Texsox Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 For a class project. How did Reagan destroy the Soviet Union. A HS students where interviewing me for a class project and after talking to them for a while, the only reason I could think of that the USSR spent so much on defense was that they feared us invading them. Would Reagan have attacked the USSR? Tossed some nukes? I wonder how close he had us to nuclear war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Not really close at all. Reagan was able to bankrupt the USSR by increasing the arms race while growing an existing detente. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshPR Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 For a class project. How did Reagan destroy the Soviet Union. A HS students where interviewing me for a class project and after talking to them for a while, the only reason I could think of that the USSR spent so much on defense was that they feared us invading them. Would Reagan have attacked the USSR? Tossed some nukes? I wonder how close he had us to nuclear war? I think both countries were carefull, But remember the USSR fell because of the afgans. That really was when they started going down hill and Gorbachev was more of a modern comunist. I don't think ever there was a threat of War tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I don't think Afghanistan was really a factor. I think the disintegration of the Communist foundation in the USSR began sometime in the mid 1960's. With the rise of Maoist thought and a turn away from the intellectual base that defined much of the communist movement in its past. I also think that the influence on its border satellite states of Western media did much to hurt the health of the bloc, in particular the DDR. A lot of people said it wasn't a lack of freedom that killed the DDR as much as the lack of bananas. This lack of an intellectual ideological base coupled with a generation of living beyond the state's means on an economy defined by currency it didn't have led to its demise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 Not really close at all. Reagan was able to bankrupt the USSR by increasing the arms race while growing an existing detente. But in growing the arms race, why did the USSR increase their spending, unless they felt threatened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 One thing that is very rarely mentioned is that Reagan did an incredible job of forcing down raw commodity prices, which the Soviets were absolutely dependant on for raw cash. Under Reagan the price of crude oil fell about 50%. I can't remember where I read it now (it has been years) but for every dollar of change in the price of crude, it cost the Soviets a billion dollars a year. This scenario also played out in many other raw materials such as gold, silver, platinium, paladium, coal, etc. This crippled Soviet revenues. Another key thing was Reagan selling our bumper crops of the 80's to the Soviets who weren't able to make enough food for their own country. So not only are their revenues shrinking, but they are sending more of their money out just to eat. It is a no win situation when you are basically selling your capital good for just food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.