Gorbachev and Poland

no he did not, he believefd in humanist socialism, if u read his interviews, at one point he had a decision to make, to resign from the communist party, and form his own reformist party, whilst still remaining president of the soviet union, he had a lot of the politbruro and hundreds of supreme soviet chamber behind him. he chose not to do that and in later interviews he said i should have resigned from the communist party in 1990.


when someone dies, we judge him as a human being, not as some figure of power. stop being a typical bolshevik.

But still under pressure. :):) A few countries revolted and the British had no choice. Nobody opens the door to decolonisation when they don`t have to.


Don`t be naive like a child. In my later interviews I can also say anything completely contrary to my actual acts. E.g, I can say that I am a rightist. And who can forbid me??? You see - the same with Gorbaczow - it is natural that retired politicians try to whiten their dirty deeds done dirt cheap to leave better memory of themselves.

But it was Gorbaczow who sent troops to revolted republics and people were killed.


Yes, you are a typical bolshevik if you are trying to infect us with this sick fascination of Gorby. I know why - your family heritage. hahahahaha

If they are a politician or public figure as Gorbachev was, we judge them on that. Their passing does not wipe any historical slate clean.


Which ones? The only revolt I can think of is when the white Rhodesians didn't want to accept the majority rule that Britain was planning to introduce and declared UDI. That and the Mau Mau in Kenya who were mostly opposed to other more dominant tribes that stood to gain from the decolonisation process..


We did. We aren't r*SSians.

I primarily meant nonviolent revolution in India the Pearl in the Crown which pressed the British to drop it as their colony. Simple.


Of course. :):)

Jewel in the crown.

It was the 1945-1950 Labour government who voted to withdraw, however the formal movement to abandon it to its own devices originated in Britain in the 1880s and the formal withdrawal process was ongoing from about 1926. It was broadly supported by the British public; when Mohandas Gandhi visited the UK to do a speaking tour of northern England, addressing large crowds in the 1930s, over a million people turned out to hear him speak including my father and grandfather.

The issue of decolonisation is a lot more complex than hollywood portrays.

r*SSia however under Gorbachev didn't want to lose their empire. They fought tooth and nail to keep it (not that they had many teeth or nails in the late 80s/early 90s) and have lost thousands (and killed thousands more) trying to get it back.

Gorbachev was not one of the good huys.

Under constant pressure from Indians. :):)


Yes, he was a weak leader of a weakened collapsing empire.

This is veering off the grim legacy of Gorbachev, however as far as empire building is concerned, it's true that he wanted the Soviet Union to remain as it was in terms of area.


Often that pressure was to keep the status quo, particularly when it was to the advantage of the specific groups there who wanted the status quo to remain. India is not a country; it is a subcontinent with many national, linguistic, cultural and religious groups, all jostling for power. Many opposed the movement within the U.K. to withdraw, especially in those parts that are now today's Pakistan and Bangladesh.

I won't even bother mentioning that the U.K. only directly controlled part of India (some Indian states ran themselves - Britain's sphere of influence was mostly in the ex-Mughal areas and also that France also had colonies there which they refused to leave until the 60s.

To stay on topic, I wonder how the r*SSians would have dealt with that situation, how many millions they would have forcibly relocated, how many millions Gorbachev would have killed (we often forget he invaded Georgia and used military force to try to prevent Lithuanian independence.

Gorbachev would probably have nukes the place.

Why not?

A film about him would be interesting.

He could have supported the East-Berlin regime as they asked for help, but he didn't! He could had send the soviet panzer rolling as in 1953 or Hungary 1956, but he didn't! And he must have known what that would mean for the soviet colony GDR...the End!

That makes him for Germans a good guy forever....

He did however send troops into Lithuania and Georgia.

Well....and because of that we should forget what he did for Germany?

There is no way one judgement would be right for everything....but calling him a bad guy would be totally wrong!

Of course, the point of viewing depends on the point of sitting. Namely, where one is located. Germans are grateful while Lithuanians - quite the opposite.

lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1770099/why-gorbachev-will-not-be-remembered-fondly-in-lithuania

"Lithuanians will not glorify Gorbachev. We will never forget the simple fact that his army murdered civilians to prolong his regime's occupation of our country. His soldiers fired on our unarmed protestors and crushed them under his tanks. That is how we will remember him," he posted.


Tell it to Lithuanians, probably they are unaware of it. hahahaha

Calling him a great guy wouldn't be factual either. If you sum everything up, he was a kind of "grayish" character, I guess. Not black, not white either, but gray...


Yeah, a rather black character for Lithuanians, isn't he...

Just imagine for a minute someone else in his position, at this time, someone "black"...Europe would today look much different, much worse!

Alone for that, "grayish" or not, he deserves eternal respect! And maybe it needed to be a grayish character to get into this place at this time....someone "white" would never had made it up so high in the party and in the Kremlin!

@Bratwurst Boy, but he was a known reformer... Perestroika and glasnost ring a bell?


I am glad that the Soviet Union wasn't ruled by someone worse at that time, of course, but I can't be as infatuated with Gorbachev as you are, because he wasn't as great to nations that were forced to be part of the Soviet Union as he was towards the countries who were the Soviet Union's satellite states, like Poland and Eastern Germany. I'm capable to look at him not only from Polish perspective, but also from the perspective of Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, etc. This is called empathy.

Later....as he rose through the ranks! Imagine the nomenklatura would had known he would dissolve the Sovietunion....no way!


Without him even they would have it much worse today! The Sovietunion would (probably) still exist and they would be still part of it. They shouldn't forget that!

...am NOT infatuated!!!! 😲

@Bratwurst Boy, it's like with this joke about Stalin - "He could kill you... but he didn't!" What a great guy! lol ;P


I doubt that was his intention. He tried to keep it together. He simply couldn't do much about the dissolution. He tried, he even used force, but he failed.


I don't know, BB, that's speculation, I think. The Soviet Union didn't fall apart thanks to Gorbachev. It fell apart, because it was in such a bad state. I doubt anyone could stop this long term. The Soviet Union simply couldn't sustain it's rule anymore and people had enough. A more bloody ruler could make people rise up more strongly, for example.

So, yes, Gorbachev was sane and reasonable, fortunately. I'll give him that.

But that's not enough for Lithuanians to build statues of him and sing songs about him, I think, sorry.

By we, you mean people from there of course, which is not unreasonable. Otherwise, not so fast. The world and Europe don't revolve around Germany, so in Lithuania and Georgia (which he invaded) I doubt he's remembered so positively


He presided over a particularly evil state and of course never intended it to fall apart as it did.

What's "lol" about it? Rarely made ONE MAN alone such a difference in history...because "he didn't"!


Probably not, that would had made him a "white" guy....and then nothing of this would had happened at all.


Buth thought worthy....


Nobody demands that, but seeing the big picture is necessary to make a good judgement!

Without Gorbatschov the Sovietunion would still exist, many Russians hate him for this. Uprisings and independence fights would had beaten down bloodily....we all here wouldn't had met and know each other....PF wouldn't exist....our all lives changed for the better because of him! Yes also the lives of the baltic republics!

How he did that, how it came to that, if he was saintly or devilish doesn't matter at all in hindsight...just try to imagine some hardcore nutter in his place.

Anything else is denial!

Cut down on your quotes please

The point of this joke is: Stalin didn't kill you, but he killed many others, so he wasn't a "great" guy after all.


It does matter as far as the moral assessment of his person is concerned. We can acknowledge his role in history, but at the same time we shouldn't be whitewashing him.


Do you have any reasons to believe that Lithuanians don't see that big picture? Unlike yours, their country was part of the Soviet Union, so my guess is that they probably know more about it than you do. I don't think you have the right to lecture them, to be honest...

Is the morality of the one who set you free really the most important thing???


Shouldn't they then be doubly thankful that he dissolved this empire?

If not then I can truly declare them as shortsighted....without him they would still be part of a Soviet Union!

@Bratwurst Boy, what Gorbachev did, his decisions, his intentions - it all matters in the final judgement of his person. Not only what he did right, not only those things that you like that he did, but the bad stuff too. And he did bad stuff too. That's the reality.

So, I personally don't feel like glorifying someone who sent soldiers and tanks to kill people in Lithuania.


BB, he sent tanks and troops there to keep them as part of the Soviet Union.

As far as I remember reading in some article Gorbachev didn't go further with the crackdown on the Baltics, only because the US threatened that they will withdraw financial help or sth for the Soviet Union if he doesn't pull out the troops.

Gorbachev got mad, apparently, but he had no choice and he did.

*sigh* Agree to disagree?

From whose point of view? Russians?

Many Americans died fighting Germans. (BTW, did you notice that I didn't say Nazis?) Yet, the US did its very best to unite the country, instead of partitioning it forever into small and harmless parts. So it is possible for a country like Germany, the only country whose leaders were tried and executed, to eventually be one and united.

By the same logic, there was no compelling reason for the USSR to want to break itself up to become so much less.

Gorbachev turned out to be West's agent and a bit*ch. Just because he looks great to you does not mean that he was not a traitor to his country or at least an incompetent fool - a Biden prototype.

Gorbachev supported Putin's invasion of Crimea, and Reagan and Bush 41 deserve more credit than Gorbachev ever will.

More credit for what?

Morality is everything, you can lose all material gains, you can lose your country, you can lose your family, you can lose most.

Morality is of your own to keep and uphold and cannot be bought or Lost. Unless you choose it yourself. It's freedom, it's you, it's your character, your being.

You lose that, you become a grey mass.

When I compare myself with others it's mainly based on morality, I presume Paulina does it aswell since she wrote what she did.

Basing it off anything else is a waste of time according to me.

No, it is not.

@Kashub1410

You are right.

@Novichok

You are wrong.

Morality = experience + instinct of self-preservation.