8 ms·

Moral causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union (2011)

43 points by emilsedgh 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
trhway 11y ago
> in 1985, no government of a major state appeared to be as firmly in power, its policies as clearly set in their course, as that of the USSR. the ship was rotting and falling apart from inside. Andropov, before Gorbachev, was trying to treat the situation the way that was natural to him - previously head of KGB - by enforcing the workplace discipline and implementing strict restrictions on alcohol. Talking about the way Russian government can lose the last trust and support of the people! (i say Russian because the rest of USSR had significant other reasons to leave the empire) Current regime in Russia has learned the lesson - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/02/russias-economy-is-so-bad-it-has-cut-vodka-prices/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/02...
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Weren't strict restrictions on alcohol a Gorbachev thing? Anyway, this is not the lesson, it's just one lesson.
  - pandaman 11y ago
    >Weren't strict restrictions on alcohol a Gorbachev thing? Indeed, Andropov did the opposite by lowering vodka's price, hence "andropovka" name for the "Moskovskaya" vodka.
- txru 11y ago
  I think the point that this article somewhat strenuously tries to make is, if the ship was rotting and falling apart on the inside, why didn't it do it in the Brezhnev years, during the stagnation and attempted economic reforms, especially when oil prices dropped to an all-time low? To say that simply "the system was bad, and 1985-90 was just when the bottom fell out" smacks of hindsight bias.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - dsfyu404ed 11y ago
    People often forget that a typical existence in the USSR is on par with being poor white trash in the semi-rural northern US, just swap the trailer park for the apartment complex. They weren't starving but they had been close for decades. They were working as hard as anyone else who's trying to make ends meet but getting nowhere fast. For example, if a light-bulb burnt out in their home the only way to replace it was to switch it with a working one at work. Walking a miles in negative double digit temperatures to get to work, or to go to the grocery store because you can't afford to buy gas until payday wears on you. Taking scraps of insulation from a dumpster to keep the wind from coming in around your windows isn't fun. Having to park your car on a hill so you can roll start it in the morning because you can't afford a battery that can start your car in the cold doesn't make you feel good about your life. When you're living poor like that you've got so little invested in the system that you just don't give a damn. You wouldn't care if society collapses because you know in the back of your mind that there's a chance that in the following chaos you might come out ahead. These are the kind of people that made up the working class of the USSR. Some were better off, some worse but very, very few were comfortable where they were. Meanwhile the upper middle class and above are comfortable but insecure. Sure the nation looks good on paper but even the people who are doing ok aren't going to be comfortable in a corrupt system because even if they put in the time and effort to do good work there's that chance that the next bunch of guys in charge will have someone else they'd rather give your job to or worse, by doing good work you've put yourself at odds with them and might be promoted to digging a ditch in Siberia. IMO the statistics may have looked good there were a lot of unhappy people in the Soviet Union and in retrospect the place looks like a house of cards.
- DominikR 11y ago
  > Current regime in Russia has learned the lesson Why is it a "regime"? Putin was democratically elected and even Western opinion research institutes unequivocally attest that he is supported by 85 to 90 percent of the Russian population. In US media this is always attributed to "propaganda" while economic successes that might have an influence on Russian votes is completely ignored. For example: Russian GDP rose during Putins years tenfold. Russia reduced its foreign debt down to 23% of GDP and a flat tax of 13% for everyone was introduced. (I live in the EU and I am basically robbed by my government - I pay a hefty 50% tax on top of being forced to charge 20% VAT from my customers) If these aren't good reasons to vote for someone then I don't know what is. I would vote for ANY party (except radicals), be it left or right that would stimulate GDP growth while reducing my taxes down to 13%.
  - mojuba 11y ago
    In the years preceding the collapse of the USSR, circa 1987, 98% of the population supported the Communist Party. When there is no freedom of speech votes aren't predictive or indicative of anything at all other than the amount of propaganda. There is no freedom of speech in Russia today, in fact it's been deteriorating year by year. So no, the pro-Putin votes you have today will evaporate in a (historical) instant just like they did then, in the 1980s.
    - DominikR 11y ago
      I see Russians everywhere on the Internet speaking their mind freely and hosting political Youtube channels. The government has nowhere near the grip on information it had during the USSR. Additionally Russians can access all Western media whenever they like and they do so often, especially the urbanized population. (where the majority of them create pro-Putin comments defending the actions of the Russian government) That pro-Putin votes will evaporate is just your personal opinion and hope, but it isn't based on anything real. After the Yeltsin years it will take many decades for liberalism to recover in Russia.
      - nine_k 11y ago
        Russian government does censor the internet. There is a blacklist maintained by Roskomnadzor; it, for instance, blacklists certain Wikipedia pages, along with certain opposition and other "extremist" web sites. Russia lacks a China-style single-choke-point firewall; ISPs have to enforce it. If you have a chance to watch any Russian TV, you can't avoid noticing how propaganda-heavy it is, and how all the propaganda is in favor of the government (in the US, at least, the latter is not the case). Also, being a businessman of any importance and not following the party line does not work. Not all cases are as dramatic as Khodorkovsky's, who happened to own one of the largest oils and gas companies, but legal harassment of business for political non-conformance continues, or continued while such non-conformance lasted, or, at least, was publicly visible. This is milder than China, and way milder and more sane than than the Soviet regime was; there's no doubt about it. Also, the sharp rise in living standards of 2000s, fueled by oil prices, is still remembered and has not completely deteriorated. So Putin does enjoy some genuine citizens' support. It's still not something that citizens, acting freely and with consideration, have chosen, kind of like the Swiss do in their referenda.
obrero 11y ago
If you read the New York Times articles of 1917, 1918, 1919, they talk about how the Bolshevik government would be collapsing any day now...eventually it happened seventy years later - because leaders of the communist party decided to. When the leaders of Russia's communist party decided to reorganize their government in 1991, what governments in continental Europe from 1917 still existed in the same form, uninterrupted? Not Germany, not France, not Italy. Not Spain, not Portugal, not Holland. The only country I can think of is Switzerland, although perhaps one or more slip my mind. Some "failure" - when you've outlived everyone else and are done away with by the leaders of the party that was in charge seventy years before decides to throw in the towel. While in the meantime surviving numerous major wars, and, under Stalin, having enormous economic growth, at a time when the rest of the world was stagnating economically. Russia was a backwards country in 1917. Lenin said Russia would not be a leader among countries, but the opportunity availed itself and so socialists would hold out in Russia while the rest of the world went on with its processes. This was followed by invasion by every country (including the US in places like Arkhangelsk), then 25 years later being invaded by a coalition of most of continental Europe, followed by a Cold War against a military alliance of all the world's industrialized nations. What magic pixie dust would the Russians have to combat all this? It's a miracle they made it to 1991, in the process launching the first satellites, man in space etc., before deciding themselves to close up shop in 1991. It's a strange triumphalism - exaggerate a threat beyond all proportions, then crow how you defeated it. 1917 US (and allies) against 1917 Russia is like an NFL team against a Pee-wee league. This is the case for triumphalism? It's a miracle the Russians did as well as they did - they even beat Nazi Germany. It shows there must have been something to what they were doing.
- mercurial 11y ago
  You may them sound like victims. They were quite happy playing the game of thrones themselves, allying with Nazi Germany, invading countries left and right and starting to carve up Eastern Europe, then fighting a covert war with the West for decades, with neither side particularly caring about who would get crushed in the process.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  "Russia was a backwards country in 1917" Russia has lost a war in 1917. It was not a backwards country in 1914. This is a soviet hoax so widely spread. Surely, it lacked in some areas, but it was already industrializing fast, building ships, cars, planes, railroads and stuff. Then came soviets and took credit for all aforementioned.
guard-of-terra 11y ago
WRT assumptions we carry around with us: The Soviet Union seemed to have adjusted to undertaking bloody "pacifications" in Eastern Europe every 12 years - Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Poland in 1980 One should really compare the bloodliness of those pacifications with similar ones undertaken against Iraq or Libya. The difference would be dramatic. Not that I am defending soviet regime. Adding insult to injury, they routinely failed their PR campaigns.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  Or pacifications that were undertaken, with U.S. government support, in Central and South America. I am not defending Russian empire either. Putin actually seems to be bend to follow the U.S. model in Chechnya, Ukraine, Syria..
  - rimantas 11y ago
    Remind me, which countries did US annex.
    - guard-of-terra 11y ago
      Mexico? Texas and California.
      - douche 11y ago
        Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, Guam, Wake, Hawaii.
    - asgard1024 11y ago
      What has annexing to do with it? USSR didn't annex Czechoslovakia (the country where I was born) or Hungary; they just supported anti-democratic government that was more in line with their interests. You can downvote as much as you want, but the U.S. did the same in many countries of the Latin America, often with more violence. Here's a good reference: http://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope/ http://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope/ BTW, this is also spot on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Vcct_g_z4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Vcct_g_z4 (and this insulation of the Eastern Europe is actually nicely shown now on the stance to the refugee crisis)
guard-of-terra 11y ago
"Everything You Think You Know About the Collapse of the Soviet Union Is Wrong" Quick quiz: what were you supposed to know about the collapse of USSR before reading this article?
- asgard1024 11y ago
  My guess is that Ronald Reagan caused the collapse by spending billions on Star Wars program.
  - hga 11y ago
    That was part of it. The Soviets had put an immense amount of money into their Strategic Rocket Forces, and even a modest implementation of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, let's not use the name chosen by those who attacked it) would have negated it, because a (first strike) attacker can't chose which warheads get taken out. We also hit them hard in the pocketbook: convinced OPEC/the Saudis to lower the price of oil, directly sabotaged their gas exports to Western Europe, otherwise denied them technology that would have improved their economy, and made Afghanistan their Vietnam. And then the moral aspect; I haven't read the fine article, but Reagan wasn't afraid to correctly refer to the Soviet Union as an "Evil Empire", told Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall!" (separating East and West Germany). I've also read from accounts inside the Iron Curtain that our invasion of Grenada was a massive shock, this was the first time ever that the West had taken back a Communist nation, explicitly denying the Brezhnev Doctrine, which we also attacked in many ways in Eastern Europe. Bottom line was that Reagan was the first US President to decide to destroy, rather than merely contain, the Soviet Union, and despite the wavering of George H. "Chicken Kiev" W. Bush, succeeded shortly after leaving office. This, without massive bloodshed, is hands down the greatest geopolitical achievement in post-WWII 20th Century history.
    - guard-of-terra 11y ago
      "Reagan wasn't afraid to correctly refer to the Soviet Union as an "Evil Empire"" I don't think that affected inter-country morale long-term. What mattered is what happens inside, what we do to each other, how we live. That's true even with immense value that soviet mentality always gave to outside views on it. "our invasion of Grenada was a massive shock" I was born in 1985, ostensibly, but I've never heard of this and don't even know where that Grenada is. Frankly, what you wrote doesn't sound very important to the issue.
ape4 11y ago
The moral can't be too high in North Korea.
rimantas 11y ago
Strange article, it does not even mention that parts of the USSR were countries occupied before WW II and that they were never happy about it. Perestroika and glasnost gave some room to breathe for their independence movements which gained strength in in late 1980ies. I am still amazed how we were able to pull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way off. My country (Lithuania) declared independance back in March 1990, Latvia did the same in May, and Estonia was well on its way—that's more than a year befor August 1991 happen. And by the August events we already had January 1991 so I highly highly doubt there was a real chance for USSR to survive and continue business as usual.
- vkazanov 11y ago
  Well... "Not happy" - depends on who you ask in Lithuania. My great grandmother was killed by nationalists near Zarasai. So her daughter - my grandmother - was brought up by relatives in Kaunas, and understandably never had any sympathies for the pre-war Lithuanian state and people missing it. She's still alive, by the way, and hates the way modern Lithuanian official historians idealize "forest brothers", nationalists, etc. This does not make USSR a much better place, of course, but they did just let everyone go in the end, didn't they..? I still remember all those endless trains with tanks going east. I can't really remember too many examples of such a "mild" empire, em, disappearance.
theworstshill 11y ago
USSR was terrible in the way it constrained personal freedom and property, but thats not why it collapsed, the grievances of common people had nothing to do with its collapse at all. I believe a large portion voted to stay in the union. USSR was broken up by top cadres so that each can have a personal fiefdom, it had nothing to do with what the sheeple was bleating.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  That's true too. People brought "top cadres" into relative freedom, and then they destroyed the USSR against people's will.
- Const-me 11y ago
  That does not apply to all parts of the union. Three Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, were among the first to claim their independence. The people did it, not some top cadres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Revolution

43 points by emilsedgh 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

> in 1985, no government of a major state appeared to be as firmly in power, its policies as clearly set in their course, as that of the USSR. the ship was rotting and falling apart from inside. Andropov, before Gorbachev, was trying to treat the situation the way that was natural to him - previously head of KGB - by enforcing the workplace discipline and implementing strict restrictions on alcohol. Talking about the way Russian government can lose the last trust and support of the people! (i say Russian because the rest of USSR had significant other reasons to leave the empire) Current regime in Russia has learned the lesson - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/02/russias-economy-is-so-bad-it-has-cut-vodka-prices/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/02...

guard-of-terra 11y ago
Weren't strict restrictions on alcohol a Gorbachev thing? Anyway, this is not the lesson, it's just one lesson.
- pandaman 11y ago
  >Weren't strict restrictions on alcohol a Gorbachev thing? Indeed, Andropov did the opposite by lowering vodka's price, hence "andropovka" name for the "Moskovskaya" vodka.
txru 11y ago
I think the point that this article somewhat strenuously tries to make is, if the ship was rotting and falling apart on the inside, why didn't it do it in the Brezhnev years, during the stagnation and attempted economic reforms, especially when oil prices dropped to an all-time low? To say that simply "the system was bad, and 1985-90 was just when the bottom fell out" smacks of hindsight bias.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dsfyu404ed 11y ago
  People often forget that a typical existence in the USSR is on par with being poor white trash in the semi-rural northern US, just swap the trailer park for the apartment complex. They weren't starving but they had been close for decades. They were working as hard as anyone else who's trying to make ends meet but getting nowhere fast. For example, if a light-bulb burnt out in their home the only way to replace it was to switch it with a working one at work. Walking a miles in negative double digit temperatures to get to work, or to go to the grocery store because you can't afford to buy gas until payday wears on you. Taking scraps of insulation from a dumpster to keep the wind from coming in around your windows isn't fun. Having to park your car on a hill so you can roll start it in the morning because you can't afford a battery that can start your car in the cold doesn't make you feel good about your life. When you're living poor like that you've got so little invested in the system that you just don't give a damn. You wouldn't care if society collapses because you know in the back of your mind that there's a chance that in the following chaos you might come out ahead. These are the kind of people that made up the working class of the USSR. Some were better off, some worse but very, very few were comfortable where they were. Meanwhile the upper middle class and above are comfortable but insecure. Sure the nation looks good on paper but even the people who are doing ok aren't going to be comfortable in a corrupt system because even if they put in the time and effort to do good work there's that chance that the next bunch of guys in charge will have someone else they'd rather give your job to or worse, by doing good work you've put yourself at odds with them and might be promoted to digging a ditch in Siberia. IMO the statistics may have looked good there were a lot of unhappy people in the Soviet Union and in retrospect the place looks like a house of cards.
DominikR 11y ago
> Current regime in Russia has learned the lesson Why is it a "regime"? Putin was democratically elected and even Western opinion research institutes unequivocally attest that he is supported by 85 to 90 percent of the Russian population. In US media this is always attributed to "propaganda" while economic successes that might have an influence on Russian votes is completely ignored. For example: Russian GDP rose during Putins years tenfold. Russia reduced its foreign debt down to 23% of GDP and a flat tax of 13% for everyone was introduced. (I live in the EU and I am basically robbed by my government - I pay a hefty 50% tax on top of being forced to charge 20% VAT from my customers) If these aren't good reasons to vote for someone then I don't know what is. I would vote for ANY party (except radicals), be it left or right that would stimulate GDP growth while reducing my taxes down to 13%.
- mojuba 11y ago
  In the years preceding the collapse of the USSR, circa 1987, 98% of the population supported the Communist Party. When there is no freedom of speech votes aren't predictive or indicative of anything at all other than the amount of propaganda. There is no freedom of speech in Russia today, in fact it's been deteriorating year by year. So no, the pro-Putin votes you have today will evaporate in a (historical) instant just like they did then, in the 1980s.
  - DominikR 11y ago
    I see Russians everywhere on the Internet speaking their mind freely and hosting political Youtube channels. The government has nowhere near the grip on information it had during the USSR. Additionally Russians can access all Western media whenever they like and they do so often, especially the urbanized population. (where the majority of them create pro-Putin comments defending the actions of the Russian government) That pro-Putin votes will evaporate is just your personal opinion and hope, but it isn't based on anything real. After the Yeltsin years it will take many decades for liberalism to recover in Russia.
    - nine_k 11y ago
      Russian government does censor the internet. There is a blacklist maintained by Roskomnadzor; it, for instance, blacklists certain Wikipedia pages, along with certain opposition and other "extremist" web sites. Russia lacks a China-style single-choke-point firewall; ISPs have to enforce it. If you have a chance to watch any Russian TV, you can't avoid noticing how propaganda-heavy it is, and how all the propaganda is in favor of the government (in the US, at least, the latter is not the case). Also, being a businessman of any importance and not following the party line does not work. Not all cases are as dramatic as Khodorkovsky's, who happened to own one of the largest oils and gas companies, but legal harassment of business for political non-conformance continues, or continued while such non-conformance lasted, or, at least, was publicly visible. This is milder than China, and way milder and more sane than than the Soviet regime was; there's no doubt about it. Also, the sharp rise in living standards of 2000s, fueled by oil prices, is still remembered and has not completely deteriorated. So Putin does enjoy some genuine citizens' support. It's still not something that citizens, acting freely and with consideration, have chosen, kind of like the Swiss do in their referenda.

obrero 11y ago

If you read the New York Times articles of 1917, 1918, 1919, they talk about how the Bolshevik government would be collapsing any day now...eventually it happened seventy years later - because leaders of the communist party decided to. When the leaders of Russia's communist party decided to reorganize their government in 1991, what governments in continental Europe from 1917 still existed in the same form, uninterrupted? Not Germany, not France, not Italy. Not Spain, not Portugal, not Holland. The only country I can think of is Switzerland, although perhaps one or more slip my mind. Some "failure" - when you've outlived everyone else and are done away with by the leaders of the party that was in charge seventy years before decides to throw in the towel. While in the meantime surviving numerous major wars, and, under Stalin, having enormous economic growth, at a time when the rest of the world was stagnating economically. Russia was a backwards country in 1917. Lenin said Russia would not be a leader among countries, but the opportunity availed itself and so socialists would hold out in Russia while the rest of the world went on with its processes. This was followed by invasion by every country (including the US in places like Arkhangelsk), then 25 years later being invaded by a coalition of most of continental Europe, followed by a Cold War against a military alliance of all the world's industrialized nations. What magic pixie dust would the Russians have to combat all this? It's a miracle they made it to 1991, in the process launching the first satellites, man in space etc., before deciding themselves to close up shop in 1991. It's a strange triumphalism - exaggerate a threat beyond all proportions, then crow how you defeated it. 1917 US (and allies) against 1917 Russia is like an NFL team against a Pee-wee league. This is the case for triumphalism? It's a miracle the Russians did as well as they did - they even beat Nazi Germany. It shows there must have been something to what they were doing.

mercurial 11y ago
You may them sound like victims. They were quite happy playing the game of thrones themselves, allying with Nazi Germany, invading countries left and right and starting to carve up Eastern Europe, then fighting a covert war with the West for decades, with neither side particularly caring about who would get crushed in the process.
guard-of-terra 11y ago
"Russia was a backwards country in 1917" Russia has lost a war in 1917. It was not a backwards country in 1914. This is a soviet hoax so widely spread. Surely, it lacked in some areas, but it was already industrializing fast, building ships, cars, planes, railroads and stuff. Then came soviets and took credit for all aforementioned.

guard-of-terra 11y ago

WRT assumptions we carry around with us: The Soviet Union seemed to have adjusted to undertaking bloody "pacifications" in Eastern Europe every 12 years - Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Poland in 1980 One should really compare the bloodliness of those pacifications with similar ones undertaken against Iraq or Libya. The difference would be dramatic. Not that I am defending soviet regime. Adding insult to injury, they routinely failed their PR campaigns.

asgard1024 11y ago
Or pacifications that were undertaken, with U.S. government support, in Central and South America. I am not defending Russian empire either. Putin actually seems to be bend to follow the U.S. model in Chechnya, Ukraine, Syria..
- rimantas 11y ago
  Remind me, which countries did US annex.
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    Mexico? Texas and California.
    - douche 11y ago
      Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, Guam, Wake, Hawaii.
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    What has annexing to do with it? USSR didn't annex Czechoslovakia (the country where I was born) or Hungary; they just supported anti-democratic government that was more in line with their interests. You can downvote as much as you want, but the U.S. did the same in many countries of the Latin America, often with more violence. Here's a good reference: http://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope/ http://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope/ BTW, this is also spot on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Vcct_g_z4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Vcct_g_z4 (and this insulation of the Eastern Europe is actually nicely shown now on the stance to the refugee crisis)

guard-of-terra 11y ago

"Everything You Think You Know About the Collapse of the Soviet Union Is Wrong" Quick quiz: what were you supposed to know about the collapse of USSR before reading this article?

asgard1024 11y ago
My guess is that Ronald Reagan caused the collapse by spending billions on Star Wars program.
- hga 11y ago
  That was part of it. The Soviets had put an immense amount of money into their Strategic Rocket Forces, and even a modest implementation of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, let's not use the name chosen by those who attacked it) would have negated it, because a (first strike) attacker can't chose which warheads get taken out. We also hit them hard in the pocketbook: convinced OPEC/the Saudis to lower the price of oil, directly sabotaged their gas exports to Western Europe, otherwise denied them technology that would have improved their economy, and made Afghanistan their Vietnam. And then the moral aspect; I haven't read the fine article, but Reagan wasn't afraid to correctly refer to the Soviet Union as an "Evil Empire", told Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall!" (separating East and West Germany). I've also read from accounts inside the Iron Curtain that our invasion of Grenada was a massive shock, this was the first time ever that the West had taken back a Communist nation, explicitly denying the Brezhnev Doctrine, which we also attacked in many ways in Eastern Europe. Bottom line was that Reagan was the first US President to decide to destroy, rather than merely contain, the Soviet Union, and despite the wavering of George H. "Chicken Kiev" W. Bush, succeeded shortly after leaving office. This, without massive bloodshed, is hands down the greatest geopolitical achievement in post-WWII 20th Century history.
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    "Reagan wasn't afraid to correctly refer to the Soviet Union as an "Evil Empire"" I don't think that affected inter-country morale long-term. What mattered is what happens inside, what we do to each other, how we live. That's true even with immense value that soviet mentality always gave to outside views on it. "our invasion of Grenada was a massive shock" I was born in 1985, ostensibly, but I've never heard of this and don't even know where that Grenada is. Frankly, what you wrote doesn't sound very important to the issue.

ape4 11y ago

The moral can't be too high in North Korea.

rimantas 11y ago

Strange article, it does not even mention that parts of the USSR were countries occupied before WW II and that they were never happy about it. Perestroika and glasnost gave some room to breathe for their independence movements which gained strength in in late 1980ies. I am still amazed how we were able to pull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way off. My country (Lithuania) declared independance back in March 1990, Latvia did the same in May, and Estonia was well on its way—that's more than a year befor August 1991 happen. And by the August events we already had January 1991 so I highly highly doubt there was a real chance for USSR to survive and continue business as usual.

vkazanov 11y ago
Well... "Not happy" - depends on who you ask in Lithuania. My great grandmother was killed by nationalists near Zarasai. So her daughter - my grandmother - was brought up by relatives in Kaunas, and understandably never had any sympathies for the pre-war Lithuanian state and people missing it. She's still alive, by the way, and hates the way modern Lithuanian official historians idealize "forest brothers", nationalists, etc. This does not make USSR a much better place, of course, but they did just let everyone go in the end, didn't they..? I still remember all those endless trains with tanks going east. I can't really remember too many examples of such a "mild" empire, em, disappearance.

theworstshill 11y ago

USSR was terrible in the way it constrained personal freedom and property, but thats not why it collapsed, the grievances of common people had nothing to do with its collapse at all. I believe a large portion voted to stay in the union. USSR was broken up by top cadres so that each can have a personal fiefdom, it had nothing to do with what the sheeple was bleating.

guard-of-terra 11y ago
That's true too. People brought "top cadres" into relative freedom, and then they destroyed the USSR against people's will.
Const-me 11y ago
That does not apply to all parts of the union. Three Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, were among the first to claim their independence. The people did it, not some top cadres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Revolution