Order DescriptionWord length: 3000 words max.Essay question: self-designed from Assignment 1 your research project proposal. See MHIS321 iLearn site for marking rubrics.The aim of this task is to assess your research, analytical and synthesis skills as well as your understanding and interpretation of the historiography of one particular topic. It also assesses your ability to organize and communicate this information effectively in the formal of a formal, grammatically-correct, jargon-free, properly-referenced history essay. The research essay is to be done in relation to the research proposal which will be updated to you later. Please use the same references as the ones used in the proposal. thanks. No extra references is neededHistoriography: Causes of the Russian Revolution The Topic The topic is about the Russian Revolution and the events that triggered it. The Russian Revolution of (1917) remains one of the most studied revolutions in the modern history (Zagorin, 1993). Historians have, however, differed significantly about its causes. Historians and Historical Schools of Interpretation Different historical perspectives and schools of thought about the political and social backgrounds have been evident in the Russian revolution historiography. Labels of Marxist, Soviet, Revisionist, Liberal, and Liberals have been used interchangeably by the historians to assert different viewpoints about the causes of the revolution (Sanders, 2010). The most notable historians, in this case, are Richard Pipes, Lenin, Martin Malia, Orlando Figes and Robert Service, George Kennan, and Dmitri Volkogonov. The Questions Raised In attempt to explain the causes of the Russian revolution, the historians raised various questions. The historians, for example, have been confronted by the questions of whether the revolution was a response to conditions in Russia or it was part of an inevitable political and social process as Marxists claims. The other questions include the extent to which the Lenin and Bolsheviks were successful in creating a new society and whether the revolution was simply an opportunistic coup (Boyd, 1998). This paper would, nevertheless, discuss the perspectives of different historians and historical schools of thought about the events that caused the Russian Revolution. Specific attention would be given to liberal and Soviet schools of thought as well as analysis of the events based on historical views of Lenin, Pipes, Service, Malia, Volkogonov, George Kennan, and Figes. Other Issues to Consider In addition to the historiographies, I will consider consulting secondary sources that critique the different schools of thought and the historiographies. A closer look at the role of the themes of nationalism v western influence would be instrumental as far as understanding the potential biases of different historiographies is concerned. The Discussion A great deal of the Russian revolution historiography revolves around the question of whether the October revolution was a revolution or a coup attempt. Historians like Richard Pipes claim that on October 1917, Bolsheviks acted in the name of the Soviets and sought to overthrow the nations provisional government (Fitzpatrick, 2008). From Lenin view, the provisional government had not been legitimately elected, but was taking some steps to implement democracy. Lenin asserts that Bolsheviks held every right to seize the government. These views are contrasted by most liberal viewpoints that argue that the seizure of power was illegal because it was an act of small groups of radicals with no popular support or legitimate authority. Richard Pipes, however, attributes the events purely to the actions manipulated by Lenin himself (Smele, 2006). According to him, Lenin was not only the most significant cause of the unrest, but also a tactful opportunist who exploited the disorder to hijack power. Pipe further observes that the early 1900s Russia was ripe for a revolution and it was justifiable for Lenin to seize the power on behalf of his fellow Soviets (Bromley, 2002). Liberal historians, who include Martin Malia, Orlando Figes and Robert Service, trace to causes of the Russian Revolution to cultural aspects of early 20th-century Russia (Boyd, 1998). Cultural aspects such as propaganda, words, symbols, language, mood, and an array of other psychological tools could have motivated ordinary people into the revolution. Robert Service, for example, notes that before 1917, propaganda went round that Lenin was planning a public execution of more than 100 Kulaks (Smith, 1994). News also went round that Lenins health was failing and his days were numbered. Therefore, the impatience demonstrated by the Bolshevik leaders could have culminated from this propaganda. Martin Malia, on the other hand, argues that the revolt was as a result of ambitious effort by the early 1900s communist regimes to transform the popular culture along the science and rationality lines (Phillips, 2000). The resultant regime policies provoked politics of rationality and enlightenment among the populace, and this heat would trigger a change-oriented revolution. Liberals further reiterate that the Russian socialism represented an unnatural and therefore an unsustainable system of governance that was destined to fail. Malia believes that the socialism was a human error and an unworkable ideology that received only little support from the people (Frankel, Frankel & Knei-Paz, 1991). As such, retaining such a system is place required the Bolsheviks to employ coercion and terror tactics. A significant and a growing number of Russians, predominantly kulaks, refuted socialism, and clung to aspects of enlightenment and capitalism: profit, money, market and property (Sanders, 2010). They felt that the socialism economic order was illogical because it provided no incentives to workers and peasants. More recent historiography, which includes the works of Dmitri Volkogonov, Robert Service, and Figes, has aspects that overlap with the traditional labels. Volkogonov, for example, draws a lot of inspiration from Soviet perspectives, but he does not deviate much from the arguments of liberal historians such as Pipes (Sanders, 2010). Volkogonov emphasizes the role that was played by Lenin and other key individuals and their passion to put leadership back into history (Kotkin, 1998). The historiography landscape of the Russian Revolution has also been transformed greatly by the 1990s fall of Communism. In 1991, the doors of Soviet archives became open and new sources of information became accessible to history scholars. While Robert Service uses this information to offer revised insights about totalitarian views and Bolsheviks party, Volkogonov remains hostile on his attacks upon Lenin (Sanders, 2010). Here, Robert Service stresses the broad social discontents about totalitarianism especially among the peasants. The peasants had no real loyalty to the provisional government or any other party. They disliked the government, outsiders, bureaucracy, new ideas, or anything else that disturbed their communities (Frankel, Frankel & Knei-Paz, 1991). The first few months of Bolshevik rule were fairly peaceful, but the introduction of socialism in 1918 totally changed everything. The desire to modernize Russia is also cited by Pipes, George Kennan and other Liberal historians as a force behind the Russian Revolution (Kowalski, 2011). As they put it, the country had experienced remarkable economic growth, but this was not matched by social and political modernization. Similarly, the WWI socially, economically and politically crippled the totalitarian regime, and this triggered reformist thoughts. Put together, the enormous reform pressures mounted to cause the collapse of the provisional government. The workers and the peasants were demanding for economic improvements while the middle class sought greater political representation (Kowalski, 2011). They therefore saw a revolution as an opportunity to advance their democratic ideals and civil liberties.Conclusion To a great extent, the Soviet historiography is biased and mostly expresses the Communist Partys thoughts about the revolution. In this case, the Soviet historians eulogize Lenins leadership while celebrating the triumphs of the revolution (Ryan, 2006). From the Soviet view, Bolsheviks victory was inevitable and Lenin led the revolution because he had he had carefully evaluated the Russian situation and envisioned a regime change. Thus, he sought to guide the Russian masses through a genuine and popular revolt against the corrupt bourgeois regime. The other notable feature of the Soviet historiography is the little emphasis it places on role of the WWI in the Russian Revolution. Instead, the Soviet historians argue that change was essential both before and after the war, and that the revolt was a conscious assault against the totalitarian ideals (Phillips, 2000).Bibliography Boyd K. (1998). Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writings, Volume 1, London, MacMillan Pub. Bromley, J. (2002). Russia 1848 1917. Oxford: Heinemann. Fitzpatrick, S. (2008). The Russian Revolution: A New Edition, London, Oxford University Press. Frankel, E. R., Frankel, J., & Knei-Paz, B. (1991). Revolution in Russia: Reassessments of 1917. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kotkin, S. (1998). 1991 and the Russian Revolution: Sources, Conceptual Categories, Analytical Frameworks*. The Journal of Modern History, 70(2), 384-425. Kowalski, R. (2011). The Russian Revolution, 1917-1921: The Historiography of the Revolution; Moscow, Cengage Pub. Phillips, S. (2000). Lenin and the Russian Revolution. Oxford: Heinemann. Ryan, T. (2006). Hunting for True October: Historiography of the Russian Revolution. History Teachers Association of Victoria Ltd. Sanders, T. (2010). Historiography of Imperial Russia: The Profession and Witting of History in the 20th Century, New York, Harper Collins. Smele, J. (2006). Russian Revolution and Civil War 1917-1921: An Annotated Bibliography. London: Continuum International Pub. Group. Smith, S. (1994). Writing the History of the Russian Revolution after the Fall of Communism. EuropeAsia Studies, 46(4), 563-578. Zagorin, P. (1993). Theories of revolution in contemporary historiography.Political Science Quarterly, 88(1), 23-52. MHIS321 Self-Assessment: Project proposal Please complete this and return it with your assignment. 1. How many hours did I spend on this assignment? _29___ hours 2. Did I leave myself enough time to research and think about my project? Yes/No 3. Have I read all relevant guidelines on this assignment in the unit guide? Yes/No Assessment rubrics Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction Has the task been understood? Did I consult the MHIS321 Unit Guide and iLearn site to make sure I understood what was required in this assignment? Did the work remain focused on the task?X Choice of research material: Did I learn about the background to this topic so that my search would be directed and focused? Did I do a thorough search of library catalogues, databases and journals, make a list of all kinds of relevant material, then pick the best ones for this assignment?Knowledge of content Did I read through enough material so that I could pick the best and most relevant for this assignment, and answer Question 2 of the assignment properly? X Communication Is my grammar correct? Is my spelling correct? Are my sentences too longwinded and complex for clear communication? Have I relied too much on quotations, or have I used my own words to construct my argument? Have I kept jargon to a minimum? Have I waffled on too much to give the appearance of being intellectual and scholarly? Have I expressed my ideas clearly and accessibly enough for the average educated reader?X Referencing and Ethical Use of Materials Am I familiar with what the Department of Modern History requires in terms of referencing? Do I understand the referencing system used by Modern History? Does my bibliography conform to the style of bibliography required by the Dept of Modern History? Have I provided references wherever necessary?X Presentation Have I used a decent-sized (11 or 12 point) font so that my marker doesnt go blind squinting at my work? Have I double-spaced my work and left at least 1 inch or 2.54cm margins for comments? Is the assignment in order? E.g. set out in the right order, no missing text or pages etc. Have I proofread my work and checked for typographical errors?