Explain how each level of the cartoon in source 3.5 provides criticism of the Tsar’s government. Why wasn’t it published in Russia? 2. How useful is this source to a historian studying working conditions at the turn of the 20th century? This source would be useful to a historian studying the living conditions at the trun of the 20th century.
The decline of the Romanovs and the Russian revolution occurred due to varying influences externally and internally. The social and economic state of Russia and the changes transpiring had a large impact of the fall of the Dynasty. The actions of the Tsar and the influence from figures such as Rasputin helped to create discontent in Russian society. The character of Nicholas also helped to increase the social uprising and it was seen clearly that he lacked the capacity to effectively lead a country. The introduction of revolutionary ideas assisted sealing the fate of the Tsar.
How significant was the work of reforming leaders in changing the nature of Russian government and society in the period from 1856-1964? Intentionalist historians such as Westwood, would say that the most significant factor for changing the nature of Russian government and society was the work of reforming leaders, such as Alexander II who carried out the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861: “with the possible exception of Khrushchev, no other Russian ruler did so much to reduce the suffering of the Russian people”1. I agree with intentionalist’s views to an extent because reforming leaders did have a major impact in pushing reforms through however other factors of change must be considered. I also agree with a structuralist point of view, that the Russian people and key pressure groups like the Social Revolutionaries also played a significant part in changing the nature of Russian government and society. In addition, World War II introduced change through industrialisation, which was key to Russia’s success in the war.
‘The October Revolution was the most significant turning point in the development of Russian government.’ How far do you agree? If a ‘turning point’ can be taken to describe a significant irreversible shift in the course of history, then certainly the October Revolution in 1917 can be described as one. Yet whether it was the most substantial event in determining the course of Russian government in the years after is debateable. To assess whether this is truly the case, the Bolshevik uprising can be compared against other key turning points, such as Khrushchev’s ‘Destalinisation’ and Alexander II’s assassination, in terms of their effects on the ideology of government, whether or not it altered the structure of government in any way, if representation was reformed and if the tools of government changed whatsoever as a result. Arguably Russia’s transformation from an autocratic state to a communist one was the greatest modification in the whole period 1855 to 1964, however, despite differing ideals there was in fact a large amount of continuity between the idealistically different styles of governance.
“Political repression was the most important factor in bringing stability to Russia after the 1905 revolution.” How far do you agree with this statement? When analysing how Russia stabilised itself after he 1905 revolution, we have to consider the main factors: political repression and reform. The statement “political repression was the most important factor in bringing stability to Russia after the 1905 revolution” it’s suggesting that one is more important than the other. I’m going to analyse to what extent both factors helped in stabilising the country and how they did so. Looking at repression, the problems they dealt with and how they solved them: the terrorist attacks and harsh punishments, reform groups and the black hundreds and finally the revolutionary ideas and closing of newspapers and trade unions.
Trotsky described war as the ‘locomotive of history’. How far can it be argued that change in Russia in the period 1855-1964 was caused only by involvement in wars? During this period the biggest change that happened was the move from Tsarist autocracy to communist dictatorship as well as the short lived provisional government, which was a form of democracy. Furthermore there were changes to economic policy, which had a great impact on society. The wars that occurred did bring change but were not the only causes of change.
Explain why Alexander II emancipated the Serfs (10 Marks) Tsar Alexander II was a conservative who believed it was his divine right to rule Russia. This autocratic rule was described as tyrannical by many who visited Russia, especially so when it came to how the Serfs were treated, who were eventually emancipated in 1861. Alexander II’s conservative rule created causes over time, which led to the emancipation of the Serfs. This therefore makes Alexander II’s conservatism a major cause of the emancipation. As well as this, the conservatism may have caused a ‘domino effect’ of sorts, which in turn, could have led to the foundations of all of the other causes that led up to emancipation.
Isaac Deutscher is one historian who has the contrasting views of the right wing historian, Pipes. Deutscher praises Trotsky for his role before the 1917 Revolution, stating that to question Trotsky’s brain and strong military leadership is ludicrous. Due to the strong evidence of Trotsky’s outstanding influence towards the October Revolution. Pipes’ views Trotsky’s role in the October Revolution as being exaggerated by his admirers. These views are expressed in his two key works, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution (published in 1995) and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime 1919-1924 (published in 1994).
In A Christmas Carol, Dickens deliberately and defiantly comments on the society which was 19thCentury England. As his own life gives context to his commentary, Dickens discusses what he sees as the moral and social imperatives of the time. As the two are inextricably bound both are addressed in an attempt to bring about the change he argues is necessary of an empathetic and just society. The inequity between the rich and the poor and societies ignorance in sight of this lack of social justice is central to this novella. The novella starts with Scrooge being a cold hearted, bitter old man, that has no care what so ever with the poor.
Marcus Aurelius once said, “Whosoever does wrong, wrongs himself…” Othello by William Shakespeare and A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams both illustrate the critical lens. Both authors use literary devices to convey the critical lens. Both authors use characterization and theme of deception in their literary works. The critical lens means that if a person does wrong or bad thing it will eventually affect them at the end. The quotation is true because when someone does wrong thing it comes back to them.