Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't realize that we had moved from questionable empiricism to the anecdotal because you posted that "he the most hated man/politician in Russia, while Stalin is not" and the only thing that I could find was the VTsIOM poll?
Sorry but I will take an analytical piece from Foreign Policy over personal opinion not matter how sincere, especially when that analysis closely mirrors your own account. Did you get beyond the first page?
Gorby IS the most hated man in Russia. They view him quite differently there than the West does.
So the All-Union referendum "passed overwhelmingly" right? And the majority of people voted to keep the Union, isn't it? The rest were politics ( and decisions) of the local nomenclatura, as much as nomenclatura in Moscow. ( Take note please I usually make an exception for Baltic countries)
erasure, the referendum was manipulated. The nationalities didn't get to send their chosen representatives. Moscow picked people who would vote the way Moscow wanted. Some of the republics wanted a government-to-government relationship like Native American tribes have, with a greater measure of sovereignty than they have now. That didn't work out.
However, you're right that ethnic strife didn't play a role in the breakup of the USSR. For the most part, the regime kept a lid on ethnic strife.
Has there ever been a government in any nation, at any time in history, which did "respect the man", and which desisted from "oppressing him spiritually or politically"?
The USSR was born when enough intellectuals and well-off persons came to so doubt the extant regime, that they clamored for revolution.
The USSR collapsed when enough intellectuals and well-off persons came to so doubt the extant regime, that they clamored for revolution.
Nations endure not because citizens are free of oppression, but so long as entrenched interests find themselves better off within the system. Nations collapse when such interests feel that they no longer have anything to lose by dismantling the system.
I hear what you are saying, but no, that's a bit of projection of "things Western" onto "things Russian."
The "well-off persons" ( i.e. aristocracy in this case) in Russian empire by all means didn't want any socialist revolutions, that's why more than million of them immigrated soon after. Part of them did want to bring changes to monarchy earlier ( to bring the country on par with the rest of Europe in political sense of it,) but their revolt has been squashed, part of them were dutifully executed, the other part exiled to Siberia.
So it were Russian intellectuals ( who for the most part were of modest means) who begot the revolutionary ideas that they've developed and refined while staying in Europe, but it were ultimately up to peasantry ( that was the most numerous, most oppressed and most impoverished class in Russia) to support them.
In the case of collapse of the Soviet system - it was indeed masterminded on the upper level, when enough of "well-off persons" in the government decided that they wanted to have more financial power.
In this case when Russian intellectuals wanted to get rid of the system, it didn't mean much, because they were not supported by *general population* ( i.e. the descendents of former peasantry.)
erasure, is it not true that the "Union Referendum" while passed with strong manipulation from Moscow, then resulted in later indpendence movements in almost all of the Republics? As for ethnic strife, is it not true that the local and Republic level governments in almost all cases became "nationalist" governments after the first election? While that may not be the same as "strife" ala the US Civil Rights movement, it is a pretty good indicator that there were strong latent nationalist/ethnic feelings in most of the Republics. Don't forget, most of them had the Soviet system imposed on them to begin with. The Soviet system was also highly fond of resettling ethnic Russians across the various Republics, which certainly bred resentment among the local populations. All of that boiled to the surface when the Soviet system fell apart and resulted in a strong national/ethnic backlash.
NJ, while what you are saying might be correct, ( about the attempts of manipulations on behalf of Gorbachev's government,) you connect the dots incorrectly nevertheless.
The picture you are getting is that throughout Soviet times the USSR was some kind of a pressure cooker, where different nationalities hated the "conquerors" - (Russians that is) or each other and were waiting for a chance to get rid of each other. But it was not quite the case; I insist there was no "ethnic strife" and hatred towards ethnic Russians among the minorities or hatred of ethnic Russians towards the minorities overall, except for cases here and there (in Army in particular, but that's a different story.)
The country turned into a pressure-cooker only in Gorbachev's times in each and every sense of it, when it was sinking into chaos that he induced with his economic reforms. And that's when the republics started jumping out of this pressure cooker, whether the majority of population wanted it or not.
The only exception were Baltic countries, that were always very vocal about Soviet occupation - their intelligentsia in particular.
erasure, the referendum was manipulated. The nationalities didn't get to send their chosen representatives. Moscow picked people who would vote the way Moscow wanted. Some of the republics wanted a government-to-government relationship like Native American tribes have, with a greater measure of sovereignty than they have now. That didn't work out.
However, you're right that ethnic strife didn't play a role in the breakup of the USSR. For the most part, the regime kept a lid on ethnic strife.
Ruth, I am not sure how Moscow could pick people who would vote "the way Moscow wanted," because it was a vote for all citizens and some republics that didn't want even an option of the vote simply boycotted the referendum.
Here is the material on referendum in Russian wiki, the five questions that people were supposed to vote on in the republics that didn't boycott the referendum, plus the amendments (?) that certain republics included in those five questions. You can see material for each and every republic, what exactly happened there and what the result of popular vote was.
Erasure - how do you explain the fact that Ukrainians first voted to preserve the Union, then turned around and voted overwhelmingly for independence only a few months later?
I have my own theory, but I want to hear yours.
Josef, I've got out before these things took place, when I already saw the beginning of chaos and I had no illusions how it was going to end ( meaning that the wealth of the country would end up in hands of few, in hands of former Soviet nomenclature that is)
So to me those details quite honestly didn't matter already, but it might be so that they've got something to do with the amendment that Ukraine made in the first question and which was in direct contradiction with original question on Federation. That's my guess, although as you can see 80% of Ukrainians voted to remain in the Union ( at least some kind of Union) initially.
Between two referenda in Ukraine there was an attempt of revolution in Moscow then in republics (everything, not only in Ukraine) became it seems clear that the center has decayed and it is necessary to rescue promptly that is.
Between two referenda in Ukraine there was an attempt of revolution in Moscow then in republics (everything, not only in Ukraine) became it seems clear that the center has decayed and it is necessary to rescue promptly that is.
Oh yes, that too - that was an important factor; Ukrainians didn't want to take chances of the hard-liners returning to power and attempting to run things the old way.
The USSR has fallen a victim not to materialism, and an economic inefficiency and the ideological control of economy. The end 80 was marked by rapid development of economy, but not state-economy, and shadow-economy, and the budget of the USSR has appeared is not ready to such falling incomes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
