CAMBRIDGE AS HISTORY: RUSSIAN REVOLUTION MODULE. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. ULTRA REVISION. Questions and answers from the book.

1. CAMBRIDGEASHISTORY
ULTRAREVISION
THERUSSIANREVOLUTION
19051917
QUESTIONSANDANSWERS

2. QUESTION1PAG167
How far do you agree that Nicholas II missed the opportunity to make
his government more secure after the 1905 Revolution?

3. QUESTION1PAG167
It could be argued that Nicholas II should have learned the lessons of the
1905 Revolution. It should have raised his awareness of the problems the
Russian people faced (e.g. poor harvests and economic recession) as well
as alerting him to potential political problems arising from nationalist
unrest and the demand for political rights.
The October Manifesto seemed to deal with some of these problems
(e.g. allowing free speech and the establishment of an elected assembly)
– and indeed only the more radical elements of society, such as the
Bolsheviks, felt the changes did not go far enough. However, the
Fundamental Laws overturned the promises of the October Manifesto so
the 1905 Revolution had no real long-term effect. (see pages 138–47)

4. QUESTION2PAG167
How far did the reforms of Witte and Stolypin strengthen the tsarist regime?

5. QUESTION2PAG167
Witte began the process of developing Russia’s industry and transport.
However, this was based on foreign loans, which led to increased taxation
and a decline in living standards for most people. Moreover, Witte’s
modernisation policies were not popular with the nobility.
Although Witte’s reforms did not threaten Nicholas II’s position directly,
they did not do anything to provide greater security. (see pages 142–3)
Stolypin encouraged agricultural and industrial developments, which could
have provided Russia with increased wealth and greater political stability.
Removing the power of the mirs enabled some peasants to develop
improved farming methods and become a wealthy class of peasants
(kulaks), although this caused resentment to others. In growing industrial
towns, poor living and working conditions led to the rise of a proletariat
with increased social, economic and political demands – none of which the
tsar was prepared to meet. (see pages 148–9)

6. QUESTION3PAG167
Why was the First World War an important cause of the downfall of
Nicholas II in February 1917?

7. QUESTION3PAG135
Initially, most Russian people supported the country’s involvement in
the First World War. Large sums of money had been invested in the
Russian army since its defeat by Japan, and it was three times larger
than the German army. Expectations were therefore high. However, the
army was poorly led and relied on outdated methods. As Russian
defeats rose, so opposition to the war grew.
Nicholas’s decision to take personal charge of the army at the front had
two effects – firstly, he was directly associated with Russian defeats.
Secondly, it left Russia under the control of the unpopular tsarina, and
the government disintegrated. Inflation raised prices, leading to strikes
and riots. (see pages 152–7)

8. QUESTION4PAG167
Why did Lenin’s Bolsheviks replace Kerensky’s Provisional Government
in October 1917?

9. QUESTION4PAG167
Russia was internally unstable and the Provisional Government lacked
the strength to restore order. Unable to balance the conflicting
demands of reformers and radicals, and determined to pursue Russia’s
involvement in the war, the government became increasingly weak.
Lenin quickly realised the potential of the soviets in providing a viable
alternative government. His slogans and oratory appealed to wide
sections of the Russian population, while he had instilled order and
discipline into his Bolshevik supporters.
The Kornilov Affair portrayed the Bolsheviks as leading the resistance of
the workers and soviets against the government, while it also
undermined the government’s ability to control the army. Lenin
promised the kind of reform that the Provisional Government had been
unable or unwilling to provide. (see pages 158–66)