russia revision guide
Russia possible essay questions:
Collapse Reform and reaction, 1855–1881
Why did Alexander II order the emancipation of the serfs in 1861? (12 marks)
Crimean War defeat His own beliefs Political considerations
Why did defeat in the Crimean War lead to reform under Alexander II? (12 marks) Inadequate army training suggested Russia was not an “elite state” Social unrest caused by the defeat Pressure from intellectuals
Explain why Alexander II introduced further reforms following the Emancipation Edict of 1861. (12 marks)
Unequal social standings Disappointment of UC (Aristocracy) and WC (peasants) at the Emancipation edict Protest and riots in major cities
Explain why Alexander II slowed the pace of reform from the mid-1860s. (12 marks)
Assassination attempt in 1866
Influence from political members
Lack of support for the Tsar publicised in the press/spread by students
Why did Populism fail in Russia in the 1870s? (12 marks)
Lack of unity between groups – Land and Liberty > Black Partition/People’s Will
Violence of People’s Will was unpopular
Loyalty of the serfs to the Tsar
Explain why the Liberals were dissatisfied by Tsarist autocracy in 1881. (12 marks)
No power in the Zemstva Power and control of the Russian Orthodox Church Unwillingness of the Tsar to listen, highlighted by the backlash post 1866
How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in strengthening the Tsarist regime in the years 1855 to 1881? (24 marks)
Military – reduced serfs conscription
Judicial – fairer trials, power to nobility to appease after Emancipation
Emancipation – freed serfs, but upset serfs and nobility, needed further reform
Education – improved literacy, female participation, university, increased opposition How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming opposition in the years 1863 to 1894? (24 marks)
Zemstva reforms to appease nobility
Loyalty of serfs to the Tsar
Lack of unity between opposition groups
Assassination of Alexander II
How far had Alexander II fulfilled the hopes of reformers in Russia by the time of his death in 1881? (24 marks)
Serfs emancipated and given freedoms, but limited
Military reforms satisfied those wanting more modern army
Zemstva introduced, giving political voice, but powers limited and not national
Several reforms reversed after 1863/1866. Backlash in 1870s Collapse Political reaction: social and economic change, 1881–1904
Explain why, between 1894 and 1905, Russian liberals were dissatisfied with the tsarist regime. (12 marks)
Alexander III’s aggressive actions towards People’s Will and other opposition groups
Still a lack of a political voice
Incompetence of the Tsar’s rule
Why did Witte promote industrialisation in Russia? (12 marks)
Financial problems in Russia
Lack of skilled/technical workers
Insufficient manpower in the towns and cities
How far was Russia an industrialised state by 1914? (24 marks)
Oil, iron, coal production – use statistics
National revenue and trade increases
Social impact Comparison with other European nations
How far did the growth of internal opposition threaten the Tsarist regime in the years 1881 to 1904? (24 marks)
Famine in 1891 brought peasant issues back to the fore. 1901 formation of SR’s
Marxist ideas popular through 1890s. Lenin published “what is to be done?”
Harsh treatment of People’s Will set tone under Alexander III
Land Captains kept control over Zemstva
Collapse Russia in Revolution, 1904–1906
Why did the Tsar summon a Duma to meet in 1906? (12 marks)
Social unrest/strikes in major cities
October Manifesto promised a Duma
Demands of liberal aristocracy wanting to support the Tsar’s rule
Explain why, in 1905, revolution broke out in Russia. (12 marks)
Russo-Japanese War failure
Bloody Sunday
Social unrest at the unwillingness of the Tsar to listen to demands of the people
Explain why the Russian Social Democratic Party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903. (12 marks)
Mensheviks wanted bourgeois (UC) revolution first, Bolsheviks believe bourgeois and proletariat WC) could happen simultaneously
Bolsheviks favoured revolutionary tactics, rather than power through democracy
Bolsheviks wanted to restrict membership to the party
Explain why Nicholas II issued the Fundamental Laws in 1906. (12 marks)
Maintain Tsarist control after political concessions of October Manifesto in 1905
Political situation was more stable and army supportive
Many liberals were horrified with events of 1905 and wouldn’t oppose them
How successful was Nicholas II in overcoming opposition to his regime in the years 1905 to 1914? (24 marks)
Nicholas had support of the army to crush rebellions
Stolypin a strong leader, suppressing opposition and reforming agriculture
First 2 Dumas shut down as opposed the Tsar
Increase in strike activity after 1912, highlighting work dissatisfaction
Collapse: The Tsarist Regime, 1906–1914
Explain why Nicholas II dissolved the first two Russian Dumas in 1906 and 1907. (12 marks)
Tsar was unwilling to work with the Dumas due to his belief in autocracy
Surprised by radical demands – male suffrage
2nd Duma refused to pass Stolypin’s demands
Explain why, in the years 1906 to 1911, Stolypin attempted to reform agriculture. (12 marks)
Peasant uprisings in 1905 were alarming to regime
Little encouragement of development of Kulak class, which might stop revolution
Primitive and inefficient farming techniques How far did Nicholas II, in the years 1906 to 1914, fulfil the promises he made in the October Manifesto of 1905? (24 marks)
State Duma was a move to representative government
Stolypin gave opportunity to improve situation
Manipulation of franchise and limited power of Duma
Still poor working and living conditions
How successful was the Tsarist regime/Stolypin’s policies in bringing about the economic modernisation/political stability of Russia by 1914? (24 marks)
Duma
Stolypin
Tsar’s role
How important was political opposition to Nicholas II between 1914 and the February/March 1914 Revolution in bringing down the Tsarist government? (24 marks)
Political opposition
Military problems
Tsar’s actions
Social/industrial/agricultural unrest
Collapse: The First World War and the Revolutions of 1917
Explain why the Petrograd Soviet was established in 1917. (12 marks)
Established in response to rioting in Petrograd
Set up to ensure people had voting rights
Soviet was to allow control of people by revolutionaries
Explain why the Provisional Government kept Russia in the First World War after February / March 1917. (12 marks)
Still harboured hopes of victory that would help pay to repair damage
Provisional government were only temporary and didn’t make major decisions
Kerensky and other leaders were conservative and felt a moral duty to continue Explain why the Bolsheviks had little support in Russia in 1914. (12 marks)
Tsarist regime fairly strong and WWI brought out conservative patriotism
Russia was still mainly agricultural rather than industrial society
Elite movement and did not generate mass support Explain why Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in February/March 1917. (12 marks)
Long term unrest regarding Dumas
Actions of Tsar which had disappointed Russia
Disillusionment regarding defeats in the War Explain why Lenin returned to Russia/issued the April thesis from exile in April 1917. (12 marks)
Lenin believed war might enable Bolsheviks to gain support and seize power
Outline policy to gain popular support
Allow Lenin to show himself as a key figure and leader
How far was popular dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
Popular dissatisfaction
Failure to satisfy peasants
Participation in WWI
Role of Lenin
Weakness of leadership
Russia past essay questions:
January 2013
Why did Alexander II order the emancipation of the serfs in 1861? (12 marks)
How successful was Alexander II in overcoming opposition to his regime? (24 marks)
Explain why Nicholas II dissolved the first two Russian Dumas in 1906 and 1907. (12 marks)
How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing about the economic modernisation of Russia by 1914? (24 marks)
Explain why the Petrograd Soviet was established in 1917. (12 marks)
How far was the collapse of the Provisional Government in October/November 1917 to its failure to satisfy the demands of the peasants?
June 2012
Explain why Alexander II introduced further reforms following the Emancipation Edict of 1861. (12 marks)
How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in strengthening the Tsarist regime in the years 1855 to 1881? (24 marks)
Explain why Nicholas II issued the Fundamental Laws in 1906. (12 marks)
How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing political stability to Russia in the years 1906 to 1914? (24 marks)
Explain why the Provisional Government kept Russia in the First World War after February / March 1917. (12 marks)
How important was the role of Lenin in bringing about the overthrow of the Provisional Government in October / November 1917? (24 marks)
January 2012
Why did Populism fail in Russia in the 1870s? (12 marks)
How far did the growth of internal opposition threaten the Tsarist regime in the years 1881 to 1904? (24 marks)
Explain why, in 1905, revolution broke out in Russia. (12 marks)
How successful were Stolypin’s policies in restoring stability in Russia in the years 1906 to 1914? (24 marks)
Explain why the Bolsheviks had little support in Russia in 1914. (12 marks)
How important were military problems in explaining the Tsar’s decision to abdicate in February/March 1917? (24 marks)
June 2011
Explain why Russia’s serfs were emancipated in 1861. (12 marks)
How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in transforming Russian society by 1881? (24 marks) Explain why, between 1894 and 1905, Russian liberals were dissatisfied with the tsarist regime. (12 marks)
How far did Nicholas II, in the years 1906 to 1914, fulfil the promises he made in the October Manifesto of 1905? (24 marks)
Explain why Lenin returned to Russia from exile in April 1917. (12 marks)
How far was the Provisional Government’s continued involvement in the First World War responsible for its collapse in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
January 2011
Explain why Alexander II slowed the pace of reform from the mid-1860s. (12 marks)
How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming opposition in the years 1863 to 1894? (24 marks)
Explain why, in the years 1906 to 1911, Stolypin attempted to reform agriculture. (12 marks)
How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming the economic backwardness of Russia in the years 1881 to 1914? (24 marks)
Explain why Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in February/March 1917. (12 marks)
How far was popular dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
June 2010
Why did defeat in the Crimean War lead to reform under Alexander II? (12 marks)
How far had Alexander II fulfilled the hopes of reformers in Russia by the time of his death in 1881? (24 marks)
Explain why the Russian Social Democratic Party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903. (12 marks)
How successful was Nicholas II in overcoming opposition to his regime in the years 1905 to 1914? (24 marks)
Explain why Lenin issued the April Theses in April 1917. (12 marks)
How far was weak leadership of the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
January 2010 Explain why the Liberals were dissatisfied by Tsarist autocracy in 1881. (12 marks)
How important was political opposition to Nicholas II between 1914 and the February/March 1914 Revolution in bringing down the Tsarist government? (24 marks)
Why did the Tsar summon a Duma to meet in 1906? (12 marks)
How successful was Stolypin in strengthening the Tsarist regime? (24 marks)
Why did Witte promote industrialisation in Russia? (12 marks)
How far was Russia an industrialised state by 1914? (24 marks)
January 2013
Why did Alexander II order the emancipation of the serfs in 1861? (12 marks)
This question elicited a good number of responses, many of which were full and carefully written to show both the pressures leading Alexander to emancipate the serfs and the problems which the measure was designed to address. The less successful responses offered a 'list' of factors which, although relevant, made no link between the general point and the likely effects of emancipation. For example, many wrote of the 'need to catch up with the West', without saying how emancipation might bring this about or of 'Russia's humiliating defeat in the Crimean War', without pointing out how emancipation might make a difference to future military ventures.
How successful was Alexander II in overcoming opposition to his regime? (24 marks)
Whilst most students were quite knowledgeable about Alexander II's policies, not all were familiar with the main strands of opposition from liberals/intellectuals, populists/socialists and Marxist thinkers. Consequently, some students associated 'opposition' with those disappointed by the limitations of Alexander's reforms. This meant that some described the peasants as 'opponents' because they were disappointed by the Emancipation edict, when clearly it was their underlying loyalty to the regime that undermined Lavrov's attempt to 'go to the people'. Responses that were able to write about repression versus reform as a way of controlling opposition were more successful and most students were aware of the Tsar's assassination, although a variety of political organisations were accredited with responsibility.
Explain why Nicholas II dissolved the first two Russian Dumas in 1906 and 1907. (12 marks)
Knowledge of the first two Dumas was variable. The best were able to provide some quite precise detail on the causes of disagreement between the Tsar and his ministers on the one hand and the deputies on the other. However, others fell back to commenting more generally about the Dumas’ 'radical' proposals which were bound to clash with a Tsar determined to preserve his autocracy. Obviously the better the examples the more highly rewarded the response and those who simply described the events of 1905 in an attempt to compensate for lack of knowledge of the Dumas scored badly
How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing about the economic modernisation of Russia by 1914? (24 marks)
Material on Vyshnegradsky and Witte was generally well known but, unfortunately, some students presented this as though it provided the whole picture of Russia's economic development to 1914. Stolypin's agrarian reforms were sometimes ignored and even when they featured, not every student produced an overall summary of the position 'by 1914'. The best answers were the more thematic ones that examined, for example, the economic modernisation of industry, transport, finances and agriculture by 1914 and provided balance by considering the strengths and weaknesses of each (sometimes drawing on evidence of Russia's performance in the first months of war to illustrate the limitations of economic modernisation).
Explain why the Petrograd Soviet was established in 1917. (12 marks)
Most students offered contextual and more specific reasons for the setting up of the Soviet, usually with respect to whom it aimed to represent and what it hoped to achieve. The best answers provided precise and accurate information about, for example, the circumstances of the Tsar's abdication and the grievances of workers, soldiers, SRs and Mensheviks. Others were less secure on the detail and fell back on generalisation, while a very few confused the establishment of the Soviet with the Bolshevik takeover.
How far was the collapse of the Provisional Government in October/November 1917 due to its failure to satisfy the demands of the peasants? (24 marks)
Although there were some very good responses to this question, answers were often disappointing for one of two reasons. Some students virtually ignored the 'demands of the peasants' which, as the focus of the question should have been given some weight. (A number spoke about the peasant's 'dislike' of the PG and the PG's decision to continue the war as though they were two quite separate issues). The other cause of lost marks was the tendency to ignore the 'collapse' in October/November 1917 and write far more generally about the PG's mistakes and, sometimes, although less frequently, Bolsheviks' strengths.
June 2012
Explain why Alexander II introduced further reforms following the Emancipation Edict of 1861. (12 marks)
Although there were many good answers to this question, some ignored its specific wording, which invited students to consider why ‘further’ reforms were passed after the Emancipation Edict. Although answers which considered the broad reasons behind Alexander’s reforming impulses received some credit, the highest marks went to those who saw the connection between Emancipation and the need for further reform.
How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in strengthening the Tsarist regime in the years 1855 to 1881? (24 marks)
Most students were able to offer some comment on the success, or otherwise, of Alexander II’s reforms, but rather fewer were able to link those comments to the strength of the Tsarist regime. To answer this question well, students needed to be familiar with the workings of autocracy in Russia and to appreciate that some of the more positive reforms from a modern perspective, actually weakened the autocratic regime – the creation of the Zemstva being a prime example.
Explain why Nicholas II issued the Fundamental Laws in 1906. (12 marks)
Whilst many students knew what the Fundamental Laws were, some wrote about the October Manifesto and some spent too long providing description of the 1905 revolution. Even those that focused on the laws were apt to write descriptively, often listing the detail of the laws or describing them in practice after 1906, rather than considering the reasons behind them. The best answers explained the immediate reason for their issue, with reference to both the Tsar and the opposition forces and the context in which they were deemed necessary. Some also looked at the specific powers which the Tsar wished to confirm and clarify through their terms.
How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing political stability to Russia in the years 1906 to 1914? (24 marks)
As with question 02, the majority of students had no difficulty in writing about the successes and failures of the Tsarist regime, 1906–1914, in general terms, but rather fewer focused on successes ‘in bringing political stability’. Although a good number talked about stability, they included economic and social, as well as political stability and therefore digressed into irrelevance in parts of their answers.
Explain why the Provisional Government kept Russia in the First World War after February / March 1917. (12 marks)
The greater number of answers included some comment about the Provisional Government’s desire to continue to victory, to raise morale and to show that earlier sacrifices had not been in vain. Many also mentioned the temporary nature of that government and its inability to make long term decisions, whilst the best answers linked the government’s need for British and French money to the precarious position of the government and showed how these combined to keep Russia in the war. Surprisingly few noted that the government had very little choice.
How important was the role of Lenin in bringing about the overthrow of the Provisional Government in October / November 1917? (24 marks)
Knowledge of the main developments of 1917 was generally adequate or better and the majority could balance Lenin’s message in the April Theses against the Provisional government’s weaknesses and consequent lack of support. Answers varied, however, in the degree of attention they gave to October/November 1917 and Lenin’s involvement after April 1917 was too often ignored
January 2012
Why did Populism fail in Russia in the 1870s? (12 marks)
Most students who attempted this question had a reasonable idea as to what Populism was but they varied in the degree to which they were able to provide reasons for its failure. Sometimes reasons, such as the hostility of the peasantry to populist teaching, were lost in over-descriptive accounts and references to Tsarist oppression could be woolly and generalist. However, there were some excellent attempts to consider exactly what it was about Populism that failed to reach the peasants and some made much of the power of the Orthodox Church in explaining the peasants' negative attitude
How far did the growth of internal opposition threaten the Tsarist regime in the years 1881 to 1904? (24 marks)
Although there were some good answers, there was also an all-too-frequent misreading of this question on the part of otherwise quite well-informed students. The question did not ask for an explanation of the growth of internal opposition, although that is what many students wrote about. Its focus was instead on the degree to which internal opposition posed a threat to the tsarist regime. Consequently, the best answers were those that got to grips with the idea of 'threat' and weighed up the extent, intent and success of the various opposition groups and movements. Those who differentiated between opposition groups produced some strong answers. Such saw the 'terrorist' groups which were to form the SRs and SDs as threats in theory but of limited consequence in practice, thanks to the autocratic Tsarist regime with its machinery of spies and repression. However, they were aware that liberal opposition – as seen in the Zemstva and town Dumas – while less obviously threatening was slowly chipping away at Tsarist authority and winning over those who might in the past have helped to prop up the autocracy. Dates caused a problem for some. A number of answers looked at developments pre-1881 and rather more went beyond 1904.
Explain why, in 1905, revolution broke out in Russia. (12 marks)
This was a very popular question and, for the most part, students were well able to identify a number of factors leading to the outbreak of revolution in 1905. There was some slight divergence as to when the actual 'outbreak' was. Most saw Father Gapon's march as the 'trigger', but others tried to include the events of 1905 as contributors to the revolution in government which, in their view, actually occurred in 1906. Such answers were marked on their merits. Perhaps the greatest problem for students was knowing where to start in explaining causes. Some went back to the Crimean War and reigns of Alexander II and Alexander III, listing everything that was wrong with Tsardom. Such answers usually became excessively long and ran into the danger of never explaining why the revolution occurred in 1905 and not sooner. Better answers focused on evens such as the Russo-Japanese War and Bloody Sunday, together with a summary of the broader 'underlying' problems – politically (perhaps referring to Nicholas II's own weaknesses as ruler) and socially, such as the conditions in which the industrial working class of St Petersburg lived and worked. It was surprising how few were able to comment on the links between such factors, however, and students may need reminding that an appreciation of how different factors work together is essential for high marks.
How successful were Stolypin’s policies in restoring stability in Russia in the years 1906 to 1914? (24 marks)
Many students showed a good grasp of Stolypin's policies and were aware of their strengths and limitations. However, rather fewer were able to step back from 'success' to consider 'stability', which is what the question asked about. Those that managed to focus on stability saw developments from a slightly different perspective, noting that Stolypin's agrarian reforms might be considered to have undermined stability by creating a new kulak class and causing resentment among the dispossessed peasants, for example. Similarly Stolypin's 'necktie' and his management of the Dumas, whilst generally condemned, were put forward as beneficial to the interests of stability. Obviously, students could adopt whatever arguments they wished, but the degree to which they considered stability – together with their knowledge of not only Stolypin's agrarian concerns but also his political role – determined the level and mark they received.
Explain why the Bolsheviks had little support in Russia in 1914. (12 marks)
This question challenged students to look at the Bolsheviks from a slightly unusual perspective. Many rose to that challenge and commented effectively on the nature of Bolshevism and the effectiveness of repression – most particularly the exile of leaders such as Lenin. The best answers also seized upon the year – 1914 – to point to the rise in patriotism and tsarist loyalty that occurred with the outbreak of war. As in 01 and 03, there needed to be links between the various factors for the highest marks and connections between the anti-democratic and internationalist nature of Bolshevism, which placed it at a disadvantage during the era of the Dumas and the swell of support for war were mentioned by some of the best students. Others saw links between the limited state of Russian industrial development in 1914 and the Bolshevik reliance on the proletariat, which suggested the movement was a lost cause.
How important were military problems in explaining the Tsar’s decision to abdicate in February/March 1917? (24 marks)
Most students were able to put forward a range of general reasons as to why the Tsardom came to an end (or, perhaps 'deserved to come to an end' – which was not quite what the question asked about). However, as in 03, a number tried to explain the demise of Tsardom by describing the inadequacies of the system in general and/or the mistakes of Alexander II and Alexander III. For the most part, those that focused on the period from 1914 to February/March 1917 provided the most convincing answers, while those that ignored the actual circumstances of the abdication could only give partial incomplete explanations. Another issue for weaker students was an inability to distinguish between 'military problems' and other factors. Some regarded anything to do with the war (including the economic conditions in Petrograd and the 'rule' of Alexandra and Rasputin) as 'military problems' when this is clearly not the case. Others ignored 'military problems' altogether and wrote in a generalist way, whilst those who tried to address problems at the front, struggled to get beyond Nicholas becoming Commander-in-Chief (although not everyone knew when), a shortage of weapons and the problem of desertions. The best answers were the more precise responses which not only balanced military problems against other 'themed' factors, such as economic, social and political, but were also able to produce some precise evidence to back the views in their answers. Finally, it must be pointed out that a few students erroneously believed that Lenin and the Bolsheviks provoked the abdication.
June 2011
Explain why Russia’s serfs were emancipated in 1861. (12 marks)
Answers to Question 1 01, on the reasons why the serfs were emancipated, were mostly good. Many candidates produced answers that were substantial, well-informed and well directed, covering an extensive range of factors and showing good understanding of the context of 1855–1861. There was a tendency, however, for the relevant factors to be listed at length, without sufficient attempt at differentiation or evaluation. Superior answers were often marked by depth of comment about the Tsar Liberator’s deeper motives in protecting the autocracy. Less successful answers tended to spend too much time on background issues before 1855, or strayed into irrelevant material about the consequences and impact of the Emancipation edict after it had been passed.
How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in transforming Russian society by 1881? (24 marks)
In Question 1 02, on the extent to which Russia had been transformed by 1881 as a result of Alexander II’s reforms, many answers were based on solid knowledge of the reforms. Many good quality answers showed a solid understanding of the ‘twin-track’ policies followed by Alexander, alternating between periods of liberalisation and reform and periods of retrenchment and return to repression. The majority of answers attempted to make balanced assessments of the varying degrees of success and failure of the reforms. It should be noted, however, that the key word ‘transformed’ needed to be addressed directly. The best answers focused on the situation of Tsarist Russia in the last years of the reign, especially 1878–1881, and discussed the overall extent of change since the beginning of Alexander II’s drive for reform.
Explain why, between 1894 and 1905, Russian liberals were dissatisfied with the tsarist regime. (12 marks)
The response to Question 2 03, on the reasons why Russian Liberals criticised the Tsarist regime in the years 1894 to 1905, was very disappointing. All too many answers relied almost exclusively on material relating to Alexander III – or on developments that took place from 1906, such as the Fundamental Law. Only a minority of answers showed any knowledge or understanding of liberal ideas. There was a tendency to lump together uncritical statements about any and all forms of opposition, including the Bolsheviks. The contrast between the level of answers to this question and those to Question 1 01 was stark.
How far did Nicholas II, in the years 1906 to 1914, fulfil the promises he made in the October Manifesto of 1905? (24 marks)
Answers to Question 2 04, on the extent to which Nicholas II fulfilled his promises between 1905 and 1914, were of mixed quality. A number of candidates produced direct and convincing evidence about the four Dumas and about the policies of Stolypin, leading to balanced assessments of the positive and/or negative outcomes of Nicholas II’s rule by 1914. Many answers, however, began with a reasonable account of the October Manifesto and the constitutional developments in 1905 and 1906 but could offer nothing beyond the end of the second Duma. The developments from 1906 to 1914 as the Tsarist regime attempted to restore stability after the 1905 revolution are vitally important and should be better known.
Explain why Lenin returned to Russia from exile in April 1917. (12 marks)
Answers to Question 3 05, on the reasons for Lenin’s return to Russia in 1917, differed widely in quality. Many candidates wrote crisply and effectively about key factors such as the role of Germany in assisting Lenin’s return, and Lenin’s desire to assert his authority over the Bolsheviks. These impressive answers based on confident knowledge and understanding of the issues contrasted sharply with the many other answers that were disappointingly vague and uncertain. A significant number of candidates barely attempted an answer, offering no more than a brief plan. Many candidates revealed a weak grasp of basic chronology, suggesting that Lenin ‘wanted to overthrow the Tsar’, or including events that took place well after Lenin’s return, such as the July Days.
How far was the Provisional Government’s continued involvement in the First World War responsible for its collapse in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
In Question 3 06, on the downfall of the Provisional Government in the October Revolution, many successful answers provided analytical evidence about the increasing strain of the war and the difficult problems faced by Kerensky’s regime. Such answers were able to assess the relative importance of the continuation of the war compared with a range of other relevant factors. A substantial number of weaker responses revealed a shaky grasp of chronology, often describing the impact of the war in the most generalized terms and including irrelevant references to the events of 1914–1916 and the reasons for the fall of the Tsar.
January 2011
Explain why Alexander II slowed the pace of reform from the mid-1860s. (12 marks)
Question 01 posed some difficulties for a good proportion of the candidates, who did not read the question properly or understand what it actually asked. They were asked to explain reasons why Tsar Alexander II slowed the pace of reform in the mid-1860s, but many submitted irrelevant material about why he launched a programme of reforms in the first place. In some cases, these were extended answers and factually correct, yet they did not pertain at all to the question and could not be credited. It is clear that these candidates had prepared an answer for the question they thought would appear, and had not attempted to adjust their ideas to fit the question posed. This ability to deal with the demands of a new and unseen question is central to the assessment of History at AS and candidates should be advised strongly to read the question carefully and quickly identify the reasons they will explain. Many candidates were able to identify and explain a range of reasons and scored within levels three and four.
How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming opposition in the years 1863 to 1894? (24 marks)
Question 02 attracted a range of answers, many of which were impressive in their depth and deployment of knowledge. Good candidates were able to make an assessment of the regime’s level of success in dealing with opposition and could comment on the different approaches of reform and repression adopted by these two Tsars. Most candidates knew about a range of opposition groups and some could explain their difficulties in stirring popular support. Too many candidates described the opposition groups, often at some length, without enough reference to the focus of the question and these candidates scored low marks within the mark scheme.
Explain why, in the years 1906 to 1911, Stolypin attempted to reform agriculture. (12 marks)
Question 03 posed no particular difficulties and candidates wrote confidently about Stolypin’s reasons for introducing these reforms. Some of the more able candidates wrote about a range of political, social and economic motives and were able to link well the themes of delivering economic progress alongside political stability. These answers were credited highly. Many candidates could develop and explain only a limited number of reasons and candidates should be reminded of the need for range: as a rule of thumb, examiners are looking for at least three separate themes in the answer, each one explained well.
How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming the economic backwardness of Russia in the years 1881 to 1914? (24 marks)
Question 04 distinguished well between the candidates. The best answers addressed the whole period, often in a chronological way but with an analytical focus. Typically, they assessed the level of success in the 1880s and 1890s, went on to acknowledge the recession of the early 1900s, and then delivered an assessment of economic policy between 1906 and 1914. Answers like these scored highly within the mark scheme because they had balance and range across the period alongside some focused assessment of what the question asked. Other answers were less effective. Many candidates were eager to demonstrate their knowledge of economic policy in the 1880s and 90s and had clearly revised and memorised their material diligently. However, in many cases candidates did not extend their answers beyond the 1905 revolution, so lacked the balance to score well on a question asking for assessment of the period to 1914. Others wrote a narrative account of the period with little reference to the question itself and candidates should be reminded to refer frequently to the words in the question, in order to ensure they address it with some assessment and evaluation not just description.
Explain why Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in February/March 1917. (12 marks)
Question 05 attracted some very good answers. Candidates were comfortable with the focus and could identify and explain a range of reasons. Many good answers made links between various factors, showing a developed understanding of how military issues became political. Other effective answers analysed the relative importance of factors, developing for example the central issue of the Tsar’s loss of support and credibility.
How far was popular dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
Question 06 was also done well and almost all candidates coped with the concept of popular dissatisfaction as a cause of revolution. Most answers were balanced and provided some assessment of the various causes, and many did so in good detail. Here, there was a good link between factual depth and focused analysis: the candidates who had revised well performed well, and that might be a reflection of their familiarity with evaluative questions on this topic. The ability to weigh reasons and to assess why some are more important than others is central to the AS mark scheme and many candidates did just that. Answers could only be rewarded highly when they focused sufficiently on popular dissatisfaction, even if only to dismiss it as a significant cause. Some candidates demonstrated a good understanding of historiography on this issue and, when used appropriately, references to the views of particular historians can enhance an argument.
June 2010
Why did defeat in the Crimean War lead to reform under Alexander II? (12 marks)
Most candidates answered this question very well, by explaining a range of factors. Most were able to explain the reasons for reform by referring to a range of military, economic and social factors highlighted by defeat in the Crimean War. Some tied in other factors like Alexander II’s upbringing by indicating convincingly that this context made him sensitive to the issues highlighted by defeat. Successful answers made material relevant to this question, but a few of the weakest candidates simply did not use the question carefully enough. They focused on reasons for reform tangential to defeat in the Crimean War and made no attempt to link them to it. For example, they described the evils of serfdom without explaining how abolishing it might prevent future defeats. These answers could only be credited at lower levels. However, the best answers not only explained reasons clearly but also made good links between them to secure the highest levels.
How far had Alexander II fulfilled the hopes of reformers in Russia by the time of his death in 1881? (24 marks)
This was a very popular question and the topic of the extent and nature of reform has appeared repeatedly on past papers. Consequently, candidates were able to offer a good range of relevant material and took several different but equally valid approaches to the question. Some focused on the limitations of the reforms themselves, examining in depth the extent to which they solved problems and thereby met the hopes of reformers. Others focused more on the reformers themselves and what they were hoping for, arguing that their demands were unrealistic in the context of Alexander II’s reforms. Some distinguished well between groups of reformers and radicals in a focused argument. Any of these approaches was valid. The best answers repeatedly addressed the question: how far were the hopes of reformers fulfilled? In this way, they kept their material focused and their argument tight, offering the analysis and judgement needed for the highest levels. Weaker candidates were not so disciplined and sometimes struggled to marshal their material into a structured answer. These weak answers became descriptive or unfocused which was a shame, because in some cases candidates had clearly worked hard to memorise a lot of information.
Explain why the Russian Social Democratic Party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903. (12 marks)
This question really divided candidates into those who knew the answer and those who did not. This lack of knowledge from some candidates was surprising, in that the Social Democrats are mentioned specifically on the specification. Many candidates were able to explain clearly reasons like differences over membership, leadership of the revolution, timing of the revolution, cooperation with reformers or differences in personality between key figures like Lenin and Martov. Others explained the context, in which the formation of new groups was not uncommon. Some offered an impressive depth of knowledge on Marxist philosophy, which was certainly not essential even for the highest levels. In general, candidates should be advised that if they cannot answer the twelve mark sub-question, they should not attempt the question at all because a minority of candidates did actually write nothing.
How successful was Nicholas II in overcoming opposition to his regime in the years 1905 to 1914? (24 marks)
Again, this topic has featured repeatedly on past papers and is central to the specification so candidates were generally familiar with the material and key issues. Strong answers included a good range of relevant material on overcoming opposition, such as political reform, economic change and the use of repression. The best answers also addressed they whole nine year period and made some assessment of the level of success across it, distinguishing between the turmoil of 1905, the apparent calm from around 1908 and the increase in agitation around 1912. Some answers, though, were less successful. Some weaker candidates focused exclusively on one area such as the Dumas and became confused about the events, offering a narrow narrative with errors. Others focused only on the 1905 Revolution and then made bald and sweeping assertions about the success of Nicholas II without offering evidence. A few offered irrelevant materials beyond 1914 and these tended to be those who had performed badly or written nothing for Question 03.
Explain why Lenin issued the April Theses in April 1917. (12 marks)
Most candidates understood the question and were able to offer some reasons, but in some cases the range of reasons was quite narrow or lacked development. Weaker answers tended to describe the context of April 1917 without successfully linking it to Lenin issuing the April Theses. Better answers focused more specifically on the Bolsheviks and Lenin’s leadership.
How far was weak leadership of the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
The overthrow of the Provisional Government in October/ November 1917 is a favourite topic for candidates and most answers were knowledgeable and well argued. Most candidates were able to explain various interpretations of why the Provisional Government was overthrown, drawing attention to its weakness, the problems it faced and the growing strengths of the Bolsheviks. Many answers were very good indeed, with convincing argument throughout and frequent weighing of the relative importance of the issues. However, some weaker candidates wrote too generally, without focus on this question. The weakest answers only addressed the key issue of weak leadership in the conclusion, if at all. Some tried to make assertions about Kerensky’s personality with no clear evidence and it was certainly not necessary to offer character profiles of Kerensky or Lvov, although some candidates did do that. Stronger candidates were able to make a convincing case for weak leadership, tying in issues like competition with the Soviet or the delays in introducing substantial reform.
January 2010
Why did Alexander II order the emancipation of the serfs in 1861? (12 marks)
This question was answered well by many candidates. Weaker answers sometimes showed lack of knowledge, or wrote about the process of industrialisation or its impact rather than Witte’s motives in promoting it. Many candidates knew enough about the motives to be securely in Level 3, commenting on facts such as the desire to strengthen the Russian economy and defence capability, the desire to ‘catch up with the West’, and the desire to make Russia less dependent on agriculture. There were several answers which achieved Level 4 by effectively linking the motives or showing good historical perspective.
How successful was Alexander II in overcoming opposition to his regime? (24 marks)
Answers to the question were very variable in quality. Several candidates did not read the question carefully enough, writing too much about the pre-Witte period. There were relatively few answers which focused effectively on the situation in 1914. Consequently relatively few candidates got into the highest two levels. There were too many answers which indulged in unsupported assertions. There was an obsession with the Trans-Siberian railway, whose contribution to the overall Russian economy was grossly overestimated.
Explain why Nicholas II dissolved the first two Russian Dumas in 1906 and 1907. (12 marks)
Many answers to this question simply failed to get off the ground, since although liberals are specifically mentioned in the specification, large numbers of candidates did not know who liberals were or what they stood for. Often they were ignored or confused with groups like Populists and Marxists. Therefore, even lengthy answers were often about opposition to the regime generally. There were a minority of candidates who did know what Liberal concerns were, and wrote knowledgeably about the desire for constitutional reform and civil rights, and related this well to attitudes towards Alexander II’s reforms and towards his successor Alexander III. Candidates are still prone to make simplistic assertions, believing that Alexander III reversed all reforms, including the abolition of serfdom, or believe that Alexander II was a closet democrat.
How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing about the economic modernisation of Russia by 1914? (24 marks)
This question was often answered poorly. The wording of the question did allow candidates, if they wished, to discuss various factors which led to the fall of the tsarist regime. However, to access the higher levels it was also necessary to specifically analyse the role of political opposition. Many candidates appeared to simply ignore the question, and wrote about the impact of the War on the economy and the army, and wrote at length about Alexandra and Rasputin. Some candidates wasted too much time by writing about pre-1914 events such as the 1905 revolution, or even worse, confused this with the 1917 revolution. Several candidates confused the two revolutions of 1917. Key aspects of the political opposition were usually ignored, such as the activities of the Zemstvo, the Duma and the Progressive Bloc. Where candidates did write about political opposition, there were often assertions about the role of groups such as the Bolsheviks (sometimes confused with SRs), with no real evaluation of their significance. Although there were good answers to this question, showing balance and informed evaluation, they were few and far between.
Explain why the Petrograd Soviet was established in 1917. (12 marks)
This question produced a range of responses, but was often answered well. Candidates often understood the concern of the regime to quell discontent and divide the opposition, appealing in particular to those ‘moderates’ who wanted to focus on civil rights and constitutional reform. Weaker answers tended to explain the background of the 1905 Revolution, which was of course legitimate, but disadvantaged themselves by devoting their whole answer to a narrative of that Revolution. A few candidates also went off at a tangent, ignoring Nicholas II’s motives and writing a description of the Dumas, often going well beyond 1906.
How far was the collapse of the Provisional Government in October/November 1917 due to its failure to satisfy the demands of the peasants? (24 marks)
This question was overall answered better than the other part (b) questions. Answers were often knowledgeable and well argued. Most candidates wrote balanced accounts of Stolypin’s contribution, although answers are sometimes marred by mechanical references to ‘schools of thought’ such as structuralism, ‘optimistic’ and ‘pessimistic’ views and so on, terms which have to be used with care and sophistication or else add nothing to the answer, particularly if not supported by convincing evidence. There were many good answers which focused on key areas such as Stolypin’s repression and his agricultural reform, although his key role in managing and manipulating the Duma was often ignored or played down. It was pleasing that most candidates did attempt to evaluate Stolypin’s overall contribution, albeit with varying degrees of conviction.
Collapse Reform and reaction, 1855–1881
Why did Alexander II order the emancipation of the serfs in 1861? (12 marks)
Crimean War defeat His own beliefs Political considerations
Why did defeat in the Crimean War lead to reform under Alexander II? (12 marks) Inadequate army training suggested Russia was not an “elite state” Social unrest caused by the defeat Pressure from intellectuals
Explain why Alexander II introduced further reforms following the Emancipation Edict of 1861. (12 marks)
Unequal social standings Disappointment of UC (Aristocracy) and WC (peasants) at the Emancipation edict Protest and riots in major cities
Explain why Alexander II slowed the pace of reform from the mid-1860s. (12 marks)
Assassination attempt in 1866
Influence from political members
Lack of support for the Tsar publicised in the press/spread by students
Why did Populism fail in Russia in the 1870s? (12 marks)
Lack of unity between groups – Land and Liberty > Black Partition/People’s Will
Violence of People’s Will was unpopular
Loyalty of the serfs to the Tsar
Explain why the Liberals were dissatisfied by Tsarist autocracy in 1881. (12 marks)
No power in the Zemstva Power and control of the Russian Orthodox Church Unwillingness of the Tsar to listen, highlighted by the backlash post 1866
How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in strengthening the Tsarist regime in the years 1855 to 1881? (24 marks)
Military – reduced serfs conscription
Judicial – fairer trials, power to nobility to appease after Emancipation
Emancipation – freed serfs, but upset serfs and nobility, needed further reform
Education – improved literacy, female participation, university, increased opposition How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming opposition in the years 1863 to 1894? (24 marks)
Zemstva reforms to appease nobility
Loyalty of serfs to the Tsar
Lack of unity between opposition groups
Assassination of Alexander II
How far had Alexander II fulfilled the hopes of reformers in Russia by the time of his death in 1881? (24 marks)
Serfs emancipated and given freedoms, but limited
Military reforms satisfied those wanting more modern army
Zemstva introduced, giving political voice, but powers limited and not national
Several reforms reversed after 1863/1866. Backlash in 1870s Collapse Political reaction: social and economic change, 1881–1904
Explain why, between 1894 and 1905, Russian liberals were dissatisfied with the tsarist regime. (12 marks)
Alexander III’s aggressive actions towards People’s Will and other opposition groups
Still a lack of a political voice
Incompetence of the Tsar’s rule
Why did Witte promote industrialisation in Russia? (12 marks)
Financial problems in Russia
Lack of skilled/technical workers
Insufficient manpower in the towns and cities
How far was Russia an industrialised state by 1914? (24 marks)
Oil, iron, coal production – use statistics
National revenue and trade increases
Social impact Comparison with other European nations
How far did the growth of internal opposition threaten the Tsarist regime in the years 1881 to 1904? (24 marks)
Famine in 1891 brought peasant issues back to the fore. 1901 formation of SR’s
Marxist ideas popular through 1890s. Lenin published “what is to be done?”
Harsh treatment of People’s Will set tone under Alexander III
Land Captains kept control over Zemstva
Collapse Russia in Revolution, 1904–1906
Why did the Tsar summon a Duma to meet in 1906? (12 marks)
Social unrest/strikes in major cities
October Manifesto promised a Duma
Demands of liberal aristocracy wanting to support the Tsar’s rule
Explain why, in 1905, revolution broke out in Russia. (12 marks)
Russo-Japanese War failure
Bloody Sunday
Social unrest at the unwillingness of the Tsar to listen to demands of the people
Explain why the Russian Social Democratic Party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903. (12 marks)
Mensheviks wanted bourgeois (UC) revolution first, Bolsheviks believe bourgeois and proletariat WC) could happen simultaneously
Bolsheviks favoured revolutionary tactics, rather than power through democracy
Bolsheviks wanted to restrict membership to the party
Explain why Nicholas II issued the Fundamental Laws in 1906. (12 marks)
Maintain Tsarist control after political concessions of October Manifesto in 1905
Political situation was more stable and army supportive
Many liberals were horrified with events of 1905 and wouldn’t oppose them
How successful was Nicholas II in overcoming opposition to his regime in the years 1905 to 1914? (24 marks)
Nicholas had support of the army to crush rebellions
Stolypin a strong leader, suppressing opposition and reforming agriculture
First 2 Dumas shut down as opposed the Tsar
Increase in strike activity after 1912, highlighting work dissatisfaction
Collapse: The Tsarist Regime, 1906–1914
Explain why Nicholas II dissolved the first two Russian Dumas in 1906 and 1907. (12 marks)
Tsar was unwilling to work with the Dumas due to his belief in autocracy
Surprised by radical demands – male suffrage
2nd Duma refused to pass Stolypin’s demands
Explain why, in the years 1906 to 1911, Stolypin attempted to reform agriculture. (12 marks)
Peasant uprisings in 1905 were alarming to regime
Little encouragement of development of Kulak class, which might stop revolution
Primitive and inefficient farming techniques How far did Nicholas II, in the years 1906 to 1914, fulfil the promises he made in the October Manifesto of 1905? (24 marks)
State Duma was a move to representative government
Stolypin gave opportunity to improve situation
Manipulation of franchise and limited power of Duma
Still poor working and living conditions
How successful was the Tsarist regime/Stolypin’s policies in bringing about the economic modernisation/political stability of Russia by 1914? (24 marks)
Duma
Stolypin
Tsar’s role
How important was political opposition to Nicholas II between 1914 and the February/March 1914 Revolution in bringing down the Tsarist government? (24 marks)
Political opposition
Military problems
Tsar’s actions
Social/industrial/agricultural unrest
Collapse: The First World War and the Revolutions of 1917
Explain why the Petrograd Soviet was established in 1917. (12 marks)
Established in response to rioting in Petrograd
Set up to ensure people had voting rights
Soviet was to allow control of people by revolutionaries
Explain why the Provisional Government kept Russia in the First World War after February / March 1917. (12 marks)
Still harboured hopes of victory that would help pay to repair damage
Provisional government were only temporary and didn’t make major decisions
Kerensky and other leaders were conservative and felt a moral duty to continue Explain why the Bolsheviks had little support in Russia in 1914. (12 marks)
Tsarist regime fairly strong and WWI brought out conservative patriotism
Russia was still mainly agricultural rather than industrial society
Elite movement and did not generate mass support Explain why Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in February/March 1917. (12 marks)
Long term unrest regarding Dumas
Actions of Tsar which had disappointed Russia
Disillusionment regarding defeats in the War Explain why Lenin returned to Russia/issued the April thesis from exile in April 1917. (12 marks)
Lenin believed war might enable Bolsheviks to gain support and seize power
Outline policy to gain popular support
Allow Lenin to show himself as a key figure and leader
How far was popular dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
Popular dissatisfaction
Failure to satisfy peasants
Participation in WWI
Role of Lenin
Weakness of leadership
Russia past essay questions:
January 2013
Why did Alexander II order the emancipation of the serfs in 1861? (12 marks)
How successful was Alexander II in overcoming opposition to his regime? (24 marks)
Explain why Nicholas II dissolved the first two Russian Dumas in 1906 and 1907. (12 marks)
How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing about the economic modernisation of Russia by 1914? (24 marks)
Explain why the Petrograd Soviet was established in 1917. (12 marks)
How far was the collapse of the Provisional Government in October/November 1917 to its failure to satisfy the demands of the peasants?
June 2012
Explain why Alexander II introduced further reforms following the Emancipation Edict of 1861. (12 marks)
How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in strengthening the Tsarist regime in the years 1855 to 1881? (24 marks)
Explain why Nicholas II issued the Fundamental Laws in 1906. (12 marks)
How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing political stability to Russia in the years 1906 to 1914? (24 marks)
Explain why the Provisional Government kept Russia in the First World War after February / March 1917. (12 marks)
How important was the role of Lenin in bringing about the overthrow of the Provisional Government in October / November 1917? (24 marks)
January 2012
Why did Populism fail in Russia in the 1870s? (12 marks)
How far did the growth of internal opposition threaten the Tsarist regime in the years 1881 to 1904? (24 marks)
Explain why, in 1905, revolution broke out in Russia. (12 marks)
How successful were Stolypin’s policies in restoring stability in Russia in the years 1906 to 1914? (24 marks)
Explain why the Bolsheviks had little support in Russia in 1914. (12 marks)
How important were military problems in explaining the Tsar’s decision to abdicate in February/March 1917? (24 marks)
June 2011
Explain why Russia’s serfs were emancipated in 1861. (12 marks)
How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in transforming Russian society by 1881? (24 marks) Explain why, between 1894 and 1905, Russian liberals were dissatisfied with the tsarist regime. (12 marks)
How far did Nicholas II, in the years 1906 to 1914, fulfil the promises he made in the October Manifesto of 1905? (24 marks)
Explain why Lenin returned to Russia from exile in April 1917. (12 marks)
How far was the Provisional Government’s continued involvement in the First World War responsible for its collapse in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
January 2011
Explain why Alexander II slowed the pace of reform from the mid-1860s. (12 marks)
How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming opposition in the years 1863 to 1894? (24 marks)
Explain why, in the years 1906 to 1911, Stolypin attempted to reform agriculture. (12 marks)
How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming the economic backwardness of Russia in the years 1881 to 1914? (24 marks)
Explain why Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in February/March 1917. (12 marks)
How far was popular dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
June 2010
Why did defeat in the Crimean War lead to reform under Alexander II? (12 marks)
How far had Alexander II fulfilled the hopes of reformers in Russia by the time of his death in 1881? (24 marks)
Explain why the Russian Social Democratic Party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903. (12 marks)
How successful was Nicholas II in overcoming opposition to his regime in the years 1905 to 1914? (24 marks)
Explain why Lenin issued the April Theses in April 1917. (12 marks)
How far was weak leadership of the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
January 2010 Explain why the Liberals were dissatisfied by Tsarist autocracy in 1881. (12 marks)
How important was political opposition to Nicholas II between 1914 and the February/March 1914 Revolution in bringing down the Tsarist government? (24 marks)
Why did the Tsar summon a Duma to meet in 1906? (12 marks)
How successful was Stolypin in strengthening the Tsarist regime? (24 marks)
Why did Witte promote industrialisation in Russia? (12 marks)
How far was Russia an industrialised state by 1914? (24 marks)
January 2013
Why did Alexander II order the emancipation of the serfs in 1861? (12 marks)
This question elicited a good number of responses, many of which were full and carefully written to show both the pressures leading Alexander to emancipate the serfs and the problems which the measure was designed to address. The less successful responses offered a 'list' of factors which, although relevant, made no link between the general point and the likely effects of emancipation. For example, many wrote of the 'need to catch up with the West', without saying how emancipation might bring this about or of 'Russia's humiliating defeat in the Crimean War', without pointing out how emancipation might make a difference to future military ventures.
How successful was Alexander II in overcoming opposition to his regime? (24 marks)
Whilst most students were quite knowledgeable about Alexander II's policies, not all were familiar with the main strands of opposition from liberals/intellectuals, populists/socialists and Marxist thinkers. Consequently, some students associated 'opposition' with those disappointed by the limitations of Alexander's reforms. This meant that some described the peasants as 'opponents' because they were disappointed by the Emancipation edict, when clearly it was their underlying loyalty to the regime that undermined Lavrov's attempt to 'go to the people'. Responses that were able to write about repression versus reform as a way of controlling opposition were more successful and most students were aware of the Tsar's assassination, although a variety of political organisations were accredited with responsibility.
Explain why Nicholas II dissolved the first two Russian Dumas in 1906 and 1907. (12 marks)
Knowledge of the first two Dumas was variable. The best were able to provide some quite precise detail on the causes of disagreement between the Tsar and his ministers on the one hand and the deputies on the other. However, others fell back to commenting more generally about the Dumas’ 'radical' proposals which were bound to clash with a Tsar determined to preserve his autocracy. Obviously the better the examples the more highly rewarded the response and those who simply described the events of 1905 in an attempt to compensate for lack of knowledge of the Dumas scored badly
How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing about the economic modernisation of Russia by 1914? (24 marks)
Material on Vyshnegradsky and Witte was generally well known but, unfortunately, some students presented this as though it provided the whole picture of Russia's economic development to 1914. Stolypin's agrarian reforms were sometimes ignored and even when they featured, not every student produced an overall summary of the position 'by 1914'. The best answers were the more thematic ones that examined, for example, the economic modernisation of industry, transport, finances and agriculture by 1914 and provided balance by considering the strengths and weaknesses of each (sometimes drawing on evidence of Russia's performance in the first months of war to illustrate the limitations of economic modernisation).
Explain why the Petrograd Soviet was established in 1917. (12 marks)
Most students offered contextual and more specific reasons for the setting up of the Soviet, usually with respect to whom it aimed to represent and what it hoped to achieve. The best answers provided precise and accurate information about, for example, the circumstances of the Tsar's abdication and the grievances of workers, soldiers, SRs and Mensheviks. Others were less secure on the detail and fell back on generalisation, while a very few confused the establishment of the Soviet with the Bolshevik takeover.
How far was the collapse of the Provisional Government in October/November 1917 due to its failure to satisfy the demands of the peasants? (24 marks)
Although there were some very good responses to this question, answers were often disappointing for one of two reasons. Some students virtually ignored the 'demands of the peasants' which, as the focus of the question should have been given some weight. (A number spoke about the peasant's 'dislike' of the PG and the PG's decision to continue the war as though they were two quite separate issues). The other cause of lost marks was the tendency to ignore the 'collapse' in October/November 1917 and write far more generally about the PG's mistakes and, sometimes, although less frequently, Bolsheviks' strengths.
June 2012
Explain why Alexander II introduced further reforms following the Emancipation Edict of 1861. (12 marks)
Although there were many good answers to this question, some ignored its specific wording, which invited students to consider why ‘further’ reforms were passed after the Emancipation Edict. Although answers which considered the broad reasons behind Alexander’s reforming impulses received some credit, the highest marks went to those who saw the connection between Emancipation and the need for further reform.
How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in strengthening the Tsarist regime in the years 1855 to 1881? (24 marks)
Most students were able to offer some comment on the success, or otherwise, of Alexander II’s reforms, but rather fewer were able to link those comments to the strength of the Tsarist regime. To answer this question well, students needed to be familiar with the workings of autocracy in Russia and to appreciate that some of the more positive reforms from a modern perspective, actually weakened the autocratic regime – the creation of the Zemstva being a prime example.
Explain why Nicholas II issued the Fundamental Laws in 1906. (12 marks)
Whilst many students knew what the Fundamental Laws were, some wrote about the October Manifesto and some spent too long providing description of the 1905 revolution. Even those that focused on the laws were apt to write descriptively, often listing the detail of the laws or describing them in practice after 1906, rather than considering the reasons behind them. The best answers explained the immediate reason for their issue, with reference to both the Tsar and the opposition forces and the context in which they were deemed necessary. Some also looked at the specific powers which the Tsar wished to confirm and clarify through their terms.
How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing political stability to Russia in the years 1906 to 1914? (24 marks)
As with question 02, the majority of students had no difficulty in writing about the successes and failures of the Tsarist regime, 1906–1914, in general terms, but rather fewer focused on successes ‘in bringing political stability’. Although a good number talked about stability, they included economic and social, as well as political stability and therefore digressed into irrelevance in parts of their answers.
Explain why the Provisional Government kept Russia in the First World War after February / March 1917. (12 marks)
The greater number of answers included some comment about the Provisional Government’s desire to continue to victory, to raise morale and to show that earlier sacrifices had not been in vain. Many also mentioned the temporary nature of that government and its inability to make long term decisions, whilst the best answers linked the government’s need for British and French money to the precarious position of the government and showed how these combined to keep Russia in the war. Surprisingly few noted that the government had very little choice.
How important was the role of Lenin in bringing about the overthrow of the Provisional Government in October / November 1917? (24 marks)
Knowledge of the main developments of 1917 was generally adequate or better and the majority could balance Lenin’s message in the April Theses against the Provisional government’s weaknesses and consequent lack of support. Answers varied, however, in the degree of attention they gave to October/November 1917 and Lenin’s involvement after April 1917 was too often ignored
January 2012
Why did Populism fail in Russia in the 1870s? (12 marks)
Most students who attempted this question had a reasonable idea as to what Populism was but they varied in the degree to which they were able to provide reasons for its failure. Sometimes reasons, such as the hostility of the peasantry to populist teaching, were lost in over-descriptive accounts and references to Tsarist oppression could be woolly and generalist. However, there were some excellent attempts to consider exactly what it was about Populism that failed to reach the peasants and some made much of the power of the Orthodox Church in explaining the peasants' negative attitude
How far did the growth of internal opposition threaten the Tsarist regime in the years 1881 to 1904? (24 marks)
Although there were some good answers, there was also an all-too-frequent misreading of this question on the part of otherwise quite well-informed students. The question did not ask for an explanation of the growth of internal opposition, although that is what many students wrote about. Its focus was instead on the degree to which internal opposition posed a threat to the tsarist regime. Consequently, the best answers were those that got to grips with the idea of 'threat' and weighed up the extent, intent and success of the various opposition groups and movements. Those who differentiated between opposition groups produced some strong answers. Such saw the 'terrorist' groups which were to form the SRs and SDs as threats in theory but of limited consequence in practice, thanks to the autocratic Tsarist regime with its machinery of spies and repression. However, they were aware that liberal opposition – as seen in the Zemstva and town Dumas – while less obviously threatening was slowly chipping away at Tsarist authority and winning over those who might in the past have helped to prop up the autocracy. Dates caused a problem for some. A number of answers looked at developments pre-1881 and rather more went beyond 1904.
Explain why, in 1905, revolution broke out in Russia. (12 marks)
This was a very popular question and, for the most part, students were well able to identify a number of factors leading to the outbreak of revolution in 1905. There was some slight divergence as to when the actual 'outbreak' was. Most saw Father Gapon's march as the 'trigger', but others tried to include the events of 1905 as contributors to the revolution in government which, in their view, actually occurred in 1906. Such answers were marked on their merits. Perhaps the greatest problem for students was knowing where to start in explaining causes. Some went back to the Crimean War and reigns of Alexander II and Alexander III, listing everything that was wrong with Tsardom. Such answers usually became excessively long and ran into the danger of never explaining why the revolution occurred in 1905 and not sooner. Better answers focused on evens such as the Russo-Japanese War and Bloody Sunday, together with a summary of the broader 'underlying' problems – politically (perhaps referring to Nicholas II's own weaknesses as ruler) and socially, such as the conditions in which the industrial working class of St Petersburg lived and worked. It was surprising how few were able to comment on the links between such factors, however, and students may need reminding that an appreciation of how different factors work together is essential for high marks.
How successful were Stolypin’s policies in restoring stability in Russia in the years 1906 to 1914? (24 marks)
Many students showed a good grasp of Stolypin's policies and were aware of their strengths and limitations. However, rather fewer were able to step back from 'success' to consider 'stability', which is what the question asked about. Those that managed to focus on stability saw developments from a slightly different perspective, noting that Stolypin's agrarian reforms might be considered to have undermined stability by creating a new kulak class and causing resentment among the dispossessed peasants, for example. Similarly Stolypin's 'necktie' and his management of the Dumas, whilst generally condemned, were put forward as beneficial to the interests of stability. Obviously, students could adopt whatever arguments they wished, but the degree to which they considered stability – together with their knowledge of not only Stolypin's agrarian concerns but also his political role – determined the level and mark they received.
Explain why the Bolsheviks had little support in Russia in 1914. (12 marks)
This question challenged students to look at the Bolsheviks from a slightly unusual perspective. Many rose to that challenge and commented effectively on the nature of Bolshevism and the effectiveness of repression – most particularly the exile of leaders such as Lenin. The best answers also seized upon the year – 1914 – to point to the rise in patriotism and tsarist loyalty that occurred with the outbreak of war. As in 01 and 03, there needed to be links between the various factors for the highest marks and connections between the anti-democratic and internationalist nature of Bolshevism, which placed it at a disadvantage during the era of the Dumas and the swell of support for war were mentioned by some of the best students. Others saw links between the limited state of Russian industrial development in 1914 and the Bolshevik reliance on the proletariat, which suggested the movement was a lost cause.
How important were military problems in explaining the Tsar’s decision to abdicate in February/March 1917? (24 marks)
Most students were able to put forward a range of general reasons as to why the Tsardom came to an end (or, perhaps 'deserved to come to an end' – which was not quite what the question asked about). However, as in 03, a number tried to explain the demise of Tsardom by describing the inadequacies of the system in general and/or the mistakes of Alexander II and Alexander III. For the most part, those that focused on the period from 1914 to February/March 1917 provided the most convincing answers, while those that ignored the actual circumstances of the abdication could only give partial incomplete explanations. Another issue for weaker students was an inability to distinguish between 'military problems' and other factors. Some regarded anything to do with the war (including the economic conditions in Petrograd and the 'rule' of Alexandra and Rasputin) as 'military problems' when this is clearly not the case. Others ignored 'military problems' altogether and wrote in a generalist way, whilst those who tried to address problems at the front, struggled to get beyond Nicholas becoming Commander-in-Chief (although not everyone knew when), a shortage of weapons and the problem of desertions. The best answers were the more precise responses which not only balanced military problems against other 'themed' factors, such as economic, social and political, but were also able to produce some precise evidence to back the views in their answers. Finally, it must be pointed out that a few students erroneously believed that Lenin and the Bolsheviks provoked the abdication.
June 2011
Explain why Russia’s serfs were emancipated in 1861. (12 marks)
Answers to Question 1 01, on the reasons why the serfs were emancipated, were mostly good. Many candidates produced answers that were substantial, well-informed and well directed, covering an extensive range of factors and showing good understanding of the context of 1855–1861. There was a tendency, however, for the relevant factors to be listed at length, without sufficient attempt at differentiation or evaluation. Superior answers were often marked by depth of comment about the Tsar Liberator’s deeper motives in protecting the autocracy. Less successful answers tended to spend too much time on background issues before 1855, or strayed into irrelevant material about the consequences and impact of the Emancipation edict after it had been passed.
How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in transforming Russian society by 1881? (24 marks)
In Question 1 02, on the extent to which Russia had been transformed by 1881 as a result of Alexander II’s reforms, many answers were based on solid knowledge of the reforms. Many good quality answers showed a solid understanding of the ‘twin-track’ policies followed by Alexander, alternating between periods of liberalisation and reform and periods of retrenchment and return to repression. The majority of answers attempted to make balanced assessments of the varying degrees of success and failure of the reforms. It should be noted, however, that the key word ‘transformed’ needed to be addressed directly. The best answers focused on the situation of Tsarist Russia in the last years of the reign, especially 1878–1881, and discussed the overall extent of change since the beginning of Alexander II’s drive for reform.
Explain why, between 1894 and 1905, Russian liberals were dissatisfied with the tsarist regime. (12 marks)
The response to Question 2 03, on the reasons why Russian Liberals criticised the Tsarist regime in the years 1894 to 1905, was very disappointing. All too many answers relied almost exclusively on material relating to Alexander III – or on developments that took place from 1906, such as the Fundamental Law. Only a minority of answers showed any knowledge or understanding of liberal ideas. There was a tendency to lump together uncritical statements about any and all forms of opposition, including the Bolsheviks. The contrast between the level of answers to this question and those to Question 1 01 was stark.
How far did Nicholas II, in the years 1906 to 1914, fulfil the promises he made in the October Manifesto of 1905? (24 marks)
Answers to Question 2 04, on the extent to which Nicholas II fulfilled his promises between 1905 and 1914, were of mixed quality. A number of candidates produced direct and convincing evidence about the four Dumas and about the policies of Stolypin, leading to balanced assessments of the positive and/or negative outcomes of Nicholas II’s rule by 1914. Many answers, however, began with a reasonable account of the October Manifesto and the constitutional developments in 1905 and 1906 but could offer nothing beyond the end of the second Duma. The developments from 1906 to 1914 as the Tsarist regime attempted to restore stability after the 1905 revolution are vitally important and should be better known.
Explain why Lenin returned to Russia from exile in April 1917. (12 marks)
Answers to Question 3 05, on the reasons for Lenin’s return to Russia in 1917, differed widely in quality. Many candidates wrote crisply and effectively about key factors such as the role of Germany in assisting Lenin’s return, and Lenin’s desire to assert his authority over the Bolsheviks. These impressive answers based on confident knowledge and understanding of the issues contrasted sharply with the many other answers that were disappointingly vague and uncertain. A significant number of candidates barely attempted an answer, offering no more than a brief plan. Many candidates revealed a weak grasp of basic chronology, suggesting that Lenin ‘wanted to overthrow the Tsar’, or including events that took place well after Lenin’s return, such as the July Days.
How far was the Provisional Government’s continued involvement in the First World War responsible for its collapse in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
In Question 3 06, on the downfall of the Provisional Government in the October Revolution, many successful answers provided analytical evidence about the increasing strain of the war and the difficult problems faced by Kerensky’s regime. Such answers were able to assess the relative importance of the continuation of the war compared with a range of other relevant factors. A substantial number of weaker responses revealed a shaky grasp of chronology, often describing the impact of the war in the most generalized terms and including irrelevant references to the events of 1914–1916 and the reasons for the fall of the Tsar.
January 2011
Explain why Alexander II slowed the pace of reform from the mid-1860s. (12 marks)
Question 01 posed some difficulties for a good proportion of the candidates, who did not read the question properly or understand what it actually asked. They were asked to explain reasons why Tsar Alexander II slowed the pace of reform in the mid-1860s, but many submitted irrelevant material about why he launched a programme of reforms in the first place. In some cases, these were extended answers and factually correct, yet they did not pertain at all to the question and could not be credited. It is clear that these candidates had prepared an answer for the question they thought would appear, and had not attempted to adjust their ideas to fit the question posed. This ability to deal with the demands of a new and unseen question is central to the assessment of History at AS and candidates should be advised strongly to read the question carefully and quickly identify the reasons they will explain. Many candidates were able to identify and explain a range of reasons and scored within levels three and four.
How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming opposition in the years 1863 to 1894? (24 marks)
Question 02 attracted a range of answers, many of which were impressive in their depth and deployment of knowledge. Good candidates were able to make an assessment of the regime’s level of success in dealing with opposition and could comment on the different approaches of reform and repression adopted by these two Tsars. Most candidates knew about a range of opposition groups and some could explain their difficulties in stirring popular support. Too many candidates described the opposition groups, often at some length, without enough reference to the focus of the question and these candidates scored low marks within the mark scheme.
Explain why, in the years 1906 to 1911, Stolypin attempted to reform agriculture. (12 marks)
Question 03 posed no particular difficulties and candidates wrote confidently about Stolypin’s reasons for introducing these reforms. Some of the more able candidates wrote about a range of political, social and economic motives and were able to link well the themes of delivering economic progress alongside political stability. These answers were credited highly. Many candidates could develop and explain only a limited number of reasons and candidates should be reminded of the need for range: as a rule of thumb, examiners are looking for at least three separate themes in the answer, each one explained well.
How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming the economic backwardness of Russia in the years 1881 to 1914? (24 marks)
Question 04 distinguished well between the candidates. The best answers addressed the whole period, often in a chronological way but with an analytical focus. Typically, they assessed the level of success in the 1880s and 1890s, went on to acknowledge the recession of the early 1900s, and then delivered an assessment of economic policy between 1906 and 1914. Answers like these scored highly within the mark scheme because they had balance and range across the period alongside some focused assessment of what the question asked. Other answers were less effective. Many candidates were eager to demonstrate their knowledge of economic policy in the 1880s and 90s and had clearly revised and memorised their material diligently. However, in many cases candidates did not extend their answers beyond the 1905 revolution, so lacked the balance to score well on a question asking for assessment of the period to 1914. Others wrote a narrative account of the period with little reference to the question itself and candidates should be reminded to refer frequently to the words in the question, in order to ensure they address it with some assessment and evaluation not just description.
Explain why Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in February/March 1917. (12 marks)
Question 05 attracted some very good answers. Candidates were comfortable with the focus and could identify and explain a range of reasons. Many good answers made links between various factors, showing a developed understanding of how military issues became political. Other effective answers analysed the relative importance of factors, developing for example the central issue of the Tsar’s loss of support and credibility.
How far was popular dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
Question 06 was also done well and almost all candidates coped with the concept of popular dissatisfaction as a cause of revolution. Most answers were balanced and provided some assessment of the various causes, and many did so in good detail. Here, there was a good link between factual depth and focused analysis: the candidates who had revised well performed well, and that might be a reflection of their familiarity with evaluative questions on this topic. The ability to weigh reasons and to assess why some are more important than others is central to the AS mark scheme and many candidates did just that. Answers could only be rewarded highly when they focused sufficiently on popular dissatisfaction, even if only to dismiss it as a significant cause. Some candidates demonstrated a good understanding of historiography on this issue and, when used appropriately, references to the views of particular historians can enhance an argument.
June 2010
Why did defeat in the Crimean War lead to reform under Alexander II? (12 marks)
Most candidates answered this question very well, by explaining a range of factors. Most were able to explain the reasons for reform by referring to a range of military, economic and social factors highlighted by defeat in the Crimean War. Some tied in other factors like Alexander II’s upbringing by indicating convincingly that this context made him sensitive to the issues highlighted by defeat. Successful answers made material relevant to this question, but a few of the weakest candidates simply did not use the question carefully enough. They focused on reasons for reform tangential to defeat in the Crimean War and made no attempt to link them to it. For example, they described the evils of serfdom without explaining how abolishing it might prevent future defeats. These answers could only be credited at lower levels. However, the best answers not only explained reasons clearly but also made good links between them to secure the highest levels.
How far had Alexander II fulfilled the hopes of reformers in Russia by the time of his death in 1881? (24 marks)
This was a very popular question and the topic of the extent and nature of reform has appeared repeatedly on past papers. Consequently, candidates were able to offer a good range of relevant material and took several different but equally valid approaches to the question. Some focused on the limitations of the reforms themselves, examining in depth the extent to which they solved problems and thereby met the hopes of reformers. Others focused more on the reformers themselves and what they were hoping for, arguing that their demands were unrealistic in the context of Alexander II’s reforms. Some distinguished well between groups of reformers and radicals in a focused argument. Any of these approaches was valid. The best answers repeatedly addressed the question: how far were the hopes of reformers fulfilled? In this way, they kept their material focused and their argument tight, offering the analysis and judgement needed for the highest levels. Weaker candidates were not so disciplined and sometimes struggled to marshal their material into a structured answer. These weak answers became descriptive or unfocused which was a shame, because in some cases candidates had clearly worked hard to memorise a lot of information.
Explain why the Russian Social Democratic Party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903. (12 marks)
This question really divided candidates into those who knew the answer and those who did not. This lack of knowledge from some candidates was surprising, in that the Social Democrats are mentioned specifically on the specification. Many candidates were able to explain clearly reasons like differences over membership, leadership of the revolution, timing of the revolution, cooperation with reformers or differences in personality between key figures like Lenin and Martov. Others explained the context, in which the formation of new groups was not uncommon. Some offered an impressive depth of knowledge on Marxist philosophy, which was certainly not essential even for the highest levels. In general, candidates should be advised that if they cannot answer the twelve mark sub-question, they should not attempt the question at all because a minority of candidates did actually write nothing.
How successful was Nicholas II in overcoming opposition to his regime in the years 1905 to 1914? (24 marks)
Again, this topic has featured repeatedly on past papers and is central to the specification so candidates were generally familiar with the material and key issues. Strong answers included a good range of relevant material on overcoming opposition, such as political reform, economic change and the use of repression. The best answers also addressed they whole nine year period and made some assessment of the level of success across it, distinguishing between the turmoil of 1905, the apparent calm from around 1908 and the increase in agitation around 1912. Some answers, though, were less successful. Some weaker candidates focused exclusively on one area such as the Dumas and became confused about the events, offering a narrow narrative with errors. Others focused only on the 1905 Revolution and then made bald and sweeping assertions about the success of Nicholas II without offering evidence. A few offered irrelevant materials beyond 1914 and these tended to be those who had performed badly or written nothing for Question 03.
Explain why Lenin issued the April Theses in April 1917. (12 marks)
Most candidates understood the question and were able to offer some reasons, but in some cases the range of reasons was quite narrow or lacked development. Weaker answers tended to describe the context of April 1917 without successfully linking it to Lenin issuing the April Theses. Better answers focused more specifically on the Bolsheviks and Lenin’s leadership.
How far was weak leadership of the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
The overthrow of the Provisional Government in October/ November 1917 is a favourite topic for candidates and most answers were knowledgeable and well argued. Most candidates were able to explain various interpretations of why the Provisional Government was overthrown, drawing attention to its weakness, the problems it faced and the growing strengths of the Bolsheviks. Many answers were very good indeed, with convincing argument throughout and frequent weighing of the relative importance of the issues. However, some weaker candidates wrote too generally, without focus on this question. The weakest answers only addressed the key issue of weak leadership in the conclusion, if at all. Some tried to make assertions about Kerensky’s personality with no clear evidence and it was certainly not necessary to offer character profiles of Kerensky or Lvov, although some candidates did do that. Stronger candidates were able to make a convincing case for weak leadership, tying in issues like competition with the Soviet or the delays in introducing substantial reform.
January 2010
Why did Alexander II order the emancipation of the serfs in 1861? (12 marks)
This question was answered well by many candidates. Weaker answers sometimes showed lack of knowledge, or wrote about the process of industrialisation or its impact rather than Witte’s motives in promoting it. Many candidates knew enough about the motives to be securely in Level 3, commenting on facts such as the desire to strengthen the Russian economy and defence capability, the desire to ‘catch up with the West’, and the desire to make Russia less dependent on agriculture. There were several answers which achieved Level 4 by effectively linking the motives or showing good historical perspective.
How successful was Alexander II in overcoming opposition to his regime? (24 marks)
Answers to the question were very variable in quality. Several candidates did not read the question carefully enough, writing too much about the pre-Witte period. There were relatively few answers which focused effectively on the situation in 1914. Consequently relatively few candidates got into the highest two levels. There were too many answers which indulged in unsupported assertions. There was an obsession with the Trans-Siberian railway, whose contribution to the overall Russian economy was grossly overestimated.
Explain why Nicholas II dissolved the first two Russian Dumas in 1906 and 1907. (12 marks)
Many answers to this question simply failed to get off the ground, since although liberals are specifically mentioned in the specification, large numbers of candidates did not know who liberals were or what they stood for. Often they were ignored or confused with groups like Populists and Marxists. Therefore, even lengthy answers were often about opposition to the regime generally. There were a minority of candidates who did know what Liberal concerns were, and wrote knowledgeably about the desire for constitutional reform and civil rights, and related this well to attitudes towards Alexander II’s reforms and towards his successor Alexander III. Candidates are still prone to make simplistic assertions, believing that Alexander III reversed all reforms, including the abolition of serfdom, or believe that Alexander II was a closet democrat.
How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing about the economic modernisation of Russia by 1914? (24 marks)
This question was often answered poorly. The wording of the question did allow candidates, if they wished, to discuss various factors which led to the fall of the tsarist regime. However, to access the higher levels it was also necessary to specifically analyse the role of political opposition. Many candidates appeared to simply ignore the question, and wrote about the impact of the War on the economy and the army, and wrote at length about Alexandra and Rasputin. Some candidates wasted too much time by writing about pre-1914 events such as the 1905 revolution, or even worse, confused this with the 1917 revolution. Several candidates confused the two revolutions of 1917. Key aspects of the political opposition were usually ignored, such as the activities of the Zemstvo, the Duma and the Progressive Bloc. Where candidates did write about political opposition, there were often assertions about the role of groups such as the Bolsheviks (sometimes confused with SRs), with no real evaluation of their significance. Although there were good answers to this question, showing balance and informed evaluation, they were few and far between.
Explain why the Petrograd Soviet was established in 1917. (12 marks)
This question produced a range of responses, but was often answered well. Candidates often understood the concern of the regime to quell discontent and divide the opposition, appealing in particular to those ‘moderates’ who wanted to focus on civil rights and constitutional reform. Weaker answers tended to explain the background of the 1905 Revolution, which was of course legitimate, but disadvantaged themselves by devoting their whole answer to a narrative of that Revolution. A few candidates also went off at a tangent, ignoring Nicholas II’s motives and writing a description of the Dumas, often going well beyond 1906.
How far was the collapse of the Provisional Government in October/November 1917 due to its failure to satisfy the demands of the peasants? (24 marks)
This question was overall answered better than the other part (b) questions. Answers were often knowledgeable and well argued. Most candidates wrote balanced accounts of Stolypin’s contribution, although answers are sometimes marred by mechanical references to ‘schools of thought’ such as structuralism, ‘optimistic’ and ‘pessimistic’ views and so on, terms which have to be used with care and sophistication or else add nothing to the answer, particularly if not supported by convincing evidence. There were many good answers which focused on key areas such as Stolypin’s repression and his agricultural reform, although his key role in managing and manipulating the Duma was often ignored or played down. It was pleasing that most candidates did attempt to evaluate Stolypin’s overall contribution, albeit with varying degrees of conviction.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
How far did the defeat in the Crimean War contribute to Alexander II as a reformer? (24 marks)…
- 1073 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
One thing that had changed in Russia from when Alexander had come into power in 1881 was that there was increased repression regarding politics. The Statue of State Security was introduced which brought government-controlled courts into the country and could now put on trial political opponents and they could also be arrested too without the need of a jury. This shows change as a lot harsher punishments were introduced that could be imposed on opponents of the government such as being sent to and exiled in Siberia and being hunted down by the Okhrana – Russia’s secret police. Although there was repression of political opponents before Alexander III’s reign, the punishment wasn’t as harsh and the violence that was encouraged by extremist groups was a lot more widespread and happened regularly compared to when Alexander III had introduced the Statue of State Security where attacks were something that didn’t happen as often. Therefore, it contributes to the idea that Russia was unrecognisable in 1894 compared with 1881.…
- 824 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The question is focused on the challenges mounted to Tsarist rule in the given period, and the extent to which divisions among opposition groups contributed to their failure. Answers may consider the four main strands of opposition, their internal divisions and their intolerance of each other. A tradition of revolutionary activity was established by the Populists and their appeal to the peasants, though they were weakened by the assassination of Alexander II and the repression established by Alexander III. The Social Revolutionaries tried to gain support among both peasants and townspeople, but were divided between anarchists and revolutionaries. The Social Democrats split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at the 1903 Congress, while the Liberals did not establish distinctive parties until after the 1905 Revolution. A simple description of some of the revolutionary parties will be marked within Levels 1 and 2, and progression will depend on the range and depth of relevant material.…
- 555 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Q- To what extent did Alexander lll reverse the reforms of his predecessor, Alexander ll.…
- 663 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
How far were the divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905?…
- 824 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Throughout the period 1855 to 1954, opposition to Russian governments was a common occurrence due to dissatisfaction of many civilians’ lives and the lack of development seen throughout Russia. However, as much as there were some successful movements throughout 1905 such as the Bolsheviks gaining support and eventually gaining power, there were also several failed attempts due to intense use of violence, terror and censorship by the state. It is arguable that whether opposition was successful, merely came down to the strength of the opposition group or the weakness of the government in power.…
- 1646 Words
- 7 Pages
Good Essays -
Many of the opposition fled to other European countries where they continued to plot against the Tsar. This shows how Alexander lll had caused Russia to go back in progress politically by exiling all of their possible contenders. This allowed the Tsar to have much more control over Russia much like before Alexander ll reign. The persecution of Jews caused many to join radical parties and organisations. This shows us how there was not even the slightest bit of democracy within Russia, and how Alexander lll had caused Russia to go back in progress. Another major problem in Russia was the growing population of peasants. This caused famines within Russia in 1892 and 1893. This famine was a cause of many peasants death which shows how Russia did not have the money or resources to keep up with their growing population. This showed a lack in progress as they could not even support their country’s people with…
- 794 Words
- 4 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
| * The land given to the peasants was not of good quality, the peasants also had to pay the state long term installments. The peasants were also responsible to the village commune that forced them to pay their installments and not be free of the land. * The local assemblies couldn’t attain much because of the interruption of bureaucrats afraid that it would turn into a self –government. * Alexander’s reform policies led to increasing reform movements that led to a populist group assassinating him, making his son turn against any reform and go back to repression. His reform policies also set the foundation for the fall of Russia’s Monarchy in 1917.…
- 708 Words
- 3 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
How far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905?…
- 2563 Words
- 11 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The defeat in the Crimean war was arguably the main reason why Alexander II made a series of reforms when he came into power. The devastating loss of the war proved the backwardness of Russia in relation to other powers and even though peasant unrest and the criticisms of serfdom were partially responsible for influencing Alexander II, the decision to make changes primarily came from the loss of the Crimean war.…
- 811 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
To what extent did the Tsarist and Soviet regimes rely on terror and repression to maintain order and control between1855-1964?…
- 3481 Words
- 14 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Traditionally it is assumed that he was a reactionary, unlike the reformer his father, Alexander II, had been. However, as so often the case, this interpretation of Alexander III’s rule is undisputed. There is much reason to believe that despite some different policies, ultimately both men wanted to reach the same goals. Alexander III unquestionably did undermine the reforming policies of his father, but the underlying reasons for this are not so obvious.…
- 1320 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
9. How did the Russian Empire transform the life of its conquered people and of the Russian homeland itself?…
- 823 Words
- 4 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
o Trans-Siberian Railroad o Foreign investment o “exhaustion at the base” 1894-1917 nicholas ii 1898 founding of Marxist Russian social democratic labor party marxists who favored proletariat, working class 1900 international financial crisis 1902 founding of socialist revolutionary party anti marxist, and anti capitalist favored peasants and violence 1903 mensheviks and bolsheviks arose bolsheviks wanted revolution ASAP mensheviks were pro waiting 1903 massive wave of strikes 1904 russia goes to war with japan Russia failed and this caused privitization and additional hardship 1905 bloody Sunday: led to mass distress in country father gapon October manifesto: granted civil liberties to Russian people and the establishment of parliament 1906 first duma: lower chamber of Russian parliament 1906-1911 stolypin assassinated A. Stolypin believed that by abolishing the peasant commune, they would be more productive B. Kulaks: new peasant class, upper class peasants, had more money and were more intelligent C. Stop division of land; title of land goes to families o Redistribute land so peasants get plot…
- 1541 Words
- 7 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Some may argue that Emancipation was an ultimately successful endeavour as it brought about both fundamental and necessary change, and whilst it is true that there were various factors that ensured the development of Russia from a backward thinking and archaic nation that relied very much on what was -in flourishing western countries – a repressive and outdated feudal system, the ill-considered and very evidently selfish way in which this much needed reform was executed meant that despite some factors, from which the development and modernisation of Russia’s class system itself were enabled, for Alexander II were exactly the opposite of what he had been attempting to achieve, in increasing his chances of retaining power by preventing revolution and furthering Russia’s position within the world. For this reason it is difficult to claim Emancipation was a success in terms of what the clearly power-conscious Tsar set out to accomplish, when many of its key aspects were redundant and others provided a catalyst for consideration of concepts of political activism or further revolution, an unwanted and unanticipated advancement,…
- 2133 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays