The Fall Of Tsarism Essay Research Paper

It was clear by this stage, that it

needed a revolution in order to reform the Russian autocratic Tsarist

system.? ????? I

would therefore conclude that it is extremely clear that the autocratic system

of government would not change despite any amount of pressure from the middle

classes or the peasant masses.? In short

it is clear from my examination of the previous Tsars, who have been

disinterested in reforming to improve, only in reforming to preserve the

autocratic system.? It is clear that the

only real way to alter the Russian system of government dramatically was

through revolution.? ??

?? Similarly, with Nicholas I the reforms during his reign were

very limited, and amounted to a streamlining of the Tsarist system of

government, but no real change.? Although

one can argue that Nicholas was not prepared to be Tsar, and Alexander?s

accession to the throne was unfortunate, this does not alter the fact that both

Tsars turned their backs on reform and turned their attention instead to bitter

repression.? This effective was

particularly effective on the part of Nicholas I and his notorious third

section. ??????????? One should

now ask: ?Why did neither Tsar attempt any major government reforms during this

period?? In response to this, one must look at Russian society during the

period 1801 and 1855 and discuss the reasons for the lack of reforms in this

period.? The first question that must be

addressed is was there any pressure on the government during this period? The

answer to this question must be no, as the serfs were still slaves with little

interest in political affairs at this time.?

Whilst they were serfs, it seems that the serfs saw the Tsar as an

almost God-like figure who constantly had their best wishes at heart.? In this belief they were mistaken, however, this

meant that the masses in the Russian countryside at this point had no desire to

alter the Tsarist system, and consequently the Tsar was under very little

pressure from this portion of society.?

As their was no danger of mass revolution involving serfs and middle

classes alike, the Tsar had little difficulty in repressing the liberal and

nationalist elements in the middle and working classes.? This was accomplished particularly

effectively by Nicholas I?s notorious third section. ??????????? Therefore,

the effective repression during this period under Tsars Paul, Alexander I and

Nicholas I, little actual governmental reform took place.? This was due to the effective repression of

these Tsars and the lack of any real political pressure being exerted by the

revolutionary elements in the Russian society during this time.? This may also constitute one of the many

reasons for the survival of serfdom in Russia, the Tsars were genuinely scared

of the masses becoming politically aware of the Tsarist system. ????? The

way in which the Tsars governed during this period shows a conservative

aristocracy.? It is clear that even from

this point, the Tsars were intent upon clinging to the absolute power that they

held.? The repression and lack of reform

during this period simply demonstrates this point. ????? The

only real example of a Tsarist government reforming is that of Alexander

II.? This Tsar had been well equipped

for the rigours of Tsardom as his father had had him tutored for the job.? Some may argue that the spark that ignited

Alexander II?s reforms was the war in the Crimea and the humiliation of defeat

on their own doorstep by powers fighting hundreds of miles away from their own

shores.? This war not only showed the

incompetancy of the Russian army, but also the backwardness of the Russian

nation in general.? This highlighted the

fact that the serf system was outdated as it led to uneducated masses who were

difficult to train due to lack of education.?

This may well have been one of the reasons for the emancipation of the

serfs, and in this way, foreign war may well have had an impact on the Russian

system of government. ????? However,

one can also attribute Alexander II?s reforms to his intelligent perception of

the situation.? Unlike other Tsars, he

realised Russia?s backwardness (possibly partially through the war in the

Crimea) and consequently, he realised that in order to preserve the Tsarist

system of government and prevent revolutions such as those in throughout the

rest? of Europe in 1848, he must

reform.? However, in order to improve

conditions in Russia, he had to remove some of the repression implemented by

the previous Tsars.? This was the reason

for the increased opposition during the reign of Alexander II.? It must be noted, though, that it is clear

that Alexander was reforming to preserve.?

He did not have any overwhelming reforming zeal.? His reforms did not alter the absolute power

of the Tsar, nor did they alter the position of the Autocracy in Russia, and it

can be noted that the Russian autocracy benefited from reforms such as the

emancipation of the serfs by huge redemption payments.? Alexander II reformed because he felt reform

was what was needed at the time.? It is

true to say, therefore, that Alexander II was influenced by foreign war

demonstrating Russia?s backwardness, and also fear of revolution in bringing in

his reforms.? In this respect therefore,

it can be said that it was due to war or the threat of war that these reforms

took place. ????? Also,

if it is possible to say that Alexander II reformed due to a genuine want to

improve the lives of the serfs, and as a human being it is certain that the

possible humanitarian benefits had occurred to him.? It must also be remembered that when compared to previous Tsars,

indeed, Alexander II accomplished much in the way of reform. On the other hand,

when one compares Alexander II to the rest of Europe, the reforms he introduced

were extremely limited in scope and vision and certainly did not remove

Russia?s backward nature. ????? The

final Tsar in Russian history is perhaps the best illustration of force being

required to provoke action.? Nicholas II

was considered by his father Alexander III to be a joke, and as a consequence

he was never trained to be a Tsar. Alexander III had continued in the vain of

Nicholas I and Alexander I.? He had

taken the assasiniation of Alexander II as a lesson that reforms lead to

problems, discontentment and eventually one?s own downfall.? Consequently, he embarked upon a course of

repression.? Nicholas II, with no ideas

of his own, and without the intellect to be decisive, continued with his

father?s repressive policies.? However,

the repression was ineffective, and by this stage, the Russian industrial

revolution under the effective guidance of Sergei Witte had begun.? This was significant in that the peasants

were now crowded together in the cities.?

This disgusting conditions led to the realisation of their own

exploitation and dissatisfaction with the government who seemed to be doing

nothing to help.? This led to peaceful

demonstrations asking for better conditions.?

These were the beginnings of the 1905 revolutions.? Nicholas II is perhaps the best example we

have of a Tsar, totally obessed with clinging to absolute power and giving no

concessions whatsoever, until he is compelled to do so by war and

revolution.? ????? Even

when Nicholas II is forced to come up with the consitutional monarchy that he

eventually offers in the October manifesto, it is clear that his objective is

to appease and not to reform.? Even the

state Duma which is implemented is limited in power, can be ignored by the Tsar

and dissolved after 2 months.? The Tsar

could also change the electoral law in order to obtain the Duma which he

wanted.? This conditions effectively

meant that there was no change to the Tsar?s absolute autocratic power.? Indeed, even in the Fundamental law of April

1906, it was clearly stated that: ?Supreme autocratic power belongs to the

emporer of all Russia?.? ????? Even

the First World War could not alter the Tsar?s autocratic, non-reforming

ideas.? Although it was clear through

Germany?s thrashing of Russia, Russia still required much reform and

improvement, these signs were ignored by Nicholas in the eventual outcome of

the war.? It was clear by this stage,

that it needed a revolution in order to reform the Russian autocratic Tsarist

system.? ??????????? I would

therefore conclude that it is extremely clear that the autocratic system of

government would not change despite any amount of pressure from the middle

classes or the peasant masses.? In short

it is clear from my examination of the previous Tsars, who have been

disinterested in reforming to improve, only in reforming to preserve the

autocratic system.? It is clear that the

only real way to alter the Russian system of government dramatically was

through revolution