What legacy did the Soviet Union leave behind?
148070
Pretty much a bad one.  Extreme official corruption--still plagues the people of that region today.  They polluted the land terribly--many heavy metals are buried throughout the region--not to mention the tragedy of Chernobyl.  The leaders of the Soviet Union also were responsible for mass murder--e.g. the forced starvation of Ukraine by Joseph Stalin in the 1930's still has repercussions today.  On a more positive side, they did have a pretty good educational system--the people are very well educated, especially in math & sciences--and the Arts did not die under their suppression.
70645
The collapse of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics radically changed the world's economic and political environment. No other conflict of interest dominated the post World War Two world like the cold war did. One man is credited with ending the cold war, Mikhail Gorbachev. This however was not the biggest event Gorbachev was responsible for. The end of the cold war was just a by-product of the other major event he was involved with. That is the fall of communism in the USSR and the collapse of the USSR itself.\n\nGorbachev a communist reformer was appointed General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1985. His appointment followed the death of three previous Soviet leaders in three years. Leonid Brezhnev was first to go followed by Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko. Not being able to afford another short term leader the old guard appointed the youthful 56 year old Mikhial Gorbachev as General Secretary.\n\nFrom the outside it seemed as if this great superpower self destructed in only three months. The USSR's demise is of course more complicated than this. The break up of the USSR can be traced back to Gorbachevs appointment and his early reforms. Gorbachev introduced a wide ranging program of reform. His major reforms were glasnost, perestroika and democratisation. These reforms allowed the problems of the USSR to be uncovered and become public knowledge.
466930
The main reason for the hostility between the USA and USSR after WWII was the division of post-war Europe.  Stalin wanted to keep the territories his armies "liberated", such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and part of Germany.  The US and UK wanted to give those countries the chance to elect their governments in free elections.\n\nThis, in a nutshell, is how it began.
168324
That would be Marxism. I.e. the belief that people of Earth can leave in perfect harmony w/o wars or exploitation, "to everyone according to need, from everyone according to ability" and so on. \n\nAutocratic socialism established in Soviet Union was viewed as a temporary transition phase, necessary to fight the remains of imperializm in other countries and iniside Russia itself. \n\nI am pretty sure Lenin would disapprove of Stalin's repressions inside the country.
879269
I would say a lesson.  A lesson on "balance of power".  When the former USSR was a superpower, it helped to hold in check the USA, which was the other major superpower.  Once the USSR had fallen, the USA came up as the major power in the world.  (other countries such as Great Britain, China, Japan, North Korea etc are not as strong-yet)  As the USA is the major power they are able to exert more influence around the world.  The lesson I would say there is that if there isnt any "balance" in the world power, then they are able to use that power in ways the rest of the world may not agree with but be powerless to stop; there isnt anything to really check their power.
346030
i think i have to go with Czechoslovakia.. except its not a country anymore. how about turkmenistan? leichtenstein?
359875
People who followed after Leon Trotsky who was a Russion revolutionary leader.
713151
It ushered in communism and the beginning of the Soviet Union.
635891
this has some good info, there's even more of you follow the link\n\nCauses and outcomes\n\nWhile complex, it is possible to group the causes of the Holodomor. They have to be understood in the larger context of the social revolution 'from above' that took place in the Soviet Union at the time.\n\nIn the early 1920s, when Soviet Russia needed to win the sympathy of other nations for the newly born communist state, Ukraine enjoyed a short period of revival of its national culture under the policy of Korenizatsiya. This was, however, ended and replaced with the a policy of effective Russification, as soon as the Soviet regime firmly took root, thereby causing significant social, cultural, and political conflict in the Ukrainian populated territories.\n\nSimultaneously, a policy of collectivization of agriculture was introduced. Agriculture in Ukraine was affected more strongly by this than most other agricultural areas, as Ukraine has had a long tradition of individually owned farms, while most farms in Russia, for example, had been communal (not collective) property.\n\nUnexpectedly, from the Bolshevik point of view, Collectivization proved highly unpopular with the rural population. When collectivization was still voluntary, very few peasants joined collective farms. The regime therefore began to increasingly put pressure on peasants to join collective farms, and to speed up the process of collectivization, tens of thousands of officials were sent into the countryside in 1929–1930.\n\nAt the same time, the "Twenty-Five Thousanders", industrial workers, mostly devoted Bolsheviks, were sent to help run the farms. In addition, they were to fight the increasing passive and active resistance to collectivisation by engaging in what was euphemistically referred to as "dekulakization": the arresting of 'kulaks' — allegedly well to do farmers who opposed the regime and withheld grain — and sending whole 'kulak' families into concentration camps and Siberia. In fact, most of the so-called 'kulaks' were no more well off than other peasants. Effectively, the term 'kulak' was applied to anybody resisting collectivization. It is estimated that around 2 million[citation needed] Ukrainians became victims of these repressions in 1929-1932.\n\nCollectivization proved to negatively affect agricultural output everywhere, but since Ukraine was the most productive area (over 50% of Imperial Russian wheat originated from Ukraine in the beginning of 20th century), the effects here were particularly dramatic.\n\n \nPassers-by no longer pay attention to the corpses of starved peasants on a street in Kharkiv, 1933.Despite the decrease in agricultural output, Soviet authorities soon drastically increased Ukraine's crop production quotas (by 44% in 1932). The targets were unrealistic and many historians believe that this was intentional. On August 7, 1932, the Moscow government imposed death penalty in Ukraine for any theft of public property [7] [8] [9]. The scope of this law was very wide, and included even the smallest appropriation of grain by peasants for personal use. As a result, hundreds of peasants were executed each month under the new law. Still, until October 25, Moscow received only 39% of the demanded grain supplies. When it became clear that the 1932 grain deliveries were not going to meet the expectations of the government, the decreased agricultural output was blamed on the "kulaks", "nationalists", and "Petluravites".\n\nA special commission headed by Vyacheslav Molotov was sent to Ukraine in order to execute the grain contingent.[10] On November 9, a secret decree urged Bolshevik police and repression forces to increase their "effectiveness". Molotov also ordered that if no grain remained in Ukrainian villages, all beets, potatoes, vegetables and any other food were to be confiscated. On December 6, a new regulation was issu
244362
The Iron Curtain as we knew it is gone.\n\nAnd yes, there still are large differences between North and South in the USA.
687769
Difficult to answer, but this is my guess...\n\nIf Soviet Union didn't collapse as it did in 1990s, it would probably move along the lines that China does now -- significant economic reform, with very slow political changes. Many regional wars, such as Yugoslavia, Chechenya etc. would not been avoided, European Union would have much closer ties to the U.S. \n\nSoviets regarded Central Asia as their backyard (much as U.S. does Latin America), and would continue attempts to control Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq etc. The bulk of Arab and Muslim resentment (and possibly terrorism) would mostly be directed toward Soviets, and supported by the U.S. (as it was in Afghanistan in the '80s -- we funded the Mujahedeen and didn't call them terrorists when they were terrorizing the Soviets -- of course, Soviets supported similar and worse nasties elsewhere).\n\nIt is highly unlikely that Soviets and Americans would do much good together -- superpowers vie for influence and while they might trade, they rarely cooperate on strategic political matters. (This shows in the current situation with North Korea -- China is pretending to help, but doesn't want instability and more U.S. influence close to its borders.) "New Soviets" would be trading much more with the West and especially China, but not do much to solve major global problems.\n\nTo summarize, if Soviet Union was still around, terrorism would likely not be a problem for the U.S., but the world overall migh be a much more dangerous place.
721779
Personally I think it was destined to fail to begin with. Look at the methods of control that were used and the rampant corruption within the government. It’s a wonder it managed to stay afloat as long as it did. Reganomics really didn’t have as much to do with the USSR’s collapse as much as the slow attrition of the US economy and the world governments against a rapidly eroding communist regime that was finally becoming aware that their empires threshold of domination was long gone. In short, Reganomics was just the last straw that toppled the ‘evil empire.’ I think the true turning point in the sway of power within the USSR was the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. This upset the greater population to such a degree that the government would never again manage to maintain its sway of power to the effect it once had. The world view of the their government had a major impact and further exposed not only to the world the level of corruption the Russian government had, but also caused the Russian people to become more acutely aware of what the greater overview the world had of their government, and as such for once the Russian people agreed with them wholeheartedly. \n\nAgain in short, Reganomics was just the last straw.
1003419
Communism flourished in Russia after they got rid of the tzar...if you look at the Russian history, there have always been huge discrepancies between the dirt poor and the filthy rich, the country was in a chaos and industrially lacking behind the rest of the world. \n\nSocialism brought equality in social status, the poor were suddenly in charge, they confiscated the rich people's property and money, proclaimig it 'belonged to the state now', which made the state richer. Russia advanced and its industries developed and soon was at par with the rest of the developed world.\n\nAfter the 2nd world war when the Red Army liberated the countries surrounding Russia, to show gratitude to their liberators, they had to convert to socialism: they didn't see how it would change things, they saw that Russia prospered under socialist rule so they thought it would be good for them too. \n\nIn 1968 Czechoslovakia had enough of socialism and decided to get rid of it...within days in August 1968 the country was invaded by Russian tanks, roads were destroyed, people got killed and the goverment got scared - the prime minister had to go to exile and a new prime minister was elected, with a new government, loyal to the Soviet Union.\n\nAfter seeing what the Soviets were capable of, none of the surrounding countries dared to oppose socialism and carried on being socialist until the Velvet Revolution in 1989 brought socialism to an end.\n\nSo you see, it wasn't really an appeal of socialism that did it, the countries around the Soviet Union didn't have much choice in the matter...if you think about it, a 15 million country can't raise its head and oppose very well, because it could be flattened to the ground easily.\n\nTo be honest, there were a few good things about socialism, like free education and free healthcare and that everyone that was able bodied had to work: sitting at home on social security was not an option when you were medically fit to work. If you refused to work, you were declared a parasite and that was a crime for which you could end up in jail. Social security was for those that needed it, the sick, the disabled and if you had a baby, you could stay at home until the child was 3 years old (yes, you see correct, 3 years) you would get statutory maternity pay and your job would be there for you after you came back to work.
365020
a utopia of the liberal mind = the Soviet Union
208570
The Real Social Impact of Stalin’s Rule over Russia.\n\nThe First Five Year Plan:\n\nBy squeezing profits out of the agricultural sector, heavy industrial production increased from 300-600 percent. \n\nBelieved rapid industrialization was the only way to preserve socialism. \n\nIndustrial labor force was created overnight as men and women were put at work.\n\nThe number of women in the industrial work force tripled in the decade after 1929.\n\nIndustrial production also increased between the years 1929-1932.\n\nStalin forced collectivization and confiscated land. By 1938, private land was almost eliminated. \n\nThe Second Five Year Plan:\n\nSucceeded in reducing the Soviet Union’s dependence on foreign imports (heavy industry, machinery, metal works)\n\nThe industrial development and collectivization brought growing urbanization to the country. \n\nComintern(Communist International):\n\nStalin wanted it to promote the unity of working classes everywhere and cooperate with existing worker organizations. \n\nIt must seek to sever the ties between Communist parties and social democratic parties. \n\nAs a result, socialism in Europe was badly split between communists and democratic socialists. (ruined the triumph of fascists movements; Germany.\n\nThe New Soviet Estate:\n\nStalin was committed to the liberation of women.\n\nTheir double burden became heavier during his reign. \n\nThey held full time jobs while doing household chores and taking care of the children.\n\nThe family was glorified as the mainstay of the socialist order.\n\nThe independence of women was challenged as a threat to Soviet productivity. \n\nMassive Loss of Human Life\n\nBecause of the collectivization, 25 million peasants suffered. At least 5 million peasants died between 1929 and 1932. Collectivization ripped apart village life, ruined families, and sent homeless peasants into exile. \n\nAbout 300,000 people were put to death. (engineers, managers, officers of the navy, etc.)\n\n7 million people were placed in labor camps. \n\nThey dealt a severe blow to the command of the army.\n\nIt also resulted in the shortage of qualified industrial personnel, therefore, slowing growth of industry.
281855
The USSR was bent on world domination, and we had to maintain a balance of power or face nuclear war.The arms race and space programs and Vietnam,Korea were results. Domestically, anti war and civil rights issues nearly split the country.
824798
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Legacy for information on the legacy of the Roman Empire or just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire \n\nGood Luck!!!