2T - Pressures for change and the reaction of the regime: political dissidents and protest, including Andrei Sakharov and Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Learn how dissidents, human-rights commitments and national grievances challenged Soviet authority, and explain why Andropov's limited reforms and Chernenko's continuity left Gorbachev with an opening for more substantial change.
Dissidents and state repression
Soviet dissidents challenged official policies, accounts of the past or restrictions on belief and expression. They did not form a single party with one programme. Some defended civil rights, others religious freedom, national identity or a Russian moral tradition. Samizdat, the private copying and circulation of prohibited writing, allowed ideas to spread outside official publishing. Publication abroad, often called tamizdat, could attract a wider audience but expose authors to accusations of serving foreign interests.
Andrei Sakharov, a physicist involved in Soviet nuclear weapons development, became a prominent advocate of civil liberties and international cooperation. His position made the challenge especially embarrassing: an eminent scientist associated with Soviet strength questioned state conduct. After condemning the invasion of Afghanistan he was sent into internal exile in Gorky in 1980, restricting contact with foreign journalists and supporters. The Sakharov Archive's exhibition records the 1980–1986 exile.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn exposed repression through literature and historical testimony. The permission to publish One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich in 1962 did not create lasting freedom. The Gulag Archipelago appeared abroad in 1973; in February 1974 he was arrested, deprived of citizenship and expelled. His family-supported centre's biography confirms that sequence. His critique differed from Sakharov's liberal emphasis and should not be treated as the same programme.
The regime used surveillance, job loss, searches, trials, prison, exile and psychiatric confinement against opponents. These selective methods differed from Stalinist mass terror but made dissent dangerous. The movement's active numbers remained limited, yet its symbolic and international influence could be much greater. Repression constrained organisation while revealing the gap between official rights and practice.
Helsinki and human-rights claims
The Helsinki Final Act, signed on 1 August 1975, gave dissidents a new basis for public claims. Alongside European security and cooperation, signatories committed themselves to principles concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms. Brezhnev valued recognition of the European settlement and the prestige of participating as an equal leader. Critics focused on the promises concerning treatment of people.
The Moscow Helsinki Group was founded in 1976 to monitor Soviet compliance. Activists documented abuses and communicated them abroad. Rather than merely demanding foreign standards, they could invoke commitments their own government had signed. This placed Soviet claims to legality and peaceful cooperation in tension with arrests and restrictions. Western monitoring and publicity widened the audience for such evidence.
The Act did not automatically make the USSR democratic. It was a political commitment rather than an enforceable treaty imposing an outside government over Soviet affairs. Authorities continued repression, and many monitors were imprisoned, exiled or otherwise silenced. Its significance lay in a new language of accountability and international connection, not instant enforcement.
The OSCE's authentic text of the Final Act is valuable evidence of accepted commitments, but not proof that every signatory fulfilled them. For an enquiry into Soviet human-rights practice, a historian would test its principles against records of particular cases. For an enquiry into diplomatic aims, its combination of security and humanitarian provisions helps explain why different participants valued the same agreement for different reasons.
National grievances within the USSR
The USSR was a union of republics with formally recognised national identities but highly centralised political control. Russian language and officials held a privileged place in all-Union institutions. National cultures could receive official support while independent political demands were condemned as nationalism. This contradiction made language, religion, historical memory and rights to return sensitive issues.
In the Baltic republics, memories of incorporation into the USSR and religious or national traditions sustained opposition. Lithuanian Catholic activists documented restrictions through the Chronicle of the Catholic Church in Lithuania, begun in 1972. The 1972 unrest in Kaunas after Romas Kalanta's self-immolation showed that grievances could move beyond private discussion. Crimean Tatars campaigned for the right to return to their homeland after Stalin's deportation, demonstrating the incomplete national settlement of de-Stalinisation.
Demonstrations in Georgia in 1978 opposed proposals that would weaken the constitutional standing of the Georgian language. The authorities conceded on that issue. This case shows that the regime sometimes contained protest through adjustment rather than repression alone. Jewish applicants refused permission to emigrate, often called refuseniks, also challenged restrictions, though individual motives and identities varied and should not be reduced to one separatist movement.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account