• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Why did 'Bloody Sunday' take place?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Alex Wilcox Royal Latin School Centre Number: 52131 Why did 'Bloody Sunday' take place? a) Which of these sources would a historian studying 'Bloody Sunday' find more useful? Both of these sources are primary as both were written at the time, but Source B is an account written by someone who was actually within the workers of the strike whereas Source A is the account of events as the Tsar saw them or heard about them. This however does not make Source B more useful than Source A just because it was written by someone within the crowd. This source could have been written possibly some hours after the march and some details may have got confused or to make the report sound more interesting the writer's imagination could have come in to use. Source A is the Tsars version of events on what happened on Bloody Sunday. Even though the Tsar was the leader of the country the information about Bloody Sunday was relayed to him because he was not present to witness the goings on. We can tell this as in his diary he says he went out for a walk and lunch. This could mean that the information he was told was information he wanted to hear and not the actual details. The person who told him could not have told the Tsar everything to make sure the events didn't sound as bad as they were. This however could not be true and everything he wrote in his diary was true as it was probably him that ordered the troops on the crowd. ...read more.

Middle

I think that this source would cause many different views and possibly cause some people to get ideas about revolution in France. e) These three sources are not about 'Bloody Sunday'. How far do you agree they have no use for the historian studying 'Bloody Sunday'? Although these sources are not directly related to 'Bloody Sunday' and don't show any obvious link to 'Bloody Sunday' they do actually help with the understanding of the march on 'Bloody Sunday' and why the march happened. Source G explains how that the Tsar, the whole of Russia and the rest of the world expected that Russia would win the war against Japan and they hoped that a victory would sway attention away from problems at home and gain much need support for the Tsar. Russia came up against many problems in the war such as the Straits Convention forbidding the Russian fleet to enter the Mediterranean. This led to the unexpected victory for Japan and the outcome that everyone expected had not become so. The effect of this was the total opposite of what the Tsar was out to achieve and the loss just added to Russia's problems and many people were turned against the Tsar. The problems that this added to such as lack of food and money for people in poorer areas such as the peasant farmers created large uprising and the loss against the Japanese caused many people to realise the need for change. This loss against the Japanese is actually one of the reasons that caused the uprising on 'Bloody Sunday'. ...read more.

Conclusion

Source H does indicate something about living and working conditions but is more about how the peasants were treated in society and how people higher than them saw them. This could have been a reason for aggravation and a reason for the outbreak of strikes. Source I is very vague on what it did to help along the process of strikes, but behind it is a reason. The rapid modernisation and industrialisation just aided communication between people which aided the spread of hatred for the Tsar. Source J and K again do not really indicate that the strikes and marches were because of the poor working and living conditions but they do indicate other reasons. Source J shows us the willingness of the Tsar to be an autocratic ruler and rule his people fully without choice. This could have annoyed the workers and peasants as they felt they need the choice and they wanted democracy. Source K relates to Source J in that it shows the industrialisation of the country which possibly aided the communication of the revolutionary groups, the workers and the peasants. Some of these sources appear to tell us that the reasons for the strikes and marches were that the peasants and workers were fed up with the situation they were. On the other end there are the sources that don't indicate any reasons for the strikes what so ever. In the middle are the sources that don't show us that the reasons were because of poor living and working conditions but they indicate other reasons such as the industrialisation of Russia. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. China 1945-90 - source based questions.

    Although the Cultural Revolution was very much a power struggle at the top, most puzzling was the enthusiastic support the movement was given by millions of youth throughout the country. There was also tension between educated urban and non-educated rural youth, as well as the usual conflicts between generations.

  2. Stalin Man or Monster

    Although Stalin did improve living conditions in Russia he achieved that by overworking the workers to achieve unrealistic goals in a short amount of time in poor conditions. Stalin ruled through terror, he cannot be described as a good man because of this.

  1. Russian Revolution - Bloody Sunday

    Gapon's description is extremely emotional, and goes into great detail in emphasizing the brutality of the armed forces. The account given by the police states that crowd marched on the palace carrying stolen images of the Tsar and his wife, and had already been confronted once by police before they began moving toward the palace.

  2. These three sources do not all give the same impression of Stalin. Source A ...

    We assume the women are thanking Stalin for getting jobs for their husbands (in the army). Stalin is smiling, suggesting he's a cheerful, friendly man. The source is suggesting that the women were happy and Stalin's rule. We don't know much about the source.

  1. Stalin man or monster

    This source is biased as it is based on how Bukharin saw Stalin, and as they did not get on with one another it is likely that Bukharin is attempting to make Stalin seem like an evil unforgiving person. The person who wrote the speech in source E is clearly a supporter of Stalin for a variety of different reasons.

  2. Stalin Sources Questions

    It is obvious from Source G that Krushchev is telling us that though Stalin's doings were in the greatest interests of Russia, however in contrast his popularity was receiving too much attention for he himself to contend with coupled with him trying to persuade the people that he was the God-like figure of Russia.

  1. What happened to the Romanov family? - Study Sources A and B. Sources A ...

    mentions, "the Tsar is supposed to have been shot" and that "there is no real evidence as to who or how many victims there were" and that "it is supposed there were five - the Tsar, Dr Botkin, the Empress's maid and two servants" which contradict what is being said in Source C.

  2. What happened to the Romanov Family? - Sources A and B give similar accounts. ...

    Source D is 'The notes from the interview of Pavel Mevdevev by White Russians.' The bias here is immediately evident. The source itself also states that 'He (Mevdevev) was probably tortured by the Whites.'

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work