Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How big of a role did "ethnic strife" play in the breakup of the USSR? Is it possible that some of the people in power in Moscow at that time decided that certain groups were no longer worth the trouble?
There was no "ethnic strife" anywhere really, except for Baltic countries where many still considered themselves being under Soviet occupation.
As for the rest of the country - as I've already mentioned, during the Federal referendum in 1991, the overwhelming majority of citizens of different republics voted to keep the Union.
I am not sure what VTsIOM has got to do with it; I am talking from the point of view of a former citizen who has witnessed those times and can assure you that those rosy bubbles that Gorbachev are passing now for a fact are far from reality of those days.
I didn't realize that we had moved from questionable empiricism to the anecdotal because you posted that "he the most hated man/politician in Russia, while Stalin is not" and the only thing that I could find was the VTsIOM poll?
Quote:
The authors of this article can speculate all they want about "inflation-adjusted wages" or the "growth of GDP,"
Sorry but I will take an analytical piece from Foreign Policy over personal opinion not matter how sincere, especially when that analysis closely mirrors your own account. Did you get beyond the first page?
I didn't realize that we had moved from questionable empiricism to the anecdotal because you posted that "he the most hated man/politician in Russia, while Stalin is not" and the only thing that I could find was the VTsIOM poll?
What VTsIOM poll are you talking about?
(I don't know what "anecdotal" is or what's not, but Gorbachev IS unanimously hated in Russia ( not by me personally, I consider him a fool as in "the road to hell is paved with best intentions,") and Stalin recently has been voted #1 as the most influential person in Russian history.
Take note again please - I didn't take part in this vote)))
Quote:
Sorry but I will take an analytical piece from Foreign Policy over personal opinion not matter how sincere, especially when that analysis closely mirrors your own account. Did you get beyond the first page?
Yes I tried to do my best ( to get beyond the first page, ) but I didn't find this article particularly inspiring.
But by all means, if you like this article - stick to it, I am not going to dissuade you.
There was no "ethnic strife" anywhere really, except for Baltic countries where many still considered themselves being under Soviet occupation.
As for the rest of the country - as I've already mentioned, during the Federal referendum in 1991, the overwhelming majority of citizens of different republics voted to keep the Union.
"...15 Republics did not conform. Some redrafted the language; several added questions to the ballot; others declared their independence and still others boycotted the event. Although the All-Union Referendum passed overwhelmingly, periphery events turned out to be more relevant than the specific outcome. The Soviet Republics had discovered a way to articulate their frustration with central control and busily went about acting as independent states."
I might add to argue that the Soviet Union was a happy family of 120 ethnic groups in 22 Republics is risible at best or just plain old Soviet propaganda at its worst. So the massive anti-Soviet demonstrations in Armenia and Azerbaijan prior to the referendum were a figment of our collective imaginations. The rise of ethnic conflict in post-Soviet era didn't just suddenly arise with the fall of Mikhail Gorbachev.
"...15 Republics did not conform. Some redrafted the language; several added questions to the ballot; others declared their independence and still others boycotted the event. Although the All-Union Referendum passed overwhelmingly, periphery events turned out to be more relevant than the specific outcome. The Soviet Republics had discovered a way to articulate their frustration with central control and busily went about acting as independent states."
So the All-Union referendum "passed overwhelmingly" right? And the majority of people voted to keep the Union, isn't it? The rest were politics ( and decisions) of the local nomenclatura, as much as nomenclatura in Moscow. ( Take note please I usually make an exception for Baltic countries)
Quote:
I might add to argue that the Soviet Union was a happy family of 120 ethnic groups in 22 Republics is risible at best or just plain old Soviet propaganda at its worst.
Everything is learned in comparison. I never said that there were completely no problems between different ethnicities in Russia; but overall - yes, during Soviet times the relations between them were much better than what came AFTER the fall of the Soviet Union.
Quote:
So the massive anti-Soviet demonstrations in Armenia and Azerbaijan prior to the referendum were a figment of our collective imaginations. The rise of ethnic conflict in post-Soviet era didn't just suddenly arise with the fall of Mikhail Gorbachev.
No, this particular conflict between Armenia and Azerbajan is centuries old I think ( because of Nagorny Karabkh area that they argue over since I don't know when, plus to a lesser degree may be different religions have got something to do with it,) and thanks to Russian presence and stability they were not killing each other like crazy back in 60ies or 70ies. It's when the system started giving cracks, the whole hell broke loose over there; the Azeris were massacring Armenians ( and anyone whom they'd perceive being Armenians) in the most vicious way, so I don't remember whether the troops were finally sent there or not.
Has there ever been a government in any nation, at any time in history, which did "respect the man", and which desisted from "oppressing him spiritually or politically"?
The USSR was born when enough intellectuals and well-off persons came to so doubt the extant regime, that they clamored for revolution.
The USSR collapsed when enough intellectuals and well-off persons came to so doubt the extant regime, that they clamored for revolution.
Nations endure not because citizens are free of oppression, but so long as entrenched interests find themselves better off within the system. Nations collapse when such interests feel that they no longer have anything to lose by dismantling the system.
Has there ever been a government in any nation, at any time in history, which did "respect the man", and which desisted from "oppressing him spiritually or politically"?
The USSR was born when enough intellectuals and well-off persons came to so doubt the extant regime, that they clamored for revolution.
The USSR collapsed when enough intellectuals and well-off persons came to so doubt the extant regime, that they clamored for revolution.
Nations endure not because citizens are free of oppression, but so long as entrenched interests find themselves better off within the system. Nations collapse when such interests feel that they no longer have anything to lose by dismantling the system.
Put a lot of faith in intellectuals, don't you? I don't.
America has been damaged badly by academia. Their nut-case attitudes and teachings are in the headlines almost every day.
On the other hand, when you say "well off" I assume you mean "successful", and on that score I think you have it right.
Problems are being caused in America by a government who kowtows to unsuccessful people, and those victims (I will call them) respond in a fashion that sabotages any chance they ever had for success.
So the All-Union referendum "passed overwhelmingly" right? And the majority of people voted to keep the Union, isn't it?
Erasure - how do you explain the fact that Ukrainians first voted to preserve the Union, then turned around and voted overwhelmingly for independence only a few months later?
There was no "ethnic strife" anywhere really, except for Baltic countries where many still considered themselves being under Soviet occupation.
As for the rest of the country - as I've already mentioned, during the Federal referendum in 1991, the overwhelming majority of citizens of different republics voted to keep the Union.
erasure, is it not true that the "Union Referendum" while passed with strong manipulation from Moscow, then resulted in later indpendence movements in almost all of the Republics? As for ethnic strife, is it not true that the local and Republic level governments in almost all cases became "nationalist" governments after the first election? While that may not be the same as "strife" ala the US Civil Rights movement, it is a pretty good indicator that there were strong latent nationalist/ethnic feelings in most of the Republics. Don't forget, most of them had the Soviet system imposed on them to begin with. The Soviet system was also highly fond of resettling ethnic Russians across the various Republics, which certainly bred resentment among the local populations. All of that boiled to the surface when the Soviet system fell apart and resulted in a strong national/ethnic backlash.
Last edited by NJGOAT; 05-08-2013 at 09:55 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) but I didn't find this article particularly inspiring.
