In April 1989, a group of students held a protest at Tiananmen Square to demand greater democracy in China. Chinese troops crushed the protest and massacred the students, but the demonstration set off a wave of protests throughout the entire Soviet bloc in the autumn of 1989.
On November 9, the Berlin Wall was breached. One by one, the communist regimes in Eastern Europe gave up. In 1990, a newly unified Germany absorbed East Germany. That same year, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all declared independence. The following year, Gorbachev resigned from the Communist party, ending its 84-year rule. By the end of 1991, there was no more USSR to speak of. The former Soviet Republics had all broken away peacefully in what was dubbed the “Velvet Revolution” or the “Gentle Revolution.”
Why did communism collapse so suddenly and easily? One of the main reasons for its downfall was Gorbachev’s new policies of glasnost, which advocated open government and dissemination of information, and perestroika, which entailed economic reform. Glasnost arguably led to the exposure of many long-suppressed national and ethnic tensions within the Soviet Union, causing these movements to occur in the first place. On top of that, Gorbachev realized that enforcing communism in all the satellite states was economically draining. Thus, he decided not to intervene in any of the protests. Finally, as with the chain of rights revolutions in the 1960s, the revolts in China and Czechoslovakia set of the rest of the chain of democratic revolutions.
The late 80’s and early 90’s not only marked the end of the Cold War, but they also marked a civil rights expansion worldwide. In 1990, South Africa released Nelson Mandela from prison and ended apartheid. In Central America, the civil war in El Salvador ended, and opponents of the leftist Sandinistas won the Nicaraguan elections. Even China, which was still ruled by the Communist party, made market reforms in the capitalistic direction and tried to attract foreign investments.
Food for thought: looking at the reasons for the peaceful downfall of communism vis-a-vis the less peaceful revolutions such as the Civil War, the American Revolution, and the Civil Rights Movement, it seems that the deciding factor in this peaceful nature of change is the attitude of the government. In the latter three movements, the Confederate government, the British government, and some of the southern state governments used violence to crush their opposition and presented obstacles to these movements. In contrast, Gorbachev’s openness policies made the collapse of communism nearly painless. Thinking back to what President Reagan said about government being the problem and not the solution, do you agree or disagree with his statement? On one hand, it can be argued that government can be both--it was arguably the solution in the USSR’s case and the problem in the other three cases. On the other hand, Gorbachev’s policies could be interpreted as a lack of government action and therefore a lack of government, which would support the idea that an active government is indeed a problem. What is your interpretation?
Sources:
GML Chapter 27
Class notes & documentaries
https://tavaana.org/en/content/velvet-revolution-peaceful-end-communism-czechoslovakia-0
To start off I like the organization of your paragraphs, breaking them into different events that contributed to the overall collapse of communism. Also how you went into a deep explanation of each event is extremely helpful and created a stronger argument in your overall idea. The way that you repeat what we already know but then expand on top of the previous idea was a good addition to your post.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that government is the solution. In this case, Gorbachev made the decision that the government was too overbearing and decreased the government, allowing countries to leave the union. However, this was a purposeful government action to liberate many struggling countries and give power back to the people. Also, I don't personally think that government was the problem either in the Civil War, the American Revolution, or the Civil Rights Movement. In the first two, the British government and Union government were fighting to regain rebelling territory and people, and the American government and the Confederate government were fighting for independence. Here, both governments were representing the wills of their people and doing the best they could. They also led the citizens through these tough rebellions and helped everyone to exit the war without any major catastrophes. In the case of the Civil Rights Movement, the government could have been more active, but it was torn between abandoning Southern whites as a voting bloc and liberating blacks. Overall, I think that government is never the problem, it is the guide and the solution.
ReplyDelete