What Was Wrong With The USSR Back In 1982? The Death Of Brezhnev
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2022
- Why did the Soviet Union collapse? What was wrong with the USSR? Leonid Brezhnev death in 1982. How did Andropov become the next Soviet leader?
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @ushankashow
My books about arriving in America are available on my site:
www.sputnikoff.com/shop
Amazon: www.amazon.com/dp/B08DJ7RNTC
"Ushanka Show" is a collection of stories about life in the USSR.
SOVIET EDUCATION: • SOVIET EDUCATION
SOVIET LEADERS: • SOVIET LEADERS
CHERNOBYL STORIES: • Chernobyl's Dirty Litt...
SOVIET AUTOMOBILES: • Chernobyl's Dirty Litt...
SOVIET MUSIC: • SOVIET MUSIC
SOVIET MONEY: • SOVIET MONEY
SOVIET HUMOR: • Video
My FB: / sergei.sputnikoff.1
Twitter: / ushankashow
Instagram: / ushanka_show
You can support this project here: / sputnikoff with monthly donations
Support for this channel via PAYPAL: paypal.me/ushankashow
My videos about Gregory Romanov:
ua-cam.com/video/YFP9vtoYHpk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/tEPU9wP-s0g/v-deo.html
My Soviet Dacha (summer home) videos:
ua-cam.com/video/wipH9EVZVBs/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ZRdY11CXsWg/v-deo.html
What do you think of China? Is it the USSR 2.0?
Chinese government definitely managed to copy Soviet NEP, New Economic Policy of 1920s, strategy without losing power. But it's not really a socialism in China, it's government managed capitalism.
Hey random question, back when you lived in the USSR, were you ever a member of the Communist Party or did you have any close relatives who happened to be members?
@@baronguyperson I was too young, was only KOMSOMOL member (young communists). Yes, I knew a few people who were members of the party
Sergei seriously why is youtube trying to have your channel get less views? I find your channel immensily informing. We really don't hear at all what living in the USSR was like for regular people. I do feel you take a very balanced and dispassionate approach to explaining things as well.
"lets make jews equal to at least the level of Armenians" sounds like something borat would say when forced to say something nice about Jews
Verrryy nice.
That's quite shocking, really, to hear such words from a highly educated and supposedly very intelligent apparatchik, not Borat character. He had some notes about the Ukrainians as well, similar in tone.
@@UshankaShow even the most intelligent of us are susceptible to weird prejudice sometimes. I agree with you that it is unworthy of people claiming to be intellectuals.
@@UshankaShow It was probably a pragmatic attitude and it sounds ugly because the reality was ugly at that time. From what I've learned from you, discrimination against Jews was so deeply rooted in the USSR that it would probably not be realistic to think that it could be made to go away over night, but, for start, discriminatory practices would no longer be state policy. IMO, as grotesque as it sounds from out point of view, what Chernyaev suggested would have probably been good within the context.
@@UshankaShow A USSR unions of equals like the Uk (not)
60% of potatoes were grown on small private garden plots? Incredible.
Who says free enterprise doesn't work?
Morons say that
You're right about the US missiles being placed there in response to the Soviet SS-20. I remember that. Also, it should be noted that it was the West German government that initially requested that the Pershing II and cruise missiles be placed there.
All of my grandparents had plots of land to grow their own fruits and vegetables on. Not only potatoes, but also tomatoes, cucumbers, peas, strawberries, cabbage, carrots, beets, raddish, onions, garlic, dill, peppermint, rhubarb, apple, plum, cherry. And there was fresh milk from the cow. The cow of course needed hay for the winter, so that had to be collected, dried and stored. And they worked full time as well, at least until retirement. How they managed to do all that still amazes me. But we were never short on food thanks to their hard work.
I agree, the Soviet Union was a broken car, too far gone to be fixed. Just 9 years after '82 the whole rotten thing collapsed. I think Leninist ideology was too rigid to allow adaptation in any way. Thanks for this video!👍😊🇺🇸🇬🇧🇨🇦🇫🇷 🇧🇪🇧🇻🇩🇪🇪🇦🇯🇵🇩🇰🇨🇱🇺🇦
You are welcome!
It's not the Leninist ideology as such that failed, but the authoritarianism that was the result of the ideology. The cracks in the system were apparent in the 1960s , when the USSR was at its peak, but the system could not fix itself without an open discussion and painful reforms. At the time, the dollars for oil started to flow, and the reforms were forgotten until after Brezhnev.
@@Coillcara Do you want to work for free on an agricultural collective, or 150 roubles per month, regardless of whether you are bagging groceries or performing brain surgery?
Do you want to live off tinned crap fish, vodka, and bread?
Do you want to pay rent for a 1 room apartment the rest of your life with no hope of owning a home, and wait 20 years to get that apartment?
Do you want to wait 15 years to buy a car and have to pay cash, because there is no consumer credit?
Marxist/Leninist ideology is too inflexible and inherently authoritarian......
@@Coillcara It's almost like you can't have a State that takes care
of everything, without it inevitably becoming authoritarian.
@HauntedXXXPancake
Not exactly. Switzerland and many Nordic countries have a state that pretty much takes care of everything, and yet they are some of the most liberal democracies in the world.
It was an interesting list. The problem with the suggestions is that it seems it would have caused the breakup of the Soviet Union rather than fixed it. The USSR, and Warsaw Pact, were held together by strong central authority and threat of military force for disobedience. By letting the Eastern European countries go their own way and giving Soviet republics more independence, it would have broken the whole system. This is basically what happened in the late 80s and early 90s anyway, but it might have happened a few years earlier if Andropov had started implementing these ideas in 1982.
Well, those were definitely not Andropov's ideas. The guy went hardcore neo-Stalin way. KGB graduates only know how to build prisons and labor camps
@@UshankaShow no Ushanka You are Wrong! The KGB had much contact with the outside USSR ando the Westrrn World , they want reform the system for own benefits but for make it work too.
@@UshankaShow Andropov was always a mysterious leader because of his short reign. In the West, about all he is remembered for is the shootdown of Korean Airline 007 and inviting young Samantha Smith to visit to the USSR.
Do you know about Andropov's "reforms"? Arresting people for being in movie theater instead of working during the workdays ?
Perhaps the Soviet Union would have just broken up earlier. On the other hand, maybe there was a window of opportunity that was missed. By the late 80s the rot was so advanced that Gorbachev couldn't do anything about it, but if reforms were introduced earlier the system might have evolved rather than fallen apart.
You don't get this authoritative insight anywhere else - clear and unadorned. Thanks, Sergei.
Another Ushanka Show Banger. Thank you for taking the time to make these videos. We all appreciate it!!!
A lot of this stuff sounds like what Khrushchev was trying to do after Stalin's death. Remember Brezhnev's idea for getting the Soviet "train" running again was drawing the curtains and pretending it was moving.
Fascinating peek behind the curtain, Sergei. I would love to learn more about this Soviet historian who had so many inside sources to the giant mystery wrapped inside the enigma that was CCCP to us Americans back then.
Your channel is an amazing resource
Thank you!
The reference to the sting song Russians had me chuckling a bit.
In the spring and summer of 1982, I was part of the crew of the USS Philadelphia deployed to the Med. We were hunting for Soviet naval vessels of any type, for intel and strategic purposes.
In 1982, there was no Soviet naval presence anywhere outside their territorial waters the we, who were looking for them, could see.
Holed up in port, hiding under ice in their arctic "bastions", for whatever reason (we can speculate with some degree of accuracy, I think), the Soviet Navy just ceased to be a factor in the Med, in the Atlantic or Pacific regions.
When I went into the Navy in 1970, the Soviets were everywhere, challenging the US Navy in particular everywhere we were. On my first FBM patrol out of Rota, Spain in December 1972, we were shadowed by at least one Soviet fast attack for several days, until one of our 637 boats came in and cleared our baffles for us. 10 months later, Soviet saber rattling during the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war saw a huge tactical and strategic response by the US Navy and the Soviets, during which I believe we came within 15 minutes of an all-out nuclear exchange.
And then, 9 years later, the Soviets were nowhere to be found, unable or unwilling to trust their crews enough to maintain any power projection at sea. At that point, I figured that it was over except for the shouting, and I left the Navy. It took another 7 years for the Soviet Union to burn up all that inertia that its onetime fearsome capabilities had imparted to it, and for the USSR to admit that it was a hollowed out husk.
Best yet. TY
I think enacting these reforms would have worked if they were implemented between 1956 and 1970 at the latest. Any time after that and it would horribly backfire.
I know this video is 1yr old, but you mentioned a really interesting thing about advice to let Jaruzelski figure it out by himself in Poland, and how the USSR won't intervene. The 1981-1983 martial law in Poland is still a very controversial topic, Jaruzelski claimed that he rolled tanks to the streets in order to prevent Kremlin from taking action and sending the Red Army to Poland. Many of his critics say it was his own decision and he just wanted to cling to power.
Haven't seen your channel in awhile, glad to have them pop up agaib
For such a well connected insider, that guy was quite naive in his suggestions. His list sounds like a letter to Santa.
Best yet! TY
Interesting. This list is still valid in today’s Russia.
That was very insightful from a scource unknown to me. Well researched!
My friend, also named Serge, came to United States via Israel. They were Orthodox, but they said they were Jews so they could leave the USSR.
Plenty of Jews took Christianity during the Soviet days. Or remained Atheists
Busllhit. You couldn't "declare yourself" Jewish, as it was a nationality in USSR.
It was listed in your "internal passport".
@@LMB222 . Trust me, a lot of people did. Try googling it, there are countless stories of people doing precisely that in the late 1980s.
Sounds like there were comrades that had some ideas after all... Not sure if the programme would have worked, but it was probably worth a shot. EDIT: Of course, the proposed measures speak volume about the state of affairs and the number of things that needed fixing.
The guy had insider information about Soviet economy. Numbers don't lie, the newspapers do
@@UshankaShow Of course it was important to have real info, but so did a bunch of other higher ups, yet, apparently, their thought was something along the lines of: "Yeah, yeah, the country is in crisis, big news, it's been in crisis since 1917. The state will continue to exist as it has so far and we are well enough as is, no need to shake things too hard."
As others have said, interesting list. In addition to risking the lose of eastern Europe, the thing that stood out to me was his wish to "restore people's interest in labor." How to do that in a centrally planned economy that did not reward private initiative?
Andropov's ideas about that issue were more control (by KGB), more punishment for slacking etc. Classic communist approach, nothing innovative.
Very interesting- thank you for posting.
Much of this would have led to the dissolution of the USSR, maybe even faster than 1991.
Just discovered this channel. 1982. Soviets should have been looking hard at Sweden and Denmark to see how capitalism and socialism can work. Or maybe the Soviets should have invented the Chinese model where capitalism is allowed to run wild but no politics. Putin has completely channeled the feelings of resentment of the loss of the Cold War just like Hitler did in regards Germany's loss of World War I.
Hello! Socialism is first of all "no private ownership of means of production". Modern China is centrally-planned capitalism where government is heavilly involved. Sweden is social democracy, heavily-taxed capitalist society.
I love videos like this. Very interesting.
Interesting video! Will there be more about this list of people later?
You always learn something on this show.
Hmm… interesting how the timeline of events is similar to what America has done since the fall of the union.
Great video
If his list had been implemented when it was suggested, I suspect it would probably have been more successful than what actually ended up happening. They all seem like very reasonable and well foresighted ideas to me. They make me think of all the pitfalls that could have been avoided.
Very interesting, I guess Anatoly Chernyaev was a real reformer.
This guy who wrote the diary sounded like a very intelligent, even prescient, man.
Basically, Gorbachev read this and followed it, at least part of it
This might sound like a silly question, but why did the Soviet leaders resist pulling out of Afghanistan for so long? It seemed to be a lost cause from the start.
Prestige mostly, no way the client regime in Afghanistan could hold out without direct aid.
Lack of institutional will power also: Brezhnev wasn't gonna leave, and no one would disagree with the leader. Then the leadership became a revolving door until Gorbachev. No one could deal with it because they weren't in power long enough.
Why did the US resist pulling out of Vietnam for so long? I think the answers are the same though the ideologies of the governments were very different.
Up until the end of those wars, some people insisted that the war (either one) could be won. Various new tactics would be suggested. These would sound good in speeches, but in reality would be impossible for various reasons that couldn't be easily explained to most people. Things such as the actual effectiveness of certain tactics, the state of the military's logistics, the state and replacement/maintenance costs of its stockpiles of equipment/materiel, the willingness of the public to accept going to such lengths once they knew what those slogans actually entailed, the risks of drawing the other super power into the conflict by going beyond some unknown and almost unknowable line, etc.
But because there were those diehards who were convinced the war could be won and would happily say so publicly, no leader would end the war because it would be the end of their career (and they would probably have been prevented from even trying). Both wars had to be fought until enough of the public accepted that the war was unwinnable such that the politicians/leaders could take the steps needed to end them without being ousted by hardliners.
The main difference was that the US could better afford the monetary costs of Vietnam (especially in the aftermath of WW2 when the economy was booming) and the political costs since public discontent led to the election of a president from the other major political party. The Soviet Union was already in severe economic decline when the Afghan War started. The war itself was a money pit that the Soviet economy really could not afford, especially considering the state of its food and consumer goods sectors, both of which had long been in a bad state and were continuing to decline. The war itself gave a strong impetus to the US's initiation of a new and very costly arms buildup in the 1980s. (It probably would have happened anyway, but it's a matter of debate as to how far it could've gone if the invasion hadn't happened.)
The Soviet leadership almost certainly felt that it could not afford to ignore the buildup due to the perceived risks of appearing weak or vulnerable; both externally to its client states and to a lesser extent the world at large, and internally to the hardliners and others who would be happy to have an excuse to push the current leadership out of office and take over. As a result, what was a unilateral arms buildup by the US became an arms race, which was extremely expensive. But unlike in the US, the Soviet economy (already in shambles by the late 1970s) had to shoulder the cost of the arms race plus the cost of the war.
So, they were stuck with both, even though they couldn't really afford either one, because they couldn't end them until the leadership wouldn't be risking its position (and possibly lives) by negotiation treaties and the such. By that point, a decade worth of resources that could've gone towards economic reforms had been squandered and any real hope of recovery was gone. Some argue that hardline responses, suppression of dissidents, and a return to a Stalinist police state would've "saved" the Soviet Union, but the 1980s weren't the 1930s.
The differences between the West and the East in the standards of living had widened tremendously, aiding the growth of the already existent underground economy. In the 1930s the major economic "catch up" areas for the communist bloc were agriculture and heavy industry. Those could be brought to some degree of parity by the centralized planning system they used, as long as the authorities didn't mind and could get away with using brutal tactics to implement those plans. Industrialization was pushed along a lot faster due to the needs for tanks, transport vehicles, munitions, and other equipment during WW2.
By the mid-1970s into the 1980s, agriculture was again in bad shape and heavy industry was also failing in many ways due to a lack of modernization, lack of incentives to improve, etc. But on top of that, there were computers, semiconductor-based electronics, and other new technologies that the Soviet Union was mostly lacking. Even with industrial espionage it could not easily or quickly catch up. You can't build cheap, shoddy semiconductor plants and get products that would work but need frequent maintenance and repairs, unlike with heavy industry. They couldn't get parts from outside due to export restrictions in the West, which was the only possible source for such things at the time. And those were needed not just for consumer products but also for modern weaponry and duel-use products such as planes and rockets.
Lastly, Soviet citizens had a lot more opportunities to learn about how things were outside their country than they did in previous decades. Western goods were steadily flowing into the underground markets in the USSR, providing tangible proof that what people were seeing, hearing, and reading about capitalist countries wasn't just propaganda as the government had been claiming for decades. VCRs, satellite communications, and other mass communication/mass media technologies were also having impacts and would've continued to do so.
In the end, as Sergei says, the car was broken. Whether or not it could've been fixed is something people will debate probably forever. But the resources spent on the Afghan war and the arms race in the 1980s were, continuing with the car analogy, effectively like spending a lot of money on the car's paintwork, waxing and buffing it every day, and repairing any minor dents on the body to ensure that it looked nice and shiny. Meanwhile ignoring the engine that was burning more motor oil than fuel, the brakes that had worn down to bare metal, the frame that was rusting, the rotted-out exhaust pipe, and the bent rims and busted axles that were just barely keeping the wheels on the car.
Glasnost and Perestroika (in some form) were two much needed changes. If they had been slowly introduced starting in the early 1970s they might have kept the country alive longer and maybe have even made a real difference. But the one thing the leadership knew in the 1980s was that the country was in really bad shape and that it had gotten there because of the inaction of those whose only concern was maintaining their position, and all of the problems that had resulted from that. They enacted those policies to put an end to that system, with the hopes and beliefs that they could use the freedom it would give them (the leadership) to reform and modernize the economy and the state. It was simply too late. No matter who took over, the only other choice was to try to hold the country and the communist bloc together by force. The Soviet Union already couldn't afford to maintain its large military much longer. Given that, it certainly couldn't afford to expand its internal security apparatus to internally hold things together while carrying out the agricultural and industrial reforms that were critical to any attempt to put the country back on a footing that was at least potentially sustainable.
Whether or not forcing out Khrushchev was a good idea, replacing him with Brezhnev was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. It might've been doomed no matter what. But the economic stagnation he allowed during the 1970s and his decision to invade Afghanistan sealed its fate.
This is what You can’t find in mass media an history books. Interestin diares. I think that many of those people in central comitee have seen situation the same, but as it noted, there were plenty of older an heavy thinkers there, which they didn’t want to change, because why to do this. It’s funny that it survived for so long, and it really interesting to se what could happen if those reforma would be applied. Maybe some Chineese version of CCCP?
11:13 Why wasn't the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the control of the Central Committee? I would of thought all foreign affairs policy would be under direct control from the main legislative body as like most sovereign countries. Maybe another video Mr Ushanka... Mr Chernyiav sounds like a very interesting person.. The rabbit hole goes deeper. I have a feeling that foreign affairs was mainly under the control of another Soviet government ministry.... Hopefully I'm wrong.
1-Let people own their stuff, business, house etc.
2-Have competitive salaries, reward workers, no planned economy.
3-Profit.
Strange that more of what he was focused on was not about food and labor. The issue that started the conversation.
What is "shadow blocking"? How does it work? 🤷♀
Shadow banning, also called stealth banning, hellbanning, ghost banning or comment ghosting, is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or their content from some areas of an online community in such a way that it will not be readily apparent to the user that they have been banned.
UA-cam doesn't recommend my channel for people searching for the USSR-related material
@@UshankaShow that makes sense when it comes to individual channels. For example, you could shadow ban me so that your other subscribers don't see my comments. (For the record, I am NOT suggesting that 😅) What's perplexing is how (and why!) would UA-cam do that to a channel that's monetized, i.e., makes it money with every view 🤔
@@UshankaShow Anecdotal of course, but I found your channel through searching for USSR search terms. That was a few years back, though.
Yes you're right this is the 1st time in a while your new video hit my timeline
I would like to know if you have read Steven Kotkin's book "Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000" and what your thoughts are on it.
Nope, never heard of that book
This list seems to be an honest attempt to refocus on some ideals. Renouncing imperialism, attempting to establish a more horizontal system, etc. As I became a Marxist, I had to encounter "democratic centralism" as a concept, and I reject it, even years later with more study. This seems to be yet another assurance that the USSR's problems start even with Lenin.
It was Lenin who backpedalled into the NEP
@@UshankaShow That's right.
It's probably easier to list what was right. Nothing. There, that was easy.
Very interesting. But knowing what needs to be done is one thing. Giving up power is another, whether it's in the Soviet Union or any other government. Khrushchev knew in part what needed to be done, but when Hungary started to get uppity, he sent in the military. It almost always comes down to that. It was remarkable that Gorbachev actually let it happen, but by then it was almost impossible to keep propping up the system.
a much shorter vid can be done on what wasnt broken
i would like to buy his book but this very expensive
Terrific video and very interesting “repair “ list. You have to wonder what Russia would look like today if they had been implemented. Certainly Ukraine would be intact because Russia would have let them do their own thing and minded their own business.
Am I naive, to listen to this list and think it sounds like a lot of the things Nikkita was trying to do before Leonid usurped him? I know Kruschev was no saint, don't get me wrong, but's weird to me that people focus on how things could have been different in the 80s, after the situation was already very bad... when it seems to me like if there was ever a chance for the USSR to become something better, it was back then, and if anything it was 1964/65 when that chance was lost, and any attempt at progress or democratization was turned backwards and reversed, until by the time Gorbachev came to power and tried again, it was way too late...
Yes, I believe Nikita was trying to save the failing socialist economy while truly believing it can be fixed by reforming and tweaking.
@@UshankaShow do you think intended to eventually lead things in a more democratic direction, the way Gorbachev tried to do? I know he tried to arrange a coup to get rid of Kim Il Sun in North Korea and some of the other most awful mini-Stalins in different Soviet satellite states or autonomous zones. And that he had a very chill attitude about newspapers in Checkoslovakia publishing things critical of the government instead of wanting to invade them over it the way Breznhev did.
I've always wondered if he had been able to stay in power through the 60s and stabilize things if he wouldn't have pushed for a new constitution with more civil liberties, an elected legislature and things like that.
Why does yt shadow ban your channel?
wow, I could image that it could get you in a lot of trouble being vocal about this points.
I never understand why people can't understand the fact that Economy by nature is Capitalistic. Someone likes it or not.
Ask the people (strongly) to like the video. They say likes boost the video for non-subscriber audiences.
Honestly, I hate asking for like in the beginning of a video. It's so cheesy
@@UshankaShow it’s cheesy but it works,… most other channels begin with asking for a like and subscribe,…UA-cam works with an algorithm ,… use it for your benefit
OK, I will try ))
I've listened to more than 30 of these videos. Extremely well done. Well researched and thoughtfully presented.
Question: Do you think Soviet leaders (Lenin, Stalin, etc. up to Gorbachev) were Communist or even Socialist (meaning their main agenda was to promote Communism or Socialism) or do you think the really had no real political views except to maintain the power and perks of the Nomenclatura? I asked this question of Stephen Kotkin (Princeton). (If you don't know him, he's got some great lectures on Stalin and sounds and even looks like Joe Pesci.) He told me that yes, Stalin and Co. were Communists and were bent on serving Communism.
Kotkin is one of the leading expert on the USSR. But I continue to believe that Communism and the structures and decisions that appeared to flow from that philosophy were more aimed at attaining and maintaining power and perks than any other consideration. (Which made it hard for mid-level bureaucrats to keep up with the party line since many if not most of the decisions by the GenSec or Politburo were all about preserving the status quo of the leadership but covered in what appeared to be Marxist wrapping.) Do you have any views on this?
Great question! In my opinion, Nikita was the last true Communist believer who tried desperately to make the system work to achieve the communism stage. Not sure about Stalin, sometimes I wonder if he just wanted to be the ruler of the world (and Moscow being the capital with the giant Soviet Palace built for such an occasion). Lenin was a great communist theory guy but some people claim that Leninism has nothing to do with Marxism.
What does that car poster say? The one with the shapely young woman fixing it.
18:09 rough translation - "provide assistance to a novice driver"
but as usual in Russian posters - a double(and triple) subtext.
1-by car on the road - the inscription "furniture" - a classic subjectivization.
2-driver of a truck - from Central Asia of Russia - in terms of women, this is in Russia - also a "subtext"
3-do you see that he(man) would help her? NO - he plays in "pocket billiards"
this is typical Russian men chauvinistic(machismo) humor - it is a pity that Comrade Sergei does not pay attention to this at all!
all of you who don’t understand what is written on Soviet posters - believe me, you won’t even be able to visually understand 10% of meaning - without Comrade Sergey’s explanations (and he doesn't do) - what “this” really means ....
@@noname-cp8ki Thanks!
I didn'get what happened to that guy afte he wrote stat memorandum
You need to go on Joe Rogan's podcast
Do you know how?
Funny how a guy who lived in the USSR hadn't heard of SS-20, while we in Eastern Europe heard of them all the time.
I guess we listened to different radio stations.
Reduce the size of the military, stop forcing Warsaw Pact countries to do what the Soviet Union wants. Hmm... Wonder how that would have affected the Soviet Union in the late 80s (would it have continued on or died quicker).
Sounds like the collapse was inevitable.
SS20 was a variant of the SCUD ICBM ballistic missiles, that could have a nuclear or biological warhead
No, it wasn't. The SCUD (S-11/S-17) is a much smaller short range balistic missile (SRBM), the SS-20 (RSD-10 Pioner) was medium range (MRBM) and based on the SS-16 (RS-14 Temp-2S) ICBM.
Sounds a lot like what Gorbachev was doing accept a few changes.
Genetic human nature, you're welcome ;-)
Tx
That was the last chance for the USSR!
Wow that was an impressive list of really sensible measures. If it had worked it would have really changed things. But you also had to keep things in hand. You would ( in my opinion) first fic the food and consumergoods situation ( free farming, get the troops out, Let the diisidents and yews leave, the missiles away and get cheap food help from the usa (maybe even a marshall plan).I think they would have helped. And then with those things in place give more freedom. So the whole thing does not derail like it did under gorbachev. Then I think I might have worked.
Nice work.
This is fantastic. Something happened there generationally towards the end of the 1970s that seemed to beam across both sides of the curtain, which people here in the US don't understand of their own nation, yet alone the USSR of the time.
The calls for reform for smaller government are echoed these days here in the states in Ron Paul libertarian circles, though many "MAGA" politicians also embrace the need for a "reduction of forces" in the permanent class of Washington DC.
The shots of Brezhnev at the forest feast, sidearm at his hip, while regular Soviets struggled hit home to a modern American in a rural area impacted by the outsourcing of jobs and subsequent drugs/social/moral crisis. Looking at that photo and how comfortable he appeared, I couldn't help but think how Putin is currently said to retreat to the forests (certainly in posh digs) and dowse his body in animal blood in an effort to beat his "open secret" ailments.
Lastly, the "cult of personality" phenomenon in Russian leadership was a facet that in retrospect was pretty surface level when you consider the line from Lenin to Kruschev, yet somehow Kruschev occupies a space in Soviets leadership akin to "lame ducks" like Jimmy Carter or George HW Bush, however it stretched for approximately 20 years. This "memory hole" is unfathomable to us here in the states, as unpopular presidents are jettisoned rather quickly (
A rather long list when a short one would have sufficed.
1) Get rid of socialism.
Can I get a copy of that list for the USA ?
first yay
So, USSR would use the socialist yugoslav system, which worked, of course, the KPSS would never let the "bone".
The definition of tankie is severely wrong it has nothing to do with Stalinist, it is a term that was created when Hungarian revolt happened and the current soviet leader (not Stalin) sent in tanks to suppress them (this is also the same guy that started de-stalinization). The people that supported this action where called tankies. This action would’ve never happened under Stalin. Firstly Hungary revolted because of the current soviet leader’s denouncement of Stalin and the current soviet leader’s liberalization of the Soviet Union which began the revisionist era within the Soviet Union and its downfall.
Here is a more in depth video: ua-cam.com/video/_IOAbbaGNc4/v-deo.html
Leaving aside the question of feasibility, I know that a lot of us in the west would have preferred a peaceful, decentralized Soviet Union to a fascist-adjacent imperialist Russia.
"Let's treat them at least as good as the Armenians" - and you respond "That's anti-semitism right there!" - the cure for antisemitism was just another form of antisemitism. Sergei you've perservered through and retained the wherewithal to share your experience to so many people. Personally, I think retaining your sense of humor played a big part in that :). lol
Your video makes me think the Soviet Union had pursuid doubling down on authoritarianism, aggressive militancy, and cult of personality to solve issues during Brezhnev's reign. It's interesting too, because that's actually a departure from Kruschev, who, as I gather had some positive liberalizing tendancies (I mean, compared to Stalinism it's not too hard). This doubling down had run out of rope, it didn't work, and the Soviet Union was at a critical point likely even exercebated by the policy of the last 20 or so years. ANYTHING would be better, so why not do it right? I think it's pretty cool to see a smart guy just lay it all out, admitting the culpability of the Soviet Union regardless of it's propaganda, but also - and I do feel this when I learn about this stuff - let's take responsibility and just DO THE RIGHT THING NO EXCEPTION. Any tendancies towards oppressiveness or authoritariansim - LET IT GO, essentially. It is super fascinating.
Thank you so much for your comment and supporting my work!
Sounds like a task list from a chief tyrant that actually had some values and morals
Very interesting my friend!! Im Greek and my late grandfather was a high official of the Communist Party of Greece KKE. He had massive portraits of Lenin and Brezniev on the wall!! Every morning he would look at the general secretary and say "good morning comrade Leonida"!! We all knew what was wrong with the USSR! And Leonid of course knew till his health made him invalid. Dont get me wrong, I liked him a lot but basically he slowly destroyed the USSR. He did what people with lots of power do. Enjoyed all the benefits and never dared to face the truth by fear of losing those benefits. The old age of most of politburo members speaks volumes. It is such a shame. In a tv interview after german unification Egon Krenz, the first secretary of the Social Unity Party, the SED of the German Democratic Republic DDR said it all when asked to comment on the collapse of the socialist bloc. "We had a unique, historic chance and we blew it"!! You know what? Leaders like Brezniev lived like capitalists and died having lived a nice life. For communism thousands died and more suffered. The leader of the communist party of greece KKE from 1972 till 1991 Charilaos Florakis whom Ive met fought in the greek civil war under the orders of Moscow, a war that they knew it was lost, spent 18 years in jail, was always loyal to the USSR and Brezniev and when he died he had nothing in his name. Nothing!! Some fought jailed suffered and were hungry while others got corrupted and let communism collapse. Brezniev was number one responsible. Such a shame. Excellent channel by the way!!
The Brezhnev era is one of the best periods of the Soviet Union.
For the Soviet people, but not for the Soviet Union )))
Did he ride the white, red, black, or pale horse?
@@UshankaShow
Yes, I meant the Soviet people.
Great channel, great video, and I must say that if u tube is threatening you that is absolute proof that you are a great u tube content creator. I'm a subscriber, I'll say that the mere fact that I'm a subscriber is proof of the high quality of your videos, well worth my time..
Well, it was the program that Gorbachev followed in the end and that's how it went badly for him.
I think Gorby made out that just fine 😁😁😁 Have you seen his Pizza Hut commercial?
@@UshankaShow yes i saw it. lol!
I think the fatal wound to the USSR was struck in 1968 when Brezhnev gave up the goal of Communism and decided that "realized Socialism", the Soviet system at the time, would be the ideology. Instead of "everything will get better", Soviets were told "things are as good as they are going to get." That had to shatter what true believers there might have been within the system while enabling the timeservers.
jews to the levels of armenians ahahah that's hilarious
Do a story on ikea using Russians slave labor.