[Smilin' Dave]

Because a large part of the Soviet elite was convinced that the system was failing.

Can you prove this point as opposed to: many to the Soviet elite believed that the system could do better?

There was a pretty constant struggle between reformers and conservatives by this point, who kept compromising by electing terminally ill rulers.

Yeah? Who were the reformers? Can you prove that it was deliberate policy to elect people who were dying?

Its possible there could have been a purge of the reformers I suppose, though I'm not sure how that would have affected the stability of the USSR exactly, especially as the Army's loyalty was not undivided towards the conservatives.

Just off the top of my head, if the purge can remove a reformer (your suggestion) it could remove factions from the military (which you seem to have missed).

As for the stability thing, again, read the Wintrope book I mentioned earlier, it's a proper academic text.

Assuming there was no purge, the conservatives would eventually die out, if nothing else, and the reformist elite would have attempted reform.

This assumes that those replacing the conservatives were all reformers, which isn't true. More likely the status quo would continue in some shape, some that was proven by psychologists (basically, cage full of monkeys, teach them something is 'bad', remove one and replace him with another, lo and behold the others would teach him not to do it).

Eastern European (non-Albanian, non-Yugoslav) Communists were all setup by Stalin and were periodically either kept in check by Soviet warnings or by Soviet invasion (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary).

Okay, that was late 1940's, so it doesn't quite hold a candle to what was going on in the 1980's. Further, where did you think Stalin found the people to man these governments? Did he just pull them out of a filing cabinet?

There was an unwritten rule that reform in the satellites was unacceptable without Moscow's approval.

Is that why Romania was able to break away? It didn't break as completely as Yugoslavia, but it was hardly part of the Warsaw pact (its troops weren't even included in the numbers available). What about the Solidarity movement, which predated Gorbachev IIRC... why were they allowed?

Well, how would he stop such reform efforts? Through the Red Army's violent intervention?

Still hasn't dawned on you yet?: Gorbachev wanted them to reform, it wasn't an accident, why would he send the army in to deal with them?

Had he done that I don't think it would have been politically possible to instigate reform at home and reaction abroad.

Again, who's going to tell him no? Communists were famous for saying one thing and doing another. Remember, they talked about peace constantly while arming themselves, how could they get away with that?

It was by the 70s an environmental disaster, an economic mediocrity and a military anemic.

The environment was generally pretty bad in the 60's and 70's around the world, thats when the Greens really got rolling. Economic mediocrity? Compared to what? Militariliy anemic? So why wasn't anyone really game to challenge them directly.

But, of course, none of this denotes failure, only stagnation. Stagnation might have lead to failure further down the road (which you agreed with) but it wasn't failure in the 1980s.

perhaps everything about him is hype and he's just Russia's JFK.

Actually I think you will find next to nothing is said about Andropov or even Chernenko... they are just remembered as the guys that filled in space until Gorbachev. You don't think JFK did anything?

No one can really win the fight for the status quo.

No one has to win, they don't have to do anything, the status quo is already happening and doesn't require much intervention to maintain (baring a crisis).

[Gothmog]

USSRs econonmy was heavily dependent on oil. In the sixties and seventies the oil sales were high so the quality of life was high.

-I would agree with you, but I would dispute your statement that oil was a major factor in the 60´s, since oil was quite cheap then. However, I don´t know how much of Soviet hard currency came from oil in the 60´s. On the other hand, I agree with you that the increase of oil prices made a lot to improve the Soviet economy in the 70´s (or at least to delay its crisis). But this excessive dependency on oil, for a industrialized country, was itself, a sign of weakness.

On the articles comments about the quality of education being "almost on par with the US" -- to me that's ridiculous. Actually, maybe it wouldn't be so ridiculous if I understood what the author means by that

-I think you consider that the education was better in USSR?

is what the author uses as a gauge, then it is ridiculous..

THe Soviet school was a very tough and demanding one. They weed you out. You cannot be an unmotivated moron and make it -- and that's regarding regular schooling. Children absolutely had to make efforts themselves, and work outside of class themselves. There are straigh-A students in the US that almost never do homework.

So the reason that there was a smaller percentage of people with at least seven years of schooling is obvious. They never held your hand in the USSR. They never sat you down and told you Ok Johnny, i mean van'ka, now do you promise to turn in your homework tomorow?

None of that crap. You absolutely had to pass your classes and final exams at the end of every year to move on to the next grade, and if you didn't, the shool officials had absolutely no qualms with holding you back.

Those who failed to move on twice, probably didn't go back to school. Also, you have to remember more remote places, like the Chechen mountains, and the far east siberian regions, where people didn't really go to school.

-Correct, but given all this facts and the difference of development level between the two countries this statistic actually proves how good the educational system was.

[Ombrageux]

Can you prove this point as opposed to: many to the Soviet elite believed that the system could do better?

Those are very similar statements, probably only the spin is different.

Yeah? Who were the reformers? Can you prove that it was deliberate policy to elect people who were dying?

Well, I read in Wiki that was case for Andropov. Does that make it true? I don't know.

Just off the top of my head, if the purge can remove a reformer (your suggestion) it could remove factions from the military (which you seem to have missed).

Oh I don't deny that the reactionaries could have maintained a decrepit union, with non-independent and unskilled military. They could have done that if they tried hard enough. But what would that do? It would only make it even more obvious that the system is broke and needs fixing.

This assumes that those replacing the conservatives were all reformers, which isn't true.

Stalin didn't promote anti-Stalinists either. Kruschev was still his successor however.

Is that why Romania was able to break away? It didn't break as completely as Yugoslavia, but it was hardly part of the Warsaw pact (its troops weren't even included in the numbers available). What about the Solidarity movement, which predated Gorbachev IIRC... why were they allowed?

A fairly liberal Poland was explicitly allowed by Kruschev, without his approval it would not have happened.

Still hasn't dawned on you yet?: Gorbachev wanted them to reform, it wasn't an accident, why would he send the army in to deal with them?

Gorbachev didn't want them to reform, he merely accepted their reform. There's a big difference. Even if he wanted to reform the USSR, but stop reform in the rest of the Eastern bloc, that would be impossible without armed intervention.

Actually I think you will find next to nothing is said about Andropov or even Chernenko... they are just remembered as the guys that filled in space until Gorbachev. You don't think JFK did anything?

Those who know about Andropov do tend to think he had potential, if nothing else. And no, I don't think JFK did all that much, I do not praise leaders who die before they have the opportunity to fail.

[ArtAllm]

The collapse of the USSR was due to the good education of soviet people.

You can fool badly educated people a long time, but not good educated people.

But a good education doesn't substitute rational thinking. Rationalism is a phenomenon of Western civilization, but not of Russian civilization.


Soviet people knew they were better educated, than Americans or Europeans, and they couldn't understand, why they do not have the same living standard, Europeans or Americans do.


Most people in the USSR where sure that there low living standard was ONLY due to the wrong ideology and the wrong political and economical system of the USSR. They thought that after the abolishment of communist ideology they will IMMEDIATELY reach the same living standard, like people in the West.

Russians were impatiened, they rejected Gorbachev and trusted such clowns like Yeltsyn and Gaidar, because they couldn't think rationally, though they were good educated people. And that was fatal for the USSR.

Russians played" Russian Roulette" with the USSR and they had bad luck.

[Smilin' Dave]

Those are very similar statements, probably only the spin is different.

No, they arn't. Think about it, you could 'do better' even if the economy is growing at a rate 10%. So, in the case of the Soviet Union, it was a difference of mediocre or good... not the disaster waiting to happen you kept hinting at.

Well, I read in Wiki that was case for Andropov. Does that make it true? I don't know.

Wikipedia is of limited value in my opinion, because it is based on contributions and work there isn't referenced. Andropov was a reformer of sorts, but he hardly fits the blanket definition you have been using. I suspect Andropov was chosen because he wasn't afraid of doing things the 'hard' way, unlike the fairly sedate Brezhnev.

But what would that do? It would only make it even more obvious that the system is broke and needs fixing.

Nobody is claiming the system was perfect. The problem is you are using very black and white concepts, like 'broken'... how broken was it? The reality is that in 1985, it wasn't doing well, but it wasn't exactly about to explode.

I repeat, read the book suggested. You have to read it from the book, it's far too complicated to truncate into a paragraph. If I repeated the whole thing, thats a violation of copywrite and generally not very nice.

Stalin didn't promote anti-Stalinists either. Kruschev was still his successor however.

Kruschev was hardly an anti-Stalinist... if he was, why did he participate in the purges? Why wasn't his denuciation more complete? Why did it take Kruschev 3 years before he dared to criticise Stalin ('secret' congress wasn't until 1956)?

Oh, and technically, Stalin's succesor was was Malenkov, with real power resting in Beria. They ran the show for about six months IIRC.

A fairly liberal Poland was explicitly allowed by Kruschev, without his approval it would not have happened.

Yet Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko, all advocates of the Brezhnev doctrine, allowed the state of affairs to continue.

Here's another question for you, if you want to continue this psuedo independence discussion: Why was Imre Nagy allowed to take power at all? Why did they wait till he made a mess of things?

Gorbachev didn't want them to reform, he merely accepted their reform. There's a big difference. Even if he wanted to reform the USSR, but stop reform in the rest of the Eastern bloc, that would be impossible without armed intervention.

Alright, thats it. You are just talking bullshit now. It was part of his policy you fool, I have even explained it to you, yet you continue to repeat this mantra of yours. I can't make it any simpler for you. Do you even read my posts?

And no, I don't think JFK did all that much, I do not praise leaders who die before they have the opportunity to fail.

Let's see now, JFK got the ball rolling on racial affairs, prevented the Cuban Missile Crisis from going nuclear... and in addition managed to withdraw the missiles from Cuba. He improved relations between the USSR and US. Got the space race going. You make it sound like JFK would have failed if he had lived longer... yet his successors managed to make all these things work... how can you draw this assumption?