Solidarity

The term Solidarity refers to the trade union that was organized for workers' rights. They wanted a mass change that was against Communism. When Gorbachev launched his reforms, he created the aspect of democracy in society. The atmosphere contained traces of democracy, and in Poland, the trade union was against communism in a communist country. They wanted equal workers' rights, which was a main aspect of democracy as well. It was formed in Poland, a country all about Communism. It was formed and started gaining much influence for their democratic ideals and their desire of equal rights for all. As they gained support, they also won much control of the country itself, even though they were not a political faction, but more social. Efforts to crush Solidarity were futile, as they had a large majority of support. When the government in Poland was open to elections, members of Solidarity ran for office, and won the majority vote even though the Communists doubted their victory. This was the first step in the fall towards the fall of Communism.
I feel that if Solidarity was never formed, then it is possible that Gorbachev could have kept control over the Soviet Union and prolonged the takeover of democracy. Solidarity was essential to the fall of Communism in the countries in the Soviet Union to take Gorbachev's democratic aspects to the next level. If not formed Gorbachev would have been able to keep control of the Soviet Union, keep his communist reformations and maybe even keep Russia the way it was until today. The countries may have even remained the Soviet Union, and one can only begin to imagine what a power like that could accomplish, as it would still remain a super power. However, the rise of democracy was exponentially increasing, and the would be Soviet Union would inevitable adopt it. In this instance, it brings about the importance of democracy, and that it is the political system that has the most favored aspects among the people back then and today.

America and Iran

During the Iranian Revolution, America had done something to the Iranian people that had upset them to an extent where they claimed America was purely evil. Iran had many oil companies that had oil plants. These oil plants were owned by foreign companies, mainly companies in America. Prime Minster Mossadeq decided to nationalize them, and keep the oil companies for Iran's benefit, which inspired the people and made them very nationalistic as well. However, this would not have been good for the United States, because it was their oil companies, and then they would end up losing money and oil for themselves. To solve this problem, the President, Carter, directed a CIA mission to overthrow the Prime Minister and put in Fazlollah Zehdi, a prime minister "on America's side." This enraged the Iranians, as they lost a major source of revenue, and it made them feel as though the United States was their new authoritarian leader, which they tried so hard to rid their country of with Reza Shah.
In my opinion, I feel as though if American did not interfere in the affairs of Iran, it would have been much different. What if America approved the movement of nationalizing the oil? Would Iran and America maintained the alliance? If the alliance was kept, there would have never been a hostage crisis. Would this be good or bad? Well, if there were no hostage crisis, then the Revolutionary Council would not be put in the legislative branch of their government. Iran may have continued to progress towards democracy by itself, as they would have remained influenced by the United States. Democracy would have found its way to Iran, and I feel as though it would have then arrived earlier. However, there would be a price to pay, as the United States would lose much revenue through the deplete in oil profit, but if it were possible to sustain financial stability without these oil deposits, the United States should have done nothing but support them.

Stalin's Regime

Stalin's regime was from July 19, 1941 to February 25, 1946. Stalin was a communist, following the path of Marxism as he lead the Soviet Union. Stalin focused mainly on heavy industrialization in iron and steel works, however, his industrial plans left many of his people poor and resulted in multiple famines. In 1928, Stalin replaced the Economic Policy with the 5 Year Plans, starting this period of rapid industrialization. After World War 2, Russia became the world's second biggest economy due to these reforms. However, on the dark side of all the reforms and economic progress, the people were forced into labor camps. The regime seemed to be like a complete dictatorship, and most likely was a complete dictatorship. Many dictators as we've seen tend to think of the country first, before the people. Such is the case with Napolean. Napolean's troops were dying and the economy wasn't too good, and neither were the people's lives. However, he thought about the military superiority of the country, instead of the people's well-being. During Stalin's reign, people lived in fear of Stalin's secret police and lived in poverty at the same time.

This wasn't beneficial to the people of social life in Russia. When a dictator makes his people live in fear, the overall emotion and attitude of the people becomes negative. This has been a debatable topic in history, whether or not the people should live in fear or if they should actually live with a leader they love. I feel that when people live in fear of their dictator or government, the chances of having a group of people to go against and rebel against the government. As always, of course, the overall view of a country is better when the leader is widely accepted and the country can be labeled as a "happy" country. For example, this happened in China, under Chairman Mao. Even though the people seemed to be clones of Mao and seemed almost brainwashed, they still accepted their leader with much love, that even boosted China's production. This is because when you have a satisfied working class, your economy will most likely be better than a sad and miserable working class that lived in poverty, i.e., the Russian economy under Stalin.