Q. To what extents were the reforms of Witte and Stolypin successful?
Both Witte and Stolypin were one of the only forward thinking statesmen at the time. They both
recognised Russia’s dire situation and identified the problems that led to it.
Sergei Witte knew that Russia had massive amounts of raw materials, but it lacked the infrastructure
needed to export it like the West. He believed that improving this infrastructure lay in the hands of
the government, but no one was willing to give any of their funds to this project. The majority of
Russia’s upper class believed that industrialisation was undignified. Therefore, he believed that
taking out foreign loans and increasing exports was the solution.
Sergei Witte took several steps to make this plan tangible. He brought in foreign economic advisors
so that the government could be properly advised on economic decisions. In addition to this, he
increased taxes and raised money by giving investors a high rate of interest. Not only did he link the
Russian Rouble to the gold standard, making the currency more stable, he also imposed tariffs on
imports. This made them more expensive and would therefore protect local Russian industries.
Sergei Witte served as the director of the state railway and during his term as finance minister, he
made significant progress on Russia’s railways. The length of the railways almost doubled during this
time and the Trans Siberian railway came into fruition, linking Moscow with Vladivostock. His
policies resulted in Russia experiencing significant economic growth. Russia became the world’s
fourth largest producer of steel and the second largest producer of petrol.
Stolypin was appointed in 1906 as interior minister. He saw agriculture as the biggest issue in Russia
and wanted to work to improve the plight of the peasants. Stolypin was a firm believer in the order,
and he introduced the ‘Stolypin’s necktie’ policy which was the ruthless hanging of any rebels after
the 1905 revolution. In terms of agriculture, he believed in the formation of Kulaks (meaning the
‘wealthy peasant class’). His belief was that if peasants had a stake in maintaining the current
system, the chances of a revolution would decrease significantly. However, at the time the peasants
were under the control of Mirs who would tell them what to farm and how to farm. They wanted
complete control over the peasants and didn’t allow them to grow too prosperous. Therefore, he
wanted to get rid of these Mirs. Another problem the peasants faced was that they were worried
their land would be repossessed by the state if they didn’t manage to pay their redemption
payments. He therefore extended the land bank to give loans to these peasants so that they could
buy their own land.
Sergei Witte’s reforms led to some success, as Russia became the second largest producer of oil and
the fourth largest producer of wheat. However, due to several reasons his success largely resulted in
failure. He had lost favour with Russia’s land owning and ruling class as they thought his
industrialisation reforms would lead to the collapse or weakening of rural society. In addition to this,
he removed from his post as he had also lost favour with the Tsar (one of the reasons being he
married a Jewish woman). His economic policies also led to large scale inflation and a decrease in the
standard of living. Twice as much money was spent on foreign loans than education and the increase
in taxes made it very hard for the poor peasant class, which made up about 80% of Russia’s
population.
Stolypin’s policies also led a degree of success. It is estimated that overall agricultural output
increased by 14% during his reign and some landowners reported increased incomes of about 80%
more than 1906. However, he had stated his policies needed at least 20 years to establish deep roots
and much of the peasant class did not co-operate with his policies due to the distrust they had built
up of the government. Only 15% of peasants were actually consolidated into land during this time.
His policies weren’t given time to grow as he was assassinated in 1911 at the Kiev opera, possibly by
the government. His successors weren’t very politically active and did not do anything to carry out
his plans.
In conclusion, both of these men’s policies led to some success in the growth of the Russian
economy. While they did not work hand in hand with each other, historians suggest that if they had
the chance to continue to implement their policies, the revolution might have never taken place.
