Did Chernobyl cause the Soviet Union to collapse?
Did Gorbachev realize his visionary reforms were undercutting his regime’s legitimacy? This seems highly unlikely. Kate Brown, a Soviet nuclear historian at the University of Maryland, believes that Gorbachev was a true believer in the Soviet system—and in the ability of free expression to solve the state’s myriad crises.
“Gorbachev did really imagine an honest discussion of the country’s problems in the press and workplaces,” Brown said. But he also likely saw glasnost as an incremental process. The meltdown in Chernobyl, in contrast, was sensational and uncontainable. It wasn’t a systemic issue to be discussed in editorial pages and offices; it was a terrifying, deadly mistake caused by a poorly built and ineptly run facility and exacerbated by a slow, unsophisticated response.
Chernobyl, then, represented a fundamental shift in the relationship between the Soviet citizenry and the state. Before the explosion, most Soviets were not discontented dissidents; they believed in the Soviet system, forgave its flaws, and hoped for a better future within its confines. But after Chernobyl, the system seemed potentially unredeemable—and actively dangerous. In the early days of glasnost, stories of Stalin’s mass murders decades earlier slowly bubbled to the fore, but those generally receded, so far removed were they from everyday life. After Chernobyl, though, every citizen’s safety was at stake.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The left wing lunatics are revising history… again…
mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 4:24 PM
It was a symptom and a manifestation of the failings of the system: incompetence, bureaucratic sclerosis, as$-covering instead of solving the crisis. The Soviet system was already on the course to collapse, but it was emblematic of how rotted out the entire system had become.
Ted Torgerson on January 26, 2013 at 4:27 PM
No, the Soviet Union caused Chernobyl to explode.
steebo77 on January 26, 2013 at 4:27 PM
If only she had facts and data to support that narative… On second thought, what difference does it make!
elfman on January 26, 2013 at 4:30 PM
Exactly! Stalin’s regime was put under the spotlight as early as the Khrushchev years.
OldEnglish on January 26, 2013 at 4:38 PM
Hey, all “historians” are Leftists to begin with.
I could just as easily make a case for Russia’s shootdown of KAL 007 in 1983 having hastened their demise, but that would also be somewhat of a stretch.
One of the Slate commenters makes a very good point:
Another poster expands on this:
Del Dolemonte on January 26, 2013 at 4:38 PM
Communism caused the Soviet Union to Fail. The idea of from each according to their ability and to each according to their need sapped any good work ethic anyone might have been born with quickly. This lack of good work ethics made Chernobyl happen. This lack of good morals made it impossible to react properly to Chernobyl once it occurred. Lacking a Chernobyl, the Soviet Union still would have collapsed, they had long previously ran out of other people’s money.
astonerii on January 26, 2013 at 4:46 PM
But ask yourself why did an incident in 2011 with German spouts that killed more people than Chernobyl not cause a meltdown in Germany and the rest of Europe? In fact, the death toll every year from organic fruits and vegetables exceeds the death toll from Chernobyl. The difference is the media hype.
Studies from Fukushima, Japan have come to the conclusion that the primary impact to public health from the three nuclear meltdowns is going to be psychological due to unfounded media hype fanning public fear. The actual events themselves resulted in a death toll of zero and there are expected to be no health consequences from the incident. No workers have been injured or sickened as a result of radiation yet the people have been absolutely traumatized by the news media.
crosspatch on January 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Using Gorbachev’s self-serving claim (my ideas were right and Chernobyl, just proved it) is absurd. Gorby was just like any other oppressive, monster ever in charge of the USSR. He wanted to keep the people oppressed and he tried whatever he could to do so. He failed. This revisionist history that paints Gorby as some hero is disgusting.
Warner Todd Huston on January 26, 2013 at 4:52 PM
After years of studying Russian history, I don’t know if it was Chernobyl. I only know two things: it definitely isn’t because Communism is an unsustainable ideology that fosters widespread poverty and hampers initiative, and it sure as hell had nothing to do with that Reagan guy. (Really, screw him.)
/s
Gingotts on January 26, 2013 at 5:07 PM
I’m sure that Marx would find it amusing that hardline communists are called “conservatives.”
Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 5:12 PM
Have you ever read “Last Exit to Utopia” by Jean-François Revel? In it, Revel documented the European Left’s reaction to the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall. If not, I highly recommend it. According to European intelligentsia, the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc does not prove that Socialism/Communism is a failure and unworkable. In fact, it proves the exact opposite. You see, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Krushchev, Tito, Rákosi, Brezhnev, Ceaușescu, Nagy, Dubček, Honecker, etc., all “perverted” Marxism.
“Real Marxism has never been tried!” they argue, so how could it have failed?
Great book. Worth a tumble, especially if you are interested in the European perspective.
Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 5:16 PM
LOL of course it was. When the pilgrims came to America, it was a one for all and all for one thing. People were “sick” and lazy and always in “need” and the new settlement was doomed to die off… Then they allowed some degree of personal ownership, and…
astonerii on January 26, 2013 at 5:22 PM
Well, that and the Communism…
catmman on January 26, 2013 at 5:24 PM
First, notice the quotation marks:
“Real Marxism has never been tried!”
Then, the two words after the phrase “Real Marxism has never been tried!”:
“…they argue…”
It is not my position. It is the fanciful theory of the European Left. To them, all “Marxist, communist and socialist” leaders up until the USSR collapsed and the Berlin Wall fell, were not really “Marxists, communists and socialists.” They PERVERTED Marx’s beautiful theory.
So, to the European Left, if all “Marxists, communists and socialists” were really Stalinists, Maoists, etc, whose leaders corrupted Marxism for their own benefit or because of their corruption, how can anyone claim that Marxism/communism has failed? Something cannot fail if it has yet to be tried.
This is NOT my belief. It is what the hard Left in Europe believes.
I’m sort of reminded of the Wicked Witch of the West:
We are the “good” little girl. The water is our so-called propaganda about Marxism, communism, the Soviet Union, Stalin, Mao, etc, and their failures. “Beautiful wickedness” is, ironically, their “liberté, égalité, et fraternité.” Thus, Marxism has never truly been tried, Stalin “perverted” Marx’s theory of “beautiful wickedness,” and we are lying when we claim that communism always fails. It is almost like a 1990s version of “It’s Bush’s fault and stop lying about my record!”
Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 5:55 PM
That figures. A fully indoctrinated, historical ignoramus desperate to find an explanation for communist failure other than communism itself.
RadClown on January 26, 2013 at 5:59 PM
Sorry, did not intend to make it seem as though you were on the other side of the equation. Was just saying, even if they can argue it was perverted, the kind that I identified was not.
astonerii on January 26, 2013 at 6:02 PM
When Iran’s nuclear plant has a melt down they will look back and say “if only they did not use surplus Soviet parts it would have worked” And saved the Ayatollah from the crimes against humanity tribunal and the whole Islamic republic from collapse or something.
tjexcite on January 26, 2013 at 6:11 PM
Communism destroyed the Soviet Union. It would have failed no matter what. However, Reagan speeded along the process with a plan that actively undermined the Soviets. He forced them to compete in an arms race when the country was already on financially shaky ground and worked with the Saudis to keep oil prices extremely low, taking away a lucrative source of income. These and other measures in addition to the war in Afghanistan killed any hopes of survival.
ReaganWasRight on January 26, 2013 at 6:43 PM
That is so true, RWR. I often wonder how much sooner the USSR would have fallen and how many fewer lives would have been ruined or lost if the New York Times, to name just one example, had been on our side rather than Stalin’s?
Knott Buyinit on January 26, 2013 at 7:21 PM