How Helpful Are the Differing Views in Sources C and D As Interpretations on the Terror?

How helpful are the differing views in Sources C and D as interpretations on the Terror? [16 marks]

Candidate considers the views in Sources C and D and evaluates their usefulness in providing a context overview within which to review different interpretations on the Terror in terms of:

Points from Source C:

Provenance: Candidate can be given credit for any relevant and appropriate points of provenance comment that are made. These may include reference to;

the fact that Source C is an official document, but, designated `strictly secret', was not intended for public consumption (it was declassified in the 1990s). It seems to focus on collectivisation opposers and be a reflection of the prevailing ‘sabotage’ paranoia in the higher levels of Communist party.

Content Source mentions Yezhov.. and seems to be recommending highly oppressive measures Source confirms that Stalin personally ordered mass arrests and executions; despite its formality and legalistic language, the document is notable for the vagueness with which it identifies (imminent) victims of the terror (`anti-Soviet crimes'); it therefore appears to attack indiscriminate targets; it permits the authorities to arrest and execute almost anyone.

Possible points from recall:

Source C, despite originating from the inner sanctum of the Soviet government in 1937, does not appear to reveal anything new about the terror (beyond proving that Stalin sanctioned it). It therefore raises questions about whether the Soviet leadership actually believed it had enemies everywhere, or whether such documents were drawn up to hoodwink posterity into believing that the leadership sincerely believed enemies were everywhere. Does Source C tell us more about the fear of instability in Soviet Russia than it does about any actual threat? More on the nature of the purges..[details, extent, which groups, how long for? Repercussions on soviet life]

Points from Source D

Provenance: Candidate can be given credit for any relevant and appropriate points of provenance comment that are made. These may include reference to;

recognition that source is from a well known America social Historian, from her pioneering account of urban life in Stalinist Russia. She tried to get into the ‘consciousness’ of the ‘victims’ of the Stalinist system; to see how the normal soviet citizen adapted in their everyday life, to the extraordinary circumstances imposed upon them by Stalinist methods of terror.

Content The source shows the extent of the terror, highlighting not just the ‘enemies’ but the all pervasive nature of the climate of fear and suspicion which helped fuel the purges. The role of the newspapers is important in stoking it up The Tukhachevsky trial leading to suspicions of the army, and the fear of German spies The role of ‘denunciation’ in the process… already an epidemic feature of Soviet life; but now endemic.

Possible points from recall: Discusses the nature of the purges; Source D suggests that rather than there being a legitimate threat, enemies were in fact anyone; and there was no sense of a structured approach to rooting out ‘real enemies’ at all. It confirms the thought that there was no central direction to the purges, and that the fear was all pervasive [a control mechanism?]

Candidates should add evidence for and against this debate, including perhaps details of the Show trials, wider information on the purges of the armed forces, Stalin’s paranoia, the power of the NKVD, the power of individuals within the structure, Yagoda, Yezhov [schina], Beria et al, and consider the point that not everyone suffered. Views of key historians such as Robert Conquest, Robert Thurston, Evan Mawdsley, Robert Tucker or similar could be brought to bear.

1-4 Vaguely written; not answering the question or showing understanding of the differing views in the sources; minimal explanation; little sense of context; merely re-describing the sources.

5-7 Fairly well-written and some relevant points of explanation made. Shows a limited understanding of the differing views in the sources and contains a basic sense of context; but lacking clear structure; points made randomly, indicating little grasp of significance

8.11 Clearly written and sensibly structured; explanation ranges over several relevant points and sets material in context fairly accurately. Shows a good factual grasp of topic, an understanding of the differing views of the sources, and a reasonable developed analysis, which may include reference to historians’ views.

12.16 Accurate, wide-ranging and convincing argument; shows a clear understanding of the differing views in the sources, a solid grasp of context and significance of material, and well developed levels of relevant analysis. Appropriate reference to historians’ views will be credited highly