What do you think? Do you agree with their reviews?
Orlando Figes
On 22nd November, the sixth form History students attended a ‘History In Action’ conference on 20th century Russia, and were given the opportunity to learn the perception and evaluation of several reputable historians. The final historian to speak was Orlando Figes - an award winning writer and professor at Birkbeck College, University of London - who gave a lecture that encapsulated the period from the February Revolution to the Civil War.
Surprisingly, considering that
each historian was only given half an hour to cover a complicated period of
history, Figes’ session began with a lengthy piece of self-promotion about his
books and website. After the “short” diversion from the topic of lecture, Figes
went into great depth about the main historical events within his given time
period. His chosen form of explanation were through historical sources, which
can be deemed a success, given that source analysis features heavily in the
a-level history exam.
Much of the expert knowledge
Figes imparted to the audience was taken with interest. Perhaps the most
insightful aspect was his analysis of the causes of the February Revolution and
the Civil War; much of his focus was on the influence of violence. One reason
for the revolution that Figes outlined was the fact that the majority of Serfs
remained under the control of gentry and magnates, despite their supposed
emancipation. A cause of the Civil war was Lenin’s drastic approach to change,
including the introduction of equal citizenship and the immediate transfer of
power to the proletariat, all of which worked to destroy the bourgeoisie.
Overall, the lecture did offer some valuable knowledge for use in A-levels, although Figes’ main message seemed to be: if students hope to understand Russia’s revolutionary history, they should use his website and, most importantly, pay the subscription.
AD and FB
Dr Zoe Knox
We enjoyed Dr Zoe Knox’s lecture, as she posed new questions and brought new ideas that we had not previously heard. As well as this we especially appreciated the way she separately analysed the cult of Lenin and Stalin. However we would have liked to see more evidence as to whether Bolshevism actually managed to replace religion especially in the countryside where the Church had been its strongest. Furthermore, she did not come to a conclusion deciding whether she thought Bolshevism could be seen as a religion or not and we would have liked to seen her own opinion.
Dr Zoe Knox
This lecture by Dr Zoe Knox was
considering whether Bolshevism could be considered a religion. She outlined how
the Bolsheviks feared traditional Russian Orthodoxy, as it was seen to be a
rival belief system with a conflicting ideology. Not only this, but religion
was a major impediment to the establishment of Communist authority in the
countryside, as the Orthodox Church had long had considerable control over the
lives of villagers, as it was the many religious festivals and events that
controlled the village calendar. Back then religion was a way of life and in
Russia the religion that dominated was Christianity. When the Bolsheviks came
to power there was among them the very real fear that the Church had the
ability to wield more power and authority over the people.
Dr Knox touched upon the fact
that the Russian Orthodox Church had always been a powerful tool of the Russian
monarchy, with the Church encouraging people to follow the tsar to a fault. The
Church preached that Tsar Nicholas II was their “little father” appointed over
them by God himself.
Despite the Bolshevik contempt of
religion, there is much evidence to suggest that not only did they want to
eradicate Russian Orthodoxy, but they attempted to create their own kind of
rival religion. Knox points to the posthumous cult of personality created
around Lenin that resulted in him becoming a revered, god-like figure, with his
dead body in Red Square becoming a pilgrimage site much to the disapproval and
despair of Lenin’s wife. Dr Knox also described the many secular festivals and
traditions created by the Communists to undermine the traditional religious
ones, an example being the Soviet New Year. this particular festival was a
poignant dig at the orthodox church as it marked and celebrated the change from
the Julian calendar which has been used by the church for centuries to the
Gregorian calendar.
We enjoyed Dr Zoe Knox’s lecture, as she posed new questions and brought new ideas that we had not previously heard. As well as this we especially appreciated the way she separately analysed the cult of Lenin and Stalin. However we would have liked to see more evidence as to whether Bolshevism actually managed to replace religion especially in the countryside where the Church had been its strongest. Furthermore, she did not come to a conclusion deciding whether she thought Bolshevism could be seen as a religion or not and we would have liked to seen her own opinion.
AE and EA
SW and AL
Professor Dominik Lieven
During November we had the opportunity to visit UCL for the day to enjoy a Russian history course in which various knowledgable speakers and historians spoke about their findings of Tsarist and Communist Russia. Professor Dominik Lieven spoke about the Russian monarchy and its challenges and failure. Lieven stated that with the empire being so diverse and large, one person leading the country autocratically was doomed to fail. The Tsar faced problems of popular sovereignty and compared to Britain and France. Russia was very backwards- property was less secure, there were less literate people and a smaller middle class. Additionally Lieven expressed his view that pre-modern Russia was very successful and no other empire had been faced in such harsh geographical context yet still achieved thorough autocracy. After the monarchy had almost collapsed in 1905 after a great economic slump and losing the Russo-Japanese war, people of Russia had already began to see the weaknesses of the Tsar. The professor also showed us that during 1905-14 there was a constitutional monarchy and the government was expanding, becoming more complicated and unpopular. When revolution came in 1917 nobody was prepared to defend the in Lieven’s words a ‘shy, untrustworthy and uninterested in politics’ Tsar, this was because the people of Russia had lost confidence in him and were unwilling to start a civil war in defence for a monarch who they thought was incapable of ruling such a large empire.
Jan Palmer
On the 22nd
of November at a conference at UCL, we had the privilege to see several
lecturers, including Jan Palmer, who spoke about Communist Russia during the
1900s. Palmer focused on the Stalin era and the role he took as a dictator. The
speaker mentioned the steps Stalin took through his rule including his return
to traditional values, the ‘Great Terror’ in 1937 and the ‘Stalin cult’ that
emerged in support of the leader in 1929 and continued throughout the 1930s.
For example, he explained that Stalin carried out highly publicised show trials
in attempt to cause fear upon potential enemies and recriminalised
homosexuality in 1933 and abortion in 1936 to attempt to return to these more ‘traditional’
values. Furthermore, Palmer spoke about the ‘Great Patriotic War’, discussing
Russia’s involvement in the Second World War from 1941 until 1945 and how the
victory is still a unifying story of Russia to this day.
Additionally,
Palmer broke down various aspects of the Stalin era such as the five-year plans
and included an overview of communism in the USSR from the 50s to the 90s and
linked it to other political climates at the time such as the fascist
dictatorship in Spain. Palmer also discussed how the Stalin era affected
society in more unexpected ways, for example art changed from the Avant Garde
and dynamic style of the futurists which had promised change and hope to the
more traditional realism.
Overall, the lecture
was enjoyable as his talk was engaging and Palmer successfully presented an
overview of Stalin’s time in power. Furthermore, the presentation used appeared
to be well thought through as it had extra context which Palmer didn’t have
time to cover and images which aided our understanding of the information we
were being taught. However, to improve the lecture, the speaker could have gone
into more depth about specific areas of the Stalin era as the short time given
for each lecture did leave us wishing for more details on certain topics he
discussed. Moreover, Palmer presented us with a reasonably thorough and very
engaging overview of the Stalin era which introduced us to a range of topics we
could later research ourselves.
SW and AL
Professor Dominik Lieven
During November we had the opportunity to visit UCL for the day to enjoy a Russian history course in which various knowledgable speakers and historians spoke about their findings of Tsarist and Communist Russia. Professor Dominik Lieven spoke about the Russian monarchy and its challenges and failure. Lieven stated that with the empire being so diverse and large, one person leading the country autocratically was doomed to fail. The Tsar faced problems of popular sovereignty and compared to Britain and France. Russia was very backwards- property was less secure, there were less literate people and a smaller middle class. Additionally Lieven expressed his view that pre-modern Russia was very successful and no other empire had been faced in such harsh geographical context yet still achieved thorough autocracy. After the monarchy had almost collapsed in 1905 after a great economic slump and losing the Russo-Japanese war, people of Russia had already began to see the weaknesses of the Tsar. The professor also showed us that during 1905-14 there was a constitutional monarchy and the government was expanding, becoming more complicated and unpopular. When revolution came in 1917 nobody was prepared to defend the in Lieven’s words a ‘shy, untrustworthy and uninterested in politics’ Tsar, this was because the people of Russia had lost confidence in him and were unwilling to start a civil war in defence for a monarch who they thought was incapable of ruling such a large empire.
Overall Lieven gave an engaging and articulate lecture on the
Russian Empire leading up to the revolution. He highlighted the strengths of
the Russian monarchy which we would have normally overlooked, and how autocracy
actually did benefit the people of Russia to a certain extent. This was very
interesting as in class we mainly look at how the monarchy failed the Russian
people and essentially caused its own demise. To improve the lecture, Lieven
could have included a powerpoint to list down the key points that he had.
AK and AG
