Unpredictable Past?

Endre - the choir is smaller than we tend to think.

Steven - ha-ha, that's exactly a problem in Russia. depending on when they were written, you would get a different history. And the older they are, the farther they are from any real history... Well, new ones are not much more reliable either.

But there is no such thing as objective history. History is always in the eyes of the beholder...

Jerry - it is not that I am the bearer of the truth. It is simply a striking lunatism to think that democracy is a natural state of mind, or people, of societies. It is not. It is a highly sophisticated and developed nations, that have it at a point that they are not a mockery.

It is like say that the guy, who was born in prison and lived all his life n prison is a free person. Not that Mr. Stone is stupid, he is simply preaching his agenda

Dale - actually, there is no democracy in Russia.

Fred - it is the way he sees it. As it is the way President Obama sees America, also very foreign to America, but embraced by enough people to give him victory

Karl - I do not know about the third world, probably he is correct, but, according to even Russian sources, Reagan's Strategic Initiative could not be met by any counter measure by the Soviets simply because it was above and beyond their economic capacity. Pushing the Soviet Union to stay on par with USA strained its economy and put them on the knees.

However, the question here is much simpler and, probably, does not need academic discussion.

Oliver Stone is talking about Gorbachev as a true democrat not understanding that this is not a personality trait and does not come with birth and is not transferred by genes. It is a process the person endures in the society, where this process have been in place for certain period of time.

Not the conditions in Russia. No matter who wrote what about it, who liked who. He looks at Reagan and Gorbachev as two Americans and due to his agenda comes with the notion that Gorbachev is a better American. Meaning that he sees it as an American world. And it is funny, because he praises himself for the ability to see world not from not simply as American, but all he does is blaming America one way or the other, which is so popular with leftists.

Of course, my view (and so many others who lived under Gorbachev) that Gorbachev was a great leader is like praising him for coming second in the race, where only two were racing.

William - all I know is that Mr. Gorbachev had as much understanding and feel of democracy, as any other Russian at this time, living in a country with strong lack of any democracy in any serious sense, so how on earth could he be a democrat? A true democrat? Simply because he was too weak to be a tyrant and draw less blood than he could?

What was democratic about him?

It is not about history, it is about BS, and no, there is nothing historic here, metaphorically or literally. So, yes, Oliver Stones will come in drones and try to tell us why we are bad. But it is agenda, not history.

Gorbachev was no more democrat than Stalin. He was less tyrant than Stalin, yes, but what has it to do with democracy

Travis - this is a very funny comment, and it has a lot in it. he only sees what he wants to see.

Karl - And I remember his isdeals voiced by no other but Mr. Gorbachev. And not once, and not twice. Like when the whole country was stunned when he still insisted on socialist economy based on the ideals, which were his dad's. He said he could not betray the beliefs of his dad and granddad. And we felt that the country was a hostage of his dad's and granddaddy's beliefs.

It was at the time when every reasonable and thinking person knew that socialist economy was a stone on the country's neck, whhich was drowning the country.

When Gorbachev came and we saw someone able to speak and not just read, there was an enormous sense of relief. You can't even imagine how many people were ready to get under his banners and work on the future of this country. I was one of them.

It took few short years to figure that this was an idealistic talker, and nothing was coming out of his talk. Interestingly, it was not Gorbachev, who gathered the intellectual elite around him, but it was Yeltsyn, whole harly anyone would have called Yeltsyn "idealistic".

But initially the elite went with hims he was doing something, he had some core, no matter how crooked it was, while Gorbachev had nothing.

He was idealistic. Idealistic of the past, which he wanted to preserve. He was dreamng of putting lipstick on the pig.

Heis ideal was the same system with a little more freedom, a little of democracy... Which in my world does not make a person a real democrat. He was a "good" dictator. he allowed the bloodshed in Tbilisi and in Vilnius, but hey, he could have so much more bloodshed... But he was good and didn't. And this could be the major thing to be happy about Gorbachev. His inaction

The change in the Soviet Union/Russia happened not by design, but because his small steps caused the avalanche, and he was in no way in control. And for that he is despised by current President and by very many others. What they do not like is that Gorbachev ruined the empire. It fell apart partly because of his small steps, but he never was the one, who wanted these changes.

By the way, I also remember some of his economic endeavours. Like retrofitting wineries to juce production. For him, who holds Ph.D in agriculture this is beyond being a moron. But this is Gorbachev, an idealist.

Karl - one more note. Of course, there were brilliant people, and there was some loosening of constraints, and some measured liberalization, and Sakharov was allowed to return to Moscow. Yes, we were reading every issue of Yakovlev's Ogonyok.

Of course, there were people way brighter than Gorbachev, but he was blessed, as he did not even get it. His intellectual capacity was very measured. Have you heard his speech at the last Congress where Sakharov was? Where he attacked Sakharov? It was and is very shameful, but feeling shame was not Gorbachev's virtue.

Interestingly, many people you mentioned were liberal dictators, or liberals of sort, but they were eager to trade the real ideals for measured democracy. Sakharov wasn't. No moral trade offs on his part.

But all those wonderful people to me would not stack against one Sakharov. Could we call him a real democrat? Probably, he deserves it more than all of those you mentioned.

He might have been on a high horse (and where can you be with ideals), but the rest were in the rat race

Karl - I have reread my comments, ouch, so many mistakes, I apologize. And I can't edit, it is too late.

Believe me, it is nothing against you. I am simplyu too agitated, after all it was my fight, as many other people fight. I am no longer in it, but the flares are still there.

I am biased, and it is quite possible that measured approach would yield more objective analysis. For me it is still too close, and I may not see the forest behind the trees. I am not distant and objective enough.