English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-12-30 20:02:42 · 10 answers · asked by araamdude 1 in Arts & Humanities History

10 answers

Russia is a country that had been formed by invasion of the bordering countries. There was no love nor interest among the different ethnic groups that composed it, with very different origens, languages, cultures, even religions. There was absolutely NOTHING that kept them together.
As soon as the iron fist weakened, they began to separate and declare their own independency.
The Baltic countries, for example, had been incorporated by Stalin in spite of having no common roots with Russia. They resented being forced to become part of the Soviets.
This phenomenon was seen better in Russia because it was the largest country, composed of many people, held by force, but it happened in other contries like Chekoslovakia, that had been created artificially, without the free will of the inhabitants.
As soon as the could they separated in two. The two ethnias of Eslovacks and Cheks considered themselves to be two different people.
The only country that reunified after the fall of comunism was Germany, because both parts had the concept of being one people, one nation

2007-01-01 06:04:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The previous answers were good but missed some key elements, especially glasnost and the utter failure of the 1991 coup. I probably will miss some points too, as this is a very complex, if fascinating, question.

Did economic decline automatically lead to the breakup of the Union? No! For a quick counter-example, look at North Korea, which is so bankrupt that it cannot feed its own people, yet there is no hint of a revolution there.

The missing element is some freedom of information. The North Koreans are bad off, but don't know it, whereas the Soviets were bad off and not only knew it, but also knew that their government was *lying* to them about it.

As Stalin himself pointed out, "Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?"

If freedom of information was so dangerous, why did the Soviets allow it? Glasnost (Russian for 'openness' or 'publicity') was brought about by two powerful events:
- the Chernobyl nuclear disaster
- and the loss of the Afghanistan war.

In both these incidents, the Soviet government was caught in bald-faced lies, resulting in loss of credibility and a public outcry for more openness.

What to Do?
The Soviet authorities were baffled: they apparently did not see any way to avoid the public demand for less lying and government censorship, and started down a path from which it could not recover.

Worker's Paradise a Lie!
Once censorship was relaxed, the newly freed press began to expose more lies and weaknesses of the government, discrediting it further. The people realized they were not living in a worker's paradise; they didn't have blue jeans, rock and roll or the luxuries of the West.

The hypocrisy of the Soviet system of government became apparent - the people of the USSR had sacrificed freedom to make a better world and found that their efforts were squandered by their leaders.

Meanwhile, the economic reforms were not sufficient to restore any credit to the government; the reforms left too much communist apparatus in place.

1991 Coup - Reversal of Fortune
At this point, the breakup could have gone peacefully or resulted in a number of bloody variations. However, the August 1991 coup by reactionary forces totally misjudged public opinion. Some soldiers refused to obey orders; the public demonstrated against the coup, and it became apparent that the coup did not have enough support to succeed.

This dramatic reversal of fortune caused the reactionary forces to completely loose credibility and demoralized them; meanwhile, Gorbachev had some plausible and appealing alternatives to the communist system on hand.

Radical Reform Contemplated
Thus, the economic weakening of the Soviet state, public realization of this fact, the hypocrisy of the state, along with discrediting of the reactionary forces, led the Soviets to a place where they were willing to experiment with new ideas.

Since the republics were clamoring for independence at this time, their autonomy became part of a greater package of attempted reform.

No doubt this is a simplification of a complex issue, and the personalities of Gorbachev and other key figures had an important effect too, but I believe it represents the most important elements.

The key elements were not defeat in war, or economic decline, but rather the ideas and interpretations of those events in the minds of the people and the various power centers of the former Soviet Union. Hypocrisy, loss of credibility and the existince of better alternatives were fatal ideas when given to the Soviet people. Ideas *are* more dangerous than guns.

2006-12-31 13:06:23 · answer #2 · answered by Tom D 4 · 0 0

The economy of the Soviet Union collapsed.

The value of the Ruble fell into near worthlessness in world markets. Other countries began to demand exchange of commodities like gold or oil for foreign payments.

Unlike our Market System, the Central Committee in Russia decided how much food to grow, where and what factories should produce, and they set the prices for everything.

The government decided everything.

Businesses were operated as collectives. The government set goals for production; unreasonable goals really.

They called them five year plans.

But the Soviet Union was also in an arms race with the U.S.

Just before the collapse, the Soviet Union was spending 50% of its entire economy on the military!

So the Central Committee decided to cut costs in foreign aid and military expenditures abroad.

They cut aid to Cuba, pulled their troops and tanks out of Western Europe, and set all those countries loose.

This had a domono effect wthin the rest of the "Union". Other parts of the Union ceceded and became independent too.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics broke up.

2006-12-31 04:26:05 · answer #3 · answered by T K 2 · 2 0

After 60 years of spending above 60% of their budget on the military and barely anything on everything else, you won't have much left.

2006-12-31 04:17:38 · answer #4 · answered by warlord46750 3 · 0 1

The Russians were stupid and listened to George Bush Senior.
Now many are regretting it.

2006-12-31 04:12:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

This is just my guess...but many things were at play and I believe the straw that broke the camels back was Afghanistan....

2006-12-31 04:20:26 · answer #6 · answered by LeftField360 5 · 1 1

It was inevitable. Karl Marx was wrong.

Plus the TV shows are better now.

2006-12-31 04:07:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

We broke their bank and spent them into the ground.

2006-12-31 04:05:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

The US ordained it. The US didn't like communism, and wanted the USSR gone, and did everything in it's power to this end.

2006-12-31 04:11:59 · answer #9 · answered by ♥Twin♣Sis♥ 2 · 0 3

i spose they had enough of each other just like anybody else

2006-12-31 04:05:46 · answer #10 · answered by tamah 3 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers