Everything You Think You Know about the Collapse of the Soviet Union is Wrong

[PanzerJaeger]

I suppose that depends on what you think you know about the collapse, but it is a catchy title nonetheless of a very interesting piece from Foreign Policy that I thought some of you might be interested in.

Essentially, the author argues that the Soviet Union did not fall because of Western pressure or internal economic and/or political collapse. He points out that Reagan's efforts in the third world were peripheral at best, the Kremlin knew that Star Wars type technology was decades away from being operational, the war in Afghanistan was not particularly costly, the Soviet system - while unsustainable in the long run - was far away from a critical economic collapse and was actually growing, and decades of repression had silenced all the regime's enemies. According to the author, all of the reasons we in the West usually attribute to the fall are wrong. In fact, in the early 80's, the communist regime was the strongest it had ever been in Russia and oversaw "the realization of all major Soviet military and diplomatic desiderata,". "We tend to forget," historian Adam Ulam would note later, "that 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."

So what did cause the collapse of Soviet Russia? Conscience and a false sense of security. When Gorbachev and his supporters came to power, they were genuinely disgusted by the stagnation, corruption, and repression that had come to characterize the country. The regime was in such a strong position in Russia that he believed he could make serious reforms in an orderly way. However, the limited freedoms that his perestroika instituted opened the floodgates for rights activists at all levels to undermine the regime and the system, and Gorbachev did not have it in him to silence them in the traditional Soviet manner.

LIKE VIRTUALLY ALL modern revolutions, the latest Russian one was started by a hesitant liberalization "from above" -- and its rationale extended well beyond the necessity to correct the economy or make the international environment more benign. The core of Gorbachev's enterprise was undeniably idealistic: He wanted to build a more moral Soviet Union.

What do you guys think about the author's conclusion? It is quite heartening to think that even in the largest police state in the world, a leader emerged who was a good enough human being to put personal power aside for the betterment of his nation. At the end of the day, a regime that had achieved total and complete, even Orwellian, control over society was taken down from the inside. Big Brother could not silence the human spirit.

[edyzmedieval]

I find it a bit contradictory that "firmly in power in 1985" and then when they opened the "floodgates" in less than 5 years they turned into a complete collapse. I mean, sure, everyone started protesting but that was the job of the huge repression system to take care of, and it did not look like they were very efficient.

And internal economic collapse, that has to be mentioned. Soviet Union was a mess, and the fact that they were growing internally doesn't mean much since it can only be 2% growth and that's minimal when people is starving.

[Kagemusha]

I have always thought it was combination of both forementioned factors. I thought that anyone with half brains knew about the "perestroika". It is a fact that Gorbatsov´s circle was not happy how Soviet Union was and were trying to reshape it. Another completely different question is did they actually want to destroy Soviet Union rather then remodel it.

[PanzerJaeger]

I thought that anyone with half brains knew about the "perestroika".

It's not so much a lack of knowledge about perestroika that the author highlighted, but a misunderstanding of the motivation behind it. In the West, or at least the US, the movement is often portrayed as a last-ditch effort to stave off economic collapse by introducing market reforms that ultimately failed to avert disaster. In reality, or at least the reality the article is trying to convey, the Soviet Union was very stable and perestroika was completely voluntary - driven by moral outrage, not economic necessity - and may have actually succeeded in Gorbachev's ultimate goals.

[InsaneApache]

Interesting. In the 70s I had a friend who was serving with the BAOR http://baor-locations.co.uk/historybaor.aspx, and he told me that they used to listen in to the radio traffic from the various Tank/Guards/Shock armies opposite them.

When I expressed an opinion that the Soviet forces posed a grave threat, he fell about laughing. He said that they had better start a war in the summer because the tank crews had drunk all the anti-freeze for their engines. True.

Just a small example of Soviet life but one that seems to run right through the entire system. Take the hope away from people and they will respond likewise.

The entire system was rotten and corrupt to the core. It was only a matter of time. Did 're-construction' hurry it along? Perhaps. But it was always going to fail. Socialist systems, whether national or international always do.

[Fisherking]

I would say that to a great extent the author is correct.

Most of what you hear in the US and in the west is just trying to take credit for what happened.

When you make liberal reforms you do open the door to revolution. Repressed people don’t miss what they don’t have or never had. When you show them things can be better you open the way for new ideas and movements to spring up.

China almost lost it but good old brutal repression went a long way in silencing the opposition. That and a lack of free information. That is one of the reasons the Chinese Government maintains such strict control over the internet. It is still a ticking bomb however. As people become more affluent they also want more control over the things that threaten their economic security.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What do you guys think about the author's conclusion?

Everything I thought I knew about the rise and fall of Gorbachev turns out to have been right.

[The Wizard]

Actually, if you read the minutes of the meetings between Reagan and Gorbachev from 1985 onward, you will see that SDI was again and again a major issue, which the Soviets were deeply worried about. Gorbachev consistently refused to believe that SDI wasn't a game-changer, as Reagan argued, because he rightly saw the implication in the project's claims, namely a complete unbalancing of power between the U.S. and the USSR. He was even mistrustful (at Geneva in 1985) of Reagan's offer to share SDI technology with Moscow. Of course, Reagan was largely bluffing but apparently Gorbachev had enough problems at home to worry about it.

Really, it's an article in Foreign Policy. Not an academic journal. There are no footnotes and no sources. Only a few other authors are even mentioned, and some are in fact taken out of context (like Ulam). The author is arguing against what is more or less the consensus of an entire generation of Cold War scholars. My advice is to take it, not with a pinch, but with a big block of salt.

[Ludens]

it's an interesting article, thanks for posting. I agree with the points that Edyz raises (the economy was improving, but still in a bad shape; internal dissent may have been stamped out, but internal discontent was not), but it's still an interesting argument.

[The Wizard]

A little something on Leon Aron... Pretty much says it all.

[Brandy Blue]

Could me my memory is playing tricks, but didn't some Communist die-hards try to put Gorbichev under arrest and send in the army to crush protestors, and the army refused to cooperate? Surely a major reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union would be the unwillingness of the armed forces to obey that kind of order any more.

Also it was quite hard to get reliable information about what was going on in the Soviet Union. I don't see why the author thinks its so amazing that the West didn't see the Soviet Union's collapse coming. We simply didn't have enough data to predict it. I don't know if we will ever have enough data to understand it.