This article describes the historical context that was decisive in Saharov’s commitment to warning party leaders of the dangers of the H-bomb and calling on them to respect human rights. He also attempts to explore the different ways in which Hruščev and Brežnev approached Saharov’s criticisms. Not only does he examine the three stages of the KGB model – educate, warn and only finally arrest renegades – he also sheds light on Andropov’s repeated appeals to Brežnev to speak with Saharov. Although Saharov, too, was keen to talk to Brežnev, the meeting between the two men never took place. In the end, it was against the backdrop of the Cold War that the Politbjuro decided on the best time to get rid of Saharov, doing as little damage as possible to the prestige of the Soviet Union, and thus re-establishing the limits of the dictable.


Cahiers du monde russe Russie Empire russe Union soviétique États indépendants 54(54/3-4): 441-466.

DOI: 10.4000/monderusse.7957

Zurück zur Übersicht
Kohärenz im Denken

„Das Gebot der Widerspruchsfreiheit erzeugt im Allgemeinen eine Kohärenz im Denken, die oftmals im Widerspruch zur Komplexität des Sozialen steht.“

Yan Suarsana
Dekoloniale Wissensproduktion

„Dezentralisierende und dekolonisierende Wissensproduktion über Widerspruch, widersprüchliche Phänomene und widersprechende Prozesse ist eine herausfordernde Aufgabe.“

Kerstin Knopf
Gefängnis der Differenz

„‚Widerspruch ist das Gefängnis der Differenz‘ schreibt der französische Philosoph Gilles Deleuze. Worlds of Contradiction fragt: wie können wir die Welt erklären und beschreiben, ohne sie kohärenter und systematischer zu machen, als sie ist?“

Michi Knecht
Ist Widerspruch eurozentrisch?

„Ist Widerspruch ein eurozentrisches Konzept, operatives Phänomen und Machtinstrument?“

Kerstin Knopf
Afterlife of colonialism

“Contradiction comes in many different forms. None is so debilitating than when the coloniser transitions, textually not politically, to decoloniality without taking the responsibility for the afterlife of colonialism, which they continue to benefit from. Self-examination and self-interrogation of the relations of coloniality, a necessity, seem nearly impossible for the coloniser who continues to act as beneficiary, masked in the new-found language of White fragility, devoid of an ethical responsibility of the very system of White domination they claim to be against.” (Black Consciousness and the Politics of the Flesh)

Rozena Maart