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

'Only Alexander II's policies made significant progress in avoiding revolution in Russia.' How valid is this comment on the government of Russia 1855 - 17?

Extracts from this document...


'Only Alexander II's policies made significant progress in avoiding revolution in Russia.' How valid is this comment on the government of Russia 1855 - 17? It is perhaps rather limited to suggest that it was only the policies under Alexander II which improved Russia's chances of avoiding a revolution. While his policies can be seen as appeasing the most liberal of opposition, in which case avoiding revolution, in the same instance they unknowingly pushed Russia's current system closer to one. The policies created the landless proletariat, which would eventually undermine the key industry of Russia, namely agriculture, as people left the land for work in industrial cities necessitated by the need to keep up with industrialisation in other European countries. Furthermore the policies of Witte and Stolypin under Alexander III and Nicholas II cannot be discounted. Witte's help during the events of 1905 certainly was invaluable to the preservation of the tsarist regime and Stolypin's repression policies following 1905 were crucial in restoring order. Alexander II certainly had a liberal outlook on his role as tsar of Russia as once he took over the role in 1855 he immediately began to take steps towards emancipating the serfs. Moreover, once becoming tsar he also gave freedom of the press in 1958, further testament to his liberal approach. ...read more.


However, it seems that if the liberal ideas are tolerated in the long run this is going to bring about a revolution. Alexander III, who succeeded his father to the throne in 1881, abruptly changed policy. He took the exact opposite approach in attempting to help Russia's modernisation progress, whilst maintaining autocracy. Using Alexander II's approach meant that the there was risk of losing control of the reforms, thus the loss of autocracy, yet the conservatism approach taken by Alexander III meant Russia was in danger of grinding to a stand still and losing power. This method could also run the risk of angering the liberal minded into a seemingly inevitable revolution. Indeed, when Alexander III came to power he introduced what was called a New Conservatism. He did not reverse the reforms put in place but certainly did not encourage any more. Perhaps proof of the changing times in Russia is the fact that it would have simply been impossible for the reforms to be reversed. All that could be done, and certainly was done, was to simply make conservative amendments to the reforms of the 1860's. However, the idea of an autocracy is that it has ultimate rule and can put in place anything it wishes. ...read more.


In fact, his assassination seems to provide proof for this not against, as no revolution resulted due to his assassination. Alexander III and Nicholas II's conservatism approach seems to have worked less well, demonstrated by the mass protest in 1905. Witte however, managed to lengthen the life of tsarism for a little longer through his shrewd policies, but surely it was only a matter of time before the regime was ended. Judgement is slightly blurred though due to the intervention of WWI, which was the final straw for Nicholas II. Alexander II's controlled reform appears to have been more effective than New Conservatism's. However, though Alexander II's policies appear more successful than the no reform, yet forced industrialisation approach, they were ultimately wasted, as I believe he simply postponed the inevitable. He simply slowed down the process of revolution as for all Alexander II's liberal policies he never planned to abolish the tsarist regime. Many countries in Europe had been through a revolution earlier in the century and with a system of government as extreme as autocracy it seems inevitable one would have to occur. Furthermore, in modernising the country, of which few were in any doubt was essential, this bred new social groups, who, with desire for rights and opportunities were bound to challenge the current regime. Indeed with the rest of Western Europe enjoying such freedoms they would see hope for their ideas. The need for modernisation led to an unavoidable revolution. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 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 GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Why did Alexander II Emancipate the Serfs in 1861?

    5 star(s)

    A revolution amongst the serfs would trigger many other groups in Russia to protest and revolt about issues they were unhappy with, possibly leading to the autocracy being overthrown. In conclusion, although Alexander's reign seemed to start off liberally, there are many aspects of it which point to the conclusion that he conducted the emancipation from an essentially conservative stance.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    What problem did Russia face after the1905 Revolution? How effective was Nicholas II in ...

    4 star(s)

    The discontent of people did not reduce and the political right of general Russians did not improve, it marked the ineffective of Czar's political reform.

  1. The fall of Tsarism in Russia.

    In 1905 was the year of 'General Strikes' where there were 13,995 strikes taking place. Shops, schools and hospitals were closed. This shows that during this period, many Russian citizens were extremely dissatisfied with the system of government.

  2. How Significant Was Leon Trotsky's Role In the October/November Russian Revolution In 1917

    Deutscher describes Trotsky as a man who excelled at leading those under him but failed at leading his equals. Deutscher uses both primary and secondary evidence to build his thesis. Deutscher is a prominent English writer who grew up during the period in which the revolution took place and was born in Poland; this might slightly affect his perspective.

  1. How successful were Stalins Economic Policies?

    The reason the livestock populations dropped so significantly was because to create the Kolkhoz's, kulaks had to hand over their belongings, including their animals. They were so against this they decided they would rather kill and eat their animals than have them go towards the good of the country.

  2. 'The Five Year Plans brought glory to Stalin and misery to his people' - ...

    To make life even worse, statistics reveal that the rapid industrialisation scheme actually led to a dramatic decrease in workers' wages between 1928 and 1937. Evidently, a couple that worked in 1932 earned only as much as a man or woman would have in 1928.

  1. Why did the Tsarist regime fall in 1917?

    Some soldiers even began to fight against the Tsar, by joining the revolutionaries. This is illustrated well by source B, as you can see; the soldiers have mutinied and are waving a banner which reads 'Down with the monarchy'. Clearly the Tsar has gone wrong somewhere is members of his own army are fighting against him.

  2. 'The Five Year Plans brought glory to Stalin and misery to his people.' How ...

    Between 1921 and 1937 coal, oil and steel production all rose by at least fifteen times. Coal from 5 million tonnes - 140 million tonnes. Oil from 2 million tonnes - 30 million tonnes. Steel from less than 1 million tonnes - 18 million tonnes.

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