I’ll add from the USSR side - I don’t know how it is in Poland, but Western European cinema was extremely in demand in the Soviet Union (again due to its low cost). As a result, there are examples when famous French and Italian actors could be practically unknown in the USA, but were megastars in the USSR (Louis de Funes as the most striking example).
Crisis in the Kremlin - Our 1982 USSR
- Thread starter panpiotr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1980's communism soviet union ussr
Can you post images on Imgur for example? Or in what format is the first map posted?
Last edited:
I always editet the same file, so no idea if, when or how the format changed?
Will have to see what I can do about that
15 Largest economies by GDP (1987)
1. United States - $5,055,200M
2. USSR - $2,899,250M
3. Japan - $2,624,339M
4. West Germany - $1,204,861M
5. France - $955,117M
6. United Kingdom - $831,430M
7. Italy - $828,203M
8. Canada - $444,410M
9. China - $377,728M
10. Spain - $321,389M
11. India - $293,750M
12. Brazil - $292,239M
13. Iran- $281,019M
14. Netherlands- $250,928M
15. Australia - $218,141M
2. USSR - $2,899,250M
3. Japan - $2,624,339M
4. West Germany - $1,204,861M
5. France - $955,117M
6. United Kingdom - $831,430M
7. Italy - $828,203M
8. Canada - $444,410M
9. China - $377,728M
10. Spain - $321,389M
11. India - $293,750M
12. Brazil - $292,239M
13. Iran- $281,019M
14. Netherlands- $250,928M
15. Australia - $218,141M
Ok comrades, a new statistics is up and there are good and bad news. The good news is that the Soviet economy is in a healthy manner, and the bad is that the United States and American allies in Western Europe and Asia are developing even quicker than the USSR thanks to technological supremacy and the structural advantage (open access to the world market, while the USSR is excluded from it).
Last edited:
How are pur mixed economy reforms going? We need those in order to cut burocracy abd lessen the burden on the state.
Not to mention it would go a long way in allowing us access to world market. But really we should think about lessening our direct influence over Eastern Europe and replacing it with economic and ideological influence (soft power) as them being Soviet satellites is major point of clash with the West.
This is of course process in making.
Last edited:
It doing good, but our current big tent coalition means that we are doing a little bit of everything when it comes to economy, which hampers the full economic potential of the USSR.
Yeah, I think that every faction realizes that access to the world market for the USSR is a top priority right now, but the question is how we can convince the United States to allow us to join it, without giving up the Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, the current consensus (excluding Gorby and the reformists) is that the Soviet control over Eastern Europe is much more important for the USSR than the access to the world market.
That indeed is a hard decision, but our policy makers need to understand that direct control not only hinder's economic development of the union, but it also discredits Communist parties of those state's as populations of Eastern Europe see's them as Soviet puppets.
Really some strategic autonomy should be fine as long as they are members of WP and have Communist governments with USSR taking the role of ideological older brother/sister in the family.
On a good note, it seems our GDP is greater than otl Soviet gdp in 1989 (2,659,500). Which is nice.
Last edited:
Yes, but Romanov will maintain the current coalition in place until all of his reforms are implemented, so it's around 1992. Then he retires, and the next leader chosen by the readers will follow his own political and economic vision.
The planned economies of the Eastern Bloc are not managed by the USSR, they are administered by those countries independently. Every nation sets separate plans. Though unified planning does exist it's limited in scale and is akin to EU funding or legislation. Central Planning is not seen as an extension of Soviet power, those who take issue with it often rather have an issue with Socialism as a whole before they take issue with Soviet power.
I was referring more to Soviet extensive control over those countries policies opposed to direct control Soviet have over those countries.
Good comparison is level of independence Romania has over the level other countries have. But yea i do agree that underlying problem doesn't lie in level of Soviet control over those countries opposed to , well there being a communist block of countries under Soviet leadership and honestly eastern Europe is something we probably won't give up. Not even Eastern Germany if you ask me.
Really reforming to mixed economic model and creating our own trade networks independent of the US control is viable choice. It's something China is striving to do today after all and it's far better for us if we bypass US dollar. We don't need to replace US dollar and oust it as much as create alternative for our own needs.
A. It will score points in foreign circles, though some effort should be made for Sakharov to make a free declaration that he feels comfortable to do so only due to the reforms pursued by Comrade Romanov. Allow him to choose his words for it, but the intent should serve our purposes for domestic consumption as well.
The Americans have set out a trap for us with clause e). If we accept it, we give up a strategic asset for, at best, a commitment to a white paper project that will doubtless cost us a serious investment of our economic ability before any return is seen. If we deny it, we are the people who would rather hold onto a weapon to end the world than provide all of humanity with clean free energy. To the perceptions of Washington, it is a win:win scenario, something that foolish cowboy of a president probably picked up from a movie somewhere.
Instead, we need to twist their arms and make it so that it is not so clean cut, and that means using the best of our abilities, and the weaknesses of theirs against them. To begin with, we publicly state that we wish to consult with the people on such a monumental accord, indeed we could go so far as to seem to be preparing to allow the People themselves to vote on it in a national referendum. However the planning of such a vote would be left to the worst excesses of our bureaucracy and legal minds to now take every opportunity that they can to slow down and delay the exact date that such a vote will happen. If the Americans are such fans of democracy, surely they can not blame us wanting to allow it to decide this matter?
And while this happens though, we take advantage of the inherent greed of the capitalists themselves. What, pray tell, would the major American oil and fuel industries think of the prospect of clean free power? While it would serve our system greatly, it would be cutting the throats of the capitalists, and they should be doing everything in their power to make sure their puppets in Washington do not allow for such a possible future to come to pass. We should, through all back channels and intermediaries that we possess, do everything we can to make it so that the Americans, not ourselves, are forced to renegotiate clause e). When the outcry is in place and the opportunity presents itself, we put forward as the reasonable party and offer to get rid of Poseiden in return for SDI, to make a safer world for all.
Detente through deception.
A though naturally only after passing certain standards and practices of course. I do echo Comrade @Altlov in that some sort of cultural exchange should be sought, and also the previously suggested idea of approaching non-Western film industries as well to encourage a more multi-cultural view of world cinema to the Soviet people.
I vote for Egon Krenz as well.
I support the carrot and stick approach. Raise up the conditions of the Western Ukrainians and reiterate to them their place in the great Soviet project, while also cracking down on the worst of the dissenters.
I also support the method that allows for it to go ahead with the lion's share of the economic benefit to go to the Estonians themselves. If large scale protests continue, however, I support stepping back on this in return for some other benefit to our rule in Estonia.
I agree with @Kriss proposal.
While the creeping influence of the revisionists of Mao and Trotsky should be prevented, there is great benefit to be made from discourse with the youth and students. Not all they suggest should be accepted, but they may make us better aware of areas of fault that must be addressed that we are unaware of at this time. Some token dismissals and appointments can probably be made, and with them easily gaining the support of the next generation of the Soviet People.
-edit-
It should also be of utmost importance that the issue of the Americans learning of Poseidon be identified and compromised to a permanent end.
Last edited:
Pangur
Donor
1. Should Andrei Sakharov be allowed to return to Moscow with his wife?
A) Yes, why ever not we amyscore diplomatic points with the West and we can keep an eye on him
2. Should be the agreement reached with the Americans in Reykjavík respected and implemented by the Soviet government?
C) Out right rejection, we get way to litle and give up way to much
3. Should be the Western film allowed to be screened in the USSR and Eastern Bloc?
A) Yes, but lets be careful whats shown
4. Please write down who should be the next leader of East Germany?
I have no idea who`s who . I see them all as Hitlerites hiding in public
5. Please write down how should the Soviet government react to rise of nationalist movement in Western Ukraine?
Suppress and surveil. If we dont the work we have done in regards to the status of local republics will be lost. This group is another incarnation of the UPA
6. Please write down how should the Soviet government to the ongoing Phosphorite War in Estonian SSR?
I`ll go with the plan by @Kriss.
7. Please write down how should the Soviet government deal with ongoing tensions between China and India, as well as Sino - Indian border disputes?
Stay out of it and try negociate an agreement.
8. Please write down how should the Soviet government deal with the rise of the NCPSU and the New Left among the younger population and students across the USSR?
Let them be but watch them carefully
A. Concur with @Rinasoir on this point, and with others on still maintaining light surveillance on him.
Again I concur with Rinasoir. We have just shown Soviet Democracy in action and this would officially be another chance to showcase the same. Additionally, we can use American greed to entice companies to potentially set up shop in Siberia to help us with our hydrocarbon extraction in a vague, to be defined SEZ. Of course we shall not do this, but we will attempt to learn as much as we can from these companies in the meantime. And if this backdoor information were to ever leak out into American media - well, even their corrupt press gets things right from time to time. Also the KGB needs to be focused on finding out how information has reached the Americans.
A. We should also look to improve the quality of our films to potentially turn them into a source of foreign currency by selling those to Europe and the wider world.
Perhaps we can work with Indian cinema on some international love story which could end up being a crowd pleaser. We can make sure it is properly dubbed for maximum chances of success.
Egon Krenz seems good.
Carrot and stick as well. Attempts to elevate western Ukrainians through economic means should be coupled with rumours of Ukrainian protestors being influenced by Nazis to try to cast suspicion within and outside of Ukraine.
Lion's share of economic benefit to Estonians themselves coupled with incentives and support for Estonians who decide to work on the project to have large families. Showing we care in ensuring a growing Estonian population and somewhat preserving their demography will go a long way in calming tensions. This should also have an impact on productivity as we shall likely require fewer workers if they are properly motivated to do the job well and maintain the incentives offered to them. We should also learn from failures in Chernobyl and look to actively mitigate environmental damage. This can simply be done by addressing local concerns and discussing the issue with local miners who are often well-versed in the local landscape (OOC: miners in Europe actually have a reputation for being closet-environmentalists, we should use this). This will again show the locals the state cares, and take the fuel out for any future protest movement.
Honestly not much can be done here. We can, however, push for both parties to patrol their borders without firearms to ensure another. We can additionally push for the Shaksgam Tract to be given to India in exchange for India recognising Askai Chin as a part of China. This will likely be rejected but can be used to ensure a status quo on the borders while we push for the Chinese to cut support to the ongoing naxalite insurgency in India while pushing them to acknowledge Indian influence in Nepal and Bhutan. Although the naxalites are a communist movement, they are maoist and thus cannot be allowed to succeed. This should leave India sufficiently grateful to us, and if they need to spend less money fighting insurgents, then they can spend more money in buying Soviet arms.
I again concur with Rinasoir. Additionally, making sure this movement is active across the Soviet Union will allow us to ensure students are tied to the Soviet nationality and care more for the Soviet state as a whole as compared to the regional SSRs. But we need to encourage the NCPSU to join the bureaucracy and work through the system rather than looking to launch an armed struggle, which would both blunt the revolutionary edge and provide the party with new blood. Rinasoir's ideas on token appointments would be a good step for this. We should also implant the idea within these movements to adopt a teetotal or a low-alcohol lifestyle. This would be massively beneficial for the health of our people and the increase in productivity would more than offset the loss in alcohol revenue.
Last edited:
Chapter Twenty One: The Helsinki Accord and Operation Magistral (May 1987 - January 1988)
(Mikhail Gorbachev and Rajiv Gandhi after the Helsinki Accord was signed)
The nationalist incidents which occurred in Estonia and Western Ukraine were immediately addressed by the Soviet government. Starting with Western Ukraine, a campaign to suppress the independence and nationalist movements were conducted by the KGB. Furthermore, the Soviet government began a propaganda campaign that promoted the so-called "positive Ukrainian nationalism", which focused on close historical relations between Ukraine and Russia, who throughout shared history fought against enemies from the West like Germany, Poland or France. Another aspect of Moscow's campaign was an emphasis of development of Sovietized Ukrainian heritage and culture, which was a mix of communist and Ukrainian nationalist ideas and concepts. In response to the ongoing Phosphorite war in Estonia, the Soviet government reached an agreement with the protesters – the Soviet government pledged to scale down the plans for new mines without involving recruitment of workers from other Soviet republics, new environmental laws would be introduced, and all profits generated by the mines would remain in the Estonian SSR.
After much deliberation, General Secretary Romanov decided that Egon Krenz would become new leader of German Democratic Republic. With Romanov's total support, Krenz began a program of economic and political reorganization and restructurization with an overall aim of improving living standards of German citizens, as well as modernization and rejuvenation of the East German State, which was very positively received by German population. Andrei Sakharov was allowed to return to Moscow with his wife, where he would continue his scientific work, while stopping his political activism. Even though Sakharov remained under surveillance by the KGB, his return from exile was welcomed by the West. On the orders of General Secretary Romanov, a new faction within the CPSU was established, the "New Left" faction, which was a very loose alliance of Trotskyists, Maoists and syndicalists. Romanov with this move wanted to prevent further rise in popularity of such groups, and by permanently binding them to the Soviet government, such factions with time would stop be perceived as anti-establishment. Furthermore, the government allowed for more American, Western European and Japanese movies to be shown in Soviet cinemas, for as long as such movies were did not address political and ideological issues. As a gesture of goodwill, the U.S. President Ronald Reagan made a similar decision, allowing for the Soviet movies to be released on the American market, which resulted in closer cultural relations between the two superpowers.
At the end, as a result of the Reykjavík summit, the United States and the USSR reached a following agreement: a) the U.S. Would reduce its support to the Taliban only after Soviet forces leave Afghanistan in Spring of 1989; b) both United States and USSR would reduce their nuclear warheads stockpile by 25% (for USSR reduction from 24,000 to 18,000 warheads); c) formal communication channels between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would be established. Both superpowers couldn't find a common ground on topics of weaponization of outer space, the SDI and the Poseidon Program. Although both sides were not fully satisfied with the final negotiations results, they were welcomed by the United Nations and international community. The Helsinki Accord was a joint Soviet-American diplomatic triumph, that at least for now settled the border dispute between India and China. Initially, China rejected Soviet mediation offer, without involving the United States, while at the same time India was not willing to enter negotiations with China without presence of Soviet diplomats at the table. At the end, both President Reagan and General Secretary Romanov invited Deng Xiaoping and Rajiv Gandhi to Helsinki. As a result of negotiations between four leaders, an agreement was reached, which calmed down the situation between two most populous counties in the world: China gave up its territorial claims in eastern India and in exchange India officially recognized Chinese control of Aksai Chin. In the meantime, Pakistan refused entering any negotiations with India.
(Boris Yeltsin - rising star of the Soviet politics)
Thanks to recent political and economic reforms, Czechoslovakia and Hungary became the quickest developing countries in the Eastern Bloc. Czechoslovakia experienced high economic growth (averaging 7% per year), which allowed for a substantial increase in wages and living standards, as well as expansion of industry, agriculture and foreign trade, thus promoting the stability of the communist government. Meanwhile, Hungarian leader János Kádár fully embraced Goulash Communism, which brought positive changes for Hungarian population, as Hungary had the highest standard of living of all the Soviet bloc countries. In the meantime, two new players joined the Soviet leadership – Boris Yeltsin, a member of liberal faction, who became a deputy premier and chairman of State Committee for Construction and Investment. Gennady Zugyanov, a protégé of General Secretary Romanov, also entered the Soviet government as deputy premier and Minister of Communications.
The USS Stark incident occurred during the Iran–Iraq War on 17 May 1987 in Persian Gulf , when an Iraqi jet aircraft fired two Exocet missiles at the U.S. frigate USS Stark. A total of 37 United States Navy personnel were killed or later died as a result of the attack, and 21 were injured. USS Stark was part of the Middle East Task Force assigned to patrol off the Saudi Arabian coast near the Iran–Iraq War exclusion boundary. The United States Central Command identified the attacking aircraft as an Iraqi Dassault Mirage F1 fighter. Later reports asserted that the attacking aircraft was a Dassault Falcon 50 business jet which had been modified with a radar and missile hardpoints to carry two AM-39 Exocet missiles for anti-shipping operations. The F1EQ-5 variant of the Mirage F1 operated by Iraq was capable of carrying only one Exocet. Iraq had used modified Falcon jets in civilian markings to conduct covert photographic reconnaissance in the Persian Gulf to avoid attracting suspicion.
Initially not alarmed, at 22:09 Captain Glenn R. Brindel ordered a radioman to send the message: "Unknown aircraft, this is U.S. Navy warship on your 078 (degrees) for twelve miles. Request you identify yourself". The Iraqi pilot did not respond to the message. The ship's captain ordered a second message sent, to which there was no reply. At 22:10 Brindel was informed the Iraqi aircraft had targeted his ship, locking his Cyrano-IV fire-control radar onto Stark. The Iraqi aircraft then fired the first Exocet missile 22 mi (35 km) from the ship and the second Exocet from 15 mi (24 km); the pilot then banked left and began to withdraw. Stark's search radar, ESM and CIWS systems failed to detect the incoming missiles.The first Exocet missile struck the port side of the ship near the bridge. Although it failed to detonate, rocket fuel ignited and caused a large fire that quickly spread throughout the ship's post office, storeroom and the combat operations center (where the ship's weapons are controlled).
The second Exocet also struck the port side, 30 seconds later. This missile detonated, leaving a 10 by 15 ft (3.0 by 4.6 m) hole in the frigate's left side. Electronics for Stark's Standard Missile defense went out and Brindel could not order his men to return fire. An AWACS plane was still in the area and just after witnessing the attack, radioed a nearby Saudi Arabian airbase to send aircraft for an interception but the ground controllers did not have the authority to order a sortie and the Iraqi jet left unharmed. The US Navy's rules of engagement allowed Stark to defend herself after sufficiently warning the hostile aircraft. A total of 37 crew were killed in the attack, 29 from the initial explosion and fire, including two lost at sea. Eight later died from their injuries. Twenty-one others survived their wounds. Brindel ordered the starboard side flooded to keep the hole on the hull's port side above water. This helped prevent Stark from sinking. Brindel quickly dispatched a distress call after the first missile hit. It was received by USS Waddell, which was in the area and USS Conyngham with two-thirds of its crew on liberty in Bahrain. Waddell and Conyngham arrived to provide damage control and relief to Stark's crew. According to the Pentagon, an Iranian helicopter joined a Saudi Arabian vessel to aid in rescue operations.
Stark arrived at Bahrain the following day, 18 May 1987. There she was temporarily repaired by the destroyer tender USS Acadia before setting a course for Mayport Naval Station, Florida, the ship's home port. A court of inquiry under Rear Admiral Grant Sharp was formed to investigate the incident and later Captain Brindel was recommended for court-martial but was ultimately only reprimanded and relieved of duty. It was found that Stark was 2 miles (3.2 km) outside the exclusion zone and had not violated neutrality as the Iraqis claimed. Iraq apologized, and Saddam Hussein said that the pilot mistook Stark for an Iranian tanker. U.S. officials claimed that the Iraqi jet's pilot was not acting under orders from his government and that he was later executed, but an Iraqi Air Force officer later stated that the pilot was not punished and that he was still alive. According to Jean-Louis Bernard, author of "Heroes of Bagdad" T1 (Editions JPO 2017), the pilot, Abdul Rahman, would have received the medal of bravery at the end of a joint Iraqi-U.S. commission of inquiry. His subsequent defection to Iran is not mentioned in this book. Jean-Louis Bernard also confirms the use of a Falcon 50 during this action. Iranian Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi called it a "divine blessing" and reiterated the standard Iranian view that the Persian Gulf "is not a safe place for the superpowers and it is in their interest not to enter this quicksand". Iraq Foreign Ministry spokesman said Iraq would never intentionally attack any target in the Gulf unless it was Iranian, and laid the blame on Iran. Washington used the incident to pressure Iran, which it later blamed for the whole situation. President Ronald Reagan said "We've never considered them [Iraq's military] hostile at all", and "the villain in the piece is Iran". The Joint Chiefs of Staff investigation into the incident recommended that Iraq be held accountable, a finding the government of Iraq eventually complied with. Captain Brindel was relieved of duty and retired as a commander for not defending his ship, whilst tactical action officer Lieutenant Basil E. Moncrief resigned.
(President Reagan during his speech in West Berlin)
The Berlin Wall Speech was delivered by United States President Ronald Reagan in West Berlin on June 12, 1987. The speech is commonly known by a key line from the middle part: "Mr. Romanov, tear down this wall!" Reagan called for the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Grigory Romanov, to open the Berlin Wall, which had encircled West Berlin since 1961. The "tear down this wall" speech was not the first time Reagan had addressed the issue of the Berlin Wall. In a visit to West Berlin in June 1982, he stated, "I'd like to ask the Soviet leaders one question [...] Why is the wall there?". In 1986, 25 years after the construction of the wall, in response to West German newspaper Bild-Zeitung asking when he thought the wall could be removed, Reagan said, "I call upon those responsible to dismantle it [today].
On the day before Reagan's 1987 visit, 50,000 people had demonstrated against the presence of the American president in West Berlin. The city saw the largest police deployment in its history after World War II. During the visit itself, wide swaths of Berlin were closed off to prevent further anti-Reagan protests. The district of Kreuzberg, in particular, was targeted in this respect, with movement throughout this portion of the city in effect restrained completely (for instance the U1 U-Bahn line was shut down). About those demonstrators, Reagan said at the end of his speech: "I wonder if they ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they are doing again". The speech drew controversy within the Reagan administration, with several senior staffers and aides advising against the phrase, saying anything that might cause further East-West tensions should be omitted. American officials in West Germany and presidential speechwriters, including Peter Robinson, thought otherwise. According to an account by Robinson, he traveled to West Germany to inspect potential speech venues, and gained an overall sense that the majority of West Berliners opposed the wall. Despite getting little support for suggesting Reagan demand the wall's removal, Robinson kept the phrase in the speech text. On Monday, May 18, 1987, President Reagan met with his speechwriters and responded to the speech by saying, "I thought it was a good, solid draft." White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker objected, saying it sounded "extreme" and "unpresidential", and Deputy U.S. National Security Advisor Colin Powell agreed. Nevertheless, Reagan liked the passage, saying, "I think we'll leave it in."
Arriving in Berlin on Friday, June 12, 1987, Reagan and his wife were taken to the Reichstag where they viewed the wall from a balcony. Reagan then gave his speech at the Brandenburg Gate at 2:00 p.m., in front of two panes of bulletproof glass shielding him from East Berlin. Among the spectators were West German president Richard von Weizsäcker, chancellor Helmut Kohl, and West Berlin mayor Eberhard Diepgen. In the speech, he said:
We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Romanov, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
The Hirvepark meeting was a political demonstration held in Hirvepark, Estonia on 23 August 1987, on the anniversary of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. It was attended by an estimated 7,000 people, and was one of the first organized public demonstrations against the Estonian Communist Party. Participants demanded the public disclosure of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocols, along with the liquidation of the pact's consequences. The leaders of the meeting were members of MRP-AEG, the Estonian Group on Publication of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, an organisation dedicated to publishing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and its secret additional protocols.These included Tiit Madisson, Heiki Ahonen, Lagle Parek, and Erik Udam. The general public was notified of the meeting through the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, as well as orally. MRP-AEG also used the event to distribute the MRP-AEG Bulletin, an underground self-printed bulletin that contained the organisation's statements and political opinions, reviews of demonstrations and pickets, authority-led actions and repressions, as well as thematic articles, historical reviews, and memoirs. Its self-publication meant only those who came to the publishers directly or through acquaintances could obtain the bulletin. The protesters chanted slogans such as "publicise the Molotov–Ribbentrop conditions", "[the right of] self-determination for Baltic countries", "abolish the Molotov–Ribbentrop agreement", "Bring Stalinist executioners to justice", and "free Enn Tarto and Mart Niklus".
Coverage from Estonian SSR media platforms was immediate and critical. The demonstration was referred to as foreign interference in the USSR's internal affairs, and the forging of fascists - in newspapers, tabloid-esque articles appeared, in which Madisson, Parek and Mikku were depicted as simple 'thieves', 'crooks', and provocateurs that were distorting history.Due to their participation in the meeting, many MPR initiators were subjected to consequences and repressions by the KGB. Ultimately, the demonstration gathered a crowd of around 7,000 participants, that neither the authorities nor the organisers could have expected. For almost half a century, all political initiatives in Estonia had been under the complete control of the Communist Party and Hirvepark meeting was the first major public-initiated demonstration in the last 40 years.
The Battle of Cuito Cuanavale was fought intermittently between 14 August 1987 and 23 March 1988, south and east of the town of Cuito Cuanavale, Angola, by the People's Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola (FAPLA) and advisors and soldiers from Cuba, USSR, Vietnam, ANC and SWAPO against South Africa, and soldiers of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) during the Angolan Civil War and South African Border War. The battle was the largest engagement of the Angolan conflict and the biggest conventional battle on the African continent since World War II. UNITA and its South African allies defeated a major FAPLA offensive towards Mavinga, preserving the former's control of southern Angola. They proceeded to launch a failed counteroffensive on FAPLA defensive positions around the Tumpo River east of Cuito Cuanavale. Following a number of failed attempts to take the settlements in 1986, eight FAPLA brigades mustered for a final offensive—Operação Saludando Octubre—in August 1987 with extensive auxiliary support from one of Angola's closest military allies, the Soviet Union. The FAPLA offensive took the form of a two-pronged, multi-divisional movement southwards towards Mavinga, a major UNITA stronghold and logistics centre. Once Mavinga was in its hands, FAPLA intended to expel the remaining insurgents from Moxico Province and pave the way for a final assault on the UNITA headquarters at Jamba. The Soviet Union supplied FAPLA with over a billion dollars' worth of new military hardware for the purpose of this offensive, and between 4 and 9 Soviet advisers were attached to each FAPLA unit on the brigade level.
South Africa, which shared a common border with Angola through the contested territory of South West Africa (Namibia), was then determined to prevent FAPLA from gaining control of Mavinga and allowing insurgents of the People's Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN) to operate in the region. Saludando Octubre prompted the South African Defence Force (SADF) to underpin the defence of Mavinga and launch Operation Moduler with the objective of stopping FAPLA's advance. After weeks of preliminary skirmishes, the two armies met at the Lomba River on 6 September.Throughout September and October, the SADF repulsed several FAPLA attempts to cross the Lomba and destroyed most of the latter's vital bridging equipment. Repeated counterattacks by the SADF's 61 Mechanised Battalion Group resulted in the annihilation of FAPLA's 47 Brigade and the loss of its remaining bridgeheads, sending the remainder of the FAPLA units reeling back towards Cuito Cuanavale. During the second phase of the campaign, the SADF and UNITA made several unsuccessful attempts to encircle and destroy the surviving FAPLA forces before they could establish new defensive positions east of Cuito Cuanavale, an initiative known as Operation Hooper. However, FAPLA succeeded in concentrating its forces within a cramped perimeter between the Cuito, Tumpo, and Dala rivers known as the "Tumpo Triangle". Here they were protected by the terrain and by extensive minefields. They were also reinforced by a number of Cuban armoured and motorised units, who had become more directly committed to the fighting for the first time since the beginning of Cuba's military intervention in Angola in 1975.The SADF and UNITA launched six heavy assaults on the Tumpo Triangle under the auspices of Operation Packer. The defending FAPLA and Cuban troops held their lines in the Tumpo Triangle. The SADF and UNITA disengaged in March 1988, after laying a series of minefields southeast of Cuito Cuanavale to dissuade a renewed FAPLA offensive.
Both sides claimed victory. The Cuban and FAPLA defenders had interpreted the SADF's Tumpo Triangle campaign as part of a larger effort to seize the town of Cuito Cuanavale itself and presented their stand there as a successful defensive action. The SADF claimed that it had achieved its basic objectives of halting the FAPLA offensive during the Lomba River campaign without needing to occupy Cuito Cuanavale, which would have entailed unacceptable losses to its expeditionary force.
Black Monday (also known as Black Tuesday in some parts of the world due to timezone differences) was the global, severe and largely unexpected stock market crash on Monday, October 19, 1987. Worldwide losses were estimated at US$1.71 trillion. The severity of the crash sparked fears of extended economic instability or even a reprise of the Great Depression. Possible explanations for the initial fall in stock prices include a nervous fear that stocks were significantly overvalued and were certain to undergo a correction, persistent US trade and budget deficits, and rising interest rates. Another explanation for Black Monday comes from the decline of the dollar, followed by a lack of faith in governmental attempts to stop that decline.
In February 1987, leading industrial countries had signed the Louvre Accord, hoping that monetary policy coordination would stabilize international money markets, but doubts about the viability of the accord created a crisis of confidence. The fall may have been accelerated by portfolio insurance hedging (using computer-based models to buy or sell index futures in various stock market conditions) or a self-reinforcing contagion of fear. The degree to which the stock market crashes spread to the wider (or "real") economy was directly related to the monetary policy each nation pursued in response. The central banks of the United States, West Germany, and Japan provided market liquidity to prevent debt defaults among financial institutions, and the impact on the real economy was relatively limited and short-lived. However, refusal to loosen monetary policy by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand had sharply negative and relatively long-term consequences for both its financial markets and real economy.
(Soviet troops preparing for Operation Magistral)
Operation Magistral was a Soviet Army military operation during the Soviet–Afghan War that began in late November 1987 and ended in early January 1988. The operation was launched to open the road from Gardez to Khost that had been blocked by Mujahideen forces and a local tribe for several months, in order to deliver supplies to the population and Afghan government troops in the besieged city on the Afghan–Pakistani border. The offensive was carried out by the 108th Motor Rifle Division and 201st Motor Rifle Division of the Soviet 40th Army, the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, the 345th Airborne Regiment and the 56th Airborne Brigade, and several Spetsnaz units. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan provided troops from its 8th, 11th, 12th, 14th and 25th infantry divisions and from the 15th Tank Brigade. The DRA forces were commanded by Major-General Shahnawaz Tanai.
The ground offensive began after weeks of failed negotiations with the Jadran tribe and Mujahideen commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, who had numerous bases in the region and hoped that Khost would eventually fall into their hands which would allow them to proclaim the first territorial stronghold in Afghanistan independent of the pro-Kremlin regime in Kabul. Special units of the 40th Army conducted a massive propaganda campaign using radio broadcasts and distributing thousands of leaflets, calling on the Jadran tribe to retreat and the local population to leave the area. The initial phase of the operation began on 19 November with an offensive carried out principally by Afghan troops, in order to clear the plains around Gardez, before moving into mountainous areas. By 28 November, they had cleared Ghalgai, Dara, and Saruti Kandau at the base of the Shabak Khel valley, while a flanking force made its way into the Kanai valley. On 30 November, a force of 900 Afghan commandos were airlifted into Shabak Khel valley. Heavy fighting also broke out in the neighbouring Kanai valley where DRA troops advanced slowly but surely, building defensive outposts as they went, and suffering from punishing Mujahideen counter-attacks that inflicted heavy losses. The Satukandav Pass, 30 km east of Gardez, was the main passage between Kabul and Khost. Here the Mujahideen placed their main blocking position, concentrating their forces and digging in anti-aircraft guns and other heavy weapons. To defend the approaches of the Satukandav, the Mujahideen deployed ten BM-12 multiple rocket launchers, and placed ZGU-1 anti-aircraft guns on every height. They had a plentiful supply of DShK machine guns, 75 and 82 mm recoilless rifles, and RPG-7 anti-tank rocket launchers. They also mined the opening of the pass to a depth of three kilometers, boasting that their position was impregnable.
Following the failure of the negotiations, an attack was launched on 28 November. In order to discover the enemy positions, Soviet Colonel General Boris Gromov ordered that dummy paratroopers be dropped near the pass. When the Mujahideen opened fire, Soviet reconnaissance aircraft were able to pinpoint their positions and direct airstrikes against them. This was followed by a four-hour artillery barrage. The first ground attack was carried out on 29 November by a motorised rifle regiment. The attack quickly bogged down under heavy fire and Mujahideen counter-attacks, and the Soviet force withdrew after suffering severe casualties.
On Gromov's orders, a new attack was launched on 1 December this time with an Airborne battalion and a battalion of Afghan Army commandos. These units succeeded in capturing the high ground above the pass. The Mujahideen, threatened with encirclement, beat a hasty retreat, abandoning most of their heavy weapons and equipment. The Soviet forces then launched several airborne attacks, though they were limited in this by the Mujahideen use of Stinger missiles. In a night attack, an airborne brigade was flown in by helicopters to capture Mirujan, at the southern end of the mountains on the Gardez-Khost road. Simultaneously, another brigade was airlifted into Khost and staged a breakout to rejoin the main force.
The Mujahideen, having lost control of the pass, realised that a conventional defence would only entail more losses for them, and they withdrew their main units from the path of the Soviet offensive. Beforehand, they laid mines on the road, and maintained a constant long-range fire with 107 mm rockets. They also sprang ambushes on Soviet units that ventured too far from the main force. In one such ambush, 24 Soviet paratroopers were killed. Despite this, the Soviet armoured columns made a slow but regular progress, entering Khost on 30 December. Soviet and DRA outposts were maintained to keep the Gardez-Khost road open.
(Riots in Brasov against the Romanian communist government)
The Rebellion of Brașov was a revolt against Nicolae Ceaușescu's economic policies in Communist Romania, which erupted on the day of the 1987 local election. Located in southeastern Transylvania, Brașov was Romania's most industrially developed city, with over 61% of labor participating in industry. A skilled working class emerged in the 1960s as the Communist government encouraged migrations from the more rural regions of Romania (such as Moldavia) to operate Brașov factories. Therefore, the industrial decline in Romania during the mid-1980s hit Brașov and its workers especially hard. Ceaușescu's debt reduction plan beginning in 1982 led to the collapse of the consumer market of the city. Money intended for food production and distribution was in turn diverted to debt payment to the Western Bloc. Therefore, the state rationed key foodstuff and consumer goods, leading to long lines for the most basic commodities. It is in this climate of economic depression and food shortages that the Brașov rebellion erupted on 15 November 1987.
Early on the morning of November 15, a local elections day, workers at the local Steagul Roșu plant (truck manufacturer) protested reduced salaries and the proposed elimination of 15,000 jobs in the city. Roughly 20,000 workers walked off the job and marched toward the Communist headquarters at the city center. Firstly, the demonstrators loudly expressed wage claims, then they shouted slogans like “Down with Ceaușescu!”, “Down with Communism!”, chanting anthems of the 1848 Revolution "Down with the Dictatorship" and "We want bread." Over 20,000 workers from the Brasov Tractor Factory, Hidromecanica factory and a number of townspeople joined the march. The combined mob sacked the headquarters building and city hall "throwing into the square portraits of Ceaușescu, and food from the well-stocked canteen." In a time of drastic food shortages, protesters were particularly angered to find festively prepared official buildings and food abundance in order to celebrate the local election victory. A massive bonfire of party records and propaganda burned for hours in the city square. By dusk, Securitate forces and the military surrounded the city center and disbanded the revolt by force. Though no one was killed, some 300 protesters were arrested. In the period that protesters were being detained they were tortured by state investigators (Miliție and Securitate). However, since the regime decided to play down the uprising as “isolated cases of hooliganism,” sentences were between 6 months and 3 years in prison, a relatively moderate penalty in the communist penal code, but they were deported to other cities around the country and not allowed to return to Brașov.
Though the Brașov Rebellion did not directly lead to revolution, it dealt a serious blow to the Ceaușescu regime, and its confidence in the trade unions. This revolt reflected what historian Dennis Deletant referred to as "Ceaușescu's inability to heed the warning signs of increasing labor unrest, plunging blindly forward with the same [economic] measures, seemingly indifferent to their consequences." Therefore, the Brașov Rebellion underscored the growing discontent among workers against the Ceaușescu regime; moreover, it foreshadowed the popular uprisings in Dezember 1989. In Dezember 1987, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced an official start of construction of Space Station Freedom, which was a a permanently crewed Earth-orbiting space station. The development cost would be US$15.3 billion. Two months later the Unites States, Japan, Canada and nine ESA member states signed an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) for its construction and utilization.
The First Intifada was a sustained series of protests and violent riots carried out by Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and Israel. It was motivated by collective Palestinian frustration over Israel's military occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as it approached a twenty-year mark, having begun after Israel's victory in the 1967 Arab–Israeli War. The intifada began on 9 December 1987, in the Jabalia refugee camp after an Israeli Defense Forces' (IDF) truck collided with a civilian car, killing four Palestinian workers, three of whom were from the Jabalia refugee camp. Palestinians charged that the collision was a deliberate response for the killing of an Israeli in Gaza days earlier. Israel denied that the crash, which came at time of heightened tensions, was intentional or coordinated. The Palestinian response was characterized by protests, civil disobedience, and violence. There was graffiti, barricading, and widespread throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails at the IDF and its infrastructure within the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These contrasted with civil efforts including general strikes, boycotts of Israeli Civil Administration institutions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, an economic boycott consisting of refusal to work in Israeli settlements on Israeli products, refusal to pay taxes, and refusal to drive Palestinian cars with Israeli licenses.
Israel deployed some 80,000 soldiers in response. Israeli countermeasures, which initially included the use of live rounds frequently in cases of riots, were criticized as disproportionate. The IDF's rules of engagement were also criticized as too liberally employing lethal force. Israel argued that violence from Palestinians necessitated a forceful response. In the first 13 months, 332 Palestinians and 12 Israelis were killed. Images of soldiers beating adolescents with clubs then led to the adoption of firing semi-lethal plastic bullets. In the intifada's first year, Israeli security forces killed 311 Palestinians, of which 53 were under the age of 17. Over six years the IDF killed an estimated 1,162–1,204 Palestinians. Among Israelis, 100 civilians and 60 IDF personnel were killed often by militants outside the control of the Intifada's UNLU, and more than 1,400 Israeli civilians and 1,700 soldiers were injured. Intra-Palestinian violence was also a prominent feature of the Intifada, with widespread executions of an estimated 822 Palestinians killed as alleged Israeli collaborators (1988–April 1994). At the time Israel reportedly obtained information from some 18,000 Palestinians who had been compromised, although fewer than half had any proven contact with the Israeli authorities.
The Battle for Hill 3234 was a successful defensive battle fought by the 9th Company of the 345th Independent Guards Airborne Regiment, Soviet Airborne Troops, in the Afghanistan against a force of some 250 Mujahideen rebels who were supported by several Pakistani mercenaries in early January 1988. Two of the soldiers killed, Vyacheslav Aleksandrov and Andrey Melnikov, were posthumously awarded the Gold Star of the Hero of the Soviet Union. All of the paratroopers in this battle were given the Order of the Red Banner and Order of the Red Star. In November 1987, the Soviet 40th Army under General Boris Gromov began Operation Magistral to open the road from Gardez to Khost near the Pakistani border. Khost had been cut off for months by mujahideen led by Jalaluddin Haqqani and had to be resupplied by air. Negotiations were undertaken with the local Jadran tribe as well as with Haqqani. These talks did not succeed, mostly due to the unshakable resolution of Haqqani who wanted to control the city as the core of his independent Afghan state and as a base for future incursions deeper into the country. Before the operation, there was also a widespread propaganda campaign, with a special radio station set up, calling on the Jadran people to cease supporting the mujahideen and leave the combat areas.
Even during the negotiations, a detailed operation plan was formed and the required forces put on alert. After talks finally collapsed, the offensive was set in motion. The operation involved the 108th and 201st Motor Rifle Divisions, as well as the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, the 345th Independent Guards Airborne Regiment, and the 56th Separate Air Assault Brigade. They were supported by five infantry divisions and a tank division of the Afghan government. Prior intelligence and aerial reconnaissance had identified a number of important fortified rebel held sites on the road between Kabul and Khost. Fortifications included a minefield with mines about 3 km deep, 10 BM-21 rocket launchers, numerous anti-aircraft guns and DShK heavy machine gun positions, recoilless guns, mortars, and RPGs. The rebels were well prepared for defense and made the main pass and the surrounding hills impenetrable. The Soviet command was aware that a direct attack would be suicidal and therefore decided to trick the rebels into revealing their positions. On 28 October 1987, a feint landing was made in the areas controlled by the mujahideen, throwing dressed up mannequins from the air. Due to this, a reconnaissance aircraft was able to transmit the coordinates of rebel positions to the air force and after several air strikes and a four-hour-long artillery barrage, Operation Magistral began. As the operation went on, Soviet commanders wanted to secure the entire section of the road from Gardez to Khost. One of the most important points was the nameless hill designated by its height of 3,234 metres (10,610 ft), which was assigned to the 9th company of the 345th Independent Guards Airborne Regiment led by Colonel Valery Vostrotin. The 39 man company landed on the hilltop on 7 January 1988, tasked with creating and holding a hilltop strong point from which to observe and control a long section of the road beneath and thus secure it for the safe passage of convoys.
Shortly after landing, the airborne troopers, who were well trained and experienced in Afghan conditions, started to take up positions which covered both the road and the uphill passages. Just as they had dug in, the mujahideen began their attack at 15:30 local time. The first wave included the use of recoilless guns and RPGs. After which, Soviet artillery replied, directed by the commander of the first platoon, Lt. Viktor Gagarin, via a radio. When rebel fire decreased, it was reasoned that it was the beginning of an infantry assault.The airborne troopers were attacked by a coordinated and well-armed force of between 200 and 250 mujahideen from two directions, indicating that the assailants may have been assisted by rebels trained in Pakistan. During the ensuing battle, the Soviet unit remained in communication with headquarters and received support from the command of the 40th Army in terms of artillery support, ammunition, reinforcements, and the eventual helicopter evacuation of the wounded.
The first attack on 7 January was followed by eleven more attacks until just before dawn on 8 January when the mujahideen retreated after suffering severe casualties, leaving Hill 3234 in the hands of the Soviet paratroopers. The exhausted and mostly wounded Soviets were nearly out of ammunition but continued to occupy the hill until the last convoy passed through the road below. These attacks continued until the following morning, at which point the Soviets were almost out of ammunition, had lost six paratroopers, and had another 28 wounded, 9 of them gravely. The Soviet forces lost (KIA) 6 men out of 39. The vast majority of the unit became casualties, with 28 of the remaining 33 being wounded in action. Two of the soldiers killed, Vyacheslav Alexandrovich Alexandrov and Andrey Alexandrovich Melnikov, were posthumously awarded the golden star of the Hero of the Soviet Union. All of the paratroopers in this battle were given the Order of the Red Banner and Order of the Red Star.
In the end of January 1988, Second General Secretary Dinmukhamed Kunaev announced his plan to retire from politics within 3 months time, which meant beginning a fight between various political factions within the CPSU for a such high political position. The final list of candidates presented to the General Secretary Romanov included the following names:
- Mikhail Gorbachev
- Eduard Shevardnadze
- Boris Shcherbina
- Gury Marchuk
- Victor Kulikov.
Last edited:
1. Who should be chosen as the new Second General Secretary of the CPSU?
a) Mikhail Gorbachev (Deputy Premier & Minister of Foreign Affairs/supported by the Reformists)
b) Eduard Shevardadze (First Deputy Premier/supported by Moderates and National Minorities)
c) Boris Shcherbina (Deputy Premier & Minister of Construction of the Oil and Gas Industries/supported by Conservatives)
d) Gury Marchuk (First Secretary of Komsolom/supported by Liberals)
e) Victor Kulikov (Minister of Defence/supported by Soviet Armed Forces)
2. Should the USSR begin a construction of Mir-2 space station?
A) Yes, it should be our priority
B) No, we can spend that money on other projects.
3. Please write down how should the USSR react to the ongoing unrest in Palestine?
4. Please write down how should the Soviet government react to the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale?
a) Mikhail Gorbachev (Deputy Premier & Minister of Foreign Affairs/supported by the Reformists)
b) Eduard Shevardadze (First Deputy Premier/supported by Moderates and National Minorities)
c) Boris Shcherbina (Deputy Premier & Minister of Construction of the Oil and Gas Industries/supported by Conservatives)
d) Gury Marchuk (First Secretary of Komsolom/supported by Liberals)
e) Victor Kulikov (Minister of Defence/supported by Soviet Armed Forces)
2. Should the USSR begin a construction of Mir-2 space station?
A) Yes, it should be our priority
B) No, we can spend that money on other projects.
3. Please write down how should the USSR react to the ongoing unrest in Palestine?
4. Please write down how should the Soviet government react to the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale?