TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Autocracy in Germany and Russia 1825-1914
A short essay type piece looking at Autocracy in Germany and Russia 1825-1914.
The key to democracy in Germany is in the process that led to its unification. The Prussian government was mostly autocratic, as it had a democratic process but all the seats were filled with Junkers (landed class), who were monarchists and certainly traditionalists.
In all of the German states, there was a growing middle/intellectual class that wanted democracy and unification. Their influence grew, and then in 1848 there was sufficient economic hardship to gain the help of workers and peasants. Their governments were forced to compromise and created the German Confederation, who held a Confederation Diet in Frankfurt.
The confederation was not democratic as its representatives were not all elected, however the decision making process was. Yet the confederation was almost completely impotent for two reasons; they spent too much time arguing (several months just to decide on the fundamental rights of the German people), and they had no power to legislate in the individual states. The result was that popular support swung away from democracy and more towards unification.
That was not to say that the population did not demand democracy, a fair number still resented their lack of control over their state's political and diplomatic decisions.
This is where Bismarck steps in. By 1866 he had reignited German nationalism by re-floating the Zollparliament (and democratically elected parliament that would make decisions for the Zollverein), and in 1866 he demanded the dissolution of the Frankfurt Diet and created the Munich Diet with Prussia holding the presidency instead of Austria. Essentially, Bismarck was making Prussia the dominant German state opposed to Austria, in lieu with Kleindeustch sentiment. His reasoning was that the old Confederation was not democratic enough - here we see that democracy progresses in Germany as a result of nationalism.
Austria declares war, Southern states join her, Prussia marches North and owns all, big time. (1866)
Next step was to complete unification by nabbing the last few states loyal to Austria. Bismarck provokes a war with France, built up by the Hohenzollern candidature, the Luxembourg affair and the Ems Telegram, and a sub-clause in the Austria peace deal meant that Prussia gains control over all of the armies of all German states, including the Southern ones. Game over for Southern states.
In 1871, peace is signed between France and Germany in Versailles' Hall of Mirrors, and also the German state is declared and their consitution signed by all of the member states.
The structure of the German government is set up here, and it lasts all the way to 1914. Every male had the right to vote in national elections, and their representatives would go to parliament.
The German Emperor (the Prussian line) acted as president, and chose the Imperial Chancellor to rule in his name. All legislation would be created by the Chancellor, and then had to be ratified by parliament.
In this way, I would argue that although the German autocracies sought to maintain their power, they were forced to modernise through Prussian dominance of the economy and the military. The resultant system of government kept the autocrats living a comfortable and influential lifestyle, but did reduce their direct political power.
Germany is the hard one to write a decent answer for because democratic process was essentially the product of nationalism, and top-down reform of the system.
Russia on the other hand, is easy. Firstly you can talk about how the system could not reform; given Russia's economic situation it was impossible.
The Tsar's government relied upon the loyalty of the nobility to the Tsar, and also the happiness of the peasants.
The nobility did not want any form of reform for one reason. Primarily it was because they were so poor, and due to competition from the East they were getting even worse. The majority of them simply had small areas of very infertile land. If they lost control of their land they had no ancestral money, or any economic support such as industry.
The problem for the Tsar was that should he lose support of the nobility, the Russian Empire would fragment and his own government (consisting mostly of nobles and clergymen) would also cease to function.
The other problem with the system was economic weakness, from the perspective of the peasants. In order for a country to industrialise it must first go through an agricultural revolution of sorts. In Britain the ratio of grain to yield was something like 1:6. In Germany, 1:3. In Russia it was 1:2. Russia was far too infertile and underwent too many famines for successful agricultural output.
So that is how I would describe the system, that it could not reform in the first place.
However the Tsars were all under pressure to reform from a small but violent intellectual class. I think it would be most constructive to look at the most moderate Tsar, Alexander II, or the "Tsar Liberator".
His reforms provide a perfect example of how an autocracy passed reforms not to progress but just to preserve their control. All you need do is go through the motions and describe how each one failed.
Elections (zemstvos, etc), education, army, land, and I think about 3 other reforms were carried out.
However each one was ineffective as they pandered to the nobility rather than make any effective change.
So in conclusion. Russia, agree. Why? No chance of reform, evidence in the failed reforms of Alexander II. Germany, disagree. Why? Government could be reformed through nationalism and force by Prussia.
Comments
These notes are aimed at A Level history students.
Originally written by Darkowl on TSR Forums.
