Russia Source questions -
Model answer 23/25 -
The sources overall support the statement to a large extent. The
first two sources do suggest a will to improve the issues that
incited the revolution, however, it seems this may have been an
attempt to simply preserve the Tsar’s position than to truly address
the problems. The later two sources, which illustrate many of the
compromises have actually failed to be implemented suggests
there was never an intent to fix problems. Therefore, it can be
argued the sources largely support the claim that there was no
intention of addressing issues as even though it appears there is
some effort to bring in helpful measures, it could be argued this
was purely to allow the Tsarist regime to survive and there was no
real intent to fix the issues that caused the revolution.
Source A at first suggests there was an intention of addressing the
problems that caused the revolution. It first refers to ‘measures’
that will be taken to ‘stop disorders’, implying the regime is willing
to take some form of action. There is also an extensive list of rights
given in the source, such as ‘freedom of…speech, assembly,
union’ suggesting the regime was willing to grant demands of the
people, as they called for more freedom, implying they were willing
to take action against the problems that caused the revolution. It
was these demands that had resulted in the people going to Winter
Palace, and so the Tsar granting their wishes suggests there was
an intent to fix issues. There is also a mention of the Duma being
established and playing a significant role within Russian politics,
stating ‘no rule shall go into force without the Duma’. This is
emphasised by the fact this rule is stated to be ‘unbreakable’
implying the Tsar had an intention to permanently alter how the
country operated. There is a sense, however, that things may not
completely change as there is still a mention of the Tsar’s power
throughout the source with references to ‘we’ and ‘Us’ that suggest
a reluctancy to abandon autocracy. This hesitancy to make
concessions suggests there may have been little intention to
properly address issues, but rather temporary promises to allow
the regime to survive.
It is the provenance that allows us to infer there may have been
very little intent to actually fix issues. The October Manifesto was
Model answer 23/25 -
The sources overall support the statement to a large extent. The
first two sources do suggest a will to improve the issues that
incited the revolution, however, it seems this may have been an
attempt to simply preserve the Tsar’s position than to truly address
the problems. The later two sources, which illustrate many of the
compromises have actually failed to be implemented suggests
there was never an intent to fix problems. Therefore, it can be
argued the sources largely support the claim that there was no
intention of addressing issues as even though it appears there is
some effort to bring in helpful measures, it could be argued this
was purely to allow the Tsarist regime to survive and there was no
real intent to fix the issues that caused the revolution.
Source A at first suggests there was an intention of addressing the
problems that caused the revolution. It first refers to ‘measures’
that will be taken to ‘stop disorders’, implying the regime is willing
to take some form of action. There is also an extensive list of rights
given in the source, such as ‘freedom of…speech, assembly,
union’ suggesting the regime was willing to grant demands of the
people, as they called for more freedom, implying they were willing
to take action against the problems that caused the revolution. It
was these demands that had resulted in the people going to Winter
Palace, and so the Tsar granting their wishes suggests there was
an intent to fix issues. There is also a mention of the Duma being
established and playing a significant role within Russian politics,
stating ‘no rule shall go into force without the Duma’. This is
emphasised by the fact this rule is stated to be ‘unbreakable’
implying the Tsar had an intention to permanently alter how the
country operated. There is a sense, however, that things may not
completely change as there is still a mention of the Tsar’s power
throughout the source with references to ‘we’ and ‘Us’ that suggest
a reluctancy to abandon autocracy. This hesitancy to make
concessions suggests there may have been little intention to
properly address issues, but rather temporary promises to allow
the regime to survive.
It is the provenance that allows us to infer there may have been
very little intent to actually fix issues. The October Manifesto was
