5 ms·
>I'd be willing to argue that the Chernobyl accident caused (or at least precipitated) the fall of the Soviet union. This case was also made by the Netflix "Che
by simias 6y ago
>I'd be willing to argue that the Chernobyl accident caused (or at least precipitated) the fall of the Soviet union. This case was also made by the Netflix "Chernobyl" series.
You're not helping your argument when you make it sound like a bold new theory and use (good) TV fiction to bolster it up. I propose a quote from a certain Mikhail Gorbachev instead:
> He states flatly that the Chernobyl explosion was “perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.” According to Gorbachev, the Chernobyl explosion was a “turning point” that “opened the possibility of much greater freedom of expression, to the point that the system as we knew it could no longer continue.”
https://slate.com/technology/2013/01/chernobyl-and-the-fall-of-the-soviet-union-gorbachevs-glasnost-allowed-the-nuclear-catastrophe-to-undermine-the-ussr.html https://slate.com/technology/2013/01/chernobyl-and-the-fall-...
But note that here it's more about how Chernobyl exposed deep dysfunctions within the Soviet system and how it might have contributed to precipitate its collapse. I don't really know if that counts as "damage".
- sukilot 6y ago"Here's more evidence to support your idea" is perhaps the pettiest possible retort. Is agreeing with someone so hard?
- dandellion 6y agoHis comment is actually a very good reply to the grandparent, which was making a poor job of supporting the argument. Also, your accusation of his comment being petty is pretty ironic.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- simias 6y agoRe-reading my comment I can see how it could be interpreted that way, I meant it more as playful jab but such are the woes of a textual medium... I just thought it was amusing to present that theory in that way, when it's been brought up by Mr СССР himself.
- andruby 6y agoI didn't want to make it sound like it's a new theory at all. I applaud your addition with the quote and I didn't read it as negatory at all.
- matthewdgreen 6y agoThe claim as I drew it from “Midnight in Chernobyl” by Adam Higginbotham (I don’t know if a popular non-fiction book meets your evidentiary standard, I just happen to have finished reading it) is that the public damage and cost from Chernobyl was so unprecedented and spectacular in scope that it was impossible for the Soviet government to cover it up. And that what makes this remarkable is how this incident compared to other past incidents (not to mention purposeful engineering efforts) that the Soviet government had successfully managed to cover up and keep from the population. In other words, “exposed the dysfunction of the system” is accurate, but also incomplete. It omits the reason why this particular disaster, and not other disasters, was the trigger that caused this reckoning. And the book makes a compelling case for why Chernobyl was so important and so different. I will leave it to experts to tell me whether it’s wrong.
- pmachinery 6y agoIt's not that surprising that the cause of the Soviet Union's collapse tries to pass the blame elsewhere. Without Chernobyl, but with Gorbachev's reforms, the Soviet Union would still have collapsed. Without Gorbachev's reforms, but with Chernobyl, the Soviet Union would still exist, just as PRC did not collapse from Tiananmen Square and DPRK did not collapse from 1990s famine.