Everything You Think You Know About the Collapse of the

Soviet Union is Wrong

Article by Leon Aron
Critical analysis

The end of the 1980's and beginning of the 1990's was dramatic in every way in whole
European history, especially in communist countries. The fall of the Soviet Union, or rather the
remarkable transformation of the Soviet Union and the main reasons for its demise is the
leitmotif of the article by Leon Aron. The fall was sudden and unexpected in many ways. There
were many factors that simply did not suggest that the fall of the Soviet Union imminent. Aron
emphasised several of them, but the main factor is related to political circumstances. In the late
1980s, Soviet Union was a state with firm power and respected in international relations. There
were problems however, particulary in the economy. For example, Aron highlights the drop in
oil prices at the beginning of 1980's, but this event was nothing that would bring the Soviet
Union to bend its knees. The real problems were starting to show between 1985 to 1989, and
major problems appeared in the economy and in the social status of the people. Reforms had
to be made. Perestroika, the political and economic movement in the 80's until the disolution of
the Soviet Union in 1991, was the solution to the problem. The program was directly related
with president Mikail Gorbachov. Glasnost was the main attribute of ''Perestroika'' and meant
that everything should be transparent and visible. However, its the real essence was the
democratisation of the Soviet Union. Numerous intellectuals and essayists at the time
considered moral resurrection as of the most important issue facing the state. This is explained
in the simple sentence: ''To save the people one had to save perestroika, but perestroika could
be saved only if it was capable of changing man from within.'' The revolution must be emanated
from above.
First of all, Leon Aron stated his main idea of the article just in the first two sentences,
and his claim is quite questionable: ''Every revolution is a surprise. Still, the latest Russian
Revolution must be counted among the greatest of surprises.'' Revolution by its definition
means something radical. Usually, it is expressed in some radical changes in the state and the
society in many ways, but to claim that every revolution is a surprise is too broad a claim. Even
the term ‘’revolution’’ for fall of the Soviet Union is questionable. For instance probably one
of the most famous revolutions, and most important one, was French revolution 1789, and there
was nothing surprising in that revolution. European society during the 18th century experienced
many changes in ideas, mostly in the economy and political relations. The outdated feudal
system had to be changed, and what is related with that Russian revolution in 1989 was
development of new ideas inside the society - moral resurrection. Developing national
awareness was one of the most important processes that had a huge impact on the society in
general.1 It was the same in Russia during the end of the 1980's and beginning of the 1990's.
There was a huge need for transformation. In this way the author is very contradictory. He says
that revolution was quite a surprise, but he also emphasises that problems and reforms could be
seen from beginning in 1985 until 1991. This means that revolution in Russia was not so
surprising due to these 6 years of changes. Considering this, his thesis that every revolution,
including the Russian, is highly groundless.
The author talks about pre-revolutionary signs, and as the author states there were not
many of those signs. The essay is bit contradictory because he early writes about major
problems during the period from 1985 until 1991. I agree with the fact that those problems
expressed a real need for some changes, some radical changes, but the author writs that those
signs did not indicate to revolution at all. Revolution might not to be expected duo to those
signs, but some radical changes could be expected. The political situation, in general, was that
the USSR had to make some changes if they wanted to keep up with the USA and other great
powers at that time. China's communist revolution in 1945-1949 established communism as
state ideology for a long time, even today, but China also went thought a process some of a kind
of a progressive communism, or better put progressive socialism. Changes were visible in the
beginning of 1990's so the Soviet Union had to come through that somehow.
The whole article has the purpose to stimulate readers, professional historians and also
regular reader to think about the subject in a way that is not usual. The methodology of the text
is good, he explains things rather diachronic, and skips from one subject to another, in order to
maintain the attention of the readers. He does not cite any relevant sources or literature, which
is fine in this context because it is not a scholarly paper, but just an article about a famous
subject, the anniversary of the fall of Soviet Union.

Student: Mario Šain

Budapest, 25th of September 2017.

1
Suzanne Desan, etc., The French Revolution in Global Perspective, (New York, Cornell University Press,
2013.) 35.-41.