 |
| The Political Pub
News, Politics and General Discussion |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Midwest
Cabinet Minister
User is Offline
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 2079
Location: In the darkness at the edge of town
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I keep wanting to blame the people and, particularly, the leadership of the Soviet Union for communism lasting as long as it did in the Soviet Union.
Twisted, convoluted thinking, I know. |
It's all part of the picture. It isn't beyond belief though that American military and diplomatic actions prolonged the agony.
_________________
"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." L. P. Hartley, The Go-Between |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phillippe
Sgt. at Arms
User is Offline
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 2427
Location: Westmount, Québec, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
MW,
I think that's a reality as well. If you look at it, the US and USSR played an imperial game of investing in countries of some strategic importance. The USSR supplied weapons, oil and food to countries like North Korea all the way to Nicaragua. They really didn't have the means to, and so it cost them dearly. They kept up by always keeping people working for the safety of communism and the glory of the USSR. People put up with defered payments for months, or even years, finally collecting not in Rubles, but in the products produced, which held a street value (i.e growth of black market). I doubt people would have put up with those conditions had there not been the idea that the US would have come marching down Red Square.
_________________
I run a student organization.. You can call me El Presidente. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazzbro
Cabinet Minister
User is Offline
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phillippe wrote: |
...the US and USSR played an imperial game of investing in countries of some strategic importance. The USSR supplied weapons, oil and food to countries like North Korea all the way to Nicaragua. They really didn't have the means to, and so it cost them dearly....
.... I doubt people would have put up with those conditions had there not been the idea that the US would have come marching down Red Square. |
Circular. If there hadn't been the prospect of "the US marching down Red Square" the Soviet Union wouldn't have been propping up the other countries through massive investment they couldn't afford - instead, being able to afford a higher domestic standard of living.
That argument goes nowhere I'm afraid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phillippe
Sgt. at Arms
User is Offline
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 2427
Location: Westmount, Québec, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jazz,
It's not circular, you just choose not to accept that things went in that direction. I fail to see how it goes nowhere. This isn't supposition, this is fact-- this is what actually happened. The Americans began to support regimes near the USSR-- Iran, South Korea, etc and the Soviets did the same to the US--Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.
_________________
I run a student organization.. You can call me El Presidente. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazzbro
Cabinet Minister
User is Offline
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is your (the) argument;
1. The Soviet Union was unsustainable in and of itself due to communism.
2. Had it been "left alone" (?) the people would have become intolerant of the regime due to economic hardship and - one way or another - overthrown it sooner than they did with US influence.
3. Due to American influence, the people became tolerant of an even worse situation as the USSR supported other communist regimes to counter the US influence around the world, thereby actually prolonging the life of the regime.
Agreed?
I don't argue there wasn't American influence around the world.
I don't argue that the USSR was both responsive and themselves provocative of it. (Sidenote - if it weren't the US it may have very well been some other country countering Soviet hegemony. But that's a digression.)
I don't even argue that there would be - and likely was - more tolerance of poorer conditions by the Soviet people due to perceived US threat than there would otherwise be without that perceived threat.
What I do argue is that if the USSR wasn't supporting other regimes and countering US global influence - which all took substantial resources - they would have had more ability (virtually by definition) to improve living conditions and lifestyles within the USSR itself. So while the threat of the US would be removed, so would the living conditions be alleviated commensurately. Furthermore, this would have had the effect of increasing the prospect - in the Soviet people's and leaders' eyes - that the USSR was sustainable.
So it's circular. And there's certainly no way of saying that the regime would have fallen sooner without the US influence. You can make that argument but it's certainly not at all a provable, or even very realistic conclusion imo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Midwest
Cabinet Minister
User is Offline
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 2079
Location: In the darkness at the edge of town
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The argument is Professor Gaddis' not mine. Considering that he's a kindred spirit of Victor Davis Hanson, I'd hate to be lumped with him in any way shape or form.
_________________
"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." L. P. Hartley, The Go-Between |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phillippe
Sgt. at Arms
User is Offline
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 2427
Location: Westmount, Québec, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jazz,
First of all, I don't put much stock into the notion that without the US the USSR would have fallen sooner. As I noted earlier, Soviet power was reaching its apex in the 1960s. The USSR at that time indeed did have the capability to fund foreign powers without serious deterioration to its own standards. I'm talking to a very specific point in history ~1979-1985. If we want to talk of fear, the Soviets feared the Chinese more so than most other countries. They positioned over 100,000 troops along the Chinese Border and placed troops in Mongolia. They never felt safe with them there and always maintain enough air support to virtually destroy the Chinese Air Force in a single wave.
What I am talking to is a time when Soviet leaders changed yearly, and where party secretaries where so ill for months at a time that they were ineffective. In that narrow frame of time, yes, all three of those apply without being contradictory.
_________________
I run a student organization.. You can call me El Presidente. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|