Coming in October …

…Fight club.

The plan is for an online History debate between Mr Kydd’s set and Mrs Canning’s set. It will be done through posting comments to this post. Judging will be by Ms Vignali’s set.

The aim is to get you really thinking about how to construct analytical and powerful arguments in as few words as possible.

The rules.

Obviously the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule is also that you do not talk about fight club. However the third rule is that each school will get two posts of no more than 200 words. Credit will be given for the power of your arguments and evidence deployed (you should aim to interact with it where it is appropriate). 

The timeline will be as follows.

 

The week starting the 30th September – My set have a week to make their first post in favour of the motion.

The week starting the 7th October – Mrs Canning’s set have a week to put their first post against the motion.

The week starting the 14th October – both sets have a week to post a rebuttal of the other school’s argument.

The week starting 21st October – Judging to take place. Ms Vignali’s set will focus on the power of the argument (not which idea they agree with more). 

Enjoy…

Mr Kydd

DEBATE TITLE

To what extent is it correct to suggest that Alexander II deserves his reputation as the Tsar Liberator ?

Posted in History Society | 3 Comments

Enrichment article – 1913-2013: How Russia Botched an Entire Century

Nicholas-II-TsarPlease click here for this Alex Bayer’s article in the Globalist. In many respects it presents a standard American survey of Tsarist under-achievement followed by Communist misrule. Typically, for example, he states “Russia’s political economy has not moved forward much over the past 100 years. Despite mind-boggling mistakes, mismanagement and crimes of its leaders, Russia even now has much unrealized potential.” 

It certainly hits on key synoptic themes of our course – such as the desire for  economic modernisation and the use of repression. In truth I think it is readable, but I am not sure that I agree with it all. You might like to read and note its main conclusions now – at the start of our course – and then review it when we have completed our studies.

Mr Kydd.

Posted in News | 9 Comments

Summer Reading

BookReview1Lovely people,
As agreed, the purpose of this post is to allow you to post your summer book review comments below. You really don’t need to write much – one to two paragraphs is fine. Do then look at  each others’ comments (especially if you have read the same things).

Enjoy the Summer.

                                         Mr Kydd.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Russia season in the History Society

 
You should by now have had your paper flyer for this. The first session is on Tuesday – I am now taking orders for which cakes you want.
 
Mr Kydd.
 

The History Society

A Rake's Progress (plate 7) 1735 by William Hogarth 1697-1764

Summer 2013 – The Russia season

(part one)

 

This is intended for the returning historians, but all are welcome.To get you in the mood for the extraordinary journey that is Russian dictatorships the History Society (the attached image is of an earlier meeting) will be running a series of enrichment sessions after school in T10 from 3.30 this term.

  • Tuesday 25th June – Timewatch compares Ivan the Terrible and Stalin . A super introduction to synoptic writing and there will be violence. 1 hour.

 

  • Monday 1st July – Timewatch search for the real Rasputin. There will be rude bits, and it an interesting way in to considering the role of the individual in History. 1 hour.

 

  • Tuesday 9th July – Stalin – Man of Steel. David Reynolds discusses how Stalin almost lost the Great Patriotic War. The impact of war is another key theme of this course, but really the worth of this session is to help you understand the scale of Russian history, and the nature of the relationship between the rulers and the ruled in a totalitarian state. 1½ hours.

There will be cake…  

See you there.

Mr Kydd.

Posted in History Society | Leave a comment

Revision Conference – Sunday 2nd June

Exclaimation mark - YellowAll,

Many thanks for turning up in such great numbers today. We hope that it was useful. As promised, here are electronic versions of the materials that we have used.

 

  • The powerpoint presentation – What the examiners want is here
  • The synoptic example is here
  • The opposition plans are here and here .

GOOD LUCK FOR TOMORROW -YOU DESERVE TO DO GREAT THINGS.

Mr Kydd.

Posted in Revision | Leave a comment

Russians name Brezhnev best 20th-century leader, and Gorbachev worst.

49_siA surprising and timely poll in Russia placed the hardline Leonid Brezhnev as their most popular leader, and the reforming Mikhail Gorbachev – the man who from our western view point is often seen as a hero for his part in ending the Cold War – as the worst.

This is helpful to us as it reminds us of the perils of defining achievement and success in western terms. As Professor Valery Solovei told Kommersant daily “No one would want to live in Stalin’s era, but he personifies what now is in shortage: Justice and equality in fear”.

This is of course something that we have discussed when we asked who was the most successful of the Russian dictators.

Mr Kydd.

Posted in News, Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Industrialisation and Condition of the Workers – Feedback

Exclaimation mark - YellowAll,

Many thanks for all your hard work – please find below Tom’s detailed feedback. You should spend some time reflecting on his analysis. There are points here to consider for next week’s essay. 

The bad news is that this does mean that Luke and the boys won. Pot plants to follow…

Abul:

The industrialisation line for the Tsarist period is too high. In particular, the level of industrialisation during the Great Spurt was not really comparable to that which would later occur under Stalin, but the lines are at similar levels. Industrialisation between the end of the war and Stalin’s first Five Year Plan was not linear either – War Communism didn’t little for industrialisation and while things did improve under the NEP, arguably this mainly benefited agriculture and was in place for too short a time to have a large impact on industry. I disagree that the level of industrialisation fell after the first Five Year Plan. While subsequent plans were not necessarily as successful, industrialisation remained at a high rate until the Second World War.

The suffering line suggests a decrease in suffering after 1918, but the policy of War Communism was actually very repressive. Conditions improve under the NEP (for example, the creation of NEPmen), and suffering only starts to increase relative to War Communism from around 1928. At this point it remains increasing and high until the end of the war, and decreases as you say.

Girls:

Similarly, I think the industrialisation line is too high for the pre-1917 period. The drop in industrialisation after the end of the war does not recover until the late 1920s, hence the line is much too high and steep between 1918 a 1928. The relative increase in industrialisation between 1928 and 1941 should be the biggest on the entire graph, but here is shown to actually decrease.

Suffering was no where near as high at the start of the period as on the graph and should be much lower, for example, than Vyshnegradsky’s man-made famine. As mentioned above, suffering should not be shown to decrease immediately after 1918, and remained high until at least 1922, when it did drop until 1928. Suffering between 1928 and 1932 is shown to decrease, when actually this period is when it really began to increase, in particular due to the famine of the early 1930s. It then should remain consistently high until reaching a peak in 1945.

Boys:

The industrialisation line is more accurate up until the Great Spurt, but I don’t think the drop off after it should be as marked as it is. The real decline came during the war, not really before. Activity was low in the immediate aftermath, although perhaps not quite as bad as at the start of the period. Like with the girls, the industrialisation line increases too rapidly in the 1920s, it should not begin to shoot up until 1928. The post-war decline was not so bad as to take them back to 1928 levels, and I would argue the line should be steeper in the post-war era as industrialisation focused to more socially useful goods such as consumer goods.

The suffering line I think is the most accurate, as it shows that suffering did increase after the war under War Communism, and also that the big increase came in the 1930s, before decreasing after the war. The gradually increasing suffering throughout the Tsarist period, with a jump under Vyshnegrasky I think is accurate.

I think that overall the Boys graph is the best, as it shows suffering most accurately. Of the comments here, Luke D’s is the best as he makes the point that despite some progress under Tsarism, the Great Spurt should not be shown as that high on the graph as not that much progress was made, and similarly that the relative level of suffering in the Tsarist period was much less than it would later be under Stalin.

A couple of general points:
-suffering is shown to decrease immediately after 1945, but arguably this only started to happen from 1953 at the end of Stalinism
-The major period of industrialisation was from 1928 until the outbreak of war. All of the graphs show industrialisation almost reaching a peak before 1928, but Russia didn’t recover to pre-war levels until almost that late. The biggest jump should come between 1928 and 1941.
-Similarly, owing to the Great Terror of 1936-8, suffering should be shown to jump during the mid 1930s (not decrease as the girls said!), although this is not directly related to industrialisation, it was arguably the biggest cause of suffering in the entire period.

Posted in Revision | Leave a comment

Industry and the Condition of the Workers – comparative work

As we have now written on both industry and the condition of the workers it felt appropriate to conclude by comparing the two. Below therefore are your three attempts to draw two timelines on the same page (blue is industrial progress and pink is level of suffering for the workers), followed by your written justifications of your ideas.

Remember the higher the position on the timeline the greater the industrial  activity / level of suffering. The key here of course is to look at relative positions within and across timelines.

Task – Study your peers’ timeline and comments. Post a reply. What do you agree and disagree with ? Make sure to explain your thoughts using evidence (that you interact with ?). 

Mr Kydd.

The Girls

Why we drew the industry line where we did

 

We started our line low for the reason that the Crimean war was the 1st instance showing how much Russian needed to industrialise. After the Emancipation edict, an internal market started to form, hence the reason our line rose. However, we didn’t rank overtly high, due to the fact that it would have only had a long-term effect and would have not been beneficiary for the short-term. We decided ‘The great Spurt’ was one of the first instances where Russia began to industrialise on an international level, leading to a heightening of line. However industrialisation rapidly decreased, plunging lowest in the 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where Russian lost 25% of its population; 25% of its industry and 80% of its coal industry. During Stalin’s second 5yr plan in 1935, the Russian industry grew to its highest point in the years of 1855-1964 – were the Russian economy was just equipped enough to defend themselves in war. Yet, in 1945 Russia’s industrialisation decreased due to the German invasion of Barbarossa . Ending our line with increase in Russia’s industrialisation due to the fact in the year of 1956 Russia was now publically classed as a super power, wining the space race. Examples of this is Russia’s launching of Sputnik in October 1953 – the first artificial earth satellite, and also the development of the Nuclear Bomb.

 

Why we drew the exploitation of the workers line where we did

Our view of the relationship between the two lines

The Boys

 Why we drew the industry line where we did

From 1860-1890 there was a focus on industrialisation after the realisation of Russia’s backwardness in the Crimean war. The foundations of modernisation were being laid, culminating in Witte’s great spurt, with the highlight being the development of the Trans-Siberian railway which linked Russia’s population to its vast natural resources. However the First World War was further evidence for Russia’s lack of industrialisation, and the devastation of war communism along with the loss of large industrial areas under the treaty of Brest Litovsk led to levels of industrialisation dropping to pre- emancipation levels. Lenin’s NEP introduced a mixed economy that allowed for prosperity.  As a result levels of industrialisation rapidly increased to pre-war levels. Russia reached its peak of industrial development under Stalin, as his unprecedented production output made Russia strong enough to defend herself from German invasion in the Great Patriotic War. Stalin transformed Russia from an agrarian country into a major industrial superpower. The Great Patriotic War had devastating effects on Russia including the loss of 36 million of her people. However the destruction was not as devastating industrially as that of the First World War due to the levels of industrialisation Stalin had achieved pre-war. When Khrushchev came to power in 1956 Russia was a major industrial superpower and was winning the space race. This was unquantifiable progress from the Russia that just 100 years previous had been humiliated in the Crimean War. 

Why we drew the exploitation of the workers line where we did

 With the lack of industrialisation pre 1855 most of the suffering occurred in agriculture and although there was exploitation of the serfs, everyone was at the same level. The graph starts so low because this early suffering was nothing in comparison to the suffering that occurred later. Under Vyshnegradskii’s policy of “export and go hungry” the amount of suffering increased, particularly in the 1891 famines. However post Witte, leading into war communism, there was a steady rise in suffering which runs parallel to the First World War. The reason for the sharp increase in suffering under War Communism, peaking in 1920-21 was due to the famines which led to the deaths of an estimated 15 million people. Under the NEP, private trade was once again allowed and peasants could once again sell their surplus crops for profit. This led to food production levels reaching pre-war levels once again. Acton calls this the “golden age” of the Russian peasant.  From then on however we see the unique exploitation of the workers under Stalin. This is why the line increases rapidly until it reaches the greatest amount of suffering in the period in 1945. The Soviet Union had been devastated in the Great Patriotic War, 36 million citizens had dies and 70,000 kolkhozy had been completely wiped out. The amount of suffering then begins to decline under Khrushchev. Khrushchev did ease some of the suffering of the workers through his Virgin Lands policy and the focus of consumer goods which led to an increase in standards of living and a decline in suffering.

Our view of the relationship between the two lines

 The main relationship between our two lines is that when industrialisation in Russia was increasing, so was the amount of suffering the workers experienced. This is shown by Witte’s Great Spurt in which Russia saw its first big industrial growth and made it the 5th largest industrial country in the world, but at the same time saw the suffering of the workers got worse and lead to the famine of 1891. As well as under Stalin’s five year plans when his unique amount of exploitation on the Russian workers lead to the biggest amount of industrialisation in the countries history, the amount of suffering for the workers  reached its absolute peak , and with the of the Second World War as well, saw the death of 36 million Soviet Citizens. The only real exception to this is when the industrialisation of Russia collapsed during the First World War and because of War Communism, the level of the suffering actually increased, which lead to the famine of 1920-21.

The other relationship between the two lines under the NEP and Krushchev is that when they are industrialising that actually do more to make things better for the working classes. For example, the NEP brought food production back to pre war levels and allowed the peasants to sell their surplus once more. Under Krushchev he increases industrialisation, but not at the expense of the proletariats and the peasants, he introduces a focus on consumer goods and increases living standards, as well as implementing his Virgin Lands policy in the countryside.

Abul

(who decided to make his own stand)

Why I drew my Industry line where I did / why I drew my exploitation of the workers line where I did

(done together)

 

Wittie and pre-Wittie, although saw for example saw for instances rapid railways construction and increasing exports, the suffering during this period reached a peak under Vyshengradskii’s grain export drives, were is thought to have killed 3 million. In his own words “we must export and go hungry” and go hungry they did. Any obstacle face by the tsars was faced with brutal force for example Lena goldfield massacre thought to have killed 200

 

Although Lenin came to power and in theory severing was meant to decline via his Sovnarkom decrees, the need to win a war led to the economic policy of war communism. This was a greater peak than Vyshengradskiis as it affected both the peasants and the proletariat and killed a greater number of people.

 

However the NEP success after war communism should not be underestimated as it is considered as the ‘golden age’. For him first time peasants had surplus grain to sell on. ‘Surplus’ is a key word as it signifies that peasants had more than they needed which is very rare in Russian history. Bu 1925 food production had reached pre-war level.

 

After Lenin’s death Stalin stated that Russia was “50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries”. He exploited the proletariat to an extent where there was 8 million Zeks in the gulags and whole class of kulaks where wiped out in the process of de-kulakastion. The suffering reached a peak during war famine due to collectivisation where it is thought to have killed 36 million soviets.      

 

After Stalin’s death Khrushchev de-nuances Stalin and quotes that “men feared there shadows” suggesting the unparallel levels of exploitation under Stalin. He put greater emphasise on consumer goods which incentives the peasants to increases productivity; furthermore his virgin lands policy greatly increased the amount of land under cultivation. This helped reduce exploitation.

 

My view of the relationship between the two lines

 

Industrialisation can be considered as proportional to exploration. Industrialisation was a strand of continuity and exploitation was a result of the need and want of rapid industrialisation. Under Reutern there was no real exploitation, the desire to industrialise was greater under Wittie and Vyshnegardskii who were intent on fulfilling great state projects e.g. trans-Siberian railway and drawing in foreign investment. The economic policies of Vyshnegradskii resulted famine which killed 3 million showing the proportional nature of exploitation and industrialisation.

 

Industrialisation was halted during war and greatly declined after it. Russia lost vast amounts of resources land, people and 80% of industry making both the peasants and proletariat suffer. War communism further increased the exploration. 

 

NEP and Khrushchev are unique figures as they increased both industrialisation and standard of living. NEP made a profit motive while Khrushchev incentives people with greater number of consumer goods.

 

Stalin can also be considered as a unique figure as the levels of industrialisation and exploration was unparallel to any other Russian ruler. In the 1930’s growth rate averaged 12-13% but was hampered by war and Stalin’s policies along with war left 36 million dead and more than 8 million were enslaved in the gulags. The peaks therefore are greatest under Stalin.     

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Solzhenitsyn’s One Day: The book that shook the USSR

As this was set as part of your summer reading I thought it would be helpful to post this BBC review here. This review explains the origins and importance of the November 1962 book, suggesting that “it is now regarded as one of the most significant books of the 20th Century”. You may like to also read this article on Solzhenitsyn entitled A tortured patriot .

Perhaps we should leave the last word with the writer himself.

 “It was still dark, although a greenish light was brightening in the east. A thin, treacherous breeze was creeping in from the same direction. There is no worse moment than when you turn out for work parade in the morning. In the dark, in the freezing cold, with a hungry belly, and the whole day ahead of you. You lose the power of speech…”

Mr Kydd.

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Am I in proportion Year Thirteen ?

As we are now onthe brink of writing our first fully synoptic essays on the peasants I think it would be helpful to return to our agriculture timelines.

Task :- Have a look again at the timeline. Now that you understand this theme what do you think of it ? In pairs discuss it and post a comment below thinking carefully about the relative positions of the key events.  Make sure that you explain your reasons behind your comments.

Mr Kydd.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments