The putsch of August 1991 practically determined the end of the life cycle of the former Soviet Union. In this regard, the given putsch meant a fatal destructive factor for the Union. And it couldn’t have happened in a different way as a series of such factors that were fatal for the USSR existed during about the 70 years of its existence. Moreover, the USSR was born in 1917 out of such a putsch that predetermined its dishonorable end the day the state was born. Was that amalgam of putsches an accident or a rule for the existence and disappearance of that state and for other states built according to similar principles? Did the two putsches have similar or dissimilar features? What should be done for the era of putsches to remain in the past? These and other issues were discussed by experts invited to IPN’s public debate “USSR: Born and Destroyed by Putsches”.
The permanent expert of IPN’s project Igor Boțan said that “putsch” means a coup, which is violent taking over of power in the state that is inevitably accompanied by the violation of the constitutional norms and laws in force at that moment, usually with the use of force in order to seize the central government and to physically isolate the legally named leaders. “In political terminology, the concept “revolution” is applied to mass events, accompanied by fundamental social changes, while “coup” means violent replacement of the senior administration by a relatively narrow group of people. So, the revolution lasts longer, while the putsch is a shorter event,” stated the expert.
Igor Boțan noted that the Bolsheviks and their allies named particular events of October 1917 a “revolution”, while other times called this a “coup”. In the meeting of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, held on October 25 (November 7, 1917), Lenin announced that the workers’ and peasants’ revolution about whose necessity the Bolsheviks spoke occurred. One of the sections of an article written by Stalin on the occasion of the first anniversary of the October putsch (1918) was entitled “About October coup”. During the first decade after the revolution, it was often called the October Revolution. Towards the end of the 1930s, the name of the Great October Socialist Revolution was stipulated in the official Soviet historiography.
According to the expert, the putsch of August 1991 – the events of August 18-21, 1991 in the Soviet Union - were described by the Soviet authorities and officials as “conspiracy”, “coup” and “unconstitutional takeover”. The members of the State Committee on the State of Emergency attempted to hamper the signing of the Union Treaty planned for August 20. The coup led to the definitive discrediting of the allied authorities and the Communist Party. The State Committee on the State of Emergency was a self-styled authority that existed between August 18 and August 21. The official motivation was that only 9 of the 15 Soviet republics agreed to sign the new treaty.
Vice president of “Alexandru Moșanu” Association of Historians of Moldova Ion Negrei said the putsches do not happen out of the blue, but are a consequence of particular realities. The realities when the Bolshevik putsch occurred in Russia in October 1917 were that the whole world was engaged in a war. World War I went into its fourth year already and all the countries were embraced. There was general dissatisfaction among soldiers, workers, peasants as the war continued with considerable destruction, casualties and other consequences.
“In Russia, those things became very pronounced and worsened as a result of a revolution. Before the putsch of October 1917, a Bourgeois-democratic revolution occurred in Russia – the February revolution. The autocratic, monarchic regime in Russia was removed and a democratic regime tending to be liberal was established even if the majority were social revolutionaries. The event produced a colossal effect in the world – the last, Russian empire that was so harsh and lasted for so long – fell on one sixth of the globe’s territory. Those developments were welcomed in Russia and also outside it, by nations,” stated the historian.
Ion Negrei noted that the nations that didn’t form part of the Russian Empire felt a relief as they could decide by themselves their national, political, cultural life. Those things led to a release of energies against the background of dissatisfaction, war, poverty. “That democratic path didn’t suit many persons and a part of society welcomed it, while another part didn’t welcome it. Surely, the administration installed after the revolution of February 1917 was weak. One could not immediately establish a liberal, democratic regime in conditions of war and in a former monarchic society and maintain that process and deliver results. The expectations were big, while the results were insignificant. The Bolsheviks used the crisis created by the provisional government and triggered an overthrow in October,” said the historian.
Ion Negrei also said that a Government of people’s commissars led by Lenin was constituted – a government created by a coup, which didn’t enjoy popular support. To improve the image of this inside and outside, they used different notions that are inappropriate for a putsch, which they called “revolution” and then named it the Great October Revolution in order to make a greater impact. Those were propaganda methods. It was actually a classical coup or putsch that had unfavorable consequences in society, domestically and globally.
Director of the Institute of Political Studies and Social Capital of Chernovtsy Marin German, university lecturer, doctor of the “Ștefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, said that 1917 is a model year for the researchers interested in the history of Russia and the sociopolitical processes in Russia, who look for an answer to an ordinary question: “How long can a liberal government last in Russia?”. “We call the events of February 1917 a revolution. A revolution is the change of the sociopolitical, economic order, of the way of thinking in particular cases. The whole world applauded then: Russia aligned itself with the liberal models and with the changes. The globe rejoiced at that anti-monarchic, pro-democratic change in the spirit of processes that took place during the last decades until then in other countries,” stated Marin German.
However, according to him, what was called the “February revolution” didn’t produce revolutionary changes at macro level. Revolutionary changes were caused by the coup of October 1917. “We didn’t have a liberal Soviet Union after the February revolution, but witnessed revolutionary changes in the way of thinking – creation of a totalitarian state, taking over by the state of all the sociopolitical areas namely as a result of the coup of 1917,” said the director of the Institute of Political Studies and Social Capital of Chernovtsy.
He noted that among political scientists, there is a big discussion called revolution – the historical event or the consequences of this event? The second debate issue is to what extent can the formula that a society can be democratized as a result of a coup and even a dictatorship can be accepted
Marin German believes the revolution of February 1917 was a normal consequence of the tendencies seen inside Russia, while the swift disappointment in the then provisional government showed how tired Russian society was then, how indifferent could a society that lacked appropriate civic education and was illiterate in particular regards be and how easily those marginal persons took over without meeting with resistance on the part of the people. “They were marginal because they didn’t enjoy Bolshevik support in that period. In other words, it is a disease of some of the nations in Eastern Europa and Russia forms part of that category. We easily destroy a regime and then don’t have sufficient resources and capacity to defend the values for which we fought. In Russia, something like this happened very quickly,” stated Marin German.
The public debate entitled “USSR: Born and Destroyed by Putsches” was the 16th installment of IPN’s project “Impact of the Past on Confidence and Peace Building Processes” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation of Germany.
Impactul trecutului
See related articles:
- 100 years under sign of MASSR. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Oppressive regime in Transnistrian region speculates on historical factors
- Alexandru Postica: Language problems and economic interests are persistent challenges in Transnistrian region
- Anatol Țăranu: Vulgar Moldovenism born in MASSR continues to live in Moldova’s realities
- Anneli Ute Gabanyi: Moldova has always been of great geostrategic importance for Russia
- Igor Boțan: Moldova’s biggest threat comes from disinformation campaigns
- Ion Valer Xenofontov: Ideas from secret protocol to Soviet-Nazi pact still used today
- Moldova from Ribbentrop-Molotov to Independence. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Soviet’s actions in relation to the Bessarabians in 1940 are ‘occupation” not “liberation”
- Historian Dumitru Lisnic: Soviets brought their own people to Bessarabia for administrative positions
- Anatol Petrencu: Soviets imposed their way of thinking and way of life in MSSR
- Ex-history teacher from Șerpeni: Village in 1944 was completely destroyed
- Effects of Iasi-Chisinau Operation 80 years later. IPN Debate
- Igor Boțan: Soviets’ 1940 actions in relation to Bessarabians were not “liberation”
- Anatol Țăranu: Annexation of Bessarabia on June 28, 1940 was an agreement between two dictators
- Day of June 28, 1940 between celebration and catastrophe. IPN Debate
- Andrei Curăraru: Deportations were aimed at creating society without values
- Lidia Pădureac: Soviet state committed crimes against humanity
- Alecu Reniță: Deportations must keep us vigilant and as far away as possible from Russia - a struggling monster
- Decapitation and uprooting of nation through deportations. IPN Debate
- Igor Boțan: Propaganda must be combated by imbedding critical thinking
- Nicolae Mihai: In totalitarian regimes, citizens no longer enjoy rights and freedoms
- Festive practices and identity engineering in (post)totalitarian regimes. IPN debate
- Virgiliu Bîrlădeanu: In Russia there is an authoritarian regime with totalitarian tendencies
- Igor Boțan: All legislatures in Moldova were pro-European or had periods when they promoted accession
- EU enlargement after collapse of USSR: causes and effects. Moldova’s lesson. IPN debate
- Andrei Curăraru: EU’s ambition is to become an important political center
- Anatol Petrencu: Collapse of Soviet Union was a triumph for countries annexed by force
- Cristian Manolachi: We must discern in avalanche of political messages. 2024 is a complicated election year
- Political mythologies in history and in actuality. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Political mythology in Ukraine war has been exploited to the maximum
- Virgiliu Bîrlădeanu: Authoritarian regimes are effective in disseminating propaganda
- Valentin Constantinov: Today we speak Romanian due to verticality of population of Bessarabia in 1812
- Igor Boțan: Literary language and official language are brought to highest level that unites us all
- Vasile Șoimaru: We are Romanians on both banks of the Prut
- Long path home of the Romanian language. IPN debate
- Statements about Russia terrorist attack: Terror breeds only terror
- Igor Boțan: Moldovan authorities must ensure communication with citizens from left bank of the Nistru
- Alexandru Cerbu about war of 1992: Bodies were lying on the streets in Tighina as in Bucha
- Victor Juc: The Nistru armed conflict was caused deliberately
- 32 years of an unfinished war. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Danger of repeat of horrors that society experienced under communist regime still exists
- Virgiliu Bîrlădeanu: We must detach ourselves from Soviet past and build a European society
- History, an international antidote to political repression. IPN debate
- Flori Bălănescu: In the absence of a Nuremberg-type trial, we cannot talk about condemnation of communism
- Alexandru Postica: Victims of political repression receive far too small recompence against terror they went through
- Role of history in forming person and modernizing society. IPN debate
- Igor Botan: You cannot build a future if you don’t know your past
- Ana Bîtcă: By informing students about political repression, we want to avoid repeat of past mistakes
- Igor Boțan: The Gulag was Bolsheviks’ solution for controlling population’s protest movement
- Ludmila Cojocaru: Soviet system meant repression, extermination, enslavement of population
- Lidia Pădureac: The Gulag was used to destroy people’s uprightness
- GULAG phenomenon: genesis, manifestation, lessons. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Budapest Memorandum would have been very important if those who signed it had considered it binding
- Radu Burduja: Ukraine must draw conclusions after signing Budapest Memorandum
- Ion Negrei: Russia no longer enjoys credibility internationally
- Failure of Budapest Memorandum. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Ukraine is key to final Transnistrian conflict settlement
- Natalia Albu: Frozen conflicts mean also a low level of quality of human life
- Octavian Țîcu: Moscow wants Moldova to be Transnistrized
- Frozen conflicts: genesis, dangers, settlement. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Phenomena that occurred in USSR before World War II were typical also for MASSR
- Virgiliu Bîrlădeanu: Thousands of people were executed only because they were regarded as a possible source of opposition
- Stalinist repression in MASSR and memory of victims of totalitarian communist regime. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: To better understand how Union of 1918 occurred, we should analyze circumstances in which this occurred
- Alexandru Arseni: Governments in Chisinau and in Bucharest should recognize Union of 1918
- Ion Varta: After Russian Empire collapsed, Romanian national movement evolved into national liberation movement
- Great Union of 1918: lessons for past, present and future. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: When we speak about collapse of Constituent Assembly, we should consider consequences of this for Bessarabia
- Nicolae Enciu: Soviet society was constituted as an antipode of Western society
- Collapse of Constituent Assembly and of chance to democratize Soviet Russia. Effects on country and world. IPN debate
- Anatol Petrencu: In current Russia, there is no democracy
- Igor Boțan: Romania is also obliged to make effort for Moldova to manage to integrate into EU
- Alecu Reniță: Russia is a threat not only to ex-Soviet states, but also to whole Europe
- Igor Șarov: A continuous struggle is led to secure European integration desideratum
- European genealogy tree of Moldova. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Cold War ended because everyone realized what Soviet power actually was
- Ion Valer Xenofontov: Cold War lesson - to win with modesty and to lose with grace
- Anneli Ute Gabanyi: USSR wanted to impose same thinking system on people
- Lessons of Cold War. IPN debate
- Vitalie Stoian: Warsaw Part always intervened inside its borders, not outside them
- Anatol Țăranu: Warsaw Treaty was nothing else but “collective policeman”
- Igor Boțan: Warsaw Pact was a reply to reply
- Warsaw Pact: History without propaganda. IPN debate
- Radu Burduja: NATO was and will remain a successful alliance
- Igor Boțan: Soviet Union became totalitarian and wanted to conquer whole world
- Victor Juc: NATO enlargement occurs at request of states that consider themselves vulnerable
- NATO: History without propaganda. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Russians’ rhetoric on use of nuclear weapons shows that things go bad
- Pavel Moraru: Signing of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact led to start of World War II
- Mihai Țurcanu: Russia wants to change international order by force
- Truth and lie about beginning of World War II. IPN debate
- Virgiliu Pâslariuc: European development model is a security and prosperity guarantee
- Price and effects of Independence. Comparative study (1877 vs. 1991. IPN debate
- Ion Varta: Russian factor was every time fateful for our national interest
- Igor Boțan: Role of intellectuality in obtaining Independence was prolific
- Ion Negrei: Putsch of October 1917 didn’t enjoy support among population of Bessarabia
- Igor Boțan: We are witnessing third stage of dismemberment of Soviet Union
- Marin Gherman: Communism was a catastrophe for previous century
- Stalinization and de-Stalinization of Moldovan society. IPN debate
- Ludmila Cojocaru: Keeping memory of Stalinist crimes necessitates effort from state and society
- Igor Boțan: After Stalin’s death, Stalinization is only a kind of phantom
- Florin Abraham: Historical memory cannot be built without state support
- Igor Boțan: Stalinist elites devour each other, this being an essential quality of Stalinism
- Octavian Țîcu: Stalinization – imbedding of a series of features typical of Soviet Union
- Stalinization and de-Stalinization in European context. IPN debate
- Florin-Răzvan Mihai: Putinism poses a big threat
- Ion Manole: Passivity of international community to crimes of communism generated Ukraine war
- Kakhovka Dam: Why are laws and customs of war powerless? IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Possession of nuclear weapon makes Russia ignore international law norms
- Anatol Petrencu: Some nations fight without scruple
- Igor Boțan: Those who took part in deportation of people from Bessarabia were ideologically indoctrinated
- Viorica Olaru: The Kremlin administration is similar to the KGB
- “Stalinist deportations: echo of the past, for present and future”. IPN debate
- Alexandru Postica: Deportations should be treated in a broader context
- Mihail Druță: It is justified to celebrate Europe Day on May 9
- Anatol Țăranu: Moldova cannot become European state by keeping Soviet symbols
- Igor Boțan: It is a big mistake to reveal World War II events that suit only a particular side
- Victory Day: between reconciliation, antagonization and destabilization? IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Acknowledging organized famine is important for learning lessons
- Museographer of Avdarma: 800 people died from hunger in this village in 1946-1947
- Famine of 1946-1947. Vasile Șoimaru: People were dispossessed of everything and were murdered
- Lidia Pădureac: While Moldovan SSR was dying from starvation, Soviet Union was exporting grain
- Organized famine of 1946-1947: victims, murderers, memory. IPN debate
- Igor Boțan: Fascism, in its milder version, and Bolshevism were heresies of socialism
- Virgiliu Bîrlădeanu: Society should be attentive so as not to allow authoritarian-totalitarian deviations
- Alexandru Cosmescu: Fascism, Stalinism and Nazism created external enemies in order to achieve their goals
- What do Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism have in common? IPN debate
- Alecu Reniță on 1903 pogrom: Authorities failed to stop bloodshed
- Pogrom of 1903: executioners, victims and lessons. IPN debate
- Andrei Kushko: Not Moldovans, but imperial functionaries triggered Chisinau program
- Igor Boțan: Chisinau program was an outburst of anti-Semitism in Russian Empire
- Igor Boțan: Accession to EU is alternative to Russian world for Moldova
- Ion Negrei: Moldova should connect to European space for good
- Anatol Țăranu: There are affinities between aggressive policy of Russian empire and current regime of Putin
- Fate of peripheries of empires. Quo vadis, Moldova? IPN debate
- Mihai Țurcanu: “Stockholm syndrome” replaced feeling of national identity in many compatriots
- Igor Boțan: Putin’s drama is that he does not have ideology or economic force or army
- Maria Pilchin: Putin teaches his people to die because he was unable to teach them to live
- What did we celebrate and why did we celebrate on February 23? IPN debate