To what extent was Russia on the verge of a revolution by January 1917?

In the early 20th century, Russia faced many problems, including pressure from the

working class and (Peasantryrural poor); strain on the country’s resources and

economy due to World War One coupled with crippling military defeats and the rise

of political opposition due to the hugely unpopular authocratic tsarist reigime in

which the nobility ruled by divine right. First sentence is too long. These factors all

contributed to rising discontent which

reached tipping-point by Januray 1917. However, arguably this growing tension was

not due to the aristocracy as they only formed 1% of the population(unclear).

Furthermore, Catholicism was hugely prevalent in Russian 20th century life(Again

this sentence does not go anywhere). Therefore, the masses would most likely have

believed in the nobility due to their supposed god-given right to rule. Despite this, by

1917. Tsar Nicholas 2nd inadequacy was blatant and along with his unwillingness to

engage in politics this led to discontent amongst the masses

and therefore led revolutionary tendencies by 1917. In contrast to this, Trotsky once

commented that the Tsar inherited this revolution along with the empire, thus that

revolution was inevitable. Therefore, the issue was clearly a complex one, with

undercurrents of unrest spanning several generations. It would therefore be too

simplistic to assume that revolution was either totally inevitable or spontaneous and

various other factors must be taken into account.

Introduction is relevant, however, lacks analysis or tight focus on the question. 

(Impact Of People no subheadings) - Throughout the beginning of the Ttwentieth

Ccentury, the various social groups in Russia began to change, either desiring more
power, or to realise that their power was not as strong as in the past. It is therefore

necessary to debate whether the divisions in nationalities, the peasants and the town

workers were important in bringing Russia to revolution, or if it was the decreasing

faith in the church, the nobility and the Romanov family that resulted in the February

revolt. Nice analytical point

Russia was on the verge of revolution by January 1917 as the national minorities

wanted more autonomy and independence, and also wanted an end to the policy of

Russification(you need to explain what this term means). However, it is arguable that

Russia was not on the verge of revolution as the national minorities were too divided

to fulfil any revolt on the state. For example, one minority faction, the Liberals, did

not want the old Empire broken up; they wanted to maintain the integrity of the state.

It is clear that Russia was not on the brink of revolution as the Liberals were

incredibly dominant in the provisional government(well supported point). But on the

other hand the Socialists wanted to accede to the national aspirations of non-Russian

peoples, which involved offering more self-government and local control. They were

prepared to use violent methods to achieve their aims, which suggest that Russia was

on the verge of a revolution in January 1917. This can be further proven by the fact

that the moderate wings of both the Socialist revolutionaries and the Mensheviks were

dominant in the Petrograd Soviet (well balanced debate). Between 1906 and 1914

there was an industrial boom, with tremendous rates of growth in industries like coal,

iron and oil. Huge modern factories grew up in the cities, employing large numbers of

workers. Entrepreneurs and business people were very prosperous. Therefore people

would be moving away from a revolution as they would not want to upset the new

growing prosperity. However, although in some areas they did quite well, workers, on

the whole, did not benefit from this. Average wages did
not rise much above the pitiful 1903 levels. Conditions at home and in the workplace

were just as dreadful as they had always been. As a result, there were a growing

number of strikes before the First World War. Workers remained disillusioned with

their economic and political progress, which points towards the view that Russia was

indeed on the verge of revolution by 1917. Corin and Fiehn agree with this as they

said that “…the main push came from the workers in the cities.” (H) Life was hard for

the peasants who were forced to work on the estates of the nobility. Although some

peasants were quite well off, in years of bad harvest there was widespread starvation

(lacks clarity).

For example 400,000 died in 1891. Disease spread and typhus and diphtheria was

common. Therefore this encouraged revolution as the peasant’s sought seeked a better

life. This resulted in Land reforms which were brought in to encourage higher

production from peasants. However, although production did increase leading to

record harvests by 1913 some historians(better to name them) argue that this was due

to favourable weather conditions not the reforms. They also argue that the reforms

had not gone far enough as they produced a growing class of alienated poor peasants,

as the rich peasants were able to buy up the land of poorer less efficient peasants(H).

This angered the majority of peasants who made up a big part of the population and

indicates that Russia was indeed on the verge of revolution by 1917. Despite this

widespread discontent from the various national groups, peasants and the town

workers, their effect on politics by January 1917 is debatable. This was due to an

equal, if not stronger, amount of oppressiveness from the church, the aristocracy and

the leading Romanov family. The Russian Orthodox Church, which was separate

from the Pope and Rome, had a huge amount of control over the lives of the Russian

people. The church was closely aligned with the Ttsarist Ssystem. It supported the
divine right of the tsar to rule and

exhorted believers to obey the Ttsar as the agent of God. It was a deeply conservative

organisation. The scale of control over people’s lives points to the view that any

revolution could be easily dissolved, therefore showing that Russia was not on the

verge of revolution by January 1917. Nobility made just over one per cent of the

population but owned 25 per cent of all the land. Therefore it could be argued that as

the nobility made up such a small percentage of the population there impact on

revolution was limited. On the other hand the fact that the nobility owned a quarter of

the land shows the extent of their power and proves that revolution would be difficult.

Nicely balanced debate.

World War One- In many ways, Russia ’s part in WW1 was vital in bringing the

country to the brink of revolution by 1917.(S) The first world war highlighted the

power struggle between the Army and civilian elites and historian RB McKean argues

that the Great War was the major factor which contributed to the massive discontent

present in the country during WW1(H). Therefore it could be said that this mounting

discontent and changing attitudes towards the war proves that Russia was indeed on

the verge of revolution by January 1917. The war placed an unbearable strain on

Russia ’sweak government and economy resulting in mass shortage and hunger. It is

thought that this mismanagement and failure to adequately handle the war crisis

turned the people, most importantly the soldiers, against the Tsar. Peter Kenez argues

that no-one was prepared to put up a fight for the old regime due to the fact that the

Tsar simply did no’t care about the horrendous casualties of the war(H). On the other
hand, many would argue that the Russian involvement in the war itself, disproves the

claim that Russia was on the brink of revolution as the very fact that they decided to

enter the war could prove they felt that government was stable enough to sustain

war.Excellent analysis and synthesis which is well integrated. One of the main

reasons they went to war was their ambition in the Bblack Ssea region. This

is a reflection of the Tsars quest for power and proves that they were in control and

that at least at this point, revolution was not on the cards. On the other hand, another

main reason why they went to war was to divert the attention of the citizens away

from domestic problems by forcing Russians to band together against a common

enemy and therefore it could be argued that there was discontent in the country –

enough for a revolution(A). As for the war itself, military Russian military was

defeated at Tannenburg by Germany in August 1914, causing 30,000 casualties and

resulting in 92000 soldiers being captured. Furthermore, Russia was forced to retreat

at the Mansurian Lakes in February 1915, causing 125 00 casualties. The Tsar,

Nicholas the 2nd, took control of the war effort in 1915. J.N Westwood suggests that

this was to stop rumours spread by the Duma – the Russian parliament, that he did

no’t want to win the war, and it is often speculated that he was not committed to his

job(H). The Tsarist State was an absolute autocracy – the Tsar believed he had been

appointed by God to lead his people and ruled over a vast area, over 100 times larger

than Britain . The

system was a rigid hierarchy, involving a huge bureaucracy, so communication was

difficult and it was therefore inefficient. Corruption was also common. The military

defeats of 1914-1917 cannot be ignored as factors in the decrease in loyalty to the

Tsar throughout this period. The public saw the inadequate supplies, logistics and

weaponry so began to doubt Nicholas IIthe 2nd as a ruler and this arguably
contributed towards revolutionary ideas, with communist groups exaggerating tales of

mutiny and the number of losses in the army, sparking unrest within the army and

society in general(A). The peasants in Russia made up 77% of the diverse population

and it would be easy for them to join together as they had an overwhelming majority.

For example, the populist groups like the People’s Will, a group of peasants who

formed revolutionary ideas to overthrow the government by terrorism. The

combination of heavy losses throughout World War one and increasing disloyalty to

the Tsar led to an

unstable Russia about to face a revolution in 1917(S)

Very good section as you balance eveidence, analysis and thouroughness.

Political Development – The direct influence of the Tsar must also be taken into

consideration, especially as this figure was so important in turn of the century Russia.

Nicholas IIthe 2nd, whose sudden coronation in 1894 due to his father’s unexpected

death, was unprepared to “run a village post office” let alone a country as vast as

Russia. This inadequacy was (publicly admitted again and again prove this!!) and

coupled with his unwillingness to engage in politics along with his lack of

organisational skills, Russia ’s need for industrialisation seemed unreachable.

However, modernising Russia was an impending problem that needed revolution and

Nicholas II the 2nd was simply incapable of such a task. Arguably, his dislike of any

form of government hindered this process also, as a constitutional government would

almost definitely have benefitted the country and solved Russia ’s problems. This

suggests that it was Nicholas II’sthe 2nd’s traditional autocratic ways that led to the

country’s discontent and placed them on the verge of a revolution(A). In contrast to

this, Trotsky once commented that the Tsar inherited this revolution along with the

empire, thus suggesting inevitability – such discontent over many generations of

Tsarism ultimately always places a country in a vulnerable position, susceptible to a

revolution. Before the late 1800s and early 1900s, people in Russia had been very

loyal to the Tsar. However, in the late 1800s Karl Marx, a German philosopher,

started a new ideology whereby the working classes had as much power and wealth as

everyone else. At this point, a lot of the working classes began to realise the flaws of

the Tsarist regime and called for

parliament and free elections(slightly confused here). This shows that tensions were

already growing and that the possibility of revolution was great before 1917. In 1904,

Japan declared a war

with Russia(S) . Both countries soughtseeked an empire and looked to take land from

either one. Russia was expected to defeat Japan considering the size difference.

However, Russia suffered a military catastrophe. This only confirmed the Tsar’s

inadequacies to the Russian working classes. As a result of the war, the economic

situation worsened and the cities suffered a shortage of goods. There was a massive

upsurge in what???. Strikes happened regularly in factories and other industrial work

places. The new Marxist ideology had brought about a new party – the Ssocial

Ddemocrats(confused wording). However, because of political differences they split

into two, The Bolsheviks were centrally organised and spread (Socialist

Consciousness????). However, up to 1917, they had little part in any revolutionary

(happenings?). The Mensheviks were widespread and made revolution attractive????.

This proves that the Russo-Japanese war had an influence on increasing tensions and

made revolution a possibility before 1917(A). On 22 January 1905, the Tsar troops

opened fire on a peaceful demonstration. This was known as “Bbloody Sunday” and
was the spark for the first revolution. By the end of January 1905, the Tsar was at war

with a lot of his own people and 400,000 workers had gone on strike. Opposition

groups demanded reform, especially the liberals. The Ppoles and Finns called for

independence and the Jews, equal civil rights. Argument suggests that this had

all arisen because of the rise in opposition parties to the Tsar and the effects

of the Russo-Japanese war on the people. However, it could equally be argued that

these opposition groups were only small, and at this point, there was still widespread

loyalty for the Tsa(A)r. Despite this, many groups such as those who followed Marx

had influence far beyond their numerical strength and by 1917 tension was definitely

growing, with a lot of help from groups like the Liberals, Bolsheviks and the

Mensheviks. Good evidence and analysis but not enough H

Despite later tension, earlier in 1905, Stolypin Stolypin(identify who he

was)introduced a series of constructive reforms to modernise agriculture, and a plan

to achieve universal education of the masses. Therefore arguably there was a strong

foundation of  equality and modernisation even if there was still a long way to go This

is inaccuratee. Several of his reforms included a substantial amount of land transfer

occurred not only between landlords and peasants, but also within the peasant ranks.

Poor peasants sold out to prosperous ones who were developing large farms. Also

colonisation of Siberia, the Steppes and Central Asia was a great success – the new

lands produced livestock, wheat and dairy products. Farming methods also improved:

machinery and artificial fertilisers were introduced. This is demonstrated by the fact

that in 1911 European Russia has 66,000 reapers and West Siberia had 36,000

reapers. Clearly these reforms introduced a better way of life for all living in Russia

and this could be seen as evidence against the argument that Russia was on the verge
of a revolution in 1917(A). However, it was impossible to conquer the underlying

problems of rural over-population and poverty, or to control the weather which

determined the harvest(A) nice balance.. ~(As well as these there were

limitations to the reforms poorly worded). For example, most of the land transfer took

place between 1908 and 1913 due to the marked deadline of 1914. This suggests that

Stolypin had underestimated (the wants?) of the peasants who wanted to keep to the

(Mir- explain term) since this offered collective security in bad times. Peasant poverty

also continued which is why they might want to overthrow the government in a

revolution so therefore these (downfalls?) argue that Russia was in fact on the verge

of a revolution by January 1917. Relevant evidence but you must check your writing

as it is confused.

(The Soviet Republic emerged from the ruins of the populist movement in the 1870s

and was formed in 1901 INACCURATE ). It initially had taken part in the Duma but

later boycotted it and its variety of views in the Soviet Republic’s first congress was

not until 1906 ????. In general the peasants were represented by the Trudoviki Labour

Group – they wanted land distributed back to the peasants. The Soviet Republic???

believed that the peasants would be the main force of the revolution in which the

Tsarist government would be overthrown and be replaced by a democratic republic.

Peasants provided about 50% of the Soviet Republic’s support in 1905, which also

attracted intellectuals who warned to speak out against the government for the

working class and the peasants. The views and the demand of the working class,

peasants and the supporting intellectuals were backed by Victor Chernov. He argued

that the growth of capitalism would promote the growth of these groups. Clearly there
was great determination in the Soviet Republic??? who believed strongly that the

Tsarist government should be overthrown and therefore it can clearly be seen that

politically, Russia was very much on the verge of revolution by January 1917.  Good

evidence again but no historiography means no pass.

Economic Factors. –The third major area which must be examined to evaluate what

extent Russia was on the verge of revolution by January 1917 is economically(S). The

growth of Russian industry was not a mitigating factor for concerns over a revolution

in 1917 as it had a significant economy to compete on the world stage. Sergei Witte

(the finance minister) provided huge investments for industry and wanted to create

investments for an upward spiral in industrial growth. In 1913 the Russian economy

growth rate was higher than Britain , Germany or USA . In fact V.I. Bovykin

comments “ Russia at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centaury was

one of the most dynamically developing states in the world”(H). On the other hand

earlier in 1904, Russia was in the midst of an economic depression(A). A slump in

markets led to high unemployment and social tension in towns as millions moved

from the countryside to industrial cities. Industrialisation also created a growth in the

middle classes which put pressure on the government for political change and moved

Russia closer to a revolution in 1917(A). However, there were certainly also other

reasons which were responsible for the working class revolting. A series of bad

harvests during the late 19th centaury meant that there was a fundamental shortages of

food and fuel as prices were exorbitant. Wheat sales fell from 12.8 million metric tons

in 1905 to 9.9 million in 1906 and oat sales from 12.0 million to 8.8 million in the

same period. On the other hand there is evidence that the government tried to help the

situation with “the peasant’s bank” in 1906 to buy up land from nobles and sell it off
to the working class and trade unions were additionally permitted in 1906(a).

However, it seemed more logical to the lower classes to wait for a revolution in 1917

to grant them land freely, rather than have to buy land(A). Furthermore historian

Edward Acton construes that “…trade unions were subjected to a variety of

restrictions and reduced to a skeletal existence” and strikes were outlawed. Still, it

was the First World War and not the government that provided problems for the urban

working classes. Super analysis best in the essay so far.T

The economic impact of WW1 is an undeniable factor in the downfall of the Tsar and

the rise of the Bolsheviks(S). Tsar Nicholas IIthe 2nd’s failure to maintain civil peace

within his nation; in the front line in which he served and the home which he

abandoned exacerbated price conditions the working classes suffered. Although the

role of the Fist World War in the Revolution of 1917 has remained a topic of debate

for historians of past and present, four identified and distinct factors have proved

conclusive(A). : Firstly, that war-weariness fostered the workers’ need for drastic

change. The impact of the war on peasant farmers including mobilisation and loss of

communications also spread this need to the vast majority of the Russian population.

Thirdly, those who fought on the Eastern Front suffered perilous tension between

them and the commanders who forced them to fulfil the role of cannon fodder. The

collapse of Tsarist Russia brought about by Tsar Nicholas 2nd and Tsarina Alexandria

paved the road for Bolshevik triumph(A). The arguments that WW1 served as

nothing more than a catalyst for Bolshevik uprising is justified by the conditions in

which it was allowed to prosper(A). The industrial revolution resulted in the transition

from emphasis on rural agriculture to emphasis on urban industry to maintain

European dominance and power. Almost every major power enjoyed a healthy change
from the old to the new, however the late attempts by the Tsarist regime were too

rapid for people to benefit from them. With rapid industrialisation, comes the

inevitable suffering of the lower peasant classes. Russia, by 1914 the 4th largest coal

producer in

the Wworld, required a large amount of workers from the country who provided the

country’s food and the delicate balance of industry and agriculture was shifted to

Russia’s industry. This resulted in mass urbanization of cities, poor sanitary

conditions and starvation. Therefore, the problems which faced the lower classes in

Russia during WW1 existed beforehand and they are inextricably related(A). The war

only made them worse. The vast demand for resources essential to feed the war effort

was provided by the workers. Evidence of riots and labour strikes were now becoming

evident in Moscow and St Petersburg. Agricultural Resources were now being used

for the war. Most peasants moved from the country to the factories. Similar conditions

were evident in the industrialization of Russia before the outbreak of war, thus

confirming that the war intensified the need for Bolshevism(A). However, it is also

important to consider the implications wrought by the war effort; this concerns mostly

those who lived in the country. The mass mobilization of the Russian army disrupted

the Russian economy as a total of 14 million men (half from a peasant background)

went to fight, greatly reducing the labour force. Furthermore, the lack of direct

communication between cities and the villages which fed them during mobilization

resulted in incoherent harvests. The feeling of change and revolution was also present

on the front line(A). The Eastern Front suffered from incompetent leadership and vast

casualties. Although exact numbers are unknown, it is estimated that by October 1916

there were 1.6-1.8 million dead with around 2 milion captured and 1 million

“missing”. The Eastern Front during WW1 is famed for Russian peasants, some
unarmed and without training running blindly into German machine gun fire under the

orders of their generals. Although those who fought on the front line were loyal and

ready to die for “mother Russia”, those stationed as back-up felt that war had to stop.

The Russian army suffered from numerous outbursts of mutiny and revolt, due mostly

to the lack of ammunition, clothing, weaponry and food. Nevertheless, Russian

soldiers continued to fight without firearms, hoping to scavenge a rifle from a fallen

comrade. Soldiers, specifically the garrison at Petrograd, grew tired of the repetition

of losses and grew resentful of their commanders, who in turn were reluctant to

commit their troops to war. Tensions between them were strong and mutinies were

often suppressed with deadly force. Fighting within the ranks was common. Tsar

Nicholas IIthe 2nd , against the advice of his advisors, had taken personal command

of the army in 1915. The Tsar acted with utmost ignorance to the clear signs of

revolution(A).  However, the Tsar Nicholas’s substitute was to be his biggest mistake

during the war. Tsarina Alexandra was to take his place at home. Her ill choices were

to be the final blow to the Tsarist regime. She was inexperienced and continually

appointed incompetent friends as her ministers and advisors. She sought advice from

Rasputin, the Russian mystic whose disastrous advice to the Tsarina advanced his

own position in power. Many blame Rasputin for Russia’s disappearing economy.

Super anlaysis but not enough historiography.

By 1917 Russia was certainly in a precarious position. Various factors contributed to

this unrest such as growing industrialisation which led to poverty and discontent

among the agricultural poor; The First World War which led to a severe economic

hardship and the poor leadership of the inexperienced and un-motivated Tsar.

However, these factors did not solely lead Russia to the brink of revolution. Some
historians have argued that this revolution was inevitable and that little could have

been done to stop it. Also, the industrialisation benefitted many as In 1913 the

Russian economy growth rate was higher than Britain , Germany or the USA. This

newfound wealth helped many, yet it was arguably the nobility who really benefitted

as little was done to deal with the growing peasant population. Ultimately, as the

huge poverty problem was not dealt with, Russia was in a very vulnerable

position in 1917, susceptible to revolution from both above and below. Although the

causes of the revolution are many and widespread, it cannot be denied that by January

1917, the problems that Russia faced, socially, politically, economically and as a

result of the war were so serious that revolution seemed largely unavoidable.

Excellent conclusion.

Structure= B

Relevance= A

Analysis-= C

Historical Interps= C

Thoroughness= C/B

Clairty= C/B

Overall mark= 14/25