Which of these two sources would a historian studying 'Bloody Sunday' find the more useful?

Laura Coles 10R – Miss Breene

a) Study sources A and B

Both of these sources are from the time but they are written from different viewpoints and in different styles. Because of this, a historian would find both sources useful in different ways. As source A is a diary, it was probably not meant to be read by other people and it would therefore be useful to the historian in discovering how the Tsar actually felt about the events of 'Bloody Sunday'; finding out if he agreed with the government’s reports of the incident. Source B is a newspaper article written to influence the readers and so it would be useful to the historian because they could find out how 'Bloody Sunday' was portrayed to the public.

I think source B is useful to a historian because it does not seem extremely biased. For example, the journalist does say that warning shots were fired, this was mentioned in many accounts and is so thought to be a fact. He also uses the words ‘finally they fired’ which suggests that the Cossacks (soldiers) were reluctant to fire and not, as other accounts say, that they just fired without warning at the crowd. However, the journalist does paint a very dramatic picture in the mind of the reader with a lot of violence mentioned and details added to provoke emotion such as ‘women and children’, suggesting that the Cossacks fired at the weak. This overly descriptive language would not be useful to the historian trying to find out facts but would help show why so many people were angry about 'Bloody Sunday'; because the way it was portrayed made them feel sympathy to those who were there.

Source A is also not extremely biased. It could be used to show that it was perhaps more the advisors to the Tsar rather than the Tsar himself that wanted to portray the workers as entirely to blame for the ‘Bloody Sunday’ massacre. The words ‘how painful and sad’ seem to suggest this. However, he also says that the troops ‘had to’ open fire, this sounds like he was saying the marchers started the violence and seems to contradict himself.

Source A is less useful in describing the events of 'Bloody Sunday' but it is useful in painting a picture of how the Tsar saw those events. I think that the fact that on 21st January he put the events of his life before what was happening in Russia and that even on 22nd January he talked about everyday events such as ‘mama stayed overnight’ suggests that the Tsar did not take the events of and surrounding 'Bloody Sunday' as seriously as he should have. However, it is difficult to know whether these thoughts are true as the source is only an extract from the diary; possibly a longer section of it would be more useful in informing the historian of the Tsar’s opinion of 'Bloody Sunday'. The historian would also need to look at other primary sources to compare how the day was portrayed and so get a better idea of what went on – a contrasting example would be Father Gapon’s diary.

Source B gives more information of how 'Bloody Sunday' was portrayed and what it was said happened but this does not make it more useful than source A. Both sources are useful in showing how the opposing ‘sides’ portrayed the events of ‘Bloody Sunday’ and so it would really depend what the historian was looking for. It would be quite useful to the historian to compare the two sources, as they are both primary sources but show the event in different ways.

b) Study sources C and D

How far does source D agree with the impression of the marchers given in source C?

In source C, the marchers are portrayed as weak people begging and pleading with the Tsar for help, such as when they say ‘Oh Sire!’ and ‘we are beggars’. This idea is reflected in source D. For example, there is a woman crawling on the ground and a man looking upwards in the front of the picture as if they are pleading with someone the person viewing the picture can’t see.

Source D does not contain any information about why the people are there. It does not show that they want ‘universal, secret and equal suffrage’, a demand that is very clear in source C. However, it does show the general idea of them being poor and overworked by the fact that the people are wearing ragged clothes and seem very tired as they are walking stooped. Although it is not put as the ‘chief request’, changing their living conditions seems another aim of the petition as they ask for ‘justice and protection’ so source D is agreeing with this.

As source D is a secondary source because it was painted in 1910, the artist could have seen or heard of what the marchers’ petition said and this could be one reason for the two sources agreeing so much.

In source D there seem to be many people in the crowd and, although it is not mentioned in the petition, we know that many people signed the petition as it represented what many of the workers thought so it was likely that many were there to present it. In this indirect way, source D agrees with the impression of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Overall, I think that source D agrees with the impression of the marchers given in source C in many ways. However, if the historian only saw source D, it would be difficult to tell why the marchers were there. The historian could use both of these sources together to get a more accurate impression of the marchers and how they felt before and on 'Bloody Sunday'.

c) Study source E

Source E must be reliable because it is an eyewitness account. Do you agree?

I do not agree that source E must be reliable because it is an eyewitness account as the person writing the source was biased. We are told that the writer, Maxim Gorky, was a member of the Bolsheviks, a socialist revolutionary group, and that he was in the crowd on 'Bloody Sunday'. These facts and the tone of his account tell the historian that he was obviously supporting the marchers and so would try to portray the soldiers as badly as possible.

The source could also be unreliable because it only describes one soldier and one person; the scene that is described could have been a very different circumstance to that of many other marchers. We do not know where the writer was in the city, fights broke out in different areas between the soldiers and marchers and so this account, even if absolutely accurate and true, could still be an unusual situation compared with those of most of the marchers.

I think that this source is unreliable also because it does not agree with any of the other sources I have seen, even those written by people supporting the marchers, such as source B. This would suggest to me that the source was unreliable as most of the sources agree with at least one other source.

We also do not know why the writer wrote the account. It is unlikely that it was not intended for public view as he uses descriptive language, not usually used in diaries and personal letters. I think that it was perhaps for a newspaper or propaganda material to try and convince others to the point or view of the Bolsheviks. If this were correct, then the writer would have been trying to influence the readers and make them sympathetic to his cause. This would make Source E unreliable to a historian trying to find out the facts of 'Bloody Sunday'. It could, however, be useful in showing the historian how the revolutionaries portrayed ‘Bloody Sunday’ and so explain why many felt sympathetic towards them and so supported them.

I do not agree that source E must be reliable because it is an eyewitness account but I also do not think the historian should disregard it because of this, as the source could be useful for some purpose.

d) Study Source F

How do you think people in France would have reacted to this source?

I think people in France would have felt sympathy for the marchers and anger at the Russian government when they saw the picture. I think this is probably the reason the picture was drawn – the artist was trying to influence those whose saw the painting to feel sympathy for the marchers from 'Bloody Sunday'.

It is unlikely that this source is accurate because it was drawn by a French person who was probably not at the palace and so could not draw the picture from memory. Although the artist may have spoken to people who were at the 'Bloody Sunday' massacre, they were probably supporting the marchers and so the picture, like most, makes the soldiers look violent and the marchers weak and vulnerable. Because the source is biased, the feelings French people had when they saw it would probably be similar as the picture is drawn to evoke sympathy for the workers.

The picture shows quite obviously Father Gapon, the leader of the marchers, standing with his arms out, facing the soldiers. This makes it seem like the marchers were there peacefully and that they were just viciously fired at by the Cossacks (soldiers). This would probably have shocked the French as France was a religious country and they were seeing armed troops against peaceful protestors and Father Gapon. The ‘battle’ element is emphasised by the large gap between the two ‘sides’; it seems to show that the Cossacks were not forced to fire when the marchers were violent as the government report said but rather that they just fired at the marchers without warning or provocation.

To the French people, the picture may seem reminiscent of the French revolution, a part of their history that they would obviously feel connected to and so they would feel connected to this picture and the people in it. The building in the background looks like the Arc de Triumph, a famous French landmark; the French people could therefore feel empathy for the marchers, as it would appear ‘closer to home’. All of these elements, along with the fact that the picture is drawn as if the person viewing it was one of the marchers, are there to influence those seeing the picture to the marcher’s ‘side’, to make them feel sympathetic towards the marchers and angry at the Russian government and so to get more revolutionary supporters.

e) Study sources G, H and I

These three sources are not about 'Bloody Sunday'. How far do you agree that they have no use for the historian studying 'Bloody Sunday'?

Although the three sources G, H and I are not about 'Bloody Sunday', I do not agree that they have no use for the historian studying 'Bloody Sunday'. They do not give details about the actual day of the massacre and so if the historian wanted only facts about that day the sources would be of little use. However, they are useful in informing the historian of the situation in Russia and so helping the historian to understand the motives of the marchers.

Source G is useful because it informs the historian of the events of the Japanese war. It shows how the Russian Empire was starting to lose a little of its prestige and also shows how the Tsar was not always right. The Russian government assumed that they would win the war with Japan as they had a much larger population and they thought this would be good as the nation would ‘rally behind the Tsar’. However, when it was discovered that they were not going to win quite so easily, the opposite happened and the people mistrusted the tsar. This, added to the problems that already existed with discontented factory workers, contributed to the annoyance of the workers when they marched on 'Bloody Sunday'.

As a secondary source, source G is also reliable in providing the historian with facts. It was written to inform people and so the author would be trying not to make it biased, this is shown in the source where he says ‘unfortunately for them’.

So, source G is useful to the historian studying 'Bloody Sunday' because it helps to show why the workers were marching and how the Tsar’s power was slipping a little and also because it is reliable and so useful for obtaining facts.

Source H is useful to the historian because it shows why the marchers were angry with the Tsar; they were unhappy with the society at that time and felt like the higher people in society were taking advantage of them. In the cartoon, the workers have the largest numbers but they are still mistreated. They are working hard but don’t seem to be getting any reward and there are people dying because they have to ‘hold up’ the rest of society. The tsar is at the top, unapproachable and unobtainable by the workers.

This would suggest that the workers were unhappy with their situation but unlike the other ‘tiers’ they do not have a caption as they are the ‘you’ referred to in all the other statements so we can not tell what they are thinking. However, we are told that this cartoon was published by exiled enemies of the tsar, obviously extremists, and so their views may not have been shared by most of the workers.

Source H would be useful to the historian because it shows how at least some of the marchers felt and also how their cause was portrayed to others in order to get more supporters for those against the Tsar.

Source I would be useful to the historian simply because it shows that industry increased greatly during the time leading up to 'Bloody Sunday'. This would mean many more industrial and factory workers. It was these workers that became discontented and marched on 'Bloody Sunday' and so, without the rapid growth in industrial production, the march may not have occurred when it did.

Also, the fact that there was a large increase in railways would mean that it would be easier for information to travel across the vast empire and so for the message of the workers to spread to others. The source suggests that a lot of money would have been made because of the increase in industry and, although the source does not show this, a large proportion of this money would not go to the workers – one reason why the workers became angry.

Source I would be useful because it is factual, statistical and the person writing it would have no reason to lie. This makes it a reliable, useful source in showing the rapid growth of industrial production in the time leading up to 'Bloody Sunday'.

So, although none of the sources refer directly to the massacre, all are important in showing the background information needed to understand why it occurred and so they are useful to the historian studying 'Bloody Sunday'.

f) Study all the sources

How far do these sources support the view that 'Bloody Sunday' was caused by poor living and working conditions in St Petersburg?

I think that, on the whole, the sources do support the view that poor living and working conditions in St Petersburg caused ‘Bloody Sunday’. However, some would be more useful than others to a historian trying to find out if this is true.

Source A remains rather vague as to why the workers wanted to ‘come up to the Winter Palace’. It does not say that 'Bloody Sunday' was caused by the poor working and living conditions in St Petersburg but it also does not give any other reason for what happened. So, I do not think the historian could really use source A to support or dispute the view that 'Bloody Sunday' was caused by poor working and living conditions in St Petersburg. However, it does mention that the events of 'Bloody Sunday' involved workmen from St Petersburg and also that they were on strike, suggesting that they were unhappy with their working conditions but not actually saying this.

Source B is again an account from 'Bloody Sunday' and does not mention the reason for the march. Again, it does say that the people marching were ‘strikers’, so implying that they were unhappy with their working conditions but saying nothing about the living conditions. As with source A, I do not think source B supports or disputes the view that 'Bloody Sunday' was caused by poor living and working conditions in St. Petersburg.

Of all the sources, I think source C supports the view that the poor living and working conditions in St Petersburg caused ‘Bloody Sunday’ most. It is written by the marchers who describe themselves as ‘working men of St Petersburg’ and who also say that they are ‘overburdened with work’ and ‘treated as slaves’. The source totally supports the view that the working and living conditions in St Petersburg were poor and, as it is written by the marchers, we know that this is why they are marching.

Source D does not actually tell us why the marchers are there. However, it does show the marchers looking very ragged and weak as if they have poor living conditions so the viewer of the picture is led to believe that this is why they are there. So, source D seems to support the view that 'Bloody Sunday' was caused by poor living and working conditions in St Petersburg.

Source E is again an account of 'Bloody Sunday' itself and it again does not mention why the marchers were there as it focuses on the actual firings by the Cossacks. However, we are told a little about the writer, Maxim Gorky, and from this we can say that the poor living and working conditions in St Petersburg were at least a factor, if not the only reason, for the events of 'Bloody Sunday'. We are told that he was in the crowd and also that he worked as, among other things, a gardener and a tramp. These jobs would probably not have had very good working conditions so it would be reasonable to assume that at least part of the reason the writer was in the crowd on ''Bloody Sunday' was the bad living and working conditions of St Petersburg.

I think source F does not really support the view that 'Bloody Sunday' was caused by the poor living and working conditions in St Petersburg as the marchers do not seem to be very poor or weak. They are standing tall and seem to be wearing quite warm clothes, not as in other paintings where the marchers are dressed in rags.

Source G suggests another reason for the events of 'Bloody Sunday'; tensions were building within Russia because of the Russo-Japanese war. The source does say that there were already ‘problems in Russia’ but does not elaborate on what these were. Source G seems to me to suggest that 'Bloody Sunday' was caused by a combination of the problems with Japan and the poor living and working conditions in St Petersburg and so does not entirely support the view that they were the only cause of 'Bloody Sunday'.

Source H shows the workers being overworked and treated badly. It also shows some of the workers becoming angry with those on the higher ‘levels’; they look like they are protesting with large banners. This shows that the source supports the view that 'Bloody Sunday' – a real protest – was caused by the poor living and working conditions of the workers, though not necessarily in St Petersburg.

Source I shows that there was a very rapid increase in the amount of industry in Russia in the time leading up to 'Bloody Sunday'. This would probably mean bad working conditions in the factories because they had to be built quickly and so would probably not be very safe etc. It would also probably lead to overcrowded living conditions in the industrial cities as the population would also have increased rapidly with the many peasants moving to the cities to work in the factories.

This is also shown in source K where we can see that most of the industry was in a small area, leading to overcrowded houses because there was little room to expand outwards. St Petersburg was also at the very edge of the country, showing us that not all of the country was involved as much of it was very far away.

Source J seems to suggest that the zemstva (district councils of Russia) were to blame for the discontent within the workers and that they encouraged people to think against the Tsar. Tsar Nicholas specifically mentions the word autocracy (rule by one person), this was important to him but also something that many disagreed with and felt that there should be an elected parliament or Duma to run the country. So, source J does not support the view that 'Bloody Sunday' was caused by the poor living and working conditions in St Petersburg. However, as the source is from the Tsar, he would probably not want to admit that the workers were unhappy with their situation as this might make him look bad. Also, the source was written nine years before the incident of 'Bloody Sunday' and before many of the problems began in St Petersburg.

Overall, I think that the sources mostly support the view that the poor living and working conditions in St Petersburg caused ‘Bloody Sunday’. Although there are some sources that do not seem to give any information on the subject, almost all others seem to support this view.

3668 words