- Khrushchev believed that communism in the USSR could be reformed and modernized and made more efficient. How far had this been achieved by 1970?
- The USSR remained politically and socially stable in the years 1964 to 1982 despite the policies of the Brezhnev era. How far would you agree with this view?
- Consider the view that if Gorbachev had followed different policies, the USSR could have survived, in the same way that communism survived in China.
- It was Gorbachev's reluctance to commit himself to sufficiently radical changes that led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Assess the validity of this view.
- Explain why the collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems.
- Putin's Russia may well have been a police state, but at least he rescued the country from the chaos of the Yeltsin years. How far do you think this is a fair comment on both presidents?
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Communism - Rise and Decline
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Samantha Foster
ReplyDeleteIB History
Ms.Noce
3-1-15
Little had been done to reform and modernize communism in the USSR by 1970. During Khrushchev’s time of rule, there were some signs of improvement such as improving the standard of living and granting more freedom for Russian citizens. By 1967, only 30,000 million people were living in poverty compared to the 100,000 who lived in poverty in 1958. This was due to Khrushchev establishing a minimum wage for workers. Khrushchev still struggled to stabilize the USSR’s agricultural growth due to poor farmland and fertilizers that were to expensive to purchase. All attempts to reform and modernize communism in the USSR were completely discarded after the “retirement” of Khrushchev in 1964. A man known as Brezhnev took control over the USSR and ignored the policies of Khrushchev and paid no attention to economic problems in the USSR.
2. I can only half agree with this statement.With the USSR’s economic policies, there was some improvement but it came at a drastically slow pace. The majority of the USSR’s industrial factories consisted of old fashioned technology and harvests highly unsuccessful. Brezhnev truly wished for the betterment of Russian workers and for most Russian citizens, life had changed exponentially.Unemployment was nearly nonexistent and most people could afford to live in single family flats. Like Stalin. Brezhnev restricted the freedom of the Russian people.The restrictions took a toll on most writers. Any writing that was critical of Stalin would never be published and most historians had their books banned.
3. If Gorbachev hadn’t created the policies he did and followed the existing policies, then communism most definitely would have survived in the USSR. It was almost as if he discarded the basic fundamentals of communism when he introduced democracy and elections to the communist party.
4. I would say that this view is only half valid. It is true sided more with the conservatives but it was only because Yegor Ligachev, a conservative, had control over the apparatus of the party. Keep in mind that the majority of the communist party were conservatives and radicals like Boris Yeltsin,were not elected to be part of the Supreme Soviet. On page 403 of chapter 18, it is also stated that “Gorbachev did not want to end communism; he wanted to replace the existing system, which was stalinist, with a social system which was humane and democratic”(chapter 18,pg. 403).
5. After the collapse of the USSR, economic and political problems began to take form because for 70 years, the USSR was communist and even after its fall, communism still left marks on the USSR as a country. The government system was “rigid and over-centralized”(chapter 18 pg. 409) and any form of change would quickly be snuffed out.
6. I think this is a fair comment to be said about both presidents. Putin had done significantly more for the Russian people unlike Yeltsin, whom most Russian people resented. The resentment came from Yeltsin's poor decision making such as going to war with Chechnya when the general public did not support the war. Yeltsin is also responsible for the massive inflation and loss of jobs during the 'shock therapy' from 1992-1995.
Works cited:
Chapter 18 packet
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVictor Harris
ReplyDeleteMs.Noce
I.B History 12
3.1.15
Khrushchev believed that communism in the USSR could be reformed and modernized and made more efficient. How far had this been achieved by 1970?
-Even though Khrushchev believed in trying to better Russia it really wasn't a smooth sail for it. Not a lot was done around the 1960s and 1970s with some improvements. Around this time 30,000 didn't have a place to leave but was improvement because in 1958 there was more than 100,000 people without a place to live. Also Khrushchev put the minimum wage way to low that would make farms go out of business because the fertilizer was too expensive. It seems that everything he tried to do, something else would happen.
The USSR remained politically and socially stable in the years 1964 to 1982 despite the policies of the Brezhnev era. How far would you agree with this view?
- I will agree to a certain extent because the USSR still had trouble of maintaining their nation. For example the farms were getting out of hand in which people couldn't afford to keep them. Also there were a lot of restrictions to Russia, for example for writers, religion and speech. This means people couldn't practice or have a free say. The only thing I can say is an improvement is the jobs, were the unemployment rate started to go down.
Consider the view that if Gorbachev had followed different policies, the USSR could have survived, in the same way that communism survived in China.
-Well what Gorbachev wanted to do is call for rapid technology modernization and will try to increase the workers to work faster. If Gorbachev would of stayed loyal to the USSR being conservative it could've been better.
It was Gorbachev's reluctance to commit himself to sufficiently radical changes that led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Assess the validity of this view.
-Well Gorbachev reluctance to do his own act on trying to change was completely on him. The reason was the Union was more conservative, while Gorbachev wanted to be rapid and fast. In chapter 18 it talked about how he didn't want to end how the progress was going but was simply trying to improve it.
Explain why the collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems.
-The USSR has no one to blame expect themselves. The failure of trying to keep up land has to deal with the economy going down because people wages wasn't enough to support it. Also health and jobs were declining which also firebacks at the government because it wasn't stable enough for the people.
Putin's Russia may well have been a police state, but at least he rescued the country from the chaos of the Yeltsin years. How far do you think this is a fair comment on both presidents?
-I would say it's fair enough but only because as a leader this is your job and your duty to have your nation in order and protect your player. For that I will yes but on the other hand your nation was still failing with jobs and economic problems. Throughout people will pick and judge on a leader that was good, so in conclusion will not completely say it's fair.
Work Cited
Packet 18
William Portorreal
ReplyDeleteIB History 12
Ms. Noce
1. Reformation and modernization had not been much successful by 1970 under Khrushchev. There were still a high number of industrial and agricultural workers which had a low standard of living. The inefficiency of agriculture was still a huge problem as well but there were little improvements by 1970. For examples TV sets, radios, washing machines, etc… were now being produced which was a good thing for the economy of Russia. The wages increased and there was more grain production which helped the living of people but there were so much more improvement left.
2. I mostly disagree with the statement because only some growth happened and it happened at a slow rate. The industry was in need of new and better technology because the Russian industry was made up of old fashioned technology. There had also been concerns about the failure of coal and oil industries because of how poor the industry qualities were. Even though there were minor improvements the industry was still terrible.
3. Yes because since Gorbachev’s changes the policies it made the economy for Russia harder to improve and could’ve potentially cause split in the political party. The rate of economic growth had not improved with the new policies and factories were not willing to increase overall output. A lot of the Russians seen that China succeeded with communism so many Russians as well believed that they could succeed of the policies didn’t change.
4. To an extent yes because it was his fault for making these new changes to the Soviet Union and not being able to succeed with the new policies. Gorbachev did not want to end communism but he wanted to improved Russia’s industry quicker and make it better. So it is his fault for the new policies but he didn’t want any bad intentions with it.
5. The collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems because they were already in a bad economy situation. There technologies were poor, manufacture and agricultural work wasn’t good as well, so with another downfall it made things worse. With the new policies Russia didn’t know exactly how to adapt to it and political parties broke up because of disagreements which led to economic and political problems. Russia was already doing bad economy wise and with new changes it made things even harder for the lives of the people and working.
6. To me it is a fair comment because Putin did a lot of things to try and get Russia’s economy back up and running. Putin was looking for a controlled democracy and new regulations to political parties. The economy was recovering and the production was increasing as well which was a positive impact.
Works cited: Chapter 18 packet
William Reis
ReplyDeleteIB History
Ms.Noce
2/28/2015
1. Khrushchev believed that communism in the USSR could be reformed and modernized and made more efficient. How far had this been achieved by 1970?
- After Stalin died in 1953, Nikita Khrushchev was the next new leader in Russia. Before Khrushchev took power, Russia was still dealing with problems like Industrial, agriculture, political and foreign affairs. This meant that once he was in power he had to carefully take care of these issues. The five year plan originated from Stalin was still running when Khrushchev was the leader, but in the bright side, he made this plan more efficient by creating the working environment more comfortable for the workers. creating housing programs, wage was increased and tax was actually lowered down. Now, to the agriculture section, this is where the problem seems to be more serious. Khrushchev listened to the problems from actual farmers and the creation of the “Virgin Lands Scheme”. This scheme included numerous volunteers and over 100,000 tractors in order to cultivate in the lands of Siberia. With this being said, farm output was dramatically increased over the following years. Now when it comes to foreign affairs world wide, he aimed for a “peaceful coexistence and a thaw in the Cold War”. He also wanted ‘different roads’ for the communist countries around Russia.
2. The USSR remained politically and socially stable in the years 1964 to 1982 despite the policies of the Brezhnev era. How far would you agree with this view?
- For this statement I would stand in the middle, both, politically and socially, had its good and bad acts of it. Starting politically, states from Moscow were expected to respect their wishes to maintain their form. When liberal movements started to get their names out there in the public an raid by the Russians were performed and with this being said, a Brezhnev doctrine was created which basically states that any country that shows sign of opposition against Communism was an automatically threat. Jumping onto society in Russia, there were good and bad things that happened. Brezhnev wanted workers to be paid off better and live their lives comfortably. He created numerous jobs causing numerous people to move themselves to better homes. At the same time, freedom was now narrowed down.
3. Consider the view that if Gorbachev had followed different policies, the USSR could have survived, in the same way that communism survived in China.
- Yes, if Gorbachev had followed different policies, Communism would of had survived like China. Once he was the new leader of Russia, Russia went through dramatic changes with his new sets of policies. Lets say that people that were ‘against’ Stalin back then in 1920s were now people he welcomed in the country. Basically, Gorbachev wanted the Communist system to be ram in a different way, a way that is more friendly. Obviously this was overdone causing Communism to end.
ReplyDelete4. It was Gorbachev's reluctance to commit himself to sufficiently radical changes that led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Assess the validity of this view.
- The Buhkrains in which they were a part of the famous Stalin Purges, were now all innocents from any sort of crimes. A publishing company was now able to publish articles that criticized Brezhnev for his startle acts. Films that opposed Stalin were now open to the public to be watched. All of these acts was a form to make the source of media more open, to hear out new policies which were heard from the public. This caused more people to fight for the end of Communism from what I see, giving people more freed in what they can or cannot do and when you give certain people freedom that specific people will eventually fight for a change, especially inside the government itself.
5. Explain why the collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems.
- Starting with economy, in 1986 Gorbachev made any changes. Small private companies were now allowed to have a total of 50 workers, this was a form to provide firms to increase their competition between other companies (for example, restaurants, business and many more). Another big change in the economy was that the industrialization was now controlled more towards state bodies rather than ‘factory management’. Switching on to politics, this is where Communism enters the exit way out. In 1987 Gorbachev stated to the public actions towards Democracy, local soviets were now being appointed by the people rather than the communist party and secret party elections were created. With all these changes now under confirmation, this is when the conservatives and radicals steps in causing problems because they thought that the reform wasn't enough and the changes made to make the economy better wasn't making any changes at all. The Law on State Enterprises was not effective all, causing the government to print more and more money.
6. Putin's Russia may well have been a police state, but at least he rescued the country from the chaos of the Yeltsin years. How far do you think this is a fair comment on both presidents?
- After bombs went off in Moscow, Putin automatically assumed that these were caused by the Chechen rebels and with this being said it caused the people to favor Putin rather than Primakov. Putin was well known for getting things done precisely. When Putin came to power he formed a ‘Unity bloc’ which is basically a bunch of small groups formed as an alliance to work together. Putin wanted to wipe out completely the corruption in Russia, have more control of the economy and end the war in Chechnya. I feel like that Yeltsin handed Russia to Putin with a few problems, for example the oil. The only negative things you can mention about Putin was how he would approach terrorist attacks, his government was criticized massively but other than this, I think Putin was the one who put more control into Russia rather than Yeltsin.
Germairy Roman
ReplyDeleteMs. Noce
IB History 12
3/1/15
1. I would say that the USSR was modernized, reformed, and made more efficient by Khrushchev to a certain extent. There were many things he did to benefit society, but after sometime passed by it would come crashing down. When it came to industrial policy, living standards were improved. In 1958, wages were increased, taxes were cut on low incomes, working weeks were cut short, pensions were increased as well as disability allowances, and tuition fees for secondary and higher education were removed. The downside is that after all of these improvements, economic growth started to slow down. Khrushchev also wanted to better agricultural policy by helping farmers but that also went downhill.
2. I wouldn’t agree with this view. There were times when the USSR seemed economically and socially stable during Brezhnev era but it wasn’t always positive. There was growth in the economy but it was at a slow rate. Also in the USSR, people didn’t have much freedom. For example, it was impossible for people to have things published by 1970.
3. I believe that communism would have never ended if Gorbachev stuck to the policies that were already in existence. He wanted challenge Stalin’s system and create a socialist system. All of the changes Gorbachev wanted to make was what led to the downfall of communism and the separation of the USSR. This also ended Gorbachev’s career in politics.
4. I believe this view isn’t valid. Gorbachev wanted to make his own changes to the system and that’s what led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. The views of the radicals, like Boris Yeltsin, were super dangerous and risky. Even if Gorbachev did commit to radical changes, I believe the USSR would have broken up either way. The situation was just different in the sense that Gorbachev acted on his own ideas which later on broke-up the USSR.
5. The collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems because of how horrible and immense the effects of communism were. Historians stated that even though there were achievements in communism, their effects were so negative that the achievements became outweighed. The problems that were created and left behind by the Soviet system were so grand that it was said that it would be difficult for the succeeding regime to handle.
6. I would say that it is a fair comment on both presidents. Russia isn’t as much in ruins as it was during the Yeltsin years. Yeltsin’s ideas were radical and would later create problems for the people of Russia. Putin was able to take away Russia’s problems and his ideas were more successful.
work cited
Packet 18
Dinia Clairveaux
ReplyDeleteMs. Noce
IB History
3/1/15
Communism - Rise and Decline
1.Khrushchev believed that communism in the USSR could be reformed and modernized and made more efficient. How far had this been achieved by 1970?
It was achieved as far that Khrushchev had improved the living conditions of 60,000 peasants, By giving them minimum wage. During 1958 there were 100,000 peasants struggling under the
harsh living conditions. But then he also improved the economy by producing more products. But his efforts went to waste when he was voted into retirement by the Central committee, because his agricultural policy failed, he lost his status due to the Russian missile crisis. Khrushchev attempts to make the Russian government more efficient were seen a threat which got him into conflict with the bureaucracy.
2.The USSR remained politically and socially stable in the years 1964 to 1982 despite the policies of the Brezhnev era. How far would you agree with this view?
I would agree as far tht under Brezhnev rule the living conditions of the people were also improved, because unemployment was almost eliminated and the economy was doing well. And alo the USSR caught up to the United States in the missile building competition they were having by building the anti-ballistic missile. But when it came to freedom that was limited many of the writers during that era were removed from their positions and many books were rejected because they did not favor what Brezhnev wanted with his policies.
3.Consider the view that if Gorbachev had followed different policies, the USSR could have survived, in the same way that communism survived in China.
I would say maybe communism would have survived if Gorbachev had stick to the old policies to Stalin had created and some of the ones Khrushchev had created too. The Russians were so use to the government controlling all the media and keeping a lot of things hidden from that that when they were granted the freedom to know they did not know how to use it. This was due to the fact that Russia had been under an aggressive rule of communism for a long time. When Gorbachev was trying to remove that and it a little more liberal than it ever was,kind of like the United States.
4.It was Gorbachev's reluctance to commit himself to sufficiently radical changes that led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Assess the validity of this view. nged was
I would say that i wasn’t really his fault, one would view that Gorbachev had not commit to the radical changes was what led to the break-up of the Soviet Union when in reality it seem that all the leaders that had been in power in Russia all left office with many damages for the next leader to pick up and as leader come and past the past problem become more and more of an issue and it is hard for leaders to clean up the mess the others had left behind. And when they go and try to introduce new ideas it is hard for them to stay because there are the old mess that the past leaders had left that they need to clean up and the new policies may be viewed as contradicting one of the pass leaders. So it wasn't really Gorbachev it was the fault of all the leaders Russia had that had damaged it government, it economically and socially that lead to the breakup of the soviet.
5.Explain why the collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems.
ReplyDeleteThe collapsed of the USSR was due to it long history of economic failure and unstable government. The country’s technology was behind among other things, all of the new policies past with old damages which were never repaired it was just a matter of time that it really took a toll on the USSR and ended it for good. As time passed more issues were surfacing and it just became too hard and complicated for the country.
6.Putin's Russia may well have been a police state, but at least he rescued the country from the chaos of the Yeltsin years. How far do you think this is a fair comment on both presidents?
I agree to the fact that Putin did turn around Russia’s economy drastically after the position it was in under the rule of Yeltsin. I don’t blame him for wanting to turn the country into a controlled democracy because as everyone can see communism Russia destroyed the country it was time for a change in the way the government was run. It worked because the Russian economy was back up and running trying to catch up from all the technological advances that it lost and recovering from ost of manufacturing products.
sources
Chapter 18 packet
1. Khrushchev believed that communism in the USSR could be reformed and modernized and made more efficient. How far had this been achieved by 1970?
ReplyDeleteNikita Khrushchev was the Soviet Union Party sectary. He gradually became more powerful when he made a speech regarding all of the evil skims made by Stalin. Khrushchev believed that communism could be transformed, modernized and effectual. He wanted Russians to have more freedom. Which was why he let the writers have more freedom. Of course if the writers went too far with their writing they would be expelled for the writers’ union. Unlike when Stalin was in power, he would send the writers who broke the law to labor camps. He wanted Russians to live comfortable and not having to stress about poverty. By 1970 Khrushchev had somewhat accomplished his goals. In 1958 there was around 100,000,000 people who lived below the poverty line, by 1967 only 30,000,000 people lived below the poverty line. Khrushchev wanted freedom for most of the Russians, except for the people who went to the Orthodox Church. He shut down all the churches so no one would attend. Khrushchev’s goal for reforming and modernizing communism was somewhat of a fail but it had its highlights.
2. The USSR remained politically and socially stable in the years 1964 to 1982 despite the policies of the Brezhnev era. How far would you agree with this view?
I agree that the USSR was socially and politically stable between the years 1964-1982. I agree with this because the wages were increased, people with disability had an increase on their allowance, and appliances such as radios, TV sets, refrigerators and washing machines per household were all increased. Another example of how the USSR was socially and politically stable was in 1962 there was an increase in grain production partly because Khrushchev provided over 1000 thousand new tractors. Hon the other hand I would have to disagree with this statement because the financial growth slowed down because of the expensive cost of the technology and space programs. I disagree with this statement because the grain production decrease rapidly because of the failure of the virgin lands scheme. I think that the USSR started strong but went downhill afterword.
3. Consider the view that if Gorbachev had followed different policies, the USSR could have survived, in the same way that communism survived in China.
Mikhail Gorbachev’s, Soviet Union ruler in 1985, intentions was not to put an end to communism. It was to replace the system by still including Stalinism but adding democracy and compassion. There were many disagreement between Gorbachev and many other leaders because of the new way they Gorbachev was running Russia. This was also the reason why the USSR broke-up. Gorbachev had follow different policies, the USSR could have survived. “If Gorbachev had put into operation a carefully worked-out programme of economic reform designed to last ten years, arguably the situation could have been saved.” (Page 409) this was one of the ways that the USSR could have survived.
4. It was Gorbachev’s reluctance to commit himself to sufficiently radical changes that led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Assess the validity of this view.
ReplyDeleteI think that this quote “it was Gorbachev’s reluctance to commit himself to sufficiently radical changes that led to the break-up of the Soviet Union” is valid. Gorbachev also said no to the ideas that the USSR brought up because there were more conservatives that supported him and he did not want them to turn against his plans. There were many disagreements between Yeltsin and Gorbachev. These disagreements caused tension and Yeltsin could not deal with the way that Gorbachev.
5. Explain why the collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems.
The collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems because when the Coup was created in 1991 they group was poorly organized. Yeltsin was trying to destroy the group and take over Russia which was why the Coup needed to arrest him. However, they failed to do so. Yeltsin and other leaders who disagreed with Gorbachev tried very hard to get Gorbachev to be removed from power but they could not because Gorbachev had supporters from the conservatives. All this chaos led to the collapse of the USSR.
6. Putin’s Russia may well have been a police state, but at least he rescued the country from the chaos of the Yeltsin years. How far would you think this is a fair comment on both presidents?
I think that this comment is fair because he was known for enforcing the law. He put the two most powerful men of television in jail for corruption. Putin put anyone who did not obey the law in jail. When Putin came into power the economy recovered as well did the productions. Russia was able to pay its debt without borrowing money from elsewhere. Putin really benefited Russia and made it live again.
Work cited
Chapter 18: Continuing communism, collapse and aftermath, 1953 to the present
1. When it came to modernizing communism in the USSR and reforming, not much had been done but to an extent I would argue enough was done to set them on the right track to modernizing it. After Stalin’s rule in Russia came the Khrushchev’s era, from there Khrushchev’s made improvements to everyday life by giving the people of Russia more liberty (more freedom than they had before). Even though Khrushchev gave them more liberty he had decreased the poverty within the population by establishing a minimum wage for the people, therefore giving families a better chance to gain a decent income. Khrushchev had trouble when it came to aspects of agricultural issues and when Khrushchev was no longer leader of USSR, hope to reform and modernize Russia was lost, especially when Brezhnev took control. Brezhnev seemed to have done nothing to advance the economy.
ReplyDelete2. I can agree with this quote, due to Stalin’s era I believe there was no social life for people in fear that they would get put in a concentration camp or even killed, politically Stalin us his power to get things is way, if not his power he would have them removed somehow so therefore he can control things politically. So I argue that there was no stability in his era. During Khrushchev’s era things seemed to have gotten better. During Brezhnev’s era they had somewhat of a social life, except for when Brezhnev put a ban on writing done about Stalin. So during Brezhnev’s era Social life in my opinion was stable to an extent. Things were politically stabilized because a lot of people had jobs.
3. In my opinion, I believe communism could have survived in Russia. I believe that if Gorbachev were to simply follow the policies that had already existed instead of creating his own policies then it would have still simply survived. When he created his own policies it was like he took out all the ways that kept communism alive and added the fundamentals that kept democracy present.
4. I would say that it is pretty valid. The USSR was a communist party, and when Gorbachev decided to come up with “better ideas” for communism with the USSR it caused them to disband and break up. The ideas he presented and the new policies they followed were that of a democracy, the opposite of communism, so of course when following the policies to a completely opposing system, it would cause trouble within the party (therefor leading to the breaking up of the USSR).
5. When the USSR broke up/disbanded, problems began to occur in Russia (political and economical troubles). As I stated before in the question above, the USSR was a communist party, and since it has been around for so long problems with its departure from the system were bound to take toll on Russia.
6. It seems that without the leadership from all the presidents Russia has had (either good or bad) it definitely would not be here today in the way it is. So I would argue that this quote is somewhat fair and somewhat not. I say this because if the people did not resent Yeltsin as much as they did for his poor decision-making then they would not have trusted Putin to help improve Russia as much as he did. In retrospect, for every leader who’s seemed to do wrong to the country, a following leader seems to have cleaned their mess up and improve things on top of that.
Workcited:
Packet 18
Erick Volquez
ReplyDeleteIB History 12
Ms.Noce
Communism- Rise and Decline
1. Khrushchev had a believe that communism could actually be reformed and be put in a place of more efficiency. By the 1970’s, things where made more efficient. Khrushchev wanted to have this reform so that the world’s image of communism could still be at stand and since there was a rise of economic problems. Communism from different angles was starting to crumble little by little but it got to keep a bit more of a stance during the 1970’s. If the communism in Russia followed the same as china then they could have success in holding it together. China decided to have an implementation that even if individuals where having struggles, the government still gave out the same benefits to everyone and still retained its control over the people and the economy. This was a method that was used but this had the risk that if more people began to have struggles, there wouldn’t be a grip over the territory occupied by the soviets. Due to the down fall of the value of wealth In the soviet union, this lead on for a couple of years but; soon after this would begin to crumble along with the soviets work.
2. The Brezhnev Era, otherwise known as the Stagnation era was an era which was indulged in a economic, political and social stagnation in the Soviet Union which was lead by Leonid Brezhnev. This is true that the Soviet remained politically, economically and socially stable as it was Brezhnev ideas to have this. Economy was an essential piece to sustain the Soviet Union as it would need it to sustain its civilians and also any motivation for any fights or war (since the soviet was very war active and promoted this) it was essential for them to have this fund. Politics it’s what made the Soviet as it had very positives and negative impacts over many nations and territories but their mission was to keep unity in any way possible so that when promoting important things that meant great for the Soviet Union, this was a great chance for them to execute any plan that meant “best” for them. Brezhnev really focused on the social implications as it was a good way to make the unity of the territories stronger; even if all the soviet in general terms cared about keeping a strong hold, social implications needed to be accomplished as they were very important to put forward more years of the soviet. This era was a tremendous change as in terms of the Soviet as we know that soon after the soviet would have difficulty holding these implications together.
3. Gorbachev, during his time as leader of the Soviet Union allowed different policies as the Soviet was not working as it should have been. “The USSR could have survived the same way as the communism did in China” was an argument promoted by many Russians. These Russians said that this could have happened if the Soviet Union had taken the ideas of communism in China, the Soviet could have been standing strongly for longer. This was because both countries needed a change and the Soviet needed in specificity, a reform in communism and in the government running it. This also included a change implemented for the economy which was a gate way to having the Soviet Crumble; unlike China, having many ideas to keep the economy running as they knew that if any situation came forward, it would be necessary to prevent anything that would take the ideals of communism and the government down. Gorbachev thought that taking things one step at a time without having any fundamental changes in the economy would be the right thing as this was a different path that the Chinese did not take which some conclude that this was why the USSR failed.
4. “It was Gorbachev’s reluctance to commit himself to sufficiently radical changed that led to the break-up of the Soviet Union” is a view that I agree with. We know that the USSR was the big power, the first to raise and promote Communism but just as an elder teaches the young, soon the young will do greater than what the elder has pushed them to do. This implements why China grew and took its own path of communism and succeeded. I believe that the Soviet Union under Gorbachev should have followed china’s ideas and ideals and maybe today they could have been standing but because of his different policies implemented in the USSR, the Soviet Union split apart. During his rule, economical, social and political powers needed to be accessed in unity but Gorbachev’s didn’t take this seriously as time was running out.
ReplyDelete5. As we know, the Soviet Union was run by three important powers; economical, social and of course, political powers which were important to keep the soviet standing. The reasons which the collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political issues because the USSR had no remedy after Gorbachev;s missteps in trying to restore it. Economical issues came from fundamental ideals from the USSR as the government had control over how much money was distributed. This was a misstep as the economy was dropping and many were starting to become poor, but due to the government’s policies. Because of the government holding money back because that was a principle of communism and the USSR did not try hard enough to do anything about thousands of people losing their jobs and falling in the poverty line. The political justification that the USSR brought forward was simply trying to touch upon the fundamental economical ideals that the USSR had but this brought Russians to wonder why couldn’t the biggest nation of communism not follow the uprising of another one (China). This brought the biggest downfall in communistic history.
6. “Putin’s Russia may well have been a police state, but at least he rescued the country from the chaos of the Yeltsin years.” This is something I agree with because if we look back at the Yeltsin years, these years were composed of political chaos as the Soviet Union was struggling with trying to bring a solution to degrading the population that was under poverty but the way Yeltsin was trying to promote this was in every way wrong. The sociality in the USSR was starting to form a battle field in itself. The break up started off as some looked to reason with Yeltsin and his force towards “fixing the USSR” but some reason with following the prosperity of china, this is why today, Putin’s Russia may be a stronghold and justice (police state) but he was the one who took out Russia from the horrible Yeltsin Years.
WORK CITED:
-packet 18
Junior FanFan
ReplyDeleteMs.Noce
IB History
1.Khrushchev believed that communism in the USSR could be reformed and modernized and made more efficient. How far had this been achieved by 1970?
Khrushchev did very little in trying to modernize communism in the USSR by 1970. Khrushchev did show some improvement can be done to the USSR because by 1967, 30,000 million people was living in poverty compared to when in 1958 100,000 was living in poverty. So Khrushchev did make a little change. Khrushchev also was granting freedom for Russian citizens. When Khrushchev retired in 1964 all attempts to better Russia was abandon.
2.The USSR remained politically and socially stable in the years 1964 to 1982 despite the policies of the Brezhnev era. How far would you agree with this view?
To a certain extent I will agree with this because Brezhnev was very close to completely eliminating unemployment and he added social security. But Brezhnev claim to be in favor of adding new human rights be he did very little to accomplish that. There was also a problem with writers in Russia, writers that were critical to stalin and many historian books were banned.
3.Consider the view that if Gorbachev had followed different policies, the USSR could have survived, in the same way that communism survived in China.
" Gorbachev was the most gifted and dynamic leaders Russia had seen in many years". If he followed communism than it would have survived in the USSR. He was a good leader for Russia and could have made communism better for Russia.
4.It was Gorbachev's reluctance to commit himself to sufficiently radical changes that led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Assess the validity of this view.
Gorbachev was way over his head when he made all these new policies. Also he made many new changes to the Soviet Union. He was not able to handle all these things so to the full extent I agree that he was the reason for the break up of the Soviet Union.
5.Explain why the collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems.
When the USSR collapsed they had no one to blame but themselves as a nation. I say this because the money te people were making was not enough to support them. Health and jobs soon to start declining and that was a big problem for the government.
6.Putin's Russia may well have been a police state, but at least he rescued the country from the chaos of the Yeltsin years. How far do you think this is a fair comment on both presidents?
I say that it is a fair comment because when Putin came into power, Russia was in total chaos. He did as much as he could to better Russia for the future ahead of them. The economy started to recover and the production was increasing.
Work cited:
Packet 18
1. Khrushchev believed that communism in the USSR could be reformed and modernized and made more efficient. How far had this been achieved by 1970?
ReplyDeleteWhen Khrushchev took power, he intended to amend Stalin’s mistakes regarding the USSR’s Communist system. He managed to improve the workers’ living conditions and salary, enabling them to modernize their households and lifestyle through purchasing. He removed tuition fees in primary and secondary schools, reduced taxes for lower income citizens, and reduced the working week. In this regard, he was largely successful (relative to Stalin) although modernization did not reach the level of the USA. Furthermore, the government budget became too concentrated on the Space/arms Race to truly modernize Russia.
Regarding agriculture, his new Communist approach to agriculture was revolutionary; he actually sought feedback from peasants, a truly Communist move (hearing the people). Agricultural production increased greatly thanks to him, however government pressure forced him to reduce budget in agriculture. I would say that his goal to reform and modernize the USSR was mildly successful.
2. The USSR remained politically and socially stable in the years 1964 to 1982 despite the policies of the Brezhnev era. How far would you agree with this view?
I mildly agree with such view. Brezhnev’s policies towards a more modern, and efficient Russia were failing, and to further add to his backwards steps, he reinstated restriction and censorship policies. Industrial progress was halting since factories possessed outdated machinery, which was less efficient than modern ones. Farmers could no longer afford to keep their own farms. On a positive note, unemployment was again extremely low as in Stalin’s regime. If unemployment remained almost nonexistent, society was indeed stable. However, his lack of progress did not truly maintain political stability as Gorbachev would soon replace him.
3. Consider the view that if Gorbachev had followed different policies, the USSR could have survived, in the same way that communism survived in China.
Communism could have survived in the sense that the USSR would have remained a Stalinist state, unlike the Socialist state Gorbachev aimed to create. If he had followed different policies, the basic features of “normal” Communism would have stayed: Authoritarianism, strict control of government over the people, “command” based policies, and lack of elections. His policies aimed to “Westernize” Russia.
4. It was Gorbachev's reluctance to commit himself to sufficiently radical changes that led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Assess the validity of this view.
I feel this view is invalid, it was his intent of radical change which led to divisions within the Soviet Union. His views were outrageous to the mainly conservative Soviet government. The unwillingness of the rest of the government to follow his lead and opposition to his ideals were what lead to the fall of the Soviet Union. Given this internal instability, the Soviet Union could barely manage the other states within itself. Moreover, Gorbachev did not want to fight other states to keep them in the Union so he was willing to “let” it split. It was within his radical change ideals to allow other states in the Soviet Union to become independent, in order to end the Cold War.
5. Explain why the collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems.
The fall of the USSR left Russia and its former satellite states without a government and with incredibly outdated equipment and ideas, unfit for the modernized world which surrounded them. Disagreement within Russia on how to manage the new Russia caused political disarray. Its outdated centralized economic and industrial system could not compete with the outside world, and economic growth was minuscule compared to the West. New leaders did not know how to manage a Western free-market economy and thus, economic problems such as inflation followed.
6. Putin's Russia may well have been a police state, but at least he rescued the country from the chaos of the Yeltsin years. How far do you think this is a fair comment on both presidents?
ReplyDeleteI agree. Yeltsin’s government was a crash-course, failing constantly in attempts to find the right way to “fix” Russia, among other regrettable decisions such as the war with Chechnya. Indeed, although Putin jailed many, he saved Russia from Yeltsin’s mismanagement. His government allowed industrial, agricultural, and economic progress to resume once Yeltsin was out of the picture. He was willing to take the more liberal steps his predecessors refused to take to fit in the modern world.
SOURCES:
“Chapter 18: Continuing Communism, collapse and aftermath, 1953 to the present” IB Packet
Mu Ying Yu
ReplyDeleteIB World History 12
Ms. Noce
March 1, 2015
1. Khrushchev believed that communism in the USSR could be reformed and modernized and made more efficient. How far had this been achieved by 1970?
-- Khrushchev believed that communism in the USSR could be reformed and modernized and made more efficient. He had done a limited improvements to achieved by 1970s. He lower the wages for workers caused 30,000 of people had no place to live. But as it compared to 1958, this was an improvement because at that time there are more than 100,000 people who had no where to live. Lowering wages also caused farmers had no money to buy fertilizer for plants and farms are out of business. Therefore, he didn't do much to improve both society and economic.
2. The USSR remained politically and socially stable in the years 1964 to 1982 despite the policies of the Brezhnev era. How far would you agree with this view?
-- I agree with half of the statement because the USSR still had difficulties to remained stable their political and society. According to the economic policies, only the military hardware were success because in 1970s the USSR finally caught up with the USA. The USSR produced a new weapon that called the anti-ballistic missile (ABM). The USA kept producing more deadly weapons and the USSR following alone. Most of the economic spend on creating new weapons therefore it strip most of the civilian areas money invested in order to help army producing more weapons. For the social part, during Brezhnev ruling he really did changed most peoples’ living to become more comfortable and people are affordable to buy a single family house for the family to live. One of the good improvement was that almost no unemployments exit and had a good social security program that keep people safe. Brezhnev had a restriction was to banned any writing are critical to Stalin.
3. Consider the view that if Gorbachev had followed different policies, the USSR could have survived, in the same way that communism survived in China.
-- Gorbachev created two policies the glasnost and perestroika, his purpose was to improve USSR’s economic and replace the Stalinist system. But what he had done was opposite to his purpose and caused the USSR more quicker to collapse. If he did not introduce the new system and follow the old system, communism will had a greater chance to survives in USSR.
4. It was Gorbachev's reluctance to commit himself to sufficiently radical changes that led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Assess the validity of this view.
ReplyDelete-- I think this view is valid because in the government that most of the conservatives supported Gorbachev. I do not think that was all Gorbachev’s fault to led to the break-up of the Soviet Union because the past leader always leave some problems for the new leader to deal with during his ruling time. The new leader will had a difficult time to solved all the old problems and while that he also had to solve existing problems that happened during his ruling. Being a leader of a country is not easy because he had to solved problems that caused country getting bad and he also had to somehow introduce systems or plans that will improve country economic and society. Therefore, I do not think it was all Gorbachev’s fault on the break-up of the Soviet Union.
5. Explain why the collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems.
-- The collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems because the USSR had poor plans that tried to improved the economic, for example the lowering of workers wages caused people to had a hard time to support living. The government were too centralized that always had disagreement over new plans that had to do with improving and not stable enough to provided people with better benefits.
6. Putin's Russia may well have been a police state, but at least he rescued the country from the chaos of the Yeltsin years. How far do you think this is a fair comment on both presidents?
-- I think this is a fair comment on Putin because it was undeniably that Putin did a great jobs improving Russia live, economic and society. From the Russians, Yeltsin may not be a great leader because he made a bad decision to go to war without public support and he did nothing to improve economic instead he make more people out of jobs. On the other side, I think being a leader of a country it was your responsibility to keep the country safe and provided better living for your people.
Work Cited:
-- Chapter 18 Continuing communism, collapse and aftermath, 1953 to the present Packet
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNaomie Bourdeau
ReplyDeleteIB World History
Ms.Noce
March,1,2015
Communism - Rise and Decline
Khrushchev believed that communism in the USSR could be reformed and modernized and made more efficient. How far had this been achieved by 1970?
-Khrushchev beliefs of reforming and modernizing communism in the USSR was not achieved far before the 1970’s. He had began to set his ideas and policies to improve communism in the USSR ,but around 1964 he had began to fall. He did a good job pointing out what the issues of Stalin’s rule. For example, as Russia was recovering from Stalin's last years he saw and analyzed how low the standard living was like among the agricultural and industrial workers. He tried to improve that by setting the Industrial and Agricultural policy’s. He had some success in those policies, but it was not that sufficient enough to make a drastic change of communism in the USSR. In 1964, Khrushchev was voted out of the “Central committee party” because he had to retire. In reality, the real reason was because of his failure of the agricultural policy, “his loss of prestige over the cuban missiles crisis”, and many people were offended in the party. Khrushchev could have not made communism much more efficient by 1970, because he was no longer had the authority and membership of the “Central committee party”.
The USSR remained politically and socially stable in the years 1964 to 1982 despite the policies of the Brezhnev era. How far would you agree with this view?
-After Khrushchev departed from the party, there was three new men sharing power. So I disagree far that politically and socially the USSR remained stable between the years 1964-82. The Russian Industry was growing ,but at a slow rate. Russia, was definitely in need of new advanced technologies, There were many concerns about the oil and coal industries, because they were not growing at a stable rate. The building of the factories was poor quality and was not in good condition. The harvest was poor,not enough grains were being produced. Despite of the Brezhnev era, unemployment was very low at that time Even peoples personal freedom had a limit. For example, in 1970 it was difficult to get any publication of writings. That was a huge social policy because some books got banned.
Consider the view that if Gorbachev had followed different policies, the USSR could have survived, in the same way that communism survived in China.
- If Gorbachev had followed different policies things could drastically been different for Russia. His policies were good, but there were many things that went wrong with them. For,example, there were many opposition from the radicals and the conservatives. That led to much conflict against each other. Also many of the economic reforms did not produce any results briskly enough. The rate of the economic growth fell short about 15% of what it was before. So clearly his new policy did not improve the growth rate of it. He lost control of the reform movement ,so he couldn't even manage all that was coming to him. He should of improved his strictness of enforcement to the maximum level. In regards to how communism enforce rigid rules.
It was Gorbachev's reluctance to commit himself to sufficiently radical changes that led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Assess the validity of this view.
ReplyDelete-The Soviet Union broke up due to many reasons. The radical changes was one of the reason why,but there was more to it. For example, the pressure of the nationalist also contributed towards why the Soviet Union broke up. Gorbachev had a lot of pressure on him and he failed to keep his promises, so it added to the burden he already had and later on led to the breakup of the USSR.
Explain why the collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems.
-The collapse of the USSR was followed by serious economic and political problems because there was a lost of organization. The Soviet Union was just one the 15 separate republic, and they had kept a tight control during stalin's rule. Since they broke up there were way too many demands that got out of hand. They could come to a mutual agreement ,and if the head is being affected drastically then then the social and political problems will increase.
Putin's Russia may well have been a police state, but at least he rescued the country from the chaos of the Yeltsin years. How far do you think this is a fair comment on both presidents?
-I agree far that this is a fair comment on both presidents because they have both done an significant amount of work to improve the Soviet Union. Putin impressed people by making decisive handling of hard situations. He showed a great sense of liability. He had a reputation of getting things done efficiently. As for Yeltsin's years of presidency he has done well, but he lacked of the responsibility of making effective decisions.
Work Cited
Packet “Continuing communism,Collapse and aftermath,1953 to the present”