**URGENT** History Extended Response

[izzykose]

Can someone, please mark /10 and give critique of this extended response and justify why and how i could improve. I am aware it is quite long so perhaps more on what i could cut out?

How did the First World War contribute to the development of a revolutionary situation by 1917?

Firstly, political issues arising because of poor leadership decisions, as well as political ineffectiveness in WW1 caused the bourgeoisie to become discontented with the ineffective Duma, the military with their new leader, proletariat and peasant classes with the leadership in their unwillingness to address social needs. The Tsar, in previous political decisions to re assert his autocratic powers, through the publishing of the Fundamental Laws in 1906 and changes to the electoral laws in 1907, created an ineffective and unrepresentative Duma, which was unable to function effectively through limits exercised by the Tsar. The problems of an ineffective Duma were only really understood in WW1, as it was unable to address social needs and caused the political discontent within the bourgeoisie, traditionally one of the strongest supporters of Tsarism. A further political decision for the Tsar to command the army at the front during WW1, resulted in firstly a discontented military and secondly an ignorant head of government in Russia. The Tsar had replaced a trusted leader, in Nickolaevich, and commanded the Russian military, becoming a scapegoat for large losses to come. Furthermore the Tsar left a politically ignorant Tsarina in charge and due to her dealings with Rasputin as well as German decent caused distrust in the political leadership from all social groups in Russia. Thus the inability for the Duma to effectively respond to social needs, during a time when the Tsar had abandoned political affairs and left his politically ignorant Tsarina to lead led to a revolutionary situation by 1917. This is due to the cumulation of political mistakes prior to WW1 and during WW1, which created discontent toward the government from all social classes and lead to further economic and social issues.

Secondly, in conjunction and because of poor political problems which arose during WW1, economic problems began to arise which had four major impacts on Russian society. Firstly, an ineffective government during WW1 and its inability to coordinate internal affairs adequately, caused food and fuel shortages in urban centres. This was due to poor political management which lead skilled train engineers and operatives to be conscripted, leaving Russia’s already ineffective transportation system, to become unable to continue the constant supply of foodstuffs, leaving families hungry. To add to this crisis, fuel shortages caused the closing of bakeries as well as factories essential for the production of food and for employment. The result was inadequate supply of food to urban centres and inadequate employment causing further economic turmoil, particularly for the working class. Rising inflation, directly because of the printing of more money and foreign debt caused prices of necessities to rise while wages remained the same, and further resulted in an inability to buy the basics needed for survival. Thus, due to large economic impacts which arose as a result of poor political decisions, the majority of the Russian population (mainly peasants and industrial workers) were faced with economic depressions which exacerbated social tensions leading up to 1917. This is why economic problems within Russia can be seen as creating a revolutionary situation as they were a contributing factor to the social grievances felt by the Russian population.

Thirdly, social grievances caused by political and economic problems as well as long standing issues within Russia caused discontent which boiled over into a revolutionary situation by 1917 because of WW1. Firstly, social grievance was not a new concept within Russia. Social tensions had risen and fallen throughout Romanov rule and specifically during the reign of Tsar Nicholas II. Unwillingness or inabilities for the government to reform had resulted in demonstrations previously, for example, Bloody Sunday. The subsequent reforms following Bloody Sunday, the October Manifesto, were undermined by political decisions made by the Tsar following its introduction. This created discontent within the Russian population as the Duma, underpinning all requests of Bloody Sunday had become redundant. The ineffectiveness of the Duma was a long standing social issue as it added to the unrepresentative nature of government affairs in Russia. This already apparent social grievance was only exacerbated by tensions in WW1 as it was ineffective when it was required. Thus, the political problems in Russia which led to the economic and social problems were long standing. Economic problems within Russia caused vast social implications specifically for peasants and the proletariat. Rising unemployment, rapid inflation and lack of food resulted in families unable to work, buy goods and feed their families. Thus the cumulation of past social grievances, were merely exacerbated by WW1, leading to further economic problems which subsequently lead to social discontent among the masses and a revolutionary situation by 1917.

[izzykose]

And this one as well please .

How did Tsar Nicholas II contribute to a revolutionary situation by 1917?

Firstly, Tsar Nicholas II’s responses of violence to opposition had been relatively successful in repressing the masses, although, by 1917, acts of violence only exacerbated social tensions and lead to a revolutionary situation. A previous act of violent repression during Tsar Nicholas II’s reign was the Bloody Sunday Massacre in January 1905, in which hundreds of protestors were killed while conducting a peaceful demonstration and the presentation of a petition to the Tsar about needed reform. The Tsar responded violently, and relied on military forces to cut down the revolutionary movement and to quell opposition to his regime. Although, the violent response on Bloody Sunday by Tsar Nicholas II, did not quell the revolutionary movement and the number of strikes during 1905 rose above 13,000. This demonstrates a backlash from the Russian population to acts of repressive violence and prior to 1917, military forces and the Okhrana had been relied on to further secure the Tsar’s position. Due to Tsar Nicholas II’s reliance on violent responses to opposition movements, this developed into a revolutionary situation by 1917 as the military was unwilling to carry out the Tsar’s orders, opting to join a demonstrating populace. This identifies the Tsar’s unwillingness to create real reforms to autocracy and address social grievances, instead, in the past, merely relying upon violent repression, which invoked further protest against his actions and social discontent among the Russian populace.

Secondly, Tsar Nicholas II’s unwillingness to reform autocracy in response to social grievances led to political distrust in his leadership and ineffectiveness in dealing with social problems which contributed to the development of a revolutionary situation by 1917. This can be seen in his decision, initially to reform autocracy and address the demand underpinning all of the Bloody Sunday Petition requests, the establishment of a state Duma. Although, Tsar Nicholas II was unwilling to defer from his ideals of pure autocracy, and this caused him to make his October Manifesto redundant. This was done by the Tsar by his introduction of the Fundamental Laws which re asserted the unlimited autocratic power that the Tsar held, and dashed the hope of shared power as described in the October Manifesto. Furthermore, illegal changes to the Electoral laws by Tsar Nicholas II made the third and fourth Duma’s not only ineffective but unrepresentative as it made upper class conservatives more prevalent in the constitution of the Duma’s. This meant, that in the eyes of his people, Tsar Nicholas II had promised reform while he took its possibility for success away, creating political distrust of his government from the Russian populace. Furthermore, Tsar Nicholas II’s inability to reform autocracy caused adverse effects during WW1 as the Duma was could not address social problems which arose, as it was unrepresentative and unable to make reform. Thus one can see how through political distrust and an ineffective Duma, directly caused by Tsar Nicholas II, contributed to the development of a revolutionary situation by 1917 as not only was the government unresponsive to social grievances; it was distrusted allowing the Tsar’s regime to receive the blame of social tensions which arose. 

Thirdly, Tsar Nicholas II’s poor decision making during WW1 resulted in a cumulation of social, political and economic problems due to two major mistakes made. The first mistake of Tsar Nicholas II was to leave Petrograd, for the front, opting to take control of the Russian army. This caused the replacement of Nickolaevich, who was trusted amongst military personnel and allowed Tsar Nicholas II to become a scapegoat for losses and cause distrust in his leadership by his military, essential to repression in his regime. Furthermore this leads to the Tsar’s second mistake, in that he left Petrograd and left Tsarina Alexandra in charge of the government and political affairs, while an ineffective Duma was in operation. The Tsarina was politically ignorant, of German decent and was influenced by the mistrusted Rasputin, as she sought his support on her decisions. This meant that due to the Tsar’s direct decision making he had become a figurehead for the losses of WW1 and left his nation in the hands of his German Wife, who was unable to make effective political decisions. Thus by 1917, an ineffective government and a distrusted Tsar and Tsarina lead to the development of a revolutionary situation as social and economic problems could be blamed on the political decision making of the Tsar and his inabilities to provide significant reform which was exacerbated by poor decision making during WW1.

[Bing 101]

I don't feel I'm in a position to critique them because they're not my revs, but from first glance, aren't they a bit long? Or is this the sort of length required for the exam? :/

[Triazic]

waaayyyy too long. Check the assessment reports from past year's exams. 9 and 10 markers are around the size of one of your paragraphs.