What were the causes and outcomes of the 1905 Revolution up to 1914? — Paper 2 · A Level History 9489

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why the Bolshevik government used terror. [10] (b) ‘Between 1906–14 the Tsarist regime had overcome the opposition to it.’ How far do you agree with this statement? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why the Bolshevik government used terror. 10 • The scale of the problems they faced after the October Revolution and the need to win a civil war led to the adoption of extreme methods. • As students of history they saw how the ‘Terror’ of the French Revolution was a product of similar circumstances and had preserved the Revolution. • They saw Marxism as a political creed which was superior to all other ideologies and so repression was an unavoidable aspect of its outlook. • Lenin did not know how to act in any other way as even prior to 1917 he believed coercion was necessary for transforming capitalism to socialism. The Cheka, chief instrument of the terror, was created in December 1917. • In the summer of 1918, there was an assassination attempt made on Lenin which failed and the Petrograd Cheka’s chairman was murdered. The result was that the greater part of Russia experienced the ‘Red Terror’. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘Between 1906‒14 the Tsarist regime had overcome the opposition to 20 it.’ How far do you agree with this statement? The aristocracy, an important political and social group that had the means to offer effective opposition, saw their status (land-holding/military command/public office) as dependent upon the regime. This made them its firm supporters. The Russian middle class was limited in size compared with Western Europe’s and so did not have the means to mount effective opposition. The creation of the Duma offered an outlet for their voice to be heard but the regime’s ability to dismiss it at will meant it could never offer serious opposition. The middle classes had found their association with the lower classes in the 1905 Revolution disconcerting, as the middle classes wanted to reform the regime not overthrow it. The consequences of Emancipation did create dissatisfaction amongst the peasantry, but they linked this to their landlords rather than the Tsar. The growing urban proletariat were susceptible to political agitators due to their appalling living and working conditions. However, such agitation was monitored carefully by the Tsar’s secret police, the Okhrana. Revolutionaries were either in prison or in exile. Lenin did not return to Russia until 1917. In addition, these revolutionaries were divided, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries. The view can, however, be challenged. Despite Stolypin’s policy of reform and repression peasant discontent remained and resulted in an almost constant breakdown in order in the countryside as land was seized. The preamble to the Fundamental Laws might claim that Russia was ‘one and indivisible’ but the resentment felt by Russia’s minorities remained. The Finnish provinces were in a virtual state of war up to 1914. The lack of any effort by the regime to address the working and living conditions of the workers led to a growth in unions. By 1914 the Bolsheviks had gained control of the biggest trade unions in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The killing of strikers in the Lena Goldfields intensified worker opposition and discontent. In 1912 Pravda was set up and 40 000 copies were bought daily by workers, and no doubt read by many more. Between 1912 and 1914 3 million workers were involved in 9000 strikes. In July 1914 there was a general strike in St. Petersburg with street fighting and barricades. All this suggests opposition in this period was not limited. Therefore, it is legitimate to ask if war had not broken out in the summer of 1914 bringing with it a patriotic fervour would the regime have faced an overwhelming opposition to its position? Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/23 May/June 2021

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why the Tsarist regime was able to survive the 1905 Revolution. [10] (b) ‘The main cause of the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War was the disunity of their enemies.’ How far do you agree? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why the Tsarist regime was able to survive the 1905 Revolution. 10 • The army remained loyal to the regime. It was the loss of army support in February 1917 which led to its fall. • In 1905, its opponents were disorganised because their diversity led to a lack of unity. Middle class liberals were appalled by the radical demands of workers. This made them willing to accept the regime’s apparent desire to accept change. They wanted to reform, not overthrow, the regime. • The protests were not concentrated as they were geographically scattered which lessened their impact. • The regime used a combination of brutal repression and seeming concessions (for example, the October Manifesto). • Accept explanations for changes made in the year following 1905 (for example, the Stolypin reforms) – the question does not restrict this to the immediate aftermath of the revolution. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘The main cause of the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War was 20 the disunity of their enemies.’ How far do you agree? Arguments to support the view could be as follows. Their opponents were a very loose alliance of disparate groups such as Mensheviks, Nationalists, Anarchist, Monarchists, the Czech Legion. This meant that, unlike the Bolsheviks, they had no unified outlook. The Anarchists were never going to work cooperatively with the Monarchists. The lack of unity meant that the Bolshevik’s opponents could not offer a viable alternative, only a feigned return to the past, which most Russians did not want. Furthermore, because of the lack of unity, military cooperation was sporadic at best while the Bolsheviks acted under a unified command. This view can be challenged. The policy of War Communism (WC) ensured the Red Army was fed and supplied. Geographic factors favoured the Bolsheviks because their opponents were widely scattered which limited any attempt to bring concentrated pressure on the Red Army. The Bolsheviks controlled the two administrative centres of Russia, Petrograd and Moscow, along with most of the railway network. The Bolsheviks were able to portray themselves as Russian nationalists defending Mother Russia because their opponents relied on foreign aid and supplies. This fed into a well-established narrative of heroic resistance to the invader, such as that by Alexander Nevsky and Kutuzov. The Bolshevik leadership was superior with Lenin being ruthless in the application of WC. Trotsky applied a strict control over the Red Army, which resulted in the creation of a disciplined, efficient and tough force of approximately three million. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/21 Oct/Nov 2021

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why Tsar Nicholas II issued the October Manifesto. [10] (b) To what extent was War Communism a failure? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why Tsar Nicholas II issued the October Manifesto. 10 • He was susceptible to pressure, which his advisers applied. The aristocratic advisers feared the regime would collapse, along with their status, if the Tsar did not sign. • In September 1905, the Treaty of Portsmouth ended the Russo-Japanese War. It was feared that the defeated returning troops would join the Revolution. Therefore, signing the Manifesto would prevent the potential loss of army support. • Nicholas II believed it was only a temporary concession and would not undermine his autocratic rule. • Witte persuaded him that in signing the October Manifesto would isolate the more radical left because the concessions would gain the support of the Liberals for the regime. This would create disunity amongst the protestors and prevent revolution. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) To what extent was War Communism a failure? 20 Arguments to support the statement could be as follows. The failure of War Communism (WC) is evidenced by the fact that it was replaced by the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921. This showed that the Party could not restructure Russia’s economy on ideological lines. The WC policy of grain requisition was seen as effectively one of theft. This alienated peasant support and led to a decline in production because there was no incentive to produce a surplus when no profit was allowed to be made. Famine was created which led to widespread anti-Bolshevik uprisings in 1920‒21. Because one such uprising occurred among the previously staunchly loyal sailors of the Kronstadt Naval Base, Lenin decided to abolish WC and introduce the NEP. If these sailors could rebel because they thought WC was too severe, it posed a serious threat to Party control. WC eliminated money as a form of exchange and replaced it with bartering. This resulted in inflation, and the Party were unable to raise revenue because most taxes had been abolished. Due to the decline in food production under WC, workers in cities saw moving to the countryside to grow their own food as their only hope to avoid starvation. The number of people working dropped by 50%, and by 1920, the average worker’s productivity rate had dropped to 44%, lower than in 1913. The view can be challenged. WC ensured that the Red Army was fed and supplied to be victorious in the civil war. This victory ensured that the Bolsheviks remained in control and could shape Russia in the image they wanted. WC established the principle of nationalisation and centralised control. Under NEP, the Party still controlled what Lenin called ‘the commanding heights of the economy’ (large-scale industry, banking and foreign trade) and it was not lost until the late 20th century. The fact that the NEP was met with widespread opposition within the Party suggests that there was a widespread belief that WC had successfully established the template for how a communist economy should be organised. Lenin was clear that the NEP was only ever to be a temporary policy. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/22 Oct/Nov 2021

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why Lenin’s leadership was important to Bolshevik success in October 1917. [10] (b) ‘Political issues caused the 1905 Revolution.’ How far do you agree? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why Lenin’s leadership was important to Bolshevik success in 10 October 1917. • After his return to Russia in 1917, Lenin had refused to allow the Bolsheviks to cooperate with the Provisional Government. This meant they were not associated with the failures following February 1917. They offered the potential for a fresh start. • Lenin was a shrewd political operator, his slogan ‘Peace, Bread and Land’ captured perfectly what most in Russia wanted. This led the Bolsheviks to be seen as the party which would get things done. • He was flexible, willing to adjust to circumstances. Land re-distribution went against Bolshevik ideology, but peasant support was vital to achieve his basic aim – seizing power. • He was a good political orator and employed effective propaganda in Pravda which kept the Bolshevik message to the forefront. • Lenin had built up the party and his influence over policy was central to Bolshevik success. Trotsky believed that if he had not been in Petrograd in October 1917 the Revolution would have gone ahead, but only if Lenin was present and in command. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘Political issues caused the 1905 Revolution.’ How far do you agree? 20 Arguments to support the view could be as follows. The Tsarist regime’s policy of ‘Russification’ was resented by the various non-Russia nationalities. It was this unpopularity which fostered revolution in Georgia, Ukraine and Poland. The killing, on ‘Bloody Sunday, of unarmed men, women and children taking part in a peaceful demonstration, near the front of which a picture of the Tsar was held aloft, showed that the regime was out of touch and needed to change. Amongst the middle classes the lack of any meaningful national representation or consultation caused many to support the Revolution of 1905, as it offered an opportunity to have constitutional rather than autocratic rule. The anger felt towards the regime because of losses in the war with Japan, which fed into events in 1905, reflected the fact that it had decided to go to war with forces which were unprepared. This suggests that the Tsar’s government was lacking politically. The primacy of politics, however, can be challenged. Mutinies in the armed forces were the product of poor conditions, low pay and incompetent leadership by aristocratic officers which created low morale. Social issues were a factor in the Revolution in 1905 due to Witte’s attempts to rapidly industrialise Russia. The resulting working and living conditions of the growing urban proletariat were appalling and led to social unrest and allowed agitators to exploit these frustrations. Economic issues helped to create the conditions for revolution in 1905. Two bad harvests in recent years, the fall in real wages and rise in basic foodstuffs caused severe hardship. Father Gapon’s march was called, in part, to address this hunger. Emancipation had led to high mortgage repayments for the peasantry and had impoverished the majority. By 1905 many amongst them believed that the government was about to repossess the land of those mortgage-holders who had defaulted on their repayments. The result was that in 1905 the Tsarist regime faced the combined opposition of the middle classes, urban proletariat and the peasantry. Therefore, that this occurred would suggest it was the product, ultimately, of political mismanagement by the government. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/23 Oct/Nov 2021

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why control of Petrograd and Moscow was important for Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War. [10] (b) To what extent was the Russian economy modernised in the period from 1894 to 1914? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why control of Petrograd and Moscow was important for 10 Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War. Indicative content  Geography – the Bolsheviks controlled the key central areas of Russia between Petrograd and Moscow. This gave them several advantages.  Railways – Most of Russia’s railways were in this area. Communication between the various battlefronts was made easier. Troops and supplies could be moved quickly when needed and so prevent a White breakthrough. Their enemies lacked this advantage, which made it difficult to maintain effective control.  Population – The large populations of the major cities provided fresh recruits for the Red Army.  Industry – Much of Russia’s industry and raw materials was in this area. This meant the Red Army was able to receive supplies of weapons and ammunition when they were needed. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) To what extent was the Russian economy modernised in the period 20 from 1894 to 1914? Indicative content It can be argued that there was a constant increase in both agricultural and industrial output. On average agricultural output rose by 2% per year and a near 8% growth in industrial output between 1890 and 1900, and it stood at some 6% until war broke out in 1914. Extensive railway building, such as the Trans-Siberian railway, provided a stimulus to coal, iron and steel production. The period saw whole new industries such as oil and arms be created. There was the development of a national banking system and with large foreign investments, particularly French, capitalism did evolve rapidly. The years 1892-1903 became known as the ‘Great Spurt.’ There was some growth, also, in consumer industries. In agriculture it seemed that Stolypin’s reforms were starting to break down peasant conservatism and move away from a subsistence economy. The extent of modernisation, however, can be questioned. A stubborn resistance to change remained in rural areas, with little mechanisation present. At 2% growth agricultural development was limited and famine still existed, for example in 1898 and 1901. The First World War showed that Russia’s economic development had been tentative as the economy was unable to meet the demands placed upon it. There was a lack of flexibility to cope with rapid expansion. Between 1900 and 1906 industrial production fell to 1.4% In the period 1894 to 1913 Russia’s national income increased by 50%, but this was the lowest of all the Great Powers. There was some success in economic modernisation but by 1914 there was still far more to do. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/23 May/June 2023

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why Trotsky was important for Bolshevik success in October 1917. [10] (b) How far was the 1905 Revolution caused by economic discontent? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why Trotsky was important for Bolshevik success in October 10 1917. Indicative content • He occupied two important posts which allowed the overthrow of the Provisional Government (PG) to occur. He was chairman of the vital Petrograd Soviet and the dominant member of the Military Revolutionary Committee (MRC), allowing him to play a leading role as the organiser and prime motivator for the actual removal of the PG in October 1917. • He was Lenin’s principal supporter against the views of Zinoviev and Kamenev who were opposed to the overthrow of the PG at this time. • On October 23 after a visit by Trotsky the troops of the Peter and Paul fortress, whose cannons overlooked the Winter Palace, were won over to the Bolsheviks, putting a more weapons at the disposal of the Bolsheviks. • Lenin gave the order for the uprising to take place, but it was Trotsky who directed the Red Guards in their seizure of the key installations and vantage points in Petrograd. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) How far was the 1905 Revolution caused by economic discontent? 20 Indicative content Arguments to support the role of economics could be as follows. There was long standing discontent amongst the peasants. The redemption payments were an increasing burden on their income and in 1903–04 there was a widespread seizure of land in the countryside by the peasants. Famine was a constant fear and in 1901 there was widespread famine, but the peasants were expected, still, to produce surplus grain even though they did not have enough to feed themselves. Russia had undergone significant industrial growth under Witte’s policies. However, by the early 1900s the urban population of Russia had increased fourfold leading to terrible living and working conditions. There was little done to protect the pay and safety of workers, and workers were not allowed trade unions. The economic downturn of the immediate years preceding 1905 led to unemployment and the loss of regular income. It was this distress of the workers in St. Petersburg which prompted Father Gapon to call for strikes throughout the city and led to the organised march on 22nd. January 1905 and the subsequent events of ‘Bloody Sunday.’ However, there were other factors, one of which was political discontent. There was frustration at the lack of consultation over the governing of the country. Thus, in 1904 the Union of Liberation was formed in St. Petersburg and pushed for a constitutional monarchy with the right to vote for all men. From the 1880s Marxist ideas began to spread throughout Russia and led to more radical political groupings being formed. In the years leading up to the 1905 Revolution the Social Revolutionaries carried out some 2000 political assassinations. The defeats in the war with Japan (1904–05) at the Yalu River and the loss of Port Arthur led many to question the government’s competence. The killing of unarmed civilians on ‘Bloody Sunday’ was the final straw and led to riots and strikes throughout the Russian Empire which threatened the continuation of Tsarist rule. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/21 Oct/Nov 2023

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why ‘Bloody Sunday’ weakened the Tsarist regime in 1905. [10] (b) To what extent was Bolshevik success in October 1917 caused by the errors of the Provisional Government? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why ‘Bloody Sunday’ weakened the Tsarist regime in 1905. 10 Indicative content • The killing of unarmed men, women and children was seen by many as a deliberate act and questioned the Tsar’s image as the ‘Little Father.’ • There was an Empire wide outbreak of disorder in response to the killings and this disorder increased as the year went on. In places (e. g. Poland and Georgia) the Tsarist government almost broke down. • Strikes occurred in all major cities and towns. In the initial stages it seems that there was employer support for the strikers. This suggests that the killings had created serious disillusionment with the regime amongst the middle classes. • The anger created by ‘Bloody Sunday’ became associated with other concerns – defeat by Japan led to mutinies in the army and navy – peasants feared the loss of property for not paying off mortgages taken post emancipation, and so began to seize the gentry’s land in the countryside – workers in several cities, notably St. Petersburg and Moscow, formed soviets to demand better conditions, and became the base for political agitation amongst revolutionaries such as Trotsky. • ‘Bloody Sunday’ was the spark which led to a widespread explosion of opposition to the Tsar’s rule. The October Manifesto was produced in response to this opposition and seemed to signal the end of Tsarist autocracy. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) To what extent was Bolshevik success in October 1917 caused by the 20 errors of the Provisional Government? Indicative content Arguments to support the central role the Provisional Government’s (PG) errors played in Bolshevik success in October 1917 could be as follows. The PG failure to remove Russia from the First World War lost it a great deal of support. The problems of food shortages and military losses remained. The preoccupation with the war meant that the land issue was not adequately addressed and caused widespread discontent in the countryside. Demand for war production remained high but the problems of pay and working conditions still faced the industrial workers. The situation seemed no different from that experienced under the Tsar. This led to the PG being unpopular and provided ammunition for the Bolsheviks (‘Peace, Land and Bread’). The Kornilov Affair was mishandled by the PG and led to a reinvigorating of the Bolsheviks after the July Days, and by September 1917 they controlled the Petrograd Soviet (PS). However, this view can be questioned. The PG was weak from the outset. It had to share power with the PS which meant it could never establish its authority fully, and so left it vulnerable to a determined opponent like the Bolsheviks. Lenin proved to be an inspired leader. He saw the weakness of the PG and was, therefore, opposed to any cooperation with it. This presented the Bolsheviks as a viable alternative, untainted by avoiding association with the PG. This was enhanced by the policies he advocated after his return to Russia in April 1917. The Bolsheviks favoured ‘All power to the Soviets’ which raised their support within the soviets, and by September 1917 Trotsky was chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. Bolshevik appeal was broadened through the slogan ‘Peace, Land and Bread’ – the people wanted an end to the war – Bolshevik support lay in the cities but offering land to the peasants, the bulk of the population, meant they would be neutral when the Bolsheviks made their bid for power – food shortages would be ended. Trotsky was vital to Bolshevik success in October 1917. His position in the PS allowed him to set up the Red Guard, a Bolshevik militia made up of armed factory workers, soldiers, and sailors. On October 23, he persuaded the garrison of the Peter and Paul fortress to come over to the Bolsheviks. Lenin gave the order for the uprising to begin but it was Trotsky who directed the Red Guard in their seizure of key installations and vantage points in Petrograd. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/22 Oct/Nov 2023

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why there was opposition to the introduction of the New Economic Policy. [10] (b) ‘Disunity amongst its critics kept the Tsarist regime secure in the period 1906–14.’ How far do you agree? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why there was opposition to the introduction of the New 10 Economic Policy. Indicative content The New Economic Policy (NEP) was a more market-oriented economic policy which allowed private individuals to own small-scale enterprises. It was introduced in 1921 to replace, temporarily, War Communism. • It was antithetical to the revolutionary theory which lay behind War Communism, which the Bolsheviks had acted upon since October 1917. Therefore, the NEP was ideologically flawed. • War Communism had contributed greatly to the Bolsheviks maintaining control. The NEP was untested. • Whilst Lenin stressed the temporary nature of the NEP some saw it as the start of a backing away, or retreat, from socialism which would only gather apace – private ownership of businesses would mean the reappearance of the rich. • The great dislike of War Communism amongst the peasantry was seen by some as a price worth paying to achieve the transition to socialism. This was particularly felt amongst young Bolsheviks. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘Disunity amongst its critics kept the Tsarist regime secure in the period 20 1906 to 1914.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Arguments to support this view might be as follows. Until the issuing of the October Manifesto in 1905 political parties were illegal. This meant there was no history of cross-party cooperation, and this led to these parties being highly suspicious and intolerant of one another. The liberal critics of the Tsar had been appalled at what they had seen in the Revolution of 1905 and were willing to try and make the system work, especially after the October Manifesto and the establishing of the Duma. However, groups like the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks wanted to end Tsarism. Thus, cooperation and collective action were impossible to organise or sustain. This was compounded by the fact that there were often divisions within groups. For example, The Social Revolutionaries saw after its first congress in 1906 a split between the left wing, who said its party programme ignored the industrial proletariat, and the right, who believed the policy of giving the land to those who worked it was unworkable in current Russian conditions. Thus, they were more a collection of radical groups than a genuinely coordinated party. By 1912 the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks had become two distinct and opposed Marxist parties. However, several other factors were as important, if not more so, for maintaining the security of the regime in this period. The Russian Orthodox Church taught acceptance of, and obedience to, the Tsar amongst the peasantry, the largest group in Russian society. The Tsar was God’s appointee, so to question his authority was to question God. The reforms of Stolypin had helped, partially, to further bring aboard the conservative peasantry. There was an increase in agricultural output and some industrial growth. The army remained loyal to the regime throughout this period; indeed, it was this loyalty which had saved the regime during the Revolution of 1905. In addition, the secret police, the Okhrana, proved effective in infiltrating various groups. The tercentenary celebrations for the Romanovs in 1913 displayed the general inbuilt loyalty for the regime. It can be argued it was only the regime’s mishandling of the war after 1914 which proved fatal to its security. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/23 Oct/Nov 2023

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why the Kronstadt rebellion of 1921 happened. [10] (b) ‘The opposition to the Tsarist regime in the period from 1906 to 1914 was not a serious threat.’ How far do you agree? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why the Kronstadt rebellion of 1921 happened. 10 Indicative content • Context – There was a general disillusionment with the dictatorial way in which power was being exercised by the Bolshevik regime. • Policies – War Communism had caused widespread suffering and famine. Many of the Kronstadt sailors were from the countryside and were shocked by what they saw when they went home on leave. • Nature – In the view of O. Figes the sailors at Kronstadt were as much Anarchists as Bolsheviks. Whilst they had fought in defence of Petrograd for the Bolsheviks in October 1919 it was to defeat the Whites, whom they saw as the greater evil. Once the Civil War was over, they turned against the Bolsheviks. The self-indulgent behaviour of the new Chief Commander of the Baltic Fleet and his wife led half of the Kronstadt Bolsheviks to tear up their party cards in the second half of 1920. • Influences – The sailors took a lead from the emergence of opposition within the Bolshevik party itself to the direction it had taken. Prominent Bolsheviks Shliapnikov and Kollontai led a workers’ opposition against the party’s excesses. In early 1921 workers in Petrograd had gone on strike in protest at the conditions created by War Communism Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘The opposition to the Tsarist regime in the period from 1906 to 1914 20 was not a serious threat.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Arguments to support the view could be as follows. It was not until the issuing of the October Manifesto in 1905 that political parties became legal. This meant there was no history of cross-party cooperation, and this led to these parties being highly suspicious and intolerant of one another. The liberal critics of the Tsar had been appalled at what they had seen in the Revolution of 1905 and were willing to try and make the system work, especially after the October Manifesto and the establishing of the Duma. However, groups like the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks wanted to end Tsarism. Thus, cooperation and collective action were impossible to organise or sustain. This was compounded by the fact that there were often divisions within groups. For example, The Social Revolutionaries saw after its first congress in 1906 a split between the left wing, who said its party programme ignored the industrial proletariat, and the right, who believed the policy of giving the land to those who worked it was unworkable in current Russian conditions. Thus, they were more a collection of radical groups than a genuinely coordinated party. By 1912 the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks had become two distinct and opposed Marxist parties. Whilst strikes became more frequent, for many industrial workers the main concern was improved working and living conditions, not regime change. Moreover, the Orthodox Church reinforced loyalty to the regime from the pulpit. The secret police, Okhrana, were effective in infiltrating opposition group and the only group which could seriously threaten the regime, the army, remained loyal throughout this period. However, this view can be challenged. Whilst the Okhrana was effective, the fact it was widely employed suggests that opposition was widespread and taken seriously by the regime. The regime’s dominance and manipulation of the Duma created a growing questioning of the Tsarist regime’s legitimacy. Whilst the tercentenary celebrations for the Romanovs in 1913 showed the inbuilt loyalty to the regime it could be argued that this was only surface deep. The terrible working and living conditions faced by industrial workers were not properly addressed by the regime. This fostered disillusionment with the regime and provided opportunities for extreme groups to spread their ideas and create discontent. In the summer of 1914 barricades were erected in St. Petersburg. It could be argued that that the outbreak of war in 1914 provided a temporary reprieve for the Tsarist regime from growing opposition to its existence. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/22 Feb/March 2024

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why Stolypin introduced his agricultural reforms. [10] (b) ‘Control over Petrograd and Moscow was the most important reason for the Bolsheviks’ victory in the Russian Civil War.’ How far do you agree? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why Stolypin introduced his agricultural reforms. 10 Indicative content  Stolypin was a loyalist and, as such, he considered that reform was a way to lessen opposition to the Tsarist regime. The Revolution of 1905 had shown up the system’s fragility.  His aim was twofold – promote economic modernisation and ensure social stability. Therefore, he sought to break up the commune and replace it with a new class of prosperous peasants. This would decapitate the peasantry as a revolutionary force.  The increase in resources for the Peasant Land Bank was to aid peasants in borrowing money to buy extra land.  The resettlement programme, underpinned by government aid, was to get peasants to move from overcrowded regions to the empty spaces of Siberia and Central Asia and bring them into productive agricultural use. This was vital as the late nineteenth century saw a marked increase in population and the nation’s rapidly growing numbers needed to be fed. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘Control over Petrograd and Moscow was the most important reason for 20 the Bolsheviks’ victory in the Russian Civil War.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Arguments to show the central role control of these areas played in the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War could be as follows. The Bolshevik’s controlled the heartlands of Russia. These possessed a rail network which the Bolsheviks effectively used to communicate between the various battlefronts. Thus, coordination was made easier. Troops and supplies could be moved quickly when needed and so prevent a White breakthrough. Their enemies were trying to attack from different peripheral areas of Russia and had longer supply routes and difficulties with transport. The large populations of the major cities provided fresh recruits for the Red Army. Much of Russia’s industry and raw materials were in this area. This meant the Red Army was able to receive supplies of weapons and ammunition when they were needed. However, other factors played an equally important part, if not more so. The Whites were divided, Anarchists and Monarchists were never going to cooperate. The intervention by the Allies on the side of the Whites allowed the Bolsheviks to portray themselves as Russian heroes fighting off foreign invasion, as had Alexander Nevsky and Kutuzov in earlier periods. The Bolshevik party and its leadership displayed utter ruthlessness (e.g. War Communism saw the forced requisitioning of food, despite creating famine/ the use of terror against enemies known or suspected). Trotsky proved himself very capable in his role as Commissar for War, willing to exploit the skills and experience of former Tsarist officers by holding their families as hostages against the threat of disloyalty. The peasants had little preference for the Bolsheviks over their enemies as both were equally brutal. However, land in areas captured by the Whites was returned to former landlords whilst the Bolsheviks, for now, supported the sweeping land reforms which had occurred since 1917. Therefore, although reluctant to fight for the Bolsheviks peasant communities would not oppose them. This was even more the case amongst the non–Russian communities who feared the Great Russia aspirations of many White leaders. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/21 May/June 2024

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why the Tsarist regime had become unpopular by 1905. [10] (b) ‘By 1921 Bolshevik rule over Russia was firmly established.’ How far do you agree? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why the Tsarist regime had become unpopular by 1905. 10 Indicative content • The abolition of serfdom had left major issues in the countryside of debt and landownership which the regime appeared not to be tackling. • The famine of 1901–2 caused growing unrest in the countryside • The increase in industry under Witte had led to an increase in population in these industrial centres which created appalling living and working conditions. This proved fertile ground for agitators’ anti-Tsarist ideas to grow. • Russification policies led to the growth of discontent amongst the nationalities of the non-Russian population. These groups made up nearly half of the country’s population. • The Tsar continued to rule, like his predecessors, as an autocrat. The lack of any outlet for dissenting views and redress of grievances alienated many amongst the growing middle class. • The outbreak of the Russo Japanese War in 1904 and initial failing caused increasing dissatisfaction in 1905. • The regime’s violent response to the peaceful march in January 1905 towards the Winter Palace to present a petition to the Tsar provoked such outrage that it led, almost, to the toppling of the regime. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘By 1921 Bolshevik rule over Russia was firmly established.’ How far do 20 you agree? Indicative content Arguments to support the view that Bolshevik rule had been firmly established in Russia by 1921 might be as follows. The establishing of one-party rule had been an objective from the outset for the Bolshevik leadership. After meeting for some 13 hours on 5–6 January 1918 the Constituent Assembly was dissolved. As Lenin told Trotsky this was the ‘complete and public liquidation of formal democracy in the name of revolutionary dictatorship.’ The Cheka had been set up in December 1917 to root out counter-revolution. It brought fear and terror to the Bolshevik party opponents. It acted, also, as a useful tool to check on party loyalty and keep members compliant. Victory in the Russian Civil War meant that the Bolsheviks faced no political rivals to challenge their authority. The Tsar and his family had been murdered and the Whites defeated. The need for victory had created a readiness for the Bolshevik party to resort to coercion, rule by fiat, centralised administration and the dispensing of summary justice. In 1921 at the Tenth Party Conference Lenin introduced ‘On Unity’ which outlawed factionalism and all other political parties, other than the Bolsheviks. Therefore, Bolshevik rule was firmly established. This view, however, can be challenged. The continued use of the Cheka suggests that the Bolshevik rule was not firmly established, or, at least, that was what the Bolshevik leadership felt. The year 1921 was to see a severe challenge to Bolshevik party rule in the form of the Kronstadt rebellion by sailors from the naval base. Up to this point they had been seen as solid supporters of the Bolshevik party. The Kronstadt rebellion was crushed, but it did shock deeply the party leadership and was a significant factor in the introducing of the more capitalist-friendly New Economic Policy and the ending of the more-ideologically based War Communism. The fact that the Tenth Party Congress banned factionalism in the party would suggest that there were still divisions within the party, which threatened Bolshevik rule. There was still sporadic anti-Bolshevik violence, ending with the collapse of the White Army at Yakutia (Russian Far East, along the Arctic Ocean) in June 1923. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/23 Oct/Nov 2024

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why Stolypin was unpopular. [10] (b) ‘The Russian Civil War was caused by Lenin’s dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918.’ How far do you agree? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why Stolypin was unpopular. 10 Indicative content • There was a lot of compulsion in in his land reforms which made him unpopular with large sections of a conservative peasantry. • His use of repression – ‘Stolypin’s neckties.’ • His Russification policy was hated in the areas it was applied, e. g. Poland, because its jingoism was an insult to the feelings of the minorities. • He failed to make full use of the Dumas and the lack of progress towards a constitutional monarchy was disliked by liberals. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘The Russian Civil War was caused by Lenin’s dissolution of the 20 Constituent Assembly in January 1918.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Arguments in support of this view might be as follows. Even before the Revolution of 1905, the wish for a democratically elected Constituent Assembly (CA) to create a Russian constitution had been one of the main demands of all Russian revolutionary parties. This aim continued unabated after 1905. Therefore, the dissolution of the CA in January 1918 was disliked greatly by the various political groups who saw the Bolsheviks as a clear threat to a democratic Russia guided by a constitution created by the CA. There was a sense of outrage that the Bolsheviks under Lenin had taken it upon themselves to change Russia’s form of government. The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly showed the Bolsheviks were not democratic in outlook and this authoritarianism seemed a return to Tsarist autocracy. This had been ended in February 1917, so why not the Bolsheviks’ autocracy in 1918? This view can be challenged. The Civil War was a direct product of Lenin’s decisions. If he had been willing to form an all-socialist coalition then counter- revolution would have been inconceivable because such a coalition would have rested on the only legitimate authority in Russia, the Constituent Assembly. Such a coalition was acceptable to some Bolsheviks, but Lenin was not one of them. He saw October 1917 as the beginning of, at the very least, a European-wide revolution, if not a world revolution. Therefore, to Lenin any compromise was seen as undermining the chance of success of this revolution. History was on the side of the Bolshevik Party and if victory in a civil war solidified Bolshevik power thereby achieving this revolution, then it was a price worth paying. There was opposition to the Bolsheviks from the start (Monarchists/Militarists). Nationalism was an important factor in the Russian Civil War’s creation. Nationalist minorities (Georgians/Ukrainians) fought to establish their independence from Russia. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/22 Feb/March 2025

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why there was a march on the Winter Palace in January 1905. [10] (b) ‘The Constituent Assembly was dissolved in January 1918 because the Bolsheviks were weak.’ How far do you agree? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why there was a march on the Winter Palace in January 1905. 10 Indicative content • The march was led by Father Gapon, a priest, who was concerned deeply about the condition of many of the poor and the industrial workers of St Petersburg in particular. • The majority of workers lived in appalling conditions and were badly paid with long hours in dangerous conditions. There was no welfare system at all. • Russian workers suffered badly in 1904; the price of essential goods rose so quickly that real wages declined by 20%. • The intention was to present a petition to the Tsar, who many still saw as ‘the little father’, a normal practice for the redress of grievances, at the Winter Palace. • The petition addressed wider issues facing Russia – an end to the war with Japan and the right to vote. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘The Constituent Assembly was dissolved in January 1918 because the 20 Bolsheviks were weak.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Arguments in support of this view might consider how the election results for the Constituent Assembly (CA) showed that support for the Bolsheviks was very limited. They had won barely a quarter of the seats to the CA. The fact that the Bolsheviks resorted to such a drastic measure as dissolution showed that they were in a precarious position. Argument and debate would not be enough. There was strong and widespread opposition to them inside the country. It can be argued that October 1917 was a coup not a popular uprising. Also, the Allied Powers were set to interfere in Russia should the new government contemplate making a separate peace. However, this view can be questioned. The dissolution reflected Lenin’s philosophy. The Bolshevik Party was created to be capable of seizing power when the opportunity presented itself. Lenin was never interested in winning mass support. This is why he had not joined a broad front opposition before 1917 and consistently ruled out cooperation with the Provisional Government in 1917. The dissolution of the CA reflected Lenin’s understanding of the historical process. October 1917 was the start of, at the least, a Europe-wide revolution. Therefore, to be on the right side of this profound historical change the Bolsheviks could not jeopardise their newly won power by letting elections to the CA dictate the pace of revolution. Democracy was to be overruled by party dictatorship. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/22 May/June 2025

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why Lenin issued his April Theses. [10] (b) ‘By 1914 the Tsarist regime was secure.’ How far do you agree? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why Lenin issued his April Theses. 10 Indicative content • Change of policy – Prior to his return the Bolsheviks had been working with other revolutionary and reformist parties. Lenin opposed this and the April Theses set out future Bolshevik policy. • Ideology – In the April Theses Lenin wanted to reaffirm his core belief that only the Bolshevik Party represented the forces of proletarian revolution. • Politics – Lenin calculated that the Soviets, particularly the Petrograd Soviet, offered the small Bolshevik Party the means by which it could obtain power in the name of the proletariat. • A call to action – Lenin wanted to make clear that a ‘bourgeois’ transition process was not needed. The April Theses were a call for immediate revolutionary change. Thus, from the April Theses came the slogan of ‘Peace, Land and Bread’ which led to a rise in Bolshevik numbers and support. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘By 1914 the Tsarist regime was secure.’ How far do you agree? 20 Indicative content Arguments to support this view could be as follows. The key issue here is an analysis of the extent to which the Tsar’s regime was secure and likely to last before the outbreak of the war. The period 1905–1914 is seen as a period of stabilisation and progress ended by the outbreak of war in August 1914, a common view is ‘no war – no 1917.’ There was massive repression in the years 1905–1910, and opposition groups and workers organisations were heavily infiltrated by government spies. There was an apathetic and disorganised working class, an extensive and deeply conservative peasantry, overseen by a loyalist Russian Orthodox Church and, by 1914, a middle class apparently prepared to work within the Tsarist structure. The tercentenary of Romanov rule in 1913, whilst propagandist in intent, did show genuine regard for the regime. The enthusiasm for the war in 1914 showed a sense of Russian patriotism which the Tsarist regime seemed to embody. This view is open to question. There was a growing (c. 2.5 million) industrial work force, badly paid and treated, with a growing reputation for striking and radicalism, and hostile to middle class support. Increasingly by 1910, let alone 1914, many reformers were seeing the use of violence as the only way forward and the regime seemed to be getting progressively more reactionary. The policy of Russification did not homogenise the Russian Empire but, rather, alienated the nationalist minorities who grew increasingly vociferous in their call for independence. The Beilis case and the rise of Rasputin showed just how rotten the regime was. Peasants were leaving the land and heading for crowded cities and all that entailed in terms of politicalisation and radicalisation. Repression might seem to show that the regime was secure, but it arguably could have just alienated many more from supporting the Tsarist system. A shock to this system might reveal the true extent of its security. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/23 May/June 2025

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why division amongst their enemies led to Bolshevik success in the Russian Civil War. [10] (b) To what extent were Stolypin’s land reforms a success? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why division amongst their enemies led to Bolshevik success in 10 the Russian Civil War. Indicative content • These divisions meant the Bolsheviks never faced a coordinated opposition. • Groups such as Monarchists and Anarchists would never be able to unite because their views were antithetical to one another. This meant the Bolsheviks were one enemy amongst many rather than the enemy. • The divisions meant the Bolsheviks’ enemies had no unifying ideology. The Bolsheviks knew what they were fighting for and were motivated. • With their enemies having several different leaders pursuing, often, conflicting agendas the Bolsheviks had the advantage of clear political and military direction from Lenin and Trotsky respectively. • The lack of unity meant that the Bolsheviks’ enemies could never offer a viable alternative. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) To what extent were Stolypin’s land reforms a success? 20 Indicative content Arguments supporting the view that his land reforms were successful could be as follows. Stolypin aimed to modernise Russia and make it more competitive with European powers. In addition, he hoped that the land reforms would increase support for the Tsarist regime and reduce the threat from the Social Revolutionaries. Increasing the number of peasant landowners would produce a more invested peasantry. He did talk to the peasants and really aimed to create a prosperous peasantry and clear up the mess left by the abolition of serfdom. As a result, agricultural output did increase by a third and peasant land ownership rose by 30 per cent. His relationship with the Octobrists in the Duma allowed Stolypin to pursue his land reforms with little obstruction from Duma deputies. The tercentenary celebrations of 1913 for the Romanovs and the outpouring of patriotism in 1914 seem to show that Stolypin had succeeded in securing support for the Tsar. This view can be questioned. Even in advanced economies land reforms take time to work. Stolypin claimed that Russia, because of its backward state, needed twenty years for his ‘wager on the strong’ to show dividends for the regime. However, his assassination in 1911 only gave him five years and the war in 1914 only gave Russia eight years. It might be argued that even without these events his land reforms would not have succeeded. Russian peasants were deeply conservative which made them slow to respond to innovations. In 1914 the strip system prevailed and only ten percent of land was consolidated into farms. Peasants were reluctant to leave the security of the commune for the uncertainty of individual farming. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/21 Oct/Nov 2025

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why the Bolsheviks were successful in October 1917. [10] (b) How important was the war with Japan in the development of the Revolution of 1905? [20]

30 marks

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why the Bolsheviks were successful in October 1917. 10 Indicative content • Impact of the war was divisive and military support drained away from the Provisional Government (PG) as it had from the Tsar. • Failings of the PG – continuation of the war, Kornilov Affair and arming of the Soviets. • Trotsky proved essential in the preparation and planning of the seizure of power in October 1917. • Lenin was a key factor – he had built up the party and controlled it fully. He was prepared to think radically (no cooperation with the PG) and his slogan of ‘Peace, Bread and Land’ captured the essentials of what people were seeking. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) How important was the war with Japan in the development of the 20 Revolution of 1905? Indicative content Arguments to support the view that the war with Japan was central to the development of the 1905 Revolution could take the following form. The numerous humiliations of the war did the regime no good. Nicholas II took the decision to go to war against Japan. The fact that the Tsar was an autocrat and responsible for the actions of his government raised questions about the regime’s fitness to rule. This was compounded by the fact Russian had suffered military defeat at the hands of an Asiatic power. In the racist mindset of the time this was a humiliation that needed those responsible to be punished. Discontent developed, also, because resources diverted to the war lessened the, already, limited supply of grain and fuel. The view can be challenged. The extent to which there was full awareness within Russia of the extent of the disasters is debateable. With a restricted press and mass illiteracy, not much information spread beyond the centres. The Tsar himself bears responsibility for the Revolution of 1905 as he refused to consider any major reform or provide the necessary support to quality ministers such as Witte. He showed a real lack of awareness of the problems facing Russia and its peoples. He supported the pogroms and aggressive Russian nationalism. In addition, with the growth of industry and factories and low wages and poor working conditions, there was scope for the growth of radicalism. The work of Plevhe and the Interior Ministry alienated many, and they came to see the state as immovable and oppressive. With no political parties in the conventional sense, no Trade Unions allowed, there was simply no outlet for any dissent, especially for the growing working class. The legacy of serfdom still dominated the countryside with its attended debts and problems. Middle class anger was fuelled by a rigid caste system which created a massive ‘glass ceiling’ for the able. Accept any other valid responses.

This question in 9489/22 Oct/Nov 2025