The Pope?

From CNN article dated Jan 21, 1998

But in many ways it is a lifelong battle against Communism that truly shapes this pope's place in history.

The pope visited his native land of Poland in 1979, within months of taking office
That battle began in 1979 when, within months of taking office, he visited his native Poland and began to rally a subject nation and helped set in motion sweeping democratic changes.

The pontiff stood up for the independent trade union movement Solidarity and helped inspire a revolution of ideas -- not just in Poland but across the Iron Curtain -- that eventually lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Reagan?

From a review of Peter Schweizer's "Reagan's War"

Schweizer uncovered useful documents that help define Reagan as one of the key architects of America's Cold War triumph. His impressive research offers a useful corrective to the chroniclers who simply reduce the defeat of the Soviets to a broad bipartisan coalition of presidents, to the mystical power of the American people, or to the inevitability of communist decline. America's Cold War victory was in no way inevitable or obvious. It was a joint achievement; no country or individual did it alone. But Ronald Reagan was not just lucky to be in the right place in the right time. Even if Schweizer's chapter title "Reagan Makes Gorbachev Possible" overstates it, the pressure placed on the Soviet system by Reagan's defense buildup -- and his unyielding commitment to Star Wars -- helped spread the useful cancer that was eroding the communist dictatorship's internal strength.

Gorbachev? Possibly inadvertantly?

From "Explaining the Soviet Collapse" by Peter Rutland

Archie Brown argues in his political biography of Gorbachev that he "has strong claims to be regarded ... as the individual who made the most profound impact on world history in the second half of the twentieth century," since, according to Olga Chaykovskaya, he inherited "a moribund, slavish country and made it alive and free." Gorbachev was a determined reformer and a skillful politician who seized the moment to press ahead with liberalization in the face of fierce opposition from party conservatives. Brown argues that it is important to closely study Gorbachev's thinking, and its evolution over time, in order to understand what happened. Without Gorbachev, change would have been slower and more violent. Gorbachev may have mismanaged economic reform and been slow to respond to the nationalist challenge, but he stayed the course, and no other leader could have done a better job of dealing with those "intractable problems." It is indeed hard to imagine any other leader willingly relinquishing Soviet control over Eastern Europe as smoothly as did Gorbachev, thanks to his rapport with Western leaders and his willingness to trade in the old empire in exchange for Western support for his reform efforts. One must agree with Brown that "The key to change in Eastern Europe was Gorbachev's decision in principle to abandon Soviet foreign military interventions." The fact that Gorbachev thought he was saving the Soviet system but instead brought about its downfall is just another of those ironies of history that have dogged Russia this century.

Or someone else?

The question: What leader was most responsible for bringing about the collapse of the USSR?

Yeltsin, he stormed the parliament building . (and Gorbachev for giving him the chance)

If someone had just shot Yeltsin off his tank, the Soviet Union would still be here.

I'd say Lenin, for setting up a system that was doomed to failure, and Stalin, for making that system ever worse. I think that the Soviet Union would have fallen regardless of what these men did. It wasn't leaders that killed the system; it was the system that killed itself.

Then why hasn't Cuba, China, Vietnam, Belarus, Moldova, the DPRK, Venezuela, Transdniester, or the other countries that use the Soviet system fallen?

It would be as if a citizen of Sparta shook his head and pronounced " it wasn't Pericles's fault, democracy was doomed to failure from the begining as a weak system" after razing Athens.

The US outspent the Soviet Union because it had a larger economy to begin with which was untouched by war, the Soviet Union had to spend as much as the United States on weapons or be destroyed by an American first strike. If things had happaned just a little differently, if Germany had fallen to Rosa Luxemburg in 1919 giving the Soviets the larger economy and preventing WWII for instance, the Soviets would have outspent the Americans.

Two countries faught a cold war and one had more difficulty maintaining it than the other, allowing reactionary elements to overthrow the goverment from the inside out betraying their nation. It could have happened between two capitalist states just as easily. The British Empire in the middle east was largely taken over by American corporations simply by way superior finances. It doesn't say anything about either system, the Soviet Union defeated capitalist industralized Germany in WWII and no one decided it was out of weakness of their economic system.

I would say, if you hold to this theory, that Reagan deserves a great deal of credit.

He didn't build the US economy he inhereted it.

But he did put more stress on the Soviet economy by introducing a defense system that, theoretically, would make MAD obsolete and increasing military spending.

Okay, you're probably right. That was a victory for Reagan's imperialism.

Capitalist Imperialism 1, Socialist Imperialism 0

Imperialists incorporate weaker countries economies into their own in an unequal trading relationship, by definition. Capitalists do this, socialists do not, because socialists do not use foreign direct investment. There can't be a "socialist imperialism" because imperialism requires these colonial classes that only exist in capitalism and feudalism. Capitalism seeks to expand its markets and its investment abroad, neither apply to socialist economies.

Though if you want an example of "socialist imperialism" and an on topic post about someone committing treason against the Soviet Union, how about Gorbachev cutting aid to eastern europe and forcing its economic collapse? Thats is sort of like imperialism because it manipulated smaller economies in an uneven manner, but its also not imperialism because it damaged the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe where as typically imperialism will benefit someone.

George Kennan

The man who theorized the idea of containment of the USSR.

Post-WWII Cold War world



The Korean war and the Vietnamese war were obviously parts of "Hard Containment"

What Kennan formulated is known as the "Truman Doctrine". I think Ole Harry deserves some credit for ending Soviet imperialism.

From Webster, definition of imperialism:

Rats...i forgot about Truman and how his doctrine was related.

Thanks for the reminder

Yes...Truman was a crucial factor in the defeat of communism before it even reached it's high point. Good man that Truman. Makes me thankful FDR chose him as a VP before his death.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...3898657-5316602

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/037...6322781-2755231

Above are a couple books dealing with this issue, I think more reality based than what I have seen elsewhere.

All outside-influence answers to this question really ignore russian history, economic realities and power structure.

Old Amazon link with reviews and New Amazon link which describes how the KGB orchestrated the events during the eighties. It perfectly fits with my theory of the motives of the Soviet oligarchy and claims that Yeltsin and the radical Democrats were unwitting accomplomises of the growth of the KGB.

"During the perestroika years, people who were closely connected with the KGB advanced to the highest offices in the country and the KGB increased its power in the Army. By 1985, the KGB had successfully grafted itself on to the party-state apparat. So when the KGB, the communist party and the military industrial complex cooked up the plan for perestroika, the KGB was in a prime position to run the show and man the engine for reform. Albats shows how Gorbachev suited the group within the oligarchy who were capable of seeing how close the Soviet Union was to economic collapse. That meant he suited the KGB as well. This was how perestroika opened the way for the KGB to advance toward the heart of power"

"In the spring of 1991, when Yeltsin was running for president, KGB directors sent their officers a coded telegram ordering them to vote against Yeltsin. The KGB also had a source close to Gorbachev. Indeed the tragic paradox of perestroika was that the democrats removed the communist party from the political arena before they were ready to step in and take over. Unwittingly, they had disrupted the balance of power in favour of the KGB, thereby allowing it in December 1990 to declare publicly through its chairman Kryuchkov that the real power in the country was vested in the political police."

The growth of the oligarchs based around the Yeltsin Family didn't have anything to do with the "old" KGB but with Putin bringing back the FSB into the heart of power, the plan is returning. These folks aren't Commies, but strong Russian authotarians.

Russian culture, history and economics almost is almost completely insular from all outside influences, and until you see first hand how it works, it is nearly impossible for a western person to grasp. For instance, can you imagine not having to pay your bills and never get your gas and such shut off? That is just wierd to me, but Russians don't have bills! That is just a small part of the equation. But if you read the papers today, Russia is moving back to a Totalitarian state, as evidenced by yesterdays election.

Now that i think about it, Mikhail Gorbachev because what happened during his rein was many reforms and such. His perestroika of the economy and the political structure of the USSR.

The communists lose elections in Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria & Romania. And that is just the start of many events that lead up to the collapse of the USSR.

The 1989 coup d etat that was to oust Gobachev failed and made what was already a bad situation worse

I'd vote that the whole Politburo was responsible for the collapse and that Gorbachev was at the right place at the right time to hasten the final day.

Economically, the country had stagnated years before under Brezhnev. After he died, the Politburo chose a couple of older/ill KGB/CPSU heads in place (Andropov and Chernenko), both of which hastened the end by increasing military spending to counter the perceived threat from Reagan and to invade Afghanistan. Really, during much of their time in charge, the Politburo was making many of the decisions, since the two leaders were both in the hospital so much.

What Gorbachev inherited was an economy that was sinking under the weight of top-heavy control. He did the best he could under the circumstances to reform the economy by trying to reform the politics, but I think it just got away from him, as freedom often does.

I think it is very interesting that the main supporters on this site of RR, and on other sites, can never find anything of real substance to back up thier claim of RR "winning the cold war"- and the imformation they do present really does ignore the basic power structure and the non-violent nature of the "collapse" of the "old USSR".

If there was any REAL outside russian influence to the "end of the cold war"- it would be Pepsi and Frank Zappa- good ol' Rock and roll and soft drinks! Thier concert in the early 80s was HUGE and swept the nation in rock-n-roll mania that still lives today.

I don't beleive any leader had a real role in the collapse. Communism simply does not work. People in the USSR were just tired of the miserable failure of communism and the conditions of their lives. I mean really talk about a complete about face. The former soviets didn't form a revolution and fight. They started a conga line. Right into the west.

Agreed they haven't fallen. However who wants to go to any of them. As a tourist possibly, maybe. Live there? Eww! I strongly suspect that if the weapons of the military of each respective country were taken away and the people were allowed to vote on it instead of being forced at gunpoint they'd probably choose something along the lines of a socialist democracy.

Let's get something straight here. The Bolsheviks were a minority party whom ceased power in Russia through a coup. Then they launched Russia into a devastating civil war in which 5 million people died. Russia remained at a civil war state until 1945. The Soviet Union had an estimated 1.5-2.0 million troops join the Nazi cause. Read about the Kaminski brigade. This was the largest betrayal a country has ever seen in a state of war.

The reason the Soviet union fell was because the communist leadership wanted to make more money for themselves.Why do you think that most former politburo members in Russia and the former republics are all millionaires, whom in fact control the economies of these countries. This is no coincidence.

And finally Lukusenko in Belarus is a moron who was illegally elected. He controls Belarus by arresting and killing any descent. Belarus has the largest per-capita prison population in the world.

Gorbachev bloc-aid did not cause the eastern bloc countries to economically collapse. I was born in Romania in 1975, I have travelled to the Soviet Union and I can assure you that the citizens of the Soviet Union were by far the poorest. All the wealth they were sitting on went to the to the communist party whom spent it on themselves and the military. The Soviet Union was far from being a socialist economy. I would suggest to you that American aid created huge debt in the former communist countries, which in turn destroyed there economies.

Wow, you must have missed the class on 20th century American history. If anyone was untouched by war, mainly the financial aspects of it, it was the Soviet Union during the 20th century. The United States fought on 2 major fronts during the 2nd World War. while the USSR only had to fight Germany. The US single handedly defeated Japan, was the major force in defeating Germany, supplied England with tremedous amounts of war material. Then less than 5 years after World War II, we went to South Korea to defend them against aggressive communist attack. That last 3 years. Then we went into South Asia(Vietnam) from the early 60's until 1972, when the vast majority of hostilities stopped. So how you can claim that America has been untouched by war is a mystery to me. Thankfully we defeated communism in South Korea, we could have taken North Korea as well, after we slammed the Chinese, but President Truman decided to leave that country split at the 38th parallel. Communism was always doomed to fail. It is built on the principle that government should take care of people from their birth to death. Communism hates the individual, the enterpenurial spirit and hard work that capitalism fosters. Communism can't tolerate criticism, debate, or change. Communism especially in Russia, allowed millions of people to die unnoticed in labor camps, that made the Nazi death camps tame. Communism is its entirety is a theory, an idea for lazy, ignorant, short-sighted people that can't compete in the modern world.