Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
The end of East Germany was crazy precisely because it was so peaceful. A number of popular outcries in the late 80s instigated civil reforms. And then one of the defense ministers was asked on national TV in '89 “hey, does this mean we don’t need the Berlin Wall anymore”. He shrugged and confessed it was no longer needed. And the military took that as a signal to step aside and let the wall get torn down.
In less than six months, the country was holding free elections. And by the following year, they’d reunified.
No shots fired. A purely popular and peaceful revolution that happened practically overnight, by historical standards.
What? Do you believe everyone in a country has identical political views?
You’re a bit dim aren’t you? The parent post that I replied to claimed that Gorbachev was a traitor who went against the will of the people, I said the USSR wasn’t wel known for respecting the will of the people in the first place, and here you are giving an example of when the USSR actually did respect the will of the people … when Gorbachev was in power.
So my conclusion is that Gorbachev must exist in a state of superposition, where he is both things at once.
I said the USSR wasn’t wel known for respecting the will of the people in the first place
The GDR was a member state of the USSR. And the dissolution of the GDR happened under Gorbachev, in a manner that did respect the public’s rights.
At the same time, Gorbachev’s dismantling of the USSR came in direct opposition to his communist peers, to the point where he was couped by his military leadership in an attempt to stop him.
So my conclusion is that Gorbachev must exist in a state of superposition
I know you’re attempting wit, but its coming at the expense of your expressed understanding of history.
Gorbachev did, in fact, manager to govern in such a manner that he pissed off just about everyone - the Yeltsin reformists on his right flank (who froze him out of office after he survived the coup) and the Communists on his left flank (who joined him in the dust bin of history after Yeltsin sold the country off piecemeal).
Not sure you should include Gorbachev since he illegally dissolved the USSR against the will of the people.
Seems to be just about everybody wanted to leave the USSR.
Yes, the USSR, famous for respecting the will of the people …
The end of East Germany was crazy precisely because it was so peaceful. A number of popular outcries in the late 80s instigated civil reforms. And then one of the defense ministers was asked on national TV in '89 “hey, does this mean we don’t need the Berlin Wall anymore”. He shrugged and confessed it was no longer needed. And the military took that as a signal to step aside and let the wall get torn down.
In less than six months, the country was holding free elections. And by the following year, they’d reunified.
No shots fired. A purely popular and peaceful revolution that happened practically overnight, by historical standards.
Excuse me, I have a question. Who was the leader of the USSR when this happened?
Gorbachev.
However, its the GDR Communist Chairman Erich Honecker that ultimately changed policy that resulted in reunification.
Ah Schrödinger’s Gorbachev, both a great respector of the will of the people, as well a traitor who went against the will of the people.
Then why did you comment on a post that was about the USSR?
What? Do you believe everyone in a country has identical political views?
That’s a very naive understanding of popular politics.
The GDR was a member of the USSR.
You’re a bit dim aren’t you? The parent post that I replied to claimed that Gorbachev was a traitor who went against the will of the people, I said the USSR wasn’t wel known for respecting the will of the people in the first place, and here you are giving an example of when the USSR actually did respect the will of the people … when Gorbachev was in power.
So my conclusion is that Gorbachev must exist in a state of superposition, where he is both things at once.
What does the G in GDR stand for?
The GDR was a member state of the USSR. And the dissolution of the GDR happened under Gorbachev, in a manner that did respect the public’s rights.
At the same time, Gorbachev’s dismantling of the USSR came in direct opposition to his communist peers, to the point where he was couped by his military leadership in an attempt to stop him.
I know you’re attempting wit, but its coming at the expense of your expressed understanding of history.
Gorbachev did, in fact, manager to govern in such a manner that he pissed off just about everyone - the Yeltsin reformists on his right flank (who froze him out of office after he survived the coup) and the Communists on his left flank (who joined him in the dust bin of history after Yeltsin sold the country off piecemeal).