好吧，我承认这是我们学校历史课的Notes，所以对大家应该也是很有用的。
这个是我手打啊手打！我照着老师发的Notes手打的啊，累死了！
所以请多多支持～
例子：
Describe the Kornilov revolt.
Kornilov was the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Kerensky, the Prime Minister publicly accused Kornilov of attempting a coup. The incensed Kornilov therefore organized a military coup against the provisional government under Kerensky popularly known as the Kornilov Revolt. Against such a backdrop, the Bolshevik Red guards were opportunistic and became heroes when they helped the provisional government in crushing Kornilov’s revolt. In reciprocation, Kerensky lifted ban on Bolsheviks’ party. Released their leaders and distributed 400,000 weapons to the Red Guards. Such moves by Kerensky had a great bearing on the Bolsheviks’ dominance in the post-1917 Russian politics. It gave the politically feeble Bolsheviks a crucial breathing space to extend their influence and power in Russia. This gave the Bolsheviks a golden chance to resume planning for revolution, and the weapons strengthened their army and boosted their morale, increasing their probability of success in the revolution. They were seen as heroes after the revolt, and gaining support when demanding the transfer of power to the Soviets. The Bolsheviks became popular because they promised soldiers and civilians land, food and end to war. Also, they promised nationalities the right to self-determination. The exponential increase in Bolsheviks’ winning votes in the subsequent local Duma elections in Moscow reflected the growth in support for the Bolsheviks. Therefore, we can argue that the Kornilov Revolt was vital for Bolsheviks recovery of the Bolsheviks party, without which the October Revolution would not even happen, and laid the groundwork for the success of the revolution.
2. Describe the role of Lenin in the Bolshevik Revolution.
His qualities: The role of Lenin was crucial in the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. Lenin was viewed as a competent and dynamic leader who was able to use his charisma to convince the masses to support Bolsheviks. He was an impressive orator who could touch base with the masses and he knew the plight and needs of the people. The April Thesis: His goals were encapsulated in the renowned April Thesis which would become the official Bolshevik position in Russia. The April Thesis became the guiding principles of Lenin’s organization and provided the ideological groundwork for their eventual success. Lenin came up with famous attractive slogans: With his catchy slogans, such as “Peace, Bread and Land” and “all Power to the Soviets”, Lenin positioned the Bolsheviks as the only party capable of ending the war, carrying out various economic reforms, distributing the landowner’s land to the peasants and saving Russia. These catchy slogans allowed Lenin to reach to the uneducated peasants and workers who constituted a large part of his supporters. In other words, Lenin made the masses more receptive to his ideologies through his propaganda and eventually swayed public opinion. His tactics were highly effective in rallying support for the Bolsheviks as seen from the rapid increase in membership of the party. Hence, his strong, determined leadership and prestige in the party meant he could force through key policy decisions such as April Thesis and the October Revolution. There would probably have been no October Revolution without Lenin.
Lenin’s role in the success of the October Revolution was overrated. Lenin made mistakes, in April, he urged a general policy for seizing power, and some party activities in the capital took him at his words. This nearly brought about full-scale repression against the Bolsheviks. Also, Lenin was seldom in Russia when the events took place. For most of the eight months between the February and October Revolutions Lenin was not in Russia. He returned from Switzerland in early April and was forced to flee to Finland in early July. He came back to Petrograd only in early October. In such a situation, Lenin simply could not have done or coordinated everything. Hence, Lenin’s role in the October Revolution has been exaggerated.
3. Why was the October 1917 Revolution successful?
The October 1917 Revolution was successful because the Weaknesses of the Provisional Government (March – Oct 1917). The Provisional Government lacked legitimacy. From the outset, the Provisional Government was in a anomalous position. It had neither an electoral base nor a legislative assembly to sustain it. Holding power merely in trust and not through an election meant that the Provisional Government had no mandate or right to make lasting changes to the political and socio-economic structure of Russian society. Instead, it rested upon the bureaucracy inherited from the Tsar, the support of the organizations such as War Industry Committees and the army High Command, and the international recognition quickly offered by Russia’s wartime allies. It was therefore seen as part of the old government and not revolutionary enough. It consisted mainly of liberals from the old Duma and was seen as continuity of the old Tsarist regime. In the face of the popularly-based soviet, the Provisional Government seemed particularly isolated in Russian society. The leaders were only unofficial committee of the Duma without real power at its disposal.
The Provisional Government failed to implement land reforms and alleviate the plight of the peasants. The Provisional Government had good intentions of advocating land reforms and alleviates the plight of the masses. Unfortunately, such reforms did not materialize. The peasants’ discontent was directly at government’s grain policy of selling the grain at low prices which led to hoarding by profit-oriented producers. The government failed to redistribute the lands due to the labour shortage arising from manpower in agriculture mobilized by war. The problem of food shortage remained as the war continued, thus exacerbating the plight of the disgruntled peasants. Failure of the Provisional Government to tackle problems was interpreted as gross incompetence and continuity from the tsarist regime, which promptly created mass discontentment and alienation from the Provisional Government.
The Provisional Government continued the war. One fatal mistake by the Provisional Government was her insistence to continue her involvement in World War1. The Provisional Government felt that Russia had to honour her commitments to the Allies and a victory might win them more support. Yet, the war drained Russia’s resources and crucial problems were left unsolved, especially the need for lands reforms. The government’s failure to solve the bread-and-butter issues of the peasants had caused mass disillusionment. As peasants made up 80% of Russia’s population, it badly affected the Provisional Government’s image, thus reducing their political support.
Furthermore, the October 1917 Revolution was successful because the role of Lenin. The role of Lenin was crucial in the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. Lenin was viewed as a competent and dynamic leader who was able to use his charisma to convince the masses to support Bolsheviks. He was an impressive orator who could touch base with the masses and he knew the plight and needs of the people. His goals were encapsulated in the renowned April Thesis which would become the official Bolshevik position in Russia. The April Thesis became the guiding principles of Lenin’s organization and provided the ideological groundwork for their eventual success. With his catchy slogans, such as “Peace, Bread and Land” and “all Power to the Soviets”, Lenin positioned the Bolsheviks as the only party capable of ending the war, carrying out various economic reforms, distributing the landowner’s land to the peasants and saving Russia. These catchy slogans allowed Lenin to reach to the uneducated peasants and workers who constituted a large part of his supporters. In other words, Lenin made the masses more receptive to his ideologies through his propaganda and eventually swayed public opinion. His tactics were highly effective in rallying support for the Bolsheviks as seen from the rapid increase in membership of the party. Hence, his strong, determined leadership and prestige in the party meant he could force through key policy decisions such as April Thesis and the October Revolution. There would probably have been no October Revolution without Lenin.
Return of Trotsky in May 1917 to help Lenin in ensuring success of the October Revolution. Come May 1917, Trotsky returned to Russia from the USA. He played a pivotal role in planning the October Revolution. He used Bolsheviks’ control of the Petrograd Soviets to plan and stage the seizure of Petrograd. The formation of Military Revolutionary Commission of the Petrograd Soviets aided the rise of the Bolsheviks. It was the planning commission for the Bolshevik uprising which involved the posting of its own commission in most of the military units in the capital. It should be noted that this was run by Trotsky and it was the means whereby the mechanics of the seizure of power were worked out and put into effect. This was the organization that Trotsky used to unseat the government. More significantly, Trotsky arranged affairs in such a way that provoked Kerensky to move against the Bolsheviks by ordering the shut down of the Bolsheviks printing press on 5th Nov 1917. When the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government clashed, it appeared as if the Bolsheviks were defending themselves not attacking the government. Hence, one can see that Trotsky was responsible for the execution of the October 1917 Revolution. Trotsky was the ‘brain’ behind the Revolution.
4. Why did the provisional government collapse by October 1917? [7]
Weaknesses of the Provisional Government (March – Oct 1917), The Provisional Government lacked legitimacy. From the outset, the Provisional Government was in a anomalous position. It had neither an electoral base nor a legislative assembly to sustain it. Holding power merely in trust and not through an election meant that the Provisional Government had no mandate or right to make lasting changes to the political and socio-economic structure of Russian society. Instead, it rested upon the bureaucracy inherited from the Tsar, the support of the organizations such as War Industry Committees and the army High Command, and the international recognition (国际认可) quickly offered by Russia’s wartime allies. It was therefore seen as part of the old government and not revolutionary enough. It consisted mainly of liberals from the old Duma and was seen as continuity of the old Tsarist regime. In the face of the popularly-based soviet, the Provisional Government seemed particularly isolated in Russian society. The leaders were only unofficial committee of the Duma without real power at its disposal.
The Provisional Government failed to implement land reforms and alleviate the plight of the peasants. The Provisional Government had good intentions of advocating land reforms and alleviates the plight of the masses. Unfortunately, such reforms did not materialize. The peasants’ discontent was directly at government’s grain policy of selling the grain at low prices which led to hoarding by profit-oriented producers. The government failed to redistribute the lands due to the labour shortage arising from manpower in agriculture mobilized by war. The problem of food shortage remained as the war continued, thus exacerbating the plight of the disgruntled peasants. Failure of the Provisional Government to tackle problems was interpreted as gross incompetence and continuity from the tsarist regime, which promptly(迅速、准时) created mass discontentment and alienation(疏远感) from the Provisional Government.
The Provisional Government continued the war. One fatal mistake by the Provisional Government was her insistence to continue her involvement in World War 1. The Provisional Government felt that Russia had to honour her commitments to the Allies and a victory might win them more support. Yet, the war drained Russia’s resources and crucial problems were left unsolved, especially the need for lands reforms. The government’s failure to solve the bread-and-butter issues of the peasants had caused mass disillusionment. As peasants made up 80% of Russia’s population, it badly affected the Provisional Government’s image, thus reducing their political support.
Disunity within the Provisional Government: Kornilov Revolt.
5. “Lenin played a pivotal role in the success of the Bolshevik Revolution October 1917.” How far do you agree with this view? [8]
Historians generally believe that the role of Lenin was crucial in the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. Lenin was viewed as a competent and dynamic leader who was able to use his charisma to convince the masses to support Bolsheviks. He was an impressive orator who could touch base with the masses and he knew the plight and needs of the people. His goals were encapsulated in the renowned April Thesis which would become the official Bolshevik position in Russia. The April Thesis became the guiding principles of Lenin’s organization and provided the ideological groundwork for their eventual success. With his catchy slogans, such as “Peace, Bread and Land” and “all Power to the Soviets”, Lenin positioned the Bolsheviks as the only party capable of ending the war, carrying out various economic reforms, distributing the landowner’s land to the peasants and saving Russia. These catchy slogans allowed Lenin to reach to the uneducated peasants and workers who constituted a large part of his supporters. In other words, Lenin made the masses more receptive to his ideologies through his propaganda and eventually swayed public opinion. His tactics were highly effective in rallying support for the Bolsheviks as seen from the rapid increase in membership of the party. Hence, his strong, determined leadership was crucial for him to manipulate the political situation to his advantage, thereby contributing to the October Revolution.
Return of Trotsky in May 1917 to help Lenin in ensuring success of the October Revolution. Come May 1917, Trotsky returned to Russia from the USA. He played a pivotal role in planning the October Revolution. He used Bolsheviks’ control of the Petrograd Soviets to plan and stage the seizure of Petrograd. The formation of Military Revolutionary Commission of the Petrograd Soviets aided the rise of the Bolsheviks. It was the planning commission for the Bolshevik uprising which involved the posting of its own commission in most of the military units in the capital. It should be noted that this was run by Trotsky and it was the means whereby the mechanics of the seizure of power were worked out and put into effect. This was the organization that Trotsky used to unseat the government. More significantly, Trotsky arranged affairs in such a way that provoked Kerensky to move against the Bolsheviks by ordering the shut down of the Bolsheviks printing press on 5th Nov 1917. When the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government clashed, it appeared as if the Bolsheviks were defending themselves not attacking the government. Hence, one can see that Trotsky was responsible for the execution of the October 1917 Revolution.
Lenin’s role in the success of the October Revolution was overrated. Lenin made mistakes, in April, he urged a general policy for seizing power, and some party activities in the capital took him at his words. This nearly brought about full-scale repression against the Bolsheviks. Also, Lenin was seldom in Russia when the events took place. For most of the eight months between the February and October Revolutions Lenin was not in Russia. He returned from Switzerland in early April and was forced to flee to Finland in early July. He came back to Petrograd only in early October. In such a situation, Lenin simply could not have done or co-ordinated everything. Lenin’s role in the success of the October Revolution was overrated, substantiated by revisionist views.
6. ‘Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army was the most important reason why the Civil War was won by the Bolsheviks.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain you answer. [8]
To a small extent, I agree with the statement that powerful leadership of Trotsky of the Red Army was the most important reason why the Civil War was won by the Bolsheviks.
The Red Army was created and led by Trotsky. Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army was particularly vital. Come March 1918, Trotsky was appointed as Commissar of War and Chief architect of the army. His appointment of commissars helped instill morale and discipline amongst the troops. He used both encouragement and terror to make soldiers fight. When there were not enough officers, he conscripted Tsarist officers into the army, taking their families’ hostage to make sure they remain loyal. He established fierce discipline, including summary execution for deserters. Those found guilty of unjustifiable retreat together with the deserters were executed. He travelled around by train to meet the troops and spur them to greater efforts. Hence, his leadership was vital for ensuring quality Red Army to score victory in the Civil War.
Weaknesses of the Whites: Lack of geographical advantages. The Whites controlled the peripheral parts of Russia. The Whites forces were scattered around the edges. The Whites had severe difficulties with transport, especially on the Trans-Siberian railway, which was usually clogged up by complex political and military disputes. There were a total of 4 Whites fronts in Southern Russia, Northern Russia, the Baltic region & Western Siberia. Such existence of great distances between them contributed to their lack of unity, thus posing communication difficulties. The separation of two main fronts of Denikin & Kolchak by 10,500 miles implied that it was impossible to meet anywhere to join forces against the Reds. Any advance into the heart land of Soviet power created a problem of long supply lines and communication difficulties.
Had no unity of political aims: Had no single binding ideology or an overall programme. In fact, they represented the entire range of the political spectrum, ranging from left-wing parties like the Mansheviks and Social Revolutionaries to right-wing conservatives. Agreement on an alternative regime was out of the question since the various possibilities were mutually exclusive. It was inconceivable that the advocates of a socialist republic could find common ground with those who wanted the return of Tsarist autocracy. Even the Allies, whose interventionist forces were intended to assist the Allies could not agree on the motives for their involvement.
8. Describe War Communism. [5]
All industries were nationalized and military discipline was applied to the factories. The latter had the power to confiscate, reorganized & run all industry & plan Russia’s future economic expansion. Nationalization of land saw the return to one-man management as power was robbed from the factory organization. Middle class managers, accountants and engineers were brought back to run the factories, most of which had been placed under workers’ control in the months after the revolution, usually with disastrous results. Population was subjected to various forms of compulsory labour, peasants were conscripted to clear roads, railways. Suppression of independent workers’ organizations: Workers therefore had no way of defending their rights as riots were forbidden. Anyone who defied Bolshevik orders was subjected to hard labour. Trade Unions were turned into government-controlled organizations. Food and grain were seized from peasants by Red Guards in order to feed the workers and the troops. From 1918 onwards, Peasants forced to surrender food to the government. This means that food brigades went around countryside to collect food to distribute to the towns. Rationing was introduced with the biggest portion to the Red Army and the smallest to the Capitalists and landlords. Priority was given to the army.
4. Describe the political grievances faced the Tsar in the early twentieth century. [5]
Russia suffered an unprecedented humiliating defeat by an Asian power in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5. This further lowered the international prestige of the Tsar. This war revealed the military weakness and inefficiencies of the Tsarist regime. The Liberals were disillusioned with Nicholas’s half-hearted efforts in introducing democratization reforms. The Dumas had a short span and four Dumas were dissolved between 1906 and 1914, thus demonstrating the Tsar’s lack of sincerity to introduce a parliamentary government. The First World War (1914-1918) led to widespread disillusionment within the Russian army, thereby reducing their support for the Tsar. This was due to lack of sufficient military ammunition, poor leadership, the number of blunders make by military generals.
5. Describe the Bloody Sunday 1905. [5]
The real starting point of the revolution was the events of 9th January 1905, which has come to be known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. It was a mass demonstration in St Petersburg. The marchers were led by Father Gapon and intended to march to the Tsar’s Winter Palace. A large crowd led by a priest, Father Gapon, charismatic Orthodox priest and bearing icons and pictures of the tsar marched on the Winter Palace in St Petersburg to present a petition to the tsar. The petition attacked the exploitation of the people by capitalist factory owners and unfeeling bureaucrats and demanded a series of measures designed to improve their position and reverse some of the wrongs under which they suffered. The crowd was attacked by soldiers and mounted Cossacks. Official figures show about 100 were killed others place it as high as 200. There were many injured. Public outrage plunged Russia into full-scale revolt.
6. The Tsar was able to survive the 1905 revolution because of Weak Opposition. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [8]
To a large extent I agree with this statement.
Weaknesses of the opposition groups: Disunity among the opposition groups. Nicholas benefited from the inherent disunity of the opposition. There was no clear capable leadership of the opposition to coordinate the revolutionary activities. 1905 revolution revealed limited aims and conservative nature of the revolution. Masses only wanted to solve their bread-and-butter issue. Limited influence of the Bolsheviks and liberals was evident.
Loyalty of the army ensured support for the Tsar. The army took harsh measures against the strikers and managed to restore order in the villages. They were on the side of the Tsar.
Continued mass respect and support for the Tsar: The mass protests were just outrage and there was continued respect for the Tsar. A large crowd led by a priest, Father Gapon, charismatic Orthodox priest and bearing icons and pictures of the tsar marched on the Winter Palace in St Petersburg to present a petition to the tsar. Nicholas II presumed that the masses wanted concessions, not revolutionary changes. They merely desired their socio-economic grievances to be addressed.
Introduction of constitutional reforms to appease the liberals: October Manifesto. Sergei Witte’s persuasion of the Tsar to grant political & constitutional concessions to the people manifested in the October Manifesto (17th Oct 1905). This entailed giving basic civil liberty to people and sharing of law making power. It marked an end of autocratic rule. For the first time, Tsar has to share the law making power with the people. 1906 saw the government publication of “The Fundamental Laws” and the First Duma convened in May 1906.
He had only issued the October Manifesto to save the monarchy. Once the crisis passed, his inclination was to try to whittle down the reforms which had been promised. Even before the first Duma met he had introduced the Fundamental Laws of April 1906 which declared that ‘Supreme Autocratic Power belongs to the Emperor’ and that he possesses the initiative in all legislative matters…no law can come to pass without his approval.
Hence, the Tsar was able to survive the 1905 revolution because of Weak Opposition.
7. Why was the 1905 Revolution a failure? [8]
Continued loyalty of the army: The end of the war with Japan released troops who remained loyal to the Tsar. They dealt with disturbances and ruthlessly put down rebellions in the countryside, thereby restoring order in the villages. The army was clearly on the side of the Tsar.
Continued mass respect and support for the Tsar: The mass protests were just outrage and there was continued respect for the Tsar. A large crowd led by a priest, Father Gapon, charismatic Orthodox priest and bearing icons and pictures of the tsar marched on the Winter Palace in St Petersburg to present a petition to the tsar. The Tsar was still regarded as the agent of the change and the masses wanted concessions and not revolutionary changes. They merely desired their socio-economic grievances to be addressed. Hence, such gestures demonstrated continued loyalty of the army and mass support for the Tsar ensured his survival in the 1905 Revolution.
Weaknesses or disunity of the opposition groups: Nicholas benefited from the inherent disunity of the opposition. There was no clear capable leadership of the opposition to coordinate the revolutionary activities. 1905 revolution revealed limited aims and conservative nature of the revolution. Masses only wanted to solve their bread-and-butter issue. Limited influence of the Bolsheviks and liberals was evident. Hence, such disunity of the opposition groups meant that they could pose a threat to the tsarist rule and this led to the failure of the 1905 Revolution.
Introduction of constitutional reforms to appease the liberals: October Manifesto. Sergei Witte’s persuasion of the Tsar to grant political & constitutional concessions to the people manifested in the October Manifesto (17th Oct 1905). Such a move demonstrated the Tsar’s intention of giving basic civil liberty to people and sharing of law making power, which the middle classes wanted. For the first time, Tsar has to share the law making power with the people. 1906 saw the government publication of “The Fundamental Laws” and the First Duma convened in May 1906. It also offered freedom of speech and the right to form political parties. Such political concessions inevitably pleased the revolutionaries who had no reason to rebel against the Tsar, thus leading to the failure of the 1905 Revolution.
8. Describe the Stolypin’s reforms. [5]
Peter Stolypin, prime minister from 1906 to 1911, made determined efforts to win over the peasants believing that given twenty years of peace there would be no question of revolution. Wanted to establish the wealthy peasants with enough money to be a consumer class & to provide enough grain for export.
Agriculture: Allowed peasants to own individual lands. The key to Stolypin’s agrarian policy was his relief that the surest basis for the regime was the support of a prosperous and contended peasantry. To achieve this without damaging the interests of the landlords he sought primarily to free the peasants from the communes created by the 1861 emancipation. Agrarian reform act of 1906 allowed peasants the right withdraw himself and his land from the commune. A further law dissolved all those communes where no redistribution of land had taken place since the emancipation. The peasants were released from their obligations from the communes, and individual ownership would be an incentive for the people to work, thereby reducing discontentment. Allowed peasants to concentrate their lands and plots, rather than in strikes.
Encouraged resettlement: 1/2 million Russians moved to the east.
Industrialisation: Under him, industrial growth increased. Output of iron & coal increased: Railways lines went up.
9. Describe Stolypin’s repressive measures to eliminate opposition. [5]
Use of Okhrana, increasing criticism and demands, exiled groups, Siberian camps well used underground critics etc. Ban on political parties & trade unions. 600 political parties and trade unions were shut down or outlawed in 1911. Death Penalty introduced for dissidents. Use of terror became rampant against the opposition. Jails in St Petersburg were full of political prisoners. Right up to 1914 police retained special powers and could under exceptional measures interfere extensively with political liberties. Rural areas- Stolypin ordered more than two and a half thousand peasants ring leaders to their deaths after filed courts materials. Striking workers were shot. Political liberties were absent, and the Tsarist regime remained as despotic as ever with no real political change after 1905. Hence, the prospect of progressive liberty remained bleak, thus challenging the claim that Russia was evolving towards a system of Parliamentary Democracy by 1914. 1911 Stolypin was assassinated. The period between 1911 and 1914 saw the Russian monarchy in chaos.
10. Describe how Stolypin’s attempted to deal with Russia’s problems. [5]
To reduce terrorism and revolutionary activity he had thousands of revolutionaries executed, exiled or imprisoned. He introduced Russification where national groups such as Poles were forced to speak Russian and accept Russian customs. In the countryside he abolished the peasants’ annual payment for their freedom. He helped peasants to buy land and set up farms. This restored loyalty to the Tsar. In the cities he introduced health insurances schemes.
11. Describe the reactions of the Russians to World War 1. [5]
Wave of enthusiasm and patriotism from populace and most political groups: The outbreak of war led to a surge of patriotism in Russia which in turn resulted in the suspension of populace unrest. Significantly, traditional loyalties to Tsar came forefront as the populace rallied behind its government to defend their motherland in support of the war effort. Most of the political groups such as the Liberals and the Duma supported entry into war.
Bolsheviks’ objections to war: Social Democrats such as Lenin did not take the pro-war stance. Lenin believed that the war was an imperialist one and the Russian defeat would lead to civil war and revolution. However, the Bolsheviks had been gaining support as labour grew, and this support was to be reinforced by the Bolshevik position on the war when the popular mood changed in 1916.
Impact of war on Russia: the initial surge of patriotic enthusiasm created by the war could have helped ensure the survival of the tsar rule. However, the war did not go well, thus exerting pressure on the various groups in Russian society.
12. Why did the March Revolution 1917 take place? [7]
Mass riots and strikes due to socio-economic discontent. The initiation of the revolution came from the workers whose patience with the deprivations of war was near exhaustion as 1917 opened. 23 March 1917 saw thousands of female textile-workers and housewives taking to the streets of Petrograd, the Russian capital, to protest about the bread shortage and to mark International Women’s Day. The following day, more than 200,000 workers were on strike and by 25 March, students and the member of middle classes had joined in the protest, proclaiming ‘Down with the War’ and ‘Down with the Tsarist Government’. Industrial workers and peasants had been radicalised by the war. On 26 February, the tsar ordered the soldiers from the garrison to fire on the crowds, killing hundreds.
The changing attitude of the army: The next morning, the Volynskii regiment mutinied, its example quickly followed by the other units. Even the dreaded Cossack regiments refused to obey their officers. This act of defiance on the part of the army apparently showed no supported for the tsar, a gesture which contrasted to the 1905 revolution where the tsar still had the loyalty of the soldiers.
Actions of the liberal opposition: The liberals of the Progressive Bloc had developed resentment against the Tsar due to his dissolution of the Duma in September 1915. The aftermath saw the Liberals’s adoption of an uncompromising attitude towards the government. By January 1917, some leading members had even prepared provisional plans to force Nicholas’s abdication in favour of his son.
The abdication of the tsar in March 1917 signaled the end of the Russian monarchy under the Romanov Dynasty. Such abdication was warmed accepted by the people.
(The revolution was successful because the people had lost faith in the Tsar. His credentials undermined by taking up the position of commander-in-chief of the Russian forces. Nicholas II was often viewed as the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, a man who failed to deal with complex crisis. He made a huge mistake by taking up the position of commander-in-chief of the Russian forces in mid-1915, which meant that responsibility for the army’s performance was attributed directly to the tsar. Displayed few military skills and surrounded by officers with similar limitations, Nicholas II was thus responsible for humiliating defeats, projecting an image of incompetence and undermining his credentials in the long run.)
13. “The Tsarist autocracy collapsed because of the First World War.” How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [8]
To a large extent, I agree with the view that “The Tsarist autocracy collapsed because of the First World War”.
The First World War led to wide spread disillusionment within the Russian army, thereby destroying Tsarist rule in Russia. The war exposed the inherent weaknesses of the Russian military. Russia entered the war unprepared as the Russian military was criticized for the lack of sufficient military ammunition. They were told to take rifles and other equipment from the dead on the battlefield. Poor leadership was yet another military weakness. Historians often emphasise the number of blunders made by military generals like the confusion over the strategies to be used against Germany, thus leading to huge numbers of causalities. Low morale set in and this caused a fall in the military support for the Tsar.
His credentials undermined by taking up the position of commander-in-chief of the Russian forces. Nicholas II was often viewed as the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, a man who failed to deal with complex crisis. He made a huge mistake by taking up the position of commander-in-chief of the Russian forces in mid-1915, which meant that responsibility for the army’s performance was attributed directly to the tsar. Displayed few military skills and surrounded by officers with similar limitations, Nicholas II was thus responsible for humiliating defeats, projecting an image of incompetence and undermining his credentials in the long run.
(Other factors) However, this was not the First World War that destroyed Tsarist rule in Russia but also the changing attitude of the army towards Tsar. 26 February 1917 saw the tsar’s order of the soldiers from the garrison to fire on the crowds, killing hundreds. The Volynskii regiment mutinied the next morning and its example quickly followed by the other units. Even the dreaded Cossack regiments refused to obey their officers. This act of defiance on the part of the army apparently showed no supported for the tsar, a gesture which contrasted to the 1905 revolution where the tsar still had the loyalty of the soldiers. Without the military support, the Tsar would not be able to enforce law and order, leading to the subsequent failure in maintaining his mandate to rule in Russia.
WW1 was the most important factor contributing to the collapse of the Tsarist rule. Russia was already on the decline since the end of the 19th century but WW1 served as a crucial trigger to accelerate the degeneration(加速恶化) and collapse of Tsarist rule. The War had destabilized the regime, exacerbated domestic difficulties and highlighted unprecedented structural problems in Russia, thereby reducing the mass support and leading to the ultimate collapse of the Tsarist rule.
14. How far was it the First World War that destroyed Tsarist rule in Russia? Explain your answer. [8]
To a large extent, I agree with the view that “the First World War that destroyed Tsarist rule in Russia”.
The First World War led to wide spread disillusionment within the Russian army, thereby destroying Tsarist rule in Russia. The war exposed the inherent weaknesses of the Russian military. Russia entered the war unprepared as the Russian military was criticized for the lack of sufficient military ammunition. They were told to take rifles and other equipment from the dead on the battlefield. Poor leadership was yet another military weakness. Historians often emphasise the number of blunders made by military generals like the confusion over the strategies to be used against Germany, thus leading to huge numbers of causalities. Low morale set in and this caused a fall in the military support for the Tsar.
His credentials undermined by taking up the position of commander-in-chief of the Russian forces. Nicholas II was often viewed as the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, a man who failed to deal with complex crisis. He made a huge mistake by taking up the position of commander-in-chief of the Russian forces in mid-1915, which meant that responsibility for the army’s performance was attributed directly to the tsar. Displayed few military skills and surrounded by officers with similar limitations, Nicholas II was thus responsible for humiliating defeats, projecting an image of incompetence and undermining his credentials in the long run.
(Other factors) However, this was not the First World War that destroyed Tsarist rule in Russia but also the changing attitude of the army towards Tsar. 26 February 1917 saw the tsar’s order of the soldiers from the garrison to fire on the crowds, killing hundreds. The Volynskii regiment mutinied the next morning and its example quickly followed by the other units. Even the dreaded Cossack regiments refused to obey their officers. This act of defiance on the part of the army apparently showed no supported for the tsar, a gesture which contrasted to the 1905 revolution where the tsar still had the loyalty of the soldiers. Without the military support, the Tsar would not be able to enforce law and order, leading to the subsequent failure in maintaining his mandate to rule in Russia.
WW1 was the most important factor contributing to the collapse of the Tsarist rule. Russia was already on the decline since the end of the 19th century but WW1 served as a crucial trigger to accelerate the degeneration(加速恶化) and collapse of Tsarist rule. The War had destabilized the regime, exacerbated domestic difficulties and highlighted unprecedented structural problems in Russia, thereby reducing the mass support and leading to the ultimate collapse of the Tsarist rule.
15. ‘The March 1917 revolution was successful because of the actions of the army. ’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [8]
To a small extent, I agree with the view that ‘The March 1917 revolution was successful because of the actions of the army. ’
[ 此帖被左。微希在2011-08-28 02:09重新编辑 ]
