Russian Revolution Source Work Assignment

Do you think Rasputin was a villain? I do not believe Rasputin was a villain;. It seems he was an incredibly intelligent man who succeeded in performing a feat other could not. He infiltrated the royal family and held an incredibly influential standing for years. To do so to gain such power in a completely autocratic system requires a certain amount of devious activity. Rasputin wormed his way into the system through his capacity to relieve the suffering of Tsarevich Alexei, which won him the devotion of Empress Alexandra. His manipulation of this devotion is said to be Rasputins greatest crime, yet he did nothing more than act with his own interests in mind. While in a position of influence he performed no greater crime than Nicholas II himself. Do you think the conventional account of Rasputins murder is believable? Simply put, no. The story could easily have been fabricated in order to vilify Rasputin and keep in the minds of the people the view of him as the evil mystic or mad monk. Even if the general account of events meets the basic truth, they could have very easily been largely blown out of proportion. The cyanide could have been old and thus resulted in the victims sickness, however not have been strong enough to be lethal; the number of gunshots could have been exaggerated, as well as the points of impact and, with the medical standards of the early twentieth century, it is very likely that the outcome of the autopsy was largely false. Generally, if those responsible for the murder had the power to escape punishment for such a crime, they easily had the power to convince whoever was in charge of announcing the official cause of death. The revolution occurred in the city of Petrograd. How does Trotsky argue that the peasants contributed to the success of the revolution? Trotsky stated that the molecular work of revolutionary thought was underway throughout the country. While higher classes had authority, the peasants and the workers had power in numbers (80-85% of the population). The Bolsheviks took advantage of that fact and turned the dissatisfaction of the lower classes into a revolution through education and organisation. What evidence is there to support Trotskys argument that the revolution was led by the Bolsheviks? ? Not sure what youre looking for here Sentence that best summarises Chamberlins key argument: The collapse of the Romanov autocracy in March 1917 was one of the most leaderless, spontaneous, anonymous revolutions of all time.

Two features of the revolution that strike the observer? the lack of planned leadership, andthe action of the soldiers independently of their officers. Criticism of the rebellious masses: They had nothing concrete to put in the place of the old order. Without any kind of organisation, the uneducated masses could not come to any kind of political decision. All that they knew they wanted was the abdication of the Tsar beyond that they had no idea. Why do you think A and B differ so much from the accounts in D, F and G? The first two of the accounts were published in Moscow (one even by a soviet publishing company) while Russia was still under communist rule. Lenin was to be portrayed as a hero. The other three were written by western historians and are thus either more open-minded on the subject or are very much against Lenin and his cause. Which accounts do you find the most believable and why? The most believable accounts for me would be D and G. The reason being (because of the points raised in the above answer) that the general consensus is questioned, yet not to such a degree that they become biased. F goes a little too far in its negativity towards Lenin. This is perhaps because it is an American publication Americans often have their grand vision of freedom and liberty for all which is threatened by communism. How do sources A and B help explain why Nicholas II was a prime cause of revolution in February 1917? The Tsars carelessness and dismissal of his people is greatly evident in his reaction to the knowledge of unrest in Petrograd. It seems he cared only for his autocratic system, his god given right to the throne. Even if something came up that he wanted to deal with, he had not a clue how to go about it. How do sources C and D help explain a further revolution in October 1917? After revolution in February the people expected true change. Not just any change, but change that would better their standards of living. The lower classes must have come to realise in the months following the revolution that they had not achieved such change. The situation for peasants and workers did not much improve, in some cases even worsened. With the country in chaos, production nearly grinded to a halt and thus the price of living greatly increased. Lenins promise of peace, land and bread was rather appealing.