This is an example of an overview question (45 marks) for which I have created an essay plan.
I always plan in exams, but not in this much detail; it's a good revision technique! In exams, I use bullet points first, briefly - say, one per paragraph - and then write the introduction, as this is where I lay out my argument, so I can make sure that I don't divert from the plan and that I know what it is that I'm arguing.
As this is an overview question, I've planned it per leader.
How far was the failure to achieve effective economic reform between 1941 and 1991 responsible for the break-up of the USSR?
Most historians agree that economic problems throughout the history of the USSR have been a significant cause of discontent both within the party and without, leading to stagnation during the Brezhnev era and beyond and ultimately having a large part to play in the discontent of the early 1990s. The failure of all leaders to significantly reform the system can thus be seen not only to have caused rifts in the party but to have resulted in the break up of the USSR by 1991.
Plan
STALIN
- caused the rigidity of the economy which meant no one after could reform
- historians agree that it was strong and that it was what was necessary during the war and in its immediate aftermath, but that is became too rigid
- HARRISON: "If WW2 was a test then the Soviet Economy passed it"
- Legacy of superpower status: OVERY: "The Soviet state was transformed by this process, and communism, close to collapse in the Autumn of 1941, came to be the dominant political force across Eurasia from East Germany to North Korea"
KHRUSHCHEV
- attempts at reform fail, but boost economy - maintaining it for the mean time
- tries to remove bureaucracy; causes it to grow by 1/3 making it harder to change later on and proving the fact that it was impossible to reform
- FILTZER: "Khrushchev never attempted to remove the basic levers of Stalinism within the USSR; those of central planning"
BREZHNEV
- NOVE: "Economically speaking, the Brezhnev period has to be seen as a disaster"
- no attempts at reform made, save for in agriculture, where they weakened the system further by causing unnecessary change and directing investment away from industry with no tangible successes resulting
- one reason for the rise of dissidence?
- black market undermining the system just left to grow
ANDROPOV
- dies before black market reforms have a chance to work
GORBACHEV
- lights nationalist fire; general strikes etc
- causes party rifts
OTHER REASONS FOR USSR'S COLLAPSE
- political corruption
- Gorbachev's personal failings
Conclusion
- Yes, in the long-term, it was a significant reason for the collapse of the USSR
Hoping this help!
- HistGrrl x
Showing posts with label historiography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label historiography. Show all posts
7 June 2010
5 June 2010
Themes: Foreign Policy
When talking about Foreign Policy, you must ALWAYS talk about its significance within the USSR. Talking about it as a stand-alone element is neither relevant to the course, nor analytical. So, how did it affect leaderships and perceptions of leaders? Did it bring opposition or prove weakness?
As this theme is harder to analyse, I'm providing examples of short paragraphs of analysis after the information.
This theme is going to include the war as a separate element to High Stalinism - and I should probably warn you that I'm doing this one off the top of my head...
The Great Patriotic War
- working with the Allies
- suspicion of foreign powers
- against Germany, Norway and Finland
- A-Bomb
- "Soviet Sphere of Influence"
- Potsdam and Yalta conferences - the cause of the Cold War?
- Lend-Lease
The tensions created by the beginning of the cold war lead Stalin's regime to become even more internal and to spend a lot more on military and defence, dramatically effecting the economy. The Atomic Bomb also lead to changes in policy towards scientists and mathematicians, who were given more civil liberties in order to incentivise them.
High Stalinism
- THATCHER: "aggressive foreign policy"
- Aggression over East Berlin
- Defence spending rocketed
- Comecon
- Not involved in diplomacy with the rest of the world
- Seen as trying to "take over the world"
The internal nature of Stalin's regime at this time lead to distaste and bad feeling from the West, making later easing in relations even harder. However, the "percieved menace of the West" left Stalin with a suitable excuse to become more brutal in his internal policy, and lead him to be presented as a stronger leader, something that many historians agree Russians find necessary in their leaders - especially at this time, when memories of the Tsar were still existent.
Khrushchev
- the "thaw"
- U-2 incident
- Berlin Wall
- Start of the Vietnam War in earnest
- Warsaw Pact
- Cuban Missile Crisis
- economic aid to the third world
- alliance with China breaking down
- Sputnik and the space race
- Suez Crisis, 1956
Khrushchev's role in Soviet Foreign Policy is often seen as having been fatal because of the contradictions between the supposed "thaw" of destalinisation and the problems he caused with the West, over instances such as the building of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and Cuban Missile Crisis. The "thaw" made him unpopular in the USSR, and his handling of these major events presented him as weak and aggressive both at home and abroad.
The effects of the Cuban Missile Crisis were especially fatal, given that clauses of the Kennedy/Khrushchev agreement which lead to the removal of US nuclear warheads from Eastern Europe were kept secret on the international stage, making it seem as though he had backed down, and thus presenting him as weak within the USSR. This is commonly seen as having been a major cause of his downfall.
Brezhnev
- SALT
- Détente
- Helsinki
- Moscow Olympics
- Afghanistan
- Brezhnev Doctrine
Laver has argued that "Brezhnev presided over a crucial period of Soviet Foreign Policy", given that his actions provoked distaste and opposition both within the USSR and abroad; although the initial SALT treaties and détente meetings were successful in the West as well as in the USSR, the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 is often seen as having been the breaking point. Causing millions of Soviet deaths, and often being referred to as "Russia's Vietnam", the war was as unpopular at home as it was in the West, where a boycott of the Moscow Olympics was called in protest, demonstrating the regime's unpopularity abroad to dissidents at home, thus exacerbating the problem.
Gorbachev
- popular in the West; seen as an international statesman
- membership of the UN
- ending the cold war?
- talks with Regan and Bush successful
Despite Gorbachev's vast successes in nuclear disarmament and in making the USSR acceptable on the world stage, he is often perceived within the USSR as having cared too much for Western ways of life and for PR as opposed to serious policies. Some argue that, had he spent less time on Foreign Policy, the collapse of the USSR in 1991 could have been averted.
As ever - any questions, just ask! :)
- HistGrrl x
As this theme is harder to analyse, I'm providing examples of short paragraphs of analysis after the information.
This theme is going to include the war as a separate element to High Stalinism - and I should probably warn you that I'm doing this one off the top of my head...
The Great Patriotic War
- working with the Allies
- suspicion of foreign powers
- against Germany, Norway and Finland
- A-Bomb
- "Soviet Sphere of Influence"
- Potsdam and Yalta conferences - the cause of the Cold War?
- Lend-Lease
The tensions created by the beginning of the cold war lead Stalin's regime to become even more internal and to spend a lot more on military and defence, dramatically effecting the economy. The Atomic Bomb also lead to changes in policy towards scientists and mathematicians, who were given more civil liberties in order to incentivise them.
High Stalinism
- THATCHER: "aggressive foreign policy"
- Aggression over East Berlin
- Defence spending rocketed
- Comecon
- Not involved in diplomacy with the rest of the world
- Seen as trying to "take over the world"
The internal nature of Stalin's regime at this time lead to distaste and bad feeling from the West, making later easing in relations even harder. However, the "percieved menace of the West" left Stalin with a suitable excuse to become more brutal in his internal policy, and lead him to be presented as a stronger leader, something that many historians agree Russians find necessary in their leaders - especially at this time, when memories of the Tsar were still existent.
Khrushchev
- the "thaw"
- U-2 incident
- Berlin Wall
- Start of the Vietnam War in earnest
- Warsaw Pact
- Cuban Missile Crisis
- economic aid to the third world
- alliance with China breaking down
- Sputnik and the space race
- Suez Crisis, 1956
Khrushchev's role in Soviet Foreign Policy is often seen as having been fatal because of the contradictions between the supposed "thaw" of destalinisation and the problems he caused with the West, over instances such as the building of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and Cuban Missile Crisis. The "thaw" made him unpopular in the USSR, and his handling of these major events presented him as weak and aggressive both at home and abroad.
The effects of the Cuban Missile Crisis were especially fatal, given that clauses of the Kennedy/Khrushchev agreement which lead to the removal of US nuclear warheads from Eastern Europe were kept secret on the international stage, making it seem as though he had backed down, and thus presenting him as weak within the USSR. This is commonly seen as having been a major cause of his downfall.
Brezhnev
- SALT
- Détente
- Helsinki
- Moscow Olympics
- Afghanistan
- Brezhnev Doctrine
Laver has argued that "Brezhnev presided over a crucial period of Soviet Foreign Policy", given that his actions provoked distaste and opposition both within the USSR and abroad; although the initial SALT treaties and détente meetings were successful in the West as well as in the USSR, the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 is often seen as having been the breaking point. Causing millions of Soviet deaths, and often being referred to as "Russia's Vietnam", the war was as unpopular at home as it was in the West, where a boycott of the Moscow Olympics was called in protest, demonstrating the regime's unpopularity abroad to dissidents at home, thus exacerbating the problem.
Gorbachev
- popular in the West; seen as an international statesman
- membership of the UN
- ending the cold war?
- talks with Regan and Bush successful
Despite Gorbachev's vast successes in nuclear disarmament and in making the USSR acceptable on the world stage, he is often perceived within the USSR as having cared too much for Western ways of life and for PR as opposed to serious policies. Some argue that, had he spent less time on Foreign Policy, the collapse of the USSR in 1991 could have been averted.
As ever - any questions, just ask! :)
- HistGrrl x
Themes: Position of the CPSU
In this post, I'm going to examine the changing position of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) throughout the period 1941-1991. It's vague - but remember, you only have 45 minutes to cover fifty years. You can't go into too much detail and still be analytical!
Remember to differentiate between the PARTY and the GOVERNMENT. At certain points, they were synonymous, but at certain points they were completely different.
The changing role will be judged by leader, and "govt" is short-hand for "government".
Stalin
- dominant
- all-powerful
- congresses rarely met
- economic and social control rigid and complete (Gosplan, Zhadnovshchina etc)
- Govt and party synonymous
Khrushchev
- FILTZER: "It was Khrushchev who placed the party back at the centre of the political stage"
- moves to consolidate his own power gave the party more power
- split into industrial and agricultural wings
- legal reforms meant it had less control over people's lives
- government and party organs became more seperate
Brezhnev
- reversal of Khrushchev's reforms
- Nomenklachura and stability of cadres
- LAVER: "ideology had all but lost its meaning to many within the USSR by 1982"
Andropov
- anti-corruption drive to take power back from the mafia
Gorbachev
- law and party separated
- couldn't hold a state and party position
- membership fell by 3 million in 1990
- removal of incentives
- BRESLAUR: "Gorbachev refused to recognise that Yeltsin and the radicals were the future"
- economic control revoked 1988
- CPSU banned in aftermath of coup
- emergence of other parties
Specialist terminology has been used in this post - if you don't know it, please feel free to ask! :)
And... that's one theme down!
- HistGrrl x
Remember to differentiate between the PARTY and the GOVERNMENT. At certain points, they were synonymous, but at certain points they were completely different.
The changing role will be judged by leader, and "govt" is short-hand for "government".
Stalin
- dominant
- all-powerful
- congresses rarely met
- economic and social control rigid and complete (Gosplan, Zhadnovshchina etc)
- Govt and party synonymous
Khrushchev
- FILTZER: "It was Khrushchev who placed the party back at the centre of the political stage"
- moves to consolidate his own power gave the party more power
- split into industrial and agricultural wings
- legal reforms meant it had less control over people's lives
- government and party organs became more seperate
Brezhnev
- reversal of Khrushchev's reforms
- Nomenklachura and stability of cadres
- LAVER: "ideology had all but lost its meaning to many within the USSR by 1982"
Andropov
- anti-corruption drive to take power back from the mafia
Gorbachev
- law and party separated
- couldn't hold a state and party position
- membership fell by 3 million in 1990
- removal of incentives
- BRESLAUR: "Gorbachev refused to recognise that Yeltsin and the radicals were the future"
- economic control revoked 1988
- CPSU banned in aftermath of coup
- emergence of other parties
Specialist terminology has been used in this post - if you don't know it, please feel free to ask! :)
And... that's one theme down!
- HistGrrl x
4 June 2010
Unit Four - Collapse of the USSR
Only four cards left... we can do this!
Growing threat of nationalism
- LAVER: "A timebomb waiting to explode"
- increasing discontent with Moscow's economic policies
- Gorbachev had no real understanding of how to handle nationalist problems
- threat especially evident where nationalist tradition was strongest
Moves towards separation
NAGORNO-KARBAKH
- Armenian discontent thorughout Soviet period
- war broke out in the late 1980s with Karbakh declaring independence in 1991
GEORGIA
- March for independence, April 1989, attacked by Soviet troops
- Sovereignty declared Nov 1989
- 99% vote for independence, March 1991
UKRAINE
- signalled real collapse of Societ grip, 1990s
BALTIC STATES
- large moves for independence
- chain of hands in peaceful protest
Was nationalism a significant cause in the collapse of the USSR?
'New Thinking' Foreign Policy
- linked to perestroika
- disarmament
- Eastern Europe allowed to secede
- Global Strategy - membership of UN for eg
- 3rd World Relief ended
RISE OF YELTSIN
- Had great popular support
- Angered Gorbachev because of radicalism
- May 1990, elected President of Russia
- 28th Congress, June 1990, rifts over Gorbachev's economic policy occur and he resigns from the party
The Coup
EVENTS
- 18 Aug 1991, Gorbachev held under hosue arrest at his holiday home in the crimea
- Gorbachev refuses to back dwon
- plotters declare a state of emergency, renouncing the union treaty
- needed popular support, which they thought they'd have
- Yeltsin called for resistance to the coup and declared a presidential edict accusing the plotters of treason under Russian law
- Yeltsin declares control of all Russia
- Plotters arrested
WHY THE COUP FAILED
- plotters didn't arrest Yeltsin
- didn't have military support
- media informed people of resistance to the coup
- ordinary people rallied behind Yeltsin
- there was little left for the plotters to take over
- Gorbachev refused to back down
AFTERMATH
- Gorbachev didn't learn from this
- Balance of Power shifts in favour of Yeltsin
- Nationalist forces in republics boosted by confusion at the centre
- 24 Aug - Gorbachev resigned as head of party
- 29 Aug - CPSU banned
- uncertainty leaves Yeltsin in power
How significant was the coup in the collapse of the USSR?
Assesment of Gorbachev
- unpopular
- VOLKOGONOV: "the last Leninist"
FAILURES
- not firing Yeltsin sooner
- never understood nationalist feeling
- substanceless policies ("slogans")
- personality, Raisa, etc
- concern with Foreign Policy
- refusal to work with Yeltsin
- failure to recognise seriousness of coup
POSITIVES
- recognised need for reform
- negotiated peaceful break-away of Baltic States
- ended cold war
- chose colleagues for ability
- didn't use force
What was Gorbachev's role in the collapse of the USSR?
Why did the USSR collapse?
- Nationalism
- Economy
- Gorbachev's errors
- Growing discontent
- Political corruption
Which was the main reason?
YESSSSSSSS... we made it. Course revised.
I'll be back soon with thematic assessments and sample essays - but, for now, take some time off. Relax, have a cuppa (again), and watch some terrible TV. (: Congrats x
- HistGrrl x
Growing threat of nationalism
- LAVER: "A timebomb waiting to explode"
- increasing discontent with Moscow's economic policies
- Gorbachev had no real understanding of how to handle nationalist problems
- threat especially evident where nationalist tradition was strongest
Moves towards separation
NAGORNO-KARBAKH
- Armenian discontent thorughout Soviet period
- war broke out in the late 1980s with Karbakh declaring independence in 1991
GEORGIA
- March for independence, April 1989, attacked by Soviet troops
- Sovereignty declared Nov 1989
- 99% vote for independence, March 1991
UKRAINE
- signalled real collapse of Societ grip, 1990s
BALTIC STATES
- large moves for independence
- chain of hands in peaceful protest
Was nationalism a significant cause in the collapse of the USSR?
'New Thinking' Foreign Policy
- linked to perestroika
- disarmament
- Eastern Europe allowed to secede
- Global Strategy - membership of UN for eg
- 3rd World Relief ended
RISE OF YELTSIN
- Had great popular support
- Angered Gorbachev because of radicalism
- May 1990, elected President of Russia
- 28th Congress, June 1990, rifts over Gorbachev's economic policy occur and he resigns from the party
The Coup
EVENTS
- 18 Aug 1991, Gorbachev held under hosue arrest at his holiday home in the crimea
- Gorbachev refuses to back dwon
- plotters declare a state of emergency, renouncing the union treaty
- needed popular support, which they thought they'd have
- Yeltsin called for resistance to the coup and declared a presidential edict accusing the plotters of treason under Russian law
- Yeltsin declares control of all Russia
- Plotters arrested
WHY THE COUP FAILED
- plotters didn't arrest Yeltsin
- didn't have military support
- media informed people of resistance to the coup
- ordinary people rallied behind Yeltsin
- there was little left for the plotters to take over
- Gorbachev refused to back down
AFTERMATH
- Gorbachev didn't learn from this
- Balance of Power shifts in favour of Yeltsin
- Nationalist forces in republics boosted by confusion at the centre
- 24 Aug - Gorbachev resigned as head of party
- 29 Aug - CPSU banned
- uncertainty leaves Yeltsin in power
How significant was the coup in the collapse of the USSR?
Assesment of Gorbachev
- unpopular
- VOLKOGONOV: "the last Leninist"
FAILURES
- not firing Yeltsin sooner
- never understood nationalist feeling
- substanceless policies ("slogans")
- personality, Raisa, etc
- concern with Foreign Policy
- refusal to work with Yeltsin
- failure to recognise seriousness of coup
POSITIVES
- recognised need for reform
- negotiated peaceful break-away of Baltic States
- ended cold war
- chose colleagues for ability
- didn't use force
What was Gorbachev's role in the collapse of the USSR?
Why did the USSR collapse?
- Nationalism
- Economy
- Gorbachev's errors
- Growing discontent
- Political corruption
Which was the main reason?
YESSSSSSSS... we made it. Course revised.
I'll be back soon with thematic assessments and sample essays - but, for now, take some time off. Relax, have a cuppa (again), and watch some terrible TV. (: Congrats x
- HistGrrl x
Unit Three - Brezhnev
I should probably explain how I'm creating these posts. I've boiled all my year's notes down into revision cards which I'm copying up here with embellishments, to help me and help you.
This section is all in one post because it's only five cards long. Thank you Lord.
Brace yourselves!
The Leadership of Brezhnev
- Chosen because he was known as a man of the centre and a moderate
- Regarded as a solid political operator
- Post-Khrushchev era, stability necessary
- Kosygin as PM
CONSOLIDATION OF POWER
- joint leadership lasted 4 years
- 1964 Plenum over-turns Khrushchev's structural reforms
- rivals, eg Shilepin, eased out
- Kosygin reforms fail, 1970, and his influence ends
There is no question for this section. Huzzahs!
Era of conservatism
POLITICAL
- stability of cadres
- CC increased in size to 470 members in 1981
- Nomenklachura
- devolved decision making
- party membership fell
- further consolidation
SOCIAL
- 1977 constitution
- women ~ getting better?
- education and living standards increase
- social change, eg religion
- culture and dissidence
ECONOMIC
- Kosygin reforms, 1965 - industry accountability for costs & profits, not squandering resources. Same problems as Khrushchev faced. Prices still decided centrally & same flaws as ever
- Industrial - optimism of developed socialism meant things were left the same & Gosplan wouldn't give up power
- Agriculture - much investment, few results. Integration of farms into local industry, peasant internal passports
- Russia fell behind republics
- refusal to move from Stalinist command model
- Military-Industrial Complex
- Stagnation
What effects did the limited reforms have? Was this truly an 'era of conservatism'?
The rise of dissidence
- no way to measure popular opinion although no evidence of wide-spread discontent
- less authoritarian
- cultural and social policy of conservatism
- regime didn't want Khrushchev-era openness OR Zhadnov-era stifling
- artists never knew what official line was
SINYAVSY AND DANIEL
- first dissidents; writers imprisoned for anti-Soviet propaganda, 1965
- accepted by Khrushchev
- showed era of destalinisation over
- KGB wing set up, 1967, to crush "ideological diversions"
- challenged freedoms promised by Brezhnev Constitution
SPREAD OF DISSIDENCE
- contact with foreign journalists
- BBC Russian service
- Red Square demonstrations, 1965
EXAMPLES OF DISSIDENCE
- Prage Spring, 1968
- Helsinki Groups
- Religion - Catholic dissent in Poland and Baltic; Jews demand emmigration; Muslim dissent most feared
- Nationalities - going native; Russification or complacency debate
- Opposition to the war in Afghanistan = international element
What was the significance of dissidence to the regime?
Foreign relations
- Detente
- Prague Spring
- Brezhnev Doctrine
- China
- Easten Bloc
- Superpower states - 25% economy on military spending
- Afghanistan
Was foreign policy as significant in this period as under Khrushchev?
Assessments of Brezhnev
NEGATIVE
- conservatism/inaction
- destroyed the view of most citizens that the USSR had had some successes
- unable to sustain defence policies
- corruption
- 1977 constitution
- rise of dissidence
- relations with Republics worsened
- politicians pre-occupation with determining his successor
POSITIVE
- didn't revert to Stalinism
- dissidence not a major problem
- better relations with the West
- problems had existed for some time
DEVELOPED SOCIALISM
- LAVER: "unfortunately, the reality did not live up to the aspirations"
What did the USSR bequeathed to Brezhnev's successors look like?
AND HE'S DEAD! I never thought I'd be so happy to type those words!
If I were you, I'd have a rest for a moment or seven. I'm posting some more light relief in a moment, but you need a break. Seriously. BREZHNEV IS THE MOST BORING MAN IN HISTORY.
True fact.
- HistGrrl x
This section is all in one post because it's only five cards long. Thank you Lord.
Brace yourselves!
The Leadership of Brezhnev
- Chosen because he was known as a man of the centre and a moderate
- Regarded as a solid political operator
- Post-Khrushchev era, stability necessary
- Kosygin as PM
CONSOLIDATION OF POWER
- joint leadership lasted 4 years
- 1964 Plenum over-turns Khrushchev's structural reforms
- rivals, eg Shilepin, eased out
- Kosygin reforms fail, 1970, and his influence ends
There is no question for this section. Huzzahs!
Era of conservatism
POLITICAL
- stability of cadres
- CC increased in size to 470 members in 1981
- Nomenklachura
- devolved decision making
- party membership fell
- further consolidation
SOCIAL
- 1977 constitution
- women ~ getting better?
- education and living standards increase
- social change, eg religion
- culture and dissidence
ECONOMIC
- Kosygin reforms, 1965 - industry accountability for costs & profits, not squandering resources. Same problems as Khrushchev faced. Prices still decided centrally & same flaws as ever
- Industrial - optimism of developed socialism meant things were left the same & Gosplan wouldn't give up power
- Agriculture - much investment, few results. Integration of farms into local industry, peasant internal passports
- Russia fell behind republics
- refusal to move from Stalinist command model
- Military-Industrial Complex
- Stagnation
What effects did the limited reforms have? Was this truly an 'era of conservatism'?
The rise of dissidence
- no way to measure popular opinion although no evidence of wide-spread discontent
- less authoritarian
- cultural and social policy of conservatism
- regime didn't want Khrushchev-era openness OR Zhadnov-era stifling
- artists never knew what official line was
SINYAVSY AND DANIEL
- first dissidents; writers imprisoned for anti-Soviet propaganda, 1965
- accepted by Khrushchev
- showed era of destalinisation over
- KGB wing set up, 1967, to crush "ideological diversions"
- challenged freedoms promised by Brezhnev Constitution
SPREAD OF DISSIDENCE
- contact with foreign journalists
- BBC Russian service
- Red Square demonstrations, 1965
EXAMPLES OF DISSIDENCE
- Prage Spring, 1968
- Helsinki Groups
- Religion - Catholic dissent in Poland and Baltic; Jews demand emmigration; Muslim dissent most feared
- Nationalities - going native; Russification or complacency debate
- Opposition to the war in Afghanistan = international element
What was the significance of dissidence to the regime?
Foreign relations
- Detente
- Prague Spring
- Brezhnev Doctrine
- China
- Easten Bloc
- Superpower states - 25% economy on military spending
- Afghanistan
Was foreign policy as significant in this period as under Khrushchev?
Assessments of Brezhnev
NEGATIVE
- conservatism/inaction
- destroyed the view of most citizens that the USSR had had some successes
- unable to sustain defence policies
- corruption
- 1977 constitution
- rise of dissidence
- relations with Republics worsened
- politicians pre-occupation with determining his successor
POSITIVE
- didn't revert to Stalinism
- dissidence not a major problem
- better relations with the West
- problems had existed for some time
DEVELOPED SOCIALISM
- LAVER: "unfortunately, the reality did not live up to the aspirations"
What did the USSR bequeathed to Brezhnev's successors look like?
AND HE'S DEAD! I never thought I'd be so happy to type those words!
If I were you, I'd have a rest for a moment or seven. I'm posting some more light relief in a moment, but you need a break. Seriously. BREZHNEV IS THE MOST BORING MAN IN HISTORY.
True fact.
- HistGrrl x
Defining Destalinisation
Destalinisation, as defined by Laver, is -
The removal of Stalinist excesses, such as the cult of personality, from Soviet politics, post-1953.
Learn this definition, too - you'll need it for essays!
- HistGrrl x
The removal of Stalinist excesses, such as the cult of personality, from Soviet politics, post-1953.
Learn this definition, too - you'll need it for essays!
- HistGrrl x
Defining Stalinism
In defining Destalinisation, it's imprtant to define Stalinism.
My favourite definition comes from Thatcher, who defines Stalinism in six crucial elements:
- Dictatorship of one man
- Dominant ideology
- Cult of Personality
- Use of Terror
- Aggressive Foreign Policy
- Command economy
Learn this; any essay on Stalinism will require you to know it!
- HistGrrl x
My favourite definition comes from Thatcher, who defines Stalinism in six crucial elements:
- Dictatorship of one man
- Dominant ideology
- Cult of Personality
- Use of Terror
- Aggressive Foreign Policy
- Command economy
Learn this; any essay on Stalinism will require you to know it!
- HistGrrl x
Unit Two - Destalinisation (part one)
Emergence of new leaders after Stalin's death
A joint leadership existed for a time, but new leaders rapidly fought their corner.
KHRUSHCHEV
- down to Earth
- took initiative
- power-base
- listened to and respected
- visited provinces and met people
- lucky
- crude and unsophisticated
- over estimated himself
- not good at seeing the "bigger picture"
MALENKOV
- educated
- friendly with Stalin
- promised higher living standards
- friendly with Beria
- less concerned with limelight
- hated by some important colleagues
- errors of judgement
BULGANIN
- prominent in party
- lacked political skill
- powerful enemies
BERIA
- hated
- ruthless
Which leader had the better qualities for leadership at this point?
Power struggle
- collective leadership took over after Stalin's death, with Beria and Malenkov in positions of greatest power
- Beria brought down in a coup while in Berlin; lack of power-base made him an easy target and he was arrested and shot in June 1953
- Khrushchev used party roles to seize initiative
- left Khrushchev and Malenkov to secure power
KHRUSHCHEV AND MALENKOV
- Malenkov in state and government administration
- Khrushchev in party and used power-base to ensure party dominated government
- different economic approaches - Khrushchev's was more Stalinist and thus what the party wanted
- Khrushchev more ambitious than Malenkov
- Feb 1955, Malenkov resigns, and Khrushchev establishes dominance
To what extent does Khrushchev's rise to power echo Stalin's?
Secret Speech, 20th Congress of the CPSU, 1956
BACKGROUND
- Khrushchev needed to consolidate his leadership and this was an easy way to do it
- 20th Congress, 1956, closed speech to delegates only
THE SPEECH
- denounced excesses of Stalinism
- Stalin's behaviour declared to be out of touch with Marxism-Leninism
- Limitaions - wrong-doings pre 1934 ignored, focus on Stalin not the party, no suggestion of flaws in the system, not blue-print for the future, accepted 'correctness' of major policies
REACTIONS
- 1/2 1956 CC admitted post 1952; new members admitted to make up for anti-Khrushchev reactions
- LAVER: "The essential features of Stalinism survived intact"
What impact was the Secret Speech to have?
Breaking Destalinisation down to save us all from dying of boredom! Have a break; have a coffee; eat a biscuit and see you soon! :)
- HistGrrl x
A joint leadership existed for a time, but new leaders rapidly fought their corner.
KHRUSHCHEV
- down to Earth
- took initiative
- power-base
- listened to and respected
- visited provinces and met people
- lucky
- crude and unsophisticated
- over estimated himself
- not good at seeing the "bigger picture"
MALENKOV
- educated
- friendly with Stalin
- promised higher living standards
- friendly with Beria
- less concerned with limelight
- hated by some important colleagues
- errors of judgement
BULGANIN
- prominent in party
- lacked political skill
- powerful enemies
BERIA
- hated
- ruthless
Which leader had the better qualities for leadership at this point?
Power struggle
- collective leadership took over after Stalin's death, with Beria and Malenkov in positions of greatest power
- Beria brought down in a coup while in Berlin; lack of power-base made him an easy target and he was arrested and shot in June 1953
- Khrushchev used party roles to seize initiative
- left Khrushchev and Malenkov to secure power
KHRUSHCHEV AND MALENKOV
- Malenkov in state and government administration
- Khrushchev in party and used power-base to ensure party dominated government
- different economic approaches - Khrushchev's was more Stalinist and thus what the party wanted
- Khrushchev more ambitious than Malenkov
- Feb 1955, Malenkov resigns, and Khrushchev establishes dominance
To what extent does Khrushchev's rise to power echo Stalin's?
Secret Speech, 20th Congress of the CPSU, 1956
BACKGROUND
- Khrushchev needed to consolidate his leadership and this was an easy way to do it
- 20th Congress, 1956, closed speech to delegates only
THE SPEECH
- denounced excesses of Stalinism
- Stalin's behaviour declared to be out of touch with Marxism-Leninism
- Limitaions - wrong-doings pre 1934 ignored, focus on Stalin not the party, no suggestion of flaws in the system, not blue-print for the future, accepted 'correctness' of major policies
REACTIONS
- 1/2 1956 CC admitted post 1952; new members admitted to make up for anti-Khrushchev reactions
- LAVER: "The essential features of Stalinism survived intact"
What impact was the Secret Speech to have?
Breaking Destalinisation down to save us all from dying of boredom! Have a break; have a coffee; eat a biscuit and see you soon! :)
- HistGrrl x
Unit One - High Stalinism
Impacts of the war
SOCIAL
- gender imbalance makes role of women more important
- Soviet nationalism
- new terror
- cult of personality built up again
ECONOMIC
- 4th Five Year Plan (FYP) - very effective
- quantitative targets, not qualitative
- labour intensive
- war-time allied aid lost
- industrial production in 1950 almost 70% higher than 1940
- sphere of influence stripped USSR of its assets
- most historians argue the remarkable extent of post-war recovery
- Agriculture absolutely terrible & neglected - inefficient & ill-judged, prices too low, excessive centralisation
- too great a focus on the A-Bomb
- Lynsenkoism held technology back
COLD WAR
- isolationist
- political paranoia
- sphere of influence
- Soviet Nationalism
- anti-'cosmopolitanism'
OTHER
- Stalinism?
- Authoritarianism?
Which were the greatest impacts of the war? Did the war have a positive or negative effect?
Political developments
STALIN'S ROLE
- totality of control debated
- never lost control
- role of paranoia
- role of party decreasing
- most believe his position was firm and absolute
- dealt with colleagues on a one-to-one basis
CULT OF PERSONALITY
- STALIN: "I am clearly Lenin's pupil"
- presented as fatherly
- height of influence was 1949, for his 70th birthday
- Laver suggests he disliked this but recognised its ideological importance
GOVERNMENT
- same basic structure as 1936
- state positions held little meaning and some suggest that everyone was picked for their contrasting views, so that they could never agree on a coup against Stalin
PARTY
- 10% of population were members
- ideological commitment or career advancement
- controlled all areas of Soviet Life
And, those are the important aspects of post-war Stalinism.
As always, if you have a question, ASK! :)
- HistGrrl x
SOCIAL
- gender imbalance makes role of women more important
- Soviet nationalism
- new terror
- cult of personality built up again
ECONOMIC
- 4th Five Year Plan (FYP) - very effective
- quantitative targets, not qualitative
- labour intensive
- war-time allied aid lost
- industrial production in 1950 almost 70% higher than 1940
- sphere of influence stripped USSR of its assets
- most historians argue the remarkable extent of post-war recovery
- Agriculture absolutely terrible & neglected - inefficient & ill-judged, prices too low, excessive centralisation
- too great a focus on the A-Bomb
- Lynsenkoism held technology back
COLD WAR
- isolationist
- political paranoia
- sphere of influence
- Soviet Nationalism
- anti-'cosmopolitanism'
OTHER
- Stalinism?
- Authoritarianism?
Which were the greatest impacts of the war? Did the war have a positive or negative effect?
Political developments
STALIN'S ROLE
- totality of control debated
- never lost control
- role of paranoia
- role of party decreasing
- most believe his position was firm and absolute
- dealt with colleagues on a one-to-one basis
CULT OF PERSONALITY
- STALIN: "I am clearly Lenin's pupil"
- presented as fatherly
- height of influence was 1949, for his 70th birthday
- Laver suggests he disliked this but recognised its ideological importance
GOVERNMENT
- same basic structure as 1936
- state positions held little meaning and some suggest that everyone was picked for their contrasting views, so that they could never agree on a coup against Stalin
PARTY
- 10% of population were members
- ideological commitment or career advancement
- controlled all areas of Soviet Life
And, those are the important aspects of post-war Stalinism.
As always, if you have a question, ASK! :)
- HistGrrl x
Unit One - The Great Patriotic War
The USSR on the eve of war - Strengths and weaknesses
ECONOMY
- good defence economy created by Five Year Plans
- industry to East of Urals - harder to attack
- adaptability to total war
- DAVIES: "The armaments industry of the 1930s was by far the most outstanding success of the Soviet pre-war economy"
- OVERY: "The pre-war experience of economic planning and mobilisation helped the regime run a war economy on an emergency basis"
SOCIAL
- people used to hardship and tight control
MILITARY
- Red Army Purge, 1937
- Stalin only used to "attrition" warfare
What strengths and weaknesses did this leave the USSR with?
Impacts of the invasion
ECONOMIC
- economy fell dramatically, 1941-2
- central planning worked well for a war economy - the USSR was arguably the only true war economy of WW2
- came out stronger
- agriculture decimated by "scorched Earth"
SOCIAL
- 20 million Soviet citizens (inc. military and civilians) killed
- exile of suspect nationalities
- campaign of Russification
POLITICAL
- fuelled by suspicion of outside world
- renewed need for buffer states
- lead to SOME advice being taken
MILITARY
- conscription
- victory
- reliance on the 1941 winter
How big an impact did the invasion really have on the USSR in both the long and short terms?
Stalin's war-time leadership
POSITIVES
- diplomacy before the war, buying time
- centralisation of power, STAVKA
- creation of GKO (State Defence Committee) to by-pass bureaucracy when making important decisions
- personal strengths - commanded respect etc
- allowed Zhukov to help
- learning to take advice
- grasp of strategy
- total war
- Order Number 270, August 1941 (all deserters to be shot and their families to be imprisoned)
NEGATIVES
- failures at the start of the war
- PEARSON: "Stalin's first, most fatal error was not to allow his troops to mobilise in time before impending Nazi disaster"
- to blame for many failures, eg Siege of Leningrad
- military purge
- lack of modern, military knowledge
How significant was Stalin's leadership in the Soviet war victory? (This is a regular exam question, and should not be ignored)
Economy during the war
MAIN POINTS
- total war adaptability
- Lend-Lease
- Movement East
- preparation
- falling productivity at the start
- out-producing Germany
POSITIVES
- large industrial capacity
- quick mobilisation of people to war effort
- relocation of industry
- out-producing Germany
- HARRISON: "If WW2 was a test, then the Soviet Economy passed it"
NEGATIVES
- industry in vulnerable areas
- agriculture. Full stop.
- relocation fraught with problems
- shortage of skilled labour
How great an impact did the economy have on the war-effort as a whole?
Impacts on Soviet Society
PROPAGANDA
- Russification
- Orthodox Church
- hailing old war heroes, eg Peter The Great
- 'Mother Russia'
- anti-German, not anti-Nazi
NATIONALITIES
- tartar exile
- Volga Germans
- 250 000 working on German side
- most fully involved in Soviet War Effort
- LAVER: "Stalin was obsessed with a supposed national threat"
CPSU
- membership rose by 3 million, mostly members of armed forces = total support
WOMEN
- running factories etc in men's absence
- employment rose 47%
- in party, proportion rose to 18.3%
PARTISAN MOVEMENTS
- worked for Russia from behind enemy lines
- attacked German soldiers and destroyed equipment
- often killed for their work
Which social issue was most significant to the war effort as a whole?
Kay Battles of the War
MOSCOW, WINTER 1941-2
- October, push begins
- 600 000 troops killed by Germans
- resistance aided by harshest winter on record
- Hitler refused to allow withdrawl
- Russian counter-attack, Dec 1941, leads to Germany's first defeat of the war
- FERGUSON: "the era of Blitzkrieg was over"
STALINGRAD, 1942-3
- Soviet troops told to "defend at all costs"
- Soviets turned it into a war of attrition
- Soviet operation Uranus, Nov 1942, meant Germans were surrounded by 22 Nov, in the "Kessle"
- Hitler ordered General Paulus to stand firm
- surrender 31 Jan 1942
- DOCKRILL: "the beginning of the end for Germany"
KURSK, JULY-SUGUST 1943
- biggest tank battle in history!!
- NAGORSKI - "the turning point of WW2"
Which are the most significant battles and why? Remember, you'll never be asked about a battle; you'll merely have to refer to its significance in the war as a whole.
And, that's the war over!
Obviosuly, the USSR won - they pushed back to Berlin in May 1945, and Hitler committed suicide, meaning victory in Europe.
If you have any questions or thoughts, or would like information on sources or resources, please don't hesitate to comment!
- HistGrrl x
ECONOMY
- good defence economy created by Five Year Plans
- industry to East of Urals - harder to attack
- adaptability to total war
- DAVIES: "The armaments industry of the 1930s was by far the most outstanding success of the Soviet pre-war economy"
- OVERY: "The pre-war experience of economic planning and mobilisation helped the regime run a war economy on an emergency basis"
SOCIAL
- people used to hardship and tight control
MILITARY
- Red Army Purge, 1937
- Stalin only used to "attrition" warfare
What strengths and weaknesses did this leave the USSR with?
Impacts of the invasion
ECONOMIC
- economy fell dramatically, 1941-2
- central planning worked well for a war economy - the USSR was arguably the only true war economy of WW2
- came out stronger
- agriculture decimated by "scorched Earth"
SOCIAL
- 20 million Soviet citizens (inc. military and civilians) killed
- exile of suspect nationalities
- campaign of Russification
POLITICAL
- fuelled by suspicion of outside world
- renewed need for buffer states
- lead to SOME advice being taken
MILITARY
- conscription
- victory
- reliance on the 1941 winter
How big an impact did the invasion really have on the USSR in both the long and short terms?
Stalin's war-time leadership
POSITIVES
- diplomacy before the war, buying time
- centralisation of power, STAVKA
- creation of GKO (State Defence Committee) to by-pass bureaucracy when making important decisions
- personal strengths - commanded respect etc
- allowed Zhukov to help
- learning to take advice
- grasp of strategy
- total war
- Order Number 270, August 1941 (all deserters to be shot and their families to be imprisoned)
NEGATIVES
- failures at the start of the war
- PEARSON: "Stalin's first, most fatal error was not to allow his troops to mobilise in time before impending Nazi disaster"
- to blame for many failures, eg Siege of Leningrad
- military purge
- lack of modern, military knowledge
How significant was Stalin's leadership in the Soviet war victory? (This is a regular exam question, and should not be ignored)
Economy during the war
MAIN POINTS
- total war adaptability
- Lend-Lease
- Movement East
- preparation
- falling productivity at the start
- out-producing Germany
POSITIVES
- large industrial capacity
- quick mobilisation of people to war effort
- relocation of industry
- out-producing Germany
- HARRISON: "If WW2 was a test, then the Soviet Economy passed it"
NEGATIVES
- industry in vulnerable areas
- agriculture. Full stop.
- relocation fraught with problems
- shortage of skilled labour
How great an impact did the economy have on the war-effort as a whole?
Impacts on Soviet Society
PROPAGANDA
- Russification
- Orthodox Church
- hailing old war heroes, eg Peter The Great
- 'Mother Russia'
- anti-German, not anti-Nazi
NATIONALITIES
- tartar exile
- Volga Germans
- 250 000 working on German side
- most fully involved in Soviet War Effort
- LAVER: "Stalin was obsessed with a supposed national threat"
CPSU
- membership rose by 3 million, mostly members of armed forces = total support
WOMEN
- running factories etc in men's absence
- employment rose 47%
- in party, proportion rose to 18.3%
PARTISAN MOVEMENTS
- worked for Russia from behind enemy lines
- attacked German soldiers and destroyed equipment
- often killed for their work
Which social issue was most significant to the war effort as a whole?
Kay Battles of the War
MOSCOW, WINTER 1941-2
- October, push begins
- 600 000 troops killed by Germans
- resistance aided by harshest winter on record
- Hitler refused to allow withdrawl
- Russian counter-attack, Dec 1941, leads to Germany's first defeat of the war
- FERGUSON: "the era of Blitzkrieg was over"
STALINGRAD, 1942-3
- Soviet troops told to "defend at all costs"
- Soviets turned it into a war of attrition
- Soviet operation Uranus, Nov 1942, meant Germans were surrounded by 22 Nov, in the "Kessle"
- Hitler ordered General Paulus to stand firm
- surrender 31 Jan 1942
- DOCKRILL: "the beginning of the end for Germany"
KURSK, JULY-SUGUST 1943
- biggest tank battle in history!!
- NAGORSKI - "the turning point of WW2"
Which are the most significant battles and why? Remember, you'll never be asked about a battle; you'll merely have to refer to its significance in the war as a whole.
And, that's the war over!
Obviosuly, the USSR won - they pushed back to Berlin in May 1945, and Hitler committed suicide, meaning victory in Europe.
If you have any questions or thoughts, or would like information on sources or resources, please don't hesitate to comment!
- HistGrrl x
Introduction to posting style
Each post in The History Girl is going to be written in the same style.
First, we'll tackle units, part of a unit at a time, in short, simple bullet points, and then we'll look at themes, followed by construction of a strong essay, and exam technique.
And, of course, we'll not forget the historiography!
At the end of each section will be a question in italics - something for you to think about as you revise.
Hope this help - and good luck with your exam!
First, we'll tackle units, part of a unit at a time, in short, simple bullet points, and then we'll look at themes, followed by construction of a strong essay, and exam technique.
And, of course, we'll not forget the historiography!
At the end of each section will be a question in italics - something for you to think about as you revise.
Hope this help - and good luck with your exam!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
