6 ms·

You obviously know close to nothing about real USSR. There were HUGE amount of very different (and quite known to citizens) disasters before Chernobyl and Chern

by Arech 5y ago

You obviously know close to nothing about real USSR. There were HUGE amount of very different (and quite known to citizens) disasters before Chernobyl and Chernobyl by itself added almost nothing to what people already knew about their country and regime. Moreover handling of Chernobyl consequences was a much better than handling of other disasters of the past. So you point about Chernobyl being at least somewhat visible reason in USSR collapse is totally invalid. It may have played some role, but no bigger than minuscule comparing to other reasons.

drran 5y ago
Chornobyl was very different from any previous disaster or mass murdering. For many decades, USSR propaganda pictured nuclear as the solution for all future problems. «Nuclear energy + intelligent robots = communism». And then you have nuclear disaster and no robots.
- Arech 5y ago
  Not very much different, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak for a list of issues with only one nuclear related facility for example. Regarding the else you have just written about... It's just so minuscule comparing to the real issues USSR and it's citizens had that I don't even know what to say about it. Just read some trustworthy books or even wikipedia about economics situation in late USSR and forget all you've just said. You literally don't give a shit about some fancy robots and nuclear disasters in some distant places when you have close to nothing to eat and nothing to put on.
  - drran 5y ago
    I don't need to read books about USSR or Chornobyl. :-)
  - orbital-decay 5y ago
    Huh? Mayak was a top secret military facility in a fairly remote area. Its incidents and disasters were only unclassified after the breakup, and weren't known to the population. Chernobyl, on the other hand, was impossible to hide.
vilius 5y ago
I recommend reading Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire. It is an elaborate attempt to figure out the reasons behind the collapse. According to the author Chernobyl played a major role. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_Tomb:_The_Last_Days_of_the_Soviet_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_Tomb:_The_Last_Days_...
- Arech 5y ago
  I don't agree with him and the reason is simple. "Major role" implies that if it had not happened then USSR might would not have collapsed, or it's fate had delayed significantly. But the thing is - even if there were no Chernobyl at all, USSR must have collapsed anyway due to a multitude of enormous internal issues. May be just a little later, but it's absolutely not a question if it would collapsed or not. Therefore Chernobyl just can't have a major role in that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
orbital-decay 5y ago
I know a lot about both Chernobyl and the real USSR, and while Chernobyl obviously didn't lead to the collapse directly, it absolutely played the key role in destroying people's trust. >There were HUGE amount of very different (and quite known to citizens) disasters before Chernobyl Like what? Three most known disasters of the late Union were Chernobyl, Spitak earthquake, and Ufa train disaster, and the latter only became known because of Chernobyl which opened the valve on the freedom of the press a bit. All three clearly showed three things: - that government was completely unprepared to natural and man-made disasters, so that the Army had to be involved (MChS was created in Russia after the breakup precisely in response to that, other republics did the same, largely) - that the party didn't have the interest of people in mind, and was concerned with covering their own asses up first. People responded in the same way - just listen to 'Я вынес из Зоны' by Sergey Uryvin, it's a nice illustration of the atmosphere during liquidation. - that Glasnost didn't work very well in practice >Moreover handling of Chernobyl consequences was a much better than handling of other disasters of the past. Only because it happened in a populated area, was not restricted to military, and was practically impossible to downplay or deny due to that. They still tried, demonstrating that Glasnost was only a declaration with little substance.
publicola1990 5y ago
Much better source than Lenin's Tomb are available. Journalists tend to focus on simplifying, story like explanations, whereas reality is much more complex, even more interesting than the "stories" they tell. Chernobyl was a mere foot note in the Biographies of Gorbachev. In fact, ethno national flareups in Nagorno-Karabakh, and rise of anti-Russian sentiments in Ukraine and Baltics is perhaps the most critical factors that lead to the collapse of the USSR. Even on a chronological basis, it would be attribute to Chernobyl. USSR collapsed in 1991 December. Even a month before it collapsed, it wasn't imagined or expected that it would simply collapse that way.
- type0 5y ago
  > Much better source than Lenin's Tomb are available. I wholeheartedly agree, even this simple documentary shows that things weren't really that simple https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYD6ouVHXbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYD6ouVHXbo > Even a month before it collapsed, it wasn't imagined ... Oh I imagined, starting with the fall of Berlin Wall a lot citizens hoped for it collapse but no one really could be so certain. Why do people always need to single out just one cause?

by Arech 5y ago

drran 5y ago

Chornobyl was very different from any previous disaster or mass murdering. For many decades, USSR propaganda pictured nuclear as the solution for all future problems. «Nuclear energy + intelligent robots = communism». And then you have nuclear disaster and no robots.

Arech 5y ago
Not very much different, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak for a list of issues with only one nuclear related facility for example. Regarding the else you have just written about... It's just so minuscule comparing to the real issues USSR and it's citizens had that I don't even know what to say about it. Just read some trustworthy books or even wikipedia about economics situation in late USSR and forget all you've just said. You literally don't give a shit about some fancy robots and nuclear disasters in some distant places when you have close to nothing to eat and nothing to put on.
- drran 5y ago
  I don't need to read books about USSR or Chornobyl. :-)
- orbital-decay 5y ago
  Huh? Mayak was a top secret military facility in a fairly remote area. Its incidents and disasters were only unclassified after the breakup, and weren't known to the population. Chernobyl, on the other hand, was impossible to hide.

vilius 5y ago

I recommend reading Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire. It is an elaborate attempt to figure out the reasons behind the collapse. According to the author Chernobyl played a major role. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_Tomb:_The_Last_Days_of_the_Soviet_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_Tomb:_The_Last_Days_...

Arech 5y ago
I don't agree with him and the reason is simple. "Major role" implies that if it had not happened then USSR might would not have collapsed, or it's fate had delayed significantly. But the thing is - even if there were no Chernobyl at all, USSR must have collapsed anyway due to a multitude of enormous internal issues. May be just a little later, but it's absolutely not a question if it would collapsed or not. Therefore Chernobyl just can't have a major role in that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

orbital-decay 5y ago

I know a lot about both Chernobyl and the real USSR, and while Chernobyl obviously didn't lead to the collapse directly, it absolutely played the key role in destroying people's trust. >There were HUGE amount of very different (and quite known to citizens) disasters before Chernobyl Like what? Three most known disasters of the late Union were Chernobyl, Spitak earthquake, and Ufa train disaster, and the latter only became known because of Chernobyl which opened the valve on the freedom of the press a bit. All three clearly showed three things: - that government was completely unprepared to natural and man-made disasters, so that the Army had to be involved (MChS was created in Russia after the breakup precisely in response to that, other republics did the same, largely) - that the party didn't have the interest of people in mind, and was concerned with covering their own asses up first. People responded in the same way - just listen to 'Я вынес из Зоны' by Sergey Uryvin, it's a nice illustration of the atmosphere during liquidation. - that Glasnost didn't work very well in practice >Moreover handling of Chernobyl consequences was a much better than handling of other disasters of the past. Only because it happened in a populated area, was not restricted to military, and was practically impossible to downplay or deny due to that. They still tried, demonstrating that Glasnost was only a declaration with little substance.

publicola1990 5y ago

Much better source than Lenin's Tomb are available. Journalists tend to focus on simplifying, story like explanations, whereas reality is much more complex, even more interesting than the "stories" they tell. Chernobyl was a mere foot note in the Biographies of Gorbachev. In fact, ethno national flareups in Nagorno-Karabakh, and rise of anti-Russian sentiments in Ukraine and Baltics is perhaps the most critical factors that lead to the collapse of the USSR. Even on a chronological basis, it would be attribute to Chernobyl. USSR collapsed in 1991 December. Even a month before it collapsed, it wasn't imagined or expected that it would simply collapse that way.

type0 5y ago
> Much better source than Lenin's Tomb are available. I wholeheartedly agree, even this simple documentary shows that things weren't really that simple https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYD6ouVHXbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYD6ouVHXbo > Even a month before it collapsed, it wasn't imagined ... Oh I imagined, starting with the fall of Berlin Wall a lot citizens hoped for it collapse but no one really could be so certain. Why do people always need to single out just one cause?