The cause for the collapse of the United of Soviet Socialist Republics cannot be pinpointed to one event, one policy, one movement, or one outlook. The series of events, policies, movement, and outlooks are not black and white; they connect multifariously: politically, socially, economically, and culturally. The causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union were both short and long term. Overall, the long-term cause of the collapse was the embedded disposition of the Soviet Union: the politics, the society, the economy, and the culture. The short-term causes include: local nationalism, ethnic disjunction, Chernobyl, ‘perestroika,’ and ‘glasnost.’ Carried out by Gorbachev, the proceedings of the collapse of the Soviet Union are unlike anything else in history.
Gorbachev’s personality was important. Although his policies might have been the last crack in an otherwise fractured country, he was instrumental in the peaceful collapse of his country and in building ties with the West. The last leader came to power with a difficult legacy and executed that same legacy with inputs of his own; Gorbachev was elected general secretary of the Communist Party in March 1985. Amid a profusion of other circumstances, his people and his country displayed three important states of long term aspects, deeply embedded into the country.
First, the USSR displayed a state of naivety with “a population that was expecting greater material well-being than a life in a small and crowded apartment with little more luxury than the use of electricity, a refrigerator, and a television.” To supplement, the extensive shortages of basic goods due to poor agriculture, volatile distribution, and illicit hoarding of consumer goods worried the population; one ...
... middle of paper ...
...ity, and previous state crimes provoked the country. Third, never having such media freedom, glasnost “effectively undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to lead society to the promised land of prosperity.”
With so much resentment, distrust, and failure of the Soviet Union, it is puzzling why the collapse was so peaceful. Usually, the collapse of an empire is very violent as proved by the early 20th century events in monarch Russia. In the case of the monarch Russia, though, there was a revolutionary opposition who wanted revenge but the end of the Soviet Union saw no such antagonistic party. “Perhaps fifteen million died in the process that gave birth to the Soviet Empire, representing a virtual apocalypse, but its end was almost painless, with deaths from purely political conflicts amounting to, at most, one thousand people.”
This was, of course, only a humorous exaggeration, a case of political satire. Yet beneath the humor, there lies a very profound testament to the belief that Russia's political culture has been inherited from its czarist days and manifested throughout its subsequent development. The traditions from the pre-Revolution and pre-1921 Russia, it seems, had left its brand on the 70-years of Communist rule. The Soviet communism system was at once a foreign import from Germany and a Russian creation: "on the one hand it is international and a world phenomenon; on the other hand it is national and Russian…it was Russian history which determined its limits and shaped its character." (Berdyaev, "Origin")
The first five-year plan, approved in 1929, proposed that state and collective farms provide 15 percent of agriculture output. The predominance of private farming seemed assured, as many farmers resisted collectivization. By late 1929, Stalin moved abruptly to break peasant resistance and secure the resources required for industrialization. He saw that voluntary collectivism had failed, and many “Soviet economists doubted that the first plan could even be implimented.”1 Stalin may have viewed collectivization as a means to win support from younger party leaders, rather than from the peasants and Lenin’s men. “Privately he advocated, industrializing the country with the help of internal accumulation” 2 Once the peasantry had been split, Stalin believed that the rural proletarians would embrace collectivization . Before this idea had a chance to work, a grain shortage induced the Politburo to support Stalin’s sudden decision for immediate, massive collectivization.
Mau, Vladimir. " The road to 'perestrokia': economics in the USSR and the problem of
Ronald Reagan came to the Presidency without any major political qualifications, but his victory in the Cold War was no lucky outcome. Dinesh D'Souza’s new book, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader, just published by the Free Press, looks at how Reagan helped end the Cold War. Ten years ago Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and said, “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and East...
The overall collapse of the Communist regime came rather quickly, but there were underlying causes of the collapse that were apparent during the preceding decades. On the surface, the 1970s looked good for the Soviet Union. A lot of certain aspects were still going the Soviet Unions way. However, in 1975, the Soviet Union’s power peaked. In 1975, the Soviet Union’s power began to dwindle and there were six underlying causes of the collapse that can be dated back to that year. In this essay I will discuss these six causes and how they helped bring about the actual collapse of the Soviet regime.
Ultimately, I believe that Mikhail Gorbachev had the greatest impact in bringing about the end of the Cold War with his sweeping changes to foreign policy, the economy, and the Soviet political system. He took the lead when it came to negotiating arms reductions with Reagan and when inviting new partnerships with Western corporations. Before Gorbachev was in power Reagan was committed to restarting the arms race. Later Reagan followed suit when Gorbachev led the way in the reduction of arms. The policy of the Reagan Doctrine was to fund and support resistance groups while Gorbachev worked instead to pull Soviet troops out of Afghanistan and worked to stop the U. S. supported revolt in Angola.
The famine in Russia alone led the peasants to become angry and fed up with the Russian government, suggesting a future revolution. Because of the peasants’ unrest, they began to break the law by as stealing food for their families and shouting in the streets. Russia had attempted revolution before, and a fear of an uprising was feared again. Their everyday routi...
In order to conclude the extent to which the Great Terror strengthened or weakened the USSR, the question is essentially whether totalitarianism strengthened or weakened the Soviet Union? Perhaps under the circumstances of the 1930s in the approach to war a dictatorship may have benefited the country in some way through strong leadership, the unifying effect of reintroducing Russian nationalism and increased party obedience. The effects of the purges on the political structure and community of the USSR can be described (as Peter Kenez asserts) as an overall change from a party led dictatorship to the dictatorship of a single individual; Stalin. Overall power was centred on Stalin, under whom an increasingly bureaucratic hierarchy of party officials worked. During the purges Stalin's personal power can be seen to increase at the cost of the party.
The end of the Cold War was one of the most unexpected and important events in geopolitics in the 20th century. The end of the Cold War can be defined as the end of the bipolar power struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union, which had existed since the end of the World War II. The conclusion of the Cold War can be attributed to Gorbachev’s series of liberalizations in the 1980s, which exposed the underlying economic problems in the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc states that had developed in the 1960s and 70s and prevented the USSR from being able to compete with the US as a superpower. Nevertheless, Reagan’s policies of a renewed offensive against communism, Gorbachev’s rejection of the Brezhnev doctrine and the many nationalities
Following the death of Josef Stalin in 1953, the harsh policies he implemented in not only the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but also its many satellite nations began to break down. There was a movement to distance all of the socialist nations from Stalin?s sadistic rule. In the Peoples? Republic of Hungary, there was much disillusionment with this Stalinist absolutism (Felkay 50). This disillusionment with the Soviet ideal of socialism lead the people of the fledgeling socialist state of Hungary to rise up in revolt, but ill-preparedness and the strength of the Soviet Red Army put down the insurrection within several days.
Under a backdrop of systematic fear and terror, the Stalinist juggernaut flourished. Stalin’s purges, otherwise known as the “Great Terror”, grew from his obsession and desire for sole dictatorship, marking a period of extreme persecution and oppression in the Soviet Union during the late 1930s. “The purges did not merely remove potential enemies. They also raised up a new ruling elite which Stalin had reason to think he would find more dependable.” (Historian David Christian, 1994). While Stalin purged virtually all his potential enemies, he not only profited from removing his long-term opponents, but in doing so, also caused fear in future ones. This created a party that had virtually no opposition, a new ruling elite that would be unstoppable, and in turn negatively impacted a range of sections such as the Communist Party, the people of Russia and the progress in the Soviet community, as well as the military in late 1930 Soviet society.
In the early 1980s prior to Gorbachev’s presidency, the soviet economy was wracked by chronic shortages of food and consumer items. These shortages were in part due because of Leonid Brezhnev leadership being inefficient at directing the soviet economy. It was against this backdrop of economic decline and political instability that Mikhail Gorbachev came to power. Gorbachev came from a peasant family and this humble background played a large role in his political thinking and gave him a strong humanitarian sympathy. His separation from the old regime gave him greater freedoms to move away from old thinking and enact policies grounded in a new way of thinking. Gorbachev was under different circumstances than past leaders because people at around this time wanted the country to move in different directions and at the same time, this led to Gorb...
The Soviet Union, which was once a world superpower in the 19th century saw itself in chaos going into the 20th century. These chaoses were marked by the new ideas brought in by the new leaders who had emerged eventually into power. Almost every aspect of the Soviet Union was crumbling at this period both politically and socially, as well as the economy. There were underlying reasons for the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and eventually Eastern Europe. The economy is the most significant aspect of every government. The soviet economy was highly centralized with a “command economy” (p.1. fsmitha.com), which had been broken down due to its complexity and centrally controlled with corruption involved in it. A strong government needs a strong economy to maintain its power and influence, but in this case the economic planning of the Soviet Union was just not working, which had an influence in other communist nations in Eastern Europe as they declined to collapse.
The cold war was failed by the Soviet Union for many reasons, including the sudden collapse of communism (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) This sudden collapse of communism was brought on ultimately by internal factors. The soviet unions president Gorbachev’s reforms: glasnost (openness) and perestroika (political reconstructering) ultimately caused the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Gorbachev’s basics for glasnost were the promotion of principles of freedom to criticize; the loosening of controls on media and publishing; and the freedom of worship. His essentials of perestroika were, a new legislature; creation of an executive presidency; ending of the ‘leading role’ of the communist party; allowing state enterprises to sell part of their product on the open market; lastly, allowing foreign companies to own Soviet enterprises (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) Gorbachev believed his reforms would benefit his country, but the Soviet Union was ultimately held together by the soviet tradition he was trying to change. The Soviet Union was none the less held together by “…powerful central institutions, pressure for ideological conformity, and the threat of force.
The 'Secondary Davies, R.W.. Soviet Economic Development from Lenin to Khrushchev. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1998. Boettke,Peter J., et al. The political economy of Soviet socialism: the formative years, 1918-1928.