Section A: How far could the historian make use of the sources together to investigate the aims and events of the 1905
revolution. Explain your answer using both the sources, the information given about them and your own knowledge of
the historical context. 20 marks
Both Sources 1 and 2 are useful to a limited extent to a historian investigating the aims and events of the 1905
revolution. Source 1 comes from Tsar Nicholas II himself, in the form of a diary entry on the 22nd January 1905. In this
sense, it gives the view of the events from the Tsar’s perspective. In contrast, Source 2 comes from Victor Serge, a
Bolshevik living in the Communist regime after 1917. It is useful in understanding both the aims and events of the St
Petersburg workers, from an activists perspective. Together, they are useful to understand both sides of Bloody Sunday.
However, the usefulness of the two sources are limited by the fact they only document the event of Bloody Sunday.
Although Bloody Sunday was a catalyst for the 1905 revolution and a major part of it, it was not the entire breath of the
period. The 1905 revolution involved a series of uprisings and strikes across the country from peasants to the military, for
example, Potemkin’s Uprising. Consequently, Source 1 and 2 are not entirely useful to a historian studying the 1905
revolution.
Both sources are useful in their content because they contain accurate information on the events of Bloody Sunday.
Source 1 and 2 agree that the army opposed the protestors outside the Winter Palace with weapons. In source 1, the
Tsar writes that the “troops had to open fire”. The Tsar’s recounting of events is backed up by Source 2 which describes
the “soldiers machine-gunn[ing] them down”. This indicates that they were aware of the consequences of Bloody
Sunday, leaving around 200 dead and others wounded. A historian could use the sources to infer that the 1905
revolution was violent and brutal, particularly Bloody Sunday which is what is primarily focused on. Furthermore, Source
2 is more useful in presenting the aims of the workers than Source 1, which focuses on the events. In Source 2, the
demands of the workers are “an eight-hour day, recognition of workers’ rights and a Constitution”. The petition drawn up
by Father Gapon were focused on the needs of workers with over 150 signatures, which is accurately portrayed in the
source. The aims of the revolution are not mentioned in Source 1, however, a historian could infer that the Tsar was
unaware of the demands or needs of his citizens, highlighting the poor governance of the Tsar. Therefore, it is useful. The
aims and events of Bloody Sunday are broadly accurate and give a sense of the causes and consequences that would
prove useful to a historian investigating the 1905 revolution.
However, the sources disagree on reasons for opening fire on the protestors. Source 1 uses the language “had to”,
implying that the protestors were violent or needed to be controlled with violence because of “serious disorders”. In
contrast, Source 2 describes the protestors as “carrying icons and singing hymns” as opposed to violent behaviour. In
this way, Source 2 is more accurate as the vast majority of the protestors were peaceful, aiming to ask for guidance from
their “little father, the Tsar” rather than attack the regime. Although Source 1 can be seen as inaccurate and less useful, it
can be useful to a historian. This is because it suggests that the Tsar failed to acknowledge the errors in his actions
which may have caused further conflict between himself and the workers, leading to more revolts and uprisings in the
1905 revolution. Furthermore, they have differing views of the reaction of the Tsar to the protest. Source 1, written by the
Tsar himself, expresses his remorse by saying “God, how painful and sad”. Source 2 writes that the Tsar commanded
“Treat them like rebels”, implying that the Tsar ordered the army to fire on the protestors. Source 2 is inaccurate as the
Tsar was not in the Winter Palace at the time of the event and the Tsar was not able to control the army. Nonetheless,
the Tsar was head of the army and thus responsible for its actions in the eyes of the protestors. The subjective nature
decreases the validity of Source 2 to a historian. Finally, both are not comprehensive and only focus on one aspect of
the 1905 revolution when there were a serious of revolts from different groups, that had differing aims to workers (the
aims of nationalities would be for religious toleration not specifically better working conditions). These two sources only
express the aims of workers and the events of Bloody Sunday, limiting their usefulness.
Source 1 is a diary entry from the Tsar, further strengthening its validity because there is no intended audience. As a
private and personal document, a historian would assume that the opinions expressed are aligned well with the realistic
feelings of the Tsar at the time. Baring that in mind, the source becomes more useful in understanding the effect of
Bloody Sunday on the Tsar. Additionally, when used alongside Source 2, the opposing viewpoints can be compared.
Source 2 is written by a Bolshevik, an active revolutionary (opposing the Tsar). Therefore, the two sources will offer
differing perspectives that will allow the historian to come to an objective conclusion about the events of Bloody Sunday.
Source 1 and 2 together suggest that the Tsar was truly sympathetic to the situation yet revolutionaries still opposed
him. A historian may then infer that the Tsar failed to act on his empathy causing further discontent with the public.
Therefore, Source 1 and 2 are useful to a historian.
In contrast, Source 2 is less useful because it is subjective. It is written in 1930, during the Communist/Soviet rule. That
suggests that the writer had an agenda and a specific audience to which they would target anti-Tsarist propaganda.
Therefore, the writer is aiming to perceive the Tsar badly without considering the facts of the events. This is backed by
the fact that they said “several hundred dead and as many wounded”. The author should know by 1930 that the deaths
totalled to around 200, yet they choose to exaggerate the figures, devaluing the source. Source 1 is also less useful
because it is written on the 22nd of January 1905, the exact day of Bloody Sunday. This means that the source is not
comprehensive enough and lacks specific detail, such as the number of people that died. The Tsar recounts it as “many
killed and wounded”, a vague statement. As the source is not written in retrospect it is less reliable and less factual.
