"Collectivisation was undoubtedly a real revolution from above in the countryside." Do the results of collectivisation justify this conculusion?
"Collectivisation was undoubtedly a real revolution from above in the countryside." Do the results of collectivisation justify this conculusion? Stalin's policy of collectivisation has often been accredited to have ruined Russian agriculture and unnecessarily caused untold misery to many millions of simple peasants. In this essay I aim to analyse whether Stalin's programme of collectivisation in the 1930s was a the "revolution from above" of which he claimed it was, or if it was in fact an overly brutal and hideously ineffective policy. This term is used to explain a process whereby a government uses its power to instate drastic change, with presumably beneficial results. In this essay I will argue that Stalin's policy of collectivisation did not succeed at all as a revolution, and was indeed a hindrance to Russian agriculture. I aim to answer the question through looking at Stalin's success in three main areas, economic, political and social (due to the sheer mortality rate). One of the main reasons for collectivisation was to provide investment capital through sales of grain. Economically, most historians agree that collectivised Russian agriculture did not present a great improvement. Ward states that "By the early 1940's, 50 million Soviet Citizens were still reliant on ration cards for their daily bread and meat production did not reach pre-collectivised levels until
"Despite his reputation as the 'Tsar Liberator', Alexander II had failed to satisfy the growing mood for change in Russia by the time of his assassination in 1881" Explain why you agree or disagree with this statement.
"Despite his reputation as the 'Tsar Liberator', Alexander II had failed to satisfy the growing mood for change in Russia by the time of his assassination in 1881" Explain why you agree or disagree with this statement. Tsar Alexander II earned the unofficial title 'Tsar Liberator' from the Russian serfs when he introduced the Edict of Emancipation in 1861. This was an Edict that gave the serfs their freedom and enabled them to become free citizens. At the time of Tsar Alexander II coming to the throne, there was a great demand for change in Russia. Reformation was seen as essential to Russia's survival in the modern European world and Tsar Alexander II knew this. During his reign Alexander II reformed things such as the judicial system, the military and local governments but also, in some ways, contradicted his reform and introduced some reactionary measures which included reviving exile to Siberia and restricting zemstvos from communicating with each other. These reactionary methods may not have been too welcome in a society where there was a great demand for change. Tsar Alexander II reformed many important things that improved people's lives greatly, but there is still a lot of evidence that shows Alexander had failed to satisfy the people. One main sign that people are not dissatisfied is unrest, for instance in 1861 there were 499 incidents of serious rioting. 1861
"Do you agree with the view that the Nazis were able to consolidate their hold on power so easily in the period Jan-March 1933 simply because of the use of terror and intimidation?"
Lauren Stevens "Do you agree with the view that the Nazis were able to consolidate their hold on power so easily in the period Jan-March 1933 simply because of the use of terror and intimidation?" The Nazis could not have risked using simply terror and intimidation to consolidate their hold on power once Hitler was elected. They had operated with the tactic of the "legal revolution" for the previous ten years and this was what had brought them to government. Reverting back to their original putschist tactics that had failed before would have been a disastrous move now they had obtained some power. In fact being seen to be a revolutionary party would not only have been unsuccessful but would also have caused major damage to their reputation. It would have alienated the middle class voters who had supported the Nazis because they saw them as a way as keeping law and order against a Marxist revolution. It would have also alienated the elites who had helped put Hitler into power by making them believe that he was suddenly out of their control and unlikely to do whatever they wanted. Hitler wanted to be the head of a Nazi dictatorship but he had to go about it legally. The only way to do this was if Hitler had held a two-thirds majority of Reichstag seats, allowing him to create the desired dictatorship by amending the constitution. He tried to do this by persuading Hindenburg
"Dunkirk was a great deliverance and a great disaster"
"Dunkirk was a great deliverance and a great disaster" AJP Taylor Is there evidence in sources A-F to support this interpretation? Sources and own knowledge -This statement is a very vague statement and as a result, it is a statement that can be easily justified using Sources A to F. In this response I will examine what each source is telling us, and whether it agrees, disagrees or is neutral to the statement, "Dunkirk was a great deliverance and a great disaster". The Dunkirk evacuation, codenamed Operation Dynamo by the British, was the large evacuation of Allied soldiers from May 26 to June 4, 1940, during the Battle of Dunkirk. The plan was created by British Vice Admiral Bertram Ramsay and was accepted by Winston Churchill. In the 9 days, more than three hundred thousand (338,226) soldiers - 218,226 British and 120,000 French - were rescued from Dunkirk, France and the surrounding beaches by a hastily assembled fleet of about seven hundred boats. These craft included a mixture of merchant marine boats, fishing boats, pleasure craft and RNLI lifeboats, whose civilian crews were called into service for the emergency. These small craft ferried troops from the beaches to larger ships waiting offshore. -Source A shows both sides of Taylor's statement, that Dunkirk was both a great deliverance and a great disaster. It shows that ships did escape with soldiers aboard and
"Dunkirk was a great deliverance and a great disaster" (A.J.P Taylor) Is there sufficient evidence in sources A-G to support this interpretation? Use the sources and knowledge form your studies to explain your answer.
Chris Knight "Dunkirk was a great deliverance and a great disaster." (A.J.P Taylor) Is there sufficient evidence in sources A-G to support this interpretation? Use the sources and knowledge form your studies to explain your answer The quote made by A.J.P Taylor is a contradiction. The French were expecting to be attacked through the Maginot Line, but instead Germany attacked through Belgium. The British Expeditionary Force (BEF) had been sent across to France but found it a struggle to work together with the French and Belgian troops. Because France had been taken by surprise from the attack through Belgium the allies were pushed back towards Dunkirk. Hundreds of British boats and ships of all sizes were sent across the channel to bring the soldiers home. This evacuation was known as Operation Dynamo. There was thousands of men at Dunkirk, 68,000 were killed, yet 348,000 were rescued. The evacuation was very difficult for the British, as there were so many men to be rescued and it was difficult for the larger boats and ships to get far enough into shore. What made the rescue even more difficult was the fact that the Germans were carrying out a Blitzkrieg attack whilst Operation Dynamo was occurring. In this essay I will need to study all evidence given and decide whether or not it is sufficient enough to come to conclusion on whether or not the statement in the quote is
"Dunkirk was a great deliverance and a great disaster". Is there sufficient evidence in sources D to J to support this interpretation? Use the sources and your knowledge to explain your answer.
History course question 2: "Dunkirk was a great deliverance and a great disaster". Is there sufficient evidence in sources D to J to support this interpretation? Use the sources and your knowledge to explain your answer. There is sufficient evidence to support this in the information below: Source d is a first hand painting of the evacuation of Dunkirk it shows the ships being bombarded with shells, bombs and torpedoes form planes, It shows hundreds of men on the beach rushing towards the boats in big swarms, proving the fact that they were very nervous and desperate to get on board and off the beaches, thee is a lot of smoke coming from the destroyed ships, in which thousands of solders and crews would have been killed in each boat! Source e is a photograph of troops waiting on the beaches, this photo shows the troops quite in order and disciplined, there is also no attacks from the Germans at this point so this must mean that the attacks weren't on going and there were breaks. There are hundreds of solders in this single photograph so this means that there were thousands and thousands being evacuated. Source f is a different matter this is a point were the solders are being attacked on the beach, as they are firing at planes above, there is a very low possibility that they would hit the planes, although it could scare them off! This also gives you evidence that thee was
"Evacuation was a great success!" Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation? Use sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer.
"Evacuation was a great success!" Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation? Use sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer. Evacuation was introduced because Britain was at war with Germany and they expected the Germans to bomb Britain. There were three main evacuation periods. The first started on September 1^st 1939 and was called `The Phoney War'; this first wave of evacuation took place because Britain expected air raids. The second period ranged from May to December 1940. This second wave was taken due to heavy bombing warnings, the Blitz started shortly after evacuation started. The third period of evacuation was from July to September 1944, and this was because the Germans had developed flying bombs and `v2' rockets, which were both devastating weapons. People who were evacuated were school children, mothers and young children, blind and disabled people and teachers. The government tried to encourage evacuation by the use of propaganda. Source B is a photograph from the start of evacuation. It shows evacuee's walking to a train station. They are all smiling and look happy. We cannot fully trust this source because it may be a staged photo used by the government for propaganda. Source D is another photograph, showing that evacuees were clean and happy people, but we cannot trust this source because it says it was issued by
"Evacuation was a great success" Do I agree or disagree with this interpretation? Explain your answer.
"Evacuation was a great success" Do I agree or disagree with this interpretation? Explain your answer. As the last days of peace lasted away in 1939, more than 3.5 million children were taken from their homes as part of a Government plan to evacuate largest mass movement of people ever seen in Britain. The evacuations were planned against a series of hugely exaggerated estimates of the potential effects of the German bombs. According to official, pre-war calculations, more than 100,000 tons of German bombs would be dropped on Britain in the first two weeks of the war alone. In fact, less that 65,000 tons were dropped throughout the entire war. The evacuation of cities at the start of World War II was the biggest and most concentrated mass movement of people, in the first four days of September 1939 alone; nearly 3,000,000 people were transported from towns and cities in danger from enemy bombers to places of safety in the countryside. The majority were schoolchildren who had been labelled like pieces of luggage, separated from their parents and accompanied instead by a small army of teachers. Talking to evacuees now about the events of those days in 1939 recall painful memories that have been deeply hidden for 60 years, exposing the trauma of separation and isolation and of fear and anger. But in saying that these same people all agree that evacuation was probably the only
"Evacuation was a great success" Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation? Explain your answer using the sources and knowledge from your studies
History Coursework - Assignment B Question b.i - Target: Evaluation of and Interpretation "Evacuation was a great success" Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation? Explain your answer using the sources and knowledge from your studies A statement like this is very hard to completely agree or disagree with. Evaluation was such a broad topic, and the title is asking us to give a definitive view on the whole thing. It is hard to say exactly what a success is, do you think it was a success if the children remained alive, or was it a failure if they were miserable at the same time. Sources A to F present varying viewpoints on the agreement and disagreement of the statement. Source A shows us a group of evacuees walking to the station to be evacuated in September of 1939; this is the first problem with the source. The war had only just begun in 1939, and it is impossible to provide an accurate view on something that has not even happened yet. Evacuation changed as the war went on, with its faults becoming clearer towards the end. This source is a photograph, a single moment captured of children who do not really know what they are doing but are happy because they have been told it will be fun. It is also worth considering that as a photograph, it could easily have been done by the government as propaganda, and in reality the children could just be posing. As stated in
"Evacuation was a great success" Do you agree with this interpretation?
"Evacuation was a great success" Do you agree with this interpretation? Explain your answer using the sources and knowledge from your studies. The evacuation had many advantages as well as many disadvantages regarding its success. From the pictures and images provided within sources A to I, the evacuation could be seen through a number of opinions, some supporting this interpretation and others neglecting it. Each source builds to the strengths or weaknesses to the evacuation. Source A is an interpretation of the relationships between evacuees and host families during the evacuation. The source is very negative about the success of the evacuation and specifies mainly the problems caused by the evacuated children. It talks about the children being deprived and of them being badly behaved and disgusting. The source has been extracted form a book written for British schools by David Taylor in 1988. Knowing that this source came from a textbook, which should have been researched by the author, you would think that the detail specified within it is reliable and honest. However it was written for the purpose of a children's schoolbook many years after the evacuation. Therefore there is a possibility that the author may have been influenced by his sources when writing the book, or more likely to have simplified it making it suitable for the children's use. From my own knowledge,
