Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (228240)	4/8/2005 12:05:28 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578251

"Reagan and Pope John Paul II both played a role." Sure they did. But the biggest factor was that the economics weren't working out anymore. Reagan had supplied smart weapons to the mujahadin(primarily the Stinger and TOW). That showed the Soviets their investment in tanks and helicopters was insufficient. Like any military, the Soviet military was looking at the last war, and their last war was WWII. Based on their experience, tanks and flying tanks, like the Hind, was the way to go. The lesson of "if it can be seen, it can be killed" hadn't sunk in. Afghanistan provided that lesson. If John Paul II had been Pope 10 years before, he wouldn't have had a strong of an impact on the USSR. Poland very well may have risen up, but they would have been crushed as completely as the Czechs were during the "Prague Spring". Or, for that matter, the Hungarians. Poland made their stand at a time when the USSR was vulnerable. If they had tried it earlier, they would have been yet another footnote in history. Like the poor suckers involved in The Bay of Pigs. Remember that Gorby was KGB. He might have been more realistic than many of his cohorts, but he still was a spook. Glasnost and Peristroika didn't grow out of idealism, it was very pragmatic. The USSR had worked themselves into a position of "use it or lose it". And winning had suddenly become obvious as an unlikely outcome. Gorby represented the faction that was trying to salvage as much as they could. Idealism wasn't even on the menu.

To: TimF who wrote (228240)	4/8/2005 1:35:31 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578251

A lot of the reason the USSR fell is the inherent problems of a communist dictatorship, but it had lasted for generations, so it is useful to think about why it fell when it did. Reagan and Pope John Paul II both played a role. Changes in the oil market where a factor. And the fact that Gorbachov tried to reform communism in the USSR had a lot to do with its end. Opening things up helps indentify and solve problems but when the problems are basic to the system what do you do? Also "Glasnost and Persitrokia" helped people think things could change, and once change started it went further then Gorbachov wanted. Fortunatly Gorbachov didn't try to use strong repression to regain control. I don't think Gorbachov had much choice. I think the Soviet Union was broke and had very little control over its empire. Had he used repression, the satellites would have begun to spun off. As it was, the Poles, Hungarians and Czechs were making loud freedom noises. I think he was smart and saw the writing on the wall. I also think its romantic to believe that the Pope and Reagan were instrumental in the downfall of the Soviet Union but I think when its all said and done, it was economic upheaval....from oil, from Afghanistan, from corruption.......that crashed an empire. ted