Trotsky Described War As the 'Locomotive of History'

Trotsky described war as the 'locomotive of history'. How far can it be argued that change in Russia in the period 1855 to 1956 was caused only by involvement in wars?

Focus: An evaluation of the extent to which involvement in war was the only cause of change in Russia

Candidates should focus on some of the issues below, all of which could contribute to an understanding of what caused change to happen in Russia in this period and the extent to which war was the 'locomotive of history'

 Arguments in support could include how significant reforms followed defeats in war, as in 1905 & 1917 (twice!) did revolutions. The impact of the First World War in terms of the overthrow of Nicholas 11 and then the Provisional Government in 1917 will certainly be discussed. Kronstadt & the abandonment of War Communism followed the Civil War.  Stalin justified introducing the Five Year Plans because 'old Russia was ceaselessly beaten' and must never be again.  However, candidates may argue against this proposition on the grounds that significant changes were introduced when Russia was not at war; eg. Witte's 'Great Spurt', the Five Year Plans & Collectivisation.  Defeat in war was rarely the only reason for reform; e.g. Emancipation, the October Manifesto. The revolutions of 1917 were multi-causal and cannot be simply explained as outcomes of defeats in wars.  Can be argued that Tsardom had not really recovered from 1905 – Russia was staggering towards revolution and the War merely accelerated the process  Counter argument is that the War was a key factor – Tsardom had grown stronger after 1905 – there were few indications of imminent collapse therefore the War was the main cause of change.  The causes of the November Revolution are different although the decision by the Provisional Government to continue the War is important  Can be argued that Emancipation was introduced as a result of failure 1854-6 but stronger argument is that the war merely emphasised need for change  Alexander II may well have introduced changes anyway as he was anxious to modernise Russia in order to strengthen his position.  Stolypin’s reforms were also introduced in time of peace – designed to create a peasant class with vested interest in maintaining Tsarism

'Military needs were always the main reason for Russia's economic development'. To what extent do you agree with this judgement?

Focus: Evaluation of the reasons for the economic development of Russia in this period.

Candidates must focus on the economic development of Russia from 1855 to 1956. A relative comparison of Russia's economic development under the Tsars from 1855 - 1917 and under communism will possibly be undertaken.  The similarities between economic development in both periods could be usefully discussed, for example the crucial role played centrally by the state. Under Witte industrialisation was under the direction of the state. Huge loans borrowed from abroad, mainly from France. Peasants were heavily taxed to service the debt. Focus was on key industries in specific areas – not driven by need to produce consumer goods. There are clear parallels under Stalin except the industrialisation was largely self-funded.  Candidates should consider the relative importance of Russia's military needs against other factors that influenced Russia's economic development.  Candidates may well argue that military need was a dominating theme: for example defeat in the Crimean War, the need to win the Civil War and Stalin's determination to prepare for war. Candidates may realize that Witte's 'Great Spurt' was mainly aimed at modernizing the economy for military purposes.  Candidates may find a variety of different ways in which to challenge the assertion in this question. These may include a discussion of the extent to Russia's industrialization was motivated, before or after 1917, by the general need to modernize and catch up with the more industrialized west.  Specific problems such as famine in 1891 or 1921, or the Kronstadt Revolt of the latter year may be seen to be the catalyst of change. The Kronstadt Revolt clearly played a major part in Lenin’s decision to suspend war communism and to introduce a mixed economy under the NEP  The extent to which ideology influenced economic development, especially after 1917, could be usefully explored. Push towards more industrialised society would strengthen communist control – introduction of war communism under Lenin saw businesses being nationalised. Stalin also spoke of the need to ‘socialise the countryside’ – peasants were not natural supporters of communism! Development of command economy under Stalin suited his leadership style.