Question
“The reigns of Alexander II (1855–1881) and Alexander III (1881–1894) were marked by political continuity but significant economic change.” Discuss.
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans:
Candidates are required to consider the merits or otherwise of the suggestion that while there was little political change across the reigns of Alexander II and Alexander III, there was a significant degree of economic change. Many candidates will no doubt make reference to the “Liberal” versus the “Reactionary” Tsar; however the question is inviting candidates to examine in more depth whether or not these labels are accurate.
Indicative content
• Both Tsars believed in autocracy and the need for a hierarchical political structure with the monarchy at the top supported by the nobility, the Church and the army.
• Many of Alexander II’s reforms were in fact designed to strengthen the monarchy; emancipation of the serfs was designed to quell peasant unrest while the establishment of the Duma and Zemstva were designed to strengthen authority and were dominated by the nobility. Alexander III’s re-establishment of the post of Land Commandant merely strengthened that authority.
• In 1881 Alexander II was prepared to grant the establishment of a national assembly (the Loris-Melikov reforms); however, Alexander III immediately cancelled the reforms and reduced some of the powers of the Zemstva and Duma.
• Both Tsars were keen to encourage industrialization, expanding the railways, encouraging the growth of factories in the cities, and increased production of major industries such as coal and iron.
• The reign of Alexander III saw major industrial growth, in the latter years of his reign Witte’s policies helped industrial expansion.
• During both reigns agriculture formed the basis of the economy but government requisitions limited the modernization of agriculture, which remained backward because of the burden of Redemption Dues. Even in the reign of Alexander III reductions in the Poll Tax failed to stimulate investment in agriculture.
Question
Examine the view that the October/November Bolshevik Revolution was caused by the poor decisions of the Provisional Government.
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans:
Candidates are required to consider the relationship between the mistakes made by the Provisional Government and the October/November Bolshevik Revolution. They may also consider the increasing support for the Bolsheviks and whether that was as, or more, significant to the outbreak of the revolution. Some may argue that without the errors of the Provisional Government the Bolsheviks would have remained a small revolutionary party with little or no influence since the Mensheviks had far greater numbers.
Indicative content
• Candidates could point out that the Provisional Government was always weak, having to exercise power with the Soviets, and that it was self-appointed and lacked legitimacy.
• There were mistakes in terms of policies, including no land reform and the continuation of the war, which was increasingly unpopular especially after the failure of the spring 1917 offensive.
• The delay in holding elections for a constituent assembly and announcing a political amnesty enabled revolutionary parties to campaign openly.
• There were no clear economic policies; bad working conditions remained and there was continuing inflation.
• There were inconsistent policies with regard to opposition, for example freeing and arming the Bolshevik Red Guard to help counter the threat from Kornilov’s attempted coup.
• For balance an examination of the strengths of the Bolsheviks may be provided. The Bolsheviks advocated popular policies, “Peace Land and Bread” and “All power to the Soviets”, and these led to increasing support for them. They had majorities on both the Petrograd and Moscow Soviets by the summer of 1917.
• There was effective leadership from both Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin was more important in convincing the Central Committee to risk a seizure of power. Trotsky was the military leader of the revolution establishing the Military evolutionary Committee (MRC) and organizing the actual events of October/November 1917.
Question
Evaluate the economic and political impact of the domestic policies of Nicholas II between 1894 and 1914.
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans:
Candidates are required to appraise the impact of Nicholas II’s policies on the Russian economy and on the political situation in Russia. Where appropriate, candidates may identify whether there was little or no impact. The end date makes it clear that policies during the First World War are not relevant to this question, although, some candidates may wish to consider the relative stability of the regime by 1914.
Indicative content
Political policies
- Nicholas’s key political goal was to maintain autocracy. He resisted suggestions from the Congress of Zemstva presidents for a national assembly and banned the Congress in 1897. Between his accession and 1905 Nicholas made no changes to the political structure in Russia.
- Post-1905 policies could include the suppression of opposition during and after the 1905 revolution, crushing the Petrograd Soviet and, in the next couple of years, reasserting autocratic control (Stolypin’s Necktie) throughout Russia.
- Other policies could include the issuing of the October Manifesto, the reiteration of the Fundamental Law, as well as the establishment of the Duma and subsequent adjustments to the franchise.
Economic policies
- Witte’s drive for industrialization from 1893—the great spurt—contributed to the development of railways and heavy industry, which attracted foreign capital. Appraisal of the impact might infer that there was significant growth by 1914 with Russia being the fifth largest industrial power. As a consequence, however, there were poor living and working conditions and considerable unrest (Lena Gold Fields Strike, 1912).
- Agriculture was a key contributor to the Russian economy but had not modernized since Emancipation in 1861. Famines were frequent (1891 to 1892 and 1898) and land hunger was a major problem. Witte established a Land Bank in 1896 to encourage the growth of larger farms and the exploitation of “virgin lands”, but this had limited impact since out of 97 million peasants, only 750,000 migrated to Siberia.
- Stolypin ended the control of the Mir over peasants, cancelled Redemption Dues and extended the Land Bank. By 1914 only about 10 per cent of agricultural land was owned by the “Kulaks” (independent peasant farmers).
Question
“The political and military weaknesses of the Whites led to Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War.” Discuss.
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans:
Candidates must offer a considered and balanced review of the weaknesses of the Whites against the relative strengths of the Bolsheviks and consider how these contributed to the victory of the Bolsheviks by 1921. The focus should be on military strength and strategy and the political policies and unity of both sides.
Indicative content
Weakness of the Whites
- They had a divided military leadership (Yudenich, Deniken, Kolchak) and geographically separated armies. Also it was never quite clear which side some forces were fighting for, for example “the Czech Legion” and the Greens.
- They had divided political goals; some Whites were monarchists so they lacked a clear aim after Ekaterinburg and some, such as the moderate Social Revolutionaries, wanted a republic. There was no consistent political leadership (Siberia had 19 governments in 1918) and no unifying ideology.
- Lack of popular support was a weakness. The Bolsheviks were not very popular, but many peasants feared the loss of land gained during the revolution if the Whites were victorious. Also the White forces tended to “live off the land”.
- The Whites had limited support from other powers who, although hostile to communism, never organized a concerted invasion of Russia. Foreign intervention had largely ended by 1920.
Strengths of the Bolsheviks
- The Bolsheviks and their allies, Left Socialist Revolutionaries for example, had a clear aim to defend the gains of the revolution. They also claimed they were protecting Russia from foreign interference.
- Trotsky was an effective and ruthless military leader. He restored discipline and used former tsarist officers to lead the Red Army, which numbered 5 million by 1921.
- The Bolsheviks retained control of the heartland of Russia, including Moscow and Petrograd, and the key means of communication.
- There was effective political leadership from Lenin who extended party control throughout Bolshevik areas. The policy of War Communism ensured that the Red Army was adequately supplied. Key industrial areas remained under Bolshevik control.
- There was support from the peasants who feared loss of land. The Bolsheviks “promised” payment for requisitioned supplies.
- The Reds were able to pose as patriotic because the Whites were supported by foreign powers.