The Role of Individuals in the Making of Modern Russia in the Years 1854 to 1964 - Essay Example

The Role of Individuals in the Making of Modern Russia in the Years 1854 to 1964 Introduction Throughout the period between 1854 and 1964, Russia was governed through various manifestations of authoritarian rule, be it under the Romanov Tsars or the Communist leaders. This period, maybe as a result of the centralized decision making in Russia, saw Russia’s leaders thrust the country into various wars and military actions, which usually had profound impacts on modernization attempts (Dukes 82). While these wars differed with regards to their political influence, most of them resulted in changes to the Russian development agenda linked, as well, to social and economic change. During this period, three individuals had especially significant roles in the development of modern Russia; the Romanov Tsars Alexander II and Nicholas II, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, and Nikita Khrushchev. While Lenin and Khrushchev did not lead their countries to war, they were, nevertheless, involved in military action that had significant effects on the development of modern Russia. In effect, the actions of Nicholas the II during WWI were very important in development of the modern Russian governance, as well as the collapse of the Tsarist autocracy and subsequent Provisional Government, leading up to the Communist takeover (Dukes 82). However, other leaders like Alexander II, Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev were also fundamental to the development of modern Russia, especially due to their wide-ranging policy and security decisions. Modernization of Russia Russia, during the 1850s, was an agrarian society that relied on serfs that were forced to serve in the Russian Army, as well as with little industrial development. The Crimean War, especially in the period between 1854 and 1856 saw Russia take on the Ottoman Empire that had the backing of Great Britain and France. The end of the War was disastrous for Russia and forced Alexander II to acknowledge that Russia had fallen behind its modern Western counterparts, which saw him undertake policies aimed at modernization and social change (Tolz 55). Alexander II allowed for the creation of local institutions of government, which was to be elected by a 3-class system. He also relaxed censorship and instituted an independent legal system. Alexander II’s government also encouraged private rail companies and subsidized them, allowing for grain exports and foreign exchange necessary for industrialization. This also enabled Alexander II’s government to expand to the East and South, expanding the Russian boundaries. Under his reign, economic development was more important than political development in Russia’s strides towards modernization, especially since infrastructure and industry were seen as crucial to military modernization (Tolz 55). This trend was also maintained on his assassination in 1881 by Alexander III. Alexander III was responsible for a freeze on any political reform, which held back political modernization in Russia. However, he was instrumental in various economic developments, even though, this can also be attributed to the high nationalist sentiments in the country following defeat to the Ottomans in the Crimean War (Tolz 55). His Finance Minister, Sergei Witte, also played an important role in the development of Russian modernism. Under Sergei, the Russian government built the Trans-Siberian railway line and instituted the gold standard in order to strengthen Russia’s financial markets. He was also important in encouraging foreigners to build factories in Russia, bringing in technology and capital, which resulted in the creation of modern coal and steel industries, as well as oil refineries. However, Black (p. 54) claims that the economic modernization of Russia at the expense of political modernization unwittingly signaled another chapter of Russia’s modernization that was out of the two Romanov Tsars’ influence. Lack of political modernization and increasing economic development led to increase imperializing as the Tsar became increasingly expansionary (Black 55). This resulted in a pushback by the Japanese who launched a surprisingly successful attack on Russia in the East, bringing political upheaval in Russia as the military was humiliated. At this point, the development of modern Russia was out of the control of any one individual. Professional and business classes in Russia sought political modernization, entailing a change to representative, liberal politics. In addition, work grievances by factory workers resulted in the formation of labor movements, while peasants were also agitating for more benefits from the economic reform. All these factors combined to create a strong nationalist sentiment in Russia, resulting in the 1905 revolution. The Tsar’s government’s reaction to the protests, including Bloody Sunday”, forced outlawed parties to mushroom with minority revolts, peasant uprising, strikes, and military mutinies forcing the government of Nicholas II to capitulate and promulgate a new constitution, parliament (Black 55). It can be argued that Nicholas II’s poor leadership during this period played a critical role in the development of modern Russia. His retention of absolute power caused the resignation of liberal ministers and the dismissal of the parliament after it failed to cooperate with the Tsar (Black 61). In addition, new laws passed by the Tsar empowered the landlord class over the peasants and workers. In short, Tsar Nicholas II oversaw a conservative and partially modernized constitutional monarchy. His decision to enter WWI in support of Russia’s allies resulted in increased patriotic enthusiasm with the local governments and parliament taking over war mobilization efforts. However, Nicholas II’s insistence on maintaining absolute power and his reliance on the old bureaucratic system drew the educated middle class, parliament, and masses to demand for increased democratic space. The more progressive portion of parliament began to agitate for the government to be responsible to Parliament, which forced Tsar Nicholas II to assume control of the Russian military. A breakdown in troop discipline saw parts of the military join the protests and declaration of a provisional government in 1917 followed by the Tsar’s abdication (Black 62). During this period, Russia’s development was not under the control of any one individual. This provisional government sought to establish equality for all. However, Alexander Kereknsky who was the leader, rejected social revolution calls. He also refused to take over landholdings and gave them to peasants. Kereknsky also shared power with labor unions, which considered the government to be a grassroots revolutionary democracy and sought to undermine the provisional government (Hasler 37). In retaliation, Alexander Kereknsky placed military power in the hands of elected committees of soldiers and stripped existing officers of their ranks and duty. This caused a collapse of the army morale and discipline with soldiers grabbing land and leading to widespread anarchy. However, this vacuum in leadership and lack of control over Russia’s development could not continue for long, leading to the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Vladimir Lenin played a crucial role and changed the course of modern Russia. As an ardent student of Marxist doctrines, Lenin contended that Russia’s current path to Capitalism should be destroyed through violent revolution (Hasler 37). Lenin also denounced peaceful evolution revisionist theories and told the Bolsheviks that socialist revolution was possible through the peasant class. Throughout the summer of 1917, the Bolsheviks under Lenin continued to win the support of peasants and workers and Leon Trotsky, an ardent supporter of Lenin, seized power for the Bolsheviks (Hasler 40). Lenin, through Trotsky, took over military power and the Bolsheviks came to power. The period before 1917 had seen Russia descend into a power vacuum and anarchy, which was solved by Trotsky and Lenin who gave the Bolsheviks a superior and determined leadership style that Tsar Nicholas II had been unable to provide. The two Bolshevik leaders’ actions were to have a thoughtful effect on the development of modern Russia. Nevertheless, it is also critical to note that the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, kept power and directed Russia’s path to modernity through developments over which they had no control. Their decision to give land to peasants was already happening through land seizures from 1917, while giving power over factories to the workers was already in progress before Lenin ratified it (Hasler 40). However, his decision to accept German demands to give up territories to its West seized by the last two Romanov Tsars allowed Lenin to pursue his ultimate goal of Communalist political power that would define modern Russia until 1991 (Hasler 41). It was also his decision to disband parliament that led to the White Revolution against the Bolsheviks. Lenin and the Bolsheviks crushed the White Revolution because the Bolsheviks under him had managed to control the central government fully and had pacified the Russian Army. The role played by Trotsky in developing a modern Russian fighting force during this period can also not be overlooked, since his reestablishment of the draft and army discipline continues to define the Russian Army to date. Together with Lenin, he was also instrumental in creating the Cheka, later the KGB, which was to define modern Russia and its political modernization. Finally, Lenin, despite taking advantage of conditions created by Nicholas II’s inept leadership, succeeded in forming a Communist government and laying the groundwork for Communist expansion through revolutionary means that would eventually lead to the formation of the USSR (Hasler 42). Joseph Stalin took over control of Russia’s march towards a modern state after Lenin’s death by exiling the previously powerful Leon Trotsky. As an excellent organizer, Stalin instituted the Five Year Plan to speed up the modernization of Russia through heavy industry and socio-economic reforms (Weeks 72). As a committed Socialist and an authoritarian leader, Stalin had full control over Russian politics and economy, resulting in his forcible consolidation of individual farms. However, the effects of this reform had disastrous effects that would resonate in modern Russia for a long time. The forced collectivization resulted in decreased productivity, which hurt Russia economically and led to the death of millions of peasants, while famine in Ukraine starved thousands. The collectivization also reversed the gains made under Alexander II in ridding modern Russia of serfdom, while Stalin also ensured that prices for basic commodities were kept low, resulting in disastrous economic outcomes (Weeks 72). Stalin’s role in modern Russia also extended to the culture and life of Soviet society with the Five Year Plan reducing consumption and failing to raise living standards for Russians. He also ensured that Soviet workers received social benefits like free healthcare, pensions, and personal advancement (Weeks 73). He also improved technical education and specialized skills, which came with special privileges and high salaries, making Russians strive for education. This had the effect of making the modernizing Russia competitive in the global talent market with numerous important scientists, as well as increasing equality for women. In addition, his insistence on the Russian Army pursuing and crushing the Nazi Army at horrendous costs for the Russian Army allowed Russia to expand its boundaries as the USSR and created high nostalgia and nationalism that would characterize Russia and the USSR for decades. While Stalin may have ascended to power over the more popular Trotsky and overseen a decline in agricultural productivity, he played a crucial role in expanding the USSR and governing it effectively (Weeks 74). Since he was a dictator in the real essence of the word, Stalin was able to, probably, assert the greatest influence of any leader on the development of modern Russia between 1854 and 1964. His successor, Nikita Khrushchev, also played an important role, although not as important as his predecessors. His policy of de-Stalinization led to many problems with Communist Countries in Eastern Europe, especially among those that disliked the hard-line stance taken by Stalin and his government in Russia (Confino 73). This was particularly true of the Polish and Hungarian troubles in the 50s that necessitated the use of Russian troops. Stalin before him had ensured that Hungary was controlled by the Secret Police, while Russia also controlled school curricula, the Hungarian economy, and enforced censorship. Khrushchev had to halt for a while his policy of de-Stalinization following the Hungarian Revolt. This allowed hard-liners in the Russian government to halt, albeit temporarily, the progress of liberalization in modernizing Russia. However, Khrushchev re-initiated his policies after the attempted coup of 1957, which resulted in long lasting and numerous changes in the modern Russian Socialist institution (Confino 73). However, in spite of his liberalization progress, his attempts at de-Stalinization failed, especially because of his style of leadership that jeopardized external and internal stability of Russia and the USSR (Confino 74). Khrushchev’s actions in denouncing Stalin were the direct cause of revolts in the USSR, which made Stalin’s painstakingly constructed image of modern Russia as a civilized and reliable actor in the international arena seem weak. Although the revolts in Poland and Hungary were crushed, Khrushchev’s actions led to weakening of Russia’s hold on other countries in the USSR. Whereas, in the short term, this steered a negative perception about Russia’s ability to be modern world superpower, its results in the 60s showed that Khrushchev had managed to assert Russia’s position as a major global super-power. Conclusion The era between 1854 and 1964 in Russia was characterized political, economic, and military upheaval. Because of the authoritarian nature of Russian leadership between 1854 and 1964, the Romanov Tsars were able to exert abundant influence on the direction of future Russian policies and the modernization of the state, particularly due to the effects of the Crimean War. Because of this loss, the Romanov Tsars embarked o policy changes that were meant to modernize Russia and catch up with the West. However, the events shaping Russia during the latter stages of Nicholas II’s reign were increasingly spontaneous and could not be attributed to a great extent to any individual. This changed with the entry of Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolsheviks who changed modern Russia’s political system and put Russia on the path of economic dominance over Eastern Europe. This policy was picked on by Stalin who expanded modern Russia’s influence before Khrushchev’s attempt at de-Stalinization saw Russia emerge as a true military super-power after it crashed the revolts in Eastern Europe. Works Cited Black, Cyril. E. The Modernization of Japan and Russia: A Comparative Study. New York: Free Press, 2009. Print. Confino, Michael. Russia Before the "radiant Future": Essays in Modern History, Culture, and Society. New York: Berghahn Books, 2011. Print. Dukes, Paul. A History of Russia: Medieval, Modern, Contemporary, C. 882-1996. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010. Print. Hasler, Joan. The Making of Russia: From Prehistory to Modern Times. New York: Delacorte Press, 2011. Print. Tolz, Vera. Russia. London: Arnold, 2011. Print. Weeks, Theodore. R. Across the Revolutionary Divide: Russia and the USSR, 1861-1945. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Print. Read More