Originally posted by: PJABBER
Originally posted by: bamacre
Are you implying that Communism could have worked, successfully, had it not been for our intervention?
if you address the question to me, I would say there are innate and fatal weaknesses in state controlled economies and political systems. These "centrally" planned and forced systems are inevitably resisted and eventually fail from both internal and external factors.
It is hard to think of any totalitarian economic and political system that lasted all that long, not that democratic capitalism has such a long history itself. Of course, you can have a succession of despots, but it is usually a self-defeating progression that implodes or is driven into failure. And you can have democracies which are weakened by self doubt destroyed by totalitarianism's siren call.
The economic and political democratic capitalist system is likely the closest that anyone has come up with to satisfy the economic and aspirational needs of humanity. It is fragile in that the opportunities and freedoms it offers must be won again and again.
The nations which have chosen this path have a responsibility to more than their own citizens. They have an obligation to cry out against all of the alternatives which can only offer more oppression. Perhaps that is why so many around the world are wondering why the United States is now straying away from that which made them exceptional and inspirational.
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: shira
But Reagan is your hero, so of course you think 1989 was wonderful.
You do realize Reagan was only president until January 20, 1989 -- correct?
You do realise that PJABBER WILL argue that it was Reagans work that drove the wall down, right?
Truth is, a society and their leaders revolted and no other nation really helped at all.
I will make my own arguments, thank you very much.
Reagan's military build up caused the arms race to spiral beyond the Soviet Union's ability to manage both the massive military they aspired to and any semblance of economic viability. Reagan's rhetoric inspired people throughout the world, but particularly in Eastern Europe, where so many hung on to his words as an indication that they did not resist the totalitarianism of the Soviet State alone.
Finally, it was the gathering swell of resistance in the countries of Eastern Europe - Hungary, Poland, Lithuania et al, that collapsed the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and offered freedom and opportunity for so many millions of people in Europe and in Asia. I fully credit the leaders of those small countries for much more than the freedoms they achieved at great cost in their own nations. Millions owe them recognition for the results they inspired and achieved.
But, as the article points out, there is scant recognition much less general understanding of the result of their actions.
Actually, nothing of what you wrote is correct, the movement started and finished in Russia, it was lead by an opposition that Gorbachev let in to prove his good intentions and that Jeltsin used.
The other small groups had very little to do with anything after that because no nation would be able to do much about the big ball rolling.
The US played no part what so ever in the revolution of the Russian people.
Give credit where credit is due, none to the US (who actually wanted the status quo) and all to the people of the USSR.
Fraying amongst the members of the Warsaw Pact nations and instability of its western allies, first indicated by Lech Walesa's 1980 rise to leadership of the trade union Solidarity, accelerated, leaving the Soviet Union unable to depend upon its Eastern European satellite states for protection as a buffer zone. By 1989, Moscow had repudiated the Brezhnev Doctrine in favor of non-intervention in the internal affairs of its Warsaw Pact allies. Gradually, each of the Warsaw Pact nations saw their communist governments fall to popular elections and, in the case of Romania, a violent uprising. By 1991 the communist governments of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania, all of which had been imposed after World War II, were brought down as revolution swept Eastern Europe.
The Soviet Union also began experiencing upheaval as the political consequences of glasnost reverberated throughout the country. Despite efforts at containment, the upheaval in Eastern Europe inevitably spread to nationalities within the USSR. In elections to the regional assemblies of the Soviet Union's constituent republics, nationalists as well as radical reformers swept the board. As Gorbachev had weakened the system of internal political repression, the ability of the USSR's central Moscow government to impose its will on the USSR's constituent republics had been largely undermined. Massive peaceful protests in the Baltic Republics such as The Baltic Way and the Singing Revolution drew international attention and bolstered independence movements in various other regions.
The rise of nationalism under freedom of speech soon reawakened simmering ethnic tensions in various Soviet republics, further discrediting the ideal of a unified Soviet people. One instance occurred in February 1988, when the government in Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly ethnic Armenian region in the Azerbaijan SSR, passed a resolution calling for unification with the Armenian SSR. Violence against local Azerbaijanis was reported on Soviet television, provoking massacres of Armenians in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait.
...On February 7, 1990, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union agreed to give up its monopoly of power. Over the next several weeks, the 15 constituent republics of the USSR held their first competitive elections. Reformers and ethnic nationalists won many of the seats.
The constituent republics began to assert their national sovereignty over Moscow and started a "war of laws" with the central government, wherein the governments of the constituent republics repudiated union-wide legislation where it conflicted with local laws, asserting control over their local economies and refusing to pay tax revenue to the central Moscow government. This strife caused economic dislocation as supply lines in the economy were severed, and caused the Soviet economy to decline further.
The pro-independence movement in the Lithuanian SSR, Sajudis, established on June 3, 1988, caused a visit by Gorbachev in January 1990 to the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, which provoked a pro-independence rally of around 250,000 people.
On March 11, 1990, the Lithuanian SSR, led by Chairman of the Supreme Council Vytautas Landsbergis, declared restoration of independence. However, the Soviet Army attempted to suppress the movement. The Soviet Union initiated an economic blockade of Lithuania and kept troops there "to secure the rights of ethnic Russians."
On March 30, 1990, the Estonian Supreme Council declared Soviet power in Estonian SSR since 1940 to have been illegal, and started a process to reestablish Estonia as an independent state. The process of restoration of independence of the Latvian SSR began on May 4, 1990, with a Latvian Supreme Council vote stipulating a transitional period to complete independence.
On January 13, 1991, Soviet troops, along with KGB Spetsnaz Alpha Group, stormed the Vilnius TV Tower in Vilnius, Lithuania to suppress the nationalist media. This ended with 14 unarmed civilians dead and hundreds more injured. Later that month in Georgian SSR, anti-Soviet protesters at Tbilisi demonstrated support for Lithuanian independence.
On March 17, 1991, in a Union-wide referendum 76.4% of all voters voted for the retention of the Soviet Union in a reformed form. The Baltics, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova boycotted the referendum. In each of the other nine republics, a majority of the voters supported the retention of the renewed Soviet Union. Following the results, Armenia indicated it wanted to rejoin in Union discussion.
On June 12, 1991, Yeltsin won 57% of the popular vote in the democratic elections for the post of president of the Russian SFSR, defeating Gorbachev's preferred candidate, Nikolai Ryzhkov, who won 16% of the vote. In his election campaign, Yeltsin criticized the "dictatorship of the centre", but did not suggest the introduction of a market economy. Instead, he said that he would put his head on the railtrack in the event of increased prices. Yeltsin took office on July 10.
On the night of July 31, 1991, Russian OMON from Riga, the Soviet military headquarters in the Baltics, assaulted the Lithuanian border post in Medininkai and killed seven Lithuanian servicemen. This further weakened the Soviet Union's position, internationally and domestically.
The Revolutions of 1989, sometimes called the Autumn of Nations, were a revolutionary wave that swept across Central and Eastern Europe in late 1989, ending in the overthrow of Soviet-style communist states within the space of a few months.
The largely bloodless political upheaval began in Poland, continued in Hungary, and then led to a surge of mostly peaceful revolutions in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria. Romania was the only Eastern-bloc country to overthrow its communist regime violently and execute its head of state. The subsequent events that continued in 1990 and 1991 are sometimes also referred to as a part of the revolutions of 1989. The Soviet Union collapsed by the end of 1991.
The Revolutions of 1989 greatly altered the balance of power in the world and marked the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the Post-Cold War era.
Originally posted by: shira
I could be mis-remembering, but I thought Germany surrendered in May of 1944, and VE day was in 1945.Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: PJABBER
November of 1989 was the most liberating month of arguably the most liberating year in human history...
I'd say 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation) has 1989 beat by a good margin.
1944 (Germany's surrender during WWII) also has 1989 beat.
Oh, and how about 1783 (Treaty of Paris)? That was a MUCH better year for liberation.
And what about 1795 (French Constitution)? I think the French would say THAT was a better year.
The end of the cold war didn't save humanity. It didn't solve the day-to-day problems of common people. We still face the very real and growing threat of nuclear terrorism. We still fact the threat of a nuclear Iran.
But Reagan is your hero, so of course you think 1989 was wonderful.
It was 1945 and Germany's surrender still left millions stuck under Soviet rule. Most of them until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Edit: Just looked it up. You're right. Berlin surrendered in 1944, but Germany didn't surrender until 1945.
Anyway, I was thinking of the intended victims of Germany's genocide. And overall, I'm certain that the world felt a MUCH greater sense of relief when WWII ended than when the Berlin Wall fell.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: PJABBER
November of 1989 was the most liberating month of arguably the most liberating year in human history...
I'd say 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation) has 1989 beat by a good margin.
1944 (Germany's surrender during WWII) also has 1989 beat.
Oh, and how about 1783 (Treaty of Paris)? That was a MUCH better year for liberation.
And what about 1795 (French Constitution)? I think the French would say THAT was a better year.
The end of the cold war didn't save humanity. It didn't solve the day-to-day problems of common people. We still face the very real and growing threat of nuclear terrorism. We still fact the threat of a nuclear Iran.
But Reagan is your hero, so of course you think 1989 was wonderful.
It was 1945 and Germany's surrender still left millions stuck under Soviet rule. Most of them until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: PJABBER
November of 1989 was the most liberating month of arguably the most liberating year in human history...
I'd say 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation) has 1989 beat by a good margin.
1944 (Germany's surrender during WWII) also has 1989 beat.
Oh, and how about 1783 (Treaty of Paris)? That was a MUCH better year for liberation.
And what about 1795 (French Constitution)? I think the French would say THAT was a better year.
The end of the cold war didn't save humanity. It didn't solve the day-to-day problems of common people. We still face the very real and growing threat of nuclear terrorism. We still fact the threat of a nuclear Iran.
But Reagan is your hero, so of course you think 1989 was wonderful.
It was 1945 and Germany's surrender still left millions stuck under Soviet rule. Most of them until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
and the collapse of the soviet union still left hundred of millions under repressive rule in its successor and client states. only a few really escaped (poland, czech r., slovakia, hungary, estonia, lithuania, latvia) A large portion of the soviet block remains very shitty. Russians are still poorer now then they were at the fall of the soviet union, and probably nearly as un-free
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: PJABBER
November of 1989 was the most liberating month of arguably the most liberating year in human history...
I'd say 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation) has 1989 beat by a good margin.
1944 (Germany's surrender during WWII) also has 1989 beat.
Oh, and how about 1783 (Treaty of Paris)? That was a MUCH better year for liberation.
And what about 1795 (French Constitution)? I think the French would say THAT was a better year.
The end of the cold war didn't save humanity. It didn't solve the day-to-day problems of common people. We still face the very real and growing threat of nuclear terrorism. We still fact the threat of a nuclear Iran.
But Reagan is your hero, so of course you think 1989 was wonderful.
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I would say that Reagan wanted the status quo, he'd rather have one huge poor nation than a sheitload of nuclear silos spread out in a very unstable part of the world (which he understood, and rightfully so, that it would become).
I'd like to see ANY direct evidence via talks, direct help or anything of the sort more than mere speculation that it might have helped with not and what that Reagan did something he might or might not have done.
Truth is, i admire people who stand up like that and i really dislike it when someone says that they "helped" when in reality they did not.
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: PJABBER
November of 1989 was the most liberating month of arguably the most liberating year in human history...
I'd say 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation) has 1989 beat by a good margin.
1944 (Germany's surrender during WWII) also has 1989 beat.
Oh, and how about 1783 (Treaty of Paris)? That was a MUCH better year for liberation.
And what about 1795 (French Constitution)? I think the French would say THAT was a better year.
The end of the cold war didn't save humanity. It didn't solve the day-to-day problems of common people. We still face the very real and growing threat of nuclear terrorism. We still fact the threat of a nuclear Iran.
But Reagan is your hero, so of course you think 1989 was wonderful.
It was 1945 and Germany's surrender still left millions stuck under Soviet rule. Most of them until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
and the collapse of the soviet union still left hundred of millions under repressive rule in its successor and client states. only a few really escaped (poland, czech r., slovakia, hungary, estonia, lithuania, latvia) A large portion of the soviet block remains very shitty. Russians are still poorer now then they were at the fall of the soviet union, and probably nearly as un-free
Hmm. Hundreds of millions? A broad statement on which to hang your admittedly already poor reputation for intellectual discipline. Provide references and sources or just state that this is YOUR opinion and YOUR opinion only. And a poor opinion at that.
Originally posted by: ironwing
Far from winning it, Reagan threw up a hairball at Reykjavík and prolonged the Cold War by three years and hundreds of billions of dollars. Stupid ass.
Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: ironwing
Far from winning it, Reagan threw up a hairball at Reykjavík and prolonged the Cold War by three years and hundreds of billions of dollars. Stupid ass.
I'd be interested in reading material stating that, along with the logic for it. Link?
I guess you haven't heard. Communism was a made up boogie-man by the right. There was no real cold war. It was all a lie perpetratrated by wealthy businessmen to control the masses with fear.Originally posted by: PJABBER
November of 1989 was the most liberating month of arguably the most liberating year in human history... But for the ill informed leftish posters on this site the dramatic changes in the world's landscape might not have happened at all. They revel in the joys of State control and abject pacifism, they support the demise of democracy in favor of social welfarism, they advocate submission to the will of the State while denigrating independent thought.
They want to live in the equivalent of the Soviet of 1988. So they push and push and push for the end of democratic capitalism.
I was living in Western Europe in 1989 so I might have the advantage of having been in close proximity to the events of that year. 20 years later, I lift my coffee cup in a salute to those who made 1989 the best of years.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
I guess you haven't heard. Communism was a made up boogie-man by the right. There was no real cold war. It was all a lie perpetratrated by wealthy businessmen to control the masses with fear.Originally posted by: PJABBER
November of 1989 was the most liberating month of arguably the most liberating year in human history... But for the ill informed leftish posters on this site the dramatic changes in the world's landscape might not have happened at all. They revel in the joys of State control and abject pacifism, they support the demise of democracy in favor of social welfarism, they advocate submission to the will of the State while denigrating independent thought.
They want to live in the equivalent of the Soviet of 1988. So they push and push and push for the end of democratic capitalism.
I was living in Western Europe in 1989 so I might have the advantage of having been in close proximity to the events of that year. 20 years later, I lift my coffee cup in a salute to those who made 1989 the best of years.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
I guess you haven't heard. Communism was a made up boogie-man by the right. There was no real cold war. It was all a lie perpetratrated by wealthy businessmen to control the masses with fear.Originally posted by: PJABBER
November of 1989 was the most liberating month of arguably the most liberating year in human history... But for the ill informed leftish posters on this site the dramatic changes in the world's landscape might not have happened at all. They revel in the joys of State control and abject pacifism, they support the demise of democracy in favor of social welfarism, they advocate submission to the will of the State while denigrating independent thought.
They want to live in the equivalent of the Soviet of 1988. So they push and push and push for the end of democratic capitalism.
I was living in Western Europe in 1989 so I might have the advantage of having been in close proximity to the events of that year. 20 years later, I lift my coffee cup in a salute to those who made 1989 the best of years.
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: ironwing
Far from winning it, Reagan threw up a hairball at Reykjavík and prolonged the Cold War by three years and hundreds of billions of dollars. Stupid ass.
I'd be interested in reading material stating that, along with the logic for it. Link?
i've seen the theories, really nothing concrete.
regardless the idea that reagen singlehandedly won a war that had been going on for decades and was arguably already 'won' by the time he entered office is pretty ridiculous. A great moment in history that he was a part of sure, but it was far from ushering in a new era of global freedom and prosperity when a solid third (maybe half?) of the worlds people live in un-free circumstances
Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: ironwing
Far from winning it, Reagan threw up a hairball at Reykjavík and prolonged the Cold War by three years and hundreds of billions of dollars. Stupid ass.
I'd be interested in reading material stating that, along with the logic for it. Link?
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: ironwing
Far from winning it, Reagan threw up a hairball at Reykjavík and prolonged the Cold War by three years and hundreds of billions of dollars. Stupid ass.
I'd be interested in reading material stating that, along with the logic for it. Link?
Reagan's insistence on continuing development of his pet project, the Strategic Defense Initiative (his Star Wars fantasy), scuttled the negotiations toward eliminating nuclear armed ballistic missiles.
Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: ironwing
Far from winning it, Reagan threw up a hairball at Reykjavík and prolonged the Cold War by three years and hundreds of billions of dollars. Stupid ass.
I'd be interested in reading material stating that, along with the logic for it. Link?
i've seen the theories, really nothing concrete.
regardless the idea that reagen singlehandedly won a war that had been going on for decades and was arguably already 'won' by the time he entered office is pretty ridiculous. A great moment in history that he was a part of sure, but it was far from ushering in a new era of global freedom and prosperity when a solid third (maybe half?) of the worlds people live in un-free circumstances
No, no, no, no -- I never said he single-handedly won the Cold War. In my opinion, he played a big factor though. I've also seen some argument that the Pope and Lech Walesa also played large roles because of the happenings in Poland around that time, which many think started driving the final nail into the coffin.
Originally posted by: shira
I could be mis-remembering, but I thought Germany surrendered in May of 1944, and VE day was in 1945.Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: PJABBER
November of 1989 was the most liberating month of arguably the most liberating year in human history...
I'd say 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation) has 1989 beat by a good margin.
1944 (Germany's surrender during WWII) also has 1989 beat.
Oh, and how about 1783 (Treaty of Paris)? That was a MUCH better year for liberation.
And what about 1795 (French Constitution)? I think the French would say THAT was a better year.
The end of the cold war didn't save humanity. It didn't solve the day-to-day problems of common people. We still face the very real and growing threat of nuclear terrorism. We still fact the threat of a nuclear Iran.
But Reagan is your hero, so of course you think 1989 was wonderful.
It was 1945 and Germany's surrender still left millions stuck under Soviet rule. Most of them until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Edit: Just looked it up. You're right. Berlin surrendered in 1944, but Germany didn't surrender until 1945.
Anyway, I was thinking of the intended victims of Germany's genocide. And overall, I'm certain that the world felt a MUCH greater sense of relief when WWII ended than when the Berlin Wall fell.
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: PJABBER
November of 1989 was the most liberating month of arguably the most liberating year in human history...
I'd say 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation) has 1989 beat by a good margin.
1944 (Germany's surrender during WWII) also has 1989 beat.
Oh, and how about 1783 (Treaty of Paris)? That was a MUCH better year for liberation.
And what about 1795 (French Constitution)? I think the French would say THAT was a better year.
The end of the cold war didn't save humanity. It didn't solve the day-to-day problems of common people. We still face the very real and growing threat of nuclear terrorism. We still fact the threat of a nuclear Iran.
But Reagan is your hero, so of course you think 1989 was wonderful.
It was 1945 and Germany's surrender still left millions stuck under Soviet rule. Most of them until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
and the collapse of the soviet union still left hundred of millions under repressive rule in its successor and client states. only a few really escaped (poland, czech r., slovakia, hungary, estonia, lithuania, latvia) A large portion of the soviet block remains very shitty. Russians are still poorer now then they were at the fall of the soviet union, and probably nearly as un-free
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Originally posted by: bamacre
Are you implying that Communism could have worked, successfully, had it not been for our intervention?
if you address the question to me, I would say there are innate and fatal weaknesses in state controlled economies and political systems. These "centrally" planned and forced systems are inevitably resisted and eventually fail from both internal and external factors.
It is hard to think of any totalitarian economic and political system that lasted all that long, not that democratic capitalism has such a long history itself. Of course, you can have a succession of despots, but it is usually a self-defeating progression that implodes or is driven into failure. And you can have democracies which are weakened by self doubt destroyed by totalitarianism's siren call.
The economic and political democratic capitalist system is likely the closest that anyone has come up with to satisfy the economic and aspirational needs of humanity. It is fragile in that the opportunities and freedoms it offers must be won again and again.
The nations which have chosen this path have a responsibility to more than their own citizens. They have an obligation to cry out against all of the alternatives which can only offer more oppression. Perhaps that is why so many around the world are wondering why the United States is now straying away from that which made them exceptional and inspirational.
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I believe there are around 1.4 billion Chinese who may 'question' the 'defeat' of communism in spite of their 'market reforms'.
And what was happening in China in 1989 while the rest of the world watched the implosion the Soviet Union?The party's organizational structure was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution (another lovely manifestation of the totalitarian ethos - PJ) and rebuilt afterwards by Deng Xiaoping, who subsequently initiated "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" and brought all state apparatuses back under the control of the CPC...
Opinions about the Communist Party of China often create unexpected political alliances and divisions, e.g: divisions among conservatives in the United States. Many of the unexpected opinions about the CPC result from its rare combination of attributes as a party formally based on Marxism which has eventually overseen a market economy, yet maintains an authoritarian political system...
Some of the opponents of the Party within the Chinese democracy movement have tended not to argue that a strong Chinese state is inherently bad, but rather that the Communist leadership is corrupt... Leaders of the Communist Party of China are aware that there are serious problems with corruption and with maintaining the trust of the Chinese people...
- Another school of thought argues that the worst of the abuses took place decades ago, and that the current leaders were not only unconnected with them, but were actually victims of that era. They have also argued that, while the modern Communist Party may be flawed, it is comparatively better than previous regimes, with respect to improving the general standard of living, than any other government that has governed China in the past century and can be seen in a more favorable light compared with most governments of the developing nations. As a result, the CPC has recently taken sweeping measures to regain support from the countryside, with limited success.
- In addition, some scholars contend that China has never operated under a decentralized democratic regime in its several thousand years of history, and therefore it can be argued that the present structure, albeit not up to western moral standards, is the best possible option when compared to its alternatives. A sudden transition to democracy, they contend, would result in the economic and political upheaval that occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1990s, and that by focusing on economic growth, China is setting the stage for a more gradual but sustainable transition to a more liberal system. This group sees Mainland China as being similar to Spain in the 1960s, and South Korea and Taiwan during the 1970s. This school of thought also brings together some unlikely political allies. Not only do most intellectuals within the Chinese government follow this school of thinking, but it is also the common belief held amongst pro-free trade liberals in the West.
- Many observers from both within and outside of China have argued that the CCP has taken gradual steps towards democracy and transparency, hence arguing that it is best to give it time and room to evolve into a better government rather than forcing an abrupt change. However, other observers (like Minxin Pei) question whether these steps are genuine efforts towards democratic reform or disingenuous measures by the CCP to retain power.
The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, culminating in the deaths of hundreds of civilian protestors referred to in most of the Western world as the Tiananmen Square massacre and in the People's Republic of China (PRC) as the June Fourth Incident (officially to avoid confusion with two prior Tiananmen Square protests), were a series of demonstrations in and near Tiananmen Square in Beijing in the PRC beginning on 14 April. Led mainly by students and intellectuals, the protests occurred in a year that saw the collapse of a number of communist governments around the world.
The protests were sparked by the death of a pro-democracy and anti-corruption official, Hu Yaobang, whom protesters wanted to mourn. By the eve of Hu's funeral, 1,000,000 people had gathered at Tiananmen square. The protests lacked a unified cause or leadership; participants included disillusioned Chinese Communist Party members and Trotskyists as well as free market reformers, who were generally against the government's authoritarianism and voiced calls for economic change and democratic reform within the structure of the government. The demonstrations centered on Tiananmen Square, in Beijing, but large-scale protests also occurred in cities throughout China, including Shanghai, which remained peaceful throughout the protests.
The movement lasted seven weeks, from Hu's death on 15 April until tanks cleared Tiananmen Square on 4 June. In Beijing, the resulting military response to the protesters by the PRC government left many civilians dead or severely injured. The number of deaths is not known and many different estimates exist. Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times estimated the death toll at 400-800 based on information he gathered from multiple medical sources.
Following the conflict, the government conducted widespread arrests of protesters and their supporters, cracked down on other protests around China, banned the foreign press from the country and strictly controlled coverage of the events in the PRC press. Members of the Party who had publicly sympathized with the protesters were purged, with several high-ranking members placed under house arrest, such as General Secretary Zhao Ziyang. There was widespread international condemnation of the PRC government's use of force against the protesters.