Russian rulers 1855 to 1964. Russia and Its Rulers 1855 2022-11-01
Russian rulers 1855 to 1964 Rating:
The Russian rulers from 1855 to 1964 were a diverse group of individuals who shaped the course of Russian history during a time of great change and upheaval. This period saw the end of the Russian Empire and the beginning of the Soviet Union, as well as numerous wars and revolutions that left a lasting impact on the country.
The first ruler of this period was Tsar Alexander II, who came to power in 1855 after the death of his father, Tsar Nicholas I. Alexander II is known as the "Tsar Liberator" because of his efforts to modernize and reform the Russian Empire. He implemented a number of significant reforms, including the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, which granted millions of peasants the right to own land and work for themselves. However, these reforms also led to significant social and political unrest, and Alexander II was assassinated by a group of revolutionaries in 1881.
Alexander III, who took power after his father's death, was a more conservative ruler who sought to reverse many of the reforms of his predecessor. He implemented a number of repressive measures, including the establishment of a secret police force, to quell the growing unrest in the country.
The next significant ruler of this period was Tsar Nicholas II, who came to power in 1894. Nicholas II was a weak and ineffective ruler who was unable to effectively address the growing problems facing the Russian Empire. These problems included economic inequality, political unrest, and the threat of World War I. In 1917, the Russian Revolution overthrew the Russian monarchy and established the Soviet Union, with Vladimir Lenin as its leader.
Lenin, who had been a leading figure in the Russian Revolution, was a Marxist revolutionary who sought to create a socialist society in Russia. He implemented a number of radical policies, including the nationalization of industry and land, as well as the establishment of a one-party state. However, Lenin's rule was short-lived, as he died in 1924.
Joseph Stalin, who took power after Lenin's death, was a ruthless and authoritarian leader who ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist. Stalin implemented a number of policies that sought to industrialize and modernize the country, including the forced collectivization of agriculture and the establishment of a network of labor camps. These policies were often brutal and resulted in widespread suffering and death. However, they also helped to transform the Soviet Union into a major world power.
Stalin's rule was marked by widespread repression and terror, and he is widely considered to be one of the most tyrannical rulers in history. He died in 1953, and was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev, who implemented a number of de-Stalinization policies that sought to distance the Soviet Union from Stalin's legacy.
The next significant ruler of this period was Leonid Brezhnev, who took power in 1964 and ruled the Soviet Union until his death in 1982. Brezhnev's rule was marked by economic stagnation and political corruption, and he is often remembered as a symbol of the Soviet Union's decline.
In conclusion, the Russian rulers from 1855 to 1964 were a diverse group of individuals who shaped the course of Russian history during a time of great change and upheaval. From the reformist Alexander II to the repressive Stalin, these rulers had a profound impact on the direction of the country and the lives of its citizens.
ACCESS TO HISTORY: RUSSIA AND ITS RULERS 1855
However, like Alexander II and Nicholas II, Lenin did make reforms which A2 History OCR A Russia and its Rulers 1855—1964 11 nevertheless kept the basic power structure intact. It was the heir to the Okhrana which had ended when the Tsar fell in March 1917. Th e Revolution provided a diff erent sort of stimulation. Alexander II admired art; Alexander III played the French horn and read widely. Russia would need to have strong armed forces and this depended on economic growth. Th e three Tsars from 1855 were essentially holding back more fundamental change. However, both regimes rested fi rmly on doctrines — Orthodox Christianity and Marxism; both had an interest in spreading these doctrines; both liked ceremonies; both taught ideologies in schools.
Stalin was more effective than any other ruler of Russia in the period 1855 — 1964 in dealing with opposition. It was a binding duty and a real ideology. If there was a move from serf to citizen and if Russia were to develop economically, then a literate workforce with greater technical skills would be needed. Russia was without a secret police for only a few months in the entire period 1855—1964. By modern standards the power of repression was not overwhelming, but the restrictions of the state were very widespread — writers, teachers, local councilors, peasants, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Finns, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Estonians, reformers, editors and students were caught up in growing state control.
Th e other rulers, for good or ill, had quite distinct visions of change; this vision was lacking in Nicholas II. Initially this did not compromise artistic standards as the best artists of the day, like Dimitri Moor, made Soviet posters works of art. Th ey did not tackle the land hunger that population growth had brought to the countryside nor did they deal with the greater concentration of landed wealth into fewer Tenure How land is offi cially owned. Th e key element of the previous reign, however, remained. Th is is fi ne and you can use your own ways of judging the issue, if they can be defended.
This remained the case throughout the 1855-1964 period, even once the communists had taken power. Th e Tsar embraced both Russifi cation and anti-Semitism. Th ere were specialist offi cers and undercover agent provocateurs who led terrorists into actions for which they were arrested. His reign saw the most far-reaching reforms since Peter the Great, but there was little intention or eff ort to alter the underlying system of autocracy or to off er any prospect of genuine political development. Stalin is the Dictator of the Soviet Union, the 19th century of Russia that industrialize the Soviet Union. ACTIVITY Why did the Provisional Government last such a short time, while Tsarist Russia survived the major crisis of 1905 and lasted for over three years in a terrible war? Nor was it general practice aft er the First World War. Lenin personally encouraged the harshest repression in the Civil War; he pushed through the acceptance of the peace Treaty with the Germans, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk; his energies were behind the economic measures which rapidly nationalised fi nance and industry.
More dominated by ideology than any of their predecessors, the Bolsheviks issued decree aft er decree revolutionising Russia. A cabinet system did not exist; advice was given by ministers personally. In contrast, the party was rigidly controlled by a ban on factions. For example, you might give Kerensky quite a high mark for experience in government; he had headed two ministries before becoming Prime Minister. Whereas the Peter the Great, the 17th century dictator of Russian Empire that modernize and westernize the Russia during early Russian history. . Nicholas II, a less thoughtful or forceful personality nevertheless saw his duty in terms of personal leadership and went further than his two predecessors in taking personal charge of the armed forces in a major war.
The photo shows a short man — the splendid horse, the sword, the military uniform seem very diff erent from Lenin. Th e so-called Lenin Recruitment draft ed thousands into the party and the measures taken to control Russian economic life demanded a considerable administrative machine which was to be a major feature of Soviet life. Was it because Nicholas II and his ministers were more skilful than Kerensky and his colleagues or was it because the problems they faced were so much greater than those facing Nicholas II? Here there is little parallel with the Tsars. He was a fi gure in the Romantic movement and fought in the war of 1812. Any controls necessary were imposed, whatever the cost and resistance met by extreme force: White offi cers had their epaulettes nailed to their shoulders in some areas and some naked Polish offi cers were impaled on branches of trees. All three had traveled before they became Tsar: Alexander II had toured Siberia and met political exiles whom he tried to help, Alexander III had commanded forces in the Russo- Turkish War 1877—78, and Nicholas had traveled in the Far East and had nearly been assassinated in Japan.
Lenin off ered no such political concession or opportunity. To deal with possible unrest, censorship was taken out of the jurisdiction of the new courts in 1866; crimes or possible crimes against the state also did not come within this system. Th ey were brought in aft er a period of crisis to conserve autocracy and the key features of traditional Russia as it was in 1894. He was a strange choice as tutor, but Nicholas I may have been infl uenced by his very high literary reputation and his patriotic poems. Nicholas II continued the policy of state-supported industrial expansion see Chapter 4 , Russifi cation and control of the nationalities in the Empire and suppression of political discontent. Alexander II knew languages and studied a modern curriculum including Mathematics, Physics, History, Political Economy and Law.
How Effective Was Opposition to Governments in Russia Throughout the Period 1855
They were demonstrating in a bid to persuade the Tsar to intervene in order to improve their working and living conditions. Opposition — among nationalities, former Tsarists, and liberals — solidifi ed around hatred of the very harsh Brest-Litvosk peace treaty see page 68, Chapter 2 that Lenin agreed with the Germans in March 1918. Lenin was faced with not only establishing a completely new type of state, but also defending it against a variety of enemies, the so-called Whites, and also peasant resistance, the Greens. Th e consequences were not foreseen; because they were an outlet for political hopes and a chance for the educated elites to meet, there was some political development. Alexander II faced growing rural discontent and opposition from liberal elements in the upper class with the rigidity of the regime established by Nicholas I, but he did not face organised opposition with distinct ideologies and a commitment to terrorism. Th e elements of the state — the bureaucracy, the army and the offi cial church — were much stronger than was the case, say in America or Britain. Th e growth in urban markets and communications benefi ted this sector rather than the peasantry as a whole.
Who Was The Most Successful Russian Rulers From 1856
Th ey encouraged hopes of change which were not fulfi lled. Th e state and the people Th e Tsars had inherited a monarchy with an aristocracy owing service to the Tsar and all lands belonging to the Tsars. Th e Tsar appointed liberal nobles to the committee which draft ed reform in 1859 and used reforming ministers like Miliukin and Samarin to plan changes. This aff ected 23 million serfs but was not fully implemented for two years. Th ere was a reorganisation of local and regional courts to hear relatively minor civil and criminal cases by local justices of the peace. Th eir share of wealth increased from 1861—1914 rather than decreasing. Like his father he knew German, French and English.
When Russia needed support over the Eastern Question in 1878, she had not found it and had been forced to make unpopular concessions. And of the leaders of the Provisional Government? Several other factors including loyalty of the army, the varying degrees of control and terror towards the masses meant that opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those who opposed the communist regime. How did the Provisional Government react to their situation? The army was continually used by communist and tsarist Governments, however one can point out that a reason why opponents of the tsars were more successful is due to the loyalty of the army. British rifl es had produced devastating results against the greater numbers of Russian troops. In no way did Lenin give up the theory that land belonged to the people as a whole; in no way did he give up his belief that collective agriculture was benefi cial.