Volume 9, Number 4, April 2014
Revision
Tsarist Russia, 1855–1917: AS
Unit 1 (pp. 18–19)
Andy Woodward
You can use this material alongside the AQA exam focus in this issue of 20TH CENTURY HISTORY
REVIEW (pp. 18–19) to help you revise this topic. The question that appeared on p. 18 focused on
1917 and the last section of Unit 1. Here, I consider questions concerning the earlier period.
What should you be trying to achieve?
(a) 12-mark question mark scheme
L4: Answers will be well-focused, identifying a range of specific explanations, backed by precise
evidence and demonstrating good understanding of the connections and links between events/issues.
Answers will, for the most part, be well-written and organised.
For a 12-mark question (for which there are only four levels), a student should attempt to identify at
least three separate factors in response to the question asked (‘a range’), developing each with
‘explanation’, and utilising specific knowledge (‘precise evidence’) in support. A conclusion will only be
brief, emphasising any links between the factors above.
(b) 24-mark question mark scheme
L5: Answers will be well-focused and closely argued. The arguments will be supported by precisely
selected evidence leading to a relevant conclusion/judgement, incorporating well-developed
understanding of historical interpretations and debate. Answers will, for the most part, be carefully
organised and fluently written, using appropriate vocabulary.
For a 24-mark question, a student must take a two-sided approach. They must show the ‘debate’
between competing historical interpretations, and will reach a meaningful conclusion (‘a relevant
judgement’). The answer must be ‘well-focused’ upon the question asked throughout. A logical
approach would be to start with an introduction defining the question, give two developed points on
each side of the argument and then a conclusion.
Planning questions
Question 1
(a)
Explain why there was disappointment at the reforms of Alexander II (12 marks)
General advice
It is legitimate to answer this type of question by addressing the shortcomings of a different specific
reform in each paragraph (e.g. education reforms, military reforms, emancipation of the serfs) but this
Philip Allan Updates © 2014
1
is not a sophisticated approach. It is unlikely to gain top marks as it lacks the ‘connections’ and ‘links’
that can identify patterns across a number of reforms, using a range of evidence in support. This is
what the plan below will attempt.
Plan
1
There was disappointment at the reforms BECAUSE…they continued to favour the
nobles and existing elites over the masses.
o
Autocracy relied upon noble support, thus they were consulted and considered in
each change:

The votes of nobles/wealthy retained greater weight in electing members to
the Zemstva

The emancipation reforms allowed landlords to first take ‘cut-offs’ of land, and
to claim an extra two years of service before the edict took effect.
2
There was disappointment at the reforms BECAUSE…Alexander II then retreated from
some aspects of his reforms.
o
3
The combination of the 1863 assassination attempt and the Polish revolt saw
Alexander look to rein in his reforms after the early part of his reign:

A degree of censorship was re-introduced from 1866, granting the courts the
right to confiscate publications.

Alexander turned increasingly to repression – in his treatment of minority
national groups within Russia and in introducing the Okhrana and military
governors to target opposition groups.
There was disappointment at the reforms BECAUSE…they didn’t go far enough.
o
Liberals remained disappointed at the lack of an elected national assembly
o
Agriculture remained backwards and Mir control of peasants meant little innovation or
movement to the cities.
Conclusion
Brief – identifying links above.
(b)
‘Tsarism proved very effective in resisting pressure for change between 1855 and
1905’. To what extent do you agree with this statement? (24 marks)
General advice
Although it is reasonably detailed, the following does not include all content that might be used in
support of the arguments raised. For top marks, these points should be supplemented with detailed
factual evidence. It is good to show specific evidence – especially regarding dates, industrial statistics
etc.
Plan
Introduction
Pressure for change from Western liberals, industrialists and from revolutionary socialist groups.
However, autocracy was retained and democracy resisted, despite a measure of change.
Philip Allan Updates © 2014
2
Arguments for
1
Effective in resisting pressure for change BECAUSE…the political system remained
essentially unchanged.
o
Despite changes, on advice of reactionary advisors, Alexander II maintained autocracy and
resisted calls for a Parliament, allowing only unevenly elected local government
o
Alexander III determined to reinstate rigid autocracy and had personality to do so
o
Nicholas II tried to emulate father, despite lack of natural toughness or decisiveness. Called
national Zemstva a ‘senseless dream’
Effective in resisting pressure for change BECAUSE…opposition was effectively opposed.
2
o
o
Populism was generally unsuccessful.

Land & Liberty made little headway and was shut down in a series of trials

People’s Will was closed down after the Tsar’s assassination in 1881 and
there was little response from peasantry.
Alexander III effectively closed down opposition

Attempted revival of People’s Will unsuccessful, Land Captains over Zemstva
and Marxists obscure and in exile.
Arguments against
1
NOT very effective in resisting pressure for change BECAUSE…significant social and
cultural developments occurred
o
A number of huge changes took place in this era:

Urbanisation during the ‘Great Spurt’ of the 1890s meant an influx of workers
into crowded barrack housing. This radically changed the peasant character
of many Russians and the accompanying modernisation perhaps made
change inevitable.

The temporary lightening of censorship meant a ‘golden age’ in literature and
debate, with the likes of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky writing great works
2
NOT very effective in resisting pressure for change BECAUSE…significant opposition
groups were able to flourish, and would soon achieve change.
o
Populists came to the fore under Alexander II, gaining publicity through the trials of Land &
Liberty and destabilising the government through a number of assassinations by People’s Will,
most notably of the Tsar himself in 1881.
o
Under Nicholas II, Marxist groups gained support among exploited urban workers. Liberals
developed through universities and Zemstva, to a point where they would secure the promise
of a National Assembly against the Tsar’s will in October 1905.
Conclusion
Now reach a judgement as to which side of the argument is stronger and why. Try to say something
interesting!
Philip Allan Updates © 2014
3
Question 2
(a)
Explain why the Tsarist regime encouraged industrial progress in late nineteenth
century Russia. (12 marks)
Plan
They encouraged progress BECAUSE…of the need for improved military performance.
1
o
Much of the impetus for reform came from defeat in the Crimean War:

This need was further enhanced by the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78

Resources, advanced weaponry and military transport all required industrial
infrastructure. Perhaps explains conservative Alexander III endorsing such
change in 1890s – desire for Great Power status
They encouraged progress BECAUSE…of the commitment of key individuals.
2
o
Bunge and Vyshnegradsky saw need for industrial progress but mostly attributed to Witte after
1892

Witte a railway enthusiast – Trans-Siberian Railway his key project

Willing to invite foreign investment and expertise in order to hurry progress.
3
They encouraged progress BECAUSE…of the problems of over-population in the
countryside.
o
Over half of countryside not producing enough to ensure feeding themselves and family.
o
Doubling of Russian population in latter half of 19th Century. Land strips reducing in size
o
Capacity to absorb excess population in cities.
Conclusion
(b) How effective was the tsarist regime in developing Russia’s economy during the years 1881
to 1914? (24 marks)
Plan
Introduction
Set out initial economic backwardness in 1881. Establish argument: surface progress (gigantism,
scope of industrial growth) vs lack of real progress (failure to match productivity/effectiveness of
Western rivals in WW1)
Arguments for
1
Regime WAS effective because…of the rapid and unprecedented industrial growth.
o
Philip Allan Updates © 2014
The period, prompted mainly by the ‘Great Spurt’ of the 1890s, saw:

production of key resources (oil, coal etc.) triple – second greatest oil
producer in world by 1914

population double in key cities

more rapid growth than any Western rival

railway track length had doubled by 1914
4
o
Donbas/Baku became major industrial producers whilst factory complexes such as the
Putilov Works were among the world’s largest
2
Regime WAS effective because…agricultural development finally occurred under
Stolypin.
o
Agriculture had been neglected for any years – little significant investment before
1905 Revolution. This changed from 1906:

Tax burden eased and Kulak initiative encouraged – able to develop farms
away from the village and Mir

Peasant Land Banks encouraged investment in agriculture

Huge change – peaking in 1908. Led to more effective food production and
export.
Arguments against
1
Regime was NOT effective because…relative to other developed nations, Russia was still
‘backwards’.
o
2
Numerous criteria for this:

Technology was decades behind the West.

Population still often illiterate and largely peasant.

Grain still the primary export

Railway and industrial production still dwarfed by USA and behind lesser
rivals

Russian farmer far less productive than British equivalent
Regime was NOT effective because…wars showed Russia’s inadequacy.
o
War against Japan proved a shocking wake-up call, as would World War One

Japan triumphant at Tsushima, Mukden, Port Arthur. Transport networks and
naval technology shown to be gravely inadequate when compared to an
emerging nation (written off as ‘yellow monkeys’ by Russian prejudice)

World War One quickly saw soldiers reduced to sharing rifles, without
ammunition – key defeats in 1914. Unable to match Germans in any arena.
Conclusion
Now reach a judgement as to which side of the argument is stronger and why. Try to say something
interesting!
Philip Allan Updates © 2014
5