How far could the historian make use of Sources 1 and 2 together to investigate the political tensions
that existed in Russia in 1906?
By 1906, Russia’s political situation was becoming increasingly unstable, as support for the Tsarist
regime dwindles. Political tensions arose due to Russia’s humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese
war, the shocking events of Bloody Sunday and the subsequent 1905 revolution. Alternative methods
of government were beginning to attract the attention of the Russian people, including the
increasingly popular concept of socialism. All of these factors contributed to the increasing political
tensions within Russia at the beginning of the Twentieth century. In this essay, I will evaluate whether
sources 1 and 2 are useful for investigating the political tensions that existed in Russia in 1906. The
two sources in hand are very different in the form of who’s writing them and the standpoint by which
the writer is writing them holds, one from a US Ambassador and one by Nicholas’ sister, Xenia.
The first source makes it useful for a historian trying to investigate the political tensions that existed
due to the accurate comparison made between the Duma and the peasants. It is in the form of a
somewhat analytical source, drawing comparisons between the ‘braided clothes’ of the nobility which
makes up the Duma and the ‘rough clothes’ of the peasants. This illustrates the political context of
what happens to prove that source 1 is a useful source in this respect. Source 1 is written by a foreign
US ambassador; therefore, there would be no reason for him to criticize the Tsar openly and
consequently, it can be seen that this source would be useful in terms of investigating the political
tensions that existed. The writer is also a diplomat, meaning he is an expert in reading people and
their emotions, drawing more use to the source in terms of the political tensions that existed. The
source was written a month after the First Duma met, and this to many was the signs of a new era for
Russia, so this again proves that source one can be trusted in terms of its usefulness. The political
tensions are demonstrated in the source through its comparative of the different social classes and
how they dressed. Due to their very different upbringing’s as children, the political tensions and the
disagreement among the people would inevitably be present. The fact that they had very divided
views on Nicholas himself is clearly in response to his speech. There is an indication of an outdated
doomed relic of ‘autocracy [/] bureaucracy’ within the state council, and a slight suggestion that the
Duma may prevail him within the contrast seen in their reactions to the Tsar. The division shown by
the source is described in the form of the people ‘giving an awkward nod’ to ‘his Majesty’. This
provides us with evidence that there was a significant amount of unpopular opinions to do with the
Tsar, which can be reflected as a microcosm to the rest of the country. However, the source can be
seen as not useful because many of the people’s opinions at the time of the source being written was
not because of what was happening at the time. Still, because of the disappointment, many of the
countries got following the 1905 revolution and the October manifesto. The nobles and the middle
class didn’t get much more power, as the Tsar still had ruling power over the political parties and the
Duma. Whilst the Peasants were unhappy with how little development there was with their land
reforms. Therefore, the discontent and division shown in the source don’t necessarily prove the source
to be useful as they were still unhappy with Nicholas’ actions the year before. The first Duma bought
the political parties such as the right-wing Octobrists and the middle-class centralists of the Kadet
Party. The Octobrists wanted further reform from the October Manifesto whilst the Kadets just
wanted more of a say in the government. The writer infers that the first Duma is not going to last a
long time. Many were unhappy within the first Duma, mainly to do with the significant division
which was present at the time. The writer leads us on the Vyborg Manifesto which was signed on the
22nd of July 1906, which dissolves the first Duma as any sort of political institution. Nicholas, from
this point on, never speaks again. In all source one is useful as it does reflect the division between the
politics of the country which reflects the rest of the country.
Source 2 is from a diary written by Nicholas II’s sister Xenia. It is used as a description in the opinion
of Nicholas and his family to describe the current political status within the country. It makes a
comparison between the Duma with ‘repulsive faces’ and Nicholas with a ‘loud, steady voice’. The
diary created by Xenia is useful because she will have seen Nicholas through times of darkness and
struggle whilst also the times of good. It is also helpful because of how Xenia saw the assassination of
that existed in Russia in 1906?
By 1906, Russia’s political situation was becoming increasingly unstable, as support for the Tsarist
regime dwindles. Political tensions arose due to Russia’s humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese
war, the shocking events of Bloody Sunday and the subsequent 1905 revolution. Alternative methods
of government were beginning to attract the attention of the Russian people, including the
increasingly popular concept of socialism. All of these factors contributed to the increasing political
tensions within Russia at the beginning of the Twentieth century. In this essay, I will evaluate whether
sources 1 and 2 are useful for investigating the political tensions that existed in Russia in 1906. The
two sources in hand are very different in the form of who’s writing them and the standpoint by which
the writer is writing them holds, one from a US Ambassador and one by Nicholas’ sister, Xenia.
The first source makes it useful for a historian trying to investigate the political tensions that existed
due to the accurate comparison made between the Duma and the peasants. It is in the form of a
somewhat analytical source, drawing comparisons between the ‘braided clothes’ of the nobility which
makes up the Duma and the ‘rough clothes’ of the peasants. This illustrates the political context of
what happens to prove that source 1 is a useful source in this respect. Source 1 is written by a foreign
US ambassador; therefore, there would be no reason for him to criticize the Tsar openly and
consequently, it can be seen that this source would be useful in terms of investigating the political
tensions that existed. The writer is also a diplomat, meaning he is an expert in reading people and
their emotions, drawing more use to the source in terms of the political tensions that existed. The
source was written a month after the First Duma met, and this to many was the signs of a new era for
Russia, so this again proves that source one can be trusted in terms of its usefulness. The political
tensions are demonstrated in the source through its comparative of the different social classes and
how they dressed. Due to their very different upbringing’s as children, the political tensions and the
disagreement among the people would inevitably be present. The fact that they had very divided
views on Nicholas himself is clearly in response to his speech. There is an indication of an outdated
doomed relic of ‘autocracy [/] bureaucracy’ within the state council, and a slight suggestion that the
Duma may prevail him within the contrast seen in their reactions to the Tsar. The division shown by
the source is described in the form of the people ‘giving an awkward nod’ to ‘his Majesty’. This
provides us with evidence that there was a significant amount of unpopular opinions to do with the
Tsar, which can be reflected as a microcosm to the rest of the country. However, the source can be
seen as not useful because many of the people’s opinions at the time of the source being written was
not because of what was happening at the time. Still, because of the disappointment, many of the
countries got following the 1905 revolution and the October manifesto. The nobles and the middle
class didn’t get much more power, as the Tsar still had ruling power over the political parties and the
Duma. Whilst the Peasants were unhappy with how little development there was with their land
reforms. Therefore, the discontent and division shown in the source don’t necessarily prove the source
to be useful as they were still unhappy with Nicholas’ actions the year before. The first Duma bought
the political parties such as the right-wing Octobrists and the middle-class centralists of the Kadet
Party. The Octobrists wanted further reform from the October Manifesto whilst the Kadets just
wanted more of a say in the government. The writer infers that the first Duma is not going to last a
long time. Many were unhappy within the first Duma, mainly to do with the significant division
which was present at the time. The writer leads us on the Vyborg Manifesto which was signed on the
22nd of July 1906, which dissolves the first Duma as any sort of political institution. Nicholas, from
this point on, never speaks again. In all source one is useful as it does reflect the division between the
politics of the country which reflects the rest of the country.
Source 2 is from a diary written by Nicholas II’s sister Xenia. It is used as a description in the opinion
of Nicholas and his family to describe the current political status within the country. It makes a
comparison between the Duma with ‘repulsive faces’ and Nicholas with a ‘loud, steady voice’. The
diary created by Xenia is useful because she will have seen Nicholas through times of darkness and
struggle whilst also the times of good. It is also helpful because of how Xenia saw the assassination of
