Re: [Fwd: The Fall of the USSR]

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

William,
      Well, the proximate cause of the collapse was
indeed the political revolt by non-Russian nations
and republics against domination by the Russians.
In 1989 this led to the exit of the East Europeans
and at the end of 1991 the dissolution of the USSR.
This was able to happen because there was a
relative liberal in charge in Moscow, Gorbachev,
who was accurately perceived as not willing to
crack down on those seeking to exit.  After all,
GDR leader Erich Honecker offered to stop the
knocking down of the Berlin Wall, but was not supported
in it by Gorby.
     Which gets us back to why Gorbachev was elected
by the Politburo.  Certainly there are those who have
convinced themselves that it was the push for Star
Wars that was the key factor in the collapse of the
Soviet Union.  But these people rarely articulate just
what it was about it that led to the result.  It is clear that
most  who were knowledgeable on both sides knew that
it was a crock.
     But, it was understood that more generally
the US had gained a crucial technological lead,
especially in its economy more generally, and that
even if Star Wars was silly, this lead would manifest
itself in other ways and in other weapons systems
increasingly.  It was this awareness that pushed the
KGB to support the initial reform effort of Andropov
and then of Gorbachev.  Indeed, in his first year Gorby
looked a lot like Andropov in his approach, somewhat
hardlining, pushing the anti-drinking campaign, and
so forth.  Indeed, most stats show the Soviet economy
growing during that year, probably the last time it did so.
     It was the Chernobyl nuclear accident 15 years ago
that triggered Gorbachev's glasnost policy, not some
obvious need to admit more general economic failure
to the citizens.  If a different leader had been in power,
the response to this might well have not been to initiate
a general liberalization that led to where it led to.
     BTW, it was true then and is even more true today
that conditions in the big cities were much better than
in the rural areas.  So many of these observers could
easily overestimate the quality of life there.  But it was
also true that things were far from horrible or desperate
in the countryside.  Again, nobody was starving, few
were unemployed, most were housed, educated, provided
with basic medical care, etc. etc., even if all this was not
of the highest quality.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "William F. Hummel" <wfhummel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: The Fall of the USSR]


Henry,

Most of the testimonials you forwarded regarding the breakup of
the USSR are strangely silent on what actually did cause its
demise.  But if the Soviets were in good shape socially and
economically, what could cause the fall of such a stout system?

Obviously it was not related to a military imbalance because the
Soviets were at least as strong as the US in that sphere.  Has
any nation in history surrendered to another when it had the
power to destroy its adversary?  I think not.

The testimonials from Americans with "impeccable credibility"
show how naive they can be.  If the US was engaged in economic
warfare with the Soviets, then there should have been a standoff.
The Soviets with far more natural resources and manpower than the
US could easily have outlasted any such siege -- unless there was
something deeper than that at work.

No, the real cause of the Soviet demise was the same as it always
has been for a corrupt oligarchy trying to hold together an
empire of such diverse peoples.  What might be seen in Moscow or
Leningrad hardly reflects the conditions across the whole empire.
Did the huns wage economic warfare on the Romans to break up that
empire?  Let history be our guide, not testimonials from
nearsighted "experts".

In any case, the notion that Star Wars was the cause of the
collapse is a popular myth.  It's a convenient excuse by Soviet
apologists after the fact, but it has no substance.  Star Wars
was the dream of an obsessed scientist, foisted on a
simple-minded and gullible president.  Most US scientists felt it
was totally impractical, as no doubt did Soviet scientists.  If
you want to discuss the technical aspects of Star Wars further,
I'll be glad to do so but it shouldn't be necessary.

William