I would do it differently - the participants who won the Eurovision will not participate in the Intervision, but their performance will open the Intervision. It will be awkward if the winner of Eurovision is also the winner of Intervision. In addition, Eurovision has an “English Only” policy, which may attract attention to the competition by allowing listeners to listen to the original. Another thing is that, for example, in Poland Intervision is no longer in demand.
Crisis in the Kremlin - Our 1988 USSR
C) while we aren't willing to give up the territories we rightfuly earned we are quite willing to make some common arrangement with Japan regarding development of those islands and access Japanese companies have on them (i see no harm in this and if Japanese do something we don't like we can kick them out).
A) Establish Intervision as it's necessary for development of our culture and culture of Communist world in general. This organization won't just be exclusively European, but and instead it will be truly global competition that econpasses various cultures across COMECON and wider Communist world from Cuba to Vietnam.
D) Publicly condemn the Organizators of the protests and make a point to ban such nationalistic gatherings and organizations and have KGB thoroughly investigate people connected to these protests. This isn't something as simple as police brutality, this is an indirect attack on Soviet State and Communist party calling for secession of Georgia. Only allowed nationalism in the Union is Soviet form of Nationalism that is inclusive, aims to peacefully develop various cultures within Soviet Union and is pro Soviet in nature. We want nothing to do with the Nationalist extremists.
Though do acknowledge that our side should have resolved this question more peacefully as many protesters gathered there were just being missguided by extremist minority. We know that they won't make same mistake twice.
In this instance Police brutality was completely justified and should be used in any gatherings of this nature. But for more neutral and peaceful gatherings like climate gatherings in Estonia for example i support @seraphim74 .
Endorse the Letter of the Six and criticise Ceaușescu for poor situation Romania finds itself today. Demand immediate release of the Six and their rehabilitation within Communist party. Have KGB privately work with anty Ceaușescu elements within Communist party and with Secreteriat to overthrow Ceaușescu (members of the Six don't necessary need to be New leadership, that's on Communist party of Romania to decide, what we want is their loyalty to the Union though).
Support anty Ceaușescu protests on the strets and promise that USSR will take on Romanias forgein debts as well as welcome them as full members of WP and COMECON. Also privately promise to spare members of the old government if they decide to switch sides and use threat of Soviet Intervention and Brezhnev doctrine as deterrent against any use of force against reformist members of the party.
Last edited:
Eurovision does not require songs to be sung in English, in fact as of 1989 (and until 1999 OTL) songs are required to be sung in the official language(s) of the participating nation. Riva sang their song in Serbo-Croatian. : )
Romanov's rule in the USSR is mostly warmly received amongst the Romanian people, who view him as a force for positive reform, but he is still seen as an ally of Ceaușescu, even if an unwilling one. The people of Romania regardless of the USSR however are firmly against Ceaușescu, and would support any action against him. As for the Romanian government (speaking only of Ceaușescu loyalists) they are absolutely against Romanov, fearing his sweeping changes will destablise Romania and viewing his market reforms as surrendering to western interests.
Another thing is that people have said that Gorbachev once again acted out of turn by approving the action of Brucan and the six, this is not so. We had previously discussed the issue of Ceaușescu and agreed that action had to be taken, in addition the policy of the Soviet government to Romania has been one of soft opposition for some time, as it's independence from the USSR and it's growing ties to China are a cause for concern. Gorbachev acted in line with the established foreign policy of the USSR.
Okay, in that case I'll change my vote accordingly.
Endorse the Letter of the Six and criticise Ceaușescu for poor situation Romania finds itself today. Demand immediate release of the Six and their rehabilitation within Communist party. Have KGB privately work with anty Ceaușescu elements within Communist party and with Secreteriat to overthrow Ceaușescu (members of the Six don't necessary need to be New leadership, that's on Communist party of Romania to decide, what we want is their loyalty to the Union though).
Support anty Ceaușescu protests on the strets and promise that USSR will take on Romanias forgein debts as well as welcome them as full members of WP and COMECON. Also privately promise to spare members of the old government if they decide to switch sides and use threat of Soviet Intervention and Brezhnev doctrine as deterrent against any use of force against reformist members of the party.
Honestly we may as well go strong and end this.
Should the USSR reenter negotiations on the Kuril Islands?
A) We have rightfully gained these islands from imperialist Japan during the Second World War, and there's no reason to give them up.
Should the USSR restablish Intervision?
C) This would help greatly in improving our image in the eyes of the Western Bloc. Besides, some cultural exchange with the West wouldn't hurt, as we have even invited Boney M to perform in the past.
How should state media portray the April 9th Tragedy in Tbilisi?
A mix of B) and C). This would both bring the rioters to justice and quell public discontent regarding our security forces.
(OPEN QUESTION) How should the USSR limit police brutality in future?
I support @seraphim74's plan.
(OPEN QUESTION) What, if any, action should be taken in response to the Letter of the Six?
Of course we would support the Letter of the Six, but don't make any public statements about it. In the meantime, we should be taking any possible measure behind the scenes to support the anti-Ceausescu faction within the PCR.
A) We have rightfully gained these islands from imperialist Japan during the Second World War, and there's no reason to give them up.
Should the USSR restablish Intervision?
C) This would help greatly in improving our image in the eyes of the Western Bloc. Besides, some cultural exchange with the West wouldn't hurt, as we have even invited Boney M to perform in the past.
How should state media portray the April 9th Tragedy in Tbilisi?
A mix of B) and C). This would both bring the rioters to justice and quell public discontent regarding our security forces.
(OPEN QUESTION) How should the USSR limit police brutality in future?
I support @seraphim74's plan.
(OPEN QUESTION) What, if any, action should be taken in response to the Letter of the Six?
Of course we would support the Letter of the Six, but don't make any public statements about it. In the meantime, we should be taking any possible measure behind the scenes to support the anti-Ceausescu faction within the PCR.
Gorbachev while not wrong ( atleast on relation to Romania ) oversteps, last time i checked Romanov is still in charge and Gorbachevs explicit endorsing of the Letter of Six promising Soviet support has greatly harmed relations between the USSR and Romania, as well as destabilized Romania.
Gorbachev has escalated the conflict and forced our hand, Ceausescu will never trust the USSR again and will likely distance Romania further from the rest of the Warsaw Pact, recent arrests have solidified his position and eliminated internal oposition, i would have preferred a much more gradual sidelining of Ceausescu, but if we dont explicitly back the opposition right now while we can, Romania under Ceausescu will turn into an North Korea analogue.
Gorbachev needs to be punished, even if for his own good, if he thinks he can constantly overstep and get away with it next time he may do something that actually gets him executed.
Gorbachev has escalated the conflict and forced our hand, Ceausescu will never trust the USSR again and will likely distance Romania further from the rest of the Warsaw Pact, recent arrests have solidified his position and eliminated internal oposition, i would have preferred a much more gradual sidelining of Ceausescu, but if we dont explicitly back the opposition right now while we can, Romania under Ceausescu will turn into an North Korea analogue.
Gorbachev needs to be punished, even if for his own good, if he thinks he can constantly overstep and get away with it next time he may do something that actually gets him executed.
Last edited:
Actually after the great crisis where romanav had a mental breakdown he let others take the grounds so he’s not in charge here just right now a leader that doesn’t do all sections of the union now
Should the USSR reenter negotiations on the Kuril Islands?
A) No, these lands are integrally Soviet and the Japanese have no claim to them
the fachist remnents in japan should be happy we did not take hokidio at a minumum more
Should the USSR restablish Intervision?
A) Yes, this will strengthen bonds between our nations and bolster our cultural expression
promoting sochialist music solidarity is a good thing
How should state media portray the April 9th Tragedy in Tbilisi?
C) Admit no blame and instead blame it on the aggression of the protesters
the reactionary forces lauunched a inserection ageinst the union.and where delt with acordingly
(OPEN QUESTION) What, if any, action should be taken in response to the Letter of the Six? we must if need be be prepared to intervine but to make sure that any option to do this without our tanks rolling in if posible
A) No, these lands are integrally Soviet and the Japanese have no claim to them
the fachist remnents in japan should be happy we did not take hokidio at a minumum more
Should the USSR restablish Intervision?
A) Yes, this will strengthen bonds between our nations and bolster our cultural expression
promoting sochialist music solidarity is a good thing
How should state media portray the April 9th Tragedy in Tbilisi?
C) Admit no blame and instead blame it on the aggression of the protesters
the reactionary forces lauunched a inserection ageinst the union.and where delt with acordingly
(OPEN QUESTION) What, if any, action should be taken in response to the Letter of the Six? we must if need be be prepared to intervine but to make sure that any option to do this without our tanks rolling in if posible
Last edited:
Ok - I admit my mistake. But I still don’t see the point in allowing the winner of one show to participate in the second.
Should the USSR reenter negotiations on the Kuril Islands?
C) Split the difference: Japan receives Kunashir and Shikotan, the USSR retains Iturup and the Habomais.
Should the USSR restablish Intervision?
How should state media portray the April 9th Tragedy in Tbilisi?
(OPEN QUESTION) How should the USSR limit police brutality in future?
I agree with @ruffino on these.
(OPEN QUESTION) What, if any, action should be taken in response to the Letter of the Six?
I agree with @seraphim74.
C) Split the difference: Japan receives Kunashir and Shikotan, the USSR retains Iturup and the Habomais.
Should the USSR restablish Intervision?
How should state media portray the April 9th Tragedy in Tbilisi?
(OPEN QUESTION) How should the USSR limit police brutality in future?
I agree with @ruffino on these.
(OPEN QUESTION) What, if any, action should be taken in response to the Letter of the Six?
I agree with @seraphim74.
Comrades! I must, once more, apologise for my lateness. I have had more difficulties than anticipated assembling this document.
To the First issue of the day. Comrade @Emyx I must ask. Is Japan perhaps no longer a capitalist nation? While the lack of official state cooperation is unfortunate, we should not let perfect be the enemy of good. State cooperation or not, their bourgeoisie is like any other, too greedy, too disloyal, to ignore the profits we can promise them. What remains to be seen, is if the earned goodwill will be enough for the state to turn a blind eye, and let them come to us unmolested. If yes, it will reveal theirs to be empty rethoric. As our coffers fill, factories multiply, technology is brought in, and workers trained.
And perhaps, in the future, such goodwill may gain communism new sympathy, among the Japanese Proletariat... eventually, all will fall to the World Revolution.
Still, even if empty, the Japanese State rethoric must be answered. And to the question
Should the USSR reenter negotiations on the Kuril Islands?
I say
A) No, these lands are integrally Soviet and the Japanese have no claim to them and C) Other
Sometimes, silence can be as defeaning as any answer. We shall continue negotiations, yet stretch them to infinity. We cannot surrender Kuril Islands, for this would make the Party appear weak, would surrender a strategic staging ground, and from an international law point of view, would be unnecessary as the Union holds a legitimate claim, if through conquest, on the islands. But, we can create a mutually beneficial fiction. One where, from our point of view, we, the Party and Union and Soviet Proletariat, are the reasonable side. Willing to negotiate a compromise, like reparations or self-determination, out of the goodness of ours hearts and for the harmony among all the Earth's People. Only to be rebuffed by Imperialists barely changed, literally in case of some famous faces in charge, since their overt Fascist days.
While from their point of view, the Japanese politicians can claim to be fighting tooth and nail to reclaim wrongfully stolen lands from Insidious Bolsheviks.
To the next issue:
Should the USSR restablish Intervision?
My choices are
A) Yes, this will strengthen bonds between our nations and bolster our cultural expression
C) No, we should instead petition to join Eurovision
In the spirit of brotherhood and reconciliation beyond borders, the USSR should join Eurovision, and encourage other Fraternal Republics to follow
However, the presence of imperialist nations, as well as its status as an exclusively European or even worse, Imperialist, affair, are most disappointing
While membership in Eurovision shall help first reawaken the Soviet Workers Proletarian internationalism from the obvious examples of capitalist sufferings and aesthetic superficiality; stimolate cultural and societal development; overall, help re-establish a strong Socialist Culture able to influence and subsume all others, like it was in the years after October. And then subsequently, do all the same among the masses of Western Europe, by broadcasting the equity, brotherhood and genuine life under socialism.
Being so compromised, it cannot be a valid laboratory to develop a new Worldwide Socialist Cultural Hegemony. And as much it pains to say, neither can the Union alone, even so stimulated. The spirit of October is long gone, a new Socialist Culture and Society, can only emerge by confrontation between all socialist nations. Uniting what came before from old revolutions such as ours, what the capitalist world has produced. To be elaborated by all, and most importantly, by the youngest revolutions, still fresh with the dynamism and hope of October.
As such, I believe it necessary, to reestablish Intervision, as a socialist-only, worldwide, song constest. Hopefully, followed by many more similar projects. The first step to an All-socialist, Worldwide, Web of Exchange, and subsequently, Proletarian Culture.
Finally however, the most crucial issue of the day. One highlighting the many structural deficiencies still plaguing our Union, and the many tensions that may subsequently explode beyond their scope if let through the cracks:
How should state media portray the April 9th Tragedy in Tbilisi?
To such a delicate crisis itself, and overall systemic issue, no single answer can be right. Subsequently, I suggest:
B) Admit "Individual errors" in the handling of the incident and find scapegoats
C) Admit no blame and instead blame it on the aggression of the protesters
D) Other
Publically, the brutal response should be blamed yes on systematic issues in the forces tasked with maintaining a Socialist, Safe and Just, Society. However, that such issues exclusively extended to the insufficient filtering out of bad recruits, insufficient accountability for militsiya members' bad conduct, and a manpower shortage leading to the use of Armed Forces in a role they are unfit for. Publically, all reform efforts should be painted as directed to solve these issues and these issues alone. For less broadcasted systemic reforms, I'll go in depth later on.
Consequently, all militsiya and soldiers publically identified while committing brutality against Soviet citizens, should be publically investigated, put on trial, and judged subsequently. If necessary, the local leadership responsible for such a mangled response, can also face public consequences, but this is not advised. They should still however, suffer a private reprimand, and if necessary, disciplinary action, if it became known they had ordered any such disproportionate answer. As should all law enforcement or army personnel known to have intentionally acted in an unbecoming manner.
For a final public act, blame the incident itself on the unlawful, violent and confrontational attitude of the protest. Especially play up its unlawful and probably counterrevolutionary nature, to attempt a logic jump to concluding this incident itself may have been the organisers goal itself. To sell themselves as helpless victims, possibly as well, to gain the attention of agonised Western puppeteers who would use them as, very wealthy, Trojan horses. Never however imply such a connection already exists. If it is found, all the better. But as it most likely doesn't exist, best to avoid such heavy accusations, lest we unleash a beast impossible to control.
To tune down tensions, also concede that participants can't all be expected to know the true status of the protest. Be it unlawful, or counterrevolutionary. Some, may just be misguided by nationalism, without realising the grave threat to their own socialist quality of life they pose. So, restrict official, throughout, investigations, to only the leaders, organisers, and most prominent faces. If sufficient criminal evidence is dug up, it may even lead to a lengthy arrest.
Indeed, turn it into official policy. A notice of surveillance shall be in the future handed, to all organisers who are discovered to be planning unauthorised demonstrations of substantial scale. With clearly delineated consequences, if the warning isn't followed. Flee, and be confined to house arrest until an investigation clears them, under the "likely suspicion of criminal or counterrevolurionary activity". Start the demonstration and be speedily arrested at most an hour hence. Stand down however, and the notice will be rescindend, marking their return as law abiding workers.
Speaking of official policy, from the contents of the incident itself, take inspiration to denounce negative nationalism, while im the Spirit of October supporting its positive kind. This is to say, support the self-determination, development and uniqueness of separate cultures, however as part of one prosperous fraternal union, allowing all to interact freely and become more than they would alone. For Socialism isn't against the nationhood, to the contrary, but is against separate states, for the workers deserve to be united, and have much more in common with eachother than with their bourgeoisie.
All the while, denounce separatism as a Trojan Horse of counterrevolutionaries, to dismember the Union into small, frightened, weak states. Ripe for the bourgeoisie vultures to attack, and erase socialism.
(OPEN QUESTION) How should the USSR limit police brutality in future?
As evidenced by my wording above, systematic issues extend far beyond mere filtering of recruits.
First and foremost, the usage of the Armed Forces being sanctioned by official doctrine is, frankly, a recipe for disasters much greater than this one, as Comrade @seraphim74 points out. Changes shall be made to restrict their use only to gravest of equally armed violent threats. Like outright armed insurrection, or terrorism.
The actions taken to disperse the riot, have also more in common with those taken to reduce a pocket of enemy soldiers, than convincing misguided citizens out protesting, to go home. Rioters shouldn't be surrounded on all sides, but when actions to disperse the riot begin, atleast one avenue of, excuse my usage of ironically, military terms, retreat should be left open, and indeed advertised. Such a disorganised rout, can then be easily pressed, until the rioters are fully dispersed.
While I disagree that the militarization of our militsiya is in itself an issue, for correct training is what makes or break any law enforcement. The way less than lethal weapons were used, well, lethally. Leaves little openings to introduce even more actually lethal equipment. However, I believe events like these require more defensive equipment be made available, to if nothing else, ensure no excuse about the danger of the situation can be used to justify unnecessary brutality.
Subsequently, a great reform in our police training must begin. Firstly, lessons must be taken in how to deescalate. In general in all events of law enforcement. But sticking to such tense matters, even better, to identify and disarm such ticking bombs before they burst. The particular conduct of our forces, was caratherized by near passivity in the very first crucial moments, before then acting with far too much zeal against the same escalation they had allowed. Initiative is necessary, to disperse such riots before they even happen. Negotiators must be sent, speakers must blare reasonable logic while advertising the illegal nature of the event and calling to disperse. The militsiya must immediately block all avenues for the protest to advance, then start to slowly mount pressure by advancing forward, on all but one side, which will be left open. Even if the protest doesn't disperse, the objective can also simply be to herd them, direct them, through a cordon, to a safer, less inconvenient for us, possibly more for the protesters. Location. Say, in the city outskirts, on this case.
New doctrine must also be drafted on the usage of less than lethal equipment. Which isn't non lethal. Restraint in charges and batons strikes. Deployment of gas to fumigate in a more limited manner, possibly restricted to the very front line of confrontation, to avoid stampedes.
In this, the commission of new defensively-minded equipment, can be of use. Cheap but possibly comfortable, thridly in priority threatening, gas masks for our militsiya. To allow for tactical use of gas right on top of our forces, without them being affected. New body armour, riot shields, helmets, able to withstand chains, rocks, possibly knives.
In an ironic twist of our revolutionary lineage, deployable barricades, so many times used to great effect against reactionary law enforcement, now a wall of steel on which protesters will not necessarily break. But simply be unable to pass.
And, for possibly the most daring of my proposal, armoured vehicles up to refit old tanks. Equipped at most with less than lethal weaponry, like water cannons or tear gas fumigators. Usually, simply a way to deploy militsiya in a manner protected from any harm the protesters may direct their way, short of RPGs coming from the rooftops. At which point however, the Armed Forces would be authorized to intervene.
New less than lethal equipment should also be researched. Indelible paint to mark protesters for later ID, deployed by water cannon or airsoft guns. New forms of uncomfortable gas, even less lethal, possibly however also permanent unless special detergents distributed to our militsiya are used. Possibly inspired by skunks. Microwave and sonic cannons, to sow again discomfort among the protesters.
(OPEN QUESTION) What, if any, action should be taken in response to the Letter of the Six?
I would like to begin, on the matter of our Minister of Foreign Affairs, comrade Gorbachev. While initiative in the face of a crisis is commendable, this was no crisis, and anyway, such privilege goes hand-in-hand with full responsibility for one's actions. While his logic was sound, and lacking damning evidence on "comrade" Silviu Brucan, probably my own. It speaks of either initiative and boldness crossing the thin line into recklessness, by not conducting the necessary background checks. Or if they were conducted, of a complete disregard for the integrity and defense of the World Socialist Revolution against probable Western infiltrators and Revisionists.
While as Comrade @Altov underlined, comrade Gorbachev acted in a manner compatible with out latest deliberations. Even if he hadn't, a maverick Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Workers of the World could afford. A Minister consistently backing the losing horse, not even our sole Union can. This is already his second strike, in a VERY short succession. If comrade Gorbachev is unable to not cause a diplomatic crisis everytime he negotiates with dissidents in socialist nations. Maybe he would be best of use to the Revolution and Union by restricting his duties, to his admittedly far more successful relationships' building with the West.
As for the Group of Five themselves, the situation is tricky. Firstly, there are only Five comrades worth of even considering granting even a sliver of support. There is no Sixth, especially not a comrade. For the same exact criticism of Gorbachev, applies tenfold to Silviu Brucan. As Comrade @ruffino underlined, no real comrade seeks first support from the enemies of Communism, before its very First Vanguard. I however, disagree that the other Five are inherently lost to us, if nothing else from a pragmatic point.
Romania is currently in a very volatile situation. We must hold all cards, all options, close to our chest. And if the Five come out on top, yet are revealed to have been willfully in bed with the West? Then, that just means we have all the blackmail to hold them on the shortest leash there can be.
All that is clear, is that Ceaușescu current way ruling, cannot last forever. And is most definitely not for the betterment of World Revolution. Either his Romania changes, or it will be changed.
As such, I suggest feelers, contacts, entrees be made, with dissidents among not just the Communist Party ranks. But also all of society. The Armed Forces, the Bureaucracy, the Church, the Unions. All possible players.
At the same time, to convince not just all neutral players, but possibly Ceaușescu himself. Officially the USSR shall employ @Emyx carrot and stick approach, if necessary with @Odo suggestion for mediation by the People's Republic of China during the negotiations.
All immediate or nearly so crisis done, I wish to comment on other developments. Those in and around Burma seem to be promising. All that's missing, is an equally promising baptism of fire.
Still, even assuming the new People's Liberation Army is successful, which we can optimistically hope considering the treasure trove of fresh lessons from Afghanistan to apply, just as the guerilla instead of the armed forces. Preemptive care should be taken to ensure that, be it under duress from losses or even excessive success, the United Front of Burmese People not fracture like its National Democratic United Front predecessor. Suggesting Soviet-Indian mediation in preemptive negotiations, over not just the most crucial programme clashes but down to the finest details, may be in order. The Junta defeat must be but the very first step in a radiant future for Burmese Socialism.
To formulate other preemptive measures, I would like to request reports on [whether our actions have had any effects on]:
• The demographic trends of our Constituent Soviet Socialist Republics
• Events, especially political trends, in Western Europe, particularly Germany, France, Italy, UK
• The insurgencies against the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
• Our stance on the Israel-Arab or Israel-Palestine conflict, and developments of such
To the First issue of the day. Comrade @Emyx I must ask. Is Japan perhaps no longer a capitalist nation? While the lack of official state cooperation is unfortunate, we should not let perfect be the enemy of good. State cooperation or not, their bourgeoisie is like any other, too greedy, too disloyal, to ignore the profits we can promise them. What remains to be seen, is if the earned goodwill will be enough for the state to turn a blind eye, and let them come to us unmolested. If yes, it will reveal theirs to be empty rethoric. As our coffers fill, factories multiply, technology is brought in, and workers trained.
And perhaps, in the future, such goodwill may gain communism new sympathy, among the Japanese Proletariat... eventually, all will fall to the World Revolution.
Still, even if empty, the Japanese State rethoric must be answered. And to the question
Should the USSR reenter negotiations on the Kuril Islands?
I say
A) No, these lands are integrally Soviet and the Japanese have no claim to them and C) Other
Sometimes, silence can be as defeaning as any answer. We shall continue negotiations, yet stretch them to infinity. We cannot surrender Kuril Islands, for this would make the Party appear weak, would surrender a strategic staging ground, and from an international law point of view, would be unnecessary as the Union holds a legitimate claim, if through conquest, on the islands. But, we can create a mutually beneficial fiction. One where, from our point of view, we, the Party and Union and Soviet Proletariat, are the reasonable side. Willing to negotiate a compromise, like reparations or self-determination, out of the goodness of ours hearts and for the harmony among all the Earth's People. Only to be rebuffed by Imperialists barely changed, literally in case of some famous faces in charge, since their overt Fascist days.
While from their point of view, the Japanese politicians can claim to be fighting tooth and nail to reclaim wrongfully stolen lands from Insidious Bolsheviks.
To the next issue:
Should the USSR restablish Intervision?
My choices are
A) Yes, this will strengthen bonds between our nations and bolster our cultural expression
C) No, we should instead petition to join Eurovision
In the spirit of brotherhood and reconciliation beyond borders, the USSR should join Eurovision, and encourage other Fraternal Republics to follow
However, the presence of imperialist nations, as well as its status as an exclusively European or even worse, Imperialist, affair, are most disappointing
While membership in Eurovision shall help first reawaken the Soviet Workers Proletarian internationalism from the obvious examples of capitalist sufferings and aesthetic superficiality; stimolate cultural and societal development; overall, help re-establish a strong Socialist Culture able to influence and subsume all others, like it was in the years after October. And then subsequently, do all the same among the masses of Western Europe, by broadcasting the equity, brotherhood and genuine life under socialism.
Being so compromised, it cannot be a valid laboratory to develop a new Worldwide Socialist Cultural Hegemony. And as much it pains to say, neither can the Union alone, even so stimulated. The spirit of October is long gone, a new Socialist Culture and Society, can only emerge by confrontation between all socialist nations. Uniting what came before from old revolutions such as ours, what the capitalist world has produced. To be elaborated by all, and most importantly, by the youngest revolutions, still fresh with the dynamism and hope of October.
As such, I believe it necessary, to reestablish Intervision, as a socialist-only, worldwide, song constest. Hopefully, followed by many more similar projects. The first step to an All-socialist, Worldwide, Web of Exchange, and subsequently, Proletarian Culture.
Finally however, the most crucial issue of the day. One highlighting the many structural deficiencies still plaguing our Union, and the many tensions that may subsequently explode beyond their scope if let through the cracks:
How should state media portray the April 9th Tragedy in Tbilisi?
To such a delicate crisis itself, and overall systemic issue, no single answer can be right. Subsequently, I suggest:
B) Admit "Individual errors" in the handling of the incident and find scapegoats
C) Admit no blame and instead blame it on the aggression of the protesters
D) Other
Publically, the brutal response should be blamed yes on systematic issues in the forces tasked with maintaining a Socialist, Safe and Just, Society. However, that such issues exclusively extended to the insufficient filtering out of bad recruits, insufficient accountability for militsiya members' bad conduct, and a manpower shortage leading to the use of Armed Forces in a role they are unfit for. Publically, all reform efforts should be painted as directed to solve these issues and these issues alone. For less broadcasted systemic reforms, I'll go in depth later on.
Consequently, all militsiya and soldiers publically identified while committing brutality against Soviet citizens, should be publically investigated, put on trial, and judged subsequently. If necessary, the local leadership responsible for such a mangled response, can also face public consequences, but this is not advised. They should still however, suffer a private reprimand, and if necessary, disciplinary action, if it became known they had ordered any such disproportionate answer. As should all law enforcement or army personnel known to have intentionally acted in an unbecoming manner.
For a final public act, blame the incident itself on the unlawful, violent and confrontational attitude of the protest. Especially play up its unlawful and probably counterrevolutionary nature, to attempt a logic jump to concluding this incident itself may have been the organisers goal itself. To sell themselves as helpless victims, possibly as well, to gain the attention of agonised Western puppeteers who would use them as, very wealthy, Trojan horses. Never however imply such a connection already exists. If it is found, all the better. But as it most likely doesn't exist, best to avoid such heavy accusations, lest we unleash a beast impossible to control.
To tune down tensions, also concede that participants can't all be expected to know the true status of the protest. Be it unlawful, or counterrevolutionary. Some, may just be misguided by nationalism, without realising the grave threat to their own socialist quality of life they pose. So, restrict official, throughout, investigations, to only the leaders, organisers, and most prominent faces. If sufficient criminal evidence is dug up, it may even lead to a lengthy arrest.
Indeed, turn it into official policy. A notice of surveillance shall be in the future handed, to all organisers who are discovered to be planning unauthorised demonstrations of substantial scale. With clearly delineated consequences, if the warning isn't followed. Flee, and be confined to house arrest until an investigation clears them, under the "likely suspicion of criminal or counterrevolurionary activity". Start the demonstration and be speedily arrested at most an hour hence. Stand down however, and the notice will be rescindend, marking their return as law abiding workers.
Speaking of official policy, from the contents of the incident itself, take inspiration to denounce negative nationalism, while im the Spirit of October supporting its positive kind. This is to say, support the self-determination, development and uniqueness of separate cultures, however as part of one prosperous fraternal union, allowing all to interact freely and become more than they would alone. For Socialism isn't against the nationhood, to the contrary, but is against separate states, for the workers deserve to be united, and have much more in common with eachother than with their bourgeoisie.
All the while, denounce separatism as a Trojan Horse of counterrevolutionaries, to dismember the Union into small, frightened, weak states. Ripe for the bourgeoisie vultures to attack, and erase socialism.
(OPEN QUESTION) How should the USSR limit police brutality in future?
As evidenced by my wording above, systematic issues extend far beyond mere filtering of recruits.
First and foremost, the usage of the Armed Forces being sanctioned by official doctrine is, frankly, a recipe for disasters much greater than this one, as Comrade @seraphim74 points out. Changes shall be made to restrict their use only to gravest of equally armed violent threats. Like outright armed insurrection, or terrorism.
The actions taken to disperse the riot, have also more in common with those taken to reduce a pocket of enemy soldiers, than convincing misguided citizens out protesting, to go home. Rioters shouldn't be surrounded on all sides, but when actions to disperse the riot begin, atleast one avenue of, excuse my usage of ironically, military terms, retreat should be left open, and indeed advertised. Such a disorganised rout, can then be easily pressed, until the rioters are fully dispersed.
While I disagree that the militarization of our militsiya is in itself an issue, for correct training is what makes or break any law enforcement. The way less than lethal weapons were used, well, lethally. Leaves little openings to introduce even more actually lethal equipment. However, I believe events like these require more defensive equipment be made available, to if nothing else, ensure no excuse about the danger of the situation can be used to justify unnecessary brutality.
Subsequently, a great reform in our police training must begin. Firstly, lessons must be taken in how to deescalate. In general in all events of law enforcement. But sticking to such tense matters, even better, to identify and disarm such ticking bombs before they burst. The particular conduct of our forces, was caratherized by near passivity in the very first crucial moments, before then acting with far too much zeal against the same escalation they had allowed. Initiative is necessary, to disperse such riots before they even happen. Negotiators must be sent, speakers must blare reasonable logic while advertising the illegal nature of the event and calling to disperse. The militsiya must immediately block all avenues for the protest to advance, then start to slowly mount pressure by advancing forward, on all but one side, which will be left open. Even if the protest doesn't disperse, the objective can also simply be to herd them, direct them, through a cordon, to a safer, less inconvenient for us, possibly more for the protesters. Location. Say, in the city outskirts, on this case.
New doctrine must also be drafted on the usage of less than lethal equipment. Which isn't non lethal. Restraint in charges and batons strikes. Deployment of gas to fumigate in a more limited manner, possibly restricted to the very front line of confrontation, to avoid stampedes.
In this, the commission of new defensively-minded equipment, can be of use. Cheap but possibly comfortable, thridly in priority threatening, gas masks for our militsiya. To allow for tactical use of gas right on top of our forces, without them being affected. New body armour, riot shields, helmets, able to withstand chains, rocks, possibly knives.
In an ironic twist of our revolutionary lineage, deployable barricades, so many times used to great effect against reactionary law enforcement, now a wall of steel on which protesters will not necessarily break. But simply be unable to pass.
And, for possibly the most daring of my proposal, armoured vehicles up to refit old tanks. Equipped at most with less than lethal weaponry, like water cannons or tear gas fumigators. Usually, simply a way to deploy militsiya in a manner protected from any harm the protesters may direct their way, short of RPGs coming from the rooftops. At which point however, the Armed Forces would be authorized to intervene.
New less than lethal equipment should also be researched. Indelible paint to mark protesters for later ID, deployed by water cannon or airsoft guns. New forms of uncomfortable gas, even less lethal, possibly however also permanent unless special detergents distributed to our militsiya are used. Possibly inspired by skunks. Microwave and sonic cannons, to sow again discomfort among the protesters.
(OPEN QUESTION) What, if any, action should be taken in response to the Letter of the Six?
I would like to begin, on the matter of our Minister of Foreign Affairs, comrade Gorbachev. While initiative in the face of a crisis is commendable, this was no crisis, and anyway, such privilege goes hand-in-hand with full responsibility for one's actions. While his logic was sound, and lacking damning evidence on "comrade" Silviu Brucan, probably my own. It speaks of either initiative and boldness crossing the thin line into recklessness, by not conducting the necessary background checks. Or if they were conducted, of a complete disregard for the integrity and defense of the World Socialist Revolution against probable Western infiltrators and Revisionists.
While as Comrade @Altov underlined, comrade Gorbachev acted in a manner compatible with out latest deliberations. Even if he hadn't, a maverick Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Workers of the World could afford. A Minister consistently backing the losing horse, not even our sole Union can. This is already his second strike, in a VERY short succession. If comrade Gorbachev is unable to not cause a diplomatic crisis everytime he negotiates with dissidents in socialist nations. Maybe he would be best of use to the Revolution and Union by restricting his duties, to his admittedly far more successful relationships' building with the West.
As for the Group of Five themselves, the situation is tricky. Firstly, there are only Five comrades worth of even considering granting even a sliver of support. There is no Sixth, especially not a comrade. For the same exact criticism of Gorbachev, applies tenfold to Silviu Brucan. As Comrade @ruffino underlined, no real comrade seeks first support from the enemies of Communism, before its very First Vanguard. I however, disagree that the other Five are inherently lost to us, if nothing else from a pragmatic point.
Romania is currently in a very volatile situation. We must hold all cards, all options, close to our chest. And if the Five come out on top, yet are revealed to have been willfully in bed with the West? Then, that just means we have all the blackmail to hold them on the shortest leash there can be.
All that is clear, is that Ceaușescu current way ruling, cannot last forever. And is most definitely not for the betterment of World Revolution. Either his Romania changes, or it will be changed.
As such, I suggest feelers, contacts, entrees be made, with dissidents among not just the Communist Party ranks. But also all of society. The Armed Forces, the Bureaucracy, the Church, the Unions. All possible players.
At the same time, to convince not just all neutral players, but possibly Ceaușescu himself. Officially the USSR shall employ @Emyx carrot and stick approach, if necessary with @Odo suggestion for mediation by the People's Republic of China during the negotiations.
All immediate or nearly so crisis done, I wish to comment on other developments. Those in and around Burma seem to be promising. All that's missing, is an equally promising baptism of fire.
Still, even assuming the new People's Liberation Army is successful, which we can optimistically hope considering the treasure trove of fresh lessons from Afghanistan to apply, just as the guerilla instead of the armed forces. Preemptive care should be taken to ensure that, be it under duress from losses or even excessive success, the United Front of Burmese People not fracture like its National Democratic United Front predecessor. Suggesting Soviet-Indian mediation in preemptive negotiations, over not just the most crucial programme clashes but down to the finest details, may be in order. The Junta defeat must be but the very first step in a radiant future for Burmese Socialism.
To formulate other preemptive measures, I would like to request reports on [whether our actions have had any effects on]:
• The demographic trends of our Constituent Soviet Socialist Republics
• Events, especially political trends, in Western Europe, particularly Germany, France, Italy, UK
• The insurgencies against the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
• Our stance on the Israel-Arab or Israel-Palestine conflict, and developments of such
1. In what demographics particularly would you be interested in comrade? I can tell you firstly that the birth and death rate have seen no notable change nor has the proportion of any ethnic group changed substantially.
2. So far, we have taken no actions to significantly change the political climate of Europe, although changes will definitely come in the near-future as the consequences of our actions fully play out, in addition to the actions of the West.
3. The insurgency in the DRA has not waned in the absence of a large scale Soviet force, however western supplies of weapons have fallen proportionally and the DRA's existence remains secure. The USA, with the majority of Soviet forces having left Afghanistan, has decided to gradually withdraw itself from Afghan affairs (with the main reason for their involvement being to force the USSR to dedicate resources to the war). Pakistan however, remains in staunch support for the Mujahideen and Pakistani training camps along the border of the DRA remain active.
4. The first Intifada rages on in Palestine with Jews and Arabs facing daily violence. Israel has been condemned internationally for it's human rights abuses, with mass arrests of Palestinian civilians a common occurence. Despite this the USA and the wider western world has maintained it's support for Israel. The initial months of the Intifada over 150 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces, with zero casualties to the Israelis. At the outbreak of the of the violence the USSR and the USA came together in a rare show of diplomatic coordination and cooperation to publish the Schultz-Gorbachev Peace Plan, this document did not call for peace talks but rather outlined a process for comprehensive talks to be held. Both the Israeli government and the PLO rejected the offer however, maintaining it would be manipulated to the advantage of the opposing side. The USSR continues it's financial support to the PLO and intensified it's humanitarian aid to the region.
Chapter Twenty Six: The Tiananmen Square Incident and the 1989 Greek legislative election. (May 1989-June 1989)
(A now-famous image of a Chinese man attempting to block a tank convoy leaving Tiananmen Square on June 5th 1989. Despite popular claim, the man was not run over by the tanks, rather he was pulled away by unidentified figures, either Chinese police or concerned bystanders.)
The Tiananmen Square Protests, also known as the June 4th Incident or the Tiananmen Square Massacre were a series of student-led demonstrations that occurred from late April to early June 1989, culminating in martial law and the deployment of troops to quell the protests. According to the Chinese government, in the aftermath of military action up to 300 protesters were killed, in addition to 23 members of the PLA and People’s Armed Police, a heavily disputed figure. Amnesty International put the death toll at 700-1,000, whilst some Western diplomats in China claimed as many as 10,000 civilians had died.
Protests began in China as early as April 15th, in the wake of the death of Hu Yaobang. Hu Yaobang was General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party from 1982-1987, where he gained the reputation of a radical reformer. At one point when asked which of Mao Zedong’s theories were desirable for a reformed China, he replied: “I think, none.” Hu’s liberal tendencies were too much for the Party however and in 1987 Hu was ousted by a clique of conservative reformers, led by Deng Xiaoping, who was appointed as the new General Secretary. Hu was widely popular amongst the liberal and reformist wings of the Chinese students, and his forced resignation was apparent to all, when Hu Yaobang suddenly died of a heart attack in April 1989 many suspected that he had been assassinated by the Chinese government. Immediately after his death Chinese students began organising public eulogies and putting up posters praising Hu’s policies, these gatherings however rapidly grew into political dissent, with eulogies taking the form of discussion groups and posters beginning to cover broader issues such as corruption, freedom of the press and more. Over the coming days gatherings began to form around Tiananmen Square public places to mourn Hu Yaobang and honour his legacy. By April 17th over 4,000 students had gathered outside Tiananmen Square and their mourning rapidly grew into a protest, in the following hours they drafted a list of demands to the Government, “the Seven Demands”, these were:
1.Affirm Hu Yaobang's views on democracy and freedom as correct.
2. Admit that the campaigns against spiritual pollution and bourgeois liberalization had been wrong. 3. Publish information on the income of state leaders and their family members.
4. Allow privately run newspapers and stop press censorship.
5. Increase funding for education and raise intellectuals' pay.
6. End restrictions on demonstrations in Beijing. Provide objective coverage of students in official media.
The Chinese police forces responded to the incident, however they did not attempt to break the gathering, instead they established a cordon around the Square and waited for the protesters to leave of their own accord. By April 20th most had, with only 200 students remaining, who were quickly dispersed by Chinese police using batons, the situation appeared resolved, however in truth it had only began. Hu Yaobang’s state funeral took place on April 22nd, which took place on Tiananmen Square in the Great Hall of the People, was attended by over 100,000 Chinese students who disobeyed orders that the Square was closed and gathered outside the Hall. The previous day these students had organised into the Beijing Student’s Autonomous Federation (Also known as “The Union”) led by three students, most notable of them being Zhou Yongjun. Zhou broke through the police barrier around the Great Hall and demanded that Premier Li Peng leave the Great Hall and address the masses of students that had gathered to protest the Government, however he was met with no response. Elsewhere in China, riots had already broken out in Xi’an and Changsha, despite pleas from his advisors to stay and address the protests, General Secretary Zhao Ziyang left for a scheduled visit to North Korea, this left Premier Li Peng as the acting executive in Beijing. Li Peng immediately took a hardline stance against the protests, having the official state newspaper issuing a front-page editorial titled "It is necessary to take a clear-cut stand against disturbances.” The article addressed the protests as being an anti-communist and anti-government revolt and invoked language similar to that of the Cultural Revolution, this enraged students, who quickly gave up any illusions of peacefully convincing the government.
(Maoist hardliners assemble on Tiananmen Square, they would frequently fight with the pro-democracy reformers that initially led the protest, and the two would often clash physically over which group got to use the few megaphones they had.)
Over the following months the situation would drastically escalate, with lower PLA and party officials even taking part in the demonstrations. By mid-May over a million people had gathered in Beijing and similar demonstrations were occurring in cities across the country. By this point the government had completely lost control, and on the 17th May during a Politburo meeting government officials seriously discussed the topic of martial law. The hardliners, spearheaded by Deng Xiaoping, insisted that "There is no way to back down now without the situation spiralling out of control” […] "the decision is to move troops into Beijing to declare martial law.” Zhao Ziyang refused to commit to any action however, saying he could not bring himself to declare martial law and that the situation was now ultimately in Deng’s hands. Yang Shangkun, Vice Chairmen of the Central Military Commission, used his authority to mobilise the military and send forces to secure the capital. Two days later martial law was declared across China, protesters initially resisted the entry of troops, attacking them with stones and other projectiles, however they were quickly beaten back. At the same time the protest was beginning to lose coordination, whilst it had initially been led by pro-democracy reformers, it had by now swelled to encompass almost every sector of anti-government politics, including Hardline Maoists, Orthodox Marxists, Nationalists and more. Tiananmen Square itself was overcrowded and was facing serious hygiene problems, as well as fighting over resources. Leaders of the protest, fearing the impending arrival of the Military, attempted to withdraw from the Square and re-group at the University, however they were resisted by hardliners who wanted to hold the Square. By June 2nd the Military had firmly established control over the country and had already dispersed riots in other cities, however they held off on assaulting the demonstrators at Tiananmen Square. The protesters, enraged by the government’s actions and agitated by the worsening conditions at the square suspected that a military assault was imminent, and that the military had already infiltrated the protest area as pedestrians, which was confirmed when protesters were found with military equipment and maps. Student leaders gave emergency orders to set up roadblocks and erect barricades to halt the military’s advance. The protesters also engaged in several skirmishes with military forces awaiting orders to storm the Square, seizing hundreds of rifles and machine guns in the process, Military vehicles bringing arms and supplies into the capital were also ambushed by protesters. Student leaders attempted to stop these attacks, fearing they would provoke the Government into taking violent action against the now-armed protesters, however many though otherwise, Chai Ling – a pro-democracy figure who pushed for attacks on the military– stated: "What we actually are hoping for is bloodshed, the moment when the government is ready to brazenly butcher the people. Only when the Square is awash with blood will the people of China open their eyes." Many troops were set upon by protesters, some of which were beaten to death, at an intersection outside the Square the corpses of soldiers were stripped naked and hung from lampposts.
(The remains of a burnt APC on Tiananmen Square)
No matter what the opinions of the student leaders were on the attacks on the military however, they succeeded in provoking the government to action. Mere hours after the first reports of attacks on soldiers, Deng Xiaoping gave the order that the Square was to be seized by “all possible methods.” On June 3rd at 8PM, the 38th Army, led by Commander Zhang Meiyuan, began to advance towards the Square from the South. At 9PM they approached, and attempted to break through, a barricade set up by student protesters. Rather than immediately resorting to military force, initially riot police armed with rubber bullets and tear gas attempted to break through, however they were quickly forced back by a barrage of rocks, bricks, and bottles. After an hour of failed attempts, riot police units were pulled back, and the military was brought in. Officers pleaded the protesters to disperse using megaphones, and when that failed, they tried to force them back using stun grenades, all measures failed. Finally, at 10:30PM, the military opened fire with live ammunition. APCs smashed through the hastily constructed barricades, killing some protesters in the process. The protesters, shocked that the military was using live ammunition, immediately dispersed. Over the following hours military forces advanced from all sides on the Square, accounts of the violence that followed greatly vary, with US embassy staff claiming they saw Chinese tanks and APCs run over protesters and fire shots into nearby apartment buildings, with others claiming that no violence occurred at all outside of the initial skirmishes. On the early morning of June 4th, the first PLA APC arrived at the Square, it was attacked by protesters with Molotov cocktails and immobilised with traffic dividers, before being covered with petrol-doused blankets and set alight, soldiers attempting to escape from the burning wreckage were killed. Some students attempted to restrain the crowds, providing protection to the soldiers, however they were quickly overwhelmed, their fates vary according to source. According to Larry Wortzel, a US military intelligence officer at the US Embassy, the demonstrators attacked the APCs and other military units with “clearly rehearsed and practiced swarming tactics” and that the burning of the first APC “appeared to have sparked the shooting that followed.” At 1:30PM troops had consolidated control over the entrances to the Square, and an announcement was given to the protesters with loudspeakers:
“A severe counterrevolutionary riot has broken out in the capital tonight. Rioters have savagely attacked soldiers of the PLA, have stolen their weapons and burned their vehicles, have erected roadblocks, and have kidnapped officers and soldiers [...] Citizens and students must evacuate the Square immediately so that martial law troops can successfully carry out their mission. We cannot guarantee the safety of violators, who will be solely responsible for any consequences.”
After the announcement most of the protesters began to leave, and by 2AM there were only a few thousand demonstrators left, most of them loyal to Chai Ling. By this point the leaders of the protest had also lost faith, with every one of them save for Chai Ling wishing to negotiate with the troops. A student leader – Hou Deijan - addressed the remaining protesters by megaphone, urging them to surrender their rifles and leave with him to surrender to government troops. At 3:45AM, Hou Deijan met with Ji Xinguo, a regimental political commissar, and requested that the army give time for the protesters to evacuate and open up a path to allow them to leave orderly. Xinguo relayed this request to Martial Law Headquarters, who agreed to the student’s request. Military officers called for an evacuation and announced on loudspeakers: "Students, we appreciate that you will leave the Square voluntarily. Students, please leave in the southeastern direction." At 5AM, after giving time for the cooperating students to leave, the PLA turned on spotlights onto the Square and began to advance onto the remaining demonstrators, led by Chai Ling, the demonstrators fiercely resisted the PLA’s assault, killing several soldiers, but were ultimately all arrested or killed. Chai Ling managed to escape in the chaos, fleeing Beijing and ultimately escaping to France.
In the following days, the PLA began to reassert control over other parts of the city and arrested the few protesters who had been outside the Square during their assault, one of these protesters was the now-famous “Tank Man”, an unidentified Chinese Man who blocked a column of Type-59 PLA tanks as they were leaving Tiananmen Square, the incident was filmed and widely dispersed among Western media. As the tanks came to a stop in front of the man the lead tank attempted to drive around him, however the man stepped into its path again, after repeated attempts to drive around him the lead tank simply stopped, which the man took advantage of to climb atop the tank, and call into the ports of the tank. The tank commander briefly emerged from his hatch to converse with the man, and after a short conversation the man leapt off the tank and began walking away, after which the tanks restarted their engines. However, at that point the man ran back into the way of the tanks and obstructed their path once more, after this the man was pulled away by two men, who were either Chinese police or concerned bystanders depending on the source. In April 1998 Time magazine included “The Unknown Rebel” (The Tank Man) as one of the 100 most influential people in the 20th century.
The Soviet government refused to acknowledge accusations of police brutality in the April 9th Incident in Tbilisi, instead blaming it on the excessive actions of certain individuals. Immediately after the events of April 9th the KGB was ordered to root through the rank and file of the Militsiya and Military forces present on the night, identifying any individuals who could be held reponsbile for excessive violence, manipulative tactics or otherwise. In the end 36 men were convicted, alongside one woman, were found responsible for gross misconduct in carrying out their duties on April 9th. In addition, Colonel Igor Rodionov, a Russian-born military officer, and Commander of the Transcaucasian Military District was also held liable for his poor handling of the situation. He was dismissed from his post and demoted to the rank of Private, a traditional punishment in the Soviet Armed Forces for officers who commit egregious breaches of conduct or otherwise shame the Red Army. Political leaders of the Georgian Unity League (GUL) were also arrested for anti-Soviet propaganda, inciting a riot, breach of peace, manslaughter, and many other crimes. Examples were made of both government and dissenter figures.
The following year, an investigation would officially be held on the conduct of the Militsiya on April 9th, 1989. It found that despite the best efforts of the Soviet Militsiya, excesses were not only present on that terrible night in Tbilisi but were even commonplace in the handling of riots and other civil disturbances in the USSR. The usage of military forces in handling riots, who more often than not treated rioters as an opposing military force to be destroyed then fellow, if misguided, comrades. To remedy this terrible error, the investigative commission recommended a list of reforms to be made to Soviet policing, these being:
1) To immediately end the practice of deploying military forces to deal with civil disturbances except in the most severe of cases, drawing on the example of Tiananmen Square.
2) To organise new specialist classes within Militsiya units on the appropriate handling of aggressive crowds, aiming to minimise violence as much as possible.
3) To investigate and implement new non-violent means of crowd control such as the usage of mobile barriers to push back and redirect crowds of people, water cannons, cavalry and more.
4) To avoid the use of tear gas in crowded areas, which in the April 9th Tragedy resulted in tear gas being used with enough frequency in a enclosed space to cause asphyxiation and trampling.
5) The mass introduction of CCTV systems, as has begun in the West, to better monitor and predict demonstrations, as well as the conduct of Militsiya.
6) To increase the use of loudspeakers to demoralise protesters and to conduct negotiations with protest leaders.
The USSR resolved not to apply to the Eurovision Song Contest 1990, instead deciding to revive the defunct Intervision, to be held exclusively amongst socialist countries from across the world. The contest is to be held in Moscow in August 1990, and is expected to be attended by more than 15 nations: including Yugoslavia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and even some western nations such as Canada, Sweden, and Belgium. Already several bands have been pre-selected for the USSR’s act, with newly famous rock bands such as Kino, Zemlyane becoming fast favourites.
The 1989 Greek legislative election was held on June 18th of that year, and saw the victory of the socialist PASOK party, forming a coalition with the left-wing political alliance Synaspismos. PASOK had been the ruling party of Greece since 1981. In their campaign for the 1981 election, they had presented themselves as the candidate for neutrality, promising to withdraw from NATO and the EEC, however they were forced to shy away from these promises by outside influence as well as popular opposition at home. Throughout the 1980s the PASOK maintained their popularity, delivering on several key reforms such as the secularisation of marriage, granting of state pensions to resistance fighters and the creation of a universal healthcare system. Nonetheless by 1988 the party and its leaders had been wracked by corruption scandals, as well as impending economic downturn. Nonetheless, with support from the Soviet Union in the form of financial payments, as well as KGB interference within the election process, the PASOK managed to come out as the foremost party in the 1989 election, with 43% of the popular vote to its rival party’s – New Democracy – 40%. Although PASOK did not receive enough votes to form a majority government, it had good relations with the left-wing political alliance – Synaspismos, a merger of the Pro-Soviet Greek Communist Party (KKE) and the Eurocommunist Greek Left, and the two formed a coalition government, the first Greek government to ever include the Communist Party. The new government, further pushed to action by the inclusion of the communists, immediately resolved to withdraw from both NATO and the EEC. A referendum on continued EEC membership is to be held in December 1989, and the country is to officially withdraw from NATO in June 1990, although NATO forces have already begun leaving the country in what is a serious victory for the Eastern Bloc. Western governments have already denounced the actions of the Greek Republic, with Margaret Thatcher stating:
“The withdrawal from NATO and the EEC not only jeopardizes the security of the Greek people but also undermines the principles of freedom and democracy that originated in the very same country. It is a grave misstep from a people withered by socialism, that will cast a shadow over the proud history of Greece.”
Elsewhere in Europe, legislative elections were held in Ireland on June 15th which saw the communist Worker’s Party seize 5 seats from Labour in a shock display, becoming the third largest party in the Dáil. The Labour Party had been plagued with infighting since November last year, when their leader, Dick Spring suddenly and unexpectedly died of an unknown illness. The Worker’s Party was also propelled by government cuts to healthcare and other social services. Although the Worker’s Party did not come even close to forming a government, nor being included in a Government coalition thanks to their radical views, it’s victory in the 1989 election firmly established itself as the Party of the working classes and marked the beginning of the end for the Labour Party, which failed to provide any significant opposition to the government in an absence of party unity.
The USSR decided to quietly support the Romanian government in their actions against dissenters in the party. Although the USSR supported the Letter of the Six and gave assurances to Brucan, the letter proved to be a colossal failure, gathering no support from within a party cowed by the Romanian Securitate. The USSR, not wishing to openly confront Ceaușescu diplomatically or otherwise, was forced to abandon Brucan and his allies and instead to bide it’s time for another chance to topple Ceaușescu, although with the situation in Romania becoming increasingly severe, it seems it will not have to wait long.
On May June 14th the digitalisation of Soviet banking began, as the first VISA and MasterCard cards were issued to Soviet citizens by Sberbank, the USSR’s sole consumer bank. The introduction of the new cards will constitute a key phase of the ‘SovCard’ program, which aims to fully digitalise the Soviet banking system by the year 1996. SovCard will be the first, and only, VISA card to be distributed within the USSR, as part of a larger plan to replace traditional checkbooks and paper currency with digitalised accounts. In June Sberbank issued SovCards to 5,000 Soviet citizens across the USSR, who will be able to withdraw up to 250 rubles from their local branches every week. Debit cards have been accepted in the USSR since 1974, but only for foreign tourists as part of an official agreement with Intourist, the USSR’s official foreign tourism agency. As part of the SovCard plan however new VISA payment systems are to be introduced in stores across the USSR, and Sberbank is to cooperate with Finnish cooperative bank Okobank to see the SovCard accepted internationally. VISA and Sberbank issued a joint statement, saying that in the next 6 months users of the SovCard will be able to make payments in Moscow stores and restaurants digitally, with new point-of-sale terminals to be introduced across the city.