Present Realities:
You said: "The last leaders of the late Soviet Union did not have the desire to kill millions of their own people."
The historical record, and my interpretation of it:
<On March 11, 1990 Supreme Council of Lithuanian SSR announced independence and restored Republic of Lithuania anexed by Soviet Union in 1940...... Economic blocade of Lithuania was announced by USSR. On January 13, 1991 Soviet troops attacked the main TV center, which left 15 dead and hundreds wounded. On January 20, more Soviet troops clashed with Latvians in Riga, leaving five dead. Not only did the world take notice, but hundreds of thousands of Soviets protested the actions of their own government.>
russianet.ru
Because (and only because) of the non-violent protests of those masses of un-armed Soviet people, their government had to stop these Stalinist methods of keeping the Empire intact.
<On March 28, Yeltsin announced he would hold a "rally of support" in Moscow. Interior Minister Pugo called it a "challenge to the authority of Gorbachev" with a "bunch of neo-Bolsheviks wanting to storm the Kremlin." Gorbachev immediately banned the demonstration and renewed censorship of the print and television media, but the people attended the protest anyway. Gorbachev sent in troops to control the rally, which took place without incident. One of Gorbachev's aides stated, "March 28 was the turning point for Mikhail Sergeyevich. He went to the abyss, looked over the edge, was horrified of what he saw, and backed away."> (same site)
Banning demonstrations, censorship, these are the tools that an ex-KGB chief like Gorbachev would habitually use. But the Revolution continued, not because the government wouldn't use the tools of repression, but because the people, huge numbers of them, protested anyway. The whole point of non-violent protest, is to bring your opponent to that moment, when he "looks into the abyss" and is horrified. And then backs down. And, yes, an uncertain number of people will die, bringing the Stalins and Khomeinis of the world to that abyss. That's the cost, that's the risk. I grant you, the risk is high. But is it any less risky a strategy, than threatening N. Korea with Pre-emption and Regime Change? Is it any less risky, than backing paranoids with WMD like Kim and Saddam into a corner and threatening their lives?
The crucial time and place in the destruction of the Soviet Union, the "cusp" event where the Communists made their last and strongest attempt to maintain their power by force, was August 1991 in the streets of Moscow:
<Tanks roll into Moscow and occupy strategic positions. Emergency law is imposed and many newspapers closed.>
news.bbc.co.uk
<Thousands of people all over Moscow gathered their courage and went out into the streets surrounded the tanks and greeted the soldiers in the tanks with cakes, cigarettes and roses and entered into dialogue with them. People
knocked on the tanks and said to the soldiers, "Why are you here? Who gave you orders to bring these tanks into Moscow? Why are you going to shoot on people? Who are you going to shoot?" Mothers and girls gave the soldiers food, kisses and flowers and asked them not to kill their mothers and brothers and sisters. One friend distributed roses to the soldiers, gave them hugs and told them "Don't shoot! Be kind to the people!" Faced with this kind of interaction with the people they had been ordered to attack, the soldiers became very dispirited.
A friend, Valya (who had a young daughter) and her mother, felt it was crucial to be at the barricades to nonviolently resist the military attack against the parliament building. They believed that whoever was at the barricades at the time of the military attack would be killed. But they knew that this was a critical moment in history, and they had found something they were willing to die for. Valya and her mother took turns at the "White House" (parliament building) so that if one of them were killed, the other would be left to bring up Valya's daughter.
Between 10,000 and 40,000 people like Valya and her mother surrounded the Russia parliament building for three days and nights, August 19 - 21, much of this time in driving rain. They linked arms, forming a nonviolent human barricade between the parliament building and the thousands of Soviet tanks and tens of thousands of soldiers who had been ordered into Moscow to defend the "new order" of the coup leaders. The people called themselves the "Living Ring">
uq.net.au
<"People were not afraid to approach the tanks; in fact, they were even throwing themselves under them. They weren't afraid — although they were Soviet people.”—Yeltsin>
cicentre.com
<The road was clogged with tanks and filling up with people. Babushkas, Russian grandmothers, were approaching the soldiers on top of the tanks and armored personnel carriers, asking them, "Why are you here?" I heard one ask, "Does your mother know you're doing this?" I kept running, but I knew as I heard the soldiers' confused replies that something wasn't quite right with this coup. The so-called "committee" didn't seem to have the military, at least the foot soldiers, firmly behind it. >
cnn.com
<Shortly after midnight on Wednesday morning, 30 tanks and 40 armored personnel carriers, along with 1,000 troops, approached the barricades surrounding the White House under orders to storm it. In the skirmishes that ensued the troops set several vehicles ablaze, and in the brief fighting three civilians died. But in the end most soldiers proved unwilling to fire on the crowds.>
policy.house.gov
<By nightfall, dozens of army tanks had defected to join protesters gathered outside the Russian Federation parliament building>
washingtonpost.com
<One top officer refused to send fighter bombers against the (Russian Parliament) building.>
news.bbc.co.uk
<At one point during the coup, we heard the (coup) committee wanted to shut us (anti-coup TV station) down. But technicians at Soviet TV, which supplied our satellite uplink, later told us they had questioned the paperwork, sending it back for more signatures. Low-level workers were defying the coup leaders.>
cnn.com
<The head of the KGB said that they could destroy and eliminate the opposition at the White House in about thirty minutes. Because there were indications that they could not count on the regular soldiers, the coup leaders ordered one of the most trusted elite KGB tank subdivisions with fifty tanks from Byelorussia to come to Moscow to attack the White House and capture or kill Yeltsin and the Russian parliament leaders. When the parliament members heard about the impending attack, some of them travelled to the edge of Moscow and met with the KGB troops. When the KGB troops heard they would have to kill hundreds or even thousands of civilians to fulfil their mission, they refused orders to carry out the attack.>
uq.net.au
<August 20. By mid-day, over 150,000 citizens had gathered in Moscow to protest the coup. In Leningrad, some 250,000 protestors voiced their disapproval of the Gang of Eight. The Emergency Committee attempted to place a curfew on Moscow. This was ignored.>
rispubs.com
<As the coup plotters realised that the will of the people was against them, and that the troops would not fire on their own people, their resolve simply seemed to dissolve.>
news.bbc.co.uk
<"I will not be another Pinochet. I am sorry I ever got mixed up in this business.” -- Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov after consenting to pull the tanks out of Moscow>
cicentre.com
The failure of the coup, had nothing to do with Communists, after 70 years, suddenly becoming pacifists. Right up to the end, to the last of their ability, the Communists were willing to kill to maintain power. They tried every lever they had, every Stalinist method, to clear the streets.
But a Stalin is just one man, who has only two hands and two eyes. A Stalin has immense power, only because millions of people are willing to act as his hands and eyes. The moment they say, "you can have our lives, but not our obedience", then a Stalin loses all power. The moment the soldiers look down the sights of their machine guns, and see fellow human beings, the Revolution has won. Gandhi's methods rely entirely on the discipline of the protesters, and appealing to the "angel buried within the devil" of the oppressor's "hands and eyes" (not the oppressor himself, a crucial distinction). Gandhi expected the Opposition leadership to be willing, even eager, to use violence to hold on to power, to the bitter end.
By the way, those who think Gandhi won in India because the Brits were "sissies", believe an a-historical romantic Anglo self-view. The Brits in India were brutal and profoundly racist, seeing the Indians as a genetically inferior race. They used violence habitually, reflexively, often as a first resort, to preserve their power. Gandhi said it best: British rule in India is Ravanarajya, which means "The Kingdom of the Devil on Earth."
For example, the Massacre at Amritsar:
<on the afternoon of April 13, 1919, some 10,000 or more unarmed men, women, and children gathered in Amritsar's Jallianwala Bagh (bagh, "garden"; but before 1919 it had become a public square) to attend a protest meeting, despite a ban on public assemblies. It was a Sunday, and many neighbouring village peasants also came to Amritsar to celebrate the Hindu Baisakhi Spring Festival. Dyer positioned his men at the sole, narrow passageway of the Bagh, which was otherwise entirely enclosed by the backs of abutted brick buildings. Giving no word of warning, he ordered 50 soldiers to fire into the gathering, and for 10 to 15 minutes 1,650 rounds of ammunition were unloaded into the screaming, terrified crowd, some of whom were trampled by those desperately trying to escape. According to official estimates, nearly 400 civilians were killed, and another 1,200 were left wounded with no medical attention. Dyer, who argued his action was necessary to produce a "moral and widespread effect," admitted that the firing would have continued had more ammunition been available.>
onwar.com
original post in this discussion:
Message 18677444 |
