• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

'Despite revolutions and attempts to achieve reforms, autocratic rule was strengthened in both Russia and Germany in the years 1825 to 1939.' Assess the validity of this view.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

'Despite revolutions and attempts to achieve reforms, autocratic rule was strengthened in both Russia and Germany in the years 1825 to 1939.' Assess the validity of this view. The years 1825 1o 1939 in both Russia and Germany were characterised by the existence of authoritarian and autocratic government. Germany at this time did not exist, the areas which would become Germany in a loose confederation which included Austria. These states were however largely autocratic, and the unification of Germany culminated in an establishment dominated by oppressive Prussian elites and the authority of the Kaiser and his Chancellor. Little similar constitutional wrangling took place in Russia during this era, in which the century began much as it ended politically, with the Tsar and his advisers directing a slow and bloated bureaucracy with the vast majority of Russians excluded completely from political influence or expression. It is possible to argue, however, that the reforms and revolutions that took place in both Russia and Germany created genuine opportunities for political participation and a more equitable distribution of power. For example, the 1848 revolution in Prussia gave way to an elected assembly - although the electorate and seats were organised so as to give Junkers and the bourgeois massive overrepresentation. ...read more.

Middle

progressive trend of increasing "authoritarianisation" or strengthening of autocratic rule during the period: while the fundaments of the system were largely unchanged for most of the period there were significant events which did result in a bucking of the period of autocratic rule. The revolutions of 1917 in Russia and 1918 in Germany both succeeded in ending the autocratic rule of the Tsar and Kaiser respectively. They both resulted in short-lived periods of comparatively very free societies (although the period after the February revolution and before the civil war in Russia cannot be said to have been at all socially stable), somewhat shorter-lived on Russia's part. Source C points out: "Russia had become the country in the world with the greatest freedom". Weimar Germany, similarly, had a degree of participatory democracy and constitutional freedom beyond anything previously (it granted universal suffrage, for example), and which continued for around a decade. In neither country did it last, however: the freedom under the provisional government eventually gave way to collective dictatorship under the Bolshevik party, which gave way to autocratic dictatorship under Stalin. ...read more.

Conclusion

Yagoda suggested that no one in the leadership was safe from the machine of oppression, except probably Stalin). It is however the case that the NSDAP managed to exert control over the state and people to a greater extent than had been seen before in Germany (Gleichshaltung, it seemed, was highly successful). Overall, it is fair to say that revolutions and attempts to achieve reform did, in some instances, have significant success (in the case of the 1918 revolution and subsequent consitution), and did disrupt, dilute or destroy autocratic systems of government in both Russia and Germany. However, it is the case that those reforms were ultimately ineffective and creating lasting and stable free societies, and that in some cases the reforms in question were either aimed at preserving the status quo (as in Bismarck's Germany) or at a "dictatorship" of a different kind (in the Bolshevik's case, "of the proletariat", or in practice, of the Bolsheviks). So in terms of the entire period, the statement does have a large degree of validity in that neither country succeeded in destroying authoritarian and autocratic tendency completely and both ended the period in question with a greater degree of totalitarian rule than at any previous point in their histories. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    He did this by a combination of terror - see below - and delivering what party members wanted. * Much the same can be said about Stalin's control over the country: control over dissenters was mostly by force, but propaganda and the cult of the individual played a key part in sustaining Stalin's popularity in the country.

  2. What were the obstacles to German Unification immediatly before the 1848 Revolutions

    the Austrian crown, also Austria was one of the Great Powers of the 19th century, they were one of the signatories of the Congress of Troppau, which aimed to depose governments which had usurped a monarch. This demonstrates that the Austrian monarch was determined to preserve autocracy in not just Austria but in Europe.

  1. Why Were There Two Revolutions in Russia in 1917?

    gold for the purpose of building public lavatories" - Lenin The revolution in February and March 1917 was a resounding success, so why within 7 months was there another revolution underway? Once again, it was a combination of factors, each entwined with one another, that together set the wheels of revolution in motion once again.

  2. "War became inevitable by 1939 and, when it came, it was a surprise to ...

    It is also the case that the German forces were not at this point nearly strong enough to adequately defend Germany from a military response by France and/or Britain. Had such a united response occurred it is conceivable that Germany would have remained weakened and deterred from acquiring or even asserting any more of its demands, particularly territorial ones.

  1. Why were there two revolutions in Russia in 1917? What were the results of ...

    This lowered the prestige of the government to the people. A German and an adulterous monk were running the country. This lost the government great support. Military defeats, food shortages, mistrust of the government and general economic strain all contributed to putting Russia in a dangerous position.

  2. Lenin's Russia, source based work.

    Trotsky was the man behind the red army. He was the man that gained a great victory in the civil war and saved the Revolution. Trotsky would have been the man to take over from Lenin after his death but due to the fact he was clever he was hated by the other Communist leaders and was never

  1. Compare and Contrast the February and October Revolutions in Russia.

    However, Lenin didn?t spend these ten years doing nothing. He was a busy man, and had used the time to build relationships with the Germans. He lived in Dresden, and there he thought of a plan with how he could finally complete his vision of ruling Russia.

  2. 'Stalin's leadership was the most significant reason for Soviet victory over Germany in the ...

    There were even partisan kolkhozes that raised crops and livestock to produce food for the partisans. The communist Yugoslav partisans were a leading force in the liberation of their country during the People's Liberation War of Yugoslavia. But as Stalin didn?t work fast enough and had a breakdown at the start, the economy took a hit.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work