Talk:Dissolution of the Soviet Union/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

East Germany

Not mentioned at all,except in map. Don't understand why — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.99.64.13 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Whilst East-Germany was part of the Warsaw pact, it wasn't part of the USSR. Similarly Poland and Romania don't get much of a mention as they too were at least nominally independent. Smalltime0 (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Why?

The article does not correctly reflect the actual reasons for USSR collapse. The main reason was economy collapse, otherwise Russia, Yeltsin, and the people of Central Russia (Moscow area, which was the most important) simply would not allow the dissolution of the union. I was there in 1991 and I remember that very well. It was all decided in Moscow. It was Yeltsin's personal decision, though supported by people at that time. In December 1991 most of people in Moscow were in favour or at least neutral to dissolution because there was complete collapse in the economy and there was common mood to get rid of Gorbachev central government and to transfer power to Yeltsin who was elected by people. If this were not the case, any breakaway of any republic could only be a temporary matter, including those of Baltic, would not be internationally recognized and would be soon reversed.

All references to nationalist movement in 1990-1991 are just ridiculous because those were minor events and could be easily dealt with if economy was in good shape. There was much stronger nationalist movement in 1920's, in 1940's etc., but it did not result in a country's break-up. The events of December 1991 were very special. It was never inevitable and it could have been easily avoided if there was proper accord between Yetsin and Gorbachev. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.38.254 (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. After reading the article, I still wanted to know the 'causes' for the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As suggested, the causes were apparently economic for the most part. It would be good to have more background on why the Soviet Union fell apart - and why it happened so swiftly. Marty55 (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nationalism in Lithuania to certain extend inspired other republics including RSFSR to pursue more powers for themselves and that was one of the reasons for 86% Communist Congress of RSFSR to elect Yeltsin as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of RSFSR in 1990, only one year later he created popularly elected office of President of RSFSR and got elected for his first term as President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.237.227 (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You hugely overestimate the influence of Lithuania onto the situation in Russia. Lithuania and other territories were the last thing interesting people in Moscow at that time. That's the reason why those territories were allowed to do what they were doing, like proclaiming independence on paper while continuing to receive oil, gas and everything else from Russia virtually for free. At that time they did not have the same extent of economic crisis as central part of Russia. Ironically, it came to them later - after the Union was severed and the real independence began... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.255.92.12 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it was Yeltsin's decision supported by people in Russia. It was a tricky but legal way to transfer power from Gorbachev to Yeltsin. If Gorbachev agreed to resign in November 1991 and to voluntarily transfer all power to Yeltsin, then the Soviet Union could still exist. However, Gorbachev refused to resign and was opposing any further urgent reforms. Then Yeltsin's entourage came up with idea to use the Treaty of the Union of 1922 against Gorbachev, and Yeltsin agreed because economy was falling apart while Gorbachev's government was a huge obstacle. Belavezha Accords were initiated by Yeltsin's government, not by Ukraine or Belarus. As soon as the Union was dissolved, all power in Russia was automatically transferred to Yeltsin who began urgent full-scale economic reform as soon as on January 2, 1992. Yeltsin wanted at least to save Russia from complete collapse and destruction, as the main portion of the Soviet Union. As a result, as further events showed, he succeeded. Some other portions of the USSR were not so lucky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.255.92.12 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Russia under Yeltsin underwent total collapse and total destruction, with an economic collapse (due to privatization) 3x as bad as the American Great Depression. Living standards plummeted and education and health-care were ruined, still not recovering to this day. Yeltsin today is the most hated figure in Russia behind Gorbachev and Hitler- his approval ratings after leaving office were at around 1%.

The Soviet economy was not undergoing collapse before Gorbachev dismantled the state planning apparatus in the absence of evolved free market mechanisms. Brezhnev's USSR was still growing at a slow rate of 2-3% annually.

125.167.108.53 (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually the living standards in Russia by now increased 2,5 to 3 times(more than that if you take the quality and number of products available). Although more people are poor and the State is no longer heavily subsidizing basic foods like bread that was sold several times below the production cost in the Soviet Union. Also Brezhnev's USSR wasn't growing after 1975 or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.3.13 (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This entire discussion violates WP:NOTAFORUM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#FORUM) - discuss Reliable Sources in ways to help improve the article, not personal views, please.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The original poster above wanted to know why the Soviet union collapsed? It was due to the long and protracted Soviet war in Afghanistan which lasted nine long years from 1979 to 1989. This severely drained the Soviet economy and led to its economic stagnation. --BrianJ34 (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I would doubt that. Our article on the Era of Stagnation points that the Soviet Union experienced slow economic growth and noticeable decreases in Gross national product throughout the 1970s. Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

'dissolution' vs 'collapse'

By far most sources refer to this event as its 'collapse', so why is the former the article title? just a bit confused here --Львівське (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably a matter of connotation. The fall of the USSR was complex, and historians even debate when it began. Collapse implies a sudden point of end, which is debatable. Economic burdens had led to military cuts etc. as early as the early 1980s, even 1970's, and then the republics began declaring independence at various intervals after 1989. Then Ukraine Belarus and Russia officially signed the Belavezha Accords declaring the union dissolved in late 1991, after which Gorbachev held on to his title until christmas. A sudden point where it collapsed it debatable. The dissolution however is identifiable, as the points when republics declared independence and finally the Belavezha accords which dissolved it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. WP:Common Name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names74.177.13.141 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bringing this conversation back, it seems the guidelines would suggest that we change "dissolution" to "collapse". Concerns/thoughts?Mpgviolist (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was dissolved after the decisions of the upper ranking officials of the government and the communist party committee. There was no sudden collapse. The historians that prefer capitalism to socialism tend to use this word in order to exaggerate the events and attack the socialism system. This is reflected to the mass media as well.Vagr7 (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I partially agree with that. The "system" collapsed which led to the "disolution" as you describe it. Looking at this article, it begins in '85/'86 and is an account of the formal dissolution. If the article is about "collapse" I think it would need to go further back and be more on the inherent problems that led to Gorbachev and dissolution. DeCausa (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Independence1990.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Independence1990.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Better sources about the economic situation needed

Did the Soviet GDP in fact fall by 50% or did they just stop to falsify the statistics? Sure, a big part of the industry (that due to central planning was based on wrong economic calculation) collapsed but did the production of useful goods decline heavily? Unfortunately the main source of the claim that Russian GDP fell by half is just a review of a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.3.13 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I've read and understand the Russian economy entered into a recession immediately after the dissolution, due in part to privatization, spending cuts to services and military cutbacks. However the major kicker was the 1998 financial crisis - which saw an already reduced GDP go even lower. Smalltime0 (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Democracies

I'm not sure if we should say all the Baltic states are shining examples of democracy, given that Estonia (especially) doesn't recognize a whole bunch of its residents from the soviet era as citizens. Smalltime0 (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Source please? The baltic states -do- recognise their russian inhabitants as citizens, it was one of the main conditions for them being allowed to join the EU. 79.146.239.229 (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

History Stackexchange

Currently this topic is being asked about on History Stackexchange, I hope this is an apropos location to link to it. http://history.stackexchange.com/q/12210/4244 Aaronchall (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Outer Empire POV?

Why are the Eastern European socialist states referred to as the "Outer Empire" of the USSR? Couldn't you say, in increasing order of degradation: "allies", "Warsaw pact members", "sphere of influence" or even "satellite states"? I don't think "Outer Empire" is very neutral. -- Kndimov (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)