Essay
Essay 17/20 A - How far could the historian make use of the sources together to investigate the problems faced by Russia in WW1?
- Course
- Institution
A* student's essay marked by a teacher - source question (Section A)
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
JiyaS
Reviews received
Content preview
A. How far could the historian make use of the sources together to investigate the problems faced by Russia in WW1? (20marks)
Teacher comment
WWW: Criteria and judgement established, Excellent focus on Q, Specific detail used,
Sources used well together, good structure of wri@ng 17 /20
EBI: Refine how you place weight on the limita@ons of the source, don't think because it
misses a few things it must be not very useful - understand that no source will include
Grade: A
every single aspect / viewpoint so some limita@ons don't means it's not useful at all.
Expand in prov para - 'has a purpose and audience' - correct, but explain further what
audience? Why would this affect it?
Would say this bit of detail could go in first para '; 27000 rifles were made but 100,000' to
support that there was an ammuni@ons problem
Both Sources A and B are useful to a limited extent to a historian studying the problems Russia faced during World War
One (WW1). Source A is a letter from Tsar Nicholas to his wife Alexandra which focuses on the shortage of munitions in the
war and offers a pro-Tsarist view. Whilst Source B is from the perspective of General Peter Wrangel who focuses on the
troubles faced by soldiers during the war. His view is negative or opposes that of the Tsar. Both of the sources together are
useful to understand the military problems faced Russia on the Western Front as they both focus on this. However, the two
sources are limited by the fact they do not focus on the entirety of Russia’s problems, including the political and economic
woes that shook Russia on the Home Front, without this the two sources are not comprehensive enough to be completely
useful. The two sources will be assessed on their comprehensiveness, objectiveness, accuracy and whether they present a
typical viewpoint which may be useful to a historian.
Both sources provide accurate information on the military problems faced by Russia. Source A focuses on the shortage of
weapons and the fact that it was a major military problem. The letter Nicholas writes to Alexandra says: “cursed question of
shortage of artillery and rifle ammunition”. A historian could infer that the munitions crisis of 1915 was a major fault in the
military effort of Russia in WW1. The shortage of munitions caused an under-equipped military that could not fight
effectively. Nicholas’ account is accurate because the shortage of weapons was a real threat to the war effort and led to a
series of failures such as the loss of land in Poland and other areas of European Russia. Thus, Source A is useful to a
historian because it is an accurate account of the effect the problem of the munitions crisis had on Russian military. Source
B is also accurate in describing the challenges soldiers faced rather than the entirety of the Russian army, which Source A
focuses on. Source B describes the soldiers as “primarily fathers who had been dragged away from their villages...warriors
only in spite of themselves”. This source suggests that the soldiers were not nationalist and so didn’t fight for Russia as a
whole instead they fought for their families. This is accurate because the numbers of soldier surrenders and desertions were
high during WW1 (leading to the Great Retreat in 1915) because the soldiers did not support the war, this is useful to a
historian because it shows that the views of the soldiers in the Tsarist regime led to failures in the war, making it a significant
problem for the army. Furthermore, the source says that the army and ‘all spheres of Russian life’ was full of ‘nepotism’. A
historian could infer that the corruption in the Russian government and military during WW1 had a political impact. This
does mention the political problems that were created from the war which highlighted the corruption of autocracy and
increasing disillusionment of army generals with the regime. Therefore, the sources are useful because they are accurate
depictions of the challenges faced by the Russian military during WW1 and together they display the problems faced by the
military and social problems faced by the soldiers themselves.
On the other hand, the usefulness of the two sources is limited by the fact they only mention the problems faced by the
military on the Western front. The Home Front is not mentioned in regards to the economic problems during the war.
Although the Tsar in Source A focuses on the ‘shortage of artillery and rifle ammunition’, there is no mention fo the
economic problems that caused that. It was the weak economy and industry that failed to keep up with the weapon
demands; 27,000 rifles were made but 100,000 were needed each month. Thus, the source is not useful to a historian on
showing the economic problems on the Home front that caused such as military failure. In this way Source A is not
comprehensive as it misses out key pieces of information regrading the other problems in Russia. Furthermore, Source A
and B are flawed in their accuracy. Source A suggests that the ‘at the beginning’ the military was ‘three times as strong’.
Although the army had developed since its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, there was still limited improvement
and the army was not well-equipped from the beginning. The problems Russia faced were long term yet the sources
suggest a short term problem that required a short term or ‘month’ long fix. Similarly, Source B says that ‘the original
soldiers inured to fatigues an deprivation’ and were ‘brave in battle’. However, this is not accurate as the military defeats
were consistent from the beginning, with the Great retreat in 1915 (only a few months after the start of the war). Thus, the
source is wrong is suggesting that the beginning of the war was a series of successes. Therefore, the two sources are
limited in their usefulness as they are both not comprehensive and lack some areas of accuracy.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller JiyaS. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.51. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
64438 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now