Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fall of the Soviet Union
Stalin's influence on the transformation of the Soviet Union
Stalin's influence on the transformation of the Soviet Union
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Fall of the Soviet Union
Dear Comrade
My cherished friend, I regret to inform you that our beloved Soviet society has ceased to exist. Our solid red flag with its magnificent gold emblem of the hammer and sickle flew above the Kremlin for the very last time on Christmas day, 1991. Prior to this gloomy day, eleven of the fifteenth Soviet republics that once made up the strong and prosperous Soviet Union, met in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, to announce that they would no longer partake in the Soviet Union, and had created a Commonwealth of independent states. Our Baltic brothers: Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were the first to break apart, while Georgia remained as the last republic in the Soviet Union. I have served the Soviet Union as Minister of Foreign Affairs for almost two decades, and for the past few days, I have pondered the past in order to understand why our mighty society has dissolved. I ask myself if it was because of Comrade Mikhail Gorbachev and his new policies, the ethnic divisions of the Soviet Union, or if this communist ideology that we strived to implant in the minds and hearts of our people simply failed to take firm root.
Our beautiful Soviet Society was born in 1917, with the Bolshevik Revolution resulting in the creation of a new government who would focus on Socialism and eventually transform into Communism. The Bolsheviks over threw the Tsarist autocracy succeeding the lands of the Russian Empire, eventually leading to the glorious Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the control of the Marxist revolutionary, and U.S.S.R’s first leader Vladimir Lenin. For centuries, Tsarist autocracy oppressed its people, despite the Soviet Union’s goal of creating a society of true democracy. The sad truth was that it was as tyrannica...
... middle of paper ...
... office in on December 25, 1991. To my surprise, this massive military powerhouse that we called the U.S.S.R, which created huge bloodbaths and created a constant sense of fear and terror, had somehow come to a very peaceful end. For what had held so many Republics together, no longer exists, it was the glue that held us in unity to stand as one. Now we remain in 15 republics with the daunting task of establishing economies, social and political organizations to lead us into a democratic future. I feel as my world has been flipped upside down, as I no longer feel supressed or forced to live in fear. I am excited for what the future holds, as I see a new peaceful beginning in a world that has seen so much hate, disarray and has been bathed in blood. Sincerely, Joe Doe
“I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly.”
...oved to be singularly influential and daunting. This is, perhaps, the greatest obstacles to achieving true democracy in Russia—the authoritarian and repressive traditions that refuse to die out with the passage of time.
“The Sources of Soviet Conduct” Foreign Affairs, 1947, explains the difficulty of summarizing Soviet ideology. For more than 50 years, the Soviet concept held the Russian nations hypnotized, discontented, unhappy, and despondent confined to a very limited Czarist political order. Hence, the rebel support of a bloody Revolution, as a means to “social betterment” (Kennan, 567). Bolshevism was conceptualized as “ideological and moral, not geopolitical or strategic”. Hoover declares that… “five or six great social philosophies were struggling for ascendancy” (Leffler, The Specter of Communism, 20).
In fact the Soviet people never saw any of these rights. Constitutional rights could only be used to support the regime, not to criticize it. In conclusion, many Soviet citizens appear to believe that Stalin’s positive contributions to the U.S.S.R. far outweigh his monstrous acts. These crimes have been downplayed by many of Stalin’s successors as they stress his achievements as collectivizer, industrializer, and war leader. Among those citizens who harbor feelings of nostalgia, Stalin’s strength, authority and achievement contrast sharply with the pain and suffering of post-revolutionary Russia.
Fiehn, Terry, and Chris Corin. Communist Russia under Lenin and Stalin. London: John Murray, 2002. Print.
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.
The Fall of Communism The fall of communism can be linked to several reasons. Some of these reasons were internal, while others were the results of outside influence. For a form of any type of government to work, the people must support it, true a government can use force to make their populace submit to the will of the government as with China in Tiananmem Square. In that case, the government used armed military force to put down student demonstrators demanding democracy reform.
Before the Stalin, the Soviet Union was backward, medieval type country full of unmade roads and people who lived without electricity in wooden homes. The Five Year Plans changed thi...
In 1918, while the rest of Europe was still engaged in World War I, a newly formed communist government was developing in Russia. Much like 18th century Americans, they had just managed to overthrow what was viewed as a tyrannical government and hoped to form a new nation free of the injustices of the previous rule. Both countries wrote a new constitution as well as a declaration of rights to facilitate this, but their respective documents had vast differences. These disparities stemmed from differences in the ideologies of the new governments. The primary objectives of the Russian Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People and the later constitution were the “abolition of all exploitation of man by man, complete elimination of the division of society into classes, merciless suppression of the exploiters, socialist organization of society, and victory of socialism in all countries.” Americans wanted equality of opportunity and personal freedom instead of the social equality desired by the Russians. The American constitution and Bill of Rights were created to protect personal liberties and individual freedom while the Russians were more concerned with the welfare and equality of the population as a whole. This difference is partially due to the differences in the conditions leading to revolution in each country. The American Revolution was initiated by the wealthy in response to what they considered unfair treatment by a foreign ruler while the Russian revolution was instigated by the poor in reaction to centuries of oppression and exploitation by the wealthy within their own country.
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.
President James “Jimmy” Carter’s inauguration speech is full of contrasts. He speaks of the United States being a “purely idealistic nation,” but he also recognizes the need for strength. He states we “cannot dwell upon remembered glory,” while at the same time saying he has “no new dream to set forth today, but rather urge a fresh faith in the old dream.” President Carter came to the presidency during a period of healing for the nation. He would lead a nation in transition, but struggle to give strong leadership.
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.
According to most historians, “history is told by the victors”, which would explain why most people equate communism with Vladimir Lenin. He was the backbone of Russia’s communist revolution, and the first leader of history’s largest communist government. It is not known, or discussed by most, that Lenin made many reforms to the original ideals possessed by many communists during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He revised Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles’ theories to fit the so-called ‘backwardness’ of the Russian Empire. Lenin’s reforms were necessary to carry out a socialist revolution in Russia, and the contributions he made drastically changed the course of history. It can be assumed that, the Soviet Union would not have been as powerful if it was not for Lenin’s initial advocacy of violence and tight organization.
Exploring the October revolution and the establishment of communism, Richard Pipes concludes that the origin of communism can be traced back to the distant past in Russia’s history. Pipes states that Russia had entered a period of crisis after the governments of the 19th century undertook a limited attempt at capitalisation, not trying to change the underlying patrimonial structures of Russian society. (Pipes, 1964)
"From Autocracy to Oligarchy." The Structure of Soviet History: Essays and Documents. Ed. Ronald Grigor. Suny. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. 340-50. Print.