Boris Yeltsin is dead

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4179
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Post by Mange »

Guy, you're going to go back to Stalin? :roll:
Are you saying that Stalin wasn't part of Soviet history (I explicitly said that I was referring to the entire Soviet experiment and how it will be remembered for good or bad).
You're screeching red scare like some McCarthyist loon.
Do you really think that because I'm emphasizing the failings of the Soviet state makes me a fucking McCarthyist? Get real, buddy.
Fact: a small group of men carved up the Soviet empire for themselves. Fact: they financed Yeltsin's political ascension, and generals and politicians were explicitly told to listen to the oligarchs or they'd be booted. Fact: the big media machine used to do this would make Fox News cream themselves with envy. And the whole point of Stas Bush bringing up the polling data is another fact: the people of the USSR didn't want the USSR broken up. Blaming the reds for Yeltsin's actions is pretty fucking stupid.
No, but you are. Don't you fucking understand that there has to be some sort of basis? A civil society, individual liberty, domestic sources for investments etc. and a diverse education (especially when it comes to economics) would have helped and the Soviet state never provided those tools. Should it then come as a surprise that the transition was anything but smooth? And when have I ever expressed support for Yeltsin's oligarchs?

And the 'fact' that the people didn't want the USSR to be broken up is pure and utter BS. There may be some truth to that in Russia, but is that why 90 % of the voters in the Ukraine voted for independence in 1991? If things were so fine and dandy in the USSR, why did the Baltic states strive for their independence in the late '80s? Why did the people in Georgia vote for a government which distances itself from Russia?
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

Didn't something like 90% of Ukraine's population supported the independence in a referendum in 1991?
This referenda IIRC was run by the Republican leadership's decision to dismember the USSR so the results are questionable (the results of the Union referenda at least correspond to the 1992 opinion polls). The Republican leadership already was preparing for defiance of the 1991 March referenda, they needed a legitimization of their actions.
Gorbachov's advisor wrote:The confrontation of several presidents of Republics and M. Gorbachov was sharpening rapidly. On 14th November 1991 in Novo-Ogarevo, it was clear too, and I was a present witness there. Here's a stenogramm.

This day was meant to set the key notes of a future Union treaty. There were debates about it's future name. Yeltsin insisted "SSG (Union of Sovereign States)". Gorbachov: "SSG so be it. We must solve a more important question, shall we make a unified state or not?"

Yeltsin: the intent is a Union.

Nazarbaev: What Union? Federation or Confederation?

Gorbachov: A Union state. I insist. If we don't do this - you all will face a great disaster.

Yeltsin: We'll make a Union of States.

Gorbachov: If there is no state, I'm not taking part in this. I can leave you all now. (takes his papers, prepares to leave) This is my principal position. Without a state my mission is over. I can't agree to something amorph.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

Are you saying that Stalin wasn't part of Soviet history (I explicitly said that I was referring to the entire Soviet experiment and how it will be remembered for good or bad).
He's saying that Stalin's USSR (1930-1950) has little relation to the state of things in Gorbachov's USSR (1985-1990), just like, say, the state of things in the 1980-1990 decolonized Britain has little relation to the action of Colonial Britain, 1930-1960. To make it simpler, he doesn't think that the 80's USSR deserved to be brutally carved up and destroyed, then ravaged by plundering because of the actions of it's old ruler in the 1950's.
No, but you are. Don't you fucking understand that there has to be some sort of basis? A civil society, individual liberty, domestic sources for investments etc. and a diverse education (especially when it comes to economics) would have helped and the Soviet state never provided those tools.
Lies. The level of education of people in Russia is steadily falling from Soviet times. Science and education are in malaise and the situation is worsening. "Diverse"? Okay, try to _DIVERSIFY_ in the course of several MONTHS - that's the time it took Yeltsin to destroy the USSR, it's economic system and dismember the state.

God, I wish Sweden suddenly became totally unneeded in the world economy and had a Great Depression-like crisis, just to have you feel some of the shit which sudden "diverting" of economic policy causes on your _life_.
Should it then come as a surprise that the transition was anything but smooth? And when have I ever expressed support for Yeltsin's oligarchs?
Yeltsin is the McDaddy of oligarchs, their first and foremost ally. But yes, it should come as a surprise that the transition was hijacked by fuckers like Yeltsin, when it was already ran by more or less competent people like Gorbachov.
And the 'fact' that the people didn't want the USSR to be broken up is pure and utter BS. There may be some truth to that in Russia, but is that why 90 % of the voters in the Ukraine voted for independence in 1991?
In 1991 March the voters of Ukraine had different results. Hmm, I guess something was different between the Republican and Soviet nationwide referenda, now, wasn't it? But only the Soviet referenda was binding for the ovreall Soviet government.
If things were so fine and dandy in the USSR, why did the Baltic states strive for their independence in the late '80s?
Baltics had a lot of bad blood with the USSR historically. It's no wonder. Strong nationalism.
Why did the people in Georgia vote for a government which distances itself from Russia?
Strong nationalism. Oh, and do you believe in the 99,7% victory of Saakashvili as a "real" election result? Why do you doubt other similar elections then? The fact that opposition leaders are beaten and even murdered in Saakashvili's autocratic Georgia means little to you I guess.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

What is interesting about the history of referenda in Ukraine?

The newest history of referenda takes start from the 17 March Referenda. This was a legal all-Union referenda. The goal was to know how the citizens wish to preserve the USSR. 22,1 million of Ukraine's people (70,16% of all who voted) supported the conservation of a "modernized" Soviet empire. And yet more - 25,2 million (80,17%) - supported entering a new Union State with their Republic. These results - in fact rather unexpected for Gorbachov himself - gave him serious doubts that the people of the Ukrainian SSR really strive for independence as some told.

But in a little more than half a year, the same citizens somehow supported "yes" to separation. 31,9 million (~90%) on 1st December in a separate referenda voted to leave the Union.

...We will have to recall the golden rule: referenda is a deadly weapon in the hand of a politician who is popular in the nation. And the post-Putch Kravchuk seemed to have greater popularity than post-putch Gorbachov.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
brianeyci
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9815
Joined: 2004-09-26 05:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by brianeyci »

You are an asshole Mange. I don't care whether you explicitly stated you were referring to the whole Soviet experiment: it is a red herring when dealing with Boris Yeltsin. It's like saying Iraq's problems are because of George Bush, and a rebuttal saying: oh noes, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, so he caused the current problems in Iraq. Get bent Mange, Yeltsin didn't have to do the things he did and directly caused the suffering of millions of people, unnecessarily. You admit that there are better ways to liberalize, yet you think Yeltsin deserves no blame for his actions as if there was no better way to liberalize. The only way it is not a red herring is if you think there are no better ways to liberalize and the reds forced Yeltsin into doing what he did, which is the impression I get from your stupidity. "If only the reds never existed at all" oh noes :roll:.

If I were you Stas I would not like Mange sucker you into turning this from Boris Yeltsin was a horrible man to Communism versus Capitalism.
User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4179
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Post by Mange »

Stas Bush wrote:
Yeltsin's attempts to work out a new constitution and to resolve the standstill was blocked by the parliament. Yeltsin suggested that a referendum should be held in order to decide how the power should be balanced, but what happened? It was blocked by the parliament and the 1993 April referendum essentially became an opinion poll on Yeltsin's politics (and the majority of voters expressed confidence in Yeltsin).
Stas Bush wrote:I'm sorry to shatter this idea:
Oh really? Let's take a look on the part I've bolded below, shall we?
FOM.ru opinion polls - 1993 wrote:The poll asked the interviewees if they could remember which of the conflicting sides they supported during the described events. As it turned out, 23% of those polled sympathized with Parliament, 21% supported the Russian President and another 20% claim they backed neither. [...] As for those who claim to have supported Boris Yeltsin in the conflict, as few as half of them (48%) justify his actions today.
No cookie for you. The actual figures from the referendum I referred to were:
1.Do you have confidence in Boris Yeltsin, the President of Russia?
Yes: 58.7%
No: 41.3%

2. Do you approve the social and economic policy of the President of Russia and Russia's Government since 1992?
Yes: 53%
No: 47%

3. Do you consider early presidential elections necessary?
Yes: 49.5%
No: 51.5%

4. Do you consider early elections of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation necessary?
Yes: 67.2%
No: 32.8%

So, the overwhelming majority of the Russian voters expressed their confidence in Yeltsin and wanted early elections, not of the President, but of the Russian parliament and a clear majority supported the reform program.
Doesn't look like a majority, and even then, the Parliament had the right to block attempts at a new constitution, constitutionally. Yeltsin did NOT have such rights. Just as earlier he disbanded the USSR unlawfully.
The breakup of the Soviet Union can hardly be seen as unlawful. It would have been much more questionable to preserve the union against the wishes of the people living in the various Soviet republics. And as I mentioned, the 1978 constitution was severely outdated and didn't include any instruments to deal with the kind of standoff the constitutional crisis was.
The new constitution, while not perfect, better reflected the new realities.
Stas Bush wrote:And gave the President autocratic powers, that is the right to disband the Parliament. Yeltsin is the same as Kuchma or any post-Soviet autocrat. And how do you think parliamentarism can even rise under such thugs? Why do you think Putin has these powers now?
The fact that the Russian President can dissolve the Duma when there's a conflict between the President and the Duma (except during the year following the election) is one of the things I'd describe as "not perfect" and, as you're describing, an obstacle.
There are quite many assumptions in this (and the next) paragraph...
Indeed. But Gorbachov was able to prove with documents that he _had_ such plans, he has a very good lengthy issue on the dismemberment of the USSR.
For whom and why would the Union, which was forced upon the majority of the republics in the first place, have been preserved?
Stas Bush wrote:I just said for whom. The majority of people in the three main Republics - those which were dissected! - voted to preserve the Union, in a referenda which was lawful (the Supreme Soviet unlike Yeltsin had the right to run referenda). These same people deeply regret the dismemberment of the USSR even 16 years later. For all us, Soviet people.
As I've already mentioned, if that's true, why did 90% of the voters in the Ukraine vote for independence?
I've already stated where I put the blame.
Stas Bush wrote:You defend Yeltsin, ignoring the facts? That's a nice position to have.
When have I ever defended Yeltsin? All I've said is that he took the right step and dissolved the USSR.
And I have nothing against Russia or Russians. I've only been to Russia twice (never to Moscow though), but I find Russians to be a friendly and hospitable people.
Stas Bush wrote:Then why do you think that Russian and Soviet people who have stated their will, deserved to have their state carved up by three thugs on a drunk party, behind everyone's back? I've already shown how this dismemberment was covertly plotted by the Republican leadership who were willing to plunder their respective republics without interference from "too honest" people like Gorbachov and other in the USSR leadership.
The Soviet Union wasn't a democracy in the first place, so it shouldn't come as a surprise if things were decided behind peoples' back. But as far as your conspiracy theory is concerned, Yeltsin saw his opportunity and seized it.
But should people stay in the past? And was it really only the good times as people seems to remember? I have no personal experience on how easy or difficult or what challenges there are to enter politics in Russia, but in general, if one wants changes, why not at least try to work for them?
Stas Bush wrote:Are you saying Russians have not been working? And frankly, having been in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan (and earlier as the Kazakh SSR) and Belarus and China I am firmly entrenched in the opinion that reforming socialism, creating a more flexible and robust system, enduring the crisis - was the key, not the thuggish capitalism of Yeltsin.
No, I don't say that the Russians haven't been working (and you're pointing to Belarus as an example of reformed socialism? Are you joking?).
Agreed and I think it's a shame that his reforms were cut short.
Stas Bush wrote:Then why do you support the brutal thug who plotted the carving up of the USSR behind Gorbachov's back, then ousted the liberal Soviet leader out of power? Gorbachov wasn't hellbent on stealing money and self-enriching, I believe that he was simply _too weak_, but he was at least a competent and honest person.
Again, when have I ever said that I supported Yeltsin and his reform work? And I agree with you, I've always had respect and admiration for Mr. Gorbachev who saw the failings of the Soviet state and who had the courage to reform and to work in the right direction.
Stas Bush wrote:It should be well known to you that the bandit Yeltsin wrote in his memoirs that he longed to be free from "Gorbachov's supervision" and "do whatever I want". What he wanted is to be free from ANY responsibility towards the people, and 1993 proved that well. Just as his re-drafted autocratic laws.
What was shown in 1993 was that he, at the time, had the support of the Russian people.
User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4179
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Post by Mange »

brianeyci wrote:You are an asshole Mange.
Oh, boo hoo. Like I care, imbecile.
brianeyci wrote:I don't care whether you explicitly stated you were referring to the whole Soviet experiment: it is a red herring when dealing with Boris Yeltsin. It's like saying Iraq's problems are because of George Bush, and a rebuttal saying: oh noes, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, so he caused the current problems in Iraq. Get bent Mange, Yeltsin didn't have to do the things he did and directly caused the suffering of millions of people, unnecessarily. You admit that there are better ways to liberalize, yet you think Yeltsin deserves no blame for his actions as if there was no better way to liberalize. The only way it is not a red herring is if you think there are no better ways to liberalize and the reds forced Yeltsin into doing what he did, which is the impression I get from your stupidity. "If only the reds never existed at all" oh noes :roll:.

If I were you Stas I would not like Mange sucker you into turning this from Boris Yeltsin was a horrible man to Communism versus Capitalism.

I suggest that you learn to read, asstard. Where did I ever say that I supported Yeltsin?
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

I already said, Yeltsin's actions have just as much to do with Stalin and "the redz" as much as Blair has to do with Churchill. Nothing, really.

And I will repeat - there was already a competent, but probably weaker leader, Gorbachov, who already was implementing a more sane program of reform.

Carving up the Union behind it's president's back on a drunk party doesn't classify as "problems of the Soviet Union", it classifies as "asshole behaviour" at best, "state treason and breaking of law" at worst.

Why do I have little contempt for those who commited treason against Gorbachov's USSR? Because what they did afterwards is speaking for itself. Literally years of misery.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4179
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Post by Mange »

I'm sorry, I take it back, bri. My apologies. But to make things absolutely clear: I do not nor have I ever supported or expressed my support for Yeltsin and his reforms.
User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4179
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Post by Mange »

Stas Bush wrote:I already said, Yeltsin's actions have just as much to do with Stalin and "the redz" as much as Blair has to do with Churchill. Nothing, really.

And I will repeat - there was already a competent, but probably weaker leader, Gorbachov, who already was implementing a more sane program of reform.

Carving up the Union behind it's president's back on a drunk party doesn't classify as "problems of the Soviet Union", it classifies as "asshole behaviour" at best, "state treason and breaking of law" at worst.

Why do I have little contempt for those who commited treason against Gorbachov's USSR? Because what they did afterwards is speaking for itself. Literally years of misery.
Perhaps, but you can't blame the end of Gorbachev's reform work on Yeltsin, can you? Yeltsin didn't stage the August coup, did he? Nor can you blame the antipathy towards the Soviet state which existed in several of the Soviet republics on Yeltsin.
User avatar
brianeyci
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9815
Joined: 2004-09-26 05:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by brianeyci »

Mange wrote:I suggest that you learn to read, asstard. Where did I ever say that I supported Yeltsin?
Maybe next time you'll make an argument with more than just rhetorical questions dumbass. Your poor communication skills make it look like Yeltsin apologism "What should he have done when they staged a coup" well maybe, not shelled the Supreme Soviet "What kind of experience was there" irrelevant he is still responsible for his actions "Despite his faults Yeltsin took the right step" no he took the wrong steps.
'm sorry, I take it back, bri. My apologies. But to make things absolutely clear: I do not nor have I ever supported or expressed my support for Yeltsin and his reforms.
You did. But okay, forget about it I'm off to take a shower.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

So, the overwhelming majority of the Russian voters expressed their confidence in Yeltsin and wanted early elections, not of the President, but of the Russian parliament and a clear majority supported the reform program.
So? Yeltsin's following actions are illegal and anti-constitutional. "Clear majority"? There was like 49,5% of those who wanted to support the President's early elections - and 50,5% doesn't sound like a "clear majority" to me. And only 63% of the electorate voted.

But let me crush this little picture of yours. Hitler rose to power with a referenda with 89,9% support of Germans in a direct 1934 referenda. That's a lot more than Yeltsin. If anything, this referenda is an evidence of deep divisions in the Russian society, not a "clear majority".

The questions of the FOM pertained to the crisis when Yeltsin tried to disband the Soviet, for which he had NO RIGHTS. Not to the preceding referenda, which, given it's results, signified more polarization than unification of citizens.
It would have been much more questionable to preserve the union against the wishes of the people living in the various Soviet republics.
Those "wishes" in March were absolutely opposite. Strange, huh?
The fact that the Russian President can dissolve the Duma when there's a conflict between the President and the Duma (except during the year following the election) is one of the things I'd describe as "not perfect" and, as you're describing, an obstacle.
I describe it simply, it's autocracy and there was no reason to build a "thugocracy" if you were willing to abandon parliamentarism - which is what Russia consequently did. In fact, even as a left-winger, I don't support Presidential republics and presidents, I would be more comfortable with a Parliamentary ruling body.
All I've said is that he took the right step and dissolved the USSR.
Gorbachov was right - this dissolution caused enormous economic trouble, because was done harshly and, consequently a series of killer reforms by clear bandits like Koch and Chubais, who later openly stated that their goals were self-enrichment and that Russia's fate is to be turned into a resource appendage and then be dissolved. How the fuck is that "right step"?
No, I don't say that the Russians haven't been working (and you're pointing to Belarus as an example of reformed socialism? Are you joking?).
No, I'm not joking. But perhaps it's hard to grasp for someone who never was there and knows nothing about Belarus' development statistics, both in economy (double-digit economic growth, first Republic to break industrial levels of 1991, and the first East European state which is considered, in healthcare, "mother&child friendly" by international institutions, just as also one of the lowest GINI in the world). Belarus is more autocratic, but it's also more friendly to the common worker.
Again, when have I ever said that I supported Yeltsin and his reform work?
You said that yourself. "Yeltsin did the right thing" - sure, yeah.
What was shown in 1993 was that he, at the time, had the support of the Russian people.
Even if he had 0.5% separating him from an early retirement, "support" is hardly the word. And then, I guess it's OK to kill dissenters if you have support of the people. Oh, wasn't that the objection you levelled against the "evul commies"? How is Yeltsin different? He's even worse, since he's a thug who posed as a "democratic" leader when in fact he was a mafiosi who by the end of his rule was hated in Russia, and still is.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

And... tadam, Ukraine just 10 years later! A FOM poll. A most straighforward question ran in Ukraine.

"Ten years ago, the USSR ceased to exist. Do you think it was good or bad?"
Good - 20%
Good and bad at the same time - 20%
Bad - 55%
Undecided - 4%

The support for a re-union of Russia and Belarus with Ukraine if the politicians were to run such a referenda, would yield the following results in 2001 Ukraine: 57% would've voted support, only 19% would vote against, 9% undecided, 15% would not have voted on such referenda.

I think that Gorbachov should've been a little more decisive in his actions as the nation's leader when faced with the Belovezha signing, and today he would be a most revered Soviet President. His advisor was right, I think if Gorbachov arrested Yeltsin and the other two, and presented the Belovezha events in a self-favouring light, before the media, as national treason and a plot to take power in the USSR for the republican leaders (which it essentially was), he would be supported by the nation.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4179
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Post by Mange »

Stas Bush wrote:
So, the overwhelming majority of the Russian voters expressed their confidence in Yeltsin and wanted early elections, not of the President, but of the Russian parliament and a clear majority supported the reform program.
Stas Bush wrote:So? Yeltsin's following actions are illegal and anti-constitutional.

And as I've said, the 1978 constitution didn't have instruments to deal with the sort of standoff the crisis was.

[/b] "Clear majority"? There was like 49,5% of those who wanted to support the President's early elections - and 50,5% doesn't sound like a "clear majority" to me. And only 63% of the electorate voted.

Oops, that would be a narrow majority. My bad, but the point is that he had the support of the majority of the voters (and again, I'm not saying that in support of Yeltsin, I'm just pointing that out).

Stas Bush wrote:But let me crush this little picture of yours. Hitler rose to power with a referenda with 89,9% support of Germans in a direct 1934 referenda. That's a lot more than Yeltsin. If anything, this referenda is an evidence of deep divisions in the Russian society, not a "clear majority".

The 1934 elections can hardly be called free and fair and the majority of German voters had already showed in 1932 and 1933 that they didn't want Hitler as Reichspräsident or Reichskanzler. I doubt you can see the same trend in that election.

Stas Bush wrote:No, I'm not joking. But perhaps it's hard to grasp for someone who never was there and knows nothing about Belarus' development statistics, both in economy (double-digit economic growth, first Republic to break industrial levels of 1991, and the first East European state which is considered, in healthcare, "mother&child friendly" by international institutions, just as also one of the lowest GINI in the world). Belarus is more autocratic, but it's also more friendly to the common worker.

I know of the economic growth, but that is hardly an excuse for the political oppression.

Stas Bush wrote:You said that yourself. "Yeltsin did the right thing" - sure, yeah.
Yes, by dissolving the Soviet Union which was in line with the wishes of the people. I doubt it would've been a very good idea to force the Ukraine and other republics to remain in the union. His economical reforms were disastrous and could've been prevented if the Soviet state had provided tools (which it didn't).
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

And as I've said, the 1978 constitution didn't have instruments to deal with the sort of standoff the crisis was.
The people rallied to protect the Soviet, even from the faraway cities of the Union. They were murdered. How is Yeltsin any way superior to an autocratic leader? How is he superior to a street thug?
My bad, but the point is that he had the support of the majority of the voters (and again, I'm not saying that in support of Yeltsin, I'm just pointing that out).
A narrow majority from those, who voted. Yes, perhaps. Though you can't count on Yeltsinist elections or referenda being "fair and transparent" either.
The 1934 elections can hardly be called free and fair and the majority of German voters had already showed in 1932 and 1933 that they didn't want Hitler as Reichspräsident or Reichskanzler.
Oh, grasping at straws I see. Why do you accept the December 1991 Ukraine referenda as a _long-term wish of the Ukrainian people_ but totally dismiss the 70-80% support for the USSR in the March 1991 referenda? Why do you accept 1932 and 1933 results, but dismiss the 1934 result? Perhaps Hitler's popularity simply rose to unprecended levels among Germans (incidentally I think this was also the case). Just as the 1991 December referenda was decided by the falling popularity of Gorbachov but the high popularity of Kravchuk who ran this (illegal and non-binding I might also add) referenda.
I know of the economic growth, but that is hardly an excuse for the political oppression.
The "political opression" isn't any different from what we are dicsussing here about Russia - even less so. Lukashenko didn't murder the few thousand protestors in Minsk, he allowed them to protest and patiently waited. Yeltsin in 1993 murdered several thousand protestors and defenders of the Soviet. Putin just recently disbanded the "March of he Unwilling" with force.

Who is the greater autocrat, Russia or Belarus? Personally I think if you're acting as an autocrat, at least try to care for your people's economic well being since you have autocratic powers to enact any reforms you want.

But, if you act as an autocrat and at the same time you put economy in a malaise, there's no excuse.
I doubt it would've been a very good idea to force the Ukraine and other republics to remain in the union.
See my logs on Ukraine's opinion 10 years later, as well as the fact that very soon those leaders who disbanded the USSR were put down by the very people in their own countries, where possible. The long-term wish of Russians, Ukrainans and Belorussians is to live in unity, not separation and mutual feud instilled by brutal supermonopolies like GAZPROM.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Kane Starkiller
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1510
Joined: 2005-01-21 01:39pm

Post by Kane Starkiller »

Stas Bush wrote:In 1991 March the voters of Ukraine had different results. Hmm, I guess something was different between the Republican and Soviet nationwide referenda, now, wasn't it? But only the Soviet referenda was binding for the ovreall Soviet government.
Not exactly.
The question was :
"Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?"

If you answer yes the meaning is clear but what if you answer "no"?

The negation would be:
"No I do not consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which rights and freedoms of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed."
What does this means? That you don't want Soviet Union at all or simply don't want a renewed Union or that you don't want equal sovereign republics?

It is very possible that people simply assumed that choice was reorganization vs no reorganization rather than whether Soviet Union should cease to exist thus chose for what they thought was more liberal option.
In December when asked a more straightforward question they again answered yes but the answers are only seemingly contradictory.
But if the forces of evil should rise again, to cast a shadow on the heart of the city.
Call me. -Batman
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

"Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?"
As far as I know, there was also another question added to the polls in Ukraine during this referenda: According to Declaration 22.02.1991 г. № 759-XII "About the contents of the ballot which is put by the Supreme Rada of Ukrainian SSR on the 17th March Referenda" the following question was entered: "Do you agree that Ukraine should be included in the Union of Soviet Sovereign States on the basis of the Declaration of Ukraine's state sovereignity?" - a question about whether Ukraine should enter the New Union Treaty (which was made by Gorabchov in Novo-Ogarevo). And 80,2 % people answered YES.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4179
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Post by Mange »

Oh brother...
Oh, grasping at straws I see. Why do you accept the December 1991 Ukraine referenda as a _long-term wish of the Ukrainian people_ but totally dismiss the 70-80% support for the USSR in the March 1991 referenda?
If there's anyone here grasping for straws here it's you. Why would a vote, which was boycotted by several of the republics (including the Baltic states) and rightly so and in which the people of Ukraine (which we've discussed) gave two answers be seen as valid?
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

If there's anyone here grasping for straws here it's you.
During the March 17 referenda in Ukraine, by their own Parliament's decision, a special question was added, whether Ukraine would enter a new Union of SSS (this Union of SSS was planned to have at the very least it's own higher administration - unlike the CIS which was eventually formed).
Why would a vote, which was boycotted by several of the republics (including the Baltic states) and rightly so and in which the people of Ukraine (which we've discussed) gave two answers be seen as valid?
Because all-Union referenda are (a) constitutional (b) have binding power for the government. On the other hand, only the Supreme Soviet of SSR can run referenda IIRC. So the Republics second-hand "legitimization" of own actions isn't too lawful I fear.
But anyway, they have already regretted even if they really _made_ such a choice in 1991, being deceived by the pathetic promises of Yeltsin, Kravchuk and the others. So I think the long-term vector of the people's wish towards unity is good enough to understand that Yeltsin-clique failed to deliver the people and don't deserve any compassion whatsoever.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Kane Starkiller
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1510
Joined: 2005-01-21 01:39pm

Post by Kane Starkiller »

Stas Bush wrote:As far as I know, there was also another question added to the polls in Ukraine during this referenda: According to Declaration 22.02.1991 г. № 759-XII "About the contents of the ballot which is put by the Supreme Rada of Ukrainian SSR on the 17th March Referenda" the following question was entered: "Do you agree that Ukraine should be included in the Union of Soviet Sovereign States on the basis of the Declaration of Ukraine's state sovereignity?" - a question about whether Ukraine should enter the New Union Treaty (which was made by Gorabchov in Novo-Ogarevo). And 80,2 % people answered YES.
And again the wording is not perfectly clear.
"No I don't agree that Ukraine should be included in the Union of Soviet Sovereign States on the basis of the Declaration of Ukraine's state sovereignty"

What does this mean? That you don't want Ukraine to be a part of USSR at all or you just don't want it to be a part based on the new declaration but according to the old model.
If we assume the former it all adds up: they wanted reforms, they wanted a new status of Ukraine within USSR and when finally given the option they voted for independence.
Stas Bush wrote:And... tadam, Ukraine just 10 years later! A FOM poll. A most straighforward question ran in Ukraine.

"Ten years ago, the USSR ceased to exist. Do you think it was good or bad?"
Good - 20%
Good and bad at the same time - 20%
Bad - 55%
Undecided - 4%
I thought FOM only runs polls inside Russia. Are you sure this is Ukraine? I thought that their international->countries section were actually polls they conducted in those countries but it turns out they are just polls about those countries and how Russians perceive them.


P.S Don't get me wrong I'm not defending Yeltsin, we had our own little privatization fiasco in Croatia although not as devastating I just don't believe that there was an overwhelming support for USSR back in 1991.
But if the forces of evil should rise again, to cast a shadow on the heart of the city.
Call me. -Batman
User avatar
Lord Zentei
Space Elf Psyker
Posts: 8742
Joined: 2004-11-22 02:49am
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.

Post by Lord Zentei »

Just to point out, Stas: Yeltsin and co. could never have done what they did without strong backing from the horde of apparatchicks who profited from the corpse of the Soviet beast. It's not as though three guys meeting in a forest could have done anything on their own. Go back in time and shoot him, he gets replaced by one of his cronies; shoot the cronie, the same thing happens.

To eliminate the possibility of the collapse happening, you would need to re-write the power structure such that no one person or faction held the power to do what Yeltsin did, and more to migitate the incentive for such factions appearing. In other words, replace the Soviet system.

The thing is: it was meant to be both an economic and a political system rolled into one. Once the economic aspect of it got into trouble, how was the political aspect to survive? More to the point: the "criminals" that destroyed the system were a product of the system itself. To argue that the system worked but for the powerstructure it put into place is disingenious. And ironically, it is also anathema to the Marxist theory of history -- specifically the part that individuals don't shape history, macroscopic economic, political and social structural conditions do.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron

TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet

And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! :mrgreen: -- Asuka
Sean Mulligan
Padawan Learner
Posts: 156
Joined: 2006-08-20 07:55pm
Location: Alpharetta, Georgia

Post by Sean Mulligan »

Edi wrote:What I will say for him is that he admitted the wrongs committed against Finland and apologized (such as it was) for them, which is more than any other Soviet or Russian head of state has done. Otherwise, good riddance.

Why would a Soviet or Russian leader need to apologize to the Finns? Finland was not an innocent victim as is commonly portrayed in the West. The Soviet Union under Stalin wanted to push the Soviet-Finnish border away from Leningrad. At the time the Leningrad was within the range of Finnish artillary and Stalin offered to exchange strategic Finnish land in exchange he offered a larger area of land. Stalin did not want Finland to be used as a base by foreign powers such and Britain France or the Soviet Union. Later the Finns sided with Nazi Germany Germany the war against the Soviet Union. The Soviet base in Finland was evacuated in 1955 after relations between the Finns and the Soviets were normalized.
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

Sean Mulligan wrote:Why would a Soviet or Russian leader need to apologize to the Finns?
Our resident Stalin apologist chimes in!
At the time the Leningrad was within the range of Finnish artillary and Stalin offered to exchange strategic Finnish land in exchange he offered a larger area of land.
And the Finns didn't want to do such a deal so what does Stalin do? Oh that's right! Invades them! How nice!
Later the Finns sided with Nazi Germany Germany the war against the Soviet Union..
Let's be honest, if Stalin hadn't done the Winter War; Finland would have sat out WWII like the other Scandanavian countries except Norway which got invaded.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Pelranius
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3539
Joined: 2006-10-24 11:35am
Location: Around and about the Beltway

Post by Pelranius »

In a 1998 article about the ruble's collapse by TIME, they quoted an old pensioner who said she'd throw all her remaining money (she lost most of it thanks to the crooks in Moscow) to throw a party once Yeltsin dies.

I do sincerely pray that she is well and alive today.
Turns out that a five way cross over between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the Ali G Show, Fargo, Idiocracy and Veep is a lot less funny when you're actually living in it.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

Pelranius wrote:In a 1998 article about the ruble's collapse by TIME, they quoted an old pensioner who said she'd throw all her remaining money (she lost most of it thanks to the crooks in Moscow) to throw a party once Yeltsin dies.

I do sincerely pray that she is well and alive today.
My great grandmother, born 1917, wanted to spit on Yeltsin's grave. She didn't make it, just some 5 years.

I'll do it for her.
MKSheppard wrote:Let's be honest, if Stalin hadn't done the Winter War; Finland would have sat out WWII like the other Scandanavian countries except Norway which got invaded.
Maybe, maybe not. Taking opportunities at the partitioning of an invaded state is always a great idea for politicians. Look how Poland invaded Czechoslovakia and the Pilsudski Hitler pact. But, it (Poland) never gets the blame. We always get the blame for the Pact and the attempts to bring former Russian Empire territories back under our control. Not that the apology was in vain, but a scenario where Finland takes part in the partitioning of the Karelian territories after they see German successes is possible.
Lord Zentei wrote:Go back in time and shoot him, he gets replaced by one of his cronies; shoot the cronie, the same thing happens.
Perhaps; but maybe his cronies were not as "brave" as him, and would've mitigated the consequences of inter-republican quarries. After all, the Union administration was still in power. What it needed was a boost of popularity.
Lord Zentei wrote:More to the point: the "criminals" that destroyed the system were a product of the system itself. To argue that the system worked but for the powerstructure it put into place is disingenious. And ironically, it is also anathema to the Marxist theory of history -- specifically the part that individuals don't shape history, macroscopic economic, political and social structural conditions do.
I pretty much know that, but the Gorbachov team was also "from the system". I merely think that circumstances could've been changed. Yes, I don't think the individuals could've shaped history, but I think the public support of Yeltsin was misplaced - which is pretty much validated by later opinion polls. In short, yes, Yeltsin's authority was rising while Gorbachov's popularity was falling, allowing for the eventual breakup, so you could argue that it was the people who didn't give a shit - but somehow I didn't see a lot of support for the Belovezha, I mean, if you have a 60-30 percent disparity in 1992 already, between those who regret Belovezha and those who don't, and this disparity is ever-growing... it seems the long-term wish was unity, and the fluctuation towards separatism was more of a misuse of people-entrusted autority.
Kane Starkiller wrote:And again the wording is not perfectly clear.
Um... I think it's pretty clear in Russian, both questions ask whether Ukraine should be a part of the renovated Union or enter a New Union Treaty. The goal of the referenda was to find out the levels of support of the Union. What good is a referenda if it doesn't give accurate results?
Kane Starkiller wrote:I thought FOM only runs polls inside Russia. Are you sure this is Ukraine?
Yes, I'm sure.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
Post Reply