DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Cyzkrahu** · 03-16-2010, 04:19 AM

Frankly, I found Gorby's remarks honest and historically accurate. When we look back at history we see it following a line to an inevitable point were we are now. However, the circumstances that exist presently are fluid in-as-much as we don’t know what the Stock Markets are going to do tomorrow, where a bomb might go off, or how the birth of a child in small town in the middle of nowhere will effect our future.

Comrade Gorbachev was in control of the Soviet Union and while Conservatives in the USSR grumbled or were silent there was no reason to believe that Gorbachev’s agenda would not be the law of the land. At the time a military coup could be speculated but the question would be could a military coup be successful that is what coup planners would have had to look at hard. That there are two kinds of coup the successful and the unsuccessful, and I think most people would have betted on an unsuccessful coup and therefore an actual coup was unlikely. However, people don't necessarily act rationally and this is one of the fluid aspects of history.

Could perestoiska have continued and could Michal have stayed in power. Frankly, I think so. Without the coup and IF Comrade Michal have found a way for the USSR to walk a line between reform and maintaining itself as a world power (which is possible since the world was changing at the same time) he could have stayed in power. While one can say that Communism had to fall and that was inevitable the weakest Communist government continues in Cuba and the strongest Communist government continues in China. In 1991 if you had said that in the 21st century the US would be borrowing money from Communist China you would probably be rotting in a mental institution today.

The main point that history turned on regarding peretroiska was the personality of Boris Yeltsin over that of Gorby. I have a feeling that Yeltsin was the friend that everybody wanted, and Gorby wasn’t as charming. Call it a matter of charisma. Gorby had charisma but in 1991 Yeltsin had more. He openly defied the coup plotters and I think the people saw the next person that should lead the country.

03-16-2010, 04:19 AM	#7
Cyzkrahu Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 477 Senior Member	Frankly, I found Gorby's remarks honest and historically accurate. When we look back at history we see it following a line to an inevitable point were we are now. However, the circumstances that exist presently are fluid in-as-much as we don’t know what the Stock Markets are going to do tomorrow, where a bomb might go off, or how the birth of a child in small town in the middle of nowhere will effect our future. Comrade Gorbachev was in control of the Soviet Union and while Conservatives in the USSR grumbled or were silent there was no reason to believe that Gorbachev’s agenda would not be the law of the land. At the time a military coup could be speculated but the question would be could a military coup be successful that is what coup planners would have had to look at hard. That there are two kinds of coup the successful and the unsuccessful, and I think most people would have betted on an unsuccessful coup and therefore an actual coup was unlikely. However, people don't necessarily act rationally and this is one of the fluid aspects of history. Could perestoiska have continued and could Michal have stayed in power. Frankly, I think so. Without the coup and IF Comrade Michal have found a way for the USSR to walk a line between reform and maintaining itself as a world power (which is possible since the world was changing at the same time) he could have stayed in power. While one can say that Communism had to fall and that was inevitable the weakest Communist government continues in Cuba and the strongest Communist government continues in China. In 1991 if you had said that in the 21st century the US would be borrowing money from Communist China you would probably be rotting in a mental institution today. The main point that history turned on regarding peretroiska was the personality of Boris Yeltsin over that of Gorby. I have a feeling that Yeltsin was the friend that everybody wanted, and Gorby wasn’t as charming. Call it a matter of charisma. Gorby had charisma but in 1991 Yeltsin had more. He openly defied the coup plotters and I think the people saw the next person that should lead the country.
	Quote