|
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
International trade. The citizens of the Eastern Block countries desired and demanded goods that could not be produced within the Warsaw pact countries, moreover, industry required equipment and machinery that could not be produced internally. These goods/equipment had to be purchased from non-Soviet states as the Soviets did not have the ability to supply them. Now, the governents could have simply denied the consumer demands but the industrial equipment was necessary to keep the manufacturing sectors alive. In order to obtain the required goods and equipment the Soviet states needed currency for the states supplying the goods. Ususally foriegn currency can be obtained largely through trade, however, no one in the west wanted anything produced in the east (other then oil which was simply insufficient to generate the monies needed), subsequently, there was a massive trade deficit for the Soviets. With no foriegn currency coming in through trade the only means of obtaining the money needed to purchase the required equipment was to liquidate the gold and precious metals reserves. This is exactly what the Soviet Union did. As the gold reserves started to dwindle it became clear to the USSR polit bureau that they could no longer continue to support their vassel states. Eventually, the Soviets decided to cut off the vassels and instructed them to fend for themselves.... they failed, which created a cascade effect of counter-revolutions that could not be stopped.
China has managed to stave off a similar fate by providing goods to the west and re-investing this in their manufacturing infrastructure... had the soviets done this they may well have survived. |
Well, you cant really compare China to Russia, because Chinese didnt have the massive exports of natural resources which were paying for the regime. There was no way Soviets were going to copy the Chinese capitalist scheme because Soviets were the primary enemy of USA, NATO and the West, and in case you didnt notice how USA, UK, NATO, etc. do business with their enemies, i.e. Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc - and Soviets were in the same line. Soviets were never going to allow western corporations inside with such massive numbers because those same companies could've been Western agents to undermine the country from inside. Thats why they called it the Cold War. China was on the sidelines, and they decided to play their own game, and they were continuously being swayed by both sides.
And also China was approached and liked by the West (starting with USA), swayed over by Nixon to win over those Chinese communists because the actual war was against Soviet Union, weaking Soviet's sphere. Chinese then decided to embrace some capitalist ways (most likely with Western lobbying) to open up factories to use cheap Chinese labour that was easy to gather and control under a Chinese dictatorship regime and with communist party getting the dividents, and the rest is history ... all started with Cultural Revolution, which got the Chinese economy going since.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I'm going to say Perestroika.
When they cracked opened the window of freedom to a people stifled by their government, they (the government) could not shut it again. |
Yes, true. It became obvious that Soviet Union was struggling economically, and changes had to be done. The industry was failing under the state mismanagement - in fact, the industry was usually run by communist party members who had little or absolutely no experience in that field, but were chosen for loyalty and communist party membership.
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
probably all of the above. |
True, there were many factors that when combined, brought mighty Soviet Union down like a house of cards. But the question was, what was the primary cause for its collapse ;-)
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
I am not all that familiar with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I do believe it was a combination of mismanagement and foreign intervention. The amount of interference the US and other 'western' countries exerted over affair related to the Soviet Union was in my opinion great and negative. If there had been less animosity from the international community I think the fate of the Soviet Union would have been different. |
For a long time, especially in the beginning, I have stipulated that Soviet Union was brought down primarily with foreign intervention, as many Russian nationalists would think. With more research, I've realized that this was not very apparent, the timeline and key events leading up to the collapse indicated otherwise - that western intervention was minimal in bringing down the empire, but could have played a role behind the curtains. It was possible that Gorbachev or Yeltsin or some other high ranking official was a western mole or agent and played a sabotage game, but its not proven. Communist party was at war within itself - hardliners vs. reformers, ever since the early 1980s.
The problems began in early 1980s with falling energy prices on the world markets. The Party realized that it could no longer put hardliners as the leaders, facing a possible economic crisis and was pressured to start Perestroika and consequently Glastnost' in hopes to fix weakening economy and faltering industry which were plagued by the expensive war in Afghanistan both in support, morale, cost, and human lives when Gorbachev came to power.
The Afghanistan war cost Soviets a lot of money every year (billions of $$$), and lowering energy prices have doomed the war. Gorbachev came to power and immediately planned out pull-out of Afghanistan. However, Soviet leadership considered that a slow pull-out would be more appropriate to help strengthen their allies and the support against non-communist forces. This way the Soviet withdrawal will be viewed as positive by communist sympathizers in Afghanistan who were against Soviet occupation. In most ways, these and other Soviet strategies failed, and the occupation dragged on for another 4 years costing much more money and resources. In the end they had to abruptly pull out anyways. The delay really hurt Soviet Union.
In late 1980s, energy prices hit rock bottom. The leadership refused to back down from the massive military spending, and the cuts were then forced on the population - cuts in health care, housing accomodations, luxuries, even basic supplies and food - resulting in huge waiting lines everywhere. There was not enough money for all of it. While the military spending was only lowered slightly. Soviet Union pulled out of most of Eastern Europe to cut costs and win Western support.
With more liberties and rising business, political aspirations, and weakening Soviet central control due to lack of funds, many ties were loosened. Some regions decided to settle decades-old conflicts that have been suppressed by Soviet leadership but now rebrewn due to growing nationalist fervour (Nagorno Karabach, South Ossetia, Transdnistria, Chechnya, etc) given this opportunity.
The people have woken up. But many still supported living in Soviet Union. Baltic states were gone, independent and not coming back. Ukraine was contemplating on leaving. Georgia declared independence.
Even with this much unrest going on, much of the country still remained intact. Gorbachev and his gang were working on a new Soviet Union deal, giving more autonomy to the republics but with one country, leader, military, and currency. It was to be signed at the end of August of 1991. Everything looked good. But the hard-liners have decided that Gorbachev has gone too far, and needed to bring 'older' Soviet Union back, before it all collapsed.
Having a lot of power and influence, and with some of them having direct KGB control, they put the plan into action. Once Gorbachev left for his dacha, they cut him off from the rest of the world, placing under house arrest and cutting all communications. Then (I was watching it live), it was announced to the public on state TV that Gorbachev is ill and needs some time off, and the leadership is assumed by the Party. Hardliners attempted to convince Gorbachev to hand over power to preserve the state and let them preserve the state, but Gorbachev refused outright. Panicked, the group decided to seize the White House in Moscow. They sent in troops to take it, but the gathering protesters and contemplating generals have changed plans, and the coup failed. Gorbachev then flew to Moscow, arrested the hardliners, but the damage was already done.
The attempted coup really shook Soviet Union. Gorbachev resigned as a protest to the Party's interference in his reforms. Other republics could no longer trust the main state because they perceived the coup attempt as a roll back to their autonomy and a threat to their elite and power. Additionally, the failure of the coup showed the weakness of the state as the military didnt even attack the demonstrators or the White House, and was not in control. It showed that Gorbachev not only was a weak leader, but he was not in control. It also became obvious to the other republics that the state did not want to offer them the treaty negotiated earlier to give more autonomy and power to them in exchange for remaining within the Union. There was nothing to hold them anymore, and Yeltsin was eager to kill the Soviet Union. And so in suburb of Minsk, at the end of 1991, the agreement was signed that terminated the empire ...
So therefore, I concluded that the coup attempt was the reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union. It would've lasted if the agreement that was planned to be signed at the end of August of 1991 materialized before the hardliners attempted to seize power.
___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture
|
