Why did the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991?

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,680
San Antonio, Tx
now you are talking... indeed, how come, at the moment of a very important transition form one type of economy to another, it happened to be not a Stalin was at the Soviets helm but someone like Gorbatchov?

as we remember, the nascent USSR, being a new model state, was sternly directed by figures like Stalin, Beria and Mikoyan to make sure the new & state of art economic ideas are implemented without disruption.

now it was same kind of economic model change, only this time Gorbie let the situation get out of hand completely!



maybe in Swiss banks?
Well, if the coup plotters in Moscow had succeeded in re-instating the old Communist regime, where would they be today?
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,680
San Antonio, Tx
I also wouldn't be so readily able to take that opinion from someone from Texas though either. So you're right, don't believe everything you read if you're going to take where people are from at face value.
The funny thing is, there are a lot of Texans who believe - falsely - that Texas can secede from the Union whenever it wants. The truth is, it cant’t: not now, not ever.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,680
San Antonio, Tx
I so hate this "socialism doesn't work" that is often said.

The problem is that the term is both used for totalitarian dictatorships with planned economies like the USSR and for "socialist" policies such as social security and Government run healthcare.

One works just fine, the other does not.
Yes, and the one “that works just fine” is called “social democracy” and not “socialism”.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,680
San Antonio, Tx
But European socialism is not socialism either. It is capitalism with higher taxes meant to support less lucky ones.

It can work in Europe because:

- European military expenses are lower than US ones

- for quite a while, the Europeans were ethnically similar. Really, when Bernie speaks about Finnish socialism, he might not understand that Finns are ethnically not only close, they are related. It is easier to help your relatives.
(Same in Israel, I presume).

But with the influx of immigrants, the situation might change. I remember a person from Denmark who ended up blocking me for dissenting views - one person does not represent the country, but I could trace the transformation of the person's opinions as the amount of immigrants to Denmark grew.

Can a country like the US, ethnically and culturally different, with high external expenses, embrace socialism? I think not.
That’s easy: we don’t want the US to embrace “socialism”, but embracing the best parts of “social democracy” has been going on for a long time now.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,680
San Antonio, Tx
They will not.

First, it may be true for all countries, but definitely for Russia - people don’t respect leaders who lose territory, and Gorbachev lost the whole country.

People like me might be thankful that he did not have the strength to drench all dissident movements in blood. However, I think he could have at least sold East Germany, the unification, to the Germans at a really pricey sum. Give or take, the USSR got nothing from it.

Beria, once, wanted to exchange East Germany for the Marshall plan for the Soviet Union. Restoration of the economy of war-torn Soviet Union was an ambitious plan. What did Gorbachev squeeze out of Germany? Not even the houses for the soldiers.

Maybe people consider his house in California a significant bribe? It is a sad consolation for someone who lost the Soviet Union. No, Gorbachev was so self-conceited that he did not understand what was going on.
Of course one can blame Gorbachev for all the bad things that happened after the collapse of the SU, or even for everything that caused the SU to collapse. But one would be wrong because that is much too simplistic. The SU was on a one-way path to collapse with or without Gorbachev. Gorby was simply a “speed-bump” along the way because the fundamentals of the Soviet economy were all pointed in the wrong direction. It was like an “eight-day clock” that was in the eighth day of its existence.

Beria was probably smarter than everyone else around him, but they knew it and were very scared of him and so they got rid of him. Interesting to speculate on what might have happened if Beria had risen to power. But I really don’t care because the Soviet State was already ruined by that time.

As for “selling” East Germany to West Germany, isn’t it a bit demeaning to “sell” your former satellite to the west which makes you look like a money-grubbing low-life as if that would spare you any of the grief that arises out of a collapsing Warsaw Pact.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,680
San Antonio, Tx
By saying Gorbachev created the myth of Yeltsin, I took that to mean you were saying that Gorbacbev had engineered the collapse of the Soviet Union, obviously I didn't understand what you were trying to say. If I understand you correctly, it was Gorbachev's treatment of Yeltsin that made Yeltsin into a martyr, into a "myth" of Yeltsin as some kind of hero. Gorvachev didn't need to treat Yeltsin so harshly, and that made Yeltsin seem some kind of hero, which he wasn't.

In my opinion, Gorvachev treated Yeltsin so harshly to clearly demonstrate who was in charge, to put Yeltsin in his place. I think that is what drove Yeltsin to dissolve the Soviet Union, Yeltsin would never be in charge of the Soviet Union. To have real power, Yeltsin would have to make the Russian Republic independent, which meant destroying the Soviet Union. Had the Russian Republic chosen to keep the Soviet Union, they could have kept the majority of soviet republic in the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union alive.



A.lot of people in the west didn't trust Gorbachdv, didn't think he was sincere, at least not at the time. The military attempted coup convinced them that he was sincere. But I guess that is why Gorbachev fell, he was weak - his willingness to change was regarded as being weak, by people in the Soviet U in, both within the military and without.



Without the Soviet Union, Marxism would have just been a political theory without any real teeth. It was the Soviet Union that made Marxism a force to be reckon with, and actively spread it around the world. That is why the Soviet Union gets blamed for Marxism.




Can you name a Soviet or Russian leader who wasn't a liar? From what you tell me, Gorbachev's real problem was that he was a coward. He should have been facing the the soldiers attempting the coup, not buried away in safety. Nobody respects coward.

Note, Gorbachev was more likely to be killed by the leaders of the coup, they were less likely to shoot Yeltsin and company, so they had less to lose. Still, the one thing that all people expect from their leader is course.
Very interesting take on this.