Were the events of 1989/1991 good to the mankind?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 09:39:55 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Were the events of 1989/1991 good to the mankind?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Were the events of 1989/1991 good to the mankind?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 38

Author Topic: Were the events of 1989/1991 good to the mankind?  (Read 2416 times)
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,302
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2017, 11:45:05 AM »

Putin is also better then nearly all the Soviet leaders(Gorby s the exception ). 

I think this is a false dichotomy owing to the fact that he is in control of a system other than the USSR. We have no idea how repressive he might have been had he worked his way to the top in some alternate universe.
Logged
Zuza
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 359
Russian Federation
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2017, 03:13:08 PM »

Putin is also better then nearly all the Soviet leaders(Gorby's the exception ).  

But if the Soviet Union didn't break up in 1991, it would be Gorby who would probably stay in power for another 5 years or so, and then maybe he will be able to hand over his position to a like-minded successor.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,302
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2017, 03:41:48 PM »

Putin is also better then nearly all the Soviet leaders(Gorby's the exception ).  

But if the Soviet Union didn't break up in 1991, it would be Gorby who would probably stay in power for another 5 years or so, and then maybe he will be able to hand over his position to a like-minded successor.

How do you propose this ever be accomplished, though? The USSR was doomed just as much by its multinational nature as its economy. Once restrictions on free speech and national expression were torn down, the multitude of ethnic issues that the Union had attempted to paper over came to the fore.
Logged
Zuza
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 359
Russian Federation
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2017, 12:14:52 AM »
« Edited: July 11, 2017, 12:18:41 AM by Zuza »

Putin is also better then nearly all the Soviet leaders(Gorby's the exception ).  

But if the Soviet Union didn't break up in 1991, it would be Gorby who would probably stay in power for another 5 years or so, and then maybe he will be able to hand over his position to a like-minded successor.

How do you propose this ever be accomplished, though? The USSR was doomed just as much by its multinational nature as its economy. Once restrictions on free speech and national expression were torn down, the multitude of ethnic issues that the Union had attempted to paper over came to the fore.

The question wasn't about whether this was possible or not.

But, if we are speaking about the possibility to preserve the non-Communist USSR: it depended on many factors, of which one of the most significant, and typically underestimated, was Soviet administrative division structure (it was probably too late to change this by 1991 and even by 1985, though). It's not a coincidence that the USSR broke up precisely along the administrative borders drawn by the Soviet leadership, which in many cases were very different from ethnic borders. It's also not a coincidence that another 2 multi-ethnic "federations" modeled after the USSR (Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) also broke up, and also precisely along the pre-existing subnational borders (and in Yugoslavia these borders were also very different from actual ethnic borders). At the same time, multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina managed to survive, despite less than half of it's population were Bosniaks, despite the conflict there was far more severe than most of the Soviet ethnic conflicts and despite separatists received support from adjacent countries larger and more powerful than it. In Africa, you can see ethnic tensions in almost any country, but 2 out of the 3 most successful secessionist movements, Eritrea and Somaliland, formed along the former colonial, rather than ethnic, borders. And in Latin America most of the new post-colonial nations were created on a basis of the former colonial viceroyalties.

We can't say for sure how much chances to survive the Soviet Union had. We can say for sure, though, that being multi-ethnic, and even having severe ethnic tensions, doesn't yet mean that the country is doomed.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 13 queries.