Russian 1855 - 1964 essays
“The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 changed the lives of the peasantry more than any other war in
the period of 1855-1964.” How far do you agree?
The Russo-Japanese War stimulated significant political change that gave the peasantry more
representation and weakened tsarism significantly enabling the 1917 revolutions, but in general much
more life changing reform occurred after the Crimean War positively, and the Civil War and World War
Two very harshly changed the peasantry’s lives via grain requisitioning, nationalisation and the poor
treatment of soldiers. In comparison, the other reform stimulated from the Russo-Japanese War
affected transport and urbanisation caused urban public health issues, and attempted land reform for
peasants was minimal and no better implemented than after any other war.
To some extent the Russo-Japanese War did cause the most change; in the increase of political
representation for the peasantry. The war caused the highest level of peasant unrest in the period,
leading to the 1905 revolution, which led to the October Manifesto and so the formation of the Dumas,
which increased representation for the peasantry, highlighted by the 1907 electoral reform which in fact
increased the peasantry’s voting power to the Duma compared to urban workers. Although the 1906
Fundamental Laws showed an unwillingness to move away from autocracy, the forced abdication of
Nicholas II in 1917 by the 4th Duma and Progressive Bloc highlights the shift in power that did have an
impact on political representation for Dumas, so the war did change the peasantry’s lives. In
comparison, the composition of the Politburo remained the same in 1948 as it was pre-World War Two,
and the Russo-Turkish War also failed to stimulate change politically to affect the peasantry. Whilst the
1917 Bolshevik Revolution did change lives via shifting Russian ideology to democratic centralism, it did
not change the peasantry as much as in 1904-05 because the Bolsheviks wanted the urban working class
to have increased rights, and so the view of the peasantry as the underclass did not alter in 1917 as
highlighted by forced grain requisitioning. Moreover, the 1917 Revolutions were only enabled because
of the abdication of the tsar forced by the 4 th Duma, so any changes derived from the Revolution can be
attributed to the weakness of tsarism from the 1905 Revolution. Therefore, the Russo-Japanese War
changed the lives of the peasantry more in terms of political reform and increased representation.
In reality, however, the reform from the Russo-Japanese War was minimal in the wider context. The
humiliating defeat ushered in Stolypin’s land reforms in 1906, but his addition to the Peasant Land Bank
was miscalculated; it did not alter peasants’ lives like intended. Those who wanted their own land had
done it pre-1900, and the rest of the land was poor and mainly worthless. This was similar to the level of
agricultural reform after 1917; the provisional government failed to address land reform because of the
high disruption from World War One, with a lock forming between Chernov’s land compromise and the
Kadets’ unwillingness to reform. Although Khrushchev did at first succeed with his Virgin Lands Scheme
reform, with the lands producing over half of the grain harvest in 1956, he showed the same
misjudgement of the extent of agricultural reform really needed and the lack of adequate transport,
fertiliser, the abolishment of Motor Tractor Stations and lack of understanding over climactically
appropriate crops (he replaced grain with maize and cash crops) led to a rural labour shortage and the
lands being destroyed by soil erosion by 1962. Furthermore it is difficult to argue that Khrushchev’s
reforms were stimulated by the Cold War more than as a response to the ongoing food crisis inherited
from Stalin. Therefore, the Russo-Japanese War caused similar levels to other wars in agriculture, all of
, which caused minimal change, so it did not change the lives of the peasantry in many aspects or more
than other wars.
Overall social change affecting the peasantry was far greater from other wars than the Russo-Japanese
War, so ultimately it did not change lives the most. The Crimean War 1853-56 stimulated greater change
in many aspects affecting peasants. It highlighted the need to modernise the army, and given most of
the army were peasants the reduction from 25 to 15 years of service changed many lives, as did the
harsher discipline that was installed. It also caused educational reform, doubling the number of
secondary school students to 800,000 1855-65, and increasing the number of school places by creating
school boards under zemstva control. The 1861 Emancipation Edict also gave serfs the right to vote and
marry, an increase in freedom the Duma formation cannot replicate, so the Crimean War was much
more significant to the peasantry.
Whilst the Russo-Japanese war highlighted the need for continued transport investment, that mainly
affected urban places, as did the subsequent rising public health issues. However, the peasantry’s lives
were much more negatively affected by the famines of 1921, which took at least 5 million lives following
the strict enforcement of war communism under Lenin. Not only did it cost lives of peasants because of
grain requisitioning, as also happened under Stalin, but it also imposed the nationalisation of goods and
services, so anything the peasants did keep they lost the right to sell however they wanted and where,
affecting their lives drastically in an attempt to earn anything during a shortage. Since a lot of the
military were peasants, the harsh treatment of soldiers by Stalin in World War Two led to 13,000
deserters being shot, many prisoners of war being sent to labour camps upon return and so many of
these would have been peasants. The civil war also then led to NEP, which primarily positively affected
the peasantry with a lean towards more reward; NEPMEN were responsible for 60% of retail trade in
1926 and cash crops increased such as cotton, which grew from 105 million tonnes in 1911 to 2286
million tonnes in 1926, so a huge improvement for the cash crops market. Therefore it is clear that many
wars had a much greater impact on the peasantry than the Russo-Japanese War, which primarily
affected urban populations.
Whilst there is some validity in the statement that the Russo-Japanese War changed the peasantry’s
lives more than other wars, with the Dumas creating more representation, ultimately in the other
aspects of land and social living and working conditions, the Russo-Japanese war had a very minimal
impact in comparison to other wars, both positively with NEP following the civil war and emancipation,
education and military reform following the Crimean War, and negatively with war communism and
harsh treatment in World War Two whilst land reform remained an issue across all post-war eras and
including Khrushchev, so ultimately the Russo-Japanese War did not change lives of the peasantry the
most.
Level 6
Feedback: clearly outlined argument in intro, relevant and accurate material to support judge and
fully developed synthesis but add judging criteria
How far do you agree that the Crimean War had the greatest impact on the economy?
