>As the 'house Eastern-European" on this list, I belive that the "Soviet
>domination" was the best thing that happened in that part of the world
>since the region fell into decline relative to western Europe with the
>ascent of colonialism.
Then why did the people, en masse, take to the streets and literally tear it down with their bare hands? If things have since gone from bad to worse, this does not show that bad is preferable. The situation should not have existed in the first place.
>The fact of the matter is that "Soviet domination" was loudly decried by
>Eastern European intelligentsia, but I have a good reason to belive that it
>was a reaction to their perceived loss of privileges. They were put on
>equal footing, both financial and social, with workers and peasants and
>hated that passionately. But those few self-righteous voices should not be
>mistaken for the opinion of the entire people.
I can agree about the position of the intelligensia, an official and highly self-conscious and self-important class in Eastern Europe, and their opinions must never be mistaken for the common people. But, by and large, they were not the ones who took to the streets and risked their lives to bring down a regime in what was, in effect, their first free mass action.