
Moral causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union (2011) - emilsedgh
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/everything-you-think-you-know-about-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-is-wrong/
======
obrero
If you read the New York Times articles of 1917, 1918, 1919, they talk about
how the Bolshevik government would be collapsing any day now...eventually it
happened seventy years later - because leaders of the communist party decided
to.

When the leaders of Russia's communist party decided to reorganize their
government in 1991, what governments in continental Europe from 1917 still
existed in the same form, uninterrupted? Not Germany, not France, not Italy.
Not Spain, not Portugal, not Holland. The only country I can think of is
Switzerland, although perhaps one or more slip my mind. Some "failure" \- when
you've outlived everyone else and are done away with by the leaders of the
party that was in charge seventy years before decides to throw in the towel.
While in the meantime surviving numerous major wars, and, under Stalin, having
enormous economic growth, at a time when the rest of the world was stagnating
economically.

Russia was a backwards country in 1917. Lenin said Russia would not be a
leader among countries, but the opportunity availed itself and so socialists
would hold out in Russia while the rest of the world went on with its
processes. This was followed by invasion by every country (including the US in
places like Arkhangelsk), then 25 years later being invaded by a coalition of
most of continental Europe, followed by a Cold War against a military alliance
of all the world's industrialized nations. What magic pixie dust would the
Russians have to combat all this? It's a miracle they made it to 1991, in the
process launching the first satellites, man in space etc., before deciding
themselves to close up shop in 1991.

It's a strange triumphalism - exaggerate a threat beyond all proportions, then
crow how you defeated it. 1917 US (and allies) against 1917 Russia is like an
NFL team against a Pee-wee league. This is the case for triumphalism? It's a
miracle the Russians did as well as they did - they even beat Nazi Germany. It
shows there must have been something to what they were doing.

~~~
blfr
They only beat the Nazi Germany after allying with them[1], starting the war,
and letting Germans bleed out across Europe. Even then, despite massive
difference in size and population (~100M people that Stalin hasn't murdered
yet), barely.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact)

~~~
guard-of-terra
"letting Germans bleed out across Europe"

How much exactly did they "bleed" before starting war with the USSR? AFAIK
they mostly took countries intact with low to none losses.

~~~
rangibaby
They took 50-90% (depending on the source) of their total losses fighting the
Soviets.

------
guard-of-terra
"Everything You Think You Know About the Collapse of the Soviet Union Is
Wrong"

Quick quiz: what were you supposed to know about the collapse of USSR before
reading this article?

~~~
asgard1024
My guess is that Ronald Reagan caused the collapse by spending billions on
Star Wars program.

~~~
hga
That was part of it. The Soviets had put an _immense_ amount of money into
their Strategic Rocket Forces, and even a modest implementation of the
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, let's not use the name chosen by those who
attacked it) would have negated it, because a (first strike) attacker can't
chose which warheads get taken out.

We also hit them hard in the pocketbook: convinced OPEC/the Saudis to lower
the price of oil, directly sabotaged their gas exports to Western Europe,
otherwise denied them technology that would have improved their economy, and
made Afghanistan their Vietnam.

And then the moral aspect; I haven't read the fine article, but Reagan wasn't
afraid to correctly refer to the Soviet Union as an "Evil Empire", told
Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall!" (separating East and West Germany). I've
also read from accounts inside the Iron Curtain that our invasion of Grenada
was a _massive_ shock, this was the first time ever that the West had taken
back a Communist nation, explicitly denying the Brezhnev Doctrine, which we
also attacked in many ways in Eastern Europe.

Bottom line was that Reagan was the first US President to decide to destroy,
rather than merely contain, the Soviet Union, and despite the wavering of
George H. "Chicken Kiev" W. Bush, succeeded shortly after leaving office.
This, without massive bloodshed, is hands down the greatest geopolitical
achievement in post-WWII 20th Century history.

~~~
guard-of-terra
"Reagan wasn't afraid to correctly refer to the Soviet Union as an "Evil
Empire""

I don't think that affected inter-country morale long-term. What mattered is
what happens inside, what we do to each other, how we live. That's true even
with immense value that soviet mentality always gave to outside views on it.

"our invasion of Grenada was a massive shock"

I was born in 1985, ostensibly, but I've never heard of this and don't even
know where that Grenada is.

Frankly, what you wrote doesn't sound very important to the issue.

~~~
gus_massa
I agree. In many countries if you are the president and the USA president call
you "evil", you improve your popularity because it's a sign that you are
"fighting" the yankee imperialism. You simply call the USA president "evil"
and get even more popular support.

------
trhway
> in 1985, no government of a major state appeared to be as firmly in power,
> its policies as clearly set in their course, as that of the USSR.

the ship was rotting and falling apart from inside. Andropov, before
Gorbachev, was trying to treat the situation the way that was natural to him -
previously head of KGB - by enforcing the workplace discipline and
implementing strict restrictions on alcohol. Talking about the way Russian
government can lose the last trust and support of the people! (i say Russian
because the rest of USSR had significant other reasons to leave the empire)
Current regime in Russia has learned the lesson -
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/02...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/02/russias-
economy-is-so-bad-it-has-cut-vodka-prices/)

~~~
DominikR
> Current regime in Russia has learned the lesson

Why is it a "regime"? Putin was democratically elected and even Western
opinion research institutes unequivocally attest that he is supported by 85 to
90 percent of the Russian population.

In US media this is always attributed to "propaganda" while economic successes
that might have an influence on Russian votes is completely ignored. For
example: Russian GDP rose during Putins years tenfold. Russia reduced its
foreign debt down to 23% of GDP and a flat tax of 13% for everyone was
introduced. (I live in the EU and I am basically robbed by my government - I
pay a hefty 50% tax on top of being forced to charge 20% VAT from my
customers)

If these aren't good reasons to vote for someone then I don't know what is. I
would vote for ANY party (except radicals), be it left or right that would
stimulate GDP growth while reducing my taxes down to 13%.

~~~
tptacek
It's pretty easy to consolidate reported public support when your government
has nationalized the bulk of the media, and exerts economic and coercive
violent pressure on the opposition press.

~~~
hackerboos
Same could be said for Singapore substituting violent pressure for legal
pressure.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Singapore is successful, Russia is crumbling. That's the main difference.

Of course it always depends on perspective. There are some people who would
claim relative success of Singapore not compensating restrictions, and yet
some other people would claim even North Korea is doing okay so stop insulting
them.

------
guard-of-terra
WRT assumptions we carry around with us:

 _The Soviet Union seemed to have adjusted to undertaking bloody
"pacifications" in Eastern Europe every 12 years - Hungary in 1956,
Czechoslovakia in 1968, Poland in 1980_

One should really compare the bloodliness of those pacifications with similar
ones undertaken against Iraq or Libya. The difference would be dramatic.

Not that I am defending soviet regime. Adding insult to injury, they routinely
failed their PR campaigns.

~~~
rospaya
> One should really compare the bloodliness of those pacifications with
> similar ones undertaken against Iraq or Libya. The difference would be
> dramatic.

Why? This is a very ham fisted attempt at the usual "bu.. but the Americans
are worse!" routine with no need to compare the two in the first place. The
only possible reason for comparing them would be to find the Soviet Union more
peaceful or less bloody outside of its borders than the US, something that has
little to no relevancy to this article.

~~~
guard-of-terra
This however have relevance for readers, because they are going to use those
cliches afterwards, and will, for example, call for "stronger measures"
because "that's how it is done", citing article they read years ago.

------
rimantas
Strange article, it does not even mention that parts of the USSR were
countries occupied before WW II and that they were never happy about it.
Perestroika and glasnost gave some room to breathe for their independence
movements which gained strength in in late 1980ies. I am still amazed how we
were able to pull
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way)
off. My country (Lithuania) declared independance back in March 1990, Latvia
did the same in May, and Estonia was well on its way—that's more than a year
befor August 1991 happen. And by the August events we already had January 1991
so I highly highly doubt there was a real chance for USSR to survive and
continue business as usual.

~~~
vkazanov
Well... "Not happy" \- depends on who you ask in Lithuania. My great
grandmother was killed by nationalists near Zarasai. So her daughter - my
grandmother - was brought up by relatives in Kaunas, and understandably never
had any sympathies for the pre-war Lithuanian state and people missing it.
She's still alive, by the way, and hates the way modern Lithuanian official
historians idealize "forest brothers", nationalists, etc.

This does not make USSR a much better place, of course, but they did just let
everyone go in the end, didn't they..? I still remember all those endless
trains with tanks going east. I can't really remember too many examples of
such a "mild" empire, em, disappearance.

------
theworstshill
USSR was terrible in the way it constrained personal freedom and property, but
thats not why it collapsed, the grievances of common people had nothing to do
with its collapse at all. I believe a large portion voted to stay in the
union. USSR was broken up by top cadres so that each can have a personal
fiefdom, it had nothing to do with what the sheeple was bleating.

~~~
guard-of-terra
That's true too. People brought "top cadres" into relative freedom, and then
they destroyed the USSR against people's will.

------
ape4
The moral can't be too high in North Korea.

