It seems that you hold in too high esteem [Stolypin’s] memory and attach too much importance to his activity and person.… One must not feel such sorrow for those who have departed.… Everyone fulfills his role and mission, and when someone no longer is with us it is because he has carried out his task and had to be effaced since he no longer had anything left to do.… I am convinced that Stolypin died to yield his post to you, and that this is for Russia’s good.115
Although he lost his life to a revolutionary, Stolypin was politically destroyed by the very people whom he had tried to save.
The three years that separated the death of Stolypin from the outbreak of World War I are difficult to characterize because they were filled with contradictory trends, some of which pointed to stabilization, others to breakdown.
On the surface, Russia’s situation looked promising: an impression confirmed by the renewed flow of foreign investments. Stolypin’s repression, accompanied by economic prosperity, had succeeded in restoring order. Conservatives and radicals agreed, with different emotions, that Russia had weathered the Revolution of 1905. In liberal and revolutionary circles the prevailing mood was one of gloom: the monarchy had once again managed to outwit its opponents by making concessions when in trouble and withdrawing them as soon as its position solidified. Although terrorism did not entirely die out, it never recovered from revelations made in 1908 that the leader of the SR Combat Organization, Azef, was a police agent.
The economy was booming. Agricultural yields in central Russia increased measurably. In 1913 iron production, compared with 1900, grew by 57.8 percent, while coal production more than doubled. In the same period, Russian exports and imports more than doubled as well.116 Thanks to strict controls on the emission of bank notes, the ruble was among the stablest currencies in the world. A French economist forecast in 1912 that if Russia maintained until 1950 the pace of economic growth that she had had since 1900, by the middle of the twentieth century she would dominate Europe politically, economically, and financially.117 Economic growth allowed the Treasury to rely less than before on foreign loans and even to retire some debt: by 1914, after decades of continuous growth, Russia’s state indebtedness finally showed a downward trend.118 The budget also showed a positive course: between 1910 and 1913 it had a surplus three years out of four, with the “extraordinary” part of the budget taken into account.119
Stolypin had learned from experience that a prosperous village was a tranquil village. And, indeed, in the years immediately preceding the outbreak of World War I, the countryside, benefiting from improved yields, gave the authorities little trouble. But prosperity had a different effect on industrial centers located in the countryside. The massive hiring of new workers, most of them landless or land-poor peasants, injected into the labor force a volatile element. Between January 1910 and July 1914, the number of workers in Russia grew by one-third (from 1.8 to 2.4 million); in mid-1914, more than one-half of the workers of St. Petersburg were newcomers. These employees found even the Mensheviks and SRs too moderate, preferring the simpler, more emotional slogans of the anarchists and Bolsheviks.120 Their restlessness and sense of estrangement contributed to the increase in industrial strife on the eve of the war, notably in the first half of 1914.
This said, grounds are lacking for maintaining that Russia in 1914 was less “stable” than at any time since 1900, except for 1905–6, and heading for revolution.121 This argument, mandatory in Communist histories, rests primarily on evidence of increased strike activity after 1910. It is unconvincing for several reasons:
Industrial strikes do not necessarily signify social instability: more often than not, they accompany the progression of labor to a more advanced economic and social status. Poorly paid, unskilled, and unorganized workers rarely strike. There exists a demonstrated correlation between the formation of trade unions and strike activity.* By legitimizing trade unions, the Imperial Government also legitimized strikes, previously unlawful. Seen in this light, the increase in work stoppages (more than half of them one- or two-day affairs, in any event) may be more correctly interpreted as symptomatic of the maturation of Russian labor, which, judging by the Western experience, was likely in time to lead to greater social stability.
