Encyclopedia of Russian History
Page 377
The town governors had broad responsibilities: They commanded district garrison forces and defended their districts from attack; they helped mobilize district military manpower into the regiments of the field army; they supervised fortifications corvee; they policed and combated banditry; they investigated and adjudicated civil and criminal cases and registered deeds; they searched out, tried, and remanded fugitive peasants; they conducted reviews determining service entitlement awards, paid out cash and grain service subsidies, and implemented chancellery instructions to assign pomestie allotments; they helped surveying and cadastral inventorying; and they supervised repartitions of communal property to reapportion tax burdens. The quality of their administrative service was often deficient, however, as they were not administrative specialists but notables appointed to governorships most often as a respite from their command responsibilities in the field army or their ceremonial duty at court; governorships were less likely to give them rank promotions than field army duty or court duty. They received no special additional salary for service as governors (even raises to their regular service subsidies, in recognition of meritorious service, were rare), and they therefore sought out their compensation on their own by soliciting bribes and arranging for community feeding prestations (kormlenie).
1651
VOZNESENSKY, NIKOLAI ALEXEYEVICH
Moscow did develop practices and institutions to reinforce central chancellery control over the town governors. The compulsory service ethos and the precedence (mestnichestvo) system had some restraining influence on them; they were usually removed from their posts after their third year, unless the community petitioned for their retention; their working orders were made increasingly specific and comprehensive; and it was general practice to reduce the range of decisions left to their discretion so that most of their actions required explicit preliminary authorization from the chancelleries. Over the course of the seventeenth century, additional control procedures were developed: the multiplication and refinement of record forms; the introduction of end-of-term audits; and the organization of special investigative commissions to respond to community complaints of abuses of authority. See also: FRONTIER FORTIFICATIONS; KORMLENIE; LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Davies, Brian L. (1987). “The Town Governors in the Reign of Ivan IV.” Russian History/Histoire Russe 14 (1-4):77-143.
BRIAN DAVIES
VOZNESENSKY, NIKOLAI ALEXEYEVICH
(1903-1950), Soviet economic official who for many years was close to Stalin.
Born into a foreman’s family near Tula on December 1, 1903, Nikolai Alexeyevich Voznesensky was appointed chief of Gosplan, the USSR State Planning Commission, in January 1938. He subsequently became first deputy prime minister, a member of Stalin’s war cabinet, and a Politburo member, and until his arrest in March 1949 remained at the center of Soviet politics and economics.
Voznesensky advanced in the Soviet hierarchy because of his aptitude for economic administration, his undeviating loyalty to the party line, the patronage of Leningrad party chief Andrei Zhdanov, and good luck. He sponsored several measures designed to improve the economic outcome of the command system, including new monitoring systems to identify and manage the most acute short1652 ages, the realignment of industrial prices with production costs, and detailed long-term plans. As a party loyalist he expertly rationalized each new turn in official thinking about the economic principles of socialism and capitalism. While many competent and loyal officials were repressed, Voznesensky benefited from Zhdanov’s protection and had the good fortune to gain high office just as Stalin’s purges were beginning to taper off.
Voznesensky’s first task was to revive the Soviet economy, which had been stagnating since 1937. He was still trying when World War II broke out in 1941. The war exposed the inadequacy of prewar plans for a war economy, and for a while the planners lost control. While war production soared, the civilian sector neared collapse. The victory at Stalingrad in 1942 and Allied aid made it possible to restore economic balance in 1943 and 1944. Voznesensky was involved in every aspect of this story of failure and success.
By the end of the war Voznesensky had become one of Stalin’s favorites. Stalin relied on his competence, frankness, and personal loyalty. The same attributes led Voznesensky to fall out with others, in particular Georgy Malenkov and Lavrenti Beria. The rivalry was personal; there is no serious evidence of differences between them on political or economic philosophy. After Zhdanov’s death in September 1948, Voznesensky’s good luck ran out. Malenkov and Beria were soon able to destroy Stalin’s trust in him. He became ensnared in accusations relating to false economic reports and secret papers that ended in his dismissal, arrest, trial, and execution. Voznesensky was not the only prominent figure with connections to Zhdanov to disappear at this time in what was later known as the Leningrad affair. See also: ECONOMIC GROWTH, SOVIET; LENINGRAD AFFAIR; STALIN, JOSEF VISSARIONOVICH; ZHDANOV, ANDREI ALEXANDROVICH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gorlizki, Yoram, and Khlevniuk, Oleg. (2004). Cold Peace: Stalin and the Soviet Ruling Circle, 1945-1953. New York: Oxford University Press. Harrison, Mark. (1985). Soviet Planning in Peace and War, 1938-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sutela, Pekka. (1984). Socialism, Planning, and Optimality: A Study in Soviet Economic Thought. Helsinki: So-cietas Scientiarum Fennica.
MARK HARRISON
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
VYBORG MANIFESTO
VSEVOLOD I
(1030-1093), grand prince of Kiev.
Although Vsevolod was grand prince of Kiev, son of the eminent Yaroslav Vladimirovich the Wise, and father of the famous Vladimir Monomakh, his own career was not outstanding. He was allegedly Yaroslav’s favorite son and married to a relative of Byzantine emperor Constantine IX Monomachus.
Before his death in 1054, Yaroslav bequeathed southern Pereyaslavl to Vsevolod along with territories in the upper Volga, including Rostov, Suzdal, and Beloozero. Yaroslav also designated him heir to Kiev, along with his elder brothers Izyaslav and Svyatoslav. For some twenty years the three acted as a triumvirate, asserting their authority over all the other princes, including their brothers Vyach-eslav of Smolensk and Igor of Vladimir in Volyn. As prince of Pereyaslavl, Vsevolod had to defend his domain against attacks from the nomads, especially the Polovtsy (Cumans). In 1068 after the latter defeated the three brothers, the Kievans forced Izyaslav to flee to the Poles. Vsevolod joined Svyatoslav in persuading the citizens to reinstate Izyaslav in Kiev. In 1072 Vsevolod and his brothers translated the relics of Saints Boris and Gleb into a new church in Vyshgorod and together issued the Law Code of Yaroslav’s Sons (Pravda Yaroslavichey). In 1073, however, they quarreled, and Vsevolod helped Svyatoslav evict Izyaslav from Kiev. After Svyatoslav died in 1076, Vsevolod succeeded him briefly in Kiev until Izyaslav reclaimed the throne. In 1078 Izyaslav was killed in battle, and Vsevolod occupied Kiev, where he ruled until his death. His most difficult task was to satisfy his many nephews with territorial allocations. He died on April 13, 1093. See also: GRAND PRINCE; IZYASLAV I; POLOVTSY; SVYATOSLAV II; VLADIMIR MONOMAKH; YAROSLAV VLADIMIROVICH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dimnik, Martin. (1994). The Dynasty of Chernigov, 1054-1146. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
MARTIN DIMNIK
VSEVOLOD III
(1154-1212), Vsevolod Yurevich “Big Nest,” the last grand prince of Vladimir on the Klyazma to rule all of Suzdalia, including Rostov and Suzdal.
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
In 1169 Vsevolod, son of Yury Vladimirovich “Dolgoruky,” participated in the sack of Kiev organized by his elder brother Andrei “Bogolyubsky.” Four years later he ruled Kiev briefly as Andrei’s lieutenant. After his boyars assassinated Andrei in 1174, his relatives fought for the throne of Vladimir; in 1176, Vsevolod won. He adopted Andrei’s centralizing policy and stifled all opposition from the neighbouring princes of Murom and Ryazan. He destroyed Polovtsian camps on
the river Don and waged war against the Volga-Kama Bulgars and the Mordva tribes to secure the trade route from the Black Sea. He increased his domains by strengthening the defenses on the middle Volga, building outposts along the Northern Dvina, seizing towns from Novgorod, and appropriating its lands along the Upper Volga. He had limited success, however, in bringing Novgorod itself under his control.
Around 1199, when Vsevolod secured pledges of loyalty from the Rostislavichi of Smolensk and the Mstislavichi of Vladimir in Volyn, they recognized him as the senior prince in the dynasty of Monomakh. The Olgovichi of Chernigov, for their part, acknowledged his military superiority and formed marriage alliances with him. In this way Vsevolod asserted his primacy over the southern dynasties and the grand prince of Kiev. Before his death, however, he divided his domain among all his sons and designated the second eldest Yury his successor. These actions weakened the power of the prince of Vladimir. Vsevolod died on April 13, 1212. See also: BOYAR; GRAND PRINCE; NOVGOROD THE GREAT; POLOVTSY; YURI VLADIMIROVICH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fennell, John. (1983). The Crisis of Medieval Russia., 1200-1304. London: Longman.
MARTIN DIMNIK
VYBORG MANIFESTO
The Vyborg Manifesto (“To the People from the People’s Representatives”) was an appeal given by a group of members of the First State Duma to the people of Russia, on July 23, 1906, in the city of Vyborg. It was intended as a sign of protest against the dissolution of the Duma. After the dissolution of the Duma, on July 21, 1906, deputies of the Labor Group (Trudoviks) called for an assembly in
1653
VYSHINSKY, ANDREI YANUARIEVICH
St. Petersburg with the purpose of issuing a manifesto of insubordination to the act of dissolution and calling for the people to support them. Holding an assembly in St. Petersburg was impossible, because both the Duma building and the Cadet (Constitutional Democrat) Party Club were surrounded by police and military forces. At the proposition of the Cadets, between 220 and 230 Duma deputies, mostly Cadets and Trudoviks, met in Vyborg, Finland, on the eve of July 22. The chairman was the chairman of the Duma, Sergei Muromtsev. During the night, the deputies discussed two possible versions of the manifesto. The first, prepared by the Trudoviks and the Social Democrats, called for the army and navy to support the cause of the revolution and for the people not to follow the orders of the government. The second, prepared by the Cadets and written by Pavel Milyukov (who was not a deputy), called for passive resistance: ignoring military service, not paying taxes, and refusal of state loans unless the Duma approved. The final draft of the Manifesto, processed by the approval committee, was close to the Cadets’ version. Despite the remaining controversies, on July 23 the final revision of the appeal was signed, because an order came from St. Petersburg of the dissolution of the assembly and the danger of “fatal consequences for Finland.” The Vyborg Manifesto was signed by 180 deputies, later to be joined by 52 more. It was printed in the form of a leaflet on July 23, 1906, in Finnish and then Russian in 10,000 copies, and was reprinted abroad. The reprint of the Vyborg Manifesto by Russian newspapers was punished with the confiscation of the press run, and spreading the leaflets was punished with arrests. On July 29, 1906, a court case was started against those who signed the Manifesto, which called for the nation to oppose the law and the lawful orders of the government. The Vyborg Manifesto had no significant impact on the people. In December 1907, the so-called Vyborg trial was held in St. Petersburg. At the trial, 167 of the 169 former deputies of the Duma were sentenced to three months of incarceration, which meant that they were bereft of the right to run for position in the Duma and other civil services. See also: CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY; DUMA; REVOLUTION OF 1905
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ascher, Abraham. (1992). The Revolution of 1905: Authority Restored. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
1654
Maklakov, V.A. (1964). The First State Duma. Blooming-ton: Indiana University Press.
OLEG BUDNITSKII
VYSHINSKY, ANDREI YANUARIEVICH
(1883-1955), prosecutor, scholar, diplomat; best known for conduct of show trials during the Great Terror.
Andrei Yanuarevich Vyshinsky distinguished himself as a prosecutor (prosecutor-general of Russia, 1931-1933; deputy prosecutor general of the USSR, 1933-1935; prosecutor general of the USSR, 1935-1939); as a scholar (author of authoritative legal texts, including The Theory of Evidence in Soviet Law, published in three editions); and as a diplomat (deputy foreign minister, 1940-1949, 1953-1955; foreign minister and Soviet representative to the United Nations, 1949-1953). In all of these roles he displayed unfailing loyalty to his master and sometime confidant, Josef V. Stalin.
Erudite and a brilliant orator, as skilled in sarcasm as in logic, the dapper Vyshinsky was trained as a jurist. He belonged to the Menshevik party before becoming a Bolshevik in 1920. While working in educational administration during the 1920s, Vyshinsky proved his political mettle in performances as judge in early show trials (such as Shakhty). Later, as prosecutor-general, Vyshinsky continued to develop the political show trial, serving as prosecutor at the major show trials of 1936 through 1938, at which leading politicians from the past (e.g., Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Grigory Pyatakov, Nikolai Bukharin, and Alexei Rykov) were humiliated and forced to confess to extraordinary acts of betrayal. Archival sources reveal that Vyshinsky worked closely with Stalin in manufacturing the charges and writing the scripts. Vyshinsky was also a member of the Special Board of the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD) that during the years 1936 through 1938 processed most of the contrived cases of alleged saboteurs and counterrevolutionaries.
As Stalin’s prosecutor, Vyshinsky also helped to restore the authority of law in the post-collectivization era, eliminate the influence of anti-law Marxists such as Yevgeny Pashukanis, and develop a jurisprudence that supported the use of terror against political enemies. Long after leaving the administration of justice, Vyshinsky remained
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
VYSOTSKY, VLADIMIR SEMYONOVICH
the top authority in legal theory, and he is remembered for reviving the pre-1845 doctrine of “confession as the queen of evidence” in political cases. During Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization, Vy-shinsky’s theory of law was condemned, and his position as a legal authority undermined. See also: PURGES, THE GREAT; SHOW TRIALS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sharlet, Robert, and Beirne, Piers. (1990). “In Search of Vyshinsky: The Paradox of Law and Terror.” In Revolution in Law: Contributions to the Development of Soviet Legal Theory, 1917-1938, ed. Piers Beirne. Ar-monk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Vaksberg, Arkady. (1991). Stalin’s Prosecutor: The Life of Andrei Vyshinsky. New York: Grove Weidenfeld.
PETER H. SOLOMON JR.
VYSHNEGRADSKY, IVAN ALEXEYEVICH
(1831-1895), scientist and mechanic, Russian finance minister from 1887 to 1892.
Ivan Vyshnegradsky was born into a priest’s family. After graduating from the Tver Theological Seminary and later from the Main Pedagogical Institute, he taught mathematics and mechanics (engineering) at St. Petersburg military educational institutions, headed the department of mechanics at the St. Petersburg Technological Institute, and served as the Institute’s director from 1875 to 1878. Vyshnegradsky is known as a prominent scientist in the sphere of mechanics and mechanical engineering and also as the author of several fundamental works and manuals. He participated in managing a number of joint-stock companies and earned fame as a talented entrepreneur. By the time he was appointed a government minister, his fortune amounted to nearly a million rubles. In 1884 Vyshnegradsky became a member of the Council of the Minister of Public Instruction. He drew up a program for technical education and participated in the composition of the university code.
In 1886 he was appointed a member of the State Council and in 1887 became the head of the Ministry of Finance. In this post, Vyshnegradsky, like his predecessor Nikolai Bunge, pursued a policy aimed at settlement of the
budget deficit, stronger government interference in setting freight rates for private railways, nationalization of the
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
least profitable railways, support of domestic industry, and preparation of a monetary reform. By increasing indirect taxes, converting state loans and reducing interest payments on them, encouraging grain exports and limiting imports, and increasing railway freight rates, Vyshnegradsky managed to balance the budget, accumulate gold reserves, strengthen the paper ruble, and prepare the introduction of gold circulation. In 1891 a new tariff, the most protectionist in Europe, was introduced. It signified the transition from a safeguard system of tariffs to a consistently protective one. In order to ease criticism on the part of landowners and rightists, Vyshnegradsky described his course as nationalist and supported landlords through the Nobleman’s Bank (Dvoryansky bank). In 1892 he was discharged from office for health reasons. See also: ECONOMY, TSARIST; MINISTRIES, ECONOMIC
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Stepanov, Valery Leonidovich. (1996). “Three Ministers of Finance in Postreform Russia.” Russian Studies in History 35(2).
BORIS N. MIRONOV
VYSOTSKY, VLADIMIR SEMYONOVICH
(January 25, 1938-July 25, 1980), poet, actor, singer.
Vladimir Semyonovich Vysotsky was born and brought up in central Moscow. He made his living as an actor, joining Yuri Lyubimov’s company at the Taganka Theatre in 1964 and performing there to the end of his life. He was a mainstay of the theatre’s ensemble style, but also took the leading role in several epoch-making productions, notably as Galileo in Brecht’s play, and then as a generation-defining Hamlet. Besides the theatre, Vysotsky regularly appeared in films, usually playing “bad boy” roles. Part of his stock-in-trade as an actor was the performance of songs to guitar accompaniment, and it was in this genre, delivering his own words, that he became more famous in his own lifetime than any other Russian creative artist.