Analysis of Three Books About Gorbachev

3771 Words8 Pages

Analysis of Three Books About Gorbachev

The history of the Soviet Union is complicated and fascinating. In the course

of only seventy years this country has seen the development of the totally new

system of state, economic growth, the growth of hopes for the "brighter future",

and then the sudden and expected by no one collapse of the whole system leading

to chaos, wars, and confusion. One period is especially important in order to

realize how did things finally started to change after the seventy years of

blindly pursuing the dream of communism which left the Soviet Union in a very

bad economical and moral state, and this period is called perestroika, Russian

for restructuring. The main figure behind this process which began in 1985 is

Mikhail S. Gorbachev who became General Secretary of the Communist Party of the

Soviet Union Central Committee in March 1985. The three books that concentrate

on the "Gorbachev phenomenon" were all unfortunately written before perestroika

was finished, so they do not analyze the consequences that it had for the Soviet

Union as well as for the whole world . On the other hand, all three of these

books do a good job in explaining the changes that took place in the course of

the first three years after Gorbachev came to power and why were these changes

necessary.

The first book "Gorbachev" was written by Zhores A. Medvedev in 1986 and hence

the author is concentrating on the first year of the new course in Soviet

history. The book itself basically consists of two parts: the first part where

the author describes the "making of a General Secretary", and the second part

entitled "Gorbachev in power" which describes Gorbachev's first year in the

office. The first part of the book gives a lot of background information which

allows the reader to see the stages in development of the Soviet leader from

childhood and youth to second-in-command. One thing I found to be particularly

interesting in Medvedev's description of Gorbachev's youth and that is the

theory that living with a Czech intellectual for five years changed the future

Soviet leader in such a way that he became more "westernized" which "indirectly

provided the Soviet Union with a new style leader". Medvedev says that during

the time from 1950 to 1955 when young Gorbachev attended the Moscow State

University and had to share the room with a C...

... middle of paper ...

...or instance, after the reforms the society did

become more open thanks to glasnost. People for the first time since 1917 could

say what they really thought and not what was "good for the party". People also

gained access to all sorts of information which was previously denied to them.

Children in schools and students in colleges could finally learn the history as

it was and not as it was seen by the Communist party. Another major success of

perestroika was the increasing openness of the country to the West which led to

a considerable improvements in East-West relations. This also led to the

gradual reduction of arms and considerable decline in defense spending in the

Soviet Union as well as in the United States. Considering these and other

positive results of perestroika I would have to disagree with those people who

say that it was a complete failure. The restructuring that took place in the

Soviet Union has many dimensions - some are positive, some are negative. One-

sided view which Joan E. Spero and other scholars advocate is not correct, since

it concentrates only on the adverse effects of perestroika, completely ignoring

all the positive effects that it had.

More about Analysis of Three Books About Gorbachev

Open Document