HSC Stuff > Marking Thread Archives

Modern History Essay Marking

<< < (5/41) > >>

jakesilove:

--- Quote from: CatherineSchweinsberg on March 02, 2016, 08:27:05 pm ---Hey, I'm not sure if I remembered to attach my essay into the last post, so that's useful...
This is my historical investigation but the problem is, it's supposed to be 1500 words and I'm 250 over. Feedback for the whole thing in general would be great, but especially for the analysis of sources and stuff. thanks!  :D

--- End quote ---

Hey Catherine!

So I didn't actually do this time period, but I'll still take a look through the essay! Sorry if some of my comments don't make sense: if it's due to my lack of knowledge of the topic area, you should totally ignore me!

Original essay:
SpoilerAssess the positive impacts of western ideas in reforming Indian society during the British Raj

   The British Raj was the period of British domination over India in which many changes were made to the structure of Indian society. From 1858, Britain initiated a strong impact over how the country ran, which resulted in a westernised India. Eventually, Britain introduced western culture through literature, religion, the media and British citizens themselves. British individuals and groups evoked a variety of reforms and laws that positively affected the Indian people’s lives. Having said that, Britain didn’t just change Indian society for the better. From the point of view of an Indian citizen, Britain may have damaged and threatened the traditional cultures and beliefs of pre-colonial India. Britain had altered Indian society to a certain extent by introducing the value of education, improving the lives of Indian women, impacting the caste system and causing a growth of nationalism, whether it was intentional or not. These impacts modernised India and in some cases overall benefitted the social structure of Indian society.

     Social reforms were created by the British to improve the condition of women in Indian society. Before the reforms, women were being treated as unequal and had to maintain the standards of social expectations by submitting themselves to the harming religious practices, such as Sati. Lord William Bentinck, the Governor General in India worked closely with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, to create social reforms to improve the condition of Indian women in society. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was an influential figure in India, who spread ideas of freedom and rights through the newspaper, books, treaties and organized protests.  He and Bentinck successfully eradicated social evils affecting women in society, including the practice of Sati. Sati involves the burning of the widow on the late husband’s pyre, so she can be with him after death. In traditional Hindu beliefs, the practice was thought to signify female purity and valour, though in most cases the women was not willing to die. Lord Bentinck’s primary objective of removing the practice from society was to benefit the Hindu population in the long term. Since he was governor general, all he had to do was write a letter to create a change in law, in his document on the Suppression of Sati on the 8th November 1829, Bentinck stated, “The first and primary object of my heart is the benefit of the Hindus. I know nothing so important to the improvement of their future condition as the establishment of a purer morality, whatever their belief, and more just conception of the will of God.” The abolition of sati was achieved after Bentinck wrote this document. This primary source proves that he worked towards improving the treatment of women in society. This primary source is important because it’s an official government document, was written at the time of event, and was written by Bentinck himself. On the other hand, it is not clear as to what his motives were and if he just wanted more control through these reforms, or whether or not the practice actually stopped. Thus, this proves that a British individual was indeed actively attempting to improve society.

   Changes in the education system benefitted Indian society a great deal, as it produced educated and inspired people with a new perspective and ability to form groups based on making India a better place. David Hare was a British philanthropist determined to make a change in the education system and devoted to the cause of Indian education. He achieved this by building a college and teaching there himself. He also, was a friend with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who supported the western ideas. They collaborated to achieve this common goal by building the Hindu College in Calcutta for the education of Indian youths in 1817, where Hare taught 565 young men modern science and philosophy. Schools around the country were starting to be constructed. 5 years earlier, the Charter act of 1813 was a turning point in the history of education in India, as it stated that money would be applied to the revival and improvement of literature and teaching. This meant that Britain was finally starting to take an interest in the youth of India and realising the importance of schooling. However, only upper caste males were educated, which had always been the case. Girls wouldn’t be educated until later on in the century and lower castes would barely have access to British education, nevertheless, the outcome of the Hindu college was very successful, and the Young Bengal movement was formed. It incorporated the radical, free thinkers who were inspired to revolt against the social structure of Hindu society. This was thanks to David Hare, the teacher of the students. The students’ gratitude towards Hare is distinctively shown in an address of welcome, signed by Dakshinaranjan Mukherjee on the 17th February 1831. “Many have enjoyed the happiness of receiving the gift of education… we are permitted to keep among us a representation of the man who has breathed a new life into Hindu society.” Evidently, David Hare significantly changed the lives of these boys, by giving them knowledge and inspiration. This source is important in showing the attitude of a British individual and the effect he had on Indian students, who were evidently grateful for the gift of education.  However, this is only a handful of students; the source doesn’t provide the nation wide opinion on the new education system. The Western education system was very positive outcome of the British Raj.
   
   The British modernised the caste system that resulted in it being more similar to the western class system, which was a positive impact to an extent because the caste system beforehand was….. In India, the social standing you had depended on into which family you were born into, which meant that certain caste could never change. Whereas the British class system was based around levels of wealth and education. The change to the caste system was significant, as it increased nationalistic and liberalistic feelings, which led to a stronger structure of society with a common set of feelings and goals, for instance, independence. The middle… The caste system was affected greatly by the British, but never fully eradicated. The British improved the caste system by allowing the lower castes and untouchables more rights, such as the right to interact with those of higher castes. This was done to modernise India to represent it as a British colony. Many British citizens lived in India, and as they followed the class system, this was closely influencing the way society was run. Therefore, British rule had a positive effect on the Indian caste system. On the other hand, the caste system wasn’t fully eradicated. It had weakened a great deal, and mostly in areas of high British population such as Calcutta. Today, there are still area of poverty and inequality due to caste. In an interview between a Hindu women and a journalist, the Hindu women describes that all the girls who are untouchables would most certainly become housewives and would be married off to someone of the same caste by the time they are 16 when the marriageable age is now 18. She says that society is very caste bound. This source is important as it proves that the caste system is still around today, and the British didn’t completely remove it. Or though, it’s not clear as to what the restrictions of the caste-bound society are. Overall, the British had somewhat changed the caste system by weakening the majority of the system so that there were more rights for the lower castes, and less of a gap of power and superiority.

     There was a huge growth of nationalism in India, particularly during the early 20th century, which was mainly caused by the influence of Western civilisation. Nationalism was hugely significant, since it meant that the Indian people were feeling a sense of unity, eventually allowing them to gain their freedom.  The impact of Britain in this case was great, but whether it was positive is arguable. Some would argue that the British influence caused the greatest cause for nationalism, but on the other side, common feelings of opposition and desperation for independence among the Indian people would be enough for the movement to inaugurate.  For example, western education and language being introduced allowed ideologies such as nationalism and liberalism to be discovered by the Indian people, as the ideologies were being embraced over Europe at that time. English educated Indian citizens, such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, were leading social, religious and political movements that were supported by the majority of the population, more specifically the rising middle class. This roused a sense of nationalism among the people. Not only education, but also the exposure of British media over the country provoked the ideology, again, due to the fact that countries in Europe such as Germany were embracing nationalism. Bal Gangadha Tilak, among many things, was an Indian nationalist, social reformer and the first leader of the Indian Independence movement. He believed that nothing Britain did was beneficial to society, and passionately opposed British rule. He said that for India to make progress it must become independent, and the only way for that to happen was by a self-governing country and not thorough social reforms. This primary source is relevant in that it shows the other side of the argument, suggesting that Britain did not have a positive impact on India. However, it does not show whether or not his words had an impact on society. Therefore, the British Raj had a partial positive impact in introducing western ideas.

    The British had a great impact on Indian society, by introducing ideas and enforcing laws that resulted in an overall positive outcome. Society in India had changed greatly, with a new education system, which resulted in the beginning of a more thoughtful and inspired society that formed groups and expressed ideas. Nationalism increased over the country due to the close social connections through British media, literature, education and Britain individuals themselves. The lives of women and the lower and out of castes improved to an extent, as a result of the social reforms that took place around 1929. The social impacts of the British rule, either greatly positive or fairly positive, were largely responsible for the reforming of India during the Raj.

Essay with comments:
SpoilerAssess the positive impacts of western ideas in reforming Indian society during the British Raj

   The British Raj was the period of British domination over India in which many changes were made to the structure of Indian society. From 1858, Britain initiated a strong impact over how the country ran, which resulted in a westernised India. Eventually, Britain introduced western culture through literature, religion, the media and British citizens themselves. British individuals and groups evoked a variety of reforms and laws that positively affected the Indian people’s lives. Having said that, Britain didn’t just change Indian society for the better. From the point of view of an Indian citizen, Britain may have damaged and threatened the traditional cultures and beliefs of pre-colonial India. Britain had altered Indian society to a certain extent by introducing the value of education, improving the lives of Indian women, impacting the caste system and causing a growth of nationalism, whether it was intentional or not. These impacts modernised India and in some cases overall benefitted the social structure of Indian society.

Good intro. Words like "having said that" can be reduced to "However", limiting total word count. That is the best way that I would recommend cutting down words: changing 2 words into 1, 500 times!

     Social reforms were created by the British to improve the condition of women in Indian society. Before the reforms, women were being treated as unequal and had to maintain the standards of social expectations by submitting themselves to the harming religious practices, such as Sati. Lord William Bentinck, the Governor General in India worked closely with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, to create social reforms to improve the condition of Indian women in society. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was an influential figure in India, who spread ideas of freedom and rights through the newspaper, books, treaties and organized protests.  He and Bentinck successfully eradicated social evils affecting women in society, including the practice of Sati. Sati involves the burning of the widow on the late husband’s pyre, so she can be with him after death. In traditional Hindu beliefs, the practice was thought to signify female purity and valour, though in most cases the women was not willing to die. Lord Bentinck’s primary objective of removing the practice from society was to benefit the Hindu population in the long term. Since he was governor general, all he had to do was write a letter to create a change in law, in his document on the Suppression of Sati on the 8th November 1829, Bentinck stated, “The first and primary object of my heart is the benefit of the Hindus. I know nothing so important to the improvement of their future condition as the establishment of a purer morality, whatever their belief, and more just conception of the will of God.” The abolition of sati was achieved after Bentinck wrote this document. This primary source proves that he worked towards improving the treatment of women in society. This primary source is important because it’s an official government document, was written at the time of event, and was written by Bentinck himself. On the other hand, it is not clear as to what his motives were and if he just wanted more control through these reforms, or whether or not the practice actually stopped. Thus, this proves that a British individual was indeed actively attempting to improve society.

I really like your writing style, and your content, and your argument. I think it would be quite easy to cut down words, however. Deleting things like "on the other hand", and replacing it with "conversely" etc. I really like your source analysis. Words like  "primary source", drawing actual conclusions from quotes rather than just stating what they were. I think there is a little bit too much "explaining" of what actually happened; this is not to say you need to put a greater emphasis on drawing conclusions (because you've done that consistently, and well), I'm just wondering if you can cut down on the stating of what happened. That being said, I would recommend incorporating a few more facts/statistics/dates etc. to give you an extra boost in marks!

   Changes in the education system benefitted Indian society a great deal, as it produced educated and inspired people with a new perspective and ability to form groups based on making India a better place. David Hare was a British philanthropist determined to make a change in the education system and devoted to the cause of Indian education. He achieved this by building a college and teaching there himself. He also, was a friend with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who supported the western ideas. They collaborated to achieve this common goal by building the Hindu College in Calcutta for the education of Indian youths in 1817, where Hare taught 565 young men modern science and philosophy. Schools around the country were starting to be constructed. 5 years earlier, the Charter act of 1813 was a turning point in the history of education in India, as it stated that money would be applied to the revival and improvement of literature and teaching. This meant that Britain was finally starting to take an interest in the youth of India and realising the importance of schooling. However, only upper caste males were educated, which had always been the case. Girls wouldn’t be educated until later on in the century and lower castes would barely have access to British education, nevertheless, the outcome of the Hindu college was very successful, and the Young Bengal movement was formed. It incorporated the radical, free thinkers who were inspired to revolt against the social structure of Hindu society. This was thanks to David Hare, the teacher of the students. The students’ gratitude towards Hare is distinctively shown in an address of welcome, signed by Dakshinaranjan Mukherjee on the 17th February 1831. “Many have enjoyed the happiness of receiving the gift of education… we are permitted to keep among us a representation of the man who has breathed a new life into Hindu society.” Evidently, David Hare significantly changed the lives of these boys, by giving them knowledge and inspiration. This source is important in showing the attitude of a British individual and the effect he had on Indian students, who were evidently grateful for the gift of education.  However, this is only a handful of students; the source doesn’t provide the nation wide opinion on the new education system. The Western education system was very positive outcome of the British Raj.

Whilst your source analysis is good, be less explicit about it! Saying "this source" once in your essay is good, but for the rest of the time get rid of the word source. Rather, just say "this is indicative of" etc. etc.; just anything other than source! Since this is an essay, not a source analysis, you don't need to treat it as though you are being marked entirely on the source component.
   
   The British modernised the caste system that resulted in it being more similar to the western class system, which was a positive impact to an extent because the caste system beforehand was….. In India, the social standing you had depended on into which family you were born into, which meant that certain caste could never change. Whereas the British class system was based around levels of wealth and education. The change to the caste system was significant, as it increased nationalistic and liberalistic feelings, which led to a stronger structure of society with a common set of feelings and goals, for instance, independence. The middle… The caste system was affected greatly by the British, but never fully eradicated. The British improved the caste system by allowing the lower castes and untouchables more rights, such as the right to interact with those of higher castes. This was done to modernise India to represent it as a British colony. Many British citizens lived in India, and as they followed the class system, this was closely influencing the way society was run. Therefore, British rule had a positive effect on the Indian caste system. On the other hand, the caste system wasn’t fully eradicated. It had weakened a great deal, and mostly in areas of high British population such as Calcutta. Today, there are still area of poverty and inequality due to caste. In an interview between a Hindu women and a journalist, the Hindu women describes that all the girls who are untouchables would most certainly become housewives and would be married off to someone of the same caste by the time they are 16 when the marriageable age is now 18. She says that society is very caste bound. This source is important as it proves that the caste system is still around today, and the British didn’t completely remove it. Or though, it’s not clear as to what the restrictions of the caste-bound society are. Overall, the British had somewhat changed the caste system by weakening the majority of the system so that there were more rights for the lower castes, and less of a gap of power and superiority.

Seems like a really interesting period of history! Again, your skills as a historian are really quite good, with your argument being easy to follow, logical, and (probably) true. However, I think you do need to add more statistics (dates, numbers etc.) to PROVE your argument. That might be tough with the word count, but there are a lot of sentences up there ^^ that can be shortened. Remember that history isn't about using a lot of fancy vocabulary, unless the nuance of the word used is of significance to the essay. Delete anything that doesn't directly add to your thesis or your sentence. In one of my essays, I deleted every start of the sentence that went "In fact," which got rid of 38 words!

     There was a huge growth of nationalism in India, particularly during the early 20th century, which was mainly caused by the influence of Western civilisation. Nationalism was hugely significant, since it meant that the Indian people were feeling a sense of unity, eventually allowing them to gain their freedom.  The impact of Britain in this case was great, but whether it was positive is arguable. Some would argue that the British influence caused the greatest cause for nationalism, but on the other side, common feelings of opposition and desperation for independence among the Indian people would be enough for the movement to inaugurate.  For example, western education and language being introduced allowed ideologies such as nationalism and liberalism to be discovered by the Indian people, as the ideologies were being embraced over Europe at that time. English educated Indian citizens, such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, were leading social, religious and political movements that were supported by the majority of the population, more specifically the rising middle class. This roused a sense of nationalism among the people. Not only education, but also the exposure of British media over the country provoked the ideology, again, due to the fact that countries in Europe such as Germany were embracing nationalism. Bal Gangadha Tilak, among many things, was an Indian nationalist, social reformer and the first leader of the Indian Independence movement. He believed that nothing Britain did was beneficial to society, and passionately opposed British rule. He said that for India to make progress it must become independent, and the only way for that to happen was by a self-governing country and not thorough social reforms. This primary source is relevant in that it shows the other side of the argument, suggesting that Britain did not have a positive impact on India. However, it does not show whether or not his words had an impact on society. Therefore, the British Raj had a partial positive impact in introducing western ideas.

Again, this isn't a source analysis, so get rid of "this primary source... explanation". Instead, just talk about it as a PROOF of your thesis. There are lots of sentences that can be shortened; read through each, decide if there are any words you can delete, and be utterly ruthless.

    The British had a great impact on Indian society, by introducing ideas and enforcing laws that resulted in an overall positive outcome. Society in India had changed greatly, with a new education system, which resulted in the beginning of a more thoughtful and inspired society that formed groups and expressed ideas. Nationalism increased over the country due to the close social connections through British media, literature, education and Britain individuals themselves. The lives of women and the lower and out of castes improved to an extent, as a result of the social reforms that took place around 1929. The social impacts of the British rule, either greatly positive or fairly positive, were largely responsible for the reforming of India during the Raj.

Great essay, great thesis followed through logically, great writing style, great use of historical terms. You need to make your "source analysis" less explicit: you should be using facts/quotes to BACK UP your thesis. Try to use more throw-in facts (ie. how many more men were educated? In what year was social reform implemented?) without having to necessarily explain them like you have the other sources. This will strengthen your essay incredibly. Great essay, though, and good luck cutting down words! I don't think you should have any trouble, just be ruthless in what you cut.

Hope this helps!

Jake

gevinson:
Hi there, My topic is the Russia and the Soviet Union focusing on the subtopic of Bolshevik Consolidation of power from 1917-21 and second syllabus dot point. I was wondering if you could please help me identify if i'm creating a strong sustained argument with clear thesis that links each historical feature: ie. nep, treaty of brest litosvk it back to Lenin's role enough. I also wanted to know if there's any areas i can be more succinct to cut down my word count to 800-900?  Thank you so much for all of your help, i know it's difficult without having done this topic, i appreciate any general essay structure help or tips.

jakesilove:

--- Quote from: gevinson on March 05, 2016, 10:19:46 pm ---Hi there, My topic is the Russia and the Soviet Union focusing on the subtopic of Bolshevik Consolidation of power from 1917-21 and second syllabus dot point. I was wondering if you could please help me identify if i'm creating a strong sustained argument with clear thesis that links each historical feature: ie. nep, treaty of brest litosvk it back to Lenin's role enough. I also wanted to know if there's any areas i can be more succinct to cut down my word count to 800-900?  Thank you so much for all of your help, i know it's difficult without having done this topic, i appreciate any general essay structure help or tips.

--- End quote ---

Hey Gevinson!

Like you say, I haven't done this topic, so take my comments with a grain of salt! Still, I've written out comments below; I hope that you find them helpful!

Original essay:
Spoiler‘to what extent was lenin responsible for the bolshevik consolidation of power?

Lenin’s role was pivotal in the Bolshevik seizure and consolidation of power. His commitment to the Bolshevik cause is evident through his implementation of harsh policies such as war communism and his pursuit of peace at any cost. However, Lenin was able to pinpoint when he had to diverge from his communist ideals and sacrifice ideology for power through his early populist reforms and introduction of the NEP, which both proved to be crucial in the consolidation of power. Arguably Lenin’s role was of equal importance to that of Trotsky, however both showed strong leadership in the Bolshevik revolution and civil war.

Lenin’s early role within the Bolshevik revolution was crucial in seizing power for the Bolsheviks. Once the Tsar had abdicated there was a political vacuum of power and a diarchy was instated between the Petrograd Soviet and the provisional government the duma had set up. Lenin took advantage of his opportunity to expose the people’s concerns for Russia. Within his slogan-like April theses he proclaimed that the Bolsheviks would give ‘peace, land, bread’ and his noncooperation with the provisional government announcing ‘All power to the soviets’. Lenin aimed to both undermine the provisional government by targeting their inability to address the problems of the people and showing that the Petrograd soviet and by a larger extent, the Bolsheviks represented the interests of the people more than the provisional government. Thus, Lenin’s ability to deliver on his April theses with later reforms further consolidated Bolshevik power in their initial stages of seizing power. The populist workers control decrees gave factory committees the right to control production and to supervise management, instated a maximum eight-hour day for workers and provided social insurance such as sickness benefits. Lenin’s decision to appeal to the workers was strategic in order to maintain power in the early stages of Bolshevik rule. Although the early ‘Land Decree’ allowed private ownership of land by the peasants diverged from the socialist principles of the Bolsheviks, it is evident that Lenin’s ability to sacrifice his ideology was key in maintaining Bolshevik power. Historian Ulam supports the notion that these reforms were effective on Bolshevik popularity, as they focused on appealing to the proletariat and peasants at the very least satisfying them enough so they wouldn’t fight the Bolshevik regime, the civil war wasn’t yet a major threat.

Lenin’s strict delivery on his promise for ‘peace at any price’ was received negatively creating divisions within the Bolshevik party, Buhkarin who wanted a revolutionary war and Trotsky who proposed ‘no war,no peace’. Trotsky saw Germany not only as militaristic enemies but class enemies therefore ‘the Brest-Litovsk peace was like the hangman's noose’. The treaty of Brest Litosvsk was seen some member of the SNOVAROM as a ‘“betrayal... to the socialist revolution” by allowing the bourgeoisie to win by striking deals. While Trotsky attempted to stall for time within negotiations, Lenin recognized that the treaty was crucial in Bolshevik consolidation of power as the provisional government had failed due to it’s continuance of the war. Thus, Lenin’s strong leadership in signing the treating despite significant pushback from the Bolshevik party, showed his key role in maintaining Bolshevik power.
 
However, while Lenin’s decision to sign the treaty, it was arguably one of the catalysts for the civil war. Internally within Russia many people were discontent with the conditions of the treaty. This is evident in the severing of ties between the left socialist revolutionaries who subsequently left the SOVNARKOM and may have aggravated other banned socialist parties such as the Kadets. The treaty left the country at significant disadvantage economically and politically, Germany’s harsh demands of 90% of coal and most of its rail & iron reserves, 25% of industry, a third of Russia’s agriculture and 62 million people. Thus the treaty fostered anti-Bolshevik sentiment within the country. However, Lenin played a less important role within Civil War instead Trotsky’s role was crucial to Bolshevik victory which was indispensable in consolidation of power. Trotsky was harsh but strategic in his organization of the red army, he reintroduced conscription and used structure, ranks, saluting and uniforms. He utilised former tsarist officers used to provide training, organization and leadership. However, he utilised harsh measures to gain Bolshevik victory disciplining soldiers through flogging and death penalty. However, while Lenin played a important role within the civil war by supporting the decisions of Trotsky and presenting a highly centralised army with a united political purpose - the downfall of the white army. It is clear that Trotsky’s strategic organization of the army on the ground ultimately secured Bolshevik victory, leading to consolidation of power.

Lenin had a key role in the introduction of war communism which was important in the victory of the civil war. However, it was a less significant factor in the consolidation of power overall as it created chaos within the country. Lenin’s implementation of the extreme policies of war communism aimed to fix the dire economic and military situation of Russia.  War communism became necessary as food production had decreased with the Land decree and workers were managing the factories inefficiently through the workers decree. Under war communism industry and land was brought under state control so the red forces could remain in the fields supplied with weaponry and food. The policies brought about red terror in which Lenin ordered the killing of any Bolshevik opposition. Peasants refused to cooperate and protested leading to entire villages being destroyed. Overall, War Communism alienated the peasants and led to ongoing opposition to socialism, as peasants made up a significant amount of the population. Therefore Lenin’s role in consolidation power through war communism was less significant, as war communism’s only long term contribution to the consolidation of Bolshevik power was aiding red victory in the civil war.

Lenin held a vital role in consolidating Bolshevik power as exemplified in his introduction of the new economic policy. After the Kronstadt rebellion in which the sailors who previously had been dedicated Bolshevik supporters revolted it became obvious that Lenin had to act to regain peasant support and thus, maintain Bolshevik power. The policy was important in fixing the economy and quelling any remaining opposition to Bolshevism which all led to Bolshevik consolidation of power.  The NEP allowed private trade in the retail area, which lead to the class of ‘nepmen’. It became legal to hire labour and peasants were no longer required to give up all their grain to the state which regained some peasant support. The stabilization of the country overall led to Bolshevik consolidation of power, in which cereal production was up almost 25% and industrial output increased by 200%. However, the NEP was not the most significant factor in Bolshevik consolidation of power as it still diverged from communist ideals partially returning to communism and leaving some of the population and party unhappy. Contemporary leader of the Mensheviks observed the impact of the nep in which stores sold expensive goods only afforded by the bourgeoisie and prostitution had increased significantly.  Therefore Lenin’s held an important role within the implementation of the NEP to consolidate power through growing support, fixing the economy and ridding any remaining opposition to the party.

Essay with comments:
Spoiler‘To what extent was Lenin responsible for the Bolshevik consolidation of power?

Lenin’s role was pivotal in the Bolshevik seizure and consolidation of power. Perfect. His commitment to the Bolshevik cause is evident through his implementation of harsh policies such as war communism and his pursuit of peace at any cost. However, Lenin was able to pinpoint when he had to diverge from his communist ideals and sacrifice ideology for power through his early populist reforms and introduction of the NEP, which both proved to be crucial in the consolidation of power. Arguably Lenin’s role was of equal importance to that of Trotsky, however both showed strong leadership in the Bolshevik revolution and civil war.

Fantastic introduction. Introduces real points, as well out general Thesis outline. If you follow through on discussion of these points, I'm looking forward to a great essay!

Lenin’s early role within the Bolshevik revolution was crucial in seizing power for the Bolsheviks. Once the Tsar had abdicated there was a political vacuum of power and a diarchy was instated between the Petrograd Soviet and the provisional government the duma had set up. Lenin took advantage of his opportunity to expose the people’s concerns for Russia. Within his slogan-like April theses he proclaimed that the Bolsheviks would give ‘peace, land, bread’ and his noncooperation with the provisional government announcing ‘All power to the soviets’. If these are quotes, use quotation marks: "" Lenin aimed to both undermine the provisional government by targeting their inability to address the problems of the people and showing that the Petrograd soviet and by a larger extent, the Bolsheviks represented the interests of the people more than the provisional government. Thus, Lenin’s ability to deliver on his April theses with later reforms further consolidated Bolshevik power in their initial stages of seizing power. The populist workers control decrees gave factory committees the right to control production and to supervise management, instated a maximum eight-hour day for workers and provided social insurance such as sickness benefits. Lenin’s decision to appeal to the workers was strategic in order to maintain power in the early stages of Bolshevik rule. Although the early ‘Land Decree’ allowed private ownership of land by the peasants diverged from the socialist principles of the Bolsheviks, it is evident that Lenin’s ability to sacrifice his ideology was key in maintaining Bolshevik power. Historian Ulam supports the notion that these reforms were effective on Bolshevik popularity, as they focused on appealing to the proletariat and peasants at the very least satisfying them enough so they wouldn’t fight the Bolshevik regime, the civil war wasn’t yet a major threat.'

My general comments so far: I really like the thesis you are building, and I think that your point is very, very clear. However, I think you need to back up your thesis with more specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples. You say things like "early 'Land Decree'"; I need a date, or a year at least. More statistics, quotes, etc, just to back up your point and prove that you aren't making things up! Try to find statistics that are as specific as possible.

Lenin’s strict delivery on his promise for ‘peace at any price’ was received negatively creating divisions within the Bolshevik party, Buhkarin who wanted a revolutionary war and Trotsky who proposed ‘no war,no peace’. Trotsky saw Germany not only as militaristic enemies but class enemies therefore ‘the Brest-Litovsk peace was like the hangman's noose’. The treaty of Brest Litosvsk was seen some member of the SNOVAROM as a ‘“betrayal... to the socialist revolution” by allowing the bourgeoisie to win by striking deals. While Trotsky attempted to stall for time within negotiations, Lenin recognized that the treaty was crucial in Bolshevik consolidation of power as the provisional government had failed due to it’s continuance of the war. Thus, Lenin’s strong leadership in signing the treating despite significant pushback from the Bolshevik party, showed his key role in maintaining Bolshevik power.

Again, your argument and historical language is fantastic, but I need you to incorporate more specific statistics.
 
However, while Lenin’s decision to sign the treaty, it was arguably one of the catalysts for the civil war. Read this sentence: does it make sense to you?Internally within Russia many people were discontent with the conditions of the treaty. This is evident in the severing of ties between the left socialist revolutionaries who subsequently left the SOVNARKOM and may have aggravated other banned socialist parties such as the Kadets. The treaty left the country at significant disadvantage economically and politically, Germany’s harsh demands of 90% of coal and most of its rail & iron reserves, 25% of industry, a third of Russia’s agriculture and 62 million people. Beautiful! These are the kinds of statistics that I want to see!Thus the treaty fostered anti-Bolshevik sentiment within the country. However, Lenin played a less important role within Civil War instead Trotsky’s role was crucial to Bolshevik victory which was indispensable in consolidation of power. Trotsky was harsh but strategic in his organization of the red army, he reintroduced conscription and used structure, ranks, saluting and uniforms. He utilised former tsarist officers used to provide training, organization and leadership. However, he utilised harsh measures to gain Bolshevik victory disciplining soldiers through flogging and death penalty. However, while Lenin played a important role within the civil war by supporting the decisions of Trotsky and presenting a highly centralised army with a united political purpose - the downfall of the white army. It is clear that Trotsky’s strategic organization of the army on the ground ultimately secured Bolshevik victory, leading to consolidation of power.

I think that there are plenty of ways to cut down your word count here. There are heaps of sentences that you can basically remove irrelevant words; spend some time turning two words into one, taking out words that don't SPECIFICALLY add to your thesis etc. Be absolutely brutal, and you'll manage to get down the word count in no time!

Lenin had a key role in the introduction of war communism which was important in the victory of the civil war. However, it was a less significant factor in the consolidation of power overall as it created chaos within the country. Lenin’s implementation of the extreme policies of war communism aimed to fix the dire economic and military situation of Russia.  War communism became necessary as food production had decreased with the Land decree and workers were managing the factories inefficiently through the workers decree.STATS STATS STATS Under war communism industry and land was brought under state control so the red forces could remain in the fields supplied with weaponry and food. The policies brought about red terror in which Lenin ordered the killing of any Bolshevik opposition. Peasants refused to cooperate and protested leading to entire villages being destroyed. Overall, War Communism alienated the peasants and led to ongoing opposition to socialism, as peasants made up a significant amount of the population. Therefore Lenin’s role in consolidation power through war communism was less significant, as war communism’s only long term contribution to the consolidation of Bolshevik power was aiding red victory in the civil war.

Look, again I think that your thesis and historical language is great, but without Statistics its hard to get a very top level response. Adding this will push this great essay to  brilliant essay.

Lenin held a vital role in consolidating Bolshevik power as exemplified in his introduction of the new economic policy. After the Kronstadt rebellion in which the sailors who previously had been dedicated Bolshevik supporters revolted it became obvious that Lenin had to act to regain peasant support and thus, maintain Bolshevik power. The policy was important in fixing the economy and quelling any remaining opposition to Bolshevism which all led to Bolshevik consolidation of power.  The NEP allowed private trade in the retail area, which lead to the class of ‘nepmen’. It became legal to hire labour and peasants were no longer required to give up all their grain to the state which regained some peasant support. The stabilization of the country overall led to Bolshevik consolidation of power, in which cereal production was up almost 25% and industrial output increased by 200%. However, the NEP was not the most significant factor in Bolshevik consolidation of power as it still diverged from communist ideals partially returning to communism and leaving some of the population and party unhappy. Contemporary leader of the Mensheviks observed the impact of the nep in which stores sold expensive goods only afforded by the bourgeoisie and prostitution had increased significantly.  Therefore Lenin’s held an important role within the implementation of the NEP to consolidate power through growing support, fixing the economy and ridding any remaining opposition to the party.

Split this up into a paragraph and a conclusion. Really, there's never any need to include statistics in your conclusion. I really like your historical voice, essay language, logical progression etc. The main things I would recommend are:

More statistics. Try to include a bunch of specific statistics, whether that be in the form of quotes, numbers, dates etc. etc.
Turn long sentences into short ones. You can cut down the wordcount hugely by going through and deleting extra words. That way, you'll get down to your word limit!
Hope this helps!

Jake

alinali98:
Hey! This essay isnt on one of the topics listed but I would still like your opinion on the structure. I am not sure if I have referred to my thesis statement enough. I was also curious on what other improvements you could suggest to make this piece better.
Thank You

To what extent was Lenin responsible for the Bolshevik consolidation of power?

The Bolshevik being only a revolutionary opposition had to go to extreme lengths to maintain their control on Russia. Lenin was of paramount importance in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power, though inevitably needed the aid of loyal supporters from his party like Trotsky, to ensure his plans were efficiently carried out. Lenin forcing Trotsky to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk against Trotsky’s will reduced the added pressure which external forces had imposed on the people within Russia. The Civil War and War Communism may have been introduced under Lenin’s rule, though was implemented by Trotsky, thus tightening their control on their economy and thus depicting the vital role of Trotsky in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power. The social, political and cultural reforms brought by Lenin were also imperative to the consolidation of the Bolsheviks power as it brought the possibility of a happier Russia to the already distraught and confused citizens of Russia. Therefore to a certain extent, Lenin being the mastermind behind the Bolshevik power was of paramount importance in the consolidation of power but was aided by party members like Trotsky making the consolidation of power a team effort. 
Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh.  However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky  into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. 
The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.)  In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management.  Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.
The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.
Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.

jakesilove:

--- Quote from: alinali98 on March 06, 2016, 10:41:47 pm ---Hey! This essay isnt on one of the topics listed but I would still like your opinion on the structure. I am not sure if I have referred to my thesis statement enough. I was also curious on what other improvements you could suggest to make this piece better.
Thank You

To what extent was Lenin responsible for the Bolshevik consolidation of power?

The Bolshevik being only a revolutionary opposition had to go to extreme lengths to maintain their control on Russia. Lenin was of paramount importance in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power, though inevitably needed the aid of loyal supporters from his party like Trotsky, to ensure his plans were efficiently carried out. Lenin forcing Trotsky to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk against Trotsky’s will reduced the added pressure which external forces had imposed on the people within Russia. The Civil War and War Communism may have been introduced under Lenin’s rule, though was implemented by Trotsky, thus tightening their control on their economy and thus depicting the vital role of Trotsky in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power. The social, political and cultural reforms brought by Lenin were also imperative to the consolidation of the Bolsheviks power as it brought the possibility of a happier Russia to the already distraught and confused citizens of Russia. Therefore to a certain extent, Lenin being the mastermind behind the Bolshevik power was of paramount importance in the consolidation of power but was aided by party members like Trotsky making the consolidation of power a team effort. 
Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh.  However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky  into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. 
The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.)  In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management.  Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.
The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.
Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.

--- End quote ---

Hey!

See my comments below :)

Original Essay:
SpoilerThe Bolshevik being only a revolutionary opposition had to go to extreme lengths to maintain their control on Russia. Lenin was of paramount importance in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power, though inevitably needed the aid of loyal supporters from his party like Trotsky, to ensure his plans were efficiently carried out. Lenin forcing Trotsky to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk against Trotsky’s will reduced the added pressure which external forces had imposed on the people within Russia. The Civil War and War Communism may have been introduced under Lenin’s rule, though was implemented by Trotsky, thus tightening their control on their economy and thus depicting the vital role of Trotsky in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power. The social, political and cultural reforms brought by Lenin were also imperative to the consolidation of the Bolsheviks power as it brought the possibility of a happier Russia to the already distraught and confused citizens of Russia. Therefore to a certain extent, Lenin being the mastermind behind the Bolshevik power was of paramount importance in the consolidation of power but was aided by party members like Trotsky making the consolidation of power a team effort. 
Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh.  However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky  into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. 
The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.)  In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management.  Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.
The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.
Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.
Essay with Comments:
SpoilerThe Bolshevik being only a revolutionary opposition had to go to extreme lengths to maintain their control on Russia. Lenin was of paramount importance in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power, though inevitably needed the aid of loyal supporters from his party like Trotsky, to ensure his plans were efficiently carried out. Great Thesis sentence! Lenin forcing Trotsky to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk against Trotsky’s will reduced the added pressure which external forces had imposed on the people within Russia. The Civil War and War Communism may have been introduced under Lenin’s rule, though was implemented by Trotsky, thus tightening their control on their economy and thus depicting the vital role of Trotsky in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power. The social, political and cultural reforms brought by Lenin were also imperative to the consolidation of the Bolsheviks power as it brought the possibility of a happier (Don't use this word) Russia to the already distraught and confused citizens of Russia. Therefore to a certain extent, Lenin being the mastermind behind the Bolshevik power was of paramount importance in the consolidation of power but was aided by party members like Trotsky making the consolidation of power a team effort. 

Like your introduction, particularly the nuanced approach you appear to be taking! Add some dates in brackets (Brest-Litovsk was 1918 I think?) etc.

Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh.  However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky  into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. 

I think you need to include more specific, accurate and relevant detailed examples. I like the 50%, 33% etc, but I want MORE! More dates, more numbers, more quotes! Remember, in History you can't rely on "he thought"; you have to back that up with a REASON you are making that assertion!

The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.)  In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management.  Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.

I like that you've brought things back to your thesis at the end, but I would strongly recommend linking your thesis more clearly throughout this paragraph. Even just throwing a few words from the question in here or there will help to strengthen your essay!

The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. Try put something more specific than "1918"The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Numbers? Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.

This paragraph is really great: look to the way you directly discuss your thesis, and try to add it to your others! Also, the use of stats, dates and quotes is quite good

Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.

Definitely expand your conclusion to include key points from your argument. Keep your sentence as your concluding sentence, perhaps

Overall, a good essay. I think you need to proof read it a bit more; try reading every sentence out loud to see if there is anything that doesn't make sense. Try to add more SPECIFIC accurate relevant detailed examples, and work on weaving your thesis into more sentences. Overall, though, a good essay with the potential to be a great essay!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page