Why did the Tsarist regime collapse in 1917?

Cambridge IGCSE History 0470 · Paper 1 Section B, Depth study C: Russia, 1905 to 1941 Syllabus: 2027 and 2028 Key Question 1 of four

The Key Question is "Why did the Tsarist regime collapse in 1917?" and this file covers it in full: the four focus points Cambridge prints underneath it, the part of the Depth study's specified content that belongs to it, where it is set on the paper, and what the mark schemes reward that the syllabus never says.

The question has a trap built into its first word. "Why did" invites a list of reasons, and a list is exactly what the mark scheme refuses to pay for above Level 2. Worse, the obvious list has been available to candidates since they were twelve: the Tsar was an autocrat, the peasants were poor, the war went badly. All three statements are true, all three are worth one mark each, and none of them explains anything, because all three were equally true in 1912 when nothing happened. Everything below is built so that each fact arrives attached to a mechanism, and so that the pre-war material is available as the counter-argument rather than as background.

Two dates and one boundary before anything else. 1917 contains two revolutions. Cambridge calls them the March Revolution and the November Revolution. This file ends at the first one, with the Tsar's abdication. The Provisional Government, the Petrograd Soviet as a rival to it, Lenin's return, the July Days, the Kornilov Affair and the Bolshevik seizure of power all belong to Key Question 2, "How did the Bolsheviks gain power, and how did they consolidate their rule?", which is a separate file. The line is marked again wherever a student is likely to wander over it.

1. What the syllabus actually asks

This is the wording printed in the Cambridge IGCSE History 0470 syllabus for 2027 and 2028, in Depth study C, which appears on page 23. Ranges are written out in words throughout this file, so Cambridge's "1905 to 1941" appears here as those words rather than as a dash, but the wording is otherwise exactly as set.

Key Question 1

Why did the Tsarist regime collapse in 1917?

Focus points

• How well did the Tsarist regime deal with the difficulties of ruling Russia up to 1914?
• How did the Tsar survive the 1905 Revolution?
• How far was the Tsar weakened by the First World War?
• Why was the revolution of March 1917 successful?

The specified content, printed once for the whole Depth study

Cambridge prints one list of specified content for the whole of Depth study C, on the page after the four Key Questions. It is not divided between them, and there is no marker in the list showing where one Key Question's share ends and the next begins. That division is a reading, not something Cambridge states. Here is the whole list, undivided, exactly as printed:

• The main features of Tsarist rule and Russian society before the First World War: the 1905 Revolution and its aftermath; attempts at reform
• The First World War and its impact on the Russian people
• The March Revolution of 1917
• The Provisional Government and the Soviets, the growing power of revolutionary groups
• Reasons for the failure of the Provisional Government
• The Bolshevik seizure of power, the role of Lenin
• The main features of Bolshevik rule, the Civil War and War Communism, and reasons for the Bolshevik victory
• The Kronstadt Rising and the establishment of the New Economic Policy
• Lenin's death and the struggle for power
• Reasons for Stalin's emergence as leader by 1928
• Stalin's dictatorship: use of terror; the Purges; propaganda and official culture
• Stalin's economic policies and their impact: the modernisation of Soviet industry; the Five-Year Plans; collectivisation in agriculture
• Life in the Soviet Union: the differing experiences of social groups; ethnic minorities and women

The first three bullets are yours. "The main features of Tsarist rule and Russian society before the First World War", with its two sub-bullets on the 1905 Revolution and its aftermath and on attempts at reform; "The First World War and its impact on the Russian people"; and "The March Revolution of 1917". Those three cover all four of your focus points and nothing else does.

Everything from the fourth bullet onwards is not yours. "The Provisional Government and the Soviets" begins the moment the Tsar has gone, and it is where Key Question 2 starts. Bullets four to eight belong to Key Question 2, bullets nine to eleven to Key Question 3, "How did Stalin gain and hold on to power?", and bullets twelve and thirteen to Key Question 4, "What was the impact of Stalin's economic policies?".

The reason this matters more here than in most Depth studies is that the boundary falls inside a single year, and inside the shortest bullet on the list. "The March Revolution of 1917" is yours. "The Provisional Government and the Soviets" is not, and the Provisional Government was formed in the same week.

How the three layers work

Cambridge defines them itself, on page 11 of the syllabus: key questions define the over-arching issues, focus points identify the issues that enable candidates to gain an understanding of the key question, and specified content provides guidance on what needs to be studied for each key question.

So the four focus points are not four chapters to be read in order. Each is a ready-made 10 mark title, and each one already contains a side to argue against:

Every one of the four has been set as a real question in the last seven years, two of them in almost exactly the syllabus's own words. Section 10 lists the families.

The word the whole question turns on

"Collapse." Not "was overthrown", not "was defeated". Nothing beat the Tsarist regime in March 1917. There was no rival army, no organised revolutionary party in charge of the streets, and no plan. Cambridge's own mark schemes describe soldiers who shot their officers and joined the demonstrators, an army high command that suggested the Tsar abdicate, and a Duma that set up a Provisional Committee to replace the government while the government was still in office. The regime fell because everyone who was supposed to hold it up stopped.

That is the shape of a top answer. The long-term factors explain why nobody wanted to hold it up. The war explains why 1917 rather than 1912. The March events explain why the usual method of holding it up, which was troops firing on crowds, did not work this time.

2. Where this Key Question is set, and how it is marked

The marking is not repeated here

Every rule about how Paper 1 is marked, including the two changes Cambridge made for the 2024 series, the three level ladders, the difference between an identification and an explanation, the judgement sentences that reach Level 5 and the mistakes examiner reports name every series, is set out in the How Cambridge marks History 0470 Paper 1 notes on this site. Read that page once before you use this one. Nothing from it is restated below, and where this file says "capped at 6" or "the fifth mark" it is using rules that page establishes.

The two headline numbers you need while reading this file: every question is (a) 4 marks, (b) 6 marks, (c) 10 marks, and a one-sided answer on part (c) cannot go above 6.

Section B: Russia is Questions 13 and 14

Section B is headed "SECTION B: DEPTH STUDIES" and begins at Question 9. Each Depth study gets two consecutive questions in syllabus order, so Depth study C, Russia, is Question 13 and Question 14. That was checked here against the printed question stems in all 48 Paper 1 mark schemes from 2018 to 2024, and it held in every one of them without a single exception.

You answer one question from Section B, so you need one Depth study, not five.

Papers from 2018 to 2023 ran to Question 22, because there were then seven Depth studies rather than five. Russia was Questions 13 and 14 in those papers too. The three withdrawn Depth studies all sat after Russia in the running order, so unlike candidates on Depth studies D and E, a Russia candidate can use every past paper from 2018 onwards and find their questions at the same two numbers every time. That is a real advantage and it is worth knowing you have it.

Your Key Question is Question 13, and it is Question 13 twenty five times in forty eight

Cambridge does not tie a Key Question to a slot within a Depth study, and says so nowhere. For Depth study C, the papers say otherwise, loudly.

In 25 of the 48 papers, all three parts of Question 13 sit inside this Key Question: a 4 mark description of Tsarist Russia or of 1905, a 6 mark "why" on the same period, and a 10 mark judgement on the 1905 Revolution, on the years to 1914, or on the fall of the Tsar. In the other 23, Question 13 is on Key Question 2 instead. One paper, November 2023 version 2, splits them: part (a) asks who the Mensheviks were, which is pre-war opposition and therefore yours, while parts (b) and (c) are on the Provisional Government and the Civil War, which are not.

Question 14 has never once set this Key Question in 48 papers. It sets Key Question 3 or Key Question 4 almost always, and Key Question 2 occasionally.

Two things follow.

If you are revising this Key Question, you are revising Question 13. More than half the papers give you all three parts of it, and in those papers Question 14 is on Stalin, which is content you will not have prioritised. That is a large concentration of risk in one question number, and it cuts both ways.

Roughly one paper in two does not set this Key Question at all. In those, Question 13 is on the Provisional Government, the Civil War, War Communism or the New Economic Policy, and Question 14 is on Stalin. A candidate who has revised only Key Question 1 has no question to answer. This is not a Key Question you can revise alone.

Where the 10 mark question actually lands

All 25 of the ten-markers appeared at 13(c). They fall into three families of almost equal weight:

The third family is set more often than the other two put together, and it is the family that carries the Key Question's own name. If you prepare only one 10 mark argument for this Key Question, prepare that one.

Paper 4, where this Key Question is set unusually heavily

If your school enters you for Paper 4, the Alternative to Coursework, rather than the coursework component, your Depth study is examined there as well. Depth study C is Questions 5 and 6 on Paper 4, in both the old format and the new one.

Paper 4 changed format for the 2024 series: one 40 mark essay became (a) 15 marks, "Write an account of", plus (b) 25 marks, "Discuss the importance of" or "Discuss the impact of". In the seven 2024 Paper 4 versions read here, four set this Key Question at Question 5, and all four paired a 15 mark account with a 25 mark discussion from the same focus point:

• "Write an account of the revolution of March 1917" with "Discuss the importance to Russia of military defeats in the First World War"
• "Write an account of the events of Bloody Sunday" with "Discuss the impact of the 1905 Revolution on Russia"
• "Write an account of the economic problems facing Russia between 1905 and 1914" with "Discuss the impact of the Russo-Japanese War (1904 to 1905) on Russia"
• "Write an account of Rasputin's role in Tsarist Russia" with "Discuss the impact of the First World War on Russia by March 1917"

Note the date limit on the last of those. "By March 1917" means the marking stops at the abdication, which is where this file stops.

Paper 2 never examines a Depth study. Its prescribed topic is always drawn from the Core content, so no source question will ever be set on Russia. Nothing in this file earns a source mark anywhere in the qualification.

What examiner reports actually show, and it is not what you would expect

There is a widely repeated belief that the later Section B questions draw so few candidates that examiners cannot comment on them. For Depth study C that is half true, and the half that is true is the opposite way round from the belief.

Across the Principal Examiner reports from 2018 to 2024, Question 13 on Russia is commented on in detail in every series read, part by part, with named content and named faults. Question 14 on Russia is the one that repeatedly draws the boilerplate, "There were too few responses to this question for meaningful comments to be made", which appears against Question 14 in June 2019 twice, June 2021, June 2022, November 2019 twice, November 2020 and November 2023.

So the fault list in section 11 below is not guesswork built from what the mark schemes reward. It is taken from examiners writing directly about your question number. That is a better source than most Depth studies get.

One further thing the reports say. Depth study C is a popular choice. The June 2019 report on Paper 4 names it third by entry, after Germany and the United States, and the June 2022 report lists it among the studies with substantial entries. You are not on an obscure option.

3. The three cases, stated once

Almost every 10 mark question in this Key Question is a contest between these. Learn them as positions, not as topics, and the 10 mark part becomes a matter of choosing which two to put in the ring.

The case that the regime was doomed long before 1914

Russia was ungovernable by the methods the Romanovs were willing to use. The country was vast, its population was overwhelmingly peasant and poor, its industrial workers lived and worked in conditions the state did not regulate at all, and it contained about twenty nationalities that the state was actively trying to make Russian. Against that, the regime offered autocracy, censorship, banned political parties and a secret police. Every concession it made was withdrawn, and every reform was accompanied by hangings. A system like that survives only while nothing goes wrong.

The case that the regime was coping, and that the war destroyed it

The same regime faced a genuine revolution in 1905, with a mutinying fleet, a general strike that stopped the railways and soviets in two capitals, and it survived. It then had nine years in which agricultural production rose, peasant landownership rose, industry grew, and a parliament of sorts met. On the eve of war the Tsar had an army that obeyed him, a police force that worked and an opposition that was divided. What was different in 1917 was three years of catastrophic war, and Cambridge's own Level 5 exemplar makes precisely this argument: there had been unrest for years and the Tsar had survived it, and the war is what made it fatal.

The case that the man was the reason

Nicholas II inherited difficulties and made every one of them worse. He believed in divine right and refused reform when reform was cheap. He broke the October Manifesto within months by issuing the Fundamental Laws. He dissolved the Dumas that criticised him. He took personal command of the army in 1915, which converted every military disaster into a personal one, and left his German-born wife and a discredited holy man to govern in his absence. Cambridge has set this argument as a question in its own words: "How far was Tsar Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall?"

The move that reaches Level 5

The three cases are not mutually exclusive, and a judgement that simply picks one is weaker than a judgement that ranks them with a reason attached. The strongest available move on this Key Question, and the one Cambridge's own top-band exemplar makes, is to argue that the long-term factors supplied the grievances and the war supplied the collapse, because the grievances existed for years without producing a collapse and the war did not need to invent a single new one. That sentence answers "why 1917 and not 1912", which is the question underneath the question.

4. Focus point: how well did the Tsarist regime deal with the difficulties of ruling Russia up to 1914?

This focus point has two halves and the examiners split candidates on the difference. The first half is what the difficulties were. The second is how the regime dealt with them, which after 1905 means Stolypin, the Dumas and the Okhrana. Answers that only do the first half are the single commonest failure at this focus point, and section 11 quotes the report that says so.

The difficulties

Cambridge's mark schemes credit these as separate points, and this is the list to draw four facts from for a part (a):

The country itself. Russia was a vast empire and difficult to rule, containing about twenty different nationalities.

The peasants. About 80 per cent of the population were peasants. They used ancient farming techniques on small, unproductive farms. Famines were regular and starvation was common. Most of the good land was owned by the aristocracy, the Church and the Tsar, which the peasants resented. The village commune, the mir, controlled their daily life, and a peasant could not go and find work elsewhere without the commune's permission. Redemption payments were a burden on them. A minority of richer peasants, the kulaks, owned a disproportionate share of what land the peasants had.

The industrial workers. They suffered wretched living conditions and atrocious working conditions. There were no government regulations on child labour, hours, safety or education. The value of their wages was actually falling. Cambridge's own mark scheme adds that the new industrial cities were breeding grounds for revolutionary ideas, which is the link between this bullet and the next.

The economy. Russia was mainly agricultural with little industry. Its industries were old-fashioned and needed modernisation. Investment was needed, and more workers were needed if Russia was to industrialise. By 1914 there was some industry, with oil and coal being produced and deposits of gold and iron, but Russia was not industrialised to the same extent as Germany and the USA.

The opposition. Opposition groups were growing and were a threat to the Tsar and the aristocracy. The rising middle classes wanted greater democracy. Cambridge names the Mensheviks as part of the Social Democrat Party, who split from the Bolsheviks in 1903, believed in Marxism, thought the revolutionary party should be broadly based and democratically organised, thought revolution would be a gradual process, and encouraged the formation of soviets in the 1905 Revolution.

How the regime dealt with them, which is mostly by not dealing with them

Cambridge's mark schemes describe Tsarist rule in one short list, and it is worth memorising because it has been a part (a) in its own right: divine right to rule; an autocracy; censorship; political parties banned; use of the Okhrana, the secret police; thousands of opponents in prison; against reform.

To that add Russification, which the mark schemes treat as a Tsarist policy in its own right before it becomes a Stalinist one. Under the Tsar it meant making non-Russian communities give up their culture in favour of Russian culture, forbidding the use of local languages, and requiring all Russians to believe in autocracy.

1. the state bans parties and censors the press
2. grievance has no legal channel and no way of being answered
3. opposition becomes revolutionary because nothing else is available
4. the state needs the Okhrana to contain what it has created
5. repression becomes the government's only method rather than its last resort.

That chain is the answer to "how well". Not well, and the reason is structural rather than personal.

The record from 1906 to 1914, which is the half that wins marks

This is where the counter-case lives, and a part (c) on this focus point cannot reach Level 4 without it.

Stolypin was appointed by the Tsar in 1906 and was assassinated in 1911. Cambridge credits both sides of him, and one of its own question stems is built on the tension: "Stolypin's policies between 1906 and 1911 depended on repression. How far do you agree?"

Stolypin the reformer. Peasant Land Banks lent peasants money to buy land. The mirs were no longer allowed to stop peasants leaving to buy their own land. He attempted to end the open field system. The aim was a new class of prosperous peasants farming for themselves and producing a surplus to sell to the cities, and Cambridge states the result: peasant landownership increased by 30 per cent, production increased, and there was a record harvest by 1914. He also introduced health and insurance schemes for workers and safety inspectors, and boosted industrial production.

The purpose behind all of it is what earns the explanation mark:

1. peasants are lent money to buy their own land
2. a class of landowning peasants is created where there was none
3. people with a permanent stake in the country have something to lose from revolution
4. the Tsar acquires supporters in the countryside, which is where 80 per cent of Russians live.

Stolypin the repressor. He introduced a new system of martial law and brutally suppressed strikers and revolutionaries. Opponents were exiled and hanged, informers were used, everybody had to carry internal passports, and newspapers were censored. Cambridge prints figures for this and prints them inconsistently, which section 9 sets out.

The Dumas. The October Manifesto had promised an elected parliament. What followed is the reason candidates are asked why the Dumas "failed to turn Russia into a parliamentary democracy". Before the first Duma met in 1906 the Tsar issued the Fundamental Laws, which stated that ministers were responsible to the Tsar alone and could not be removed by a vote of censure in the Duma. At the first meeting the Tsar made a short speech saying that he would uphold the principles of autocracy. The first two Dumas were very critical and were dismissed quickly. Stolypin then changed the electoral rules for the Second Duma so that only landowners and the wealthy could vote. Cambridge's own Level 2 line is blunt: "The Tsar broke the terms of the October Manifesto."

The unrest that never stopped. There was an industrial boom, but the workers did not benefit; working conditions stayed poor and wages stayed low, so strikes went on virtually all the time. Cambridge names one episode twice: a strike in the Lena goldfields broken up by troops in 1912, described in another mark scheme as troops massacring strikers "in 1912 in Siberia". A wave of industrial unrest followed it.

And Rasputin. Cambridge's own Level 2 line for a question on how well Russia was governed in this period is that "letting Rasputin have so much influence over the government was a bad mistake". He belongs to the war years mainly, and section 6 handles him, but the mark scheme allows him here.

The two paragraphs this focus point is for

How well, the positive. Russia was governed rather better after 1905. Stolypin reformed farming, peasants bought their own land with money from a state bank, production rose and by 1914 there was a record harvest. A Duma met and passed some useful reforms. Economic development meant less discontent from the peasants. The Okhrana contained the revolutionaries, the opposition was divided, and the Tsar kept his power.

How well, the negative. Not well at all. The Duma the Tsar promised had no real power once the Fundamental Laws had been issued, it was dominated by the rich, and if it did anything he disliked he dissolved it. The promise of a free press was not carried out. Thousands were executed and thousands more exiled. In the cities, an industrial boom left the workers no better off, so strikes continued and troops were still shooting strikers as late as 1912. Reform that is withdrawn buys resentment rather than loyalty.

5. Focus point: how did the Tsar survive the 1905 Revolution?

This is a focus point about survival, and Cambridge has set it in almost the syllabus's own words: "Why did the Tsarist regime survive the 1905 revolution?" It is also the focus point that makes the whole Key Question answerable, because a regime that survived a revolution in 1905 needs a reason for not surviving one in 1917.

What caused it

The Russo-Japanese War of 1904 to 1905. Cambridge's own material is precise about why the defeat mattered so much: Japan was regarded as a third-rate military power, a much smaller nation, and losing to it was a humiliation. The war also took food and materials that the cities needed. Port Arthur fell to the Japanese the week before Bloody Sunday. In 1905 the large Russian fleet was sunk or captured by a much smaller Japanese fleet. Russia had to agree to a peace treaty that gave Japan Port Arthur and recognised Japan's authority over Korea. Soldiers returning from the war protested, and there were naval mutinies.

Cambridge sets this as a 10 mark question twice in the papers read: "The Russo-Japanese War was the main cause of the 1905 Revolution", and "the 1905 revolution was caused by Russia's defeat by Japan". Both times, the mark scheme's own counter-argument is the same, and it is the argument you should have ready:

1. the war is a humiliation and worsens the economy
2. but the unrest was already there and the Bloody Sunday march was already planned
3. the war was a spark, not the fuel
4. the underlying causes were the economic depression, falling wages and hardship, which the war made worse rather than created.

Social and economic distress. Cambridge's own top-band wording for this side: taxes were increased on everyday items to pay for industrial development while wages were kept low; there was an industrial slump in 1902 in which thousands lost their jobs; there were bad harvests in 1900 and 1902; strikes and demonstrations broke out across the country, and by 1905 the situation was ripe for revolution.

Bloody Sunday. In January 1905, Father Gapon led a peaceful demonstration in support of reform. Demonstrators marched through St Petersburg to the Winter Palace to present a petition to the Tsar. They asked for help with economic hardship, better wages and shorter working hours, and the petition included an end to the war with Japan. Troops, described in one mark scheme as Cossacks, opened fire in front of the Palace. Demonstrators were killed. Cambridge's figures for how many are inconsistent, and section 9 sets that out rather than picking one.

The reason this event matters is not the number. It is what it did to a specific belief:

1. Russians believed the Tsar was their "Little Father" who would help them if only he knew
2. an unarmed, peaceful crowd carrying a petition is fired on outside his own palace
3. the belief is destroyed and cannot be rebuilt
4. from then on the Tsar's opponents are arguing about the system rather than about ministers.

Cambridge's own Level 3 exemplar puts the long-term consequence in one sentence: although the Tsar survived in 1905, he never really recovered, and Bloody Sunday can be seen as the first important event that led to his downfall in 1917. That is a ready-made link between focus point 2 and focus point 4, and it is worth having.

What happened during 1905

For a part (a) on 1905, Cambridge credits: strikes; government officials in St Petersburg killed; peasants attacked landlords; universities closing and students staging a walkout; railway workers went on strike in October, paralysing the railway network; a general strike in September; unions formed by workers from key industries; and the St Petersburg Soviet established, with soviets and unions demanding better rights for workers.

The Potemkin, June 1905. Cambridge has set a whole part (a) on it: there was a mutiny; the sailors were given rotten meat; the captain ordered the sailors to be executed; the firing squad refused to carry out the order; officers were thrown overboard; and a committee supporting revolutionary ideas took over the ship. The reason it is set is what it signalled, which was that the Tsar might be losing control of his armed forces. Hold that thought until section 7, because in 1917 he did.

How he survived it, which is the actual question

Cambridge gives four mechanisms and rewards the ones with a chain attached.

The October Manifesto, issued in the autumn of 1905. It promised Russia constitutional government: an elected Duma, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to form political parties, freedom of religion, and that laws would not be passed without the Duma's authority. Cambridge describes it as "a move towards democracy".

The point is not what it granted. It is what it did to the opposition:

1. the Manifesto offers exactly what the middle-class liberals had been demanding
2. the liberals are satisfied and stop supporting the revolution
3. the revolutionaries are left isolated with no respectable allies
4. a divided opposition can be crushed piece by piece, and the liberals actually support the Tsar in putting down what is left.

That is the strongest single explanation available at this focus point and it is Cambridge's own.

Repression, once the opposition had been split. After making peace with Japan the Tsar brought soldiers home to deal with the protests. The leaders of the St Petersburg and Moscow Soviets were arrested and exiled to Siberia, and a Bolshevik uprising was crushed. Martial law was introduced, political parties were suppressed, the Black Hundreds were used to attack his opponents, and the Okhrana was used against revolutionary leaders. Cambridge's Level 2 line: "Many of the leaders of the revolution were dead or exiled."

Buying off the peasants. Cambridge credits cutting redemption payments in half.

Ending the war. Making peace with Japan removed the grievance and freed the army at the same time. It is one action doing two jobs, which makes it an efficient explanation to write.

The aftermath, which is where the survival was undone

Cambridge sets a 10 mark question on whether "the reaction of the Tsarist regime to the 1905 Revolution was repression", and another on whether "the 1905 Revolution led to a period of significant reform". Both are asking the same thing from opposite ends, and the answer that reaches Level 5 is that the regime did both and then withdrew the reform while keeping the repression, via the Fundamental Laws described in section 4.

The most recent 10 mark version of this argument, from November 2024, puts it as a direct contest: "The October Manifesto was more important than repression to the survival of the Tsarist regime up to 1914." Cambridge's own top-band line on the repression side is worth quoting for its shape: the Manifesto was introduced only to stop the rioting and strikes in the autumn of 1905, and once the Fundamental Laws made clear the Duma would have no power, the Manifesto was only for show, and the real reason the Tsar stayed in power was repression by the army and the secret police.

6. Focus point: how far was the Tsar weakened by the First World War?

Note the command. "How far", not "how". This focus point is set up as a two-sided question in the syllabus itself, and the other side is that Russia's problems long predated 1914. Thirteen of the twenty five ten-markers in this Key Question turn on this focus point in one form or another, and Cambridge's most recent version of it is: "The most important reason why Tsar Nicholas abdicated in 1917 was Russia's involvement in the First World War."

The military failure

Cambridge's Depth study C mark schemes are notably light on battle names and heavy on consequences. What they credit is: the war went very badly for Russia; there were millions of casualties; the army suffered mutinies and desertions; and, in the mark schemes' own recurring phrase, the war linked the Tsar to military failures.

Cambridge does name Russian defeats at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes, and a Russian success against the Austrians in Galicia, but it does so in its First World War Depth study material rather than in the Russia questions. You do not need them here, and section 12 says what to do about that.

1915, the decision that converted defeat into blame

This is the most heavily set single fact in the whole Key Question. Cambridge has built a 6 mark question on it, "Why was the Tsar's decision in 1915 to take personal command of the Russian army important?", and a 10 mark question, "The most important reason why the Tsar fell from power was that he had taken personal control of the army."

1. the Tsar takes personal command of the army on the Eastern Front in 1915
2. every subsequent defeat is now his defeat personally, and he has no ability as a general
3. morale falls and desertions rise
4. the blame that used to attach to ministers attaches to the throne, and there is nobody left to sack.

The second consequence is the one candidates forget, and it is worth as much:

1. the Tsar goes to the front
2. the Tsarina is left governing Russia in his absence
3. she is German-born, disliked reform, and took her advice from Rasputin
4. ministers are dismissed in rapid succession
5. the government stops functioning at exactly the moment the country most needs it to.

The Tsarina and Rasputin

Cambridge sets these constantly, alone and against each other: "How important was the Tsarina's friendship with Rasputin in the collapse of the Tsarist regime?", "How important was the role of the Tsarina in causing the March Revolution of 1917?", "Hatred of the Tsarina was the main reason the Tsar fell from power in 1917", "By 1916 the main reason for the Tsar's unpopularity was Rasputin", and "Rasputin was more important than the impact of the First World War in causing the overthrow of Nicholas II".

Rasputin. He was a close adviser to the Tsar and the Tsarina. He was used to "cure" their son of haemophilia, and Cambridge's own explanation is that through hypnosis he appeared able to control the disease, so the Tsarina thought him a miracle worker with supernatural powers, and that is where his hold over her came from. He advised on the appointment of government ministers, got the Tsarina to appoint his friends to top jobs, and had a leading role in running the country while the Tsar was leading the troops.

The damage. Cambridge's top-band wording: Rasputin was unpopular because of his private conduct, and yet served as the Tsarina's adviser while ministers were dismissed in rapid succession. There were rumours that he and the Tsarina were having an affair and were plotting a separate peace with Germany. He brought the royal family into disrepute, and the reputation of the royal family was at an all-time low by 1917, so that people began to question their right to rule. Leading aristocrats did not like the Tsarina.

The argument to have ready against them, which is what a "how far" question is asking for, is that Rasputin and the Tsarina were only able to do this damage because the Tsar had gone to the front, which was itself a consequence of the war. A judgement that says the Tsarina mattered but was downstream of the war outranks one that simply picks a side.

The home front, which is what actually put people on the streets

Cambridge credits: food shortages in the cities; high prices for food; inflation; people queuing for hours to buy bread in Petrograd; shortages of fuel, so that people were starving and cold; forced grain requisition, which the government did and which people were angry about; and more workers from the cities forced to join the army, which cut production at the same time.

1. the army takes men and grain from the countryside and the cities
2. industry and farming lose workers while military demand rises
3. prices rise and food does not reach Petrograd
4. the same shortages that used to cause a strike now cause a strike in a city full of armed, badly fed conscripts.

That last clause is the join between this focus point and the next, and it is the sentence that turns two topics into one argument.

The other side, and it is a real one

The counter-case is not a formality. Cambridge's own Level 2 material for this focus point includes "The Tsar was popular when war broke out", which is a fact worth a mark and an argument worth a paragraph. So is "the army and police were loyal to the Tsar" and "the secret police" continued to function.

The full counter-case runs: the Tsar had faced far worse than an unpopular wife in 1905 and had survived it; the grievances of 1917, meaning hunger, low wages, land hunger and a powerless parliament, were the same grievances as 1905 and as 1912; the regime had proved twice that it could contain them. Nothing on the list of long-term causes was new. What was new was three years of war.

Which is exactly why Cambridge's Level 5 exemplar comes down where it does: there were other factors, but all of them were caused or made worse by the war, and unrest had been survived before, so the war is the answer to "why this time".

7. Focus point: why was the revolution of March 1917 successful?

Cambridge has set this focus point as a 6 mark question in exactly the syllabus's own words, in June 2023: "Why was the revolution of March 1917 successful?" It is the only place in this Key Question where a focus point and a question stem are word for word identical, which makes it the single most predictable question in the file.

The word to notice is "successful". Not "why did it happen", which is focus point 3's business. Why did this one work, when 1905 did not.

What happened, in Cambridge's own order

For a part (a) on March 1917, the mark scheme credits these:

• In Petrograd, workers, many of whom were women, went on strike demanding bread.
• There were violent protests and demonstrations in Petrograd, with over a thousand people killed or injured by troops.
• Some soldiers shot their officers and joined the demonstrators.
• Revolutionaries set up the Petrograd Soviet and took control of food supplies.
• The Duma set up a Provisional Committee to replace the government.
• By 15 March the Tsar had lost control and abdicated.
• The Provisional Government took control with Prince Lvov its leader.

That last bullet is the last thing in this file. Everything Prince Lvov's government then did, and everything the Petrograd Soviet did after March, belongs to Key Question 2.

Why it worked, which is the question

Cambridge's own answer has four strands, and the second one is the one that matters most.

The war had discredited the government completely. Cambridge's Level 3 exemplar for the exact syllabus question begins here: Russia was doing very badly, casualties were high, the Tsar had gone to the front and taken personal charge, and when the army failed disastrously he got the blame and showed himself incompetent. Add the Tsarina and Rasputin, and, in the mark scheme's own phrase, "The Tsar's government had collapsed" before the crowds arrived.

The army would not fire. This is the difference between 1905 and 1917 and it should be the centre of any answer. Cambridge sets a whole 10 mark question on it, "How important was the loss of the support of the armed forces in the collapse of Tsarist rule in 1917?", and its own top-band material says that when troops were ordered to put down the revolt in Petrograd they refused, some shot their own officers and joined the demonstrators, and they demanded his abdication.

1. in 1905 the Tsar made peace with Japan and brought a loyal army home to crush the soviets
2. in 1917 the army in Petrograd is made of conscripts drawn from the same hungry city, three years into a war they blame him for
3. the only instrument that ever ended a Russian revolution refuses the order
4. there is nothing else left to try.

There was somewhere for power to go. The Duma set up a Provisional Committee, and the Petrograd Soviet organised itself and took control of food supplies. Cambridge's Level 2 lines include "the army and demonstrators demanded that the Duma take over" and "the Petrograd Soviet took control of St Petersburg". In 1905 there was no body ready to receive power. In 1917 there were two.

Nobody would defend him, including his own generals. Cambridge records that the Russian army high command suggested that he abdicate because the situation was so bad. That is the sentence that makes "collapse" the right word for this Key Question.

The two revolutions, and the mistake that costs whole answers

This file ends here. The Tsar has abdicated, the Romanov dynasty has ended and a Provisional Government under Prince Lvov is in office.

What Cambridge calls the November Revolution is eight months later and is a different event with different causes. Everything about the Provisional Government's failures, the Petrograd Soviet as its rival, Lenin's return in April, the July Days, the Kornilov Affair, Trotsky and the seizure of power in November belongs to Key Question 2, "How did the Bolsheviks gain power, and how did they consolidate their rule?", which has its own file.

Examiner reports name this confusion directly. One report records candidates writing about events from October 1917 in answer to a question about July 1917, and notes that these were not relevant to this question. Another records candidates writing about March 1917 during the Dual Government era, which was not relevant for this question. A third records candidates writing about the period after March 1917 when the Tsar had abdicated and the Romanov dynasty had ended in answer to a question that stopped at the abdication.

The rule is simple. If the Tsar has already abdicated, you are in Key Question 2 and earning nothing.

8. Where Cambridge's calendar disagrees with itself

Russian dates in this period exist in two calendars, because Russia used the Julian calendar until 1918 while the rest of Europe used the Gregorian one, and the two were thirteen days apart. This is why the same events are called the February Revolution and the March Revolution, and the October Revolution and the November Revolution.

Cambridge's own house style is the Gregorian one. The syllabus prints "The March Revolution of 1917" in the specified content and "the revolution of March 1917" in the focus point. The mark schemes overwhelmingly follow it, printing "the revolution of March 1917", "the March Revolution of 1917", "the abdication of the Tsar in March 1917", "By 15 March the Tsar had lost control and abdicated", and, on Paper 4, "the collapse of Tsarist rule in Russia in March 1917" and "the impact of the First World War on Russia by March 1917".

But Cambridge does not follow it everywhere. Two examples from the mark schemes read here:

• A Depth study C part (a) on the impact of the war on the Russian people, from June 2024, lists as a creditable point: "In February 1917, crowds march through Petrograd shouting anti-war slogans", and the point before it, "By January 1917, people are striking and demanding bread". Those are the events every other Cambridge document calls March.
• A First World War question from June 2021 states: "In February 1917 the Tsar was forced to abdicate and a Provisional Government took over." That is the same abdication another mark scheme dates to 15 March.

Do not try to reconcile these and do not correct Cambridge. The dating is genuinely double and both names refer to the same events. What to do in the exam:

• Use Cambridge's own house style, which is March 1917 and November 1917, because that is what the syllabus prints and what the question stems will say.
• If a question says "March 1917", answer about the fall of the Tsar. If a paper you are practising on says "February 1917", it means the same thing.
• Do not write a date more precise than Cambridge does unless you know which calendar you are in. The one precise date Cambridge prints for the abdication is 15 March, so that is the one to use.
• Never write both a February and a March revolution in the same answer as though they were two events. They are one.

9. Where Cambridge's figures disagree with each other

Three of the numbers a candidate would most want are printed in more than one version in Cambridge's own mark schemes. Surface the conflict, pick the more cautious version, and do not invent a third.

How many died on Bloody Sunday

Two Cambridge mark schemes, both on Depth study C, both crediting the answer they print:

• November 2023: "Around 200 000 people marched to the Winter Palace." "Troops fired at the demonstrators and almost 100 were killed."
• March 2022, inside a Level 3 exemplar worth 4 or 5 marks: "He had ordered the troops to open fire and thousands of people were killed."

Those cannot both be right and Cambridge credits both. The safe move in an exam is Cambridge's own most common wording, which carries no number at all: "Demonstrators were killed", or "soldiers fired on the crowd and killed many". A part (a) point does not need a figure to score, and section 3 of the How Cambridge marks History 0470 Paper 1 notes explains why a figure is only worth a mark inside an explanation anyway. If you want one, "almost 100" is the version that comes with a marching total attached and is the more recent of the two.

How many Stolypin hanged and exiled

• November 2018, inside a Level 3 exemplar: "repression under Stolypin was increased, with twenty thousand political opponents exiled, and over one thousand hanged."
• June 2019, inside a Level 3 exemplar: "He had over a thousand people hanged and exiled many more."
• March 2020, as a Level 2 point: "Thousands were executed in 1906."

The first two agree on the hangings and differ on how the exiles are counted. The third gives a different order of magnitude for executions and attaches a year. "Over a thousand hanged and many thousands exiled" is consistent with all three and is what to write.

How many died in Petrograd in March 1917

Cambridge prints "over a thousand people being killed or injured by troops". Note "killed or injured". That is a combined figure and it is not a death toll. Quote it as Cambridge does or not at all.

One event, two names

The 1912 shooting of strikers appears as "a strike in the Lena goldfields broken up by troops in 1912" in one mark scheme and as troops massacring "strikers and protestors as in 1912 in Siberia" in another. Those are the same event, and the Lena goldfields are in Siberia. Either name is safe.

10. What the papers actually ask

Every stem below is a real Question 13 from a Paper 1 mark scheme between 2018 and 2024, or a real Question 5 from a 2024 Paper 4. Ranges are written out. Preparing to answer a family is worth more than preparing to answer a stem.

The 4 mark families

Tsarist Russia before 1905. "Describe the main features of Tsarist rule at the beginning of the twentieth century." "What were the main features of the Russian system of government at the beginning of the twentieth century?" "What problems faced the Tsar's government at the beginning of the twentieth century?" "By 1905 what difficulties faced Tsar Nicholas II in ruling the Russian people?" "Describe Russia's economic problems at the beginning of the twentieth century." "Describe the state of the Russian economy by 1914." "Describe the structure of Russian society in the countryside in the early twentieth century." "What was life like for Russian peasants by 1905?" "What was the policy of Russification?" "What were the features of the Tsar's 'Russification' policy?" "Who were the Mensheviks?"

1905 and its causes. "What was Bloody Sunday?" "Describe the main events of the 1905 Revolution." "Describe revolutionary activity in Russia during 1905." "In addition to Bloody Sunday, what other protests against Tsarist rule took place in 1905?" "What happened on the battleship Potemkin in 1905?" "What was the October Manifesto?" "What was the impact of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 to 1905 on the people of Russia?" "What were the consequences for Russia of the Russo-Japanese War?" "Describe the impact of the Russo-Japanese War on the Tsar's regime."

Stolypin. "Describe the work of Stolypin." "Describe the agricultural reforms introduced by Stolypin." "What changes did Stolypin make to Russian agriculture?"

The war and 1917. "Describe the impact of the First World War on the lives of the Russian people." "Describe Rasputin's role in the Tsarist regime." "Describe what happened in Russia in March 1917."

The 6 mark families

Why there was discontent, and why 1905 happened. "Why was there discontent with the Russian government by 1905?" "Why had discontent with the Tsarist regime grown by 1905?" "Why was discontent with the Tsarist regime widespread by the beginning of 1905?" "Why did revolution break out in Russia in 1905?" "Why was Bloody Sunday important?" "Why was defeat in the war against Japan important for Russia in 1905?" "Why was the 1905 Revolution important?"

The Manifesto and the survival. "Why was the October Manifesto introduced?" "Why was the October Manifesto issued in 1905?" "Why was the October Manifesto important?" "Why did the October Manifesto have only a limited impact on the way Russia was ruled?" "Why did the Tsarist regime survive the 1905 revolution?"

The years to 1914. "Why was Stolypin important to the Tsarist regime?" "Why was Stolypin important in the period 1906 to 1911?" "Why was Stolypin important to the Tsar?" "Why did the Tsarist government introduce reforms in the period 1905 to 1911?" "Why was Russia's agriculture under Tsar Nicholas II in need of reform?" "Why did opposition to the Tsar continue in the period 1906 to 1914?" "Why did the Dumas fail to turn Russia into a parliamentary democracy?"

The war and the fall. "Why was the Tsar's decision in 1915 to take personal command of the Russian army important?" "Why was Rasputin able to become a powerful figure in the Tsarist regime?" "Why did the Russian government become increasingly unpopular from 1914?" "Why did the Tsar abdicate in March 1917?" "Why was the revolution of March 1917 successful?" "Why was the revolution of March 1917 important?"

The two in bold are the syllabus's own focus points reprinted as questions. If you can answer those two cold, you can answer most of this list.

The 10 mark families

On 1905. "Social and economic distress was the main cause of the 1905 Revolution." "The Russo-Japanese War was the main cause of the 1905 Revolution." "How far do you agree that the 1905 revolution was caused by Russia's defeat by Japan?" "The reaction of the Tsarist regime to the 1905 Revolution was repression." "The Tsar survived the 1905 Revolution because of his repressive policies." "The 1905 Revolution led to a period of significant reform."

On the years 1906 to 1914. "How well did the Tsarist regime govern Russia between 1906 and 1914?" "Tsarist rule was repressive and autocratic in the period 1906 to 1914." "Stolypin's policies between 1906 and 1911 depended on repression." "How far would you agree that the Tsar was firmly in control of Russia at the start of 1914?" "How secure was the Tsarist regime at the start of 1914?" "The October Manifesto was more important than repression to the survival of the Tsarist regime up to 1914."

On the fall. "The most important reason why Tsar Nicholas abdicated in 1917 was Russia's involvement in the First World War." "How far was Tsar Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall?" "Political repression was the main reason for the revolution of March 1917." "The rioting in St Petersburg was the main reason for the abdication of the Tsar in March 1917." "The most important reason why the Tsar fell from power was that he had taken personal control of the army." "How important was the loss of the support of the armed forces in the collapse of Tsarist rule in 1917?" "How important was the Tsarina's friendship with Rasputin in the collapse of the Tsarist regime?" "How important was the role of the Tsarina in causing the March Revolution of 1917?" "Hatred of the Tsarina was the main reason the Tsar fell from power in 1917." "By 1916 the main reason for the Tsar's unpopularity was Rasputin." "Rasputin was more important than the impact of the First World War in causing the overthrow of Nicholas II." "How surprising is it that the Tsar fell from power in 1917?" "Are you surprised that the Tsar managed to remain in power until 1917?"

The Paper 4 families, 2024 format

Question 5, 15 marks, "Write an account of": the revolution of March 1917; the events of Bloody Sunday; the economic problems facing Russia between 1905 and 1914; Rasputin's role in Tsarist Russia.

Question 5, 25 marks, "Discuss the importance of" or "Discuss the impact of": military defeats in the First World War; the 1905 Revolution on Russia; the Russo-Japanese War on Russia; the First World War on Russia by March 1917.

11. Judgement sentences for this Key Question

The tenth mark on part (c) is a separate act from explaining both sides. Each of these states a position and attaches a reason, which is what Level 5 asks for. Adapt the wording to the exact question.

• "The war mattered more than any of the long-term grievances, because every one of those grievances had existed for years without bringing him down, and none of them was new in 1917."
• "The Tsarina and Rasputin mattered, but they mattered because the Tsar had gone to the front, so they are a consequence of the war rather than a rival to it."
• "The 1905 Revolution failed and the 1917 one succeeded for a single reason, which is that in 1905 the army obeyed the order to fire and in 1917 it did not."
• "The regime survived 1905 by dividing its opponents rather than by satisfying them, which is why the same opposition was still there in 1917."
• "Reform mattered less than repression, because the reform was withdrawn within months by the Fundamental Laws while the repression continued until the war."
• "He was not overthrown so much as abandoned, because by March 1917 the army, the Duma and his own high command had all separately decided he should go."
• "Nicholas made the difficulties worse rather than creating them, and the fairest judgement is that he inherited a hard country and governed it in the one way guaranteed to make it harder."
• "It is not surprising that he fell, but it is surprising that he lasted until 1917, and the reason he did is that until 1914 the army was still his."

12. What examiner reports say candidates get wrong here

These come from Principal Examiner reports written about Question 13 on Russia, series by series, between 2018 and 2024. The faults that apply to every question on the paper, such as overwriting part (a) and never reaching a conclusion, are in the How Cambridge marks History 0470 Paper 1 notes and are not repeated.

Describing the conditions instead of the difficulties of ruling. On a part (a) asking what difficulties faced Nicholas II in ruling the Russian people, the report says the key was to recognise that the question was about the difficulties of ruling Russia, rather than just describing the dreadful living and working conditions experienced by ordinary people. Poverty is a fact about Russians. A difficulty of ruling is a fact about the state.

Describing the war instead of its impact. On a part (a) about the impact of the Russo-Japanese War on the people of Russia, less successful responses focused on the events of the war, or on why the war started. The question said "impact" and "on the people".

Describing agriculture instead of explaining why it needed reform. On a part (b) about why Russian agriculture needed reform, weaker answers described agriculture during the reign of Nicholas II and would have been improved by explaining why reform was needed to deal with poor techniques and lack of modernisation.

Identifying instead of explaining, at part (b). The commonest fault at this focus point by a distance. On Stolypin, candidates identified that he used "the carrot and stick approach" and that he introduced reforms to help peasants, and the report says these needed to be developed into explanations of why this meant Stolypin was important. A named policy is worth one mark. A named policy with a purpose and a result attached is worth four or five.

Describing factors instead of linking them to the downfall, at part (c). On the 10 mark question about political repression and the March Revolution, the report says less successful responses described these features, whereas better answers linked them more precisely to the downfall of the Tsar. Another report, on a question about the Tsarina, says answers would have benefited from making links to the downfall of Nicholas II. This is the difference between a paragraph about Rasputin and a paragraph about why Rasputin cost the Tsar his throne.

Wandering past the abdication. Reports record candidates writing about events after March 1917 in answers to questions that stop there, and about October 1917 in answers to questions about July 1917. Everything after the abdication is Key Question 2 and earns nothing here.

One thing the reports say candidates do well, and it is worth copying. On the June 2019 Question 13, the report notes that candidates are considering and prioritising "importance", which helps them link narrative description to explanation, and that this applies to part (c) as well as part (b). Prioritising is the habit. The word "because" is where it shows up on the page.

13. Quick revision

• The Key Question is "Why did the Tsarist regime collapse in 1917?" and it ends at the abdication. Everything from the Provisional Government onward is Key Question 2.
• Where it is set: Russia is Questions 13 and 14 in all 48 Paper 1 papers from 2018 to 2024. This Key Question was set at Question 13 in 25 of them and at Question 14 in none. Roughly one paper in two does not set it at all, so do not revise it alone. On Paper 4 it is Question 5, where it was set in four of seven 2024 versions. It is never on Paper 2.
• The difficulties: a vast empire with about 20 nationalities; 80 per cent peasants; ancient farming, regular famine, land owned by the aristocracy, the Church and the Tsar; the mir controlling peasant life and movement; redemption payments; industrial workers with no regulation of child labour, hours, safety or education; falling real wages; growing opposition; a middle class wanting democracy.
• Tsarist rule: divine right, autocracy, censorship, political parties banned, the Okhrana, thousands of opponents in prison, against reform, plus Russification.
• The Russo-Japanese War, 1904 to 1905: Japan a "third-rate military power"; Port Arthur fell the week before Bloody Sunday; the Russian fleet sunk or captured by a smaller fleet; the peace treaty gave Japan Port Arthur and Korea.
• Bloody Sunday, January 1905: Father Gapon, a peaceful march to the Winter Palace, a petition including an end to the war, troops opened fire, demonstrators killed. Cambridge's casualty figures conflict. Write "demonstrators were killed" rather than a number.
• 1905 also: the Potemkin mutiny in June over rotten meat; a general strike in September; railway strike in October; peasants attacking landlords; the St Petersburg Soviet.
• The October Manifesto: elected Duma, free speech, freedom of assembly, right to form political parties, no laws without the Duma's authority. Its real effect was to split the liberals from the revolutionaries.
• How he survived 1905: Manifesto splits the opposition; peace with Japan frees the army; soviet leaders arrested and exiled to Siberia; the Black Hundreds and the Okhrana; redemption payments cut in half.
• How he undid it: the Fundamental Laws, 1906, issued before the first Duma met, made ministers responsible to the Tsar alone. The first two Dumas were dismissed. Stolypin changed the franchise for the second.
• Stolypin, 1906 to 1911: Peasant Land Banks, mirs could no longer hold peasants back, peasant landownership up 30 per cent, a record harvest by 1914, health and safety measures for workers; and over a thousand hanged, thousands exiled, internal passports, censorship, martial law. Assassinated 1911.
• 1912: troops broke up the Lena goldfields strike in Siberia, and a wave of unrest followed. The regime was not quiet on the eve of war.
• The war: millions of casualties; in 1915 the Tsar took personal command, so every defeat became his; the Tsarina, German-born, governed in his absence and dismissed ministers in rapid succession; Rasputin, the haemophilia, the rumours of an affair and of a separate peace with Germany; in the cities, food shortages, high prices, bread queues, fuel shortages and forced grain requisition.
• March 1917: women and workers strike in Petrograd demanding bread; over a thousand killed or injured; soldiers shoot their officers and join the demonstrators; the Petrograd Soviet takes control of food supplies; the Duma sets up a Provisional Committee; the high command suggests he abdicate; by 15 March the Tsar has abdicated; Prince Lvov heads the Provisional Government. Stop there.
• The one sentence that answers the Key Question: in 1905 the army fired and the regime survived; in 1917 the army refused and it did not.
• Calendar: Cambridge's house style is March 1917 and November 1917. Some Cambridge documents say February. They mean the same events. Do not write both.

Where these facts come from

Everything above is taken from Cambridge's own published 0470 materials, meaning the syllabus for 2027 and 2028, the 48 Paper 1 question papers and mark schemes from 2018 to 2024, the Paper 4 question papers and mark schemes, and the Principal Examiner reports.

Taken from those documents: the Key Question, the four focus points and the whole specified content list, verbatim from pages 11, 19, 23 and 24 of the syllabus; the Section B numbering and the Question 13 and Question 14 allocation, established by reading the printed stem of every Question 13 and Question 14 in all 48 Paper 1 mark schemes; the Paper 4 Question 5 and Question 6 allocation, established from the printed Depth study headings in the 2024 and pre-2024 Paper 4 question papers; every question stem quoted in sections 2 and 10; every figure in this file, namely the roughly 20 nationalities, the 80 per cent of the population who were peasants, the industrial slump of 1902, the bad harvests of 1900 and 1902, the 200 000 marchers and the conflicting casualty figures for Bloody Sunday, the conflicting hanging and exile figures under Stolypin, the 30 per cent increase in peasant landownership, the record harvest by 1914, the 1912 Lena goldfields strike, the "over a thousand killed or injured" in Petrograd in March 1917, and the 15 March abdication; every name used, namely Nicholas II, the Tsarina, Rasputin, Father Gapon, Stolypin, Prince Lvov, the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks, the Okhrana, the Black Hundreds, the Potemkin, the mir, the kulaks, the Duma, the Fundamental Laws, the October Manifesto, Port Arthur and the Lena goldfields; the whole of the survival-of-1905 case and the whole of the war case, both of which are built from Cambridge's own Level 3 and Level 5 exemplars; the calendar conflict in section 8, quoted from four different Cambridge documents; and the fault list in section 12, quoted from Principal Examiner reports on Question 13.

Verified but drawn from Cambridge's First World War material rather than from Depth study C. Cambridge names Russian defeats at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes and a Russian success against the Austrians in Galicia in its Depth study A mark schemes, not in its Russia ones. Depth study C's own mark schemes reward the consequence of military failure, not the battle names. Use them if you know them, but do not spend revision time on them for this Key Question.

Not found in any 0470 material read for this file, and therefore left out rather than asserted. Check any of these against your own textbook before using them as precise:

• The Julian dates of any event in this file. Cambridge prints the Gregorian ones and prints only one precise day, 15 March. The thirteen-day gap between the calendars is explained here as background and is not a Cambridge figure.
• Nicholas II's dates of birth, accession or death, and the fate of the royal family after the abdication.
• The exact date of Bloody Sunday within January 1905, and the exact date of the October Manifesto within October 1905.
• The number of Dumas, and the dates on which each was dissolved. Cambridge says the first two were dismissed quickly and names no more.
• Any Russian casualty figure for the First World War as a precise number. Cambridge's Depth study C material says "millions" and "enormous" and gives no total. A figure that looks plausible here is exactly the sort of thing that is invented.
• Any strike figure, unemployment figure, inflation rate, bread price or grain output figure for 1916 or 1917. Cambridge prints none.
• Rasputin's first name, his dates, and the circumstances of his death, none of which appear in the Depth study C mark schemes read.
• Stolypin's first name, and the place and manner of his assassination beyond the year 1911.
• The names of the Tsarina and of the Tsarevich, and the number of Romanov children.
• The membership, leadership or seat counts of the Petrograd Soviet, and the exact date it was formed in March 1917.
• The names of the Provisional Government's ministers other than Prince Lvov, which belong to Key Question 2 in any case.

None of these is needed for a top answer, which is why they are not in the body above.

Not the topic you were looking for? Describe what you are stuck on in your own words and we will take you to the notes that answer it.