United Germany & The Beginning of the End for the Socialist System in Eastern Europe

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not a commie myself, but I think people are far too harsh against 'teh evil Marxists' of today. A lot of the stereotypes about communism are wrong. As CA said, Marxism is against the idea of a strong, centralised state. The problem is you have to go through the big-government socialist stage before you get to that, where the old social constructs are destroyed etc. Another stereotype is that Marx was against the idea of private property, but this isn't really true. He was against Bourgeoisie property, which he saw as being ill-gained. Funny point, but he was really just carrying on from Locke (yeah the guy that heavily influenced the US Constitution) in this respect, with his ideas on property being acquired through labour etc, since Marx thought that capitalism allowed the elites to steal the fruits of others labour (a point with some truth in it).

Of course, in the end Marx got things wrong. His prophecies for 1848 never happened, in the end when the workers did really show their strength as a class it was just as often in favour as fascism as anything else. I guess the opium of the people was stronger stuff than he realised. And so the only countries to become 'communist' were the ones he said were never supposed to, and that lacked all the basic requirements for the workers revolution. If you look at Russia and China, the most brutal aspects of these regimes was the attempt to create an industrialised society. According to Marx, these should have been there before the revolution in the first place.

And so I don't think it's fair to call all Marxists evil. Their main man was a bit off in his predictions, but that doesn't mean that their ideology itself is something to be frowned upon.

However, I think Marxism has had its time. The old class structures seem to be disappearing with various other social/economic changes, and there will never be a workers revolution in the Marxist sense. He was a product of his time, and predicted an almost apocalytic scenario that never happened. We have never seen Marxism in practice, and we probably never will. And so to bring this back to the OP, the fall of the Berlin wall is probably symbolic of the end of the idea of class struggle, and national struggles for that matter. It is the symbol of the end of an era - the era of populism and totalitarianism, whether in the form of communism, fascism, or whatever.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm not a commie myself, but I think people are far too harsh against 'teh evil Marxists' of today. A lot of the stereotypes about communism are wrong. As CA said, Marxism is against the idea of a strong, centralised state.

I think most people would say that's like being in favor of students reporting their own test scores, but being against cheating. You have to show that the two aren't intrinsically tied together before you can excuse marx.

I've never studied marxism so

[Crazed Rabbit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz Did I just win the Internets?

I wonder how an Arab or Muslim would have fared in there. Also,

In the last decades, most Kibbutzim have privatized and no longer practice communal living.

You have back in pre-history, you have indian tribes, you have all sorts of living examples around the world.

In America, they constantly warred with each other*.

Not really, I believe there are ways around that.

Hence the state police and the gulag.

Capitalism goes rampant and doesn't play by the rules anymore, leading to a growing disparity of income between the higher classes and the rest of the population.

Income disparity has rose as the number of 'progressive' taxes and restrictions on business has risen, because those 'progressive' measures simply work to keep people in their place, which I suppose is politically advantageous for leftists.

Aren't you usually the guy who is in favour of replacing the oh so oppressive police with mobs of guys with guns who can defend themselves?
Aren't sheriffs in the US professionals chosen by the democracy? Or are they just random nothingainer joycampsitters chosen by a democracy?

Have you even read my posts on that subject in the Police Abuses thread?

CR
*A generalization, but as is generally the case I don't care.

[Beskar]

Hence the state police and the gulag.

Erm... no...

That is a totalitarian government.

*A generalization, but as is generally the case I don't care.

Americans are all overweight with no education who constantly eat fast-food who are warmongering imperialists. who live in a socially backwards society build on oppression and social stigma of others.

I can do that too.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well how, then?

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think most people would say that's like being in favor of students reporting their own test scores, but being against cheating. You have to show that the two aren't intrinsically tied together before you can excuse marx.

I've never studied marxism so

I would tend to agree with you here, this is (one) of the fundamental flaws of Marxism. He has to rely on a single class to break the class structure, and hope the workers do not simply serve their own interests as the nobility and then the bourgeoisie did.

Although I suppose it could be argued in return that the workers would have formed the overwhelming majority of the people, and so their own good is synonymous with that of the state. I think the real issue is that socialist states have never emerged from the sort of revolution that Marx envisaged. They ended up with a small number of elites and a very top-down system. Even in Russia, the Bolsheviks came to establish this ruling elite due to their own nature as a small, elite organisation (the Mensheviks were more in line with Marx IMO, the Bolsheviks were too impatient and didn't represent the workers, since Russia lacker a strong proletariat anyway).

If Marx really got his workers revolution, and the socialist government was structured from the bottom-up, then I suppose it could work.

But in the end class struggle didn't matter that much to the workers, they were more concerned with how superior their own race was to everyone else's, and ensured a fun 20th century for us all.

[Beskar]

I think most people would say that's like being in favor of students reporting their own test scores, but being against cheating. You have to show that the two aren't intrinsically tied together before you can excuse marx.

No, the difference would be a facilitator instead of a teacher. Which arguably happens at University+ level anyway. (or in private schools/similar) The students still don't report their test scores at all and instead submitted to those who can validate the work.

The whole regime and ideology is different, but it isn't absurd as you claim.

Also, do you know that in communism, it isn't mean it is a state-planned economy either? There are still market forces of supply and demand? Amazing.

Also, do you know that in a true communist society, it would be very pro-liberty, pro-rights and free-speech? There would actually be far-less laws (arguably, more regulation though)

Also, businesses would be public owned, ran and operated by all those involved? Akin to Workers Councils/Soviets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_council)

Marxists and some anarchists believe that workers' councils (communes) embody the fundamental principles of socialism, such as workers' control over production and distribution. Indeed, some have described this as "socialism from below," which they counterpose against what they see as "socialism from above" endorsed by Stalinism or (in the anarchist view) Leninism. According to this view, socialism from above is carried out by a centralized state run by an elite bureaucratic apparatus, whereas socialism from below represents the self-administration and self-rule of the working class.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, and in a "true classroom society" no one would cheat. The point is that "working great in theory" does not make a good system of government.

And well, I don't think we can argue past this point, since I've never read about political systems and can't parse what "less laws but more regulation" means for example.

[Beskar]

Yes, and in a "true classroom society" no one would cheat. The point is that "working great in theory" does not make a good system of government.

But how can some one get away with cheating in what I said? Even then, if they do succeed, what makes it any different to other classroom society?

And well, I don't think we can argue past this point, since I've never read about political systems and can't parse what "less laws but more regulation" means for example.

Basically, there will be less laws in regards to personal liberties. However, there would be more regulation in practises in industry. While there might be a safety law, such a law is a generality, in practise each workplace has a set of regulations on how to operate according to that law. In this example, there would argubly more regulation on business practise, however, you could happily smoke cannabis in your living room.

That is what I am meaning.

[Brenus]

“May I remind you that after November 9th 1989, we've been told repeatedly by thinkers, writers, politicians, leaders and what not that we were on the eve of a new world. A peaceful, democratic, and fair world.
People who dared to disagree with this point of view were dismissed, and called pessimist of communist-apologists.”:
I do remember. I do remember being fully armed and deployed with real ammunition when Jarulezki (sp?) (Polish Leader at the time) cracked down Solidarnosc (sp).
I do remember being prepared to fight against a potential Red Army invasion, when my hope of life in combat was around one day and half, with big chances to be burned alive in my APC.
Times are better now.
But, yeap, the golden Age didn’t came.

Nationalism came instead, with looting, rapes and destruction. Yugoslavia, destroyed, rising of ethnic and economical violence, deportation and ethnic cleansing, famines, exile, etc. Fracturation of countries, fences erected, egism and me-society (thanks Thatcher and Reagan), Confessional dictatureship and all these good thinds like the Talibans in Afghanistan who were so much better thanthe Communist Dictatureship. Rejoice.

Communism is synonym of death, torture and all these horrible things say some. Indeed it is. Same for Capitalism.
I don’t want to choose to be tortured by the GEPEOU or the Gestapo, or to be “lost” is the sea by the Pinochet’s henchmen or jailed under the Apartheid Regime.

To reject the blame of a dictatorship on some XIX century thinkers is quite odd. Marx just analyse a situation based on Germany and UK (mainly) then described some process, then told people that it will be trouble. Well, he was proved right.
To blame Marx or Engel for Stalin is as to blame Jesus for the St Inquisition or the slaughter/genocide of all South America and various Religious wars all around the world.
I can tell you here that if somebody wants to write the black book of Christianity it will have more than 100 millions victims… Especially with authors who just add figures without any kind of source. It is still surprise me…

“The problem is that it trivialises the nastiness, the crimes and repression of a system that held half a continent in its grip for half a century.” Yeap. Like when some policemen are/were compared with SS. Or war crimes genocide, etc.

“when the workers did really show their strength” In 1914, Germans and French workers choosing nationalism/patriotism happily went to war for Krupp (sp?) and Schneider (who is French). And Jaures was killed.

“You have to show that the two aren't intrinsically tied together before you can excuse marx.” Well, if I remember what I read from Marx, it will explain why people have the need to cheat.
“He has to rely on a single class to break the class structure, and hope the workers do not simply serve their own interests as the nobility and then the bourgeoisie did”
Err, funny that because it is not how I remember it. Ok, it is a long time ago. However, for what I remember, the fight for power is described as perpetual. When a class takes power it becomes the oppressors in order to keep its new privileges (which is by the way exactly what did happened in USSR. The first rebels against the Bolsheviks and Lenin were the Sailors of Kronschtadt when they realised what Lenin was doing), hence the idea of a society without classes…

[Rhyfelwyr]

Basically, there will be less laws in regards to personal liberties. However, there would be more regulation in practises in industry. .

I always understood that the state will wither away in both the social and economic spheres. If there was any regulation, I would think it would come at the lowest possible level.

Although I like this idea very much, I'm dubious about how it would work in practice. Not because it could create a powerful state as people tend to argue (I don't think it would), but because even at the grassroots level, people are going to have their ideas of how society should be, and want to use power to keep it that way. Marx might have argued that religion, nationhood, sexism etc are social constructs, but this is wishful thinking... they seem to be a very integral part of human nature. We developed as a species on a tribal basis, and so we still see this mentality in the 'my race is better than yours' attitudes that I think we all still have a little bit of, even if we won't admit it. Same goes for the gender divisions - the fact is men and woman are different, may as well deal with it and not pretend we're all the same.

And so if the big, centralised state did disappear as Marx hoped for, I think things could get pretty chaotic if all the power goes to the ordinary people. For some reason, we have this notion today that throughout history all the trouble and brutality is caused by dictators etc using social hierarchies and oppression to keep the ordinary person in line, when they just want to live and let live. But this just isn't the case, the populist movements are always the most crazy. What's the first thing the ordinary people of Europe do when the old colonial and monarchical regimes collapse after WWI? - they give us Franco, Hitler, and Mussoloni. You take away the oppressive monarchs of France, you get Robesppiere and the terror. You take away the absolutist Charles I with his Bishops, you get Cromwell and fanatic Puritans rampaging around the country fighting because they think Jesus is about to come again.

And that is why I am dubious that giving power to the people will lead to a more tolerant society.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Although I like this idea very much, I'm dubious about how it would work in practice. Not because it could create a powerful state as people tend to argue (I don't think it would), but because even at the grassroots level, people are going to have their ideas of how society should be, and want to use power to keep it that way. Marx might have argued that religion, nationhood, sexism etc are social constructs, but this is wishful thinking... they seem to be a very integral part of human nature. We developed as a species on a tribal basis, and so we still see this mentality in the 'my race is better than yours' attitudes that I think we all still have a little bit of, even if we won't admit it. Same goes for the gender divisions - the fact is men and woman are different, may as well deal with it and not pretend we're all the same.

Right. We had a thread about the how poorly the attempt to turn afghanistan democratic is going. If the people aren't ready for it, it can't work.

So I guess the idea of the communists is that one day people will be ready for communism (based on what?). Whereas the system we have now is more aimed at accepting parts of human nature and trying to work with them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Right. We had a thread about the how poorly the attempt to turn afghanistan democratic is going. If the people aren't ready for it, it can't work.

So I guess the idea of the communists is that one day people will be ready for communism (based on what?). Whereas the system we have now is more aimed at accepting parts of human nature and trying to work with them.

Exactly. There's no point trying to haul countries into the western way of doing things, you have to let the historic forces do their work, otherwise you won't have any solid foundations to build upon. It's the same with communism. Marx had a very set vision of the development of society from tribalism -> quasi/agrarian-communism -> feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism/transition to communism. You can't skip any of the stages, as each comes with it's own revolution that is necessary for the next. Although in one of his nastier moments, Marx does advocate genociding peripheral peoples in any given state which might be backward and anti-revolutionary, giving the Gaels in Scotland and the Slavs in the Hapsburg Empire as examples (keep that in mind you leftists when you go on one of those rants about how Democratic Kampuchea wasn't acting in a Marxist spirit with it's ethnic cleansing!).

As for the bit about being what I'm basing things on when I speak of being "ready" for communism, I mean simply ideas in the above paragraph. A state would have to had gone through the capitalist stage, developed a strong proletariat, industrialised etc. But as I mentioned earlier, I'm uncertain as to whether communism could ever work given human nature, since I disagree with Marx that nationalism, religion etc are purely social constructs. If Marx got his revolution when he wanted, I reckon it *could* have worked. But he got it wrong, and I don't think Marxism is relevant any more, at least without adapting quite a bit.

[HoreTore]

The beginning of the end for socialism in Europe? What??

Last time I checked, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the UK, France, United Germany and Spain were all social democratic countries, ie. socialists.

Heck, a couple of months ago the majority rule of the socialist bloc was re-elected here.

Authoritarianism and socialism are two very different things, my friends.

[Samurai Waki]

The beginning of the end for socialism in Europe? What??

Last time I checked, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the UK, France, United Germany and Spain were all social democratic countries, ie. socialists.

Heck, a couple of months ago the majority rule of the socialist bloc was re-elected here.

Authoritarianism and socialism are two very different things, my friends.

It's difficult to discuss socialism with Gunbortionists.

[Ironside]

Income disparity has rose as the number of 'progressive' taxes and restrictions on business has risen, because those 'progressive' measures simply work to keep people in their place, which I suppose is politically advantageous for leftists.

That's why it has a nice "only in America" stamp on it? And the only time it decreased(very minor) in the US was during the Clinton era? Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries

The Gapminder Graphs are a statistical gold mine. Shame that it only goes to 2004-2005.

In general the gap between the rich and poor has increased slightly on average since 1985, with some exceptions in both directions. International banking on the other hand increased rapidly (the bane to the current crisis with its disregard for safety meassures), look at the GDP of Luxemburg.

More on topic, I'll put it short. May that dark past never repeat itself and that wall and what it represented willl always stay teared down.

[Meneldil]

The problem would of course have been that the old system was not sustainable. IIRC, the GDR was already getting into severe financial problems.

Oh, I'm really glad that Germans celebrate their reunification. They have every right to. What I find despicable is the whole "Yeah, we celebrate the victory of freedom over tyranny" thingy, which I find retard, especially given what have happened since 1989 (ie. not much, despite what we've been told).
And I do not support in any way communism, nor do I think life was decent in the eastern bloc. I'm glad the wall fell, and I even went to the local celebration (my city built a wall replica, that people had to tore down) to take pictures.

If you're referring to the politicians, Merkel is an east-German. The others were at leat old enough to remember the Cold War.

I know Merkel is an east-German. And obviously, since most politicians are old sobs, they remember the Cold War. What I found hilarious (in a sad way) were all the pompous, self-satisfied speeches, made by people who promised us a golden age and who are now telling us we're going to have a rough time.

Uh, you're 23 according to your profile. Wich means you were an infant when they supposedly made all those promises. Just thought I'd point out the irony compared to the first part of your statement.

I see no irony here. Would you care to enlighten me as to how remembering promises made back then is irony?

Do you mean income disparity in western countries, or the former east bloc? If you mean the first I'll need some sources.

Income disparity has rose as the number of 'progressive' taxes and restrictions on business has risen, because those 'progressive' measures simply work to keep people in their place, which I suppose is politically advantageous for leftists.

Yeah, right. Or not.
http://www.inegalites.fr/spip.php?article632
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/ma...=2&oref=slogin
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/D...nofIncome.html

It seems that we're heading toward a concentration of wealth in the hand of the richest similar to what happened in the late 20's. Inequalities never were as low as during the 60's and 70's, when capitalism was successfully kept in check by western governements. Since the mid-70's, they keep growing.

As for democracy and dictatorships, here's a survey from The Economist : http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828...dex%202008.pdf
Their conclusion ? The spread of democracy has come to a halt (it even made a few steps backward). And the global financial crisis might threaten democracy where it's already having a hard time surviving.

Yeah, that always slightly puzzled me- it seems most east-Germans were extatic when the wall fell and nowadays a majority of them think it was actually a great place to live.

Don't be puzzled anymore. One of my former classmate's mother was an university professor in East-Germany. After 1989, she became a cleaner. Her dad was also working at the university, and couldn't find a job for years after the fall of the wall.
No doubts, those are probably extreme cases, but I think I can understand why some people feel nostalgic.

[Beskar]

Don't be puzzled anymore. One of my former classmate's mother was an university professor in East-Germany. After 1989, she became a cleaner. Her dad was also working at the university, and couldn't find a job for years after the fall of the wall.
No doubts, those are probably extreme cases, but I think I can understand why some people feel nostalgic.

Why didn't the University remain open and they stay in their old jobs?

[Furunculus]

because the real world demanded that they be able to pay for what they spend........?

[gaelic cowboy]

Its possible they were Professors of Communist theory which I suspect there was not a lot of need for after 1989

[Beskar]

because the real world demanded that they be able to pay for what they spend........?

You mean they used pixie dust as a currency beforehand? Awesome.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You mean they used pixie dust as a currency beforehand? Awesome.

What?

[Furunculus]

You mean they used pixie dust as a currency beforehand? Awesome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_East_Germany

External debt crisis

Although in the end political circumstances led to the collapse of the SED regime, the GDR's growing hard currency debts would have led to an international debt crisis by 1991 at the latest. Debts continued to grow in the course of the 1980s to over 40 billion Deutsche Marks owed to western institutions, a sum not astronomical in absolute terms (the GDR's GDP was perhaps 250 billion DM) but large in relation to the GDR's capacity to export sufficient goods to the west to provide the hard currency to service these debts. An October 1989, a paper prepared for the Politbüro (the Schürer-Papier, after its principal author) projected a need to increase export surplus from around 2 billion DM in 1990 to over 11 billion DM in 1995 to stabilize debt levels. It is doubtful whether such a Herculean effort could have succeeded without political turmoil, or indeed at all.
Much of the debt originated from attempts by the GDR to export its way out of its international debt problems, which required imports of components, technologies and raw materials; as well as attempts to maintain living standards through imports of consumer goods. The GDR was internationally competitive in some sectors such as mechanical engineering and printing technology. However the attempt to achieve a competitive edge in microchips against the research and development resources of the entire western world - in a state of just 16 million people - was perhaps always doomed to failure, but swallowed increasing amounts of internal resources and hard currency.[citation needed] A significant factor was also the elimination of a ready source of hard currency through re-export of Soviet oil, which until 1981 was provided below world market prices; the resulting loss of hard currency income produced a noticeable dip in the otherwise steady improvement of living standards. (It was precisely this continuous improvement which was at risk due to the impending debt crisis; the Schürer-Papier's remedial plans spoke of a 25–30% reduction.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc_economies

Developmental stagnation

Communist Europe effectively missed the information and electronics revolution of the 1970s and 1980s, though its development gap in this area compared to Western Europe was smaller than that of other developing countries.[74] By the 1980s, nearly all the economies of the region had stagnated, falling behind the technological advances of the West.[38] The systems, which required party-state planning at all levels, ended up collapsing under the weight of accumulated economic inefficiencies, with various attempts at reform merely contributing to the acceleration of crisis-generating tendencies.[75]

While official statistics painted a relatively rosy picture, the East German economy had eroded because of increased central planning, economic autarky, the use of coal over oil, investment concentration in a few selected technology-intensive areas and labor market regulation.[97] As a result, a large productivity gap of nearly 50% per worker existed between East and West Germany.[97][98] However, that gap does not measure the quality of design of goods or service such that the actual per capita rate may be as low as 14 to 20 per cent.[98] Average gross monthly wages in East Germany were around 30% of those in West Germany, though after accounting for taxation, the figures approached 60%.[99] Moreover, the purchasing power of wages grossly differed, with only about half of East German households owning either a car or a color television set as late as 1990, both of which had been standard possessions in West German households.[99] The Ostmark was only valid for transactions inside East Germany, could not be legally exported or imported[99]

Once installed, the economic system was difficult to change given the importance of politically reliable management and the prestige value placed on large enterprises.[51] Performance declined during the 1970s and 1980s due to inefficiency when industrial input costs, such as energy prices, increased.[51] Though growth lagged behind the west, it did occur.[38] Consumer goods started to become more available by the 1960s.[38] Before the Eastern Bloc's dissolution, some major sectors of industry were operating at such a loss that they exported products to the West at prices below the real value of the raw materials.[63] Hungarian steel costs doubled those of western Europe.[63] In 1985, a quarter of Hungary's state budget was spent on supporting inefficient enterprises.[63] Tight planning in Bulgaria industry meant continuing shortages in other parts of its economy.[63]

their insulated currency fixed as it was due to its isolation ensured that two decades hidden devaluation due to innefficiency came as a shock when they were eventually integrated into the world system.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Oh, I'm really glad that Germans celebrate their reunification. They have every right to. What I find despicable is the whole "Yeah, we celebrate the victory of freedom over tyranny" thingy, which I find retard, especially given what have happened since 1989 (ie. not much, despite what we've been told).

I'm certainly a harsh critic of the state of democracy in modern Germany, but we are much more free now than we ever were under the East German government. So yes, in this way it was most certainly a victory of freedom over tyranny.

[HoreTore]

their insulated currency fixed as it was due to its isolation ensured that two decades hidden devaluation due to innefficiency came as a shock when they were eventually integrated into the world system.

Kinda like 2008/2009, eh?

[Strike For The South]

because the real world demanded that they be able to pay for what they spend........?

Not according to America!

[Furunculus]

Kinda like 2008/2009, eh?

kind of, yeah.

[Banquo's Ghost]

“May I remind you that after November 9th 1989, we've been told repeatedly by thinkers, writers, politicians, leaders and what not that we were on the eve of a new world. A peaceful, democratic, and fair world.
People who dared to disagree with this point of view were dismissed, and called pessimist of communist-apologists.”:
I do remember. I do remember being fully armed and deployed with real ammunition when Jarulezki (sp?) (Polish Leader at the time) cracked down Solidarnosc (sp).
I do remember being prepared to fight against a potential Red Army invasion, when my hope of life in combat was around one day and half, with big chances to be burned alive in my APC.
Times are better now.
But, yeap, the golden Age didn’t came.

Indeed. I think one of the things that gets little coverage is just how close we felt to Armageddon in those dying days of the Soviet Empire.

I remember watching the events in Berlin with some colleagues in the mess - and we reflected on the immensity of the change in our world view. These were men with whom I had sat in draughty self-propelled guns in the same Germany now freeing itself from division, awaiting the inevitable rumbling of tanks at Andropov's command. Barely recalled now, this was a man who championed extreme punishments for the Prague Spring, had driven the invasion of Afghanistan, sat at the head of the KGB and now, as General Secretary, was expected to react to the growing implosion of the Soviet economy by giving into the generals and launching an attack on the West. Whilst Brezhnev had fossilised, this man would have killed us all. Like Brenus, we knew in those days and months that we had a short time to live.

He died, thank God and after some further anxieties occasioned by the dying Chernenko, we got Mikhail Gorbachev. This immensely courageous man was, alongside Pope John Paul II and President Reagan - but ahead of both - the real reason we sit here remembering the fall of the wall and the new horizons rather than scratching notes in soot in a ruined world. A man who refused to do what Andropov would have done, and send in the tanks. A man with barely any respect in his own land, despite what he gifted them, and us.

The peaceable fall of the wall and the end of the Cold War was by no means inevitable. And before anyone accuses me of being an old man over-emphasing the history of his youth, that's as maybe - but we lived through it, and the wall did indeed seem immutable. We have conflict now to be sure, but nothing that approximates the universal destruction that was so imminent in the early 1980s.

In other words, you young'uns don't know you're born. *shakes stick*

One of the great missed ironies of history was that the main rival to Gorbachev's election to office was a chap called Grigory Romanov. Very much of the Andropov mould, had he been General Secretary, things may have ended in tears in 1989. Thus a Romanov would have been in charge at the end of the Soviet Empire too.

[gaelic cowboy]

Indeed. I think one of the things that gets little coverage is just how close we felt to Armageddon in those dying days of the Soviet Empire.

I remember watching the events in Berlin with some colleagues in the mess - and we reflected on the immensity of the change in our world view. These were men with whom I had sat in draughty self-propelled guns in the same Germany now freeing itself from division, awaiting the inevitable rumbling of tanks at Andropov's command. Barely recalled now, this was a man who championed extreme punishments for the Prague Spring, had driven the invasion of Afghanistan, sat at the head of the KGB and now, as General Secretary, was expected to react to the growing implosion of the Soviet economy by giving into the generals and launching an attack on the West. Whilst Brezhnev had fossilised, this man would have killed us all. Like Brenus, we knew in those days and months that we had a short time to live.

He died, thank God and after some further anxieties occasioned by the dying Chernenko, we got Mikhail Gorbachev. This immensely courageous man was, alongside Pope John Paul II and President Reagan - but ahead of both - the real reason we sit here remembering the fall of the wall and the new horizons rather than scratching notes in soot in a ruined world. A man who refused to do what Andropov would have done, and send in the tanks. A man with barely any respect in his own land, despite what he gifted them, and us.

The peaceable fall of the wall and the end of the Cold War was by no means inevitable. And before anyone accuses me of being an old man over-emphasing the history of his youth, that's as maybe - but we lived through it, and the wall did indeed seem immutable. We have conflict now to be sure, but nothing that approximates the universal destruction that was so imminent in the early 1980s.

In other words, you young'uns don't know you're born. *shakes stick*

One of the great missed ironies of history was that the main rival to Gorbachev's election to office was a chap called Grigory Romanov. Very much of the Andropov mould, had he been General Secretary, things may have ended in tears in 1989. Thus a Romanov would have been in charge at the end of the Soviet Empire too.

Not to disagree with you all but Gorbachev was obviously a party man after all nobody rose to prominence in Russia by being a maverick.

We have all seen the documentaries that tell us how his plan was not freedom but to safeguard communism in Russia the fall of the wall was just the natural consequence of the chaos.

Course its hard for anyone to give back the plaudits they recieve for being a statesman which is why he stays stumm about the reality same with FW De Klerk he never intended for a black majority goverment it just happened.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Not to disagree with you all but Gorbachev was obviously a party man after all nobody rose to prominence in Russia by being a maverick.

Of course he was. That's why it was so much more courageous to step beyond his programming of a lifetime and do the right thing. He had no idea where that might take him and his country, but he decided against finding out via walking over a carpet of corpses.