why did the USSR collapse?

[whitehall]

Socialism doesn't work.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Because of Poles like Ryszard Kuklinski, Lech Walesa, Pope Jan Pawel II, and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

 

[JoeB131]

Because of Poles like Ryszard Kuklinski, Lech Walesa, Pope Jan Pawel II, and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

How many Poles does it take to wreck a superpower?

 

[Picaro]

Same reason the British Empire Collapsed.

Eventually, all empires collapse. Because the imperial nation gets tired of ruling and the subject people get tired of being ruled.

To say the USSR collapsed because of "Communism' is just as foolish as saying the British Empire collapsed because of Capitalism.

do you think it's more of a financial issue?

Went bankrupt financially due to LBJ's escalations in Viet Nam, Africa, and the ME, taking over support for the Israelis against the Arab dictators; the latter ended up blaming the Soviets for their defeats by the Israelis in 1967 and 1973, stupid of course but that's the facts; the Brezhnev Doctrine, and extension of the Kruschev Doctrine, had bankrupted the Soviets by 1973. After that they were put on western life support, the West did not want a major sudden collapse, so began all the Soviet wheat deals with Europe and the U.S., the U.S. also began importing their refined petroleum when the Arab oil embargoes came along and aggravated their economic failures, the Soviets, despite having massive amounts of crude oil and the best efforts of Fred Koch up to the 1950's to develop the Soviet oil refining industry, still relied on foreign imports of refined goods and fuels.

This is what allowed the Poles their 'Revolt' and subsequent 'Freedom' movement; the Soviets expended a lot of effort subsidizing their western satellites at the expense of the rest of the country, trying to make them look good, and keeping the West from destabilizing them.

The Kissinger deal with Red China made it nearly impossible for a Red Chinese and Soviet alliance bloc to form in 1973 and after, removing that scenario for a long time to come.. The price for that deal was paid by Cambodians and others, in blood.

People these days forget there was also a world food shortage going on alongside the 'Oil Crisis' hoax fro several years, and think all the inflation was only due to oil prices.

Another major lesson that the U.S. still refuses to face up to itself is the role corruption plays in the Soviet decline and the inability to recover from such a collapse. Our own Corruption Index is at its highest levels in history, even Singapore is way ahead of us in reducing its domestic corruption, one of the reasons it is such a great country to do business in and is prosperous with strong social institutions..

There are always several things going on, but mainly it was the Cold War spending under Johnson; we could afford such policies and proxy battles, they couldn't.

 

[Ringel05]

Let me guess, you took high school history and maybe one or two classes in college, if you went to college and now you're an expert on history and cultural anthropology (my background......).

No, i have a bachelor's degree in History from the University of Illinois...

Thanks for asking.

Didn't help as you think Sir John Glubb's book is trash......... Are you a Revisionist?
In a large part it's the ultimate blending of cultures that bring values, ideas and changes in cultural attitude that are alien to the original that precipitates then hastens the downward spiral as expansion stops.
That's a very generic explanation that doesn't cover all the aspects that lead to downfall but it's much more accurate than your "they get tired of being governed" explanation..........

 

[harmonica]

Same reason the British Empire Collapsed.

Eventually, all empires collapse. Because the imperial nation gets tired of ruling and the subject people get tired of being ruled.

To say the USSR collapsed because of "Communism' is just as foolish as saying the British Empire collapsed because of Capitalism.

do you think it's more of a financial issue?

Went bankrupt financially due to LBJ's escalations in Viet Nam, Africa, and the ME, taking over support for the Israelis against the Arab dictators; the latter ended up blaming the Soviets for their defeats by the Israelis in 1967 and 1973, stupid of course but that's the facts; the Brezhnev Doctrine, and extension of the Kruschev Doctrine, had bankrupted the Soviets by 1973. After that they were put on western life support, the West did not want a major sudden collapse, so began all the Soviet wheat deals with Europe and the U.S., the U.S. also began importing their refined petroleum when the Arab oil embargoes came along and aggravated their economic failures, the Soviets, despite having massive amounts of crude oil and the best efforts of Fred Koch up to the 1950's to develop the Soviet oil refining industry, still relied on foreign imports of refined goods and fuels.

This is what allowed the Poles their 'Revolt' and subsequent 'Freedom' movement; the Soviets expended a lot of effort subsidizing their western satellites at the expense of the rest of the country, trying to make them look good, and keeping the West from destabilizing them.

The Kissinger deal with Red China made it nearly impossible for a Red Chinese and Soviet alliance bloc to form in 1973 and after, removing that scenario for a long time to come.. The price for that deal was paid by Cambodians and others, in blood.

People these days forget there was also a world food shortage going on alongside the 'Oil Crisis' hoax fro several years, and think all the inflation was only due to oil prices.

Another major lesson that the U.S. still refuses to face up to itself is the role corruption plays in the Soviet decline and the inability to recover from such a collapse. Our own Corruption Index is at its highest levels in history, even Singapore is way ahead of us in reducing its domestic corruption, one of the reasons it is such a great country to do business in and is prosperous with strong social institutions..

There are always several things going on, but mainly it was the Cold War spending under Johnson; we could afford such policies and proxy battles, they couldn't.

..the USSR helping the Arabs is very interesting---all that--for big losses--in equipment and confidence/morale/etc
--the Arabs had huge advantages, but lost to tiny Israel--then the USSR rearmed the Arabs--again--only to see the Arab lose--again in 1973
...this is a very interesting aspect of the USSR....great point

 

[JoeB131]

Didn't help as you think Sir John Glubb's book is trash......... Are you a Revisionist?

No, I'm a pragmatist... of course some wuss with "Sir" in front of his name isn't going to grasp why he doesn't have an empire anymore.

In a large part it's the ultimate blending of cultures that bring values, ideas and changes in cultural attitude that are alien to the original that precipitates then hastens the downward spiral as expansion stops.
That's a very generic explanation that doesn't cover all the aspects that lead to downfall but it's much more accurate than your "they get tired of being governed" explanation..........

Not really. actually, it's a lot of sputtering horseshit.

The Indians didn't throw the British the fuck out because they "blended cultures", they got tired of being governed by people who treated them like second class citizens in their own country. And when Churchill had to do hat in hand to Ghandi (someone he once said was worst than Hitler) to support the UK in WWII, the cost was independence for India... WHich Churchill still tried to do backsies on.

 

[Ringel05]

Didn't help as you think Sir John Glubb's book is trash......... Are you a Revisionist?

No, I'm a pragmatist... of course some wuss with "Sir" in front of his name isn't going to grasp why he doesn't have an empire anymore.

In a large part it's the ultimate blending of cultures that bring values, ideas and changes in cultural attitude that are alien to the original that precipitates then hastens the downward spiral as expansion stops.
That's a very generic explanation that doesn't cover all the aspects that lead to downfall but it's much more accurate than your "they get tired of being governed" explanation..........

Not really. actually, it's a lot of sputtering horseshit.

The Indians didn't throw the British the fuck out because they "blended cultures", they got tired of being governed by people who treated them like second class citizens in their own country. And when Churchill had to do hat in hand to Ghandi (someone he once said was worst than Hitler) to support the UK in WWII, the cost was independence for India... WHich Churchill still tried to do backsies on.

Ohhhhh, so you're focused on the peripheries and not on the base....... Umpires always start and finish corrupting from the base, the actions of the periphery are just symptomatic. The British Empire was already destroyed by the time Churchill became Prime Minister, he was nothing more than a hanger on to old dead realities.

 

[JoeB131]

Ohhhhh, so you're focused on the peripheries and not on the base....... Umpires always start and finish corrupting from the base, the actions of the periphery are just symptomatic. The British Empire was already destroyed by the time Churchill became Prime Minister, he was nothing more than a hanger on to old dead realities.

Umpires?

Okay, not really. The thing that brought the British Empire down was imperialism exhausting its resources. Two world wars where Germany threatened its position, and the Empire exhausted itself fighting them.

The last stage was when Churchill had to pull Indian Troops to fight the Nazis because there weren't enough British to do it.

 

[Ringel05]

Didn't help as you think Sir John Glubb's book is trash......... Are you a Revisionist?

No, I'm a pragmatist... of course some wuss with "Sir" in front of his name isn't going to grasp why he doesn't have an empire anymore.

In a large part it's the ultimate blending of cultures that bring values, ideas and changes in cultural attitude that are alien to the original that precipitates then hastens the downward spiral as expansion stops.
That's a very generic explanation that doesn't cover all the aspects that lead to downfall but it's much more accurate than your "they get tired of being governed" explanation..........

Not really. actually, it's a lot of sputtering horseshit.

The Indians didn't throw the British the fuck out because they "blended cultures", they got tired of being governed by people who treated them like second class citizens in their own country. And when Churchill had to do hat in hand to Ghandi (someone he once said was worst than Hitler) to support the UK in WWII, the cost was independence for India... WHich Churchill still tried to do backsies on.

Ohhhhh, so you're focused on the peripheries and not on the base....... Umpires always start and finish corrupting from the base, the actions of the periphery are just symptomatic. The British Empire was already destroyed by the time Churchill became Prime Minister, he was nothing more than a hanger on to old dead realities.

And like I said the cultural assimilation aspect is only one part, it's also that Empires eventually become too big to maintain and where there's a weakness that weakness will be exploited from outside and inside the empire.

 

[Ringel05]

Ohhhhh, so you're focused on the peripheries and not on the base....... Umpires always start and finish corrupting from the base, the actions of the periphery are just symptomatic. The British Empire was already destroyed by the time Churchill became Prime Minister, he was nothing more than a hanger on to old dead realities.

Umpires?

Okay, not really. The thing that brought the British Empire down was imperialism exhausting its resources. Two world wars where Germany threatened its position, and the Empire exhausted itself fighting them.

The last stage was when Churchill had to pull Indian Troops to fight the Nazis because there weren't enough British to do it.

I agree, that was only a part of it but in order to understand the entirety one has to see the whole and not just isolated aspects.
Umpires...... Yeah, tired, did a final move from our old house three ours away to our new house, drove up at 6:30 am and didn't get home until midnight and we ain't spring chickens any longer........

 

[JoeB131]

I agree, that was only a part of it but in order to understand the entirety one has to see the whole and not just isolated aspects.
Umpires...... Yeah, tired, did a final move from our old house three ours away to our new house, drove up at 6:30 am and didn't get home until midnight and we ain't spring chickens any longer........

i don't particularly want to get into the weeds here, thanks. You can totally cite all the minor incidents, that yes, Ho Chi Mihn never would have rebelled against France if he hadn't heard of the whole Communism thing through his western education....

But at the end of the day, Empires are based on someone's willingness to conquer, and someone else's acquiescence. When that ends, so does an empire.

 

[Ringel05]

I agree, that was only a part of it but in order to understand the entirety one has to see the whole and not just isolated aspects.
Umpires...... Yeah, tired, did a final move from our old house three ours away to our new house, drove up at 6:30 am and didn't get home until midnight and we ain't spring chickens any longer........

i don't particularly want to get into the weeds here, thanks. You can totally cite all the minor incidents, that yes, Ho Chi Mihn never would have rebelled against France if he hadn't heard of the whole Communism thing through his western education....

But at the end of the day, Empires are based on someone's willingness to conquer, and someone else's acquiescence. When that ends, so does an empire.

When that ends...... At home and abroad..........

 

[OldLady]

Read the russian sources - the americans historians don't know shit about the world.

I agree reading about history from the 'natives' gives you a 'better' understanding--more detail....? interesting detail

The only problem is, the Russian sources can be heavily biased, since everything printed is controlled/approved/censored by the State. Still, to some degree. Maybe reading analysis from countries with less dog in the fight than the US is a good idea, but probably reading JUST Russian sources could be a problem, too, as far as accuracy.
Just a thought.

 

[Picaro]

Same reason the British Empire Collapsed.

Eventually, all empires collapse. Because the imperial nation gets tired of ruling and the subject people get tired of being ruled.

To say the USSR collapsed because of "Communism' is just as foolish as saying the British Empire collapsed because of Capitalism.

do you think it's more of a financial issue?

Went bankrupt financially due to LBJ's escalations in Viet Nam, Africa, and the ME, taking over support for the Israelis against the Arab dictators; the latter ended up blaming the Soviets for their defeats by the Israelis in 1967 and 1973, stupid of course but that's the facts; the Brezhnev Doctrine, and extension of the Kruschev Doctrine, had bankrupted the Soviets by 1973. After that they were put on western life support, the West did not want a major sudden collapse, so began all the Soviet wheat deals with Europe and the U.S., the U.S. also began importing their refined petroleum when the Arab oil embargoes came along and aggravated their economic failures, the Soviets, despite having massive amounts of crude oil and the best efforts of Fred Koch up to the 1950's to develop the Soviet oil refining industry, still relied on foreign imports of refined goods and fuels.

This is what allowed the Poles their 'Revolt' and subsequent 'Freedom' movement; the Soviets expended a lot of effort subsidizing their western satellites at the expense of the rest of the country, trying to make them look good, and keeping the West from destabilizing them.

The Kissinger deal with Red China made it nearly impossible for a Red Chinese and Soviet alliance bloc to form in 1973 and after, removing that scenario for a long time to come.. The price for that deal was paid by Cambodians and others, in blood.

People these days forget there was also a world food shortage going on alongside the 'Oil Crisis' hoax fro several years, and think all the inflation was only due to oil prices.

Another major lesson that the U.S. still refuses to face up to itself is the role corruption plays in the Soviet decline and the inability to recover from such a collapse. Our own Corruption Index is at its highest levels in history, even Singapore is way ahead of us in reducing its domestic corruption, one of the reasons it is such a great country to do business in and is prosperous with strong social institutions..

There are always several things going on, but mainly it was the Cold War spending under Johnson; we could afford such policies and proxy battles, they couldn't.

..the USSR helping the Arabs is very interesting---all that--for big losses--in equipment and confidence/morale/etc
--the Arabs had huge advantages, but lost to tiny Israel--then the USSR rearmed the Arabs--again--only to see the Arab lose--again in 1973
...this is a very interesting aspect of the USSR....great point

It's important to look at the global picture when discussing the assorted polices in these proxy wars; it's as much about backing allies in the entire region as about some single country or other. Korea had policy and treaty implications for all the countries around the Soviets and Mao, it wasn't just about "Korea". The Soviets had been expansionist since they took over Russia, and never stopped; Stalin and Khrushchev was destabilizing countries all over the world, and breaking agreements made with nearly everybody. Nuclear war wasn't an option, so we got proxy wars.

 

[Picaro]

Didn't help as you think Sir John Glubb's book is trash......... Are you a Revisionist?

No, I'm a pragmatist... of course some wuss with "Sir" in front of his name isn't going to grasp why he doesn't have an empire anymore.

In a large part it's the ultimate blending of cultures that bring values, ideas and changes in cultural attitude that are alien to the original that precipitates then hastens the downward spiral as expansion stops.
That's a very generic explanation that doesn't cover all the aspects that lead to downfall but it's much more accurate than your "they get tired of being governed" explanation..........

Not really. actually, it's a lot of sputtering horseshit.

The Indians didn't throw the British the fuck out because they "blended cultures", they got tired of being governed by people who treated them like second class citizens in their own country. And when Churchill had to do hat in hand to Ghandi (someone he once said was worst than Hitler) to support the UK in WWII, the cost was independence for India... WHich Churchill still tried to do backsies on.

Ohhhhh, so you're focused on the peripheries and not on the base....... Umpires always start and finish corrupting from the base, the actions of the periphery are just symptomatic. The British Empire was already destroyed by the time Churchill became Prime Minister, he was nothing more than a hanger on to old dead realities.

Well, it became a fairly large Commonwealth and trade bloc, and many of its former colonies stayed on, so obviously there wasn't any great animosity against them by their former alleged 'victims'; this is less true for Spain, Belgium, and France, but the British and Dutch and Portugese 'empires' proved to be blatantly beneficial to many of them, much to the horror of leftist commie vermin.

In the case of the British and their former colonies, those 'colonies' kept the British in WW II, able to call on resources around the globe, and Indian engineers served all over the world; Indian sappers were in the invasion of Italy, for instance, and William Slim and his Indian volunteers in India was one of the best Generals and troops of the war.

 

[Ringel05]

Didn't help as you think Sir John Glubb's book is trash......... Are you a Revisionist?

No, I'm a pragmatist... of course some wuss with "Sir" in front of his name isn't going to grasp why he doesn't have an empire anymore.

In a large part it's the ultimate blending of cultures that bring values, ideas and changes in cultural attitude that are alien to the original that precipitates then hastens the downward spiral as expansion stops.
That's a very generic explanation that doesn't cover all the aspects that lead to downfall but it's much more accurate than your "they get tired of being governed" explanation..........

Not really. actually, it's a lot of sputtering horseshit.

The Indians didn't throw the British the fuck out because they "blended cultures", they got tired of being governed by people who treated them like second class citizens in their own country. And when Churchill had to do hat in hand to Ghandi (someone he once said was worst than Hitler) to support the UK in WWII, the cost was independence for India... WHich Churchill still tried to do backsies on.

Ohhhhh, so you're focused on the peripheries and not on the base....... Umpires always start and finish corrupting from the base, the actions of the periphery are just symptomatic. The British Empire was already destroyed by the time Churchill became Prime Minister, he was nothing more than a hanger on to old dead realities.

Well, it became a fairly large Commonwealth and trade bloc, and many of its former colonies stayed on, so obviously there wasn't any great animosity against them by their former alleged 'victims'; this is less true for Spain, Belgium, and France, but the British and Dutch and Portugese 'empires' proved to be blatantly beneficial to many of them, much to the horror of leftist commie vermin.

In the case of the British and their former colonies, those 'colonies' kept the British in WW II, able to call on resources around the globe, and Indian engineers served all over the world; Indian sappers were in the invasion of Italy, for instance, and William Slim and his Indian volunteers in India was one of the best Generals and troops of the war.

You missed the point, the Empire was already dead, like an dying person taking his/her last gasps not accepting they're already dead. Hence though it was partially in place and Britain still had the power to call for colonial troops, it was dead but not many realized it at the time. We historians love beginning and ending dates which often leads to false assumptions, empires can take from decades to centuries to hit that final "end date".

 

[Picaro]

[

I
You missed the point,.

Nah, you did. It merely obsoleted the old, and brought in the new, which was Rooselvelt's vision for an end to European colonialism and build a 'new world' of independent states; we didn't quite get there, either, but we got more than close enough to call his plans a success. Whether or not the assorted ideological purists on the left or right like it or accept it or not isn't important, they're going to snivel no matter what about some imaginary point or other. Nobody need take them seriously, as they have no real influence, and exist mostly on innernetz message boards. They can lick Rand Paul's and Uncle Bernies' ankles for solace.

The cultural influences remain, just as a lot of the old Roman and Greek influence does in the West.

 

[Ringel05]

[

I
You missed the point,.

Nah, you did. It merely obsoleted the old, and brought in the new, which was Rooselvelt's vision for an end to European colonialism and build a 'new world' of independent states; we didn't quite get there, either, but we got more than close enough to call his plans a success. Whether or not the assorted ideological purists on the left or right like it or accept it or not isn't important, they're going to snivel no matter what about some imaginary point or other. Nobody need take them seriously, as they have no real influence, and exist mostly on innernetz message boards. They can lick Rand Paul's and Uncle Bernies' ankles for solace.

The cultural influences remain, just as a lot of the old Roman and Greek influence does in the West.

Sounds to me like you're off on some tangent that has little to do with what I was discussing. Or is it simply semantics at this point?

 

[Picaro]

[

I
You missed the point,.

Nah, you did. It merely obsoleted the old, and brought in the new, which was Rooselvelt's vision for an end to European colonialism and build a 'new world' of independent states; we didn't quite get there, either, but we got more than close enough to call his plans a success. Whether or not the assorted ideological purists on the left or right like it or accept it or not isn't important, they're going to snivel no matter what about some imaginary point or other. Nobody need take them seriously, as they have no real influence, and exist mostly on innernetz message boards. They can lick Rand Paul's and Uncle Bernies' ankles for solace.

The cultural influences remain, just as a lot of the old Roman and Greek influence does in the West.

Sounds to me like you're off on some tangent that has little to do with what I was discussing. Or is it simply semantics at this point?

Sounds to me like you don't know the difference between 'collapse' and evolving relationships. There was no 'Big Giant Collapse', many of those countries are now part of the Commonwealth, and they are bound together under mutual defense treaties as well, but it does sounds a lot more dramatic to claim a 'Collapse' than the reality, right? It's more than 'just 'semantics' for those of us who understand the relationships, it's a political reality. Libertarians love the dramatic version, but then they don't have much a grasp on reality to begin with.