• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe because of Gorbachev

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

'Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe because of Gorbachev's blunders.' Discuss The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, into 15 completely separate nation states, was generally perceived to be a great triumph for the west - as well as for democracy and freedom - over a tyrannical socialist state. What actually caused this downfall has plagued historians and speculators and caused massive worldwide debate on the issue. The conventional argument is that issues such as Stalin's despotic nature and the increasing calls for freedom from the Eastern Bloc satellite states had a major impact; however more recently historians have questioned whether the collapse was doomed from the start due to issues entrenched in the regime from the start, by leaders such as Lenin. More importantly in this case is question of Gorbachev's role in bringing down the USSR and communism in the Eastern Bloc and if indeed: "The culprit to be blamed is Gorbachev".1 Communism formally took hold of Russia in late October 1917 following the success of Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution. This government was in fact socialist, not strictly communist, - according to Marx's definition of the word - and within the next decade had unified the other soviet satellite states into one "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics', the USSR, marking the start of Stalin's rule in April 1922. ...read more.

Middle

The road to serious collapse can be seen from 1982 onwards when opposition towards Gorbachev was not simply made up of the "elderly little Stalins4," who led the satellite states, but as Mazower continues included most people: "The collapse of belief in socialist ideology, and the abandonment by the early 1980s of any convincing hope of surpassing the West economically, left the party with little general purpose. It was degenerating into a privileged nomenklatura, and a decreasingly effective instrument of crisis management."5 Gorbachev was, it would seem, doomed from the onset: he had had radicals such as Yeltsin clamouring for more drastic changes while old conservatives such as Ligachev felt he had gone too far already and the party would soon spiral out of control. His failed reforms and liberal approach towards Stalinism and the Soviet Union effectively caused communist opposition to climax and the Soviet Union to collapse from within the empire itself. Furthermore the Soviet Union could no longer afford the economic and political strain of the Eastern Bloc and the charade of keeping up appearances to the West - pre and post- cold-war d�tente. This collapse seems to draw parallels from Tsarist rule, under Nicholas II, which had managed to maintain flourishing communism nearly a century before. ...read more.

Conclusion

Soviet Union in order to modernise the state and compete with the West - the failures led to disillusionment within the population, the party elite and the Eastern Bloc states. Satellite states that in the past would never have dared think of breaking away from Moscow's iron rule were beginning to think seriously about managing their own affairs better than Moscow could and became more open in their demands of freedom from oppressive communist governance. By 1989 The Communist cause had been exhausted and the Soviet Union had become a failure; Gorbachev had undermined the CPSU's confidence and sapped and revolutions began to break-out all over Eastern Europe (most of these involved ousting the communist leaders and creating republics.) Gorbachev's leadership was arguably too weak, and Gorbachev's role as a reform communist is seems had a detrimental effect on the strength of socialist rule in the Eastern Bloc and even accelerated the disintegration empire, which although, seemingly inevitable, may not have occurred so soon had it been someone else. But it is worth taking into consideration that this type of regime cannot last forever and it seems more pragmatic to state that his reforms were merely the catalyst for communisms failure, as years of stifled hostility and frustration to the communist regime were finally given an outlet. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree 1950-1999 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree 1950-1999 essays

  1. U.S. - Soviet relations.

    United States in an effort to secure huge land masses - were defended publicly as the fulfillment of a divine mission to extend American democracy to those deprived of it. Reliance on the rhetoric of moralism was never more present than during America's involvement in World War I.

  2. Free essay

    The Fall of Communism in Poland. The Catholic Church Solidarity and its ...

    Dunn [pg173,174] This dilemma that Dunn spoke was whether Polish regime acknowledged the new Pope as a national and celebrate him as a western state would or 'boycott the Pope as a religious figure who was anathema to communism' Their hand would tried and tested and eventually forced as the New, Polish Pope made life very difficult for the communists.

  1. Why were those who believed in genuinely democratic market socialism unable to prevent the ...

    Each subsequent change in Soviet political fabric seemed to herald a new age of democratic socialism: from the resolutions of the conference, via the constitutional amendments of December 1988, to free elections the following March. For many of the millions who watched the first sitting on live television on 28

  2. Does Deterrence work?

    to an escalation of the arms race and close situations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). There appears to be other ways in which the nuclear problem may have been solved, the most obvious is not to build the bombs in the first place.

  1. To what Extent did the Marshall Plan consolidate the division of Europe after World ...

    Prior to this cooperation had occurred and alliances formed but not to this extent whereby member nations of NATO and the Marshall plan were inextricably linked, financially, ideologically and in terms of military direction and further began the condemnation of isolation in Europe and previously the Isolated stance that the US had very much adopted prior to World War II.

  2. Assess the success and failures of Thatcherism.

    Therefore the government promoted the privatisation of public owned public services, with it being called ?a crucial ingredient of Thatcherism?. The process of de-nationalisation of state owned industries meant the privatisation of gas, water, electricity and steel, which are a few to name.

  1. A study into how much John F. Kennedy was responsible for the ...

    Due to this Kennedy was quick to deflect any criticism away from the CIA especially by absorbing all the blame, as argued throughout the study Kennedy was the main reason of the failure, but not the only reason. In fact Kennedy was adamant in keeping the reputation of the CIA a good one, when Lyndon B.

  2. Wars of counter-insurgency cannot be won - discuss.

    Irregular warfare is a protracted conflict and by isolating these belligerents, it greatly impedes their ability to influence the minds of the civilians. The Malayan Emergency has been considered to be the textbook case for successful execution of counter-insurgency and especially so in this principle.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work