Level:
Correct: 0
Incorrect: 0
Marks: 0/0
Exam Practice
Subject:
Topics:
AQA GCSE History (Russia 1894-1945) Smart practice A mixed round aimed at your weak spots
Unit 1
Part one: The end of Tsardom
The end of Tsardom
Russia's economy and society
0%
Nicholas II's autocracy and the court
0%
The First World War
0%
Unit 2
Part two: Lenin's new society
Lenin's new society
The Provisional Government
0%
The impact of Lenin's dictatorship
0%
Social and economic developments
0%
Unit 3
Part three: Stalin's USSR
Stalin's USSR
Stalin the dictator
0%
Stalin's modernisation of the USSR
0%
Impact of the Second World War
0%
Avg
score:
–
Topics
done:
0/9

Russia's economy and society

Practise 44 exam-style questions on Russia's economy and society for AQA GCSE History (Russia 1894-1945). Write your answer as you would in the exam and get it marked in seconds against the mark scheme, point by point, with an AI tutor on hand if you get stuck.

  • 44 questions
  • 1–12 marks each
  • Instant marking
  • No sign-up needed
20 questions, marked as you go

Sample questions with model answers

Here are 4 of the questions in this topic, each with a model answer, an explanation of why it earns the marks and the mark scheme an examiner would use.

Question 1

2 marks

Give two ways in which the mir (village commune) controlled the lives of Russian peasants around 1900.

Model answer

The mir shared out the village's strips of land among families and redistributed them from time to time according to family size. It was also collectively responsible for the village's taxes and redemption payments, so peasants needed its permission to leave the village to work in the towns.

Explanation

The mir decided who farmed which strips, organised the farming year and made sure taxes and redemption payments were paid, because the whole village was responsible for them. It gave peasants security but made it hard to improve farming or to leave, which is why critics blamed it for rural backwardness.

Mark scheme
  1. 1 mark

    A valid way, e.g. it shared out the strips of land among families and redistributed them from time to time as families grew or shrank / it was collectively responsible for the village's taxes and redemption payments, so it made each family pay its share.

    Credit any one valid way here.

  2. 1 mark

    A second, different valid way, e.g. peasants needed its permission (and an internal passport) to leave the village to work in the towns / it decided when to plough, sow and harvest and which fields were used for which crops / the village assembly of heads of households and the elders settled disputes and kept order.

    Do not credit the same way twice. Do not credit the zemstvo or land captain as part of the mir. Max 2.

Question 2

4 marks

Interpretation A: from a letter written in 1896 to the Ministry of Finance by the owner of a large textile mill near Moscow, when the government was considering a law to limit the working day. (Written for practice.)
'My workers are well cared for. They live in barracks I have built for them, they eat in the factory canteen, and there is a school for their children and a doctor who visits each week. A law limiting the working day will only reduce their earnings and harm Russian industry, which cannot yet compete with foreign manufacturers without long hours.'

Interpretation B: from the memoirs of a woman who began work in a Moscow textile mill aged twelve in the 1890s, published in the Soviet Union in 1930. (Written for practice.)
'We worked from five in the morning until eight at night, with half an hour for dinner. The foremen fined us for everything - for being late, for talking, for a broken thread - so that some weeks half our pay was taken. The barracks were crowded and filthy, and anyone hurt by a machine was simply sent home with nothing. We had no rights at all until we learned to stand together.'

Why might the authors of Interpretations A and B have a different interpretation about working conditions in Russian factories in the 1890s?
Explain your answer using Interpretations A and B and your contextual knowledge.

Model answer

The authors differ mainly because of who they were and why they were writing. The author of A owned a large textile mill and was writing in 1896 to persuade the Ministry of Finance not to pass a law limiting the working day. He had a strong reason to present his factory in the best light - barracks, a canteen, a school and a doctor - and to argue that long hours were needed to compete with foreign manufacturers, because a law would cut his profits. The government did in fact pass the Factory Act of 1897, limiting the day to 11.5 hours.

The author of B experienced conditions from the factory floor, starting work at twelve, so she remembers the long hours, the fines and the injured workers sent home with nothing. She was also writing in the Soviet Union in 1930, when memoirs were published to show how cruel Tsarist capitalism had been and to praise workers who 'learned to stand together' in strikes and revolution. So A was written to defend the owners' interests at the time, while B was written later to condemn the old system.

Explanation

The difference comes from provenance: an employer lobbying the government in 1896 versus a former child worker writing for a Soviet audience in 1930. Level 2 develops at least one reason by linking the author's position, purpose or time of writing to what the interpretation actually says.

Mark scheme
  1. 4 marks

    Levels of response (4 marks).
    Level 2 (3-4 marks): Developed explanation of why the interpretations differ, based on their provenance and contextual knowledge, e.g. explains that A's author is a mill owner writing to the government to stop a law that would cut his profits, so he presents his factory as caring; while B's author experienced the conditions as a child worker and wrote in the Soviet Union in 1930, when memoirs were expected to show Tsarist capitalism as cruel and to praise workers' struggle.
    Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple explanation identifying a reason from the provenance, e.g. A was written by a factory owner and B by a worker, without developing how this shaped their views.
    0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.

    Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): Different position and experience: A owned the mill and saw it from the office; B worked on the factory floor from the age of twelve and suffered the fines, long hours and danger. Purpose: A was written to persuade the Ministry of Finance not to limit hours (the 1897 Factory Act did limit the working day to 11.5 hours), so the owner stresses welfare (barracks, canteen, school, doctor) and the need for long hours to compete; B was written to show how bad life was before the revolution. Time and audience: A is private and written at the time, in 1896, the year of large textile strikes in St Petersburg; B was published in Stalin's Soviet Union in 1930, when censorship expected memoirs to condemn the Tsarist past and celebrate workers 'standing together' (trade unions, strikes, revolution). Context: some large mills did provide barracks, schools and doctors, but fines, long hours and accidents without compensation were common, so each author selects what suits their position.

Question 3

8 marks

Interpretation A: from a history of Tsarist Russia written by a Russian historian living in the USA, published in 1970. (Written for practice.)
'Industrialisation brought real benefits to ordinary Russians. Millions of peasants found jobs in factories and mines that paid better than farm work, and sent money home to their villages. The railways carried grain to market and goods to the countryside, and the cities offered schools, newspapers and new opportunities. Literacy rose quickly among the young. Life was hard, but it was better than before.'

Interpretation B: from a history of Russia written by a British socialist historian in 1975. (Written for practice.)
'The price of Russia's industrialisation was paid by the poor. Peasants were taxed on everything they bought so that the state could pay for railways and foreign loans, and grain was exported even in years of hunger. Those who went to the cities found long days in dangerous factories, crowded barracks and disease. The profits went to the factory owners, many of them foreign, and to the Tsar's treasury.'

Which interpretation gives the more convincing opinion about whether industrialisation benefited ordinary Russians?
Explain your answer based on your contextual knowledge and what it says in Interpretations A and B.

Model answer

Interpretation A has some truth. The industrial workforce roughly doubled to about 3 million by 1914, and factory wages, especially for skilled metalworkers, were usually higher than what peasants could earn from their small strips. Many workers sent money home to their villages. The railway network grew to about 70,000 km by 1913, carrying grain to market and settlers to Siberia, and cities offered schools, newspapers and trams, so literacy among young urban workers rose well above the figure of about one in five recorded in 1897.

However, Interpretation B is better supported for most Russians. Witte paid for industrialisation partly through indirect taxes on everyday goods such as vodka, sugar, matches and kerosene, which fell mainly on the peasants, and grain was exported to earn money for foreign debts even though many villages were short of food. In the cities workers faced long hours, fines and dangerous machines, and lived in crowded barracks or rented corners where cholera and typhus spread. The slump of 1900-1903 threw many out of work. Much of the profit went to factory owners and foreign investors, and the state used its revenue to build military and economic power rather than to improve ordinary lives.

Overall, B is more convincing. A describes real opportunities, but they reached mainly a minority of skilled workers, and mostly after 1908. For the majority - peasants paying the taxes and unskilled workers in the slums - industrialisation brought more burdens than benefits before 1914, as the growing strikes and peasant unrest showed.

Explanation

Industrialisation created jobs, higher wages for some and better communications (A), but its costs fell heavily on peasants and unskilled workers through taxes and harsh conditions (B). Level 4 tests both against specific knowledge and sustains a judgement about who benefited.

Mark scheme
  1. 8 marks

    Levels of response (8 marks).
    Level 4 (7-8 marks): Complex evaluation of both interpretations with a sustained judgement based on contextual knowledge: tests A's claims (better-paid jobs, money sent home, railways opening markets, schools and rising literacy) and B's claims (taxes on peasants, grain exports in hungry years, harsh factory and housing conditions, profits to owners, foreigners and the state) against accurate knowledge, and reaches a reasoned judgement on whether ordinary Russians benefited.
    Level 3 (5-6 marks): Developed evaluation of both interpretations using relevant contextual knowledge; a judgement may be given but is not sustained.
    Level 2 (3-4 marks): Simple evaluation of one interpretation (or of both with little knowledge), e.g. agrees with B because workers lived in barracks.
    Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic analysis: describes what one or both say, or asserts that one is more convincing, with little or no contextual knowledge.
    0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.

    Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): Supporting A: the industrial workforce grew to about 3 million by 1914; factory wages, especially for skilled workers, were usually higher than peasants' earnings; seasonal and permanent migrants sent money back to villages; railways (about 70,000 km by 1913) linked villages to markets and carried settlers to Siberia; cities had schools, newspapers, trams; literacy rose (about one in five in 1897, much higher among young urban men by 1914); peasants bought more consumer goods by 1909-1913. Supporting B: Witte's indirect taxes on vodka, sugar, matches and kerosene fell mainly on peasants; the vodka monopoly provided about a quarter of state revenue by 1913; grain exports continued in hard years (they were needed to pay foreign debts and support the gold standard); factory hours (11.5 legal maximum from 1897, often ignored), fines and accidents; barracks, corners, cholera and typhus; the slump of 1900-1903 brought unemployment; profits went to owners and foreign investors (France, Belgium, Britain) and to the state for military power. Judgement: e.g. B more convincing for the 1890s because the costs fell on ordinary people while the benefits went to the state and owners, though A has some force for skilled workers and for 1908-1913; or A more convincing in the long run. Credit either supported judgement.

Question 4

12 marks

Which of the following was the more important consequence of industrialisation for Russia by 1914:
- the growth of Russia's economic strength
- the growth of discontent in the cities?
Explain your answer with reference to both bullet points.

Model answer

Industrialisation greatly increased Russia's economic strength. Under Witte's 'Great Spurt' industry grew by about 8 per cent a year in the 1890s, and after a slump in 1900-1903 it grew fast again from about 1908. Coal output rose from about 6 million tonnes in 1890 to about 36 million in 1913, the railway network more than doubled to about 70,000 km, and around 1900 the Baku oilfields made Russia briefly the world's leading oil producer. By 1913 Russia was often described as the world's fifth largest industrial economy, with huge modern factories such as the Putilov works, which made locomotives and guns. This gave Russia the railways and industry to act as a great power. However, this strength had limits: output per person was far below Britain's or Germany's, much industry depended on foreign money, and defeat by Japan in 1904-1905 exposed the gaps.

Industrialisation also produced growing discontent in the cities. The industrial workforce grew to about 3 million by 1914, concentrated in a few cities such as St Petersburg and Moscow and in giant factories. Workers faced long hours, low pay, fines and overcrowded, disease-ridden housing, and they had no legal unions until 1906. This made them receptive to revolutionary parties such as the Social Democrats, founded in 1898. In 1905 workers' discontent exploded: Bloody Sunday began with a strike at the Putilov works, and a general strike in October helped force the Tsar to issue the October Manifesto. After the Lena Goldfields massacre of 1912, strikes rose again to about 2,000 that year and about 3,500 in the first seven months of 1914.

The two consequences were linked, because the factories and cities that made Russia stronger also gathered together the workers whose anger threatened the regime. On balance, the growth of discontent was the more important consequence. Russia's new economic strength was real but limited, and it was not enough to win the wars of 1904-1905 or 1914-1917. The discontent, by contrast, struck at the heart of the regime: it nearly brought down the Tsar in 1905, it was rising sharply again on the eve of war, and in 1917 it was the workers of Petrograd whose strikes began the revolution that ended Tsardom.

Explanation

Industrialisation made Russia a much stronger economy but also created a concentrated, discontented working class in the cities. Level 4 explains both with specific knowledge and reaches a sustained judgement, for example that discontent mattered more because it threatened the regime's survival in 1905 and 1917.

Mark scheme
  1. 12 marks

    Levels of response (12 marks).
    Level 4 (10-12 marks): Complex explanation of both bullet points: explains with specific knowledge how industrialisation increased Russia's economic strength (output, railways, growth rates, its rank among industrial powers, military potential) and how it increased discontent in the cities (a concentrated, exploited working class, strikes, revolutionary parties, 1905, 1912-1914), and how they were linked, leading to a sustained judgement about which was the more important consequence.
    Level 3 (7-9 marks): Developed explanation of both bullet points, supported by specific knowledge; a judgement may be given but is not fully sustained.
    Level 2 (4-6 marks): Simple explanation of one or both bullet points, with some knowledge.
    Level 1 (1-3 marks): Basic explanation of one or both bullet points, with general knowledge.
    0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.

    Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): Economic strength: industrial growth about 8 per cent a year in the 1890s and fast again 1908-1913; coal from about 6 (1890) to about 36 million tonnes (1913); oil - Baku briefly the world's leading oilfield around 1900; railways from about 31,000 to about 70,000 km; often described as the world's fifth largest industrial economy by 1913; large modern factories; armaments industry (Putilov) and railways for moving troops; good harvests and grain exports 1909-1913; limits - output per head low, foreign debts, peasants still about four-fifths of the population; defeat by Japan in 1904-1905 and the strain of 1914-1917 showed weaknesses. Discontent in the cities: the industrial workforce grew to about 3 million, concentrated in a few cities and huge factories; bad working and living conditions; strikes illegal before 1905-1906; the slump of 1900-1903; growth of the Social Democrats (founded 1898; split 1903) and Socialist Revolutionaries; the 1905 revolution (Bloody Sunday, the St Petersburg Soviet, the general strike that forced the October Manifesto); the Lena Goldfields massacre (1912) and about 2,000 strikes in 1912, about 3,500 in January-July 1914; workers and soldiers in Petrograd were central to the revolutions of 1917. Links: the growth that made Russia stronger also created the working class and the cities where discontent gathered. Judgement: discontent more important because it threatened the regime itself (1905, 1917); or economic strength more important because Russia in 1914 was richer and stronger than in 1894 and could fight a major war for three years. Credit either supported judgement.

Ready to try the rest? Every answer you write is marked against the mark scheme, so you can see exactly where the marks are.

AI Tutor Hints first, answers after you try

Hi! Stuck? Ask me for a hint and I’ll help you work it out. Once you’ve checked your answer I can explain exactly where the marks are.