Preview

Who Was The Most Successful Russia Leader Between 1855

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2562 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Who Was The Most Successful Russia Leader Between 1855
Who was the most successful Russia leader between 1855 - 1964?
There were six leaders between the time period 1855-1064 and to determine who was the most successful we have to know how to measure successfulness. Successfulness is measured over a range of things such as achieving aims, economy, war and the public opinion and opposition to the leader in power.
Firstly war was a crucial part of the time period 1855-1964 with Russia going though small wars to huge full blown World Wars. Stalin was clearly to most successful leader in terms of war as he won WWII with shear mass of soldiers and equipment like tanks. Stalin won with quantity rather than quality however came out of the war the victor and a hero to many Russians. Stalin led Russia into the Cold War against America and managed to take control of much of Eastern Europe using East Germany an 'iron curtain' like Winston Churchill famously said. Khrushchev and Lenin wasn’t that unsuccessful either although Lenin did make Russia leave WWI he managed to perform a coup and get into power. Khrushchev received a bit of an unrest from attacking Stalin however it was soon interrupted and over. Alexander III was careful and generally stayed out of wars meaning he didn’t lose any however he did win one in 1887 against Turkey although he won he gained very little due to great powers intervening. Alexander II also tended to keep out of wars also however when he came into power he was half way through the Crimean War which had 500,00 casualties. The Russian soldiers only had 1 rifle between 2 and most of them were peasants. However what makes Alexander II more credible is that he improved the training of troops after the war and didn’t enter Russia into any wars himself. The most unsuccessful leader to do with war is hands down Nicholas II who in 1904 enter Russia into the Russo-Japanese war and lost with the Russian navy nearly being completely wiped out. Further more in 1905 Nicholas II was very close to losing power

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    who followed him thought that power was a divine right and should be the absolute…

    • 2269 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Peter the Great was considered on of the greatest czar of all Russian history. He did attempt to build a bigger army to overpower other European countries, but that costed a great deal of money and a raise in taxes. In 1700, he went to war with Sweden, raging on for 21 years. As Russia took on the victory of the battle, they gained power over the Baltic Sea and transformed the Russian Tsardom into the Russian Empire. Soon, Russia became the world’s top producer in cast-iron melting.…

    • 192 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Whap Chapter 18 Hrt

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages

    3. Ivan IV: Ivan the terrible; confirmed power of tsarist autocracy by attacking authority of boyars (aristocrats); continued policy of Russian expansion…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    But Witte still needed to get loans from abroad due to the lack of capital. This helped to increase foreign investments and business confidence. In addition it helped the currency fo not having ups and downs.Finally a new rouble…

    • 629 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Under Czar Nicholas’s rule in World War 1, there were 1,700,000 to 2,254,396 total military deaths and 410,000 civilian deaths. As the head of the Imperial Russian Army, each and every one of these deaths was blamed on Czar Nicholas, the Czar of Russia. The wrath of his people later led to the the Russian Revolution and the end of the Romanov dynasty. Czar Nicholas II was an autocratic and inefficient ruler, which caused political opposition, neglect, and internal rebellions.…

    • 613 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    War broke out in 1914, with Tsar Nicholas becoming commander-in-chief in 1915, meaning he was away from Petrograd. Not only was this poorly thought out by Nicholas because it gave the people an opportunity to plot against him, but as he was away he left Tsarina (also a German princess), Alexandra, in charge during his absence. Due to the war being against Germany, this made the Russian people nervous and skeptical towards the extreme power she had over them during such a crucial time. Not only were they disgruntled by this, but also Alexandra’s close friendship to Rasputin, a Serbian peasant. This particularly angered the aristocracy and middle classes as they believed they were being led by someone of lower demeanor than that of themselves. This weakened support for the autocratic rule and lost the Tsar many of his supporters, which put him in a vulnerable position in the case of revolutionary upturn. This also could have inspired the peasantry to discover greater aspirations and encourage their belief that they could have greater status which in turn could trigger new revolutionary ideas amongst the lower classes. This demonstrates a link between Nicholas being away in order to commandeer army movement for the war, however it is arguable that it was a lack of authority and respect for the Tsarist regime that caused the change of opinions towards the Tsar amongst all classes, lessening his support and leaving him far more vulnerable in the case of a revolution.…

    • 1166 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Philip II was a successful ruler in the 1500s. He used legitimacy, authority, and power to achieve his success. First, he used divine right, elitist, and winning coalition to earn legitimacy. Philip also used elitist and winning coalition for power, but used coercion as well for power. His authority was never successfully challenged. Although, he went to wars several times he still attained legitimacy. Which is one of the most important ways to attain success.…

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1855, opposition to the Tsarist Government lacked an effective unifying ideology. This remained the case throughout the 1855-1964 period, even once the communists had taken power. A key contributing factor towards this was the lack of unity opposition possessed. Opposition throughout the period came from several sources, however it was dominated by division in opinion and ideology, only fully uniting in the February revolution of 1917 which brought down Nicholas II and the Romanov dynasty. Even then opposition still differed in opinion, however it was unified by one common cause. Throughout the period, the peasantry were providing opposition to Russian Government. However opposition was repeatedly ineffective. The Polish revolt of 1863 during Alexander II's reign was crushed by the army in much the same way as the 1953 East German revolt and the 1956 Hungarian rebellion were crushed under Khrushchev's tenure. A continuing feature throughout the period is the key role which the army played in limiting opposition from the peasantry, with military force frequently being deployed throughout the period. Lenin used it in the Civil War against the Green armies of the peasantry and Stalin used a similar style of brute force in the assault on the peasantry during the collectivisation process, albeit on a much grander scale. The army was very important to the state and their loyalty to Nicholas II during the 1905 revolution was vital in ensuring he was not deposed then instead of twelve years later. The peasantry also lacked a shared ideology and there were several other factors which meant that a full scale peasant revolt was never likely to occur. The demographic and general backwardness of Russia, whose weakness was repeatedly shown by failures in war throughout the period, meant that the peasantry were never going to unify because poor communications and transport links simply…

    • 1167 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    All state leaders across the whole period held qualities that didn’t please the whole of the population in Russia. During the reign of Alex II, the government showed some strength with controlling opposition from the peasantry through the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. It was thought that to prevent revolt from below, this was a key movement that had to be made, and therefore prevented future unrest and opposition. However, the new liberated serfs had to deal with more laws concerning land ownership with led to further unrest and repression in the peasantry by the state. The state moreover, appeased the most vocal critics but in such a way that allowed dissenters to express themselves in the knowledge that Tsar’s decision would be final. Compared to Nicholas II’s reign, this showed a decisive leading technique, as Nicholas’s style was more conservative, and showed weakness, relying on others’ advice to fuel his decisions. A key failure throughout his period was the mixed rule attempt with the Duma introduced from 1906 to 1917, it is arguable that Nicholas II made concessions only to keep opposition temporarily at bay and that his aim was to uphold the principle of autocracy.…

    • 1646 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The defeat in the Crimean war was arguably the main reason why Alexander II made a series of reforms when he came into power. The devastating loss of the war proved the backwardness of Russia in relation to other powers and even though peasant unrest and the criticisms of serfdom were partially responsible for influencing Alexander II, the decision to make changes primarily came from the loss of the Crimean war.…

    • 811 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Which of Russia’s rulers from 1855-1964 was the most successful in serving the interests of the Russian people best?…

    • 1370 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    By 1881, Russia had greatly changed. Reforms had been carried out, creating less of a gap between the social classes, and making society a fairer place. There were also developments in industry, helping Russia catch up with the western world. However, the country was still ruled in a way that out pleasing the autocracy over helping the peasants, and there was still not total freedom for everyone.…

    • 613 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    With the Bolsheviks it is important to remember that they had many opponents to their power, some who wanted Tsarism back or the Provisional Government or wanted the elections to go through for a Constitutional Assembly, so causing the Civil War. Throughout this they had clear leaders who knew what they were doing and how they were going to get there. However it was the use of violence that lead them to be able to suppress the unrest among the people, win the Civil War, get rid of any threats to power and so keeping them in power. If they had not used violence then their opponents would have had the upper hand and would instead be in power.…

    • 1343 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A great leader worthy of being remembered in history has done no more than three things. To indulge a bit more, there are three defining factors of a great leader: improvements, additions, and achievements. Ivan the Terrible fit the bill for all three requirements by reforming a multitude of Russia’s fundamental systems, establishing new offices of power, and paving the road for new opportunities. Throughout history and even up to this day, Ivan the Terrible was regarded as a “terrible” leader, however that’s not the case. If you take a step back and analyze his accomplishments as a ruler, you can witness the great things that he’s done. That being said Ivan the Terrible, was a great ruler due to the fact that he paved the foundation for…

    • 462 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    People such as Ivan the Terrible of Russia have had a unfortunate experience with their power. Ivan the Terrible, or Ivan IV, was the first tzar of Russia. During his reign, he introduced church reform and self-government in rural regions. This time was considered his constructive period. His reign of terror began after the death of his first wife.…

    • 719 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays