XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   XPost: soc.culture.nordic, soc.culture.baltics   
   From: anton.usenet@gmail.com   
      
   James A. Donald kirjoitti:   
   > James A. Donald:   
   >>>>> The Hungarians tried on stuff that had previously   
   >>>>> led to war. They took risk of war.  When war did   
   >>>>> not eventuate, everyone joined in.   
   >   
   > Anton   
   >>>> Tell us something we don't know.   
   >   
   > James A. Donald :   
   >>> To spell it out for you.  The risk of war was less   
   >>> because the Soviets had already suffered some   
   >>> military defeats, and the possibility of winning the   
   >>> war, should war ensue, was greater.   
   >>>   
   >>> Thus the military defeats the Soviets suffered   
   >>> encouraged the Hungarians to defy the Soviets.   
   >   
   > Anton   
   >> Again you are talking without knowing the facts:   
   >> Hungary happened in *1956*, and that particular   
   >> rebellion was crushed.   
      
   > In May 1988, immediately after the Soviet withdrawal   
   > from Afghanistan began, Hungary had another go at doing   
   > the things it tried in 1956 - they took a big risk of   
   > war, but this time was not crushed.   
      
   > They reason they were willing to take this risk is that   
   > they judged that war was less likely, and if war ensued,   
   > victory more feasible.  They took this gamble within   
   > days of the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan   
   > beginning.  The connection is direct and obvious.   
      
   Pure speculation. The Soviets still had enough muscle to hit the   
   civilians in eastern europe hard - if they had wanted to. I'd say the   
   effect of pulling out was the opposite: pulling out from Afghanistan   
   meant that they had battle exeprienced forces they could have sent to   
   europe to quell those uprisings.   
      
   The most logial explanation why the Soviet system and its satellites   
   fell is that enough people started disbelieving - including the soldiers   
   and the leadership. Soldiers were reluctant to shoot unarmed civilians.   
   Leaders were reluctant to give soldiers orders to shoot unarmed civilians.   
      
   When radical ideologists have long enough monopoly to power in a country   
   more and more "normal" non-radical elements join the power structure and   
   its institutions for pragmatic reasons. In other words: socialism fell   
   from within, because non-socialists had no alternative party to join and   
   no other options for career paths than those that the socialist system   
   offered. Non-socialists of course have little motive to preserve the   
   system to all costs.   
      
   Also: as the new generation did not experience the revolution and the   
   civil war in Russia, Stalin's purges and mass doprtations, the WWII, the   
   system had a younger generation that did not see violance being the   
   means of settling all political disputes. Hence people at both ends of   
   the gun had reasons to seriously believe in a possible outcome that did   
   not include any shooting of humans.   
      
   --   
   Anton   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)