NationStates Jolt Archive

John Paul II or President Reagan.

I can pretty well guess who is going to say which person. Just a bored poll I guess ;)

Discuss!

I refuse to participate.

Too many factors.

reagan continued the long standing us policy of trying to force the soviets to spend themselves to death in the arms race, maybe bumped it into high gear a bit.

the pope probably had more influence on the hearts and minds of the eastern europeans and certainly the poles and the solidarity movement.


in the end however i believe the stalinist empire collapsed from its own internal contradictions, and the inability of the soviet oligarches to react swiftly enough to political change and pressure. red china still exists in some mutant parody of itself, so in some ways its an overstatement to say communism fell. european communism fell, asian communism mutated but held on to power, and third world totalitarians for the most part just changed their buzz words.

The biggest impact on the fall of an empire have the hawks of that country.

They are far removed from the people in their paranoia. And without proper support collapse is inevitable.

Gorbachov.

He was pretty much it.

If you want details, leave me a message on the board or something and I'll post tomorrow, its too late for details right now.

I'm with BLARG. It was Gorby. Although as I understand it, it was inadvertant on his part; he wanted slow reform, not a complete implosion.

Gorby did it politically

Regan did it finacially

John Paul did it heart and soul.

Although there were quite a few contributing factors, ultimately it is Gorbachev's reforming policies that directly led to the collapse. When he introduced his economic "perestroika" he had quite a bit of opposition in his party. In part to help pressure conservatives within the party who were against these reforms, he introduced "Glasnost" which made the system more open, gave the people more freedoms, and helped the flow of previously censored information. The rest is history :-)

They all had a major impact, but it was mainly Regan's brilliance

It was the penguins.

They all had a major impact, but it was mainly Regan's brillianceCare to explain?

Why doesn't anyone remember David Hasselhoff?

The last thread we had on this, we concluded that David Hasselhoff was the main reason for the fall of the soviet union.

Actually I was under the impression that it was just another one of Uncle Jesse's glorious deeds...

Gorby did it politically

Regan did it finacially

John Paul did it heart and soul.
I agree with you.

Lech Walesa his courage in Poland broke the mortar out of the great wall of the east block and began the destruction of the entire system.

Yes, I'm a Polish patriot, even though I'm not Polish. :)

As a Polish non-patriot I have to say that Wałęsa was only a man in the correct place at the correct time :)

I think Pope John Paul II edges out Ronald Reagan by a slim margin. John Paul's force of personality and moral suasion carried great weight world-wide, and President Reagan's determination to implement "Star Wars" effectively overwhelmed the Soviet Union's ability to mobilize immense resources for such a program.

I'd say the POEPLE.

And maybe the fact that the politicians weren't crazy enough anymore to unleash tanks upon the demonstrating masses like they did in Prague in the 60ies.

Fran

other/neither: i say the ussr literally fell apart largely as a result of the anit-stalinist decentralisation policies of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. by the time you got to Gorbachev things were in such a mess it was irreperable. i mean, one of the main reasons for glasnost (etc) was that many beaurocrats (SP? i hate that word :rolleyes: ) and teachers in the Republics were paid in vodka rather than money. i wrote an essay on a subject which was related to this recently :)

The break-up of the communist bloc was simply about a desire on the part of Eastern Europe to escape a system that was economically backward and somewhat oppressive, coupled with a reformist Soviet President, Gorbachev, who was not willing to use force to prevent them leaving (as had once been done in Hungary and Czechoslovakia). Gorbachev was therefore the key player here, though economics and politics were at the heart of it.

The fall of the Soviet Union itself was an accidental result of internal reform. The reform sparked a reactionary coup against the reforms, which was successfully resisted by Yeltsin while Gorbachev was held prisoner in his Dacha by the plotters. The result was that Yeltsin was a hero and ended up with all the authority. Yeltsin was already President of Russia (Gorbachev was President of the USSR), and it was therefore in his interests to weaken the central authority to maximise his own power. Hence the break-up into different states.This also has its roots in economics, which were the cause of the reforms.


So in my view the real cause was the failure of socialist economics over the long term in comparison with capitalism. Individuals weren't very important in the process. Of those mentioned I think that Gorbachev was the biggest player. Reagan's influence is largely mythological. It's been spun as part of the 'Reagan story,' but Russians (other than those on lucrative lecture tours in the USA) would be surprised to hear that it was mainly Reagan's doing. Gorbachev had always been a reformer. Reagan didn't force him into it.

It was mostly Gorbachev, and the rest of it was Carter's CIA drawing them into a protracted war with Afghanistan.

So who really had an impact on the downfall of the USSR?

The Russians.

Gorbachev (sorry if it's wrong...): Without him, the Kremin wouldn't have let the USSR fall.

Gorbachev, even though Reagen was fighting along with the American people to end communism. Gorbachev was able to slash away from the inside which caused the USSR to collapse rather quickly.

So who really had an impact on the downfall of the USSR?
I did.

Not one person, just the idea of communism is so bad it couldnt have supported itself and was working out so bad it finally collapsed. Now communism is a mere shadow of what used to be.

Not one person, just the idea of communism is so bad it couldnt have supported itself and was working out so bad it finally collapsed. Now communism is a mere shadow of what used to be.
Actually, theres never been a true communist state. The USSR was a failed attempt at it.

The USSR was a failed attempt at it.

Not even.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Not even.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
.nekatsim ma I

Not even.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Yes, what Kervoskia should have said was that the USSR was a failed attempt as socialism (if it was an attempt at all)

No, it was an attempt to achieve communism. The idea is that you get to communism via socialism. When communism has been achieved there will be no need for Republics anyway, so the Republics that exist in the meantime are necessarily socialist rather than communist.

Khrushchev said in about 1960 that the USSR was about twenty years from communism. That was part of the reason they kicked him out - by that stage the more realistic/bureaucratic elements knew they weren't going to get there.


I would say that the USSR did actually achieve socialism. Some people would say that socialism was necessarily democratic by definition, in which case it clearly didn't, but to me socialism is about economics.

All of them did. However, these three men, as great as they were, did not have an impact inasmuch as they simply accelarated the downfall of the USSR. The real reason was that communism simply didn't work. It's like crushing an elephant with a single flea. It is illogical, stupid, and destructive.

All of them did. However, these three men, as great as they were, did not have an impact inasmuch as they simply accelarated the downfall of the USSR. The real reason was that communism simply didn't work. It's like crushing an elephant with a single flea. It is illogical, stupid, and destructive.

Actually, it worked pretty well. The main reason for the fall of the eastern block may be the "Star Wars" program, which seriously fucked up the soviet economy (which, let me repeat, was actually working! :eek: )

Now somebody asks me for the source and I'll be forced to spend a few hours looking for it :( (it was from the west though)

*looks at topic*

Uhh... Berliners? Oh, they don't matter. Don't worry about them. I mean, they were only THE FOCAL POINT OF THE ENTIRE GODDAMN COLD WAR!!!

Okay, first off, it WAS NOT REAGAN!

Let me just make that clear.

From the inside, Gorbachov unwittingly whittled away at what was left of the wall of the Soviet State.

His reform policies played a huge part in the downfall. The three major parts were 'glasnost' 'perestroika' and 'democratia'.

Glasnost was the openedd scheme, it was originally designed for people to offer new and inventive economic ideas rather than the same old 'yes men' giving the same defunct solution to the same problem. Unfortunatly, what Gorbachov did not see was the fact that once the people tasted the freedom to speak openly about the government, they were not going to give it up again. The ability to criticise the government in economic ideals moved into a full out slamming of the government in general. Since only about 2-3 million Russians were actually communists, the vast majority of people felt no connection to their government and began to criticise it in earnest.

Freedom - 1
Oligarchy - 0

The second movement of 'perestrokia' was supposed to be an economic restructuring. It gave the factory mangers and regional heads more autonomy than previously found in a centralized state. This was supposed to create a higher economic incentive to do better, be more productive, and help continue the ship of state. What it did instead was create 'statelets'. These semi-autonomas regions began to act on their own, instead of following central directives. The most famouse incident was with Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Republic. He acted almost completely on his own, denying the power of the Kremlin. Because Yeltsin was so popular, he couldn't be stopped by the KGB, he essentially walked all over them without fear of reprisal. His big move was after Gorbachov was kidnapped by the hard-liners. After that, Yeltsin rescued him (not literally, but his actions led the hard-liners to let Gorbachov go). After that, Yeltsin was outside of the control of the state, a power on his own.

Autonomy - 1
Kremlin - 0


The last bit of the reform movement was 'demokritoia' [sic]. This movement allowed for actual election to be held in the lower levels of the communist party, i.e. town governors and factory managers. Again, this involved freedom. Once the people were given a taste, the took the whole cake. Only communists were allowed to run in the elections, but, it had more than the desired affect and had people calling for state-wide elections on all tiers of government.

Democracy - 1
Dictatorship - 0

In the final blow, the ex-Soviet Republics (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithouania, Czech, Serbia, etc. . .) began to break away. It began in Poland with the anti-communist group (name anyone?) and from there it spread. One by one the repbulics broke away from Kremlin control. Guess what happened? Gorbachov, much to the dismay of the hard-liners, did nothing. Without backing up his words with force, Gorbachov became an empty threat. After all that power loss, the Soviets could not maintain their power structure, and, in 1991, the Kremlin announced the USSR dissolved.

Reagan. After all, Gorbachev was trying to preserve the Soviet Union, not destroy it.

Reagan. After all, Gorbachev was trying to preserve the Soviet Union, not destroy it.
Reagan did nothing. Gorbachev tried to preserve the USSR but his actions brought about its downfall.