✅ How it worked
By 1908 the countryside was quiet and the killing of officials had fallen sharply. Revolutionary parties shrank. In 1910 there were only about 200 strikes in the whole of Russia.
Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CoursePyotr Stolypin had been a tough governor of Saratov, a province with some of the worst peasant violence of 1905. Nicholas made him minister of the interior in spring 1906 and prime minister that July. He held the post until 1911.
Russia was still far from calm. Peasants were burning manor houses, and revolutionaries were killing officials in their hundreds. In August 1906 a bomb at Stolypin's own house killed about 30 people and injured two of his children.
Stolypin's plan had two halves: first restore order by force, then remove the causes of unrest by reform.
Key terms:
Soon after the bombing, Stolypin set up field courts-martial, using the Tsar's power to rule by decree.
These courts ran until spring 1907. In those eight months they sentenced more than 1,000 people to death, and ordinary military courts hanged many more up to 1909. A Kadet deputy in the Duma called the noose 'Stolypin's necktie', and the name stuck.
Thousands more were sent to prison or to Siberia, and hundreds of newspapers and trade unions were closed.
By 1908 the countryside was quiet and the killing of officials had fallen sharply. Revolutionary parties shrank. In 1910 there were only about 200 strikes in the whole of Russia.
Force removed the protesters but not their reasons for protesting. The hangings left bitterness and shocked moderate Russians. The famous writer Leo Tolstoy attacked them in print in 1908.
Remember that most peasants farmed scattered strips of land shared out by the mir, the village commune. Stolypin thought this kept them poor and angry.
His answer was to create a class of kulaks. A peasant who owned his farm would work harder, grow more food and have something to lose in a revolution. So he would support the Tsar. Stolypin told the Duma in 1908 that the government was betting on 'the sturdy and the strong'.
How far did it work? By 1914 around two million households had left the mir, and the harvest of 1913 was a record. These were real gains.
But the limits were clear:
Stolypin himself said the reform needed twenty years of peace. It got eight before war came in 1914.
In September 1911 Stolypin was shot at the opera house in Kiev, in front of the Tsar. He died a few days later. The killer, Dmitri Bogrov, was a revolutionary who had also worked as an informer for the Okhrana.
By then Stolypin had few friends. Nobles feared his reforms, and Nicholas had begun to lose trust in him. His death still mattered: the Tsar lost his most able minister, and the men who followed kept the repression but dropped the drive for reform.
The Lena goldfields lay in a remote part of Siberia. Miners worked very long days for low pay, and part of that pay came as coupons for the company shop. In early 1912 they went on strike after rotten meat was sold there. They demanded an eight-hour day and a 30 per cent pay rise.
The strike leaders were arrested. In April 1912, when a large crowd of miners marched to protest, soldiers opened fire. About 270 were killed and around 250 wounded, although counts vary.
The minister of the interior, Makarov, told the Duma: 'So it has been, and so it will be.' It sounded as if the government did not care.
The unrest that followed:
Lena showed that repression had only held the workers' anger down.
Stolypin was not in charge at the time of the Lena shootings. He had died in 1911. Don't say his land reform simply failed or simply worked: it made a real start but was far from finished by 1914.
Source A: From an article in The Spectator, a British weekly magazine, 8 August 1908. It is commenting on an interview that Stolypin had given to a British journalist.
'The Government of Russia is being carried on. The ordinary functions of the State are not suspended ... This is the description, not of a successful revolution, but of a revolution which, for the time at all events, has failed of its purpose ... States of siege, executions, and "administrative exile" are not the normal accompaniments of free government.'
Source B: From an article by Lenin, the Bolshevik leader, in the newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat, October 1911 (translated).
'Stolypin was the head of the counter-revolutionary government for about five years, from 1906 to 1911 ... Stolypin's policy ended in failure. Stolypin has been assassinated at a moment when a new grave-digger of tsarist autocracy ... is knocking at the door.'
Extract C (a practice extract written for this lesson, in the style of a modern history book)
'By 1914 Stolypin's policies had made the Tsar's rule secure. His courts had broken the revolutionaries, and his land reform was starting to create peasants who were loyal to the Tsar. However, the reform moved slowly, and after 1912 a new wave of strikes showed that the workers' anger had not gone away.'
Study Extract C. Extract C suggests that Stolypin's policies had made the Tsar's rule secure by 1914. How far do you agree with this interpretation? Use Extract C, Sources A and B and your own knowledge to explain your answer. [16 marks]
There is good evidence to support the interpretation. Extract C says Stolypin's courts 'had broken the revolutionaries'. Source A agrees: writing in 1908, it describes 'a revolution which ... has failed of its purpose' and a government that 'is being carried on'. Even Lenin, in Source B, admits that Stolypin led a 'counter-revolutionary government' for five years, which shows that the revolution was being held down. From my own knowledge, the field courts-martial sentenced more than 1,000 people to death in 1906-07, and in 1910 there were only about 200 strikes.
Land reform also supports the view. Extract C says it was 'starting to create peasants who were loyal to the Tsar'. Around two million households had left the mir by 1914, and the 1913 harvest was a record.
However, there is strong evidence against the interpretation. Extract C itself admits that the reform 'moved slowly' and that 'a new wave of strikes' came after 1912. Source B goes much further. Lenin says 'Stolypin's policy ended in failure' and that a 'grave-digger of tsarist autocracy', meaning a new revolution, 'is knocking at the door'. Source A is also cautious. The revolution has failed only 'for the time at all events', and it warns that 'executions' are not normal in a free country, which hints that order rested on force.
My own knowledge backs this up. Most peasants were still in the mir in 1914 and the nobles' estates were untouched, so the land hunger remained. After soldiers killed about 270 miners at the Lena Goldfield in 1912, strikes rose to about 2,000 that year and to more than 3,000 in 1914. Stolypin had also been dead since 1911, and nobody carried on his drive for reform.
Overall, I agree only partly. Stolypin's policies made the Tsar's rule secure for a few years, but 'secure by 1914' goes too far. Repression had silenced opposition without removing its causes, and the reform that might have removed them needed twenty years. By 1914 the Tsar's rule was calmer in the villages but under fresh threat in the cities.
What lifts this to the top level: it weighs both sides, quotes Extract C and both sources precisely, adds exact facts found in none of them, and reaches a judgement that explains 'how far'.
Notice that Extract C and Source A can each be used on both sides. Look for the turning words, such as 'However' and 'for the time at all events', and quote them in your counter-argument. Then test the date in the question: secure in 1910 is not the same as secure in 1914. For more help, see the Exam Skills lesson Paper 2 Section A Question (c): Judging an Interpretation.