Was the Soviet Union still salvageable when Gorbachev took over the reins?
MISTER
It certainly was. Most republics in the Union did not want to dissolve it. His overzealous desire to try to solve a long term issue in a very short period of time destroyed the union.
>>1051109
Wasn't most of those Republics money draining ones from Central Asia?
The Baltics jumped the chance to get away as soon as possible when they could, and they were among the richest republics.
He could definitely have done something about the Armenian-weird spelled country border problems.
>>1051148
The Caucasian republics didn't want to dissolve the union either nor did Belarus, the 3rd largest republic. Ukraine, the 2nd largest and one of the wealthier ones was neutral.
>>1051101
GORBACHEV
WELL CONGRATULATIONS GORBA, YOU GOT PERESTROIKA AND GLASNOST
NOW WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP OF YOUR MASTERPLAN?
>>1051408
TEAR
>>1051408
TEAR
>>1051441
DOWN
>>1051477
LIFE
>>1051109
> Most republics in the Union did not want to dissolve it
Except, you know, Russians themselves, who got tired of subsidizing the rest. I mean, of course Cental Asia and Caucasus didn't want to dissolve the USSR, they had to start to actually do something after Russians stopped to feed them.
>>1051527
How could the alts consume so much?
Nope it wasn't. People meme a lot that it was Gorbachev, Reagan, socialism, capitalism etc that destroyed the USSR but the real reason is more boring and prosaic than that.
It was oil.
>>1051546
The same thing that is destroying Modern Russia then.
>>1051090
thw soviet union collapsed when it was most capitalist
>>1051550
Modern Russia has marked economy and inflation, it can survive cheap oil by making the people poorer without causing social unrest and bankrupting the state. In USSR, the theory was, could be no economical crisis, no inflation, no unemployment and government had to support the same quality of life regardless of international markets, despite half of it's exports being from oil. And they actually tried to do so until the very end, absolute madmen.
>>1051557
It didn't adopt Captialism because the System already had stagnated/was falling?
Which then either caused the whole thing to fall down, or just revealed all those errors that existed in the system anyway.
>>1051543
Better housing, better food, larger pensions, etc. Everything was provided by the state, so the state subsidized national republics so they wont rebel. It failed.
>>1051574
To bad so many of their other exports are being embargoed then.
>>1051593
What exports? Discounting oil and gas, even within COMECON Russia was a net importer.
>>1051090
At that point it was already economically done for.
>>1051090
>>1051090
No. Baltic republics and Ukraine wanted to live the Union, also there were a huge amount of problems. Being a former USSR citizen(Belarus) I'm really glad that big commie tumor had collapsed and fell apart. Fuck USSR and those imbeciles who created that big piece of red shit. Being a young man I have a car, I have my own apartments - I bought it recently to not to pay rent, I have tons of gadgets and electronics, I can afford good private healthcare, cuz I have a fucking job, I had 3 interviews before I got the job. if I were to live in USSR I would live with my parents in the middle of nowhere, without anything, having shit and working as a fucking plumber or smth, I would fucking kill myself probably. USSR was cancer.
>>1051715
*to leave the Union, fucking autocorrect
>>1051090
> Was the Soviet Union still salvageable when Gorbachev took over the reins?
Yes. Kind scruffy, but even in 1990 it had a very good chance of slogging it through and getting back on the feet with the Robotization they've planned by the 00s.
But when Gorbachev destroyed legitimacy of the government and destabilized the Party, there was no power left that could keep Union together.
>>1051527
> Russians
Not really. Also this subsidy stuff is deliberately misleading.
>>1051715
Without USSR you wouldn't be able to shitpost on 4chan.
>>1051831
>Without USSR you wouldn't be able to shitpost on 4chan.
There's always the possibility his country had developed a bit better if it hadn't been for the USSR.
>>1051831
> truth is deliberately misleading.
And the reality has an anti-commi bias.
>>1051557
It became gradually more liberal because it was failing.
>>1051956
> There's always the possibility his country had developed a bit better if it hadn't been for the USSR.
That's wishful thinking.
Baltics did not develop fast without USSR. They all turned into impoverished cleptocratic dictatorships within 20 years, despite being the cream of Russian Empire - they had factories and much higher literacy, not to mention access to the sea.
Unless you go all WHITE POWER you cannot realistically expect Belarus to be better than Congo or Columbia.
And then there is this who Lebensraum business. Belarus lost almost third of population during WWII, despite being on the winning side.
>>1052022
It was capitalist in the beginning too: New Economic Policy.
So - no. It was falling because it started getting more "liberal" (as in free market liberal). Efficiency was lost and there was no point in pretending that essentially Capitalist state is Socialist.
>>1054209
> whole
>>1054209
You aren't telling me the Baltic states were all better off during Soviet rule than before Soviet rule?
>>1054774
I think it is quite unambiguously stated that Baltics were not better off outside of USSR.
>>1054806
Well, yeah, though that do not really make it worth for me to throw a hissy fit over anything, apart from perhaps stating that pre-soviet Baltic states were far more productive when it came to producing literature as well as several thousands being deported away to Gullag which should at least prove somewhat that they indeed were better of.
My problem is he tries to state that it was the Russians who turned the Baltics away from shitholes into non-shitholes and that they would all have became poor peasants without Russian Soviet help.
>>1054822
This is some incoherent mess.
Are you trying to say that Baltics were successful pre-1939 ?
>>1054883
What I am trying to say is that they weren't better off with Soviet rule and that Soviet rule if anything added to make the Baltic states come worse off.
>>1054900
> What I am trying to say is that they weren't better off with Soviet rule and that Soviet rule if anything added to make the Baltic states come worse off.
I respectfully disagree.
Baltics were one fucked up puppy by the 1939. I don't really understand how can you think otherwise.
>>1051408
JUST
WE
BUILD
>>1054913
Care to explain how they were better off with Soviet rule?
Soviet rule brought mass deportations of "enemies of the people", new forms of censorship As well as Russetification. Just look at the Baltic forest brothers that continued to fight against the Soviet government long after the fall of Germany, is it wrong to assume that they show that the Baltics at least believed they had it better without Soviet rule?
If anything of that seems wrong I happily take criticism for it.
>>1054958
> Russetification
Good God. Learn some English, man.
>>1054967
Were there any other fucked up parts in my post or are you just nit-picking on one single word?
>>1054970
Yes, there were. It's just this specific word overloaded my brain with facepalm.
>>1054958
>is it wrong to assume that they show that the Baltics at least believed they had it better without Soviet rule?
Not only does this sentence not make sense given the rest of your argument, but your argument is patently false as under the Stalin regime russification policies were explicitly reversed. Literally hundreds of languages were put into writing and for the first time territories in the previous russian empire were given equal rights.
>>1054989
What I am trying to say is, the Soviets had a really long lasting armed independence movement against themselves. Don't that show that the Balts indeed were thought they were better off without Soviet rule, as such a movement would not have been able to survive for so long without a support form the population?
>>1055017
> What I am trying to say is, the Soviets had a really long lasting armed independence movement against themselves.
Nazi collaborationists and gangsters are not "independence movement".
And it does not prove anything. Popular opinion does not equal ultimate truth.
Finally, how can you even pretend that popular opinion was anti-Soviet, when there were more Balts fighting in Red Army for USSR, then there were in Wermacht fighting against Soviets?
>tfw all they had to do was annex China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc. and they would still be existant today
>>1051527
Goddamn, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan should have stood together.
