Libro de Gorbachov por el 25 aniversario de la Perestroika

[Heno]

Administrador, veo que eres defensor de Gorbachov. Personalmente te puedo decir que hace 20 años eramos muchos los Gorbachovianos, creíamos en un socialismo moderno y más humano. Pero parece que después del golpe de agosto del 91, Gorbachov sufrió alguna crisis psicológiva y desde entonces él no ha dado muestras de seguir afirmando lo que afirmaba en 1989 a Egon Krenz. Si quieres te envío la transcripción de su entrevista con Krenz el 1-11-89, es un documento de la Fundación Gorbachov.
Saludos

[rubenrui]

A mí me interesa, Heno.

Pon el enlace o el texto o si no puedes subirlo aquí por lo que sea, por ejemplo, que lo tienes en un pdf que no se puede extraer texto, te pido que lo subas a un sitio de compartir contenidos y luegos nos dices el enlaces. Por ejemplo en:

http://www.megaupload.com/

Gracias.

Hasta pronto.

[Heno]

Lo tengo en otro ordenador, mañana lo intentaré copiar de alguna manera en este foro.
De todods modos te adelanto que sería interesante ver la evolución de la crisis psicológica de Gorvachov en los primeros años de los noventa. Tengo la impresión personal que Gorbachov es una persona honesta y no creo que su cambio de opinión, si es que lo ha habido, sea interesado.

[rubenrui]

[quote="Heno"]Lo tengo en otro ordenador, mañana lo intentaré copiar de alguna manera en este foro.
De todods modos te adelanto que sería interesante ver la evolución de la crisis psicológica de Gorvachov en los primeros años de los noventa. Tengo la impresión personal que Gorbachov es una persona honesta y no creo que su cambio de opinión, si es que lo ha habido, sea interesado.[/quote]

Como tú veas. Si te resulta complicado subirlo aquí, en el sitio que te recomende es muy sencillo y no hace falta registrarse ni nada.

Pulsas en el boton explorar y buscas en tu disco duro el fichero, y luego en el cuadro de texto una descripción (o lo que te de la gana) y luego pulsas el otro boton: enviar. Y ya está, espera a que suba y luego la página te muestra el enlace al fichero subido.

Si son varios ficheros los archivas con zip o rar o lo que tu uses y listo.

Y no dejes para mañana lo que puedes hacer hoy, domingo.

Hasta pronto.

[Heno]

El ordenador donde lo tengo está en la oficina, mañana a medio día lo pondré.
Estos documentos se pueden encontrar en la Fundación Gorbachov, son documentos que cualquiera puede consultarlos. Sin embargo en aquellos años, en occidente se deformaba la realidad de lo que la perestroika en realidad era. Igualmente hacen ahora deformando las informaciones sobre China y su via al socialismo del siglo XXI.
Gorbachov en 1990 creía en el futuro de una Rusia Socialista, después no he vuelto a oir nada a ese respecto. Eso es lo que me hace pensar que se dió una involución en la orientación ideológica de Gorbachov desde agosto de 1991. Creo que se debió a un impacto emocional, crisis psicológica, debida a su soledad en sus posiciones políticas en aquel momento concreto.

[Heno]

Soviet Record [1] of Conversation between

M. S. Gorbachev and the General Secretary of
the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity
Party of Germany (SED), Egon Krenz
1 November 1989

Gorbachev: The Soviet people are very interested in everything that is going on
now in the GDR. We hope to get the most recent information from you, although, of
course, we know a lot. The situation in the GDR, judging by everything we see, is
moving at an increasing speed. Is there a danger of getting left behind the reforms?
Remember, we said in Berlin [2] that to be behind is always to lose. We know that from
our own experience.

[...] I cannot tell you that we have already “broken in the horse of perestroika,”
which turned out to be quite restless. In any case, we have not completely tamed it yet.
Sometimes it even tries to throw the rider off. But we have gained very valuable
experience.

Krenz: [...] At the Politburo we came to the conclusion that the crisis has not
emerged [just] in the last several months. Many problems have accumulated over the
years.

But the main mistake was probably that we did not make serious conclusions
based on the new processes of social development, which began in the Soviet Union,
other socialist countries, and which were ripe in the GDR itself. Because if you have the
most important ally, you have to understand and share its problems and hardships. One
cannot declare friendship in words, and at the same time stay on the sidelines when your
ally is trying to deal with its difficult problems. People who are used to thinking of us as
close allies felt that suddenly we have lost our unity with the Soviet Union, and that we
ourselves erected this barrier.

Gorbachev: From the political point of view, the situation is clear, but from a
simply human standpoint–[it is] dramatic. I was also concerned about this. In general, I
had good relations with Honecker, but it seemed recently as if he lost his vision. If he had
been willing to make the necessary changes in policy on his own initiative 2 or 3 years
ago, everything would have been different now. But apparently, he had undergone some
kind of a shift, he ceased to see real processes in the world and in his own country. It was
a personal drama, but because Honecker occupied a very high position, it grew into a
political drama.

Krenz: Yes, you are right, it is a drama, and for me too, because Honecker
brought me up, he was my political mentor.

Gorbachev: Some people now speculate about that, but I think you should not
react to that.

Krenz: For Honecker the turn probably occurred exactly in 1985, when you were
elected General Secretary of the CC CPSU. In you he saw a threat to his authority,
because he considered himself the most dynamic political leader. He lost all touch with
reality, and did not rely on the politburo collective. [SED CC Secretary for Economics
Günter] Mittag and [SED CC Secretary for Ideology and Propaganda Joachim] Hermann


did him a very bad service in this respect. The first as a strategist, and the second as an
executive.

[...] Gorbachev: This is a familiar picture. Some time ago, when I already was a
Politburo member, I practically did not know our budget. Once we were working with
[Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers and Politburo member] Nikolai Ryzhkov on
some request of [former KGB chief and General Secretary Yuri V.] Andropov’s having
to do with budgetary issues, and we, naturally, decided that we should learn about them.
But Andropov said: Do not get in there, it is not your business. Now we know why he
said so. It was not a budget, but hell knows what.

[...] Gorbachev: We knew about your situation, about your economic and
financial ties with the FRG, and we understood how it all could turn out. For our part, we
were carrying out our obligations to the GDR, including those on oil deliveries, even
though some of it had to be reduced at a certain time. Erich Honecker was not very
honest with us about those things. We knew about that, but we exercised reserve and
patience, led by the highest political considerations.

Krenz: It is very important to define the division of labor between the GDR and
the Soviet Union better. It is one of our main reserves. The situation here is far from ideal.
We need to remove the existing barriers. There should be only one criterion—efficiency
and mutual benefit.

Gorbachev: The issue of the division of labor stands as a major problem in our
country as well. The republics that produce raw materials demand a redistribution of
money, because they think that those that produce finished products get too much. They
present very harsh conditions, up to the limiting and stopping of deliveries.

By the way, yesterday in the Supreme Soviet one of the deputies—[reform
economist] Nikolai Shmelev—raised the question about getting the real information
about all our foreign economic relations, including the relations with the socialist
countries, to the Supreme Soviet.

Krenz: We are prepared to discuss seriously those issues once again with our
Soviet comrades.

Gorbachev: I suggested the topic of cooperation to Honecker many times. He was
in favor of direct connections, but spoke about cooperation and especially about joint
ventures without any enthusiasm. But it is precisely cooperation that had the greatest
potential for mutual benefit. You cannot ride on the deliveries of our raw materials all the
time. There are some strict limits here.

[...] Gorbachev: Yesterday Alexander N. Yakovlev received [former US National
Security Adviser] Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, as you know, has a head with “global
brains.” And he said: If today the events turned out in such a way that unification of
Germany became a reality, it would mean a collapse of many things. I think so far we
have held the correct line: stood firmly in favor of the coexistence of two German states,
and as a result, came to a wide international recognition of the GDR, achieved the
Moscow Treaty, gave a boost to the Helsinki Process. Therefore we should confidently
follow this same course.

You must know: all serious political figures—[British Prime Minister Margaret]
Thatcher, [French President François] Mitterand, [Italian Prime Minister Giulio]
Andreotti, [Polish President Wojciech] Jaruzelski, and even the Americans—though their
position has recently exhibited some nuances—are not looking forward to German


unification. Moreover, in today’s situation it would probably have an explosive character.
The majority of Western leaders do not want to see the dissolution of NATO and of the
Warsaw Treaty Organization. Serious politicians understand that they are factors of a
necessary equilibrium. However, Mitterand feels like he has to mention his sympathy for
the idea of the German unification. The Americans are also speaking about such
sympathies for the Germans’ pull toward the unification. But I think that they do it as a
favor to Bonn, and also because to some extent, they are anxious about too much
rapprochement between the FRG and the USSR. Therefore, I repeat, the best course of
action now is to continue the same line in the German affairs which we have successfully
developed so far. By the way, [former FRG Chancellor and SPD leader] Willy Brandt
shares this opinion as well. He believes that the GDR is a great victory of socialism, even
though he has his own understanding of socialism. A liquidation of the republic, in his
opinion, would have been a bust for the Social Democrats. Therefore, I think, we all
should start from the following formula: history itself decided that there should be two
German states. But of course, you cannot get away from the FRG. The need for human
contacts presumes normal relations with the FRG. You should not disrupt your ties with
the FRG, although, certainly, they should be kept under control.

I am convinced that we should coordinate our relations with the FRG better,
although Honecker tried to evade this necessity. We know about your relations with the
FRG, and you know about our relations with it. Why should we try to hide anything from
each other! It would make sense to talk about the possibilities of trilateral cooperation
between the USSR, the GDR, and the FRG, especially in the economic sphere. [...]

The situation in Hungary and Poland today is such that they have nowhere else to
go, as they say, because they have drowned in financial dependence on the West. Today
some people criticize us: they say, what is the Soviet Union doing—allowing Poland and
Hungary to “sail” to the West[?] But we cannot take Poland on our balance. [Former
Polish leader Edward] Gierek accumulated $48 billion dollars of debt. Poland has already
paid off $49 billion, and it still owes almost $49 billion. As far as Hungary is concerned,
the International Monetary Fund has dictated its harsh ultimatum already under the late
Hungarian leader Janós Kádár.

Krenz: This is not our way.

Gorbachev: You need to take this into account in your relationship with the FRG.

[...] Gorbachev: We need to think through all of this, and to find formulas that
would allow people to realize their human needs. Otherwise we will be forced to accept
all kinds of ultimatums. Maybe we can direct our International Departments and Foreign
Ministries to think about possible initiatives together. Clearly, your constructive steps
should be accompanied with demands for certain obligations from the other side.
Chancellor Helmut Kohl keeps in touch with me and with you. We need to influence him.
Once under the pressure of the opposition, he found himself on the horse of nationalism.
The right wing starts to present their demands for the unification of Germany to the
Soviet Union, and appeals to the US. The logic is simple—all the peoples are united, why
do we Germans not have this right?

Krenz: We have already taken a number of steps. First of all, we gave orders to
the border troops not to use weapons at the border, except in the cases of direct attacks on
the soldiers. Secondly, we adopted a draft of Law on Foreign Travel at the Politburo. [3]


We will present it for a public discussion, and we plan to pass it in the Volkskammer even
before Christmas. [...]

Gorbachev: Kohl was visibly worried when I mentioned the perverse
interpretation of some of our agreements with the FRG in my 8 October speech in Berlin.
He immediately gave me a telephone call regarding that.

Krenz: Yes, he is worried; I noticed it in my conversation with him. He was even
forgetting to finish phrases.

Gorbachev: Kohl, it seems, is not a big intellectual, but he enjoys certain
popularity in his country, especially among the petit-bourgeois public.

[...] Gorbachev: I was told that he [Honecker] did not adequately understand even
our discussions in the Politburo. But we do not have any ill feelings towards him. Had he
made the right conclusions two or three years ago, it would have been of major
significance for the GDR, and for him personally. In any case, one cannot deny the things
your Party and people have achieved in the past. We have a complete mutual
understanding about that.

Krenz cordially thanks Gorbachev for the support, openness, and good advice.

[Source: Notes of A.S. Chernyaev, Archive of the Gorbachev Foundation, f. 2, op. 2.
Translated by Svetlana Savranskaya (National Security Archive).]