Why Did ‘Bloody Sunday’ Take Place? (Russian History Sources Question)

Authors Avatar

G.C.S.E HISTORY COURSEWORK-ASSIGNMENT 2

Study unit: Russia 1905-1941

Why did ‘Bloody Sunday’ take place?

a) A historian studying Bloody Sunday would probably find these two sources equally useful, depending on what they wanted to find out.         Source A is an extract from the Tsar’s diary on the 21st and 22nd of January 1905. It shows the historian the Tsar’s perspective and opinion about what is happening at the time of this event. That the Tsar is either unaware of the situation in St Petersburg, or that he doesn’t appreciate the significance of it, or he could have been uninformed of the situation.

        “Since yesterday all the factories and workshops in St Petersburg have been on strike. Troops have been brought in to strengthen the garrison. The workers have conducted themselves calmly hitherto. At the head of the workers is some socialist priest: Father Gapon.”

         This was written by the Tsar on the 21st of January. It shows that the Tsar knew little about what was happening in St Petersburg, but is aware that something is happening and that the workers are on strike and are being lead by ‘some’ socialist priest: Father Gapon. This also shows that he isn’t in touch with his people, as he has never heard of Father Gapon before and Father Gapon is reasonably well known as he took over the running of the St Petersburg Zubatov union in May 1903 and also formed the ‘Assembly of Russian Factory Workers of St Petersburg’ in 1904. This scheme helped the poor, sick and the elderly.

        It is useful for the historian as it shows the Tsar’s opinion and what he knew about the crisis that was happening in St Petersburg whilst he was away. It is also a primary source, so it is his true perspective, and nobody else’s. However, it is not particularly useful as it doesn’t explain the events that actually took place during the march of Bloody Sunday, or why it happened.

             Source B however, is useful as it too is a primary source, and is a first hand and eyewitness account. It describes the peaceful intentions that the marchers had, and how the Cossacks shot at the marchers and people were seen dead, dying and wounded on the street.  But, the article, which appears in The Weekly Times, 27 January 1905, doesn’t explain what the marchers want, or what their aim is to achieve from this march. Also, the historian would be unaware whether this article was biased, and which party the journalist supported.

         Another point is that the journalist could have dramatised the event:         

        “The snow on the streets and pavements covered with blood, cried aloud for vengeance.” The journalist could have been dramatising the event to attract a larger audience to the magazine they were writing in.

             Overall, I think that a historian studying ‘Bloody Sunday’ would find both sources as equally useful, just in different areas.

b)          Source D is a painting, painted in 1910, and it shows many poor men, women and children, that look frightened, helpless, scared and  intimidated by the soldiers that are armed and have shot other members of the congregation (shown in the left of the picture). There are also people in the background carrying religious banners. The peasants look filthy and are mostly dressed in rags. This shows that they are suffering from poverty.

Join now!

        Source C describes how the men, women and children are helpless and come to the Tsar for help and protection. They claim that they ”are beggars, that they are oppressed, and overburdened with work, that they are insulted, and not regarded as human beings, but treated as slaves who must suffer their bitter lot in silence.” This could be a biased opinion as it is an extract from the marcher’s petition, however it does agree with the image that source D portrays.

        Source C describes what the peasants actually want, whereas from the painting you don’t know what they want, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay