to ban communism from itself?

Prior to this class I had always though of Gorbachev as Russian who finally realized that communism doesn’t work. I don’t’ believe this to be the case any more, though considering his predecessors, his liberal demeanor still astonished me for the better. In the Transcript of Russian Federation Duma Session with USSR President Gorbachev, Gorbachev mentions that he was asked “whether socialism should be banned from the USSR and the Communist Party disbanded as a criminal organization.” I was rather shocked to read this. That socialism and the Communist party can be outlawed in Russia perplexes me since less than half a century before socialism and the Communist party were considered more important than the state itself. Gorbachev plainly states that he cannot dissolve the communist party, because he “will never agree to qualify millions of workers and peasants as criminals” and not for the glory and survival of communism. If such a thing had been even referenced to Stalin, it would have been a very different situation for the person who asked the question.

What comes to mind when one thinks of democracy?

When I think of democracy the first things that come to mind are universal suffrage and civil liberties. These were, as the socialist T.H. Marshall pointed out, influenced by enlightenment thinkers in the 17th and 18th centuries, such as John Locke. However, when I think about the bureaucracy enveloped in our own democracy, I can’t help but notice socialist elements that would perhaps dilute the true definition of a democratic republic. Marshall argues that the 20th century would bring a much larger range of social rights, including rights to provide protection of economic interests, and welfare and security for its citizens. Though he is a socialist, the compilation of his ideas are what I define as democracy, the modern democratic state is a welfare state.

Why didn’t we blow ourselves up?

We didn’t blow ourselves up because nobody wanted to make a first strike. Neither side knew the full extent of its enemy’s military power…the Russians could always have a bigger bomb, or simply more of them. The USSR and US were immobilized by fear associated with the assumption that the world is ending, an outcome that neither state wanted to be responsible for.
As fun as I found the simulation, there is a flaw to it. We all wanted to blow each other up, because it would be silly and fun…not in real life. In real life, it seems to me, some of the things that we did would have been absurd, but perhaps it just seems that way to me because I know how the Cold War ended. For example, I am fairly certain that Russia would not tolerate nukes in Japan, as the US wouldn’t approve of nukes in Mexico. I know as an example from the other class that the USSR took over Ireland, simply to mess with Declan. Would the Russians have expressed any interest in Ireland in the real world? I highly doubt it, but the Russians in the other class decided it would be fun.
Now, I know that it is a simulation, and that nothing can be perfect, but the game is set up so that each team wants to nuke each other, because total victory on both sides sounds lame and boring—but that’s what happened, and I’m glad of it.

Should we have used the bomb?

I am certainly not suggesting that thousands of Japanese civilians deserved to die, but I believe that in the long run the use of the atomic bomb was not a mistake. I think the use of the bomb was justified—it ended the war. It has been criticized because the bomb was dropped on civilians without warning. Some argue that the bomb should have been shown to the Japanese, that they simply needed to understand the power of the bomb, and they would surrender. These people are wrong. The Japanese hung in, even when being firebombed by the US (which killed more Japanese than the two bombs combined), and attacked by Britain, and China, there is no way that the Japanese would have surrendered after a simple demonstration—they didn’t surrender after it was used! We mention the firebombing today, but it doesn’t have nearly the same weight as the nukes. This is of course because a nuke is one bomb, as opposed to many. Either way though, the end is the same, people become obliterated on a large scale—if those attacks are justifiable, in my opinion, so was the use of the bomb.

that's not change, that's more of the same

The textbook makes the point, on several occasions, that Khrushchev believed Stalin to have been overzealous and overly repressive. As a result of Stalin’s brutality many Soviets wanted reform. Coming to power in 1956, a whole three years after Stalin died, Khrushchev gained control of the Communist party and attempted to appease the masses, while of course, protecting the party. New freedoms were available, which meant that maintaining absolute control over the country, like Stalin had, would be much more difficult. After Khrushchev took power thousands were release from the Soviet prison camps. This new reform, when scrutinized, proved to be a façade; Alexander Solzhenitsyn was released after 8 years in a prison camp; he had been sent there originally because of a letter he wrote criticizing Stalin. Once he was released he started working on a book, reflecting on his own experience in a gulag. This book was published in 1973, twenty years since Stalin died; yet Solzhenitsyn was arrested a year later for treason. For publishing his victimization at the hands of his own government, and emphasizing a point made by Khrushchev himself, Solzhenitsyn was exiled for treason. That this happened shows that in those twenty years since Stalin’s death, no social progress was made.

Replaceable?

In response to Danielle’s post, I do think it would have been very different. However, It is true, especially in Hitler’s case, that there was a very strong sense of anti-Semitism and a general feeling of betrayal emanating throughout Germany. Hitler was definitely not personally responsible for the millions of deaths, I would actually point as much of the Blame at Heinrich Himmler, who actually oversaw the concentration and extermination camps. Though he might have been as ruthless and evil, Himmler was in charge of the SS and may not have had the manipulative skills which Hitler possessed. In response to Danielle’s question about whether another Frenchman would have stepped in if Napoleon were absent, I believe the answer is no. I believe that Napoleon was unique, though at the time of his rise to power France was ripe for change, nobody expected Napoleon to take on the kind of power which he did, he had originally been chosen to be a figurehead, only to go on and stage a coup d'état. I have never considered Napoleon to be a tyrant, even after studying him this year; I consider him to be a brilliant, but egotistical leader who could not have been replaced by anybody, let alone another Frenchman.

I guess that I should respond

In response to Danielle’s choosing of Hitler as her main focus, I claim Napoleon. As one of the earlier benevolent dictators in modern European history, I plan on comparing his system of direct control with those of Hitler, and whomever grace chooses (Peter the Great), and judging them on the basis of economic progress and support and happiness of the people. I will have to be careful that I am comparing the different systems under similar conditions, all three “tyrants” as Danielle puts it in her blog, waged major wars, but their people were affected differently by them. It would be interesting to talk about what could have happened to the state if their respective totalitarian leader had never taken power. Without Napoleon, for instance, there would have been far less of a squabble over the balance of power. Without Peter the Great would Russia have been able to keep up with Europe? Without each of these leaders millions of peoples’ lives could have been spared, was any of it worth it?