Holycrosshistory | Blog for the History Department at Holy ...



Higher History Essay Plan Russia Issue 1 (Assessment of Tsar dealing with opposition before 1905)Intro: Romanov dynasty, opposition growing (context), TEWAT, FACTORS (see below)Structure of SocietyPolitically Russia was an autocracy. The Tsar had unlimited power that legally had to pay obeyedEconomically, Russia was feudalist. Peasants made up over 80% of the population.Russian empire had over 40 religions and scores of nationalities.This made it easier for the Tsar to control opponents because he had the legal backing which meant he could use the law to limit the ability of opposition groups like the SRs to campaign in public which limited its effectiveness. Also, the size of Russia made it difficult to have any nationally co-ordinated opposition. Since much of the potential opposition came from the peasantry, they found it difficult to organise since they were spread out over three continents. This limited their effectiveness and made it easier for the Tsar to deal with them.Limited because the size of Russia also meant administration was difficult. It was difficult for the Tsar to keeps control of such a large area too- increased the size of the Civil Service, and so meant the Tsar needed to give away some of his autocratic power which proves that opposition did manage to exist. Overall, while there were shortcomings in the way the Tsar dealt with opposition, the structure of society probably harmed opponents more than it harmed the Tsar, particularly in the short term. The fact that the peasantry wasn’t able to gain any real legal rights before 1905 is evidence that the structure of society was effective in helping the Tsar control opposition. However, this was mostly as a result of the pillars of tsarism, without which the Tsar would not have been able to legally control Russia’s geography.This is proof that although the structure of society was effective in helping the Tsar control opposition, the pillars of society were more effective. Effectiveness of opposition Despite the laws against opposition, various opposition groups existed. The SRs were a peasant Marxist group who wanted land redistribution. The SDs were Marxists who wanted a working class revolution (They split in 1903- Mensheviks wanted revolution from below, Bolsheviks wanted revolution from above). The Liberals wanted change based around a British Parliamentary system, which would mostly benefit the middle class. There were also Russian nationalist groups like the black hundreds who supported the rights of ethnic Russians over national minorities. Then there were also groups that supported independence for national minorities over Russia.There is evidence that the Tsar wasn’t totally in control of the opposition groups. This is evidenced by the 2,000 political assassinations that took place in the years before 1905, showing that the Tsar struggled to keep opposition where he wanted them. This could be further evidenced by the fact the People’s Will had been able to assassinate Alexander II, Nicholas’s predecessor, or the SR assassination of Von Plehve, the minister of the interior, in 1904.This suggests that the Tsar didn’t deal with opposition.The effectiveness of opposition was limited in the sense that it was so divided. The groups were able, but hated each other. There was no uniform ‘opposition’ as such. The Liberals arguably were arguably more fearful of revolution than the status quo, and so didn’t work well with the SRs or SDs. This made it easier for the Tsar to deal with his opponents. Overall, although there were many isolated violent incidents before 1905 which prove that opposition wasn’t completely ineffective, it never really threatened the Tsarist system before 1905. Even after the assassinations of the Royal family, autocracy was never really threatened proving that the Tsar did, on balance, deal effectively with opponents. However, this is once again thanks to the work done by the pillars of Tsarism, such as the Okhrana in infiltrating the opposition groups in order to weaken them from within. Overall this is evidence that although the Tsar does effectively deal with opposition groups, he wouldn’t have been able to do so had it not been for the pillars, proving that it’s really the pillars of Tsarism than is most effective in dealing with opposition.Pillars of TsarismOkhrana were the secret police who worked undercover to infiltrate potential opposition. This was effective in creating a culture of fear across the empire, and potentially stopping ‘would be’ opponents.Church taught that the Tsar was appointed by God and preached to the peasants that their lives had been chosen by God for them. This was effective as it made the God fearing and illiterate peasantry less likely to join revolutionary groups as they feared going to hell.The Tsar was the head of the army, and they were loyal to him. They had to swear an oath of allegiance to the Tsar. This helped the Tsar as he had a weaponised response to any riots that took place, and could effectively put down any violent risings (Rostov 1902, Odessa 1903).The pillars of Tsarism were effective as they all worked for a common cause, especially the army and Okhrana, unlike the opposition groups, and this made it easier for the Tsar to control opponents. Limited as the Church’s reach was limited to orthodox Christians that went to church. There were many different religions in the empire, such as Jews or Catholic Poles. Since national minorities were a group particularly opposed to tsarism, this limited the effectiveness of the Tsar in dealing with opponents. Also, the army could only deal with events after it happened…Overall, despite the pillars of tsarism having their individual weaknesses, together they provided a very effective system of security. As it was these institutions that provided the legal basis for the empire, they gave the Tsar massive influence over the belief and behaviour of his people. No other factor enabled the Tsar to legally deal with opposition as he sees fit, proving that the Pillars of Tsarism are the most effective way the Tsar dealt with opposition before 1905. Tsarist PoliciesRussification enforced Russian culture on minorities in different ways (Orthodox religion enforced, language suppression, catholic monasteries knocked down)Execution and exile to Siberia were widespread as a punishment for political crimes.Newspapers were censored and monitored for anti-tsarist sentiment. This was important in helping the Tsar deal with opposition because it suppresses national cultures, and limits exposure to information that would make people support national independence. This made them less likely to join revolutionary parties and therefore helped the Tsar control the opposition that did exist.However, one limitation is that this created resentment of the Tsar from national minorities. It is no accident that much of the opposition that did exist came from national minorities, suggesting that russification was not popular. The Flying university is a good example of an underground nationalist movement opposed to Tsarism.Overall, even if Tsarist policies made some people resentful of the Tsar, it still is effective as it makes more people scared, proven by the fact there wasn’t more opposition. But without the pillars the Tsar wouldn’t have powerful institutions to back up his policies, proving that the pillars of Tsarism are still the most effective way the Tsar dealt with opponents. Conclusion: Factor 1 caused event because, 2 because, 3 was limited because, 4 was limited because. Overall… 1 contributed more than 2 because, more important than 3 because, more important than 4 because. Higher History Essay Plan Russia Issue 2 (Evaluation of reasons for 1905 Revolution)Intro: The events of 1905, Tsar giving away some power in October manifesto after the general strike (context), TEWAT, FACTORS (see below)Economic/Social discontent (working class and peasantry)Write about hunger in the cities as well as the rural peasant areas.Slum housing, poor sanitation and no running water were problems in the cities, often exacerbated by overcrowding.Illegal Trade Unions formed in attempts to gain better working conditions.Workers were working long hours, 14 hour days for low wages.Peasant farmers were annoyed at their produce being taxed, which led to riots. Peasants still had to pay redemption payments, and anger at this led to the events of 1903-04, the years of the red cockerel, where many land seizures took place.This made people question whether the ‘little father’ would provide for them economically, which led to a series of violent strikes across the country in St Petersburg which eventually culminated in the events of 1905. Limited because not new- peasants had been poor and suffering from bad social conditions for a long time which suggests economic discontent wasn’t solely responsible for the volence in 1905. Although there had always been levels of discontent as a result of this, the distinct nature of the events of 1905 suggests there was something else at play in 1905 other than economic discontent.Overall, this is the most important because, it directly affects more people than any other factor, and all other discontent in the country either comes from economic discontent or from a government response to economic discontent. Political discontentMany ethnic minorities resented russification.The influence of the zemstvo was decreasing.Write about some of the different types of political opposition from issue 1 (Liberals were middle classes wanting political power to match their economic power, different political parties). This was important in causing the 1905 revolution as it’s evidence that there was a growing number of people who felt that their interests were not serves by autocracy. It was this anger and resentment that brought them out onto the streets in October 1905. Limited because political opposition was not united- use the example of the Liberals and the Marxist parties wanting completely different things, which limited its effectiveness in causing the events of 1905.Overall, political discontent did play a small role in the 1905 revolution, evidenced by the fact that some of the concessions given in the October manifesto, such as the promise of a duma, were political. However, this is still not as important a factor as economic and social discontent because ultimately the reason why the peasants and the working classes joined the strikes in 1905 and lost faith with autocracy was mainly due to the fact that the Tsar wasn’t supporting their economic needs. If they had had better conditions, they would have been more likely to have supported Tsarism, and the middle classes wouldn’t have been powerful enough on their own to effect change. Therefore economic discontent is still more important. Defeat in the Russo-Japanese WarIn 1904 Interior Minister Plehve told the Tsar that a victorious war against Japan would increase patriotism and lessen opposition.Japan and Russia’s relationship had become strained due to a fight for control of Russia’s eastern coastRussia struggled in the war after Japan’s bombardment of Port Arthur, due to difficulties moving people and resources across unfinished sections of the Trans Siberian railway. . Russia suffered losses throughout the war but lost most of their pacific fleet in March 1905.The Tsar was forced into a peace treaty with the Japanese and there was a mutiny on the Battleship Potemkin highlighted a loss in military disclipline.This caused the revolution as it caused a loss of national pride, and making people in Russia as well as many sailors lose faith that the Tsar could protect them. This encouraged them to protest for alternatives in 1905. .Limited as despite the loss to Japan, the Tsar did retain control of the army and navy in the long term. The Potemkin mutiny was a mainly isolated incident and not symptomatic of a complete loss of authority.Linked to economic issues because resources directed to soldiers like grain exacerbated anger in the countrysideOverall, the Russo Japanese war did a lot of damage to the confidence the people had in the Tsar, however it’s still not as important as economic discontent because it was the economic discontent against the Tsar that he was trying to overcome by going to war with Japan in the first place. This shows that all the fallout that comes from the Russo Japanese war actually comes down to economic and social discontent so that’s the most important factor.Bloody SundayIn late 1904, 4 workers in the Putilov Iron works were dismissed, and Trade Union leader Fr Gapon organised a strike, to take place in January 1905, in protest.Gapon made a petition to the Tsar calling for better conditions, and it was signed by 150,000 people. On 22nd January, Gapon led a march to the Winter Palace to deliver the petition.When they got there, there was a stand off, and eventually Tsarist Cossack soldiers fired on the protesters, killing up to 200 people. The caused the revolution by making people think that the Tsar would rather kill them than concede demands, and so contributed to a loss of faith the people had in the Tsar. It was the anger caused by this that started the strikes and violence throughout the spring and summer. ….However, one limitation is that the Tsarist violence was not new. The Okhrana already had a reputation for violence and Tsarism had been capable of brutally suppressing protest for decades so this one incident would have been limited in changing people’s minds. There was also a question makr over whether the Tsar had actually given the order to shoot (he denied it). ….Overall, despite limitations, and despite the question marks, it is no coincidence that the strikes begin just after Bloody Sunday. The people on bloody Sunday didn’t want revolution, this is proven by the images of the Tsar that they were carrying, appealing to him to help them. The fact that the demands of the strikes become increasingly political is evidence that bloody Sunday in fact was a big cause of the revolution. But social and economic discontent is still the most important because it was economic conditions that the strikers were striking about in the first place. Conclusion: Factor 1 caused event because, 2 because, 3 was limited because, 4 was limited because. Overall… 1 contributed more than 2 because, more important than 3 because, more important than 4 because. Higher History Essay Plan Russia Issue 3 (Assessment of attempts to strengthen tsarism after 1905)Intro: Tsar’s abdication (context), TEWAT, FACTORS (see below)Industrial ReformIncreased urbanisation was a key aim for Stolypin as it was expected that agricultural reform would mean less need for labour in the countryside and so this would lead migration to the cities.So industrialisation was encouraged which created more jobs and therefore wages rose. The production of iron and steel rose by 50&, and Russia went into WW1 as the 4th largest industrial power in the world.Conditions were improved by the introduction of a national insurance system. There is evidence that this was effective, for example both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks became less active during this period, suggesting the workers were becoming happier with Tsarism. Limited because it was a double edged sword. The increased industrialisation put more strain on the cities because of the wave of migration, which increased the already existing problems with overcrowding. Overall, this wasn’t effective because Russia bowed much of the money from France to industrialise. This in effect tied them into the war which caused the Tsar’s downfall. Even if there was less strikes in the cities, this was changing after 1911 which suggests it was more fear of stolypin than genuine happiness with the reforms, proving that repression was more effective than industrial reform.Agricultural ReformStolypin wanted to modernise Russia by creating a class of peasant landowners (Kulaks) who would have a vested interest in the system.Redemption payments were abolished.Loans were made available for peasants to buy land with the introduction of the land bank.The power of the Mir was reduced so they weren’t allowed to stop people. Financial incentives were given for people to move to Siberia. This did make Russia become agriculturally stronger. Her agricultural output increased by a third, and peasant land ownership increased by 30%, this shows that some peasants were happy to go along with the reforms. Limited because there are still far more peasants that resist change (70%) than don’t (30%). Russia enters WW1 agriculturally improved, but still quite backwards, which suggests that the reforms were limited in their success. Overall, the agricultural reforms helped get some peasants on the side of the Tsar, but they weren’t effective because they didn’t get enough peasants to buy into the changes. Stolypin wanted 20 years for his reforms to work, but the number of peasants that were taking loans and buying land was slowing by 1910, this is evidence that it had levelled off. It is evident from the fact that Stolypin himself was assassinated by an SR peasant that agricultural reform was not successful. Not as successful as increased repression, becausePolitical ReformThe October Manifesto promised a Duma, the loosening of censorship and better civil rights, but these were all open to interpretation. When the fundamental laws were re-written in February 1906, they fell short of what many people expected. The Tsar retained the ability to rule independently of the Duma, as well as the power to appoint ministers to the grand council (the upper chamber) and dissolve the Duma at any time. The Tsar dissolved the first Duma (SR dominated- radical) after two months and the second Duma (with Liberals, SRs, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks- still quite radical) after 5 months after they demanded the evasion of tax through the Vyborg appeal.The electoral laws were changed to allow only the wealthiest to vote, therefore the third and fourth Duma were largely moderate and didn’t demand much change. This was successful as the Tsar cleverly managed to maintain his control over the political set-up, despite being under pressure to make changes in 1905. Limited as the poorest in society began to feel cheated in the aftermath of the second Duma.This partly explains the rise in violence in the years leading up to WW1….Overall, Overall this was effective in the short term, but becoming increasingly ineffective in the long term. In the short term the Tsar managed to wrong foot the more radical elements of society, but this was to lead to anger after they became aware that they had been manipulated. Since it was these groups that gave the Tsar the most concern, it was dangerous in the long term to anger this group. Respression/SecurityStolypin had had a reputation of being brutal- appointed PM because of this in 1906. Used Okhrana, police and army to locate opposition groups. 3,000 hangings between 1906-1914. The noose became known as Stolypin’s necktie. This scared many people and stopped them revoltingHowever, one limitation is that Stolypin himself was assassinated in 1911 which is evidence that not everyone was scare dof him…Even if it only worked in the short term, increased security in the short term is still better for Tsarism than the lawlessness of 1905. Overall this was the most effective reform of all the reforms, even if it was only short term, because all the other factors saw results that can be brought back to repression.(Give exmplanations).Conclusion: Factor 1 caused event because, 2 because, 3 was limited because, 4 was limited because. Overal… 1 contributed more than 2 because, more important than 3 because, more important than 4 because. Higher History Essay Plan Russia Issue 4 (Evaluation of reasons for Feb Revolution)Intro: Tsar’s abdication (context), TEWAT, FACTORS (see below)Social discontent (working class and peasantry)Working class suffered from poor housing conditions, long hours and low wages- wages rose 50% but prices rose 100-200% so REAL WAGES droppedDuring the war grain went to the front first- this led to long queues and high prices for bread. Long term issues with the peasantry and Stolypin’s reforms caused problems (be specific). Most of the soldiers were peasants- most of the deaths were peasants so they experienced war weariness (requisitioning of horses and men). The bourgeoisie were frustrated that the Dumas had failed to give them political power (development of professions led to greater political awareness)Even the nobility were becoming annoyed with the Tsar over his handling of the War (Rasputin)This made people question whther the ‘little father’ would provide for them economically, which led to a series of bread strikes in St Petersburg which eventually culminated in the over throw of the Tsar. Limited because not new- it took the war to make it Revolution, unlike in 1905 when the RJW wasn’t anywhere near having the same effects. Overall, important because the revolution in Feb was led from below, and began in the cities, but ultimately the city based anger stems from the social and economic conditions of the war such as price rises and so it’s still the war that’s more important.Political discontentThere were long term issues with autocracy. Russia was backwards compared to its allies and the Tsar found it difficult to control the whole countryNicholas II was a family man who was gentle by nature. Some felt he didn’t have what it took to be TsarHe made bad decisions during the war. Namely, the decision to go to the front to lead the Army, and to leave the Tsarina in charge of the countryThe Tsarina Alexandra made bad appointments and her relationship with Rasputin caused suspicion and scandal.This led to a demand for change as people lost faith in the Tsar as a person but also the system as a whole, and started believing that revolution was the only way forward- this explains the fact that the Duma made up most of the Provisional government in the aftermath of the abdication, showing…Limited because Tsar hadn’t changed personality since the early days of the war, when the people were behind him (EVIDENCE)Overall, definitely Russia’s outdated system was a factor in revolution and it’s no accident that more democratic countries didn’t have revolution after the war- it’s still the war that pushes discontent with political system to revolution, because….Economic problemsThe war was costing Russia 17 million roubles a dayTrade with other countries suffered so raw material imports were affected. This affected weaponry and munitions. Shortage of manpower on farms due to conscription affected agricultural outputThe transport systems struggled to cope with large movement of troopsBy 1916, inflation reached 200% so the value of the rouble was suffering.This caused the revolution as people became increasingly aware that Tsarism was making them economically backward, and contributing to social conditions that led to demands for political change (NOT GREAT).Limited as economic problems not new, and if anything Russia is actually becoming more economically stable after 1906- 4th largest industrial power and the war creates jobs in cities….Overall, yes economic problems are important but the fact is that although the war creates jobs, these jobs don’t keep people from starvation. This is because of the problems associated with the war, proving that…WW1The war became a disaster for Germany as defeats at Tannenburg and Manchurian lakes pushed army backBy October 1916 Russia had nearly 2 million dead, and 2 million capturedMilitary postal censors claimed that letters home suggested a longing for peaceSoldiers started fraternising with Germans, and reports of drunkenness and bad leadership were widespread.The war caused the revolution by exacerbating all problems that already existed in Russia, showing that….However, one limitation is that the revolution started in Petrograd and not at the home front, suggesting….Another limitation is that the War initially brought the Tsar support, evidenced by the pro war enthusiasm and banners of the Tsar, showing that…Overall, the war affects every other section of society- it makes the Tsar more incompetent, it makes the peasants and working class more discontent and it makes economic conditions worse and so is definitely the main cause of the Feb RevConclusion: Factor 1 caused event because, 2 because, 3 was limited because, 4 was limited because. Overal… 1 contributed more than 2 because, more important than 3 because, more important than 4 because. Higher History Essay Plan Russia Issue 5 (Evaluation of reasons for success of October Revolution)Intro: Tsar’s abdication and Bolshevik takeover of St Petersburg (context), TEWAT, FACTORS (see below)Appeal of Lenin and the BolsheviksThe Bolsheviks were a Marxist party committed to a revolution of the working class. They had split from the Mensheviks (the other SDs) in 1903, believing that the revolution needed a vanguard, rather than be led from below. So they were a small party in 1917. Played no role in February, which is said to have caught Lenin off guard. Lenin had drive and vision. He returned and produced the April Theses. It contained two powerful slogans: ‘All Power to the Soviets’ and ‘Peace, Bread and Land’. In Leon Trotsky, the Bolsheviks had an outstanding organiser, skilled in military co-ordination. Trotsky was the one who led the seizure of power.This effective leadership and propaganda means the appeal of the Bolshevik spreads to a large portion of Russian society. The peasants, who were historically more attracted to the SRs, liked the promise of land reform, for example. Lenin had managed to capture a large proportion of the discontent in Russia with a clever three word slogan.Limited because the Bolsheviks and Lenin made mistakes in 1917 too so they are not infallible. The July Days is a good example to use (make sure it’s explained). . Overall, this is the most important reason for the success of the October Revolution because even if they made mistakes in July, they more than made up for this with the clever manipulation of the Kornilov Revolt (explain this too). It’s the only factor that manages to get the majority of the population on board with revolutionary values. Land IssueThere had been long term peasant discontent with land ownership. The peasants had a long term claim to land ownership that they felt wasn’t being addressed. The peasants saw the February Revolution as being their chance to obtain that land.After the February Revolution, there were many land seizures in the rural parts of Russia. This led to a the peasants feeling that the February Revolution wasn’t going to be enough, so they became susceptible to the idea of another revolution…Limited because the October Revolution was born in the city, so any argument that it’s origins were in the countryside is limited. Overall, this is still important as the peasants made up 80% of Russia’s population and therefore for the revolution to be successful their support wwas needed….But still not as important as the appeal of the Bolsheviks as it takes the Bolshevik propaganda to give this anger a place to go. It was the Bolshevik promise of land that meant that peasants felt another revolution would help them, therefore…Political Discontent/Decision to continue the WarThe war was costing Russia 17 million roubles a dayTrade with other countries suffered so raw material imports were affected. This affected weaponry and munitions. The transport systems struggled to cope with large movement of troops. By 1916, inflation reached 200% so the value of the rouble was suffering.Russia was becoming war weary, as the war became unpopular. The Petrograd Soviet opposed the war from late march, but the Provisional government wanted foreign allies so kept going with it. This caused the revolution as people became increasingly angry at the Government as they felt the February Revolution hadn’t changed anything so they supported another revolution. Limited as national pride still dictated that some Russians kept going with the war despite Order Number 1, proving that there were still those willing to fight the war….Overall, this was still not as important as the appeal of the Bolsheviks as it was the Bolshevik promise of peace that…. (finish explanation) Dual PowerThe Provisional Government was set up on 1st March, in the aftermath of the February Revolution. It was unelected and made up of mostly moderates and liberals. They supported Russia’s continuation in WW1, and postponed the land reforms that the peasants were expecting. The Soviets were elected groups representing workers, sailors and soldiers.They were usually more radical than the Provisional Government (the Petrograd Soviet in the spring of 1917 was run by the SRs), and on many occasions there were disputes over whether the authority lay with the Provisional Government or the Soviets. The Petrograd Soviet issued Order No 1 which stated that if there was a clash between the orders of the government and the soviet, the soviet had to be obeyed.This was important in causing the October Revolution as it meant no one could really establish authority after the February Revolution. This created instability and meant that people mlost confidence in the Provisional Government and another revolution gained appeal.However, one limitation is that there were still large areas of Russia loyal to the Provisional Government, like the Liberals. And even the Soviets, when run by the SRs had their weaknesses as they supported the War….Overall, this is still important in causing the October Revolution as even if the middle and upper classes were still loyal to the government, this made up less than 10% of Russia’s population so this wasn’t enough to stave off the revolution. The appeal of the Bosheviks is still more important, however as it is the Bolshevik takeover of the Petrograd Societ in September that makes the people really support the soviets over the government and therefore support the revolution (link to peace, bread and land). Conclusion: Factor 1 caused event because, 2 because, 3 was limited because, 4 was limited because. Overal… 1 contributed more than 2 because, more important than 3 because, more important than 4 because. Higher History Essay Plan Russia Issue 6 (Evaluation of reasons for Red Victory in Civil War)Intro: October Revolution, Red Victory in the Civil War, TEWAT, FACTORS (see below)Strength of Reds and the role of LeninLenin’s personal qualities- inspirational socialist/ vision/ ruthlessness/overall leaderLenin’s policies- banned other parties after 1917 revolution/ set up the Cheka/ newspapers heavily censored/ introduced war communismIn charge of Agitation Propaganda Thishelped make the reds more popular as war communism kept people fed and therefore reduced discontent, information was controlled through propaganda so this created a positive narrative for the reds, leading to more support. . Limited because war communism made some richer peasants unhappy and less likely to support the reds because the state was controlling their wealth. Arguably only met with limited opposition due to ruthlessness and the fact the reds had control of the cities.Overall, Lenin is the most important cause of the Red Victory. Even if they relied on ruthlessness and superior resources, this was down to Lenin because he masterminded the October Revolution which gave them the superior resources and the ruthlessness was down to his leadership. The role of TrotskyBecame commissar for war in March 1918He created the Red Army from the Red Guards and from ex Tsarist officersRuthless disciplinarian: fast promotion for bravery and execution for cowardice. Trotsky used an armoured train as his HQ, and was an outstanding improviser.Trotsky is important because he created a force that’s able to become a more efficient fighting force than the more numerous whites. This also means he is able to have a mixture of inspiration and fear, which means his soldiers push the extra mile for him. Limited because in Trotsky’s leadership style was not for everyone. In July 1919, a central committee meeting spilled over as Stalin and others demanded Lenin got rid of Trotsky. He was relocated to the south instead. Overall, although Trotsky had his enemies within and outwith the Reds, the numbers suggest he was able to persuade more people ‘to’ his cause than against it. This is shown by the rise in numbers of the Red Army- from fewer than 300,000 in May 1918 to over one million by October. However, any credit for Trotsky can also go to Lenin who managed Trotsky effectively, gave him the job of commissar and therefore can be given credit for all of Trotsky’s achievements. Therefore Lenin still most important. Disunity among the whitesWhite have the largest area of Russia at the start of the war. They also have experienced military leaders (Kolchak, Deniken). They were fighting against communism, but for different things (anarchists, Czech nationalists, nobles, liberals and SRs all in the same side)On top of this, the whites had support from their WW1 allies and so should have been able to have enough to overcome the reds. They had the Reds surrounded. Their leaders all wanted power for themselves/ led to incompetence. They became known for brutality, violence and corruption.This caused the red victory as the people in the areas started to hate the whites as they were stealing food and burning their towns. This led to a reluctance to support the whites. Limited as the reds were capable of brutality too, without the same effects on their support (see Trotsky). This suggests something else at play….Overall, yes the divided leadership of the whites drove people to support the reds and rendered the whites less effective in the battlefield against the reds. But Lenin is still more important as it takes Lenin’s propaganda (agitprop) to expose this corruption and cause people to turn to the reds because of it (expand this)Effects of foreign interventionBefore the end of WW1, forces from Britain and France back up whites by sending soldiers and weaponryThey fought for two reasons: wanting Russia to stay in war and fear of communism (war was more important)When WW1 ended, these groups didn’t have economic strength to give any real support to whites.This is important as it makes the people think the white army are a foreign army, while the reds were the true Russian army, so the patriotic thing to do was support the reds.….However, this is limited as even if this foreign support was limited, it was still better than no support at all. The fact is that thousands of soldiers fight for whites that wouldn’t have fought for them if there was no foreign support…Overall, this on balance still probably did more damage than good, because it enabled the reds to portray their war as a patriotic war against foreign invaders. But this still comes back to Lenin because Lenin was responsible for the propaganda that brought this to the attneiton fo the reds (for example the war movies and posters on Trotsky’s train and the trains that moved soldiers across the trans-Siberian railway. Conclusion: Factor 1 caused event because, 2 because, 3 was limited because, 4 was limited because. Overal… 1 contributed more than 2 because, more important than 3 because, more important than 4 because. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download