This is typical of the quality of your responses. I did not say anything about reallocating the black market to defense expenditures, I said something about reallocating MILITARY EXPENDITURES to the consumer economy. And there is nothing incompatible in saying that they were nowhere near collapsing, but would fail eventually (Newt Gingrich speculated that it might take a century).
Of course, democratization and the continuation of the Communist Soviet Union were incompatible. That is the point of saying that it was a political failure, affected by economic pressures. It is all compatible with what I said.
Your are backpedaling. You made a general condemnation of our alliances and Cold War posture, which I defended. Now, you pretend you were only criticizing the CIA.
I don't feel it necessary to argue much against the point of collapse. It is too obvious that had they tried the Chinese route, they would have revived the economy, while being able to maintain political control. Ultimately, that is what they would have been forced to do, had there not been the peace offensive aspect that Gorbachev represented. Gorbachev was there to neutralize Reagan, and survived long enough because Reagan was willing to deal with him. By that time, perestroika and glasnost had gone too far to simply turn back...... |
