Year
12
AS
Revision.
Exam
questions
and
reports
2014/15
Russia 1855-1917
Russia possible essay questions:
Collapse Reform and reaction, 1855–1881

Why did Alexander II order the emancipation of the serfs in 1861? (12 marks)
o
Crimean War defeat
o
His own beliefs
o
Political considerations
o

Why did defeat in the Crimean War lead to reform under Alexander II? (12 marks)
o
Inadequate army training suggested Russia was not an “elite state”
o
Social unrest caused by the defeat
o
Pressure from intellectuals
o

Explain why Alexander II introduced further reforms following the Emancipation Edict of 1861. (12
marks)
o
Unequal social standings
o
Disappointment of UC (Aristocracy) and WC (peasants) at the Emancipation edict
o
Protest and riots in major cities
o

Explain why Alexander II slowed the pace of reform from the mid-1860s. (12 marks)
o
Assassination attempt in 1866
o
Influence from political members
o
Lack of support for the Tsar publicised in the press/spread by students
o

Why did Populism fail in Russia in the 1870s? (12 marks)
o
Lack of unity between groups – Land and Liberty > Black Partition/People’s Will
o
Violence of People’s Will was unpopular
o
Loyalty of the serfs to the Tsar
o

Explain why the Liberals were dissatisfied by Tsarist autocracy in 1881. (12 marks)
o
No power in the Zemstva
o
Power and control of the Russian Orthodox Church
o
Unwillingness of the Tsar to listen, highlighted by the backlash post 1866
o
o

How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in strengthening the Tsarist regime in the years 1855 to
1881? (24 marks)
o
Military – reduced serfs conscription
o
Judicial – fairer trials, power to nobility to appease after Emancipation
o
Emancipation – freed serfs, but upset serfs and nobility, needed further reform
o
Education – improved literacy, female participation, university, increased opposition
o

How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming opposition in the years 1863 to 1894? (24 marks)
o
Zemstva reforms to appease nobility
o
Loyalty of serfs to the Tsar
o
Lack of unity between opposition groups
o
Assassination of Alexander II
o

How far had Alexander II fulfilled the hopes of reformers in Russia by the time of his death in 1881? (24
marks)
o
Serfs emancipated and given freedoms, but limited
o
Military reforms satisfied those wanting more modern army
o
Zemstva introduced, giving political voice, but powers limited and not national
o
Several reforms reversed after 1863/1866. Backlash in 1870s
o
Collapse Political reaction: social and economic change, 1881–1904

Explain why, between 1894 and 1905, Russian liberals were dissatisfied with the tsarist regime. (12
marks)
o
Alexander III’s aggressive actions towards People’s Will and other opposition groups
o
Still a lack of a political voice
o
Incompetence of the Tsar’s rule
o

Why did Witte promote industrialisation in Russia? (12 marks)
o
Financial problems in Russia
o
Lack of skilled/technical workers
o
Insufficient manpower in the towns and cities
o

How far was Russia an industrialised state by 1914? (24 marks)
o
Oil, iron, coal production – use statistics
o
National revenue and trade increases
o
Social impact
o
Comparison with other European nations
o

How far did the growth of internal opposition threaten the Tsarist regime in the years 1881 to 1904? (24
marks)
o
Famine in 1891 brought peasant issues back to the fore. 1901 formation of SR’s
o
Marxist ideas popular through 1890s. Lenin published “what is to be done?”
o
Harsh treatment of People’s Will set tone under Alexander III
o
Land Captains kept control over Zemstva
o
Collapse Russia in Revolution, 1904–1906

Why did the Tsar summon a Duma to meet in 1906? (12 marks)
o
Social unrest/strikes in major cities
o
October Manifesto promised a Duma
o
Demands of liberal aristocracy wanting to support the Tsar’s rule
o

Explain why, in 1905, revolution broke out in Russia. (12 marks)
o
Russo-Japanese War failure
o
Bloody Sunday
o
Social unrest at the unwillingness of the Tsar to listen to demands of the people
o

Explain why the Russian Social Democratic Party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903. (12
marks)
o
Mensheviks wanted bourgeois (UC) revolution first, Bolsheviks believe bourgeois and proletariat
WC) could happen simultaneously
o
Bolsheviks favoured revolutionary tactics, rather than power through democracy
o
Bolsheviks wanted to restrict membership to the party
o

Explain why Nicholas II issued the Fundamental Laws in 1906. (12 marks)
o
Maintain Tsarist control after political concessions of October Manifesto in 1905
o
Political situation was more stable and army supportive
o
Many liberals were horrified with events of 1905 and wouldn’t oppose them
o

How successful was Nicholas II in overcoming opposition to his regime in the years 1905 to 1914? (24
marks)
o
Nicholas had support of the army to crush rebellions
o
Stolypin a strong leader, suppressing opposition and reforming agriculture
o
First 2 Dumas shut down as opposed the Tsar
o
Increase in strike activity after 1912, highlighting work dissatisfaction
o
Collapse: The Tsarist Regime, 1906–1914

Explain why Nicholas II dissolved the first two Russian Dumas in 1906 and 1907. (12 marks)
o
Tsar was unwilling to work with the Dumas due to his belief in autocracy
o
Surprised by radical demands – male suffrage
o
2nd Duma refused to pass Stolypin’s demands
o

Explain why, in the years 1906 to 1911, Stolypin attempted to reform agriculture. (12 marks)
o
Peasant uprisings in 1905 were alarming to regime
o
Little encouragement of development of Kulak class, which might stop revolution
o
Primitive and inefficient farming techniques
o

How far did Nicholas II, in the years 1906 to 1914, fulfil the promises he made in the October Manifesto
of 1905? (24 marks)
o
State Duma was a move to representative government
o
Stolypin gave opportunity to improve situation
o
Manipulation of franchise and limited power of Duma (1907)
o
Still poor and limited civic freedoms
o

How successful was the Tsarist regime/Stolypin’s policies in bringing about the economic
modernisation/political stability of Russia by 1914? (24 marks)
o
Duma
o
Stolypin
o
Tsar’s role
o
o
 How important was political opposition to Nicholas II between 1914 and the February/March 1914
Revolution in bringing down the Tsarist government? (24 marks)
o
Political opposition
o
Military problems
o
Tsar’s actions
o
Social/industrial/agricultural unrest
o
Collapse: The First World War and the Revolutions of 1917
 Explain why the Petrograd Soviet was established in 1917. (12 marks)
o Established in response to rioting in Petrograd
o Set up to ensure people had voting rights
o Soviet was to allow control of people by revolutionaries
o
 Explain why the Provisional Government kept Russia in the First World War after February / March
1917. (12 marks)
o Still harboured hopes of victory that would help pay to repair damage
o Provisional government were only temporary and didn’t make major decisions
o Kerensky and other leaders were conservative and felt a moral duty to continue
o
 Explain why the Bolsheviks had little support in Russia in 1914. (12 marks)
o Tsarist regime fairly strong and WWI brought out conservative patriotism
o Russia was still mainly agricultural rather than industrial society
o Elite movement and did not generate mass support
o
 Explain why Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in February/March 1917. (12 marks)
o Long term unrest regarding Dumas
o Actions of Tsar which had disappointed Russia
o Disillusionment regarding defeats in the War
o
 Explain why Lenin returned to Russia/issued the April thesis from exile in April 1917. (12 marks)
o Lenin believed war might enable Bolsheviks to gain support and seize power
o Outline policy to gain popular support
o Allow Lenin to show himself as a key figure and leader
o
 How far was popular dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in
October/November 1917? (24 marks)
o
Popular dissatisfaction
o
Failure to satisfy peasants
o
Participation in WWI
o
Role of Lenin
o
Weakness of leadership
Russia past essay questions:
June 2014

Explain why Alexander II created the zemstva in 1864. [12 marks]

How successful was Alexander II in maintaining Tsarist control over Russia in the years 1855 to 1881?
[24 marks]
Explain why the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRs) was formed in Russia. [12 marks]



How important were the radical revolutionary parties (SRs and SDs) in the revolution of 1905? [24
marks]
Explain why Rasputin was murdered in December 1916. [12 marks]

How far was the February / March Revolution of 1917 due to Nicholas II’s own weaknesses? [24 marks]
January 2013

Why did Alexander II order the emancipation of the serfs in 1861? (12 marks)

How successful was Alexander II in overcoming opposition to his regime? (24 marks)

Explain why Nicholas II dissolved the first two Russian Dumas in 1906 and 1907. (12 marks)

How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing about the economic modernisation of Russia by 1914?
(24 marks)

Explain why the Petrograd Soviet was established in 1917. (12 marks)

How far was the collapse of the Provisional Government in October/November 1917 to its failure to
satisfy the demands of the peasants?
June 2012

Explain why Alexander II introduced further reforms following the Emancipation Edict of 1861. (12
marks)

How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in strengthening the Tsarist regime in the years 1855 to
1881? (24 marks)

Explain why Nicholas II issued the Fundamental Laws in 1906. (12 marks)

How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing political stability to Russia in the years 1906 to 1914?
(24 marks)

Explain why the Provisional Government kept Russia in the First World War after February / March
1917. (12 marks)

How important was the role of Lenin in bringing about the overthrow of the Provisional Government in
October / November 1917? (24 marks)
January 2012

Why did Populism fail in Russia in the 1870s? (12 marks)

How far did the growth of internal opposition threaten the Tsarist regime in the years 1881 to 1904? (24
marks)

Explain why, in 1905, revolution broke out in Russia. (12 marks)

How successful were Stolypin’s policies in restoring stability in Russia in the years 1906 to 1914? (24
marks)

Explain why the Bolsheviks had little support in Russia in 1914. (12 marks)

How important were military problems in explaining the Tsar’s decision to abdicate in February/March
1917? (24 marks)
June 2011

Explain why Russia’s serfs were emancipated in 1861. (12 marks)

How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in transforming Russian society by 1881? (24 marks)

Explain why, between 1894 and 1905, Russian liberals were dissatisfied with the tsarist regime. (12
marks)

How far did Nicholas II, in the years 1906 to 1914, fulfil the promises he made in the October Manifesto
of 1905? (24 marks)

Explain why Lenin returned to Russia from exile in April 1917. (12 marks)

How far was the Provisional Government’s continued involvement in the First World War responsible
for its collapse in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
January 2011

Explain why Alexander II slowed the pace of reform from the mid-1860s. (12 marks)

How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming opposition in the years 1863 to 1894? (24 marks)

Explain why, in the years 1906 to 1911, Stolypin attempted to reform agriculture. (12 marks)

How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming the economic backwardness of Russia in the years
1881 to 1914? (24 marks)

Explain why Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in February/March 1917. (12 marks)

How far was popular dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in
October/November 1917? (24 marks)
June 2010

Why did defeat in the Crimean War lead to reform under Alexander II? (12 marks)

How far had Alexander II fulfilled the hopes of reformers in Russia by the time of his death in 1881? (24
marks)

Explain why the Russian Social Democratic Party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903. (12
marks)

How successful was Nicholas II in overcoming opposition to his regime in the years 1905 to 1914? (24
marks)

Explain why Lenin issued the April Theses in April 1917. (12 marks)

How far was weak leadership of the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in
October/November 1917? (24 marks)
January 2010

Explain why the Liberals were dissatisfied by Tsarist autocracy in 1881. (12 marks)

How important was political opposition to Nicholas II between 1914 and the February/March 1914
Revolution in bringing down the Tsarist government? (24 marks)

Why did the Tsar summon a Duma to meet in 1906? (12 marks)

How successful was Stolypin in strengthening the Tsarist regime? (24 marks)

Why did Witte promote industrialisation in Russia? (12 marks)

How far was Russia an industrialised state by 1914? (24 marks)
January 2013

Why did Alexander II order the emancipation of the serfs in 1861? (12 marks)
This question elicited a good number of responses, many of which were full and carefully written to show both
the pressures leading Alexander to emancipate the serfs and the problems which the measure was designed to
address. The less successful responses offered a 'list' of factors which, although relevant, made no link between
the general point and the likely effects of emancipation. For example, many wrote of the 'need to catch up with
the West', without saying how emancipation might bring this about or of 'Russia's humiliating defeat in the
Crimean War', without pointing out how emancipation might make a difference to future military ventures.

How successful was Alexander II in overcoming opposition to his regime? (24 marks)
Whilst most students were quite knowledgeable about Alexander II's policies, not all were familiar with the main
strands of opposition from liberals/intellectuals, populists/socialists and Marxist thinkers. Consequently, some
students associated 'opposition' with those disappointed by the limitations of Alexander's reforms. This meant
that some described the peasants as 'opponents' because they were disappointed by the Emancipation edict,
when clearly it was their underlying loyalty to the regime that undermined Lavrov's attempt to 'go to the
people'. Responses that were able to write about repression versus reform as a way of controlling opposition
were more successful and most students were aware of the Tsar's assassination, although a variety of political
organisations were accredited with responsibility.

Explain why Nicholas II dissolved the first two Russian Dumas in 1906 and 1907. (12 marks)
Knowledge of the first two Dumas was variable. The best were able to provide some quite precise detail on the
causes of disagreement between the Tsar and his ministers on the one hand and the deputies on the other.
However, others fell back to commenting more generally about the Dumas’ 'radical' proposals which were
bound to clash with a Tsar determined to preserve his autocracy. Obviously the better the examples the more
highly rewarded the response and those who simply described the events of 1905 in an attempt to compensate
for lack of knowledge of the Dumas scored badly

How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing about the economic modernisation of Russia by 1914?
(24 marks)
Material on Vyshnegradsky and Witte was generally well known but, unfortunately, some students presented
this as though it provided the whole picture of Russia's economic development to 1914. Stolypin's agrarian
reforms were sometimes ignored and even when they featured, not every student produced an overall
summary of the position 'by 1914'. The best answers were the more thematic ones that examined, for example,
the economic modernisation of industry, transport, finances and agriculture by 1914 and provided balance by
considering the strengths and weaknesses of each (sometimes drawing on evidence of Russia's performance in
the first months of war to illustrate the limitations of economic modernisation).

Explain why the Petrograd Soviet was established in 1917. (12 marks)
Most students offered contextual and more specific reasons for the setting up of the Soviet, usually with respect
to whom it aimed to represent and what it hoped to achieve. The best answers provided precise and accurate
information about, for example, the circumstances of the Tsar's abdication and the grievances of workers,
soldiers, SRs and Mensheviks. Others were less secure on the detail and fell back on generalisation, while a very
few confused the establishment of the Soviet with the Bolshevik takeover.

How far was the collapse of the Provisional Government in October/November 1917 due to its failure to
satisfy the demands of the peasants? (24 marks)
Although there were some very good responses to this question, answers were often disappointing for one of
two reasons. Some students virtually ignored the 'demands of the peasants' which, as the focus of the question
should have been given some weight. (A number spoke about the peasant's 'dislike' of the PG and the PG's
decision to continue the war as though they were two quite separate issues). The other cause of lost marks was
the tendency to ignore the 'collapse' in October/November 1917 and write far more generally about the PG's
mistakes and, sometimes, although less frequently, Bolsheviks' strengths.
June 2012

Explain why Alexander II introduced further reforms following the Emancipation Edict of 1861. (12
marks)
Although there were many good answers to this question, some ignored its specific wording, which invited
students to consider why ‘further’ reforms were passed after the Emancipation Edict. Although answers which
considered the broad reasons behind Alexander’s reforming impulses received some credit, the highest marks
went to those who saw the connection between Emancipation and the need for further reform.

How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in strengthening the Tsarist regime in the years 1855 to
1881? (24 marks)
Most students were able to offer some comment on the success, or otherwise, of Alexander II’s reforms, but
rather fewer were able to link those comments to the strength of the Tsarist regime. To answer this question
well, students needed to be familiar with the workings of autocracy in Russia and to appreciate that some of the
more positive reforms from a modern perspective, actually weakened the autocratic regime – the creation of
the Zemstva being a prime example.

Explain why Nicholas II issued the Fundamental Laws in 1906. (12 marks)
Whilst many students knew what the Fundamental Laws were, some wrote about the October Manifesto and
some spent too long providing description of the 1905 revolution. Even those that focused on the laws were apt
to write descriptively, often listing the detail of the laws or describing them in practice after 1906, rather than
considering the reasons behind them. The best answers explained the immediate reason for their issue, with
reference to both the Tsar and the opposition forces and the context in which they were deemed necessary.
Some also looked at the specific powers which the Tsar wished to confirm and clarify through their terms.

How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing political stability to Russia in the years 1906 to 1914?
(24 marks)
As with question 02, the majority of students had no difficulty in writing about the successes and failures of the
Tsarist regime, 1906–1914, in general terms, but rather fewer focused on successes ‘in bringing political
stability’. Although a good number talked about stability, they included economic and social, as well as political
stability and therefore digressed into irrelevance in parts of their answers.

Explain why the Provisional Government kept Russia in the First World War after February / March
1917. (12 marks)
The greater number of answers included some comment about the Provisional Government’s desire to continue
to victory, to raise morale and to show that earlier sacrifices had not been in vain. Many also mentioned the
temporary nature of that government and its inability to make long term decisions, whilst the best answers
linked the government’s need for British and French money to the precarious position of the government and
showed how these combined to keep Russia in the war. Surprisingly few noted that the government had very
little choice.

How important was the role of Lenin in bringing about the overthrow of the Provisional Government in
October / November 1917? (24 marks)
Knowledge of the main developments of 1917 was generally adequate or better and the majority could balance
Lenin’s message in the April Theses against the Provisional government’s weaknesses and consequent lack of
support. Answers varied, however, in the degree of attention they gave to October/November 1917 and Lenin’s
involvement after April 1917 was too often ignored
January 2012

Why did Populism fail in Russia in the 1870s? (12 marks)
Most students who attempted this question had a reasonable idea as to what Populism was but they varied in
the degree to which they were able to provide reasons for its failure. Sometimes reasons, such as the hostility of
the peasantry to populist teaching, were lost in over-descriptive accounts and references to Tsarist oppression
could be woolly and generalist. However, there were some excellent attempts to consider exactly what it was
about Populism that failed to reach the peasants and some made much of the power of the Orthodox Church in
explaining the peasants' negative attitude

How far did the growth of internal opposition threaten the Tsarist regime in the years 1881 to 1904? (24
marks)
Although there were some good answers, there was also an all-too-frequent misreading of this question on the
part of otherwise quite well-informed students. The question did not ask for an explanation of the growth of
internal opposition, although that is what many students wrote about. Its focus was instead on the degree to
which internal opposition posed a threat to the tsarist regime. Consequently, the best answers were those that
got to grips with the idea of 'threat' and weighed up the extent, intent and success of the various opposition
groups and movements. Those who differentiated between opposition groups produced some strong answers.
Such saw the 'terrorist' groups which were to form the SRs and SDs as threats in theory but of limited
consequence in practice, thanks to the autocratic Tsarist regime with its machinery of spies and repression.
However, they were aware that liberal opposition – as seen in the Zemstva and town Dumas – while less
obviously threatening was slowly chipping away at Tsarist authority and winning over those who might in the
past have helped to prop up the autocracy. Dates caused a problem for some. A number of answers looked at
developments pre-1881 and rather more went beyond 1904.

Explain why, in 1905, revolution broke out in Russia. (12 marks)
This was a very popular question and, for the most part, students were well able to identify a number of factors
leading to the outbreak of revolution in 1905. There was some slight divergence as to when the actual
'outbreak' was. Most saw Father Gapon's march as the 'trigger', but others tried to include the events of 1905 as
contributors to the revolution in government which, in their view, actually occurred in 1906. Such answers were
marked on their merits. Perhaps the greatest problem for students was knowing where to start in explaining
causes. Some went back to the Crimean War and reigns of Alexander II and Alexander III, listing everything that
was wrong with Tsardom. Such answers usually became excessively long and ran into the danger of never
explaining why the revolution occurred in 1905 and not sooner. Better answers focused on evens such as the
Russo-Japanese War and Bloody Sunday, together with a summary of the broader 'underlying' problems –
politically (perhaps referring to Nicholas II's own weaknesses as ruler) and socially, such as the conditions in
which the industrial working class of St Petersburg lived and worked. It was surprising how few were able to
comment on the links between such factors, however, and students may need reminding that an appreciation of
how different factors work together is essential for high marks.

How successful were Stolypin’s policies in restoring stability in Russia in the years 1906 to 1914? (24
marks)
Many students showed a good grasp of Stolypin's policies and were aware of their strengths and limitations.
However, rather fewer were able to step back from 'success' to consider 'stability', which is what the question
asked about. Those that managed to focus on stability saw developments from a slightly different perspective,
noting that Stolypin's agrarian reforms might be considered to have undermined stability by creating a new
kulak class and causing resentment among the dispossessed peasants, for example. Similarly Stolypin's 'necktie'
and his management of the Dumas, whilst generally condemned, were put forward as beneficial to the interests
of stability. Obviously, students could adopt whatever arguments they wished, but the degree to which they
considered stability – together with their knowledge of not only Stolypin's agrarian concerns but also his
political role – determined the level and mark they received.

Explain why the Bolsheviks had little support in Russia in 1914. (12 marks)
This question challenged students to look at the Bolsheviks from a slightly unusual perspective. Many rose to
that challenge and commented effectively on the nature of Bolshevism and the effectiveness of repression –
most particularly the exile of leaders such as Lenin. The best answers also seized upon the year – 1914 – to point
to the rise in patriotism and tsarist loyalty that occurred with the outbreak of war. As in 01 and 03, there needed
to be links between the various factors for the highest marks and connections between the anti-democratic and
internationalist nature of Bolshevism, which placed it at a disadvantage during the era of the Dumas and the
swell of support for war were mentioned by some of the best students. Others saw links between the limited
state of Russian industrial development in 1914 and the Bolshevik reliance on the proletariat, which suggested
the movement was a lost cause.

How important were military problems in explaining the Tsar’s decision to abdicate in February/March
1917? (24 marks)
Most students were able to put forward a range of general reasons as to why the Tsardom came to an end (or,
perhaps 'deserved to come to an end' – which was not quite what the question asked about). However, as in 03,
a number tried to explain the demise of Tsardom by describing the inadequacies of the system in general and/or
the mistakes of Alexander II and Alexander III. For the most part, those that focused on the period from 1914 to
February/March 1917 provided the most convincing answers, while those that ignored the actual circumstances
of the abdication could only give partial incomplete explanations. Another issue for weaker students was an
inability to distinguish between 'military problems' and other factors. Some regarded anything to do with the
war (including the economic conditions in Petrograd and the 'rule' of Alexandra and Rasputin) as 'military
problems' when this is clearly not the case. Others ignored 'military problems' altogether and wrote in a
generalist way, whilst those who tried to address problems at the front, struggled to get beyond Nicholas
becoming Commander-in-Chief (although not everyone knew when), a shortage of weapons and the problem of
desertions. The best answers were the more precise responses which not only balanced military problems
against other 'themed' factors, such as economic, social and political, but were also able to produce some
precise evidence to back the views in their answers. Finally, it must be pointed out that a few students
erroneously believed that Lenin and the Bolsheviks provoked the abdication.
June 2011

Explain why Russia’s serfs were emancipated in 1861. (12 marks)
Answers to Question 1 01, on the reasons why the serfs were emancipated, were mostly good. Many candidates
produced answers that were substantial, well-informed and well directed, covering an extensive range of factors
and showing good understanding of the context of 1855–1861. There was a tendency, however, for the relevant
factors to be listed at length, without sufficient attempt at differentiation or evaluation. Superior answers were
often marked by depth of comment about the Tsar Liberator’s deeper motives in protecting the autocracy. Less
successful answers tended to spend too much time on background issues before 1855, or strayed into irrelevant
material about the consequences and impact of the Emancipation edict after it had been passed.

How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in transforming Russian society by 1881? (24 marks)
In Question 1 02, on the extent to which Russia had been transformed by 1881 as a result of Alexander II’s
reforms, many answers were based on solid knowledge of the reforms. Many good quality answers showed a
solid understanding of the ‘twin-track’ policies followed by Alexander, alternating between periods of
liberalisation and reform and periods of retrenchment and return to repression. The majority of answers
attempted to make balanced assessments of the varying degrees of success and failure of the reforms. It should
be noted, however, that the key word ‘transformed’ needed to be addressed directly. The best answers focused
on the situation of Tsarist Russia in the last years of the reign, especially 1878–1881, and discussed the overall
extent of change since the beginning of Alexander II’s drive for reform.

Explain why, between 1894 and 1905, Russian liberals were dissatisfied with the tsarist regime. (12
marks)
The response to Question 2 03, on the reasons why Russian Liberals criticised the Tsarist regime in the years
1894 to 1905, was very disappointing. All too many answers relied almost exclusively on material relating to
Alexander III – or on developments that took place from 1906, such as the Fundamental Law. Only a minority of
answers showed any knowledge or understanding of liberal ideas. There was a tendency to lump together
uncritical statements about any and all forms of opposition, including the Bolsheviks. The contrast between the
level of answers to this question and those to Question 1 01 was stark.

How far did Nicholas II, in the years 1906 to 1914, fulfil the promises he made in the October Manifesto
of 1905? (24 marks)
Answers to Question 2 04, on the extent to which Nicholas II fulfilled his promises between 1905 and 1914,
were of mixed quality. A number of candidates produced direct and convincing evidence about the four Dumas
and about the policies of Stolypin, leading to balanced assessments of the positive and/or negative outcomes of
Nicholas II’s rule by 1914. Many answers, however, began with a reasonable account of the October Manifesto
and the constitutional developments in 1905 and 1906 but could offer nothing beyond the end of the second
Duma. The developments from 1906 to 1914 as the Tsarist regime attempted to restore stability after the 1905
revolution are vitally important and should be better known.

Explain why Lenin returned to Russia from exile in April 1917. (12 marks)
Answers to Question 3 05, on the reasons for Lenin’s return to Russia in 1917, differed widely in quality. Many
candidates wrote crisply and effectively about key factors such as the role of Germany in assisting Lenin’s
return, and Lenin’s desire to assert his authority over the Bolsheviks. These impressive answers based on
confident knowledge and understanding of the issues contrasted sharply with the many other answers that
were disappointingly vague and uncertain. A significant number of candidates barely attempted an answer,
offering no more than a brief plan. Many candidates revealed a weak grasp of basic chronology, suggesting that
Lenin ‘wanted to overthrow the Tsar’, or including events that took place well after Lenin’s return, such as the
July Days.

How far was the Provisional Government’s continued involvement in the First World War responsible
for its collapse in October/November 1917? (24 marks)
In Question 3 06, on the downfall of the Provisional Government in the October Revolution, many successful
answers provided analytical evidence about the increasing strain of the war and the difficult problems faced by
Kerensky’s regime. Such answers were able to assess the relative importance of the continuation of the war
compared with a range of other relevant factors. A substantial number of weaker responses revealed a shaky
grasp of chronology, often describing the impact of the war in the most generalized terms and including
irrelevant references to the events of 1914–1916 and the reasons for the fall of the Tsar.
January 2011

Explain why Alexander II slowed the pace of reform from the mid-1860s. (12 marks)
Question 01 posed some difficulties for a good proportion of the candidates, who did not read the question
properly or understand what it actually asked. They were asked to explain reasons why Tsar Alexander II slowed
the pace of reform in the mid-1860s, but many submitted irrelevant material about why he launched a
programme of reforms in the first place. In some cases, these were extended answers and factually correct, yet
they did not pertain at all to the question and could not be credited. It is clear that these candidates had
prepared an answer for the question they thought would appear, and had not attempted to adjust their ideas to
fit the question posed. This ability to deal with the demands of a new and unseen question is central to the
assessment of History at AS and candidates should be advised strongly to read the question carefully and quickly
identify the reasons they will explain. Many candidates were able to identify and explain a range of reasons and
scored within levels three and four.

How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming opposition in the years 1863 to 1894? (24 marks)
Question 02 attracted a range of answers, many of which were impressive in their depth and deployment of
knowledge. Good candidates were able to make an assessment of the regime’s level of success in dealing with
opposition and could comment on the different approaches of reform and repression adopted by these two
Tsars. Most candidates knew about a range of opposition groups and some could explain their difficulties in
stirring popular support. Too many candidates described the opposition groups, often at some length, without
enough reference to the focus of the question and these candidates scored low marks within the mark scheme.

Explain why, in the years 1906 to 1911, Stolypin attempted to reform agriculture. (12 marks)
Question 03 posed no particular difficulties and candidates wrote confidently about Stolypin’s reasons for
introducing these reforms. Some of the more able candidates wrote about a range of political, social and
economic motives and were able to link well the themes of delivering economic progress alongside political
stability. These answers were credited highly. Many candidates could develop and explain only a limited number
of reasons and candidates should be reminded of the need for range: as a rule of thumb, examiners are looking
for at least three separate themes in the answer, each one explained well.

How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming the economic backwardness of Russia in the years
1881 to 1914? (24 marks)
Question 04 distinguished well between the candidates. The best answers addressed the whole period, often in
a chronological way but with an analytical focus. Typically, they assessed the level of success in the 1880s and
1890s, went on to acknowledge the recession of the early 1900s, and then delivered an assessment of economic
policy between 1906 and 1914. Answers like these scored highly within the mark scheme because they had
balance and range across the period alongside some focused assessment of what the question asked. Other
answers were less effective. Many candidates were eager to demonstrate their knowledge of economic policy in
the 1880s and 90s and had clearly revised and memorised their material diligently. However, in many cases
candidates did not extend their answers beyond the 1905 revolution, so lacked the balance to score well on a
question asking for assessment of the period to 1914. Others wrote a narrative account of the period with little
reference to the question itself and candidates should be reminded to refer frequently to the words in the
question, in order to ensure they address it with some assessment and evaluation not just description.

Explain why Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in February/March 1917. (12 marks)
Question 05 attracted some very good answers. Candidates were comfortable with the focus and could identify
and explain a range of reasons. Many good answers made links between various factors, showing a developed
understanding of how military issues became political. Other effective answers analysed the relative importance
of factors, developing for example the central issue of the Tsar’s loss of support and credibility.

How far was popular dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in
October/November 1917? (24 marks)
Question 06 was also done well and almost all candidates coped with the concept of popular dissatisfaction as a
cause of revolution. Most answers were balanced and provided some assessment of the various causes, and
many did so in good detail. Here, there was a good link between factual depth and focused analysis: the
candidates who had revised well performed well, and that might be a reflection of their familiarity with
evaluative questions on this topic. The ability to weigh reasons and to assess why some are more important
than others is central to the AS mark scheme and many candidates did just that. Answers could only be
rewarded highly when they focused sufficiently on popular dissatisfaction, even if only to dismiss it as a
significant cause. Some candidates demonstrated a good understanding of historiography on this issue and,
when used appropriately, references to the views of particular historians can enhance an argument.
June 2010

Why did defeat in the Crimean War lead to reform under Alexander II? (12 marks)
Most candidates answered this question very well, by explaining a range of factors. Most were able to explain
the reasons for reform by referring to a range of military, economic and social factors highlighted by defeat in
the Crimean War. Some tied in other factors like Alexander II’s upbringing by indicating convincingly that this
context made him sensitive to the issues highlighted by defeat. Successful answers made material relevant to
this question, but a few of the weakest candidates simply did not use the question carefully enough. They
focused on reasons for reform tangential to defeat in the Crimean War and made no attempt to link them to it.
For example, they described the evils of serfdom without explaining how abolishing it might prevent future
defeats. These answers could only be credited at lower levels. However, the best answers not only explained
reasons clearly but also made good links between them to secure the highest levels.

How far had Alexander II fulfilled the hopes of reformers in Russia by the time of his death in 1881? (24
marks)
This was a very popular question and the topic of the extent and nature of reform has appeared repeatedly on
past papers. Consequently, candidates were able to offer a good range of relevant material and took several
different but equally valid approaches to the question. Some focused on the limitations of the reforms
themselves, examining in depth the extent to which they solved problems and thereby met the hopes of
reformers. Others focused more on the reformers themselves and what they were hoping for, arguing that their
demands were unrealistic in the context of Alexander II’s reforms. Some distinguished well between groups of
reformers and radicals in a focused argument. Any of these approaches was valid. The best answers repeatedly
addressed the question: how far were the hopes of reformers fulfilled? In this way, they kept their material
focused and their argument tight, offering the analysis and judgement needed for the highest levels. Weaker
candidates were not so disciplined and sometimes struggled to marshal their material into a structured answer.
These weak answers became descriptive or unfocused which was a shame, because in some cases candidates
had clearly worked hard to memorise a lot of information.

Explain why the Russian Social Democratic Party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903. (12
marks)
This question really divided candidates into those who knew the answer and those who did not. This lack of
knowledge from some candidates was surprising, in that the Social Democrats are mentioned specifically on the
specification. Many candidates were able to explain clearly reasons like differences over membership,
leadership of the revolution, timing of the revolution, cooperation with reformers or differences in personality
between key figures like Lenin and Martov. Others explained the context, in which the formation of new groups
was not uncommon. Some offered an impressive depth of knowledge on Marxist philosophy, which was
certainly not essential even for the highest levels. In general, candidates should be advised that if they cannot
answer the twelve mark sub-question, they should not attempt the question at all because a minority of
candidates did actually write nothing.

How successful was Nicholas II in overcoming opposition to his regime in the years 1905 to 1914? (24
marks)
Again, this topic has featured repeatedly on past papers and is central to the specification so candidates were
generally familiar with the material and key issues. Strong answers included a good range of relevant material
on overcoming opposition, such as political reform, economic change and the use of repression. The best
answers also addressed they whole nine year period and made some assessment of the level of success across
it, distinguishing between the turmoil of 1905, the apparent calm from around 1908 and the increase in
agitation around 1912. Some answers, though, were less successful. Some weaker candidates focused
exclusively on one area such as the Dumas and became confused about the events, offering a narrow narrative
with errors. Others focused only on the 1905 Revolution and then made bald and sweeping assertions about the
success of Nicholas II without offering evidence. A few offered irrelevant materials beyond 1914 and these
tended to be those who had performed badly or written nothing for Question 03.

Explain why Lenin issued the April Theses in April 1917. (12 marks)
Most candidates understood the question and were able to offer some reasons, but in some cases the range of
reasons was quite narrow or lacked development. Weaker answers tended to describe the context of April 1917
without successfully linking it to Lenin issuing the April Theses. Better answers focused more specifically on the
Bolsheviks and Lenin’s leadership.

How far was weak leadership of the Provisional Government responsible for its overthrow in
October/November 1917? (24 marks)
The overthrow of the Provisional Government in October/ November 1917 is a favourite topic for candidates
and most answers were knowledgeable and well argued. Most candidates were able to explain various
interpretations of why the Provisional Government was overthrown, drawing attention to its weakness, the
problems it faced and the growing strengths of the Bolsheviks. Many answers were very good indeed, with
convincing argument throughout and frequent weighing of the relative importance of the issues. However,
some weaker candidates wrote too generally, without focus on this question. The weakest answers only
addressed the key issue of weak leadership in the conclusion, if at all. Some tried to make assertions about
Kerensky’s personality with no clear evidence and it was certainly not necessary to offer character profiles of
Kerensky or Lvov, although some candidates did do that. Stronger candidates were able to make a convincing
case for weak leadership, tying in issues like competition with the Soviet or the delays in introducing substantial
reform.
January 2010

Why did Alexander II order the emancipation of the serfs in 1861? (12 marks)
This question was answered well by many candidates. Weaker answers sometimes showed lack of knowledge,
or wrote about the process of industrialisation or its impact rather than Witte’s motives in promoting it. Many
candidates knew enough about the motives to be securely in Level 3, commenting on facts such as the desire to
strengthen the Russian economy and defence capability, the desire to ‘catch up with the West’, and the desire
to make Russia less dependent on agriculture. There were several answers which achieved Level 4 by effectively
linking the motives or showing good historical perspective.

How successful was Alexander II in overcoming opposition to his regime? (24 marks)
Answers to the question were very variable in quality. Several candidates did not read the question carefully
enough, writing too much about the pre-Witte period. There were relatively few answers which focused
effectively on the situation in 1914. Consequently relatively few candidates got into the highest two levels.
There were too many answers which indulged in unsupported assertions. There was an obsession with the
Trans-Siberian railway, whose contribution to the overall Russian economy was grossly overestimated.

Explain why Nicholas II dissolved the first two Russian Dumas in 1906 and 1907. (12 marks)
Many answers to this question simply failed to get off the ground, since although liberals are specifically
mentioned in the specification, large numbers of candidates did not know who liberals were or what they stood
for. Often they were ignored or confused with groups like Populists and Marxists. Therefore, even lengthy
answers were often about opposition to the regime generally. There were a minority of candidates who did
know what Liberal concerns were, and wrote knowledgeably about the desire for constitutional reform and civil
rights, and related this well to attitudes towards Alexander II’s reforms and towards his successor Alexander III.
Candidates are still prone to make simplistic assertions, believing that Alexander III reversed all reforms,
including the abolition of serfdom, or believe that Alexander II was a closet democrat.

How successful was the Tsarist regime in bringing about the economic modernisation of Russia by 1914?
(24 marks)
This question was often answered poorly. The wording of the question did allow candidates, if they wished, to
discuss various factors which led to the fall of the tsarist regime. However, to access the higher levels it was also
necessary to specifically analyse the role of political opposition. Many candidates appeared to simply ignore the
question, and wrote about the impact of the War on the economy and the army, and wrote at length about
Alexandra and Rasputin. Some candidates wasted too much time by writing about pre-1914 events such as the
1905 revolution, or even worse, confused this with the 1917 revolution. Several candidates confused the two
revolutions of 1917. Key aspects of the political opposition were usually ignored, such as the activities of the
Zemstvo, the Duma and the Progressive Bloc. Where candidates did write about political opposition, there were
often assertions about the role of groups such as the Bolsheviks (sometimes confused with SRs), with no real
evaluation of their significance. Although there were good answers to this question, showing balance and
informed evaluation, they were few and far between.

Explain why the Petrograd Soviet was established in 1917. (12 marks)
This question produced a range of responses, but was often answered well. Candidates often understood the
concern of the regime to quell discontent and divide the opposition, appealing in particular to those ‘moderates’
who wanted to focus on civil rights and constitutional reform. Weaker answers tended to explain the
background of the 1905 Revolution, which was of course legitimate, but disadvantaged themselves by devoting
their whole answer to a narrative of that Revolution. A few candidates also went off at a tangent, ignoring
Nicholas II’s motives and writing a description of the Dumas, often going well beyond 1906.

How far was the collapse of the Provisional Government in October/November 1917 due to its failure to
satisfy the demands of the peasants? (24 marks)
This question was overall answered better than the other part (b) questions. Answers were often
knowledgeable and well argued. Most candidates wrote balanced accounts of Stolypin’s contribution, although
answers are sometimes marred by mechanical references to ‘schools of thought’ such as structuralism,
‘optimistic’ and ‘pessimistic’ views and so on, terms which have to be used with care and sophistication or else
add nothing to the answer, particularly if not supported by convincing evidence. There were many good answers
which focused on key areas such as Stolypin’s repression and his agricultural reform, although his key role in
managing and manipulating the Duma was often ignored or played down. It was pleasing that most candidates
did attempt to evaluate Stolypin’s overall contribution, albeit with varying degrees of conviction.