Source 1 is an extract of a speech by Paul Milyukov. Milyukov was the leader of the Liberal Kadet Party. From this we know that the viewpoint of this speech will be heavily influenced by Liberal views. Milyukov was a reformist, and was pro-Tsar. It was also being made to the Duma, which would make the speech more likely to include more overly emotive language. It was being made to entertain and influence, rather than inform. Speeches are normally subjective to the view of the writer/speaker of the speech. This speech can’t be seen as the opinion of all the Liberal Kadet Party. This speech was also written on 1st November 1916. This was written 3 months before the revolution. This means that it can’t be completely reliable as a source on why the revolution happened at the time, however it does show the opinions of the people pre-revolution. …show more content…
The Okhrana were the secret police in Russia from 1880 to 1917. This makes the source more likely to be an objective record of events as it is an official government report. Reports are made to give a factual account of an event, so this makes it likely to be reliable source. However, it doesn’t tell us the exact writer of the report, meaning that any member of the Okhrana could have written it. It was written in January 1917, which means it was written around the time that the first signs of tension were showing. It shows the feelings of the people just before the revolution started.
Overall, I think that Source 2 is more valuable than source 1, as it is an objective report of the events at the time. It is a more objective account of the times compared to the speech. Speeches are made to show only one opinion, whereas reports have to give a general overview. The report was also written just before the revolution. This gives a more relevant view as to the feelings of what was happening just before the