Home / IBDP History: IB Style Questions :The Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia (1924–2000)-HL option 4 -Paper 3

IBDP History: IB Style Questions :The Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia (1924–2000)-HL option 4 -Paper 3

Question

Examine Stalin’s foreign relations up to 1941.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates may argue that the aims of Stalin’s foreign relations were the security and survival of the Soviet Union rather than an effort to spread the Communist revolution. They might also argue that in order to achieve this Stalin’s relations with foreign powers appeared at times to be inconsistent. Please note that the focus is on foreign relations up to the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941.

Indicative content
• In the Far East the Soviet Union had encouraged the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to collaborate with the Guomindang, GMD (Kuomintang, KMT) to counter the potential threat from Japan. After the 1931 invasion of Manchuria, Stalin pursued a policy of appeasement of the Japanese (selling them the Manchurian Railway). However, by 1937 Stalin was encouraging the formation of the United Front against the Japanese and by 1939 there was open conflict between Japan and the Soviet Union.
• In Europe, Stalin initially underestimated the threat from Nazi Germany; by 1934 he was pursuing a policy that sought collective security. He joined the League of Nations and signed various mutual assistance and non-aggression pacts with other powers (such as France, Czechoslovakia and the Baltic States).
• Comintern was advocating the formation of a Popular Front against Fascism and even Soviet intervention in Spain was arguably intended to prevent extreme revolution (which would have further alarmed Britain and France).
• Post-Munich, intentions once again changed. Stalin sought to delay an attack on the Soviet Union (International Brigades were withdrawn from Spain). Molotov became Foreign Minister (Litvinov was Jewish) so the Soviet Union was on better terms with Germany. But Stalin was still flexible, negotiating with Britain and France in 1939. However the lack of enthusiasm of the western powers, plus the refusal of Poland to give Soviet troops permission to cross Poland, contributed to the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in August 1939. This delayed the German invasion of the Soviet Union and also enabled Stalin to gain territory in the Baltic states.
• Arguably, and Stalin did argue this, the takeover of eastern Poland was defensive, as was the attack on Finland (the need for Naval bases). They were both driven by the need for security from a German attack.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Question

To what extent did economic weakness contribute to political developments and change within the Soviet Union between 1982 and 1991?

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

With a clear focus on the time period from 1982 until 1991, candidates are required to consider the merits or otherwise of the suggestion that political development and change in the Soviet Union was, in part, caused by economic weakness. Responses are likely to consider how the need to reform the stagnating economy led to policies that ultimately caused the end of the Communist regime. They are also likely to consider the internal political changes that occurred during the Gorbachev period.

Indicative content
• There were substantial economic problems, for example, the huge amount spent on the military, low production levels, the fact that they were falling behind technologically and the low standard of living.
• Gorbachev was already aware of the need for change (he had removed some of the gerontocracy from the Central Committee and the Politburo) but the Chernobyl accident convinced him of the need to move rapidly. Thus he introduced the policies of glasnost and perestroika and an element of democracy into the Party.
• 1987 and 1988 saw further attempts at reform (the Law on State Enterprises and reform of the Supreme Soviet). These were attempts to end stagnation within the party and to encourage economic growth.
• The economic crisis of 1989/1990 caused declining living standards and open discontent (there were strikes in many mining areas). The elections to the People’s Congress in 1989 resulted in some non-party members being elected.
• The weakening of party dominance and open discussion resulted in the emergence of potential rivals such as Yeltsin and there was a weakening of central control (the Union Treaty gave more economic and political control to the Soviet republics).
• The 1991 attempted coup gave Yeltsin the opportunity to gain power, thus in six years politics changed from a tightly controlled one-party state to a system where public opinion could have a significant impact on politics.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Question

Discuss the impact of the purges in the Soviet Union.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to offer a considered and balanced review of the consequences of the purges. They may address impact on society or on society and institutions for example. There is no prescribed response; however, while there may be some limited discussion of aims in order to frame the argument, the bulk of the response must be focused on impact.

Indicative content

  • Candidates could comment on the Kirov Affair, 1934, and the purge of the “Congress of Victors”, whose members appeared to favour a change of leadership. The three great show trials of the 1930s removed potential rivals within the party such as Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin as well as Yezhov (head of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, NKVD), who Stalin blamed for the excesses of the purges. They could argue that the main impact was the total domination of politics and the Party by Stalin.
  • Detail on the armed forces could include the purge of the army high command and key leaders such as Tukachevsky. The purge of between a third and a half of the officer corps is also a key area for discussion. The impact was that the Russian military was weakened and unprepared for the German invasion in 1941.
  • Detail of the impact on society of the Yezhovschina or Great Purge could include the scale of arbitrary arrests by the secret police (the NKVD) and the expansion of the Gulag system. Estimates of prisoner numbers in the Gulags vary from 8 to 15 million but there is little debate that the NKVD were set targets for arrest and some warrants contained thousands of names. The impact was the creation of a climate of fear with a population that was unwilling and/or unable to question Stalin’s policies for fear of the consequences.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, the list is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Question

Compare and contrast the foreign policies of Khrushchev and Brezhnev.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

The main focus here is change and continuity in the Soviet Union’s relations with other states under the two leaders. Some candidates may argue that overall there was continuity in that the overall goal of both leaders was to maintain the prestige of the Soviet Union. Differences tended to be how they approached that goal.

Indicative content
Comparisons

  • Both sought better relations with the West, peaceful coexistence and detente. Both were willing to consider nuclear arms negotiations (Test Ban Treaty, 1963 and the SALT talks, 1970).
  • Both were willing to use force to maintain Soviet security and used the Warsaw Pact to do this (Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968).
  • Both leaders had poor relations with China.
  • Both had meetings with Western leaders.
  • Both sought to extend influence in developing and Non-Aligned states.

Contrasts

  • Their attitude to Germany and Berlin differed significantly. Khrushchev often raised Cold War tensions in this area, for example the 1958 Ultimatum and the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Brezhnev, on the other hand, resolved tensions by signing the 1970 Moscow Treaty and the 1972 Basic Treaty.
  • Khrushchev’s actions in Cuba almost led to nuclear conflict, while the invasion of Afghanistan (1979) under Brezhnev led to worsening relations but did not escalate tension to the level of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, the list is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Scroll to Top