I know, Chris, that it is different in Russia, where they lost what they had did not get anything better. There the nostalgia (the Ostalgie, they call it in Germany) is tremendius.
---
BTw, I'm reading a biography of Brezhnev, "Brezhnev: Pravitel' zolotogo veka" (Brezhnev: Ruler of a Golden Age) by Sergei Semanov. Here's what it says in the intro (translation by me):
Yes, Brezhnev expressed himself poorly in his old age, which, naturally, bothered people. However, his personal qualities, especially as a state figure, which have now been clearly uncovered, were absolutely appealing. Let's compare comparables. He was not aloof and asocial, like Lenin. The cruelty of Stalin was completely alien to him. He did not fall into hysterics, like Khrushchev, and was completely disinclined to drunkenness. Finally, he did not have a "double bottom" of the sort Andropov has been found to have had. We will not compare Brezhnev with Gorbachev and Yeltsin. But we will only point out the Leonid Ilich was a complete patriot to his motherland, to the interests of which he always gave the first priority. And more: yes, he liked to collect awards, but they are all still there in Goskhran (if they have not been stolen, like much else in unhappy Russia). And his children did not have private homes or estates -- neither in the Soviet Union, nor abroad.
Is it not true that the comparison produces an impression? However, let's be objective. Brezhnev's personality had many real weaknesses, which -- even with the abovementioned qualities -- did not permit him to go down in history as a great political figure. Alas, he was not one. In particular, he was very poorly educated, and his cultural level and tastes were simple to the point of primitiveness. Into this "gap" easily penetrated (?? I don't know the next word) from art of a definite ideological and national tone. He was weak-willed and insufficiently decisive, which is a great weakness for the leader of a world superpower.
However, the main thing is not in this. Brezhnev had no Great Goal ahead of himself, which is why from the get-go he could not be a great politician. Here, we will not recollect Lenin and Stalin. But Khrushchev... If we do not call to attention the corn or the blow of the shoe at the table at the UN, it is easy to see his general goal. It is simple to (??? don't know this word either), but was announced openly and carried out with difficulty -- to fill the bellies of Soviet citizens ("We will catch up to America in milk, butter," etc.) He did not even have an idea of the spiritual interests of Great Russia, which was his deciding weakness.
(snipped two paragraphs)
Today, on the ruins of the great Soviet Union, which exploded from within, much in our long-ago and especially recent history has become clear. In particular, the evaluation of the activity of the modest (to the point of it being a gift) Leonid Ilich Brezhnev, who lead half the world for 18 years -- an enormous term according to contemporary standards! And it is clear today that his "reign" (CD: "tsarstvie"), for the simple Russian-Soviet worker, that is, the enormous majority of the population, was the most pleasant time in all of the much-suffering 20th century. Neither war, nor revolution. Neither famine (CD: "golod" -- means both "famine" and just "hunger"), nor upheavals. Life was slowly, with interruptions, improving. The Soviet ruble and accounts in sberkassy were stable. Housing was received for the most part for free, and young men and women from the simplest families could enroll in MGU or LGU without blat, and did not pay bribes to the docents. Just as in the case of treatment in hospitals. Military service was very highly esteemed.
Thus it was, and very recently. Is it not true, that today it can be considered the Golden Age of the Earth?
===== Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250