Essay help: Russia 1906-1914

Below is my reply to a question about the essay I set. Though you might find it useful.

-----Original Message-----To: RGraySubject: To what extent did Russia undergo political and economic reform 1906-1914 Have made a good start to the essay, but struggling slightly with the paragraph "economic no" any help would be appreciated thanks. [in other words - struggling to find evidence to argue against the notion of Russia undergoing economic reform 1906-1914]

Look up Stolypin's economic policies in the textbooks. Focus on his agrarian reforms. Think about what you have said for "economic-yes" as you might put it. Remember the facts can be interpreted in completely different ways. Just as somebody might look at the statistics and say "that proves reform WAS happening and that it might have created a stable, more content peasantry and therefore have prevented a revolution had it not been for WWI," another might say, "well...it was too slow [or] the reforms had a tiny impact [or] the reforms were never going to achieve real change etc etc."

You only have to read online football forums to look at the numerous different ways one match result or league table position can be interpreted (e.g. City's victory over Utd. - it represents the beginning of the end for Utd's position at the top...or...it was just a glitch for Utd...or...had it not been for the millions spent on City in recent years this would never have happened...or Utd can't hold on as Britain's best team forever etc etc etc)

Back to Stolypin: What were his short-term and long-term aims and how did he hope to achieve them? Did he achieve them? How might one argue that progress in achieving his objectives was slow, non-existent, unconvincing etc? Was Stolypin naive in thinking he could reform the economy and/or Russian agriculture? If one were to criticise his policies, what evidence would one use? Remember those useful phrases: "it could be argued that...."  Remember too that although Stolypin died in 1911 (shot) you can use evidence of instability after his death (up to 1914) as evidence against his success. Look up the Lena Goldfields Massacre of 1912. It doesn't relate to the peasantry per se, but it could be used as evidence that not a great deal had changed in the economic circumstances of Russia and the way grievances of workers were dealt with.

What different points of view exist amongst historians on the success of Stolypin's economic reforms? What different interpretations exist? Don't go mad on name-dropping historians but showing an awareness of how historical facts can be interpreted in totally different ways can help you access the higher levels.

Regards,

Mr Gray