Trotsky Personality (1 Viewer)

[jasonmatthew]

Hey how did everyone find the Trotsky personality question. I think it worked ok for Trotsky
These were the 2 questions
(a) Outline the main features in the backround and rise to prominance of the twentieth-century personality you have studied (10 marks)
(b)To what extent does history present us with a balanced interpretation of this personality (15 marks)

Thanks

 

[nicole1223456]

i loved it. i loved the whole paper. the questions were so straight forward.

 

[Danm999]

We had this one in our trials, so it was easy for most of us. My comments on how Trotsky has been dealt with was that sometimes history skewed him.

• He was denied his rightful role in Soviet history for years due to his opposition to Stalin.
• He was idealised in the West as what would have been a better alternative to Stalin (despite events like Civil War and Kronstadt), which I didn't agree with. Much suggests Trotsky would have been as bad.
• He is accused of impracticality despite some very practical moves (Civil War leadership, cancelling the 1905 revolution, suggesting the NEP to Lenin).
• He largely was given balanced credit for his contributions to Marxism (permanent revolution, his theories on Stalinist Russia etc)

 

[sillysana]

What did everyone say for part b)? I talked about how he was very inspiring as a leader and stuff but he wasn't too practical (like how he was gunning for international revolution even though Russia was falling apart?) That was the dodgiest question I reckon, the rest was pretty cool =).

omg!! u just made me realise how i stuffed up....no way!!!
i wrote about primary and secondary sources and how the depict balance of interpretations whatever...omg i an sooo failing that question!!!!
ALL CONFIDENCE LOST!!

 

[Princesa]

i thought these questions where alright. Q2 was a bit hard, but we had a pretty similar question in our trials. i just talked about the different ways he's viewed in history and whether one side of him is portrayed more than the other.

-practical revolutionary (red army...) vs. naive idealist ('permanent revolution'...)
-positive contributions to marxism and Russia (1917 revolution, permanent revolution...) vs. negative contributions (treaty of brest-litovsk...)

 

[Redkoala]

omg!! u just made me realise how i stuffed up....no way!!!
i wrote about primary and secondary sources and how the depict balance of interpretations whatever...omg i an sooo failing that question!!!!
ALL CONFIDENCE LOST!!

No, not necessarily.. it asked how "history provides us" with a balanced interpretation. You were right to look at the way he has been depicted by different historians

 

[jasonmatthew]

Hey with the personality sectiion, their is 2 parts in the 8 page booklet
i wrote the first answer a, then i skipped about 15 lines and went to the next page and did section b. I i am not sure that i labelled it B!!!!!!!. It is clear where i finish and where i start the next part. Will they take 15 marks off because i didnt write b) even though i skipped to a new page and answered the question and its obvious that i started the new part?
Thanks

 

[sarah89]

I doubt they will take marks off at all. It'll be obvious you are doing (b) anyway.
I thought the second part was really good for extension history students. you really just had to examine how and why Trotsky hasd been interpreted differntly throughout time, and what these interpretations presented him as. Like in the stalin era, russian historians couldnt exactly glorify trotsky. historians of the late 20th century would be able to have a more supported view, and would be detached-agenda of informing about who he was. good paper

 

[jasonmatthew]

Thanks Sarah. Yeh i did something very similar. Talked about the different intepretations as Commissar for War, Foreign Affairs, Power sturggle with stalin and the 1917 revoloution as well as his writings in exile and also his writings. showing the different sides of his criques and creditors.
But yeh i am happy with this bit

 

[ulleh]

I made it into my own question, because I’m an elitist, like Trotsky. In the second question (To what extent does history present us with a balanced interpretation of this personality) I referred to how his inability to use his relationship with Lenin and his dedication to the revolution cost him the power struggle, which then subsequently led to Stalin erasing him form history... get it? get it? I argued that soviet history isn’t a balanced interpretation.

 

[LISOC]

i completely agree with you sarah re: extension history students. i really enjoyed that question.

...pulled so much sh*t out of my ext. hist. bag : P

i was really intimidated by the first question; so broad...only 10 marks! i'm afraid that i generalised but i refuse to write the same amount for that as i would have for a 25mrk essay.