Stolypin Watch

Excalibur
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
Quick question: in Tsarist Russia, what was the significance of the Prime Minister Stolypin? Was he a good influence or a bad one to Russia? Cheers.
0
reply
evil badger
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
Stolypin had a positive effect and a negative effect.
Land reform, peasant land bank, migration to Siberia. = Positive
Stolypin’s necktie, suppression of workers. = negative led to his assassination in 1911.
so Stolypin increased support from peasantry but reduced support from working class
0
reply
manny
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 12 years ago
#3
also created rich peasents Kulaks which thus created an alienated class of poor peasents. Caused ad division in the peasents, and thus angered the poorer peasents
0
reply
KC Prince
Badges: 0
#4
Report 12 years ago
#4
Some historians actually argue that Stolypin's reform could have led Russia into political evolution along western lines. People would have to leave the cities for the towns, speeding up the industrial revolution. However others notably Orlando Figes argues that his reforms would have inevitaly failed because of julak resentment etc and that the extent/effects of the reforms are completly exaggareted.

Personally i say it gave Tsarism its final chance to survive and it flopped on its face because of the war.
0
reply
manny
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 12 years ago
#5
actually Orlando Figes has argued that the reforms would of worked if he was not killed in 1911. He was not given the chance. But the reforms were working
0
reply
KC Prince
Badges: 0
#6
Report 12 years ago
#6
(Original post by manny)
actually Orlando Figes has argued that the reforms would of worked if he was not killed in 1911. He was not given the chance. But the reforms were working

A peoples tradgedy - orlando figes sets out a clear structuralist arguement that the conservativism and muscovite ideology of the peasantry deemed the reforms impossible - the city experts who were to dismantle the communes were distrusted and forced out of the villages back to the towns - secondly most of the people who opted to join the reform programme were bullied back out of it by village leaders, figes then goes on to show that those people who actually followed the reforms in reality life was no different as they took up plots of land outside the commune, figes actually says its stupid of historians to say had the war not happened etc the reforms would have succedeed, they were inherently doomed

so dont talk rubbish mate , read the book
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Cranfield University
    Cranfield Forensic MSc Programme Open Day Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • University of the Arts London
    Open day: MA Footwear and MA Fashion Artefact Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • Cardiff Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day - Llandaff Campus Undergraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (219)
39.32%
No - but I will (38)
6.82%
No - I don't want to (37)
6.64%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (263)
47.22%

Watched Threads

View All