From the May 2018 Paper 3 IBDP HL History exam
Example written under exam conditions by a student who received a '7' in the May 2022 Paper 3 exam:
Typed example:
The profound upheavals that culminated in the February/March Revolution of 1917 have been a fertile ground for debate amongst scholars. The cataclysmic events that unfolded in this period altered the trajectory of Russia's history and the world. This discourse will evaluate the assertion that Russia's participation in the First World War was the primary catalyst for the 1917 Revolution. Although Russia's wartime involvement undeniably played a role, this essay will argue that domestic factors, specifically socio-economic disparities, political discontent, and the collapse of the autocratic rule, are equally pivotal to understand this pivotal event.
There's no denying the war's contribution to the Revolution. As female historian Fitzpatrick has noted, World War I took a drastic toll on the nation, both economically and socially. The war led to enormous casualties with over 1.7 million dead, causing widespread grief and anger amongst the populace. The stress of the war drastically exacerbated the already fragile Russian economy. Inflation soared as the war expenses rose, and the supply chains were disturbed, leading to a dearth of essential goods. This dire situation was most acutely felt in the cities, especially Petrograd, where shortages of bread became a significant cause of social unrest. On these grounds, it seems reasonable to attribute significant blame to the war.
Factors However, attributing the Revolution solely to World War I risks overlooking the significant socio-economic factors that were prevalent before 1914. Service has opined that the backwardness of the Russian economy and the vast inequality between the rural peasantry and urban elites sowed the seeds of revolution. The emancipation of the serfs in 1861 did not translate into significant improvements in their living standards. Despite the partial industrialisation of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the majority of the population remained agrarian and poor, creating a fertile ground for revolutionary ideas. The urban working class, although smaller in number, was confronted with poor working conditions, low wages, and a lack of political representation. These grievances were simmering long before the onset of the war.
Furthermore, political discontent with the Tsarist autocracy significantly influenced the revolutionary sentiment. As argued by Figes, the oppressive nature of Nicholas II's rule and his inability to enact meaningful reforms played a crucial role in inciting the Revolution. The Tsar's decision to dissolve the Duma in 1915, coupled with his insistence on leading the war effort, left him isolated and without political support. Moreover, the influence of Rasputin on royal decisions had scandalised the monarchy, further eroding its legitimacy. Thus, the dissatisfaction with autocratic rule and its perceived incompetency were central to the revolutionary momentum.
In conclusion, while Russia's participation in World War I exacerbated socio-economic and political discontent, it was not the sole cause of the February/March 1917 Revolution. The deep-rooted socio-economic disparities and the autocratic rule of Tsar Nicholas II were instrumental in precipitating the revolution. The war acted as a catalyst, accelerating the inevitable collapse of an unsustainable system. Hence, it's important to adopt a holistic perspective, as a singular causal explanation oversimplifies the complex and multifaceted nature of the revolutionary process.
