Actually, she was one of the sources I quoted, and she is not hailed as an expert on SDI because she if left wing and anti-Reagan, as you bafflingly claim. She is a pulitzer prize winning authour who's facts are well researched and carefully presented.

If you oppose her facts, then perhaps you can show us evidence of the massive economic and military Soviet response to SDI? Evidence of their military system expanmding because of SDI? Evidence of pressure placed on the Soviet strategic military budget because of SDI? No?

If you so strongly disbelieve her, then counter the arguments. I have made many, you have made not a single one, I say again, not a single one. It susrprises me not a whit that the far-right source you quoted does not particularily like her, some on the right have long been trying to claim that Regan is singly responsable for the end of the cold war. As you posted yourself, even this right-wing review could not dismiss or factually counter her book. The facts are simple. We know why the USSR went bankrupt and why the republics and Pact started to break away, and it has nothing to do with Reagan. I note again you have not tried to argue any of those facts...



I dont understand you.

I have now posted Twice in the same thread a careful explanation, yet you continue to ask the same question. Shall I post it again? The USSR saw it as dangerous escalation and a breaking of a serious Cold War treaty. They WERE initially worried about it, but did not change their spending or military planning at all until they founf out more. before long it became clear that it would not possibly work, and so they stopped worrying about it. How much clearer can I be?


We know why the USSR collapsed, it has been explained many times in this thread. It has nothing whatsoever to do with SDI, and again we know that for a fact by looking at Soviet defence expenses and priorities when SDI was being touted. YOU have made no attempt to dispute any of those facts. So please remind me, on what basis are you arguing again?



No actually, thats not true at all. Neither you nor the article you cited at any point materially disputed her conclusions, or the facts she based them on.

I point out again, I based my arguments on specific well known facts about Soviet spending and military planning, none of which you have yet managed to oppose...

Isn't that the way of conservatives and the right wing? if you can't refute anything factual, attack the fact finder correct? I don't have any integrity because I oppose your viewpoint- and really for no other reason than you can't refute it any other way- correct?

So anyway- I am married to a Russian woman who's mother was the chief prosecutor for the Tartarish region of the former USSR and then the Soviet republic. Then she was the Chief defense attorney. Her sister, my aunt in law is currently the minister of finance for the tartarish region. She is the head of over 170 other agencies in this position. My wifes best friend's husband is the Chief of police for the city of Kazan.

None of them were ever registered with the communist party, and prior to the perestroika reforms, they were denied many job opportunity for thier refusal to join the party. My mother in law is also Jewish, and anti-semetism in Russia is not socially unacceptable. They all had intimate knowledge of the mechanics of the Russia, and former USSR. On top of that, my father in law, who is now a business owner there, WAS a factory manager and communist party member. Both her paternal grandmother and grandfather worked in top secret defense industry (for the 70s) her grandmother worked in "optics"- high resolution telescopes and sites for guns, and her grandfather built nuke subs. They both lived through the siege of Moscow, and they both lived through Stalin as well as every other communist era leader.

And then, I went over there and personally talked to them, and was very interested in how thier lives were lived in those days.

To make a long story short, the conservatives are full of , well, horse puckeys, and always have been, when it comes to the USSR anyway and it was probably intentional.


Not one poster that puts forth that Reagan had any influece whatsoever on the former USSR has been able to do anything but yell a little louder that "he did so"- not one has addressed the basic power structure of Russia, how things change in Russia etc. Many have shown that defense spending did not grow because of SDI etc-.

Prior to my trip to Russia, and talking to actual poeple that lived and did business in those times, I probably would have voted "some influece"- but it is not true at all, and never has been.

Economists in the 1980s thought the Soviet system was a strong one.

Economist Lester Thurow said '"It is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in Eastern Europe are miserable." "The Soviet Union is a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States."

Arthur Schlesinger, just back from a trip to Moscow in 1982, said Reagan was delusional. "I found more goods in the shops, more food in the markets, more cars on the street -- more of almost everything," he said, adding his contempt for "those in the U.S. who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse, ready with one small push to go over the brink."'

John Kenneth Galbraith went further, insisting that in many respects the Soviet economy was superior to ours: "In contrast to the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower."

If historians and economists of the time were so wrong, if Reagan opposed their view that the Soviets had a better system than we did, how can we disparage Reagan's contribution to the collapse of the USSR?

It is difficult to examine these issues in context. I think that SDI had an enormous influence on the Soviet leadership. I think that Reagan's style of "sticking to his guns" in the face of political pressure (as demonstrated by the air traffic controllers strike) sent a clear message to Moscow that Reagan was a different sort of President.

But Reagan's influence was not only his hard-line attitude of his first term. The softening during his second term, when Gorbachev came to power, is probably the key moment in the downfall of the Soviets. Reagan's willingness to negotiate with Gorbachev allowed the Soviet leader to sell limited disarmament to the Politburo. Reagan was able to convince Gorbachev that the US was not interested in a first strike nuclear policy. This allowed Gorbachev to pursue his policies of glastnost and perastroika. Without Reagan's overtures, Gorbachev would have never been able to back away from the military-industrial complex that was propping up the Soviet economy.

No one predicted (as no one could have predicted) what the effects of this combination of factors would have been. But Reagan's hard line (backed by the threat of SDI) towards the USSR followed by his softening, allowed the events in the Soviet Union to progress as they did. Intentional or not, Reagan's policies had a real effect on the USSR.

Amlord



I don't understand what you are asking here. So a few historians and economists failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union? So what?

How does that make Reagan any more perceptive? Reagan did not predict the fall of the Soviet Union either.

The whole world was taken by surprise by the abject collapse of the Soviet system.




Perhaps, but since he was a democratically elected politician, his time in office was limited.

It has been made clear, time and again, that the Soviets did not believe in any threat of a first strike by the Americans. I don't see any reason nor cause why Reagan, with a few years in office, would change that opinion.




The key moment in the fall of the Soviet Union was the death of Konstantin Chernenko. He was the last of the revolutionaries. After him came the only leader of the Soviet Union who had not been a peer of Lenin or Stalin.

It was Mikhail Gorbatjev that brought the Soviet Union to an end. He tried to save it, but its command economy was untenable.

Ronald Reagan was a spectator. He may have convinced Gorbatjev that he was not interested in a first strike capability, but according to Gorbatjev, he alreay believed this any way.

As for SDI. I still don't see how a technological impossibility was any threat to any one.

I will admit I am no historian and I was only 8 years old when Reagan was sworn into office so I can claim no remembrance about political struggles during the 80's between the United States and the Soviet Union.

So I decided to do some research about what the 'experts' and economists were saying during the 1980's.











It looks to me these so called experts were all pretty confident in the Soviet Union's economic well being.

Now let's contrast this to what Reagan said in some his speeches during that same time frame.



and..



and...



So. Simply by going back and looking and the quotes from the "experts" and then what Reagan said in his speeches, nearly forecasting the demise of the Soviet Union. I will let history speak for its self.

Sleeper

This quote by Reagan;



Underlines my point that Reagan was a mere spectator since it shows quite clearly that Reagan was aware of, and even made a point of, the impending crisis within the Soviet Union.

It does not matter what a load of American economists said at the time. Such people are notorious for getting it wrong. What is significant is that Reagan himself saw which way the wind was blowing for the communist system. All he had to do is keep making the right noises because the Soviets were already doomed.

Moif you are becoming a bit Janus-faced here. First you say




Then you reiterate a quote I posted how Reagan spoke out how he predicted the Soviet Union would collapse. Which is it?

It looks like Reagan wasn't surprised at all.

Edit: Moif you also said:



Then in your next post you said:



So it went from a FEW historians to a LOAD of economists. It becomes increasingly harder to pedal that bike backwards, does it not?

You are all missing the point here.

Yes there were economists who spoke well of the Soviet Economy and its accomplishments. And to be entirely fair, the USSR DID accomplish a lot considering how backwards and devastated it was in 1945. It went from being a war torn nearly demolished country 20 years behind the west in most technologies tothe second most powerful country in the world, with technology is some (mostly military) sectors ahead of its western counterparts. I would like to point oit that until the Oil price collapse of the mid 1980s, the Soviet economy was doing ok.

There were also economists at the time who saw the lack of renewal of soviet infrastructure, and the dependence on Oil prices as being a potentail disaster waiting to happen, and who spoke about the dangerous balance of the Soviet economy.

Keep in mind that when th system fell apart it astonished everyone, even Reagan. Even among those who anticipated the USSR economy would collapse, nobody expected it would happen so soon, or so quickly. Certainly nobody was more surprised than the CIA.


The fact that Reagan had stated in several of his speeches that he felt the US would trancend the USSR... so what? At worst he was trying to score political points (What was he GOING to say: the USSR will kick our butts?), at best he was listening to those who predicted the Soviet economy was fragile.


Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that reagan did know that the Soviet economy was fragile, in particular after the Oil prices collapse.

So what? That does not make him responsable for it, in whole or in part, it just makes him smart enough to listen to those people who saw what was happening and realised the effct the drop in revenues would have on the USSR.


I dont care what economists or historians said in the early 1980s, or in the mid 1980s after the Oil price collapse. If one of them predicted the date of the fall of the USSR, does that make him 'reasponsable for it'?


We know why the USSR collapsed, we know why the Warsaw Pact fell apart, neither had anything to do with SDI, rather they both stemmed from one reason, which was entirely outside the US's control.

Sleeper

Well, my name in reality is Jan...

But, I'm not contradicting myself intentionally. When I say Reagan did not predict the fall of the Soviet Union, then thats what I mean. He never said the Soviet Union is going to fail, and he certainly never said when. What he said was, We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis. Which I interpret to mean, that Reagan could see things were going bad for the communists, but he (like most sci fi writers it seems) fully expected the USSR to survive the crisis in much the same manner as has happened in China.

I've never heard of any one who predicted the Soviet Union was going to implode as it did, but I have/ had heard of many who saw its internal problems happening.




It would indeed if in fact I was back peddling!

I refered to Few because I was answering Amlords post, and to a Load because I was answering yours which built upon his. My initial point remains. It does not matter to this debate whether or how many, American analyists of any kind got it wrong.

Their mistake does not change Reagan's role in all of this. Reagan had a lot of intel at his disposal, and he was also coming from a personal point of view. He interpretted what he saw, and he acted upon it. I don't dispute that Reagan understood what was happening in the USSR, only that his actions had any direct bearing upon it.

My opinion is that the fall of the Soviet Union happened because it was essentially a flawed system that was doomed to fail the moment the last of the Communist revolutionaries died.

I won't be surpised if the same thing happens in Cuba.

I am sorry Vermillion but I am going to need to see a lot of quotes and links about many of the things you are saying here.




Need quotes, from who and when.



Need quotes from Reagan saying he was astonished.




If one knows of their opponents weakness, they attack them at it. Reagan knew the Soviet Union was growing weaker because of the arms race, and then poured it on even more with SDI.

Look back through the thread.



I am getting tired of repeating myself. I will try this one more time...

We KNOW SDI played little to no part in the collapse of the USSR. We KNOW Soviet defence spending on strategic issues was static or even went DOWN during the SDI years. We Know that though the Kremlin was worried about the possibility of escalation through SDI for several years, they did not react to it through new investments or countermeasures, or by acelerating or funding their own SDI research. By 1987 the Kremlin knew SDI was a hollow threat.

These facts are not in dispute. Defence spending on strategic issues remained the same from 1978 until 1987, when it was slightly reduced. Soviet Defence spending on Conventional issues was also static until 1985-86, when it increased slightly to accomodate the costs of the Blue water navy and the terribly expensive Typhoon class submarine.

SDI made no difference to Soviet defence priorities or spending at all. The collapse of the Soviet union was due to a dramatic loss of revenues and a weakening of the bonds of energy dependency between Russia and the Republics and warsaw pact, both caused by the same thing, a massive drop in oil prices.


I'm not even sure how many times I have repeated that here, four or five at least. If you are going to CONTINUE against logic and fact to assert that SDI had anything substantive to do with the Soviet collapse, you are going to have to demonstrate it: something nobody yet has managed to do.

I think a number of factors led to the fall of the Soviet Union, and Reagan had some influence in most of them...by increasing the costs to the Soviets at a time when they were most vulnerable. Yes, the ONE fatal flaw of the Soviet Union was inherent to the system itself, but there were other more direct factors leading to its demise…Just as an individual infected with AIDS will eventually succumb to a disease (or several), and not the virus itself.

The Polish Solidarity movement had a big impact, which Reagan actively supported through channeled funds and intelligence. He also placed sanctions on Poland, which cost the Soviets a lot of money each year. He placed an embargo on American gas and oil equipment bound for the Soviet Union. That disrupted the Siberian pipeline project and shut down a Soviet/Japanese venture to develop oil fields in Sakhin Island. Again, a tremendous monetary loss.

The Soviets outstretched themselves militarily in Afghanistan and Central America, and Reagan had an impact by supporting the military resistances in those places.

I also do think that SDI had some influence in bringing the Soviets to the bargaining table. I believe the effect was psychological. It doesn't matter whether or not their military spending increased significantly during that time, as they could hardly afford to spend more. Although they probably doubted that we would be successful, they surely must have known that we had a greater potential than they, because we were years beyond them in supercomputer technology.

I looked back through the thread and there are no instances of the quotes or links I asked you to provide.

Mrs Pigpen



I think your over looking a big part of the puzzle here. Two parts in fact. The first and lesser is the notion that SDI, even had it worked, would have presented a serious threat to a Soviet first strike. Even America's lead in super computing would not have been able to deal with a Soviet nuclear attack. This ability does not even exist today, let alone in the mid eighties.

The Soviets weren't stupid. They had a military space programme and they had excellent intel as to what America's true capabilities were. They knew perfectly well that the real threat from SDI was not a military threat, but...

which brings me to the second part I think you are missing,

...was a political threat. And this I think is what Gorbatjev understood. If SDI had been allowed to live, it would have allowed the continuation of the arms build up. It was (and still is) the perfect excuse for wild unchecked military spending by hawks on both sides of the divide. That SDI was no real threat to the Soviet Union at that time is even made clear by Reagan himself in this fore word on the subject!

Reagan said;



...so even Reagan himself admitted that SDI at that time was not a real military threat. Indeed the existing ABM treaty's that the USA had signed forebade testing or deployment of such a system. All the US could do was theoretical lab testing.

Thus it was only an excuse for greater weapons research.

Arguing that this is what destroyed the Soviet Union however is invalid, because SDI was never allowed to lead to a greater arms race. Gorbatjev moved to nip it in the bud before it became a threat.


Vermillion

The Typhoon class was designed to shorten the Soviet missiles flight time, and thus also the American response time which would render the Typhoon immune to the SDI defences. In part it was a response to defeating an American anti missile technology.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One more thing... I think its also important to note that Reagan never intended the SDI programme to be a counter to the USSR. He even went so far as to offer to share the SDI technology with the Soviets.

Something he'd hardly do if he was trying to use it as a lever to bring down the Berlin wall...


editted to add two missing words.

Nice to see that you agree that SDI did, indeed, have an effect on the Soviets.

It certainly brought them to the negotiating table, with the US holding the stronger hand.

Mrs. P has pointed out how other Reagan policies impacted the USSR by siphoning off resources and forcing them to contend with political upheavals.

First, Mrs Pigpen

Look, yes of course the US put pressure on the USSR. Regan did it, so did every one of his predecessors. Arguably, Reagan stands in the link of Hawks who put more pressure on the USSR than the Dove presidents. Nobody is arguing with that.

ONCE the energy dependency with the Republics was broken, yes the US did assist the various solidaity movements in eastern Europe, but everyone expected that that would end with another Soviet clampdown, just as it had before.

I voted that Reagan had a minor effect, not that he had no effect, because clearly as leader of the opposing power it was his role to pressure the Soviets where they were weak. Similarily, the USSR waged espionage, economic and diplomatic warfare against the US in its weak areas as well. Given the non-centralised economy, the US was less subseptible to economic warfare, but the lack of central security apparatus made it more subseptible to espionage. Thats the way the cold war worked.

SDI, while it had NO TANGIBLE EFFECT AT ALL on Soviet spending or strategic priorities prevented the USSR from reducing its defence budget, and kept the technological tit-for-tat which had been going on for decades alive.

These are all arguments why the United States played a part in the eventual collapse of the USSR. Not Reagan himself, who did nothing new or particularily damaging to the Soviet economy, but he kept up the pressure.


As I have repeated ad nausium, none of that would have brought down the USSR at ALL were it not for the Oil price crash. It is the single, seminal event which caused the breakup of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Period. Other events may have sped it up by a year or slowed it down by a year, but it caused the fall, and without it there would still be a USSR today. SDI did nothing significant whatsoever.



Certainly they could have. Their significant defence budget did not allow for the leeway the US had, but they had demonstrated in the past the ability to spend what was necessary, and increase spending as needed. Had their income remained level, or had it dropped more gradually allowing for diversification (a process they had done before) then they would have remained in place.

As for computers, it is true that computer hardware was the one critical area the USSR was lagging behind; they tended to be 2-3 years behind the US, and were only that close because they were reverse engineering US-made components.

We will never know what that would have meant in the long run, but I can say that the USSR had shown an astonishing ability to focus its technological resources and catch up in key areas, they had done so in the past, and one cannot say wheither they might have been successful again.

But they still managed to maintain a technological lead in several areas, in fact in one or two Russia STILL has the lead (Torpedo technology for example).


All this aside, the reality is Reagan put pressure on the USSR, very true, but it is NOT that pressue that caused the collapse of the system, not the breakaway of the republics.


Moif

The Typhoon was never intended to counter SDI, that would have been impossible as the first Typhoon class was commissioned in 1981, with research starting 6 years earlier.

Further, unlike other Boomer Subs, the Typhoon was specifically designed NOT to be a first strike weapon. It was what was referred to as a third strike weapon, it would sit on the bottom of the ocean under the polar ice, deeper than US Attack subs could go, and wait out a nuclear exchange. Once the shooting war was over, it would surface (It was designed specifically for ice-breaking upon surfacing) and fire its massive payload at hardened or surviving targets in the US, ensuring decapition and the inability to regroup or redeploy.


As for the famous Reagan offer to 'Share' SDI technology, not even his Republican followers believed that, the ofer was made once at the inception of Star wars as a way to deflect criticism of the breaking of both the AMB treaty and the weaponisation of space agreements (both of which the US were breaking with SDI). It was never repeated.

I think this illustrates the larger picture of what Ronald Reagan was really doing. "It was a political threat". In other words, it was an indicator that Reagan wasn't going to back down to the Soviets and he wasn't going to simply continue the "peaceful co-existance" policies of the past US-Soviet relationship. He believed the Soviet Union to be the "evil empire" and he rejected the concept of a "moral equivalence" between them and us. He fully intended to challenge them everywhere he could. Whether or not SDI was a viable concept or not is really kind of beside the point in this specific debate. Even if the Soviets didn't think it was and didn't increase their spending because of it, they still viewed it as a threat. An "escalation" of the Cold War if you will. Maybe that's not in the military arena, but their perception is most certainly in the arena in which Reagan operated - the political one. So, let's assume that the Soviets didn't view SDI as a direct military threat to their security, but I think everyone here probably agrees that it bothered them on some level and they thought they had to deal with it somehow. Gorbachev tried to deal with it by offering to eliminate all of the intermediate-range nuclear missles in Europe, not replace them, but elminate them entirely. He made this offer in return for the US dropping SDI and Reagan refused. That's turning up the pressure. Reagan changed the political landscape in US-Soviet relations dramatically and we were "warned" by his opponents before he was elected in 1980 that he would do that. They told us he would get us into a war with them. Well, he wasn't going to do that, but he also wasn't going to back down to them either. Carter's response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Reagan's response to the Soviet threat was to engage in a massive re-building of the US Military, among other things. It was a poltical message to the Soviets, and they didn't like hearing it very much. They took some notes from his domestic opponents and called him a "dinosaur" and an old "Cold Warrior", a term that has been used here to describe him. Maybe he was, I don't know and I don't know if the Soviets knew either. One thing everyone knew though was that when it came to confronting the Soviet Union, Reagan was not about to back down.

Firstly, on that last point: Gorbachev's offer in Iceland (Or at least his last offer, there were several made on both sides) Was for a 50% reduction in all ballistic missiles, the elimination of all Intermediate range missiles from Europe on BOTH sides, and strict compliance of the ABM treaty for 10 years. Gorbachev also demanded that for the same 10 year duration, SDI would be confined to laboratory research and testing, and not deployed. After 10 years, both nations would be able to deploy all their anti-missile technology, space or ground based, as they saw fit.

It was a good offer, but good for both sides. Gorbachev was not giving anything up with this offer, he was making an offer of mutual benefit. Notably, Reagan to enormous criticism even amongst his advisors for turning down that deal... You make it sound like Gorbachev was sacrificing for a deal.

SDI did bother the Soviets politically, for about 2 years. During that time it had no effect on their military expenditures or priorities whatsoever.


More importantly:

Most of what you say is true. It is clear Reagan was not going to back down to the USSR, though the priescience he is ascribed with regarding the fall of the USSR is a bit absurd. None the less, most of your post was quite correct.


And none of it had anything to do with the debate at hand whatsoever. were we arguing about Reagan,s resolve to confront the USSR then I would agree with you entirely. But we are debating the responsability Reagan and his direct actions have for the fall of the USSR and the collapse of the Warsaw pact. That event, as has been dealt with repeatedly, cannot be ascribed to Reagan bar tangentially.

From Peggy Noonan's book, When Character was King.....



As we all know, Reagan rejected the offer and walked out. Against the advice of many of his advisors? Probably, but then most of his advisors, particularly in the State Department were adamently against his "tear down this wall" speech as well and he didn't listen to them then either. That was classic Ronald Reagan. Often times we didn't know how he actually got things done. This debate and some of the others about Reagan that have cropped up often seem to acknowledge that things happened during the Reagan years, but just that he wasn't responsible for them. That too is classic Reagan. He wasn't so concerned about the credit for the accomplishment so much as he was about the accomplishment itself. In his parting words to the American people he said,.....

I found this interesting exchange that is pertinent to the current debate:

Transcript 725: Reagan's War

It includes this exchange:


Quite interesting.

I don't know this book, and now I begin to understand why I don't know this book, she apparently does not know her history.

"Gorbachev made very substantive proposals in the Saturday meetings: a 50 percent reduction in all strategic weapons, a total elimination of Soviet and American intermediate-range missiles in Europe, and strict compliance with (and non-withdrawal from) the ABM Treaty for not less than ten years. He agreed to American terms for on-site verification and dropped the previous Soviet demand that French and British missiles be included in any agreement regarding arms reductions in Europe. It was, said chief American arms control negotiator Paul Nitze, "the best Soviet proposal we have received in twenty-five years."

The American team had a few problems with the proposal and worked through the night on a response. Gorbachev's offer of 50 percent reductions would result in unequal outcomes, and the Americans countered with a limit of 6,000 warheads and 1,600 delivery vehicles for each side. They also wanted to include Soviet missiles based in Asia to the other side's proposal to eliminate all intermediate nuclear weapons. During the Sunday sessions Gorbachev agreed to limit the USSR's missiles in Asia to 100 warheads. In addition, the Soviets agreed to recognize human rights as a legitimate part of future superpower negotiations. During an afternoon break, the Soviet delegation informed the world press that a landmark agreement was in the making -- news that sent expectations soaring.

At the final meeting, on Sunday afternoon, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze announced that it was time for the U.S. to make a concession -- on SDI. The Americans countered by offering to confine SDI to research and testing for ten years, during which time all ballistic missiles would be eliminated, after which both sides would be free to deploy defenses. Reagan promised that the U.S. would share its SDI technology with the USSR. Gorbachev insisted that SDI research and testing had to be limited to the laboratory. Reagan would not give in. "It is a question of one word," he said. Gorbachev agreed, saying, "It's 'laboratory,' or goodbye." Gorbachev could not go home and tell his people that he had agreed to eliminate ballistic missiles while allowing Americans to develop a space-based defense system."


It was never about giving up SDI, It was about agreeing not to deploy anything until the AMB treaty had expired.

The Zero-zero option had been made by Reagan in 1981, and the offer to actually eliminate ALL ballistic missiles did NOT happen at the Iceland meeting, but in fact happened in january 1986 in a letter from Gorbachev to Reagan. Reagan accepted the document 'in principle', though refusing to discuss specifics of what everyone thought was a farfetched plan. And the plan was elimination over 15 years, not 10.




Sigh.

Do I need to repeat for the sixth time an explanation of why the USSR fell and why Reagan was NOT responsable for it? If you are going to keep asserting he WAS, then please back up your statements, or address any of the facts I presented...

Not especially. To me it reeks of the same sort of conjecture which Vermillion and others have been accused of posting.

Of course, I suppose it is interesting because there is no mention of Barton Bernstein's contribution to the discussion:



I guess that article does ring true of your argument after all...

Sarcasm aside, there are several problems with the transcript. Only one of the three guests takes the position that Reagan won the cold war, or played the major role. So I'm not sure what your purpose is in providing the link.



This sort of airy glibness contributes nothing to the discussion. "We can't prove he did it, or figure out how, but gosh darn we know it was him." To me that has as much intellectual validity as "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." You are essentially engaging in the same sort of argument. You're right, things happened during Reagan's years, that we can't contribute to him. Is Woodrow Wilson responsible for the Communist Revolution in Russia? That happened under his watch. Are Kennedy and Johnson responsible for the Quiet Revolution in Quebec? Of course not. Now, if Wilson had said that the Tsars were exploiting the workers, then there would be no need to prove the connection; at least using your logic. See the problem?

Ahhh.... I kind of think she does. Peggy Noonan worked for Ronald Reagan as one of his primary speechwriters in this period. She was there and she talked with him or his closest advisors nearly every day. I don't know where your information is coming from, you didn't cite the source, but I can tell you Ms Noonan doesn't make stuff up.

Edited to add a response to UltimateJoe... All quotes are his.....



Not sure how this comment contributes to the discussion, particularly since what you quote isn't what I said.



I don't know, did Wilson tell the Bolsheviks to have a go at the Tzar?



I don't know, did Kennedy or Johnson tell the people of Quebec to "revolt quietly"?



Hmmmm.... I guess Wilson didn't tell them to rise up after all, so your "question" was simple rhetoric. I assume the same is true for Kennedy and Johnson? Funny thing is that Reagan did call the Soviet Union an "evil empire", and he did demand they "tear down this wall" and indeed, it did come down. I don't think anyone here has claimed that was the sole reason for it at all. Nobody has compared Reagan to Joshua, nor has anyone drawn the parallel of Berlin to Jericho, but the plain fact of the matter is that the wall did come down, and the Soviet Union did collapse. And Reagan did stand up to the Soviets and he did change the political landscape of US relations with the Soviets. Something happened there. And, it was on his watch.

Amlord

[quote]Nice to see that you agree that SDI did, indeed, have an effect on the Soviets.[/quote]

Indeed it did. It just didn't have the effect that the pro Reagan opinion holds. SDI did not force the USSR to over spend until it collapsed.
Rather, it was a pretext that would have allowed cold war spending to continue pointlessly.

By this measure, Reagan's ploy would have led to a long and protracted continuation of the arms race. It was Gorbatjev who put a stop to that. Not because Reagan forced him to, but because he was trying to save his country by reforming it.


[quote]It certainly brought them to the negotiating table, with the US holding the stronger hand.[/quote]

I would point out that the two sides had been at the negotiating table for some time. Decades even and the ABM treaty was already in place forbidding the strategic defence initiative from being pushed forward so obviously it was not SDI that 'brought them to the negotiating table'.
As my previous post demonstrates, Reagan knew all this which is why he proposed that a future President and a future Congress actually be the ones to make the decision on whether or not to deploy the system once the initial research had been done.

And I'm afraid a theoretical possibility of a space defence system which most likely wouldn't work could hardly be described as a 'stronger hand' against the worlds largest nuclear arsenal...


[quote]Mrs. P has pointed out how other Reagan policies impacted the USSR by siphoning off resources and forcing them to contend with political upheavals. [/quote]

Mrs Pigpen's example's are good examples by themselves, but they exist without any greater context and therefore are mere conjecture. Just how great a strain these measure's really had is impossible to determine from her post. They may have been back breakers, but then again, they may have been mild irritants to the Soviets. Its impossible to say without further infirmation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Vermillion

[quote]The Typhoon was never intended to counter SDI, that would have been impossible as the first Typhoon class was commissioned in 1981, with research starting 6 years earlier.[/quote]

And I would point out that Soviet ABM research was even older. SDI was only one in a long line of anti missile defence systems and nuclear submarines were all, regardless of what type they were, made for the specific purpose of cutting down flight time to avoid retaliation from such measures as anti missile defence systems.


[quote]As for the famous Reagan offer to 'Share' SDI technology, not even his Republican followers believed that, the ofer was made once at the inception of Star wars as a way to deflect criticism of the breaking of both the AMB treaty and the weaponisation of space agreements (both of which the US were breaking with SDI). It was never repeated. [/quote]

And yet the offer was made.

Also, I would refer you to Reagans own words;

[quote]Our research under the Strategic Defense Initiative complements our arms reduction efforts and helps to pave the way for creating a more stable and secure world. The research that we are undertaking is consistent with all of our treaty obligations, including the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. [/quote]

SDI was not in breach of the ABM treaty for as long as it remained in the research labs At the time Reagan made that offer SDI was a pie in the sky dream. At no point did it ever threaten the USSR so Reagan could offer to share it because he had nothing to share.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Aquilla

[quote]I think this illustrates the larger picture of what Ronald Reagan was really doing. "It was a political threat". In other words, it was an indicator that Reagan wasn't going to back down to the Soviets and he wasn't going to simply continue the "peaceful co-existance" policies of the past US-Soviet relationship. He believed the Soviet Union to be the "evil empire" and he rejected the concept of a "moral equivalence" between them and us. He fully intended to challenge them everywhere he could. [/quote]

It was not Reagan's stead fast nature that was the problem though. It was the danger of an unchecked arms race which was leading no where that was the problem. As has been made abundantly clear by posters here and by Gorbatjev himself. The Soviets did not believe in the likelihood of an American first strike and they were certainly not scared of any 'Star Wars' weapons. Even in America the incredulity over SDI was wide spread...

[quote]SEN. JOHN GLENN, (D) Ohio: (1985) General Abramson was here one day, and he likened the whole Star Wars thing to the Apollo Project. You just have to decide to go and go ahead, and I told him then that I thought that was nonsense because when we decided to do the Apollo Project, we knew all the engineering. Yet we talk about Star Wars as though all we have to do is decide to go and we go, and that's just pure nonsense because the physics hasn't been invented yet to do Star Wars. [/quote]

link

Reagan himself Said;

[quote]At the same time, the United States is committed to the negotiation of equal and verifiable agreements which bring real reductions in the power of the nuclear arsenals of both sides. To this end, my Administration has proposed to the Soviet Union a comprehensive set of arms control proposals. We are working tirelessly for the success of these efforts, but we can and must go further in trying to strengthen the peace. [/quote]

These hardly seem to me to be the words of man who 'wasn't going to back down to the Soviets'.

I understand that Americans love hero's, and I understand that for many, Ronald Reagan was a hero, but I'm afraid the simple truth of the matter is that Reagan was not the man who ended the cold war. It was Mikhail Gorbatjev and the people of Eastern Germany. The political threat of SDI was only a threat because it allowed for the cold war to continue.

Without Gorbatjev, Reagans belligerence would have lead the world into a continuation of the cold war.


[quote]Whether or not SDI was a viable concept or not is really kind of beside the point in this specific debate. Even if the Soviets didn't think it was and didn't increase their spending because of it, they still viewed it as a threat. An "escalation" of the Cold War if you will. Maybe that's not in the military arena, but their perception is most certainly in the arena in which Reagan operated - the political one. So, let's assume that the Soviets didn't view SDI as a direct military threat to their security, but I think everyone here probably agrees that it bothered them on some level and they thought they had to deal with it somehow. Gorbachev tried to deal with it by offering to eliminate all of the intermediate-range nuclear missles in Europe, not replace them, but elminate them entirely. He made this offer in return for the US dropping SDI and Reagan refused. That's turning up the pressure. Reagan changed the political landscape in US-Soviet relations dramatically and we were "warned" by his opponents before he was elected in 1980 that he would do that. They told us he would get us into a war with them. Well, he wasn't going to do that, but he also wasn't going to back down to them either. Carter's response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Reagan's response to the Soviet threat was to engage in a massive re-building of the US Military, among other things. It was a poltical message to the Soviets, and they didn't like hearing it very much. They took some notes from his domestic opponents and called him a "dinosaur" and an old "Cold Warrior", a term that has been used here to describe him. Maybe he was, I don't know and I don't know if the Soviets knew either. One thing everyone knew though was that when it came to confronting the Soviet Union, Reagan was not about to back down. [/quote]

And by not backing down he secured his hero status in the eyes of his supporters which is why we have this debate.

Unfortunately whilst your singing Reagans praises so loudly, you've forgotten to explain just how Reagan ended the cold war. The cold war did not end because of a missile treaty. It ended because Gorbatjev initiated reforms to try to save the USSR from itself. He had put these reforms into place before he'd met with Reagan. Reagan himself had foretold the need for such reforms in 1982 (see my former post) and the reason why Gorbatjev had felt the need to reform the Soviet Union is because it had become a flawed system through Stalin's command economy, the oil crisis (as Vermillion has shown) and through wide spread apathy in the younger generation which was being seduced by Rock n Roll and the idea of freedom which democracy holds.

None of which have anything to do with Ronald Reagan's policies.


editted to add:

Aquilla

[quote]Hmmmm.... I guess Wilson didn't tell them to rise up after all, so your "question" was simple rhetoric. I assume the same is true for Kennedy and Johnson? Funny thing is that Reagan did call the Soviet Union an "evil empire", and he did demand they "tear down this wall" and indeed, it did come down. I don't think anyone here has claimed that was the sole reason for it at all. Nobody has compared Reagan to Joshua, nor has anyone drawn the parallel of Berlin to Jericho, but the plain fact of the matter is that the wall did come down, and the Soviet Union did collapse. And Reagan did stand up to the Soviets and he did change the political landscape of US relations with the Soviets. Something happened there. And, it was on his watch.[/quote]

All your saying here is that Reagan ended the cold war because he was in office just before it happened.

There is no mechanism, or cause and effect in what your saying. Your asking us to accept your perspective, without any other foundation but that it was 'his watch' (which it wasn't even).

Not even the official bio page at the White House agree's with you. No where does it say that Reagan ended the cold war or brought low the Soviet Union.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html

Yes, we love heros, but we don't create them, they just seem to happen from time to time. And, I certainly have known you long enough and well enough to understand why you wouldn't care for Ronald Reagan. He really wasn't your kind of guy, and I can understand that. Earlier in this thread you stated that the US lost the Cold War by winning it, and now you credit Gorbachev with ending it. Does this mean that Gorbachev won by losing? Most interesting line of logic there I must say.....

Let's see if I can follow it, convoluted as it may be, or maybe not. Let's see.....

Gorbachev tells Reagan he's willing to disarm if Reagan dumps SDI and Reagan says, "No deal". So Gorbachev figures Reagan is going to continue the Cold War with his SDI program and because of falling oil revenues, he knows the Soviet Union can't afford that. Maybe he just doesn't want to do that, so he comes up with a plan. He'll end the Cold War by himself, and he'll tear down the wall and free the people of Eastern Europe from Soviet tyranny. He'll allow Germany to unite and for the other former client states to form independent governments. So, he does this and the Reagan "evil empire" is no more, the Soviet Union ceases to exist. Gorbachev does this because he doesn't want to continue the Cold War and he thinks Ronald Reagan does. And the Cold War is over and Ronald Reagan never fired a shot, but it was Gorbachev who really ended it. Is that about right, Moif?

Actually, it sounds pretty darn good to me come to think of it. I can live with that scenario my friend. In return, allow me to share with you a part of American history of which you may be unaware. Did you know that Robert E. Lee ended the Civil War? It wasn't Grant or Sherman or even Lincoln, it was Lee. He gets the credit and I'll tell you why. It was Robert E. Lee who surrendered at Appomattox.

Aquilla




... not quite. But I enjoyed it any way.

I honestly don't mind Reagan all that much. I was quite young when he was in office and hindsight is my only perspective on the man. I don't think he did a bad job all things considered, but I don't accept that he ended the cold war.

I just don't see any evidence of that where as I do see evidence that Gorbatjev's efforts to reform the Soviet system allowed it to collapse. I don't think that was Gorbatjev's intention either though. In the end it was the common people who ended the cold war.


As for General Lee.

Thanks to my fathers love of the music of Johnny Cash I am well aquainted with Lee and what he did. Obviously he was a great man to have avoided further pointless bloodshed. Its a shame we (humanity) don't have more like him.

I have a question for both Moif and Vermillion.

If Ronald Reagan had never been the president, and instead we had a pacifist president such as Carter.. Do you believe the Soviet Union would have still collapsed?

On that, you and I completely agree and you need to be very careful here, Moif, because you are sounding a whole lot like one of my fellow foot-soldiers in the "Reagan Revolution". I posted a quote earlier from Reagan's goodbye to the American people where he talked about us setting out to change a nation and ending up changing a world, and I think your statement is proof positive that that's exactly what happened. He was just the commander-in-chief, but he inspired millions of Americans and millions more elsewhere to follow his dream. When Reagan stood before that wall and told Mr. Gorbachev to tear it down, I don't claim that Gorbachev immediately sent out an order for jackhammers. What it did do was tell the common people living under the oppression of the Soviet system that there was still hope for them. They had a champion of freedom willing to challenge their oppressors and he was a pretty powerful guy. At the risk of possibly being chastised, I'll quote a line from an American movie that applies to Ronald Reagan. The movie is called Field of Dreams and it's about a farmer in Iowa building a baseball field on his farm. The line is "If you build it, they will come" and it dealt with faith. Reagan believed that in the heart and soul of every human being there burned the desire for freedom and liberty. He knew that if he could nuture that fire and provide it with hope, it would eventually consume that evil empire.

There is of course, no definitive way to prove this. There are no links, and there aren't any books that delve into the recesses of Ronald Reagan's mind. Thus, I can't offer cold "facts" for this. All I can offer is history and the fact that for the first time in American history Ronald Reagan stood before that wall and demanded it be torn down and yes, Moif, the "common people" tore it down. Did they do it for Reagan? Absolutely not. They did it for themselves. And Moif, that's exactly what the Reagan Revolution was, and is all about.

Sleeper



Yes. As I said earlier, I think the rot had set in years before Reagan even came to power. The whole Stalinist system was corrupt and the corruption like a cancer literally ate the Soviet Union up from within. The various leaders who followed Stalin tried to keep it alive, but after Brezhnev and Chernenko there was only the long slide into history.

I don't believe any one person can be given credit for what happened, but if one person should be nominated then its got to be Gorbatjev for his willingness to seek reformation and diplomacy.

I could just as easily turn your question around and ask you, what do you think would have happened if Reagan had told an old guard communist like Brezhnev to tear the wall down?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Aquilla

As I said, I don't consider Reagans policies without merit, and I recognise that he was an inspiration for many people in the former Soviet Union and its satelites. I just don't agree that he was responsible for bringing the cold war to an end.

Yes. As I have repeated ad nausium, and nobody has yet even tried to counter, the collapse of the USSR had little to do with Reagan or SDI. Once revenues collapsed and the republics were no longer energy dependent, the system was doomed. Without a hawk, perhaps Gorbachev could have pushed through arms reductions in the USSR, somewhat reducing the military budget, but by that point it made no difference. When a country already running at near the economic limit suddenly loses a quarter of its revenues, the options are massive reform or disaster. Gorbachev managed to obtain both, Reagan's existence or non-existence made no difference to Gorbachev's plans for reform, nor the situation the USSR found itself in.

Dispite Aquilla's continued assertions that somehow Reagan brought the whole system down with just the sound of his voice, the reality is he had nothing to do with it. His 'pressure' such as it was may have accelerated the process by a year, at most.

Had Reagan not been in power, the situation would still have happened much as it did. Had Reagan BEEN in power, and there had been no (or a more gradual) oil price collapse, there would still be a USSR today.


And Aquilla, if you are going to persist with this "he said it should come down and it did" line, then please do what I asked several times and draw some causal link between the two. You conveniently say "there is no proof", but any evidence at all would be a start... there certainly is plenty that he had little to do with it...



Do you really think ANYONE inside the USSR actually heard him say that? Do you think Pravda carried it to the common folk? Even if his voice had the overwhelming magical power you ascribe to it, the people of the USSR would have had to have heard it...

Maybe it's because I was fairly young. Maybe it's because I come from prosperous, large city and not from some forgotten village in the middle of nowhere. Maybe it's because my parents taught me to be happy with what I have. But I didn't need "hope" and I don't know anybody who did. I never felt "oppressed" and I don't think my parents have. You see, Aquilla, when you live within a system for a whole life you get used to it and learn to live a fairly happy life within its limits. Yes, travel outside of USSR was severely limited - but most people don't travel even if they have the freedom to do so (look at USA - what percentage of population actually travels abroad?). Private business ownership didn't exist, but once you grow up without having it as an option, you don't miss it. Here's an example - we're prohibited by the government to travel to Cuba - yet 99.9% of population here are not missing colonial architecture of Havana and sandy beaches of its suburbs - because nobody knows what they're missing. Freedom is a very relative thing - yes, you couldn't critisize the system publicly, but how many people have the time to do it anyway?

It's late and I am not sure I am making my point clear... I guess the only reason I am writing this message is because I sense by your choice of words that in your mind you have a sort of equivalency between soviet society and... well, something like Taliban. Not true. But this whole thread is a different topic, so I digress....

As I said earlier in this thread, nobody here has equated Ronald Reagan to Joshua, nor the Berlin wall to the walls of Jericho. Reagan's speech was symbolic of Reagan's philosophy and of his policy just as the wall was symbolic of the oppression and failure of the Soviet Union. You ask for some sort of "proof" and claim that there is plenty to prove that he had nothing to do with it. Perhaps your idea of "proof" is in the eye of the beholder. However, it is an undeniable fact that Reagan was the first American President to stand before that wall and call for it's removal. It is also an undeniable fact that wall came down not too long after. Deny cause all you wish, explain away with charts and graphs all you want. Those two facts are undeniable, even by you.

Now back to this oil thing you keep harping about.....



This probably opens a whole new can of worms for a re-direction of this thread, so I'll be brief and hope that doesn't happen. This massive "collapse" that you continue to blame for the Soviet Union's demise was in actuality a return to historic oil price levels from a spike that lasted maybe 12-13 years. The chart on this website shows that. According to this chart, the spike in world oil prices began in 1973 and lasted until 1985, maybe 1986. The Cold War between the Soviets and the US however started back in the late 1940's, some 25 years or so earlier than this spike in oil prices. Yet, in those 25 years you claim, with some justification, that the Soviet Union made enormous strides and advancements, and I will agree that they did indeed "beat" the US in some milestones. Now, we come to 1973 and the world oil prices rocket, nearly quadrupling by 1981, and this should have been a boom time for a nation like the Soviet Union that was so rich in oil. Yet, when the prices dropped to just above their pre-1973 level, the Soviet Union went bankrupt according to you. If you are claiming that the Soviets were dependant on their oil and the high world prices for it, then how did they manage to survive for the 25 years before 1973? What happened?

Let's move on to something else you said.....



Good question, and I don't know, I wasn't there. Tell you what, let's ask someone who was there at the time. English Horn said this back on 14June2004 in this very thread.....



Maybe some of them did.....

And speaking of English Horn......



This is an interesting statement coming from someone who said here in this forum, in this very thread back on 13June2004 the following.....



I am glad that you have the pleasure to be able to participate in this forum, English Horn. I am only sorry that the people listed here can't participate in this forum. I would like to have heard their take on things. But, if you followed that link you will know that they are no longer with us. It is a list of those who lost their lives attempting to escape the tyranny of the Soviet Union. Apparently, they never quite got "used" to that and they were unwilling to accept those "limits". You have apparently adapted to your new freedom and liberty quite nicely though and for that I congratulate you. Welcome to the free world my friend.

Indeed, they are undeniable, I cannot deny them. They are also irrelevant.

Was Reagan the first person ever to speak out against the USSR? No. Did the people of the USSR have a habit of responding to odd phrases thrown about by American presidents? No. Did everything Reagan said or call for come true? No. Is there any causal link, evidence of or even suggestion of evidence, between his speech and the walls coming down? No.

Yes he made the comment, and yes the walls eventually came down. Those facts are undeniable. Yet to try and credit him for ending the cold war because of them, when even you have been totally unable to supply ANY evidence linking the two in any tangible way, is pretty weak.


Hey, you know what 'facts' are equally undeniable? At the end of the Movie 'Red Dawn' (1984) they predicted the fall of the Soviet Empire eventually. This was a major movie, and they said that the Soviet Empire would collapse. Thus by that 'fact' Patrick Swayze is responsible for the end of the Cold war.

He narrated that the Soviet Empire would fall, and 5 years later it did. Those two facts are undeniable, even by you.




This, my friend, is basic history 101. You are exactly correct in your assessment of what happened, if you actually want to learn a few things about the history of the USSR (as this is basic history, explained in pretty much ever basic textbook on the subject) I will provide some titles at the end of the message.

Yes, you have it spot on.

In the 1960s the USSR was just coming out of the latest five year plan focussing on industrial production, which had been the measure of a nation's success only a decade earlier. Though it was rivalling, and threatening to surpass US production levels of minerals and basic machined good, the world economy was changing to one of technology and electronics: while increasing in basic industry, the USSR was getting left behind in technology. Though it could stay competitive, and even ahead in specific focussed areas of technology due to government intervention and funding, general technological levels were falling behind. Remember that in the West, most technology comes from private inventors, not the government. By focussing on a specific discipline, the Soviet government could ensure technological growth and innovation, but all other fields were left behind. That’s why the USSR could put a man in space first, yet failed to invent the microwave or the cellular phone.

In short, the USSR was building a powerful economy that was becoming less and less relevant to the world. In order to 'catch up' or even 'keep up' a new focus of the economy would be required, which would need massive investment.

"To make up for a growing deficiency of technology, a number of major contracts were signed (beginning in the late 1960s) with Western firms to build factories and other installations in the USSR. With the exception of a bad harvest in 1972, agricultural production increased dramatically. The dramatic world oil price rises in 1973–74 and 1979 buoyed the economy, and the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Germany promised further economic expansion."
(The Columbia Encyclopaedia, Sixth Edition)

This technological catch-up was only possible because of the massive influx of oil revenue.

"The Soviet Union benefited from inflation because it was a major producer of commodities that rose sharply in price during the 1970s. The most important of these was petroleum, of which the Soviet Union was the world's largest producer in 1980. That year, it produced 11.7 million barrels of crude oil per day, compared with Saudi Arabia's 9.9 million.

Much of the Soviet Union's oil production was exported for hard currency. According to the CIA, its hard currency earnings from oil exports rose from just $387 million in 1970 to more than $12 billion by 1980. Much of this increase in export earnings came from the steep rise in oil prices resulting from the two OPEC oil embargoes of the 1970s. A barrel of oil that sold for $4.15 in 1973 rose to more than $35 by 1981.

Another commodity whose price rise benefited the Soviet Union was gold, which rose from $35 per ounce in 1971 to $875 on January 21, 1980. In 1980, the Soviet Union was the world's second largest gold producer, producing 9.4 million ounces per year. Gold sales provided $1.6 billion in hard currency that year."
(National centre for Policy Analysis, Nov. 1999)


The USSR did not simply benefit secondarily from the increased price of oil, they exploited it. Massive new drilling and exploration followed to use this new cash cow, and as a direct result, between 1974 and 1978 Soviet Oil Production DOUBLED, and by 1977 the USSR was the largest oil producer in the world, which it remained until 1991.

The USSR, which was always a resource economy, found a way to remain a resource economy by capitalising on the vast increase in prices. Many of the USSRs major technological developments came about in the late 1970s and early 1980s, funded entirely by this new revenue. I don't know why it is so hard for Aquilla to admit the basic truth that the USSR DID have a technological lead in many areas during the last decade of the cold war (and were far behind in others), and this lead was funded on the back of oil and commodity revenues.

In addition, the USSR maintained a policy of selling oil to the republics and Warsaw pact at considerably below market value, thus maintaining a stranglehold on their energy. The threat to "Turn off the taps" was often just as effective as a threat to invade.

The Soviet economy became so dependent on Oil that, according to a 1986 CIA report:

"Oil and gas provide almost 60 per cent of the country's total energy requirements; they account for more than 50 per cent of the value of total exports and about three-quarters of all hard-currency exports; and they take roughly one-quarter of the country's total industrial investment."


When the prices collapsed again, not only did it wipe out the surpluses and revenues gained through sale of oil, but the economy was now more resource driven than ever, and transition so quickly would have been impossible. The USSR was forced to stop selling oil to the republics at below market value which seriously hurt THEIR economies, but also forced them to look elsewhere for fuel, reducing their dependency significantly. Worse still, the massive increase in oil production 10 years earlier had been done without proper reservoir management, so cheaper wells were beginning to run dry, and new drilling was expensive.

In the 1950s the US turned from a resource based economy into what became known as an ideas based economy. Tons of raw steel and tons of coal extracted, which was once the primary basis of measuring a nation’s power, became secondary, if not almost irrelevant. The USSR SHOULD have made the same transition, but it did not, it remained a resource economy, something that was only possible because of the Oil crisis and the surge in prices of a few other commodities. When the bottom fell out of those commodities, the USSR found itself not only bereft of revenues, but with an economic structure 30 years out of date.

Lastly, the propaganda value alone of Oil was enormous: in the 1970s, the US was in a panic regarding oil, they had just retreated in disarray from Vietnam, inflation was enormous, racial violence in the US was surging, and the USSR could actually present itself to the world as a potential winner of the cold war. The 1980s oil price collapse ended that 'run' as quickly as it started.


If you want to learn anything about Soviet History, allow me to recommend some of the following: They may be a bit out of date; they come from my MA reading list and my own library...

The Soviet Colossus: The Rise & Fall of the USSR (Michel Kort)
The Rise and Fall of the The Soviet Economy (Philip Hanson)
Age of Delirium (David Satter)
The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire (Brian Crozier)
Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners Left Russia Out in the Cold (Fiona Hill)
At Cold War's End (Benjamin Fischer)

Just a few for you...


As a final note, though oil is the critical element, obviously it is not the ONLY one. A more efficient economy could have coped with the change in revenue sources. A tighter reign of terror would have kept the nation together regardless; Gorbachev did away with that thus sowing the seeds of his own destruction. US pressure and the high military budget did give the Soviets less wiggle room to manage their own economy, and so on. But on the list of reasons why the USSR fell, in order of significance, I would say Oil is by far number one, Gorbachev and his reforms is an easy number two, the nature of the central planned economy is an easy number three. US pressure and the pressures of the cold war would be in the top 5, but even considering that, Reagan himself is pretty far down the list... is Reagan asking them to bring down the wall is not on the list at all.

For the "he said it would fall and it did" crowd, I just want to point out that breakfast came before lunch... but didn't cause it. Jules Verne predicted the atomic submarine... but didn't cause it.

Just to point out Vermillion.

One of the authors(Brian Crozier) you pointed out as good reading, completely contradicts what you are saying.

http://www.townhall.com/chat/archive/991215crozier.html

The above is a town hall chat with Brian Crozier

Here are some quotes from that chat:



Emphasis Mine.

and...





Thanks for the reading list

Firstly, I recommend reading the entire book, rather than single paragraphs quoted from a town hall meeting on the web..

None the less, you are partly correct. Crozier does not entirely disagree, but he does place the pressures of the cold war as being as important as the economic collapse of oil prices. Others, including myself, prioritize it higher. None the less, he still presents a very reasonable and well researched explanation. He makes one major point I forgot to mention, the Afghanistan war, which was also a major drain on both economy and prestige.

I am a historian, I don't just cite sources that agree with me entirely. It seemed Aquilla knew little about the Soviet Union in the cold war, so I listed some books to help him learn. They are not all of uniform opinion, but I think you will find they all make the same points, they just prioritize them slightly differently.


Oh, and as an aside, he makes one point in those quotes that baffles me, as he does NOT emphasize it in his book at all: The 'importance' or grenada. Grenada was hardly a Soviet Client state, there were no Soviet troops there nor an attache, the few troops that were guarding it were Cuban. The USSR made no effort to defend or reinforce Grenada, they honestly did not care about the little spit of land.