Historiography

=**__Historiography__**=

Notes from October 14th, 2010



- Jina Nam -

= Pipes & Historiography > Russian Revolution by Kasia Budzen =
 * From the Chapter entitled “Why Did Tsarism Fall?” by Pipes I will point out essential points that you would do well to mention as historiography in your essay to demonstrate your understanding that there are many different ways of looking at history. I will also list in exactly which essay questions (located at the back of your focus sheet) you can expect to be able to show how marvelously you recognize that looking at history through different angles is necessary to be able to analyze it.**

//The “Revisionist” school of thought was mandatory in the Soviet Union and sought to eliminate Western ideas by slightly changing them. With the influence of Marxism, they insisted that history should be studied ‘from below’, on the principle that history is driven by social conflict. This thought build into modern life because it emphasized discovery and invention. However, those who followed this school of thought did not actually have to be true believers, because claiming to believe gave them benefits and privileges much valued by historians, for example the ability to access archives locked off for other people.//

The above information will be useful in answering the following essay questions: 1. “Why were there two revolutions in Russia in 1917?” Because it is the natural course of history that must be paved with conflict. 8. “To what extent were the 1905 and February/March Revolutions due to Russia losing a war?” When the people are unhappy, social conflict arises which advances history. 10. “Analyze the part played by the failure of Tsardom in causing the February/March Revolution in 1917.” That depends whether the failure of Tsardom was caused by social unrest or whether the Tsar abdicated by his own will and upon the insistency of the Tsarina. Because of the fact that the Tsar willingly left the crown as the pressure overwhelmed him, the Revisionists would claim these two are interlinked.

//Pipes believes that the Bolshevik power seizure in October 1917 was not a genuine revolution and there was nothing preordained about it (meaning that there was nothing hinting that it was obvious beforehand that it would happen) or the failure of Tsardom. He goes as far as to claim that their attempt to seize power was a failure. However, once they had the totalitarian principles in place there was no-one who could stop them. All in all, he takes the other side of most modern Western historians who argue that the fall of Tsarism was preordained and skeptical of the socialist-Marxist historians who claim that for masses which are discontented there is no other option than to overturn the existing system. In respect to the failure of Tsarist Russia, he writes that there was nothing to signal its downfall but that there have been cracks in the fundaments all along, such as that of the dual structure of Russia, tension with the intelligentsia and its inability to make concessions.//

The above information will be useful in answering the following essay questions: 2. “Why did the movement for parliamentary government in Russia between 1881 and 1917 fail? How far was the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917 the result of this failure?” The parliamentary movement for parliamentary government in Russia between 1881 and 1917 failed in part due to the fact that when a totalitarian state is ruled by several organs, they have to be strong. The fragility of agreements between the directing organs (i.e. Duma, Tsar) contributed to Russia falling apart. There was too much mutual suspicion during the war and that was an obstacle that the Tsar failed to overcome to bring the country closer. The Tsar, despite having several opportunities to provide concessions, did not do so because he feared that if the intelligentsia were given power they would want even more of it. This tension between government and intelligentsia was the prime immediate cause of the regime’s collapse. The Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917 was not a result of this failure, despite having responded to social outcries due to a “significant disparity between the political form and the socio-economic content” which prophesizes a revolution. The Bolsheviks simply took advantage of this social displease and disaffection and staged a coup d’état. 10. “Analyze the part played by the failure of Tsardom in causing the February/March Revolution in 1917.” Failure of Tsardom could not have played a big role in the February/March Revolution of 1917 because it was simply not expected by anybody. Even Lenin said that he and his generation would not survive to see a revolution in Russia, but seven weeks later the Tsar abdicated. Arguably the person who understood the political system in place in Russia at the time could not have been more wrong, as were all others. The fall of Tsarism was not as imminent as proved in hindsight, also because of the evidence of mass investment in Russia at the time, which would not have been occurring if it had been a widespread notion that the Tsar was about to step down. Strikes were indeed more severe than before, but the same occurred in the U.K. and the U.S., so in Russia this presentation of conflict was not especially unanticipated. 4. “Compare and contrast the causes of the 1905 and February/March 1917 revolutions in Russia” & 6. “To what extent was the Revolution of February/March 1917, in Russia, due to the nature of Tsarism and the policies of Nicolas II (1894-1917)? The nature of Tsarism played a significant part in both of the revolutions because it was threatened from the beginning by its dual structure which made it venerable to the assaults that led to its demise. At its foundation, the Russian state was imposed from above, most notably by the existence of the so-called dual structure, such as two police systems- one protecting the citizens from other citizens and one protecting the state from its citizens. In addition, the radical intellectuals manipulated the people’s grievances and contributed to the demise of Tsarist Russia that was rejected by the public because of the skewed perception they received from these radicals on the topic of the Tsar. This all caused the inability of reforms to take place in Russia, coupled with the fact that the faction of the Russian radicals party was against reforms because it threatened revolution (if people would be more satisfied they would not want to revolt), which hampered the development of Russia.