrannical reign in 1956”[13] as he was “signalling a sharp break with the past”. This sharp break from the past can be seen when considering the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis because this event could be viewed as the beginning of the end of the Cold War, as a consequence of Khrushchev attempting to install missiles in Cuba was the signing of the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty between the Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain, which meant that Russia could now enjoy more peaceful negotiations with America and move on from the Cold War. However, Russian historians Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali do not believe that Khrushchev was a key turning point in Russia’s modernisation as they wrote that during the negotiations with Kennedy, Khrushchev was “desperately trying to save face by achieving at least a small shift in the nuclear balance of power”14, and that he “sensed that he could no longer wait to end the crisis”[14]. When considering the background of the historians writing about Khrushchev, it is interesting to see that it is the American and not the Russians who are supporting him. This could be because Khrushchev promoted peace which may have been viewed by the Russians as weakness. This is certainly the view of his son, Sergei, who “believes that Americans have a better attitude toward his father than Russians”[15] because “he is more understandable to them”15.

        Alternatively, the Tsars also aided the advancement of Russia. The 1861 Emancipation of the Serfs could be viewed as a significant turning point in the development of modern Russia as before this event, the peasantry (about 85% of the population) “had been in the grip of a regime of harsh oppression”[16] (Joel Carmichael). However, since Carmichael was an American historian who wrote at the end of the Cold War in 1964, his view of the Tsars treatment of the Serfs could be overly harsh because at this time, the Americans were rather anti Russian, which undermines his argument. However, his opinion is supported by historian another American historian Honna Michele Eichler who wrote in 2003 (so she is less likely to be unreliable) that the serfs suffered “inhumane treatment, rape and torture”[17]. This meant that the emancipation “was an extraordinarily key event which catapulted Russia into the 20th century”17 as “the serfs were free”[18] (Huge Seton-Watson) from the unrestricted power of a small class of noble landlords and were permitted to buy their own land which ultimately liberated them, so this political move was unquestionable a key turning point in social modernisation.

        Another key turning point during Tsarist rule was the Russo – Japanese War as its unpopularity led to Bloody Sunday and the Potemkin mutiny, which could be viewed as the beginning of the end for Nicholas II and this argument is given weight by Glenn E. Curtis who believed that this war “accelerated the rise of political movements among all classes and the major nationalities”[19] so without this, the Russion Revolution may not have taken place so soon. It could also be viewed that these two rebellious events helped to modernise Russia under the Tsar because after the war, the country took its first steps into becoming a more democratic state. This can be seen by the persuasion of Sergi Whitte, the Chief Minister during 1905, who advised Nicholas to make concessions to the public. As a result, the October Manifesto was published which granted freedom of conscience, speech, meeting and association. This led to a political modernisation as parties that had previously been illegal such as the Bolsheviks and the Socialist Revolutionary Party emerged which shows the lessening of autocratic dictatorship and “the foundation seemed to have been laid for a responsible and liberal opposition”[20]. This modernisation can also been seen through a new organisation, the Duma, a consultative body with representatives elected by the peasants, the townsmen and the gentry, to aid the Tsar and stand for the opinions of the Russian people.

        In conclusion, it could be argued that the most significant turning point in the modernisation of Russia came during the time of the Tsars as the allowance of political parties following the Russo – Japanese War was a lessening of the rule of Nicholas II and the introduction of the Duma did give the people of Russia a platform to air their grievances. If this development had been permitted to continue, a more modern form of politics could have followed, as “the foundation”20 was established. Furthermore, it could also be viewed that the most significant development was that of Khrushchev as even though he was unpopular with his own people, he did come to an agreement with Kennedy to end the Cold War and tried to move away from the past. However, the strongest argument is that the fall off the Tsars was the most significant turning point in the development of modern Russia as even though it could be viewed that the rule of the Bolsheviks was still a dictatorship and little opposition was permitted the (Stalin’s purges), and the country remained under a harsh regime (the Cheka), the Communist state that formed remained until 1989 so could easily be viewed as modern Russia. Moreover, even though the rule that followed the Tsars was totalitarian, its political and economic principles were very different.

336 / 336 words

365 / 701 words

359 / 1060 words

364 / 1424 words

331 / 1755 words

396 / 2151 words

Part A + Part B word count = 3993 words

---

[1] Kevin Ramage -

[2] Glenn E. Curtis - The Last Years of the Autocracy -  

[3] Dr J E Swain -

[4] Christopher Hill – Lenin and the Russian Revolution - published 1971

[5] Michael Lynch – Reaction and Revolutions: Russia, 1894-1924 – published 2005

[6] Glenn E. Curtis - Revolutions and Civil War -  

[7] Sheila Fitzpatrick – The Russian Revolution – published 1982

[8] Alex De Jonge - “Life and Times of Grigorii Rasputin” – published 1982.

[9] Margaret Cambridge -

[10] Stephen J Lee - Russia and the USSR, 1855-1991: autocracy and dictatorship – published 2001 – page 146

[11] Robert Service – Stalin, A Biography – published 2004 – page 318

[12] Michael Lynch – Bolshevik and Stalinist Russia 1918-56 – published 2005 – page 163

[13]  Glenn E. Curtis – The Khrushchev Era -  

[14] Russian historians - Khrushchev's Cold War: The Inside Story of an American Adversary – published 2006 – page 489

[15] Khrushchev’s son -

[16] Joel Carmichael – A Short History of the Russian Revolution – page 19

[17]Honna Michelle Eichler – History 2260 - Modern World, September 12, 2003 -

[18] Huge Seton-Watson – The Russian Empire 1801-1917 (Great Britain; Oxford University Press, 1967) – page 341

[19] Glenn E. Curtis – The Last Years of Autocracy -  

[20] Hutchinson Encyclopaedia