I took the exam today at Birkenhead Sixth Form College, say on a row by myself at the end of a number of rows of 17ish-year olds doing their papers on the French Revolution. As I sat waiting for the exam to start I must admit that I felt the nerves but they went instantly once I flipped the paper over and started writing. I then wrote almost constantly for 95 minutes - something that I haven't done in years and at the end just watched the clock tick down for the last 10 minutes.
On the whole I think I did the best that I could have done (which is obvious to say, I know). I was able to answer the 4 questions and did not find myself struggling to recall what I need to.
The paper was very much focused on the period 1870-1917, largely ignoring the Emancipation of the Serfs, The Bolshevik Revolution, and economic development. The four questions I tackled were:
* Explain why, in 1905, revolution broke out in Russia
Here I discussed the proximate cause (the Bloody Sunday Massacre) and the short term factors (defeat in the Russo-Japanese war) as well as the long term factors (demands to reform, autocracy, and the discontents of industrialization/modernisation from 1855 onward)
* How successful were Stolypin's policies in restoring stability in Russia in the years 1906-1914.
Here I started by discussing Stolypin's agricultural reforms, saying that it was difficult to assess how successful they were because WW1 intervened. I then broadened my answer out to look at both Stolypin's work with the Duma and his repression of dissent. My argument was that Stolypin was successful through the use of a 'carrot and stick' method (I used that phrase) - giving some degree of reform to pull the liberals away from the radicals and persecuting dissent (social revolutionaries, peasants, nationalists, social democrats).
* Explain why the Bolsheviks had little support in Russia in 1914.
My brain initially went blank with this one and I don't think that I answered the question fully. My argument was that they had limited support among peasants (who were the bulk of the peasants/workforce) as their message of workers' revolution did not fit with the peasant experience. Similarly, the liberals did not want revolution when they had the Duma and somewhat of the constitutional monarchy that they had been hankering after since at least the 1850s. Finally, I said that they also had little support as the Bolshevik leaders were in exile and so were unable to provide effective leadership for the workers.
Again, I don't think I answered this question very well. I was throwing enough ideas down to get some marks - hopefully.
* How important were military problems in explaining the Tsar's decision to abdicate in February/March 1917.
I was soooooo happy when I saw this question and reasoned that it would be worth taking a hit with the last question to answer this one. I started off by outlining the proximate causes of the abdication (riots, army mutinies and then calls to abdicate from the Duma and military) before looking at the role of military problems. My argument was that while they were significant, they served mainly to exacerbate existing social, political and economic tensions within the country.
So, all in all I don't think that I could have done any better (aside from possibly in the third question). I found it an exilerating and strangely enjoyable experience taking the exam. At one point I even thought that maybe I should try my luck with the Appeasement exam next week, having paid for it, but I don't think I will. Now all I have to do is wait to see how I did...
