| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "LABOR POLICIES SOVIET UNION": |
|
|
The Labor Policies of the Former Soviet Union, 2004.
This paper discusses the labor policies of the former Soviet Union, which contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union.
2,030 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 10 sources, APA, £ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the downfall of the Soviet Union was, in part, due to the labor policies such as the promise of work, the compulsory labor policies and the promise of equal pay to many people regardless of their work. The author points out these labor policies created an apathetic attitude about productivity and success that led to an inability to stir the nation into growth, which was the cause of the ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union. The paper contends that, as the nation rebuilds, it is important that it allows a policy of free market competitiveness.
From the Paper
"The Red Army of Workers simulated what Americans know as "Unions". The difference was that the Red Army of Workers was actually controlled by the government and given freedoms that the government felt were allowable. This again wiped out any hope for motivation or drive and those who belonged simply went through the paces. The government allowed the workers to be given the right to participate in the government structure and to practice religion but later years removed such rights. The laboring masses were then nothing but workhorses who went each day, performed their duties, and did not have anything to wish for or hope for."
| |
|
Reagan's Foreign Policy, and the Soviet Union, 2004.
Analyses the Reagan foreign policy, and how it consistently confronted the Soviet Union in ways that forced it to spend huge amounts of money on defense. Makes the argument that this is the main reason that the Soviet Union collapsed.
2,800 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 11 sources, MLA, £ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper highlights the portions of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy that confronted the Soviet Union in ways that forced the United States to spend large amounts of money. The foreign policy issues that are examined include Afghanistan, The Iran-Contra Affair, Reagan's support of Eastern-European Dissidents and Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, (also known as "Star Wars"). Afghanistan is heavily analyzed, with a breakdown of significant historical points, such as the introduction of the US-made Stinger missile, which stripped the USSR of air superiority. The Iran-Contra affair is included as a way to demonstrate Reagan's willingness to confront communism everywhere. This was a marked policy shift from Jimmy Carter and caught the USSR off guard. The Strategic Defense Initiative is analyzed and is linked to an increased amount of money being spent by the USSR on research and development. The support of dissidents by Reagan is looked at as well, with the conclusion that with relatively little amounts of effort, Reagan's foreign policy fomented large amounts of political opposition to the Soviet Union in Eastern European satellite countries. This caused the Soviet Union to spend money combating this problem as well, with their spy apparatus. Definitive numbers are given that explain just how much the Soviet Union spending increased while Reagan was in office.
From the Paper
"In the 1980's, a swirling of events converged to form a perfect storm that met the conditions for bringing down what Ronald Reagan termed the "evil empire." The first incident was that Old School communists in the Politburo sought to make an impression in Central Asia, but found stalwart resistance in The Gipper. Second, Reagan's abrupt shift from Carter's lax foreign policy took the Soviets by surprise, with the new administration's desire to challenge communism on every front possible; out of this desire came the ill-fated support of the contras, along with the hugely successful backing of Eastern European dissidents, namely the Solidarity movement in Eastern Europe. The third event in Reagan's foreign policy shift that took the world by surprise was the administration's renunciation of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction; Reagan took the steps of beginning a Ballistic Missile Defense program, which he coined the Strategic Defense Initiative. The Soviets, with few options of recourse, were forced to make concessions that led to the implosion of the "evil empire" shortly afterward. Thus, by applying a policy of confrontation of spreading Communism, bleeding the Soviets in Afghanistan by supporting the mujahideen, and abruptly announcing a paradigm shift in American foreign policy with the Strategic Defense Initiative, Ronald Reagan certainly hastened, if not caused the downfall of the USSR."
| |
|
The Soviet Union - Stable or Unstable?, 2008.
An analysis of the history of the Soviet Union.
936 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the topic of Soviet Union history. The paper also discusses whether the Soviet Union was a relatively stable dictatorship that lasted seven decades or a primarily unstable system that collapsed of its own weight. The paper explains that communist, democratic and autocratic, the history of the Soviet Union is as diverse as the country itself. The paper then points out that many factors contributed to the instability of the country, from dictatorial leaders, corrupt political parties, and oppression to poor economic policies and social unrest. The paper concludes that the Soviet Union made great strides during the 20th century, but it could not keep up with the west in economic, political, or social arenas, and so, the Soviet Union gave up communism, returned to democracy, and became even more unstable as it broke up into smaller entities and is still unstable.
From the Paper
"Socially, the Soviet Union began on extremely shaky roots. The Bolshevik Revolution took place in 1917, and disposed the monarchy, creating instead a Communist state. However, civil wars plagued the new Communist regime until the 1920s, and there were many who fought the overthrow of the Tsar and his family. Before the Revolution, peasants worked the land for the nobles and ultimately the Tsar. Author Suny notes, "Tsar and noble supported each other, maintaining a stable political regime that could defend the realm against foreign threats, keep the various nobles from fighting each other, collect taxes and keep order over the immense spread of the Russian lands, and preserve the nobles' hold over their peasant serfs" (Suny 12)."
| |
|
Soviet Union's Control of Eastern Europe, 2007.
This paper examines the Soviet Union's control of Eastern Europe during the years of 1945 to 1989.
2,385 words (approx. 9.5 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer explores several of the key factors that contributed to the era of the Soviet Union's control of Eastern Europe and discusses them. The writer points out that more than a decade ago, the Soviet Union made the decision to completely dismantle its government structure and begin rebuilding. The writer then describes how the world watched in awe as the initial steps began and for the past 10 years has watched the Soviet Union struggle as it tries to find its way in the unfamiliar world of democracy. The writer concludes that the Soviet Union realized that it could not maintain success nor could it properly care for its people if it maintained its communist regime. The writer looks at how it dismantled its structure and provided freedom to the nations that it occupied for so long and at the same time has been working toward a democratic way of life.
Outline:
Introduction
How the Soviet Union Maintained Control
Conclusion
References
From the Paper
"The Soviet Union refused to allow any hope of independent political interests or parties. In addition, there was no criticism of the communist party allowed. To do so brought swift and severe punishment that could include prison or death.
Stalin also imposed his own ideals about economics. He created and designed a socialist economic model that the nations were expected to follow. All means of production and wealth were owned and controlled by the government. This meant that factories, farms, mines and any other method of making money was controlled by and owned by the government which was in turn ruled by the Soviet Union. This allowed the Soviet Union to maintain complete control over every aspect of those nations' economics."
| |
|
The Collapse of the Soviet Union, 2006.
A look at some of the reasons behind the collapse of the Soviet Union.
870 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 6 sources, MLA, £ 20.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the simplest explanation for the collapse of the Soviet Union is that the system was not sufficiently stable to withhold both its own needs and the demands of an arms race. It looks at how the Soviet Union found itself attempting to produce at a very high level in order to compete with America's military output and how the demands of the Cold War itself destroyed the Soviet Union.
From the Paper
"Of course, it may appear that the fall of the Communist ideal was due in large part to a change in the nature of counter-culture and communication. In the pre-Revolutionary days, intellectuals and the discontented who sought change, sought it in communism. After the revolution, change did not come quickly enough - because the nation was immediately plunged into war (which requires overproduction!) and international turmoil. When the next generation of intellectuals and the discontented was made manifest, it opposed communism - because intellectuals generally are capable of seeing the flaws in a system, and no total system appreciates having its flaws pointed out. Communication technology made such a difference in the fall of the Soviet Union because it allowed those who were discontented to express that and work together. "
| |
|
The Collapse of the Soviet Union, 2008.
An analysis of the factors contributing to the collapse of the Soviet Union and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's efforts to stem the collapse.
2,141 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 7 sources, MLA, £ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the main causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union, focusing on the role of the United States in its collapse. The paper looks at the final phase of collapse in the 1980s when Leonid Brezhnev died and the other factors that impacted the collapse at that time. The paper also discusses the efforts of Gorbachev to try to stem the collapse of the Soviet Union and how his efforts failed.
From the Paper
"Gorbachev realized that perestroika was bold and risky and that only time would determine its ultimate success or failure. Like Lenin, Gorbachev believed that, "sometimes you have to retreat, and then advance." But he ran out of time, in part because the new openness in the Soviet press under glasnost revealed to the Soviet people for the first time that conditions across the entire Soviet Union were shockingly bad.
"Ever since the days of Lenin, the average Soviet citizen knew that economic conditions were bad in their own village, city, or region, but the communist-controlled media prevented them from knowing that conditions were just as bad everywhere else if not even worse. Glasnost confirmed this harsh reality beyond any doubt, and created a political environment across the Soviet Union in which people were not going to tolerate communism much longer."
| |
|
The Soviet Union's War in Afghanistan, 2005.
An analysis of the causes of the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan.
2,277 words (approx. 9.1 pages), 3 sources, APA, £ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This report analyzes the Soviet-Afghan conflict, concentrating on the reasons for the Soviet Union involvement in the war and providing a multiplicity of reasons rather than trying to narrow down the intervention to one simple cause. The paper compares and analyzes the major causes from different sources regarding the reasons for Soviet interest and subsequent intervention and invasion, which may or may not be seen to follow an historical pattern of precedent in the area and other bordering nations. An analysis of the Soviet Union and Afghanistan internally, as well as accounting for external factors, is also provided for a better understanding of the conflict.
From the Paper
"As mentioned, the Soviet Union was a cold war player in both ideological and physical senses. Generally, the further the Soviet Union got away from its own borders, the less likely it was to prefer physical over ideological intervention towards the goal of world revolution. And Afghanistan, like Hungary and Czechoslovakia, where the Soviet Union had used real physical pressure in the past, was a country that bordered the U.S.S.R. Perhaps more importantly in terms of causal circumstances, though, although sources tend to disagree on the relative importance of historical circumstantial objectives, Afghanistan offered the Soviet Union something which it did not have, but badly wanted and needed: a warm-water port. Although sources are quick to point out that no one knows for sure what caused Soviet intervention to get so physical in Afghanistan, this presence of a warm-water port in the country could have very likely been a contributing factor."
| |
|
The Formal Dissolution of the Soviet Union, 2005.
Investigates the events leading up to and surrounding the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 11 sources, MLA, £ 21.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses the circumstances surrounding the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 8, 1991. During this time, the Soviet Union was formally disbanded, and the world was forever changed. The essay explores the historical significance and political implications of this event. The essay also focuses on the formal conclusion of the Cold War and how this changed the international political structure.
From the Paper
"On December 8, 1991, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and the Byelorussian republics met in the sylvan solitude of Belovezhskaya Pushcha to discuss the fate of the Soviet Union. At the end of the day, the leaders declared the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union and the new formation of the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States). Little did they know that this pivotal decision would alter the political landscape of the entire world. The historic edict paved the way for a unipolar world in which democratic systems of government would dominate world politics and international trade. As the Soviet Union quickly dissipated, the arms race slowed considerably and neared a halt. The Communist backbone of Asia, held together by Moscow, split and severed into several independent countries and republics."
| |
|
Collapse of Soviet Union, 2005.
A discussion of various reasons and factors that could have caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.
1,794 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 14 sources, MLA, £ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains why the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The explanations range from Russian history and faults in Marxist theory, to Stalin, Gorbachev, and others. It explains why the collapse was inevitable, stating that, from the beginning, Russia was isolated and backwards and that Marx never had Russia in mind for reformation. It also examines the role the U.S. played in the collapse and what the Soviet Union's leaders did wrong.
From the Paper
"Even though the Soviet Union survived events such as a civil war, the Russo-Japanese war, and both world wars, it finally collapsed in 1991. This happened despite the benefits communism gave it. The failure of the USSR to remain a world superpower was attributed to many factors. Some factors include faults in Marxist theory and those of the Soviet Union's leaders. Others include Russia not being suited for communism, and external forces determined to bring down the Soviet Union."
| |
|
The Collapse of the Soviet Union, 2006.
An analysis of the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 3 sources, £ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
There is a general consensus among historians that the collapse of the Soviet Union could not have been averted because of the inherent economic, political, and social flaws of the communist system. Ultimately, these flaws proved to be fatal, despite the efforts of Mikhail Gorbachev to reform communism through glasnost and perestroika between 1985 and 1991. More than seventy years of communist political oppression, CPSU corruption, mismanagement of the economy, and massive military spending had totally and irrevocably destroyed the legitimacy of communism in the USSR by 1991, and its collapse was inevitable. This paper looks at the historical, economic, political and sociological reasons that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
| |
|
The Collapse of the Soviet Union, 2005.
This paper explores the implosion of the former Soviet Union at the dawn of the 1990s.
2,250 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 5 sources, £ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the collapse of the former Soviet Union was the most significant event of the last half of the twentieth century. The author points out that economic weakness, domestic policy and foreign policy all conspired to bring about the ruin of the USSR. The paper relates that, ironically, as secretary of the Communist Party, the decisions of Mikhail Gorbachev, the man most intent on salvaging the empire, were arguably most responsible for expediting the USSR's collapse.
From the Paper
"The collapse of the former Soviet Union was the most significant event of the last half of the twentieth century. This paper explores the economic factors, the domestic policy decisions - chiefly the glasnost and/or perestroika championed by Mikhail Gorbachev - and, not least of all, the foreign policy decisions that led to the devolution of the World's second most powerful polity. While certain factors were more important than others, there can be little doubt that the destruction of the USSR occurred because of a confluence of factors that, operating in a complex unison with one another, brought down an empire holding sway over more than a quarter billion people."
| |
|
Hitler's Defeat by the Soviet Union, 2006.
This paper researches reasons for Hitler's defeat by the Soviet Union.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 6 sources, £ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article the writer examines how even though in 1942, Adolf Hitler almost defeated the Soviet Union, the Soviets somehow managed to achieve victory in 1945. The writer researches the debate regarding the reasons why Hitler was defeated. The writer notes that it seems probable, however, that no single event caused Hitler's defeat. In this essay, the writer looks at the various issues that may have contributed to the defeat of the Nazi army.
From the Paper
"In 1942, Adolf Hitler all but had the army of the Soviet Union defeated. In 1945, however, the Soviets snatched victory from his grasp. There exists some debate as to why Hitler was defeated. It seems probable, however, that no single event caused Hitler's defeat. One possible cause was that Hitler made the decision not to attack Moscow during his initial invasion. In addition, Hitler underestimated the capabilities of the Soviet army. At the same time, he overestimated his own capabilities. All of these things may have contributed to the defeat of the Nazi army. Why then, did Hitler find defeat that the hands of the Soviets? How did these factors contribute? Were there other factors that led to Hitler's defeat?"
| |
|
The History of the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, 2004.
An examination of the complicated history between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan and the eventual invasion of Afghanistan.
4,478 words (approx. 17.9 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 81.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores how the invasion of Afghanistan became the end of a long history of the Soviets doing everything in their power to secure their interests in Afghanistan. It explains that the installment of Karmal and the deaths of thousands of rebels resulted from the notion that they were invited in to protect the government of Amin. The loss of the war sent the nation into a frenzy, desperately trying to point fingers at who was to blame for what was the culmination of years of selfishness. The loss was so shocking because the USSR had managed to get what it wanted for almost a century and had finally realized that the self-determination of a country is stronger than the political favors it tried to curry from it. It examines how ,throughout their entire time together, the Soviet Union used Afghanistan to install leaders that would suit its needs and getting rid of ones that would not. When things got bad, they violated the laws of the highest political power in the world just so that they could make sure their interests were secured. In this specific example, it is easy to see the selfishness of a world superpower and the way that strong nations use weak, underdeveloped countries as if their existence on this earth is merely for the gain of others.
From the Paper
"?[Our] government will strictly follow the policy of non-alignment and strive for good relationships with neighboring Pakistan and Iran.1? This statement by Afghan leader Hafizullah Amin has two key elements to it: first, it points out that the goal of Amin?s short reign was to dramatically lessen the influence that the Soviet Union had had on his country for more than forty years; and secondly, to give special emphasis to the growing friendship between Afghanistan and their new alliances, Pakistan and Iran, which were, at the time, both controlled largely by Islamic (non-Communist) groups and friendly with the United States. Amin, while trying to lessen his public animosity for the Soviet Union, clearly had no love for his Russian neighbors and wanted to end any and all influence the Soviet Union had on his country. So, when the Soviet Union launched their invasion of Afghanistan on December 27, 1979, it came as some surprise that the Soviet Union claimed to be acting on a request of Amin?s, especially after his execution by Soviet hands. The fact is the Soviet Union was doing just what it had been doing for years; acting out of its own interests. A look at the Soviet Union?s long history of intervention and influence will show the selfish behavior and superior ideology of the Soviet Union that led to a devastating invasion. The entirety of their relationship was based merely on Soviet desires to control the country, reap it of its goods and to stamp out any and all influence or their cold war enemy, the United States."
| |
|
Jews in the Soviet Union, 2000.
A discussion of the fate of the Jews in the Soviet Union during World War II.
3,710 words (approx. 14.8 pages), 9 sources, MLA, £ 70.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper focuses on the mass murder of the Jews in U.S.S.R. during World War II at the hands of the Nazis. It provides a chronological list of events in the U.S.S.R. from 1939-1945. It describes how the task of dealing with the Jews was entrusted to the shock groups (Einsatzgruppen) that accompanied the army assisted by local groups of collaborationists and how the Germans generally used one of four methods and in some cases, a combination of these methods to exterminate the Jews in the occupied localities in the Soviet Union: mass murders in ravines and quarries, rounding up and immediate extermination, concentration camps and ghettos. It concludes by telling the story of ghettoes of Vilna, Minsk, Riga.
From the Paper
"A few days later an announcement was made ordering the Jews to register with the Judenrat, on pain of death. After a few more days?or weeks, at the most?the Jews were ordered to report at a certain spot in the town, from which they were going to be sent to a labor camp or ?moved to Palestine.? These announcements usually included a threat that any Jew who failed to report, and any person who helped Jews to hide, would be executed. The Jews were told to take along only a few items, and no food at all, since it would be provided for them by the authorities. The assembled Jews were escorted by Germans and locally recruited armed units who beat them, harassed them, and shot anyone who lagged behind or voiced any kind of protest."
|
|
|
