• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The Collapse of Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Analyses of the collapse of communism have followed a dialectical path since the early 1990s, explaining the implosion first as the direct result of US pressure, then as the inevitable fall of a flawed system, and finally, as a combination of the two. This fluctuation has occurred as national archives from both the East and the West have become increasingly accessible, giving historians a more complete picture of trends that may have contributed to the climate within the Eastern bloc at the beginning of the relevant period. Indeed, such documents have been instrumental in dispelling the view that the pivotal events of 1989 had relatively short-term roots. Some analysts have developed reasonable arguments tracing the fall of the Warsaw Pact back only as far as 1985, but for the most part, these are unsatisfying, ignoring critical factors such as the rise of the hawkists in America, and the role of world-wide peace movements. In addition, the release of top secret CIA files has shed interesting light on the under-rated Afghan conflict. These suggest that far from being yet another target for moralistic US containment, Afghanistan was set up by the Americans as an attempt to trap the Soviets in an exhausting Third World contest- to "give them their own Vietnam." This discovery, and others relating to the nuclear arms race, technology, the media, and human rights debates, indicates that while not as active as initially supposed, the US was highly instrumental in bringing down European communism. At the same time, however, evidence of a self-perpetuating economic crisis, a crisis which was to spawn the powerful dissident movements in Eastern Europe, can be seen in Soviet archives as early as 1960. It could thus be argued that communism was, as an impractical, unpopular system, doomed to eventual failure. That this occurred on such a grand scale, however, and as early as 1989, must be attributed to Gorbachev's dramatic reform policies; these were in turn shaped by both external and internal pressures, as well as the particular political matrix, formulated under Khrushchev, in which Gorbachev's career began. ...read more.

Middle

This, a tribute to the merits of capitalism, and a tool for awakening civilians to their own economic repression, mobilized reformist movements in a way that even Washington, responsible for developing the technology for this project, had never anticipated. Running parallel to these subtler channels of pressure was the typically forefront issue of nuclear arms. And, indeed, a dramatic shift in U.S. nuclear policy around 1978-79 can be discerned, although demand for a "zero option" in Europe was a consistent theme throughout the relevant period. To return briefly to the 1970s and d�tente, we see the nuclear arms race denounced as pointless- "a vicious circle."5 Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union made marked steps during this passage of the Cold War towards the dissolution of the contest- with the partial test ban treaty of 1968, and the ABM treaty of 1972. Approximately mid-way through Jimmy Carter's term, however, the soft-line policy was reversed, and the U.S. began to pressurize the Soviets by developing MRVs, and escalating the production of unlimited weapons. In addition, NATO formulated a tough response to the previously unanswered SS 20 missiles, which allegedly targeted Western Europe. The proposed introduction of the Pershing II and Tomahawk missiles in West Germany and the Netherlands was a new approach, replacing the former agreement to engage in talks on the matter. That this shift coincided with the realization that the nuclear arms race was exhausting dwindling Soviet resources and morale, suggests that it was the direct result of new insights into Soviet behaviour. As American pressure in this arena continued to rise with the development of SDI, the reality that the USSR lacked the power to retaliate began to dawn upon those in charge of foreign policy. One would think, with the traditional gauge of Cold War tensions- the nuclear contest, in such a unilateral state, that superpower relations were becoming progressively peaceful. ...read more.

Conclusion

This implosion is perhaps symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall, which occurred after Gorbachev liscensed Hungary to open its border and thus provide an escape route for East Germans. It was echoed in the Soviet Union two years later- the Red Army had staged a brief coup in the interests of a military intervention in Eastern Europe, and had failed. Gorbachev had tried to regain popular support, and had proposed a new constitution, dismissing the CPCC, but Estonia, Ukraine, and Belarus nonetheless declared their independence. By 1991, communist rule in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was over, and the world was left to reflect on the "sad, bizarre chapter in human history,"9 that had just been written. It can thus be confirmed that the decline of communism after 1985 was the direct result of Gorbachev's policies. And, in this sense, it was an internal force that brought about the actual collapse that occurred, although, as already established, this was shaped both by U.S. pressure and conditions within the Eastern bloc. It is important, in addition, not to overlook the role that American policy played in these latter years. That Reagan and Thatcher continued to build western economies that far outshone those in the East certainly kept the pressure on the communists. Likewise, Regan constantly challenged Gorbachev's commitment to peace, demanding that he "open this gate...tear down this wall."10 For the most part, however, the collapse was self-contained after 1985. It is perhaps best summarized by Erik Chenoweth in his article, Common Elements of Successful Opposition to Communism: "pluralism is an anathema to communism and...can survive communism's system of terror, where the system's terror is balanced by society's opposition."11 1 Timothy Sowula, The Helsinki Process and the Death of Communism, 2002. 2 Richard Piper, D�tente and Its Demise, 2001. 3 ibid. 4 Timothy Sowula, ibid 5 Colonel-General Nikolai Chervov, as quoted in D�tente And Its Demise, 2001 6 Brezezinksi, The Afghan Caper, 2004 7 ibid. 8 ibid. 9 Robert Reagan as quoted in Misinterpreting the Cold War- www.foreignaffairs.org/19950/001fareviewessay5008/richard-pipes.html 10 ibid. 11 http://www.idee.org/cubaideas4.html ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    The collapse of the USSR was caused by internal problems and had nothing to ...

    4 star(s)

    With its obsession to meet unattainable targets, it often produced goods of inferior quality and had a lack of focus on other sectors like consumer goods, making it highly unbalanced. This economic inefficiencies coupled with impartiality within the economy resulted in substantial wastage of resources and manpower, and a lower

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Was the collapse of the USSR historically inevitable?

    4 star(s)

    In 1964, he was replaced by Leonid Brezhnev, who stopped all reforms and managed a harder policy. His reign was marked by stagnation inside, imperialism outside, with the increase of military expenditures, the Prague intervention in 1968 and the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979("Brezhnev doctrine of intervention3").

  1. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    friendly basis," the Soviet dictator said, "much could have been done"; but if the action "was designed as pressure on the Russians in order to soften them up, then it was a fundamental mistake." Russian behavior through these months, on the other hand, offered little encouragement for the belief that friendship and cooperation ranked high on the Soviet agenda.

  2. Why did tension increase in Europe between 1900 and 1914?

    How did the Allies react? * They were determined that Stalin should not succeed. General Lucius Clay the US commander in Berlin said, 'If West Berlin falls, West Germany will be next'. * Clay offered to fight his way out of West Berlin, but was ordered not to by Truman.

  1. How far was the USSR responsible for the outbreak of the Cold War?

    For example, the British and the Americans remained confident that they could deal with Stalin even as they began to suspect that co-operation might not be as easy as they had hoped. Alternatively, Stalin assumed that the USA would retreat to political isolationism and would lack the will to involve itself in European security affairs.

  2. Assess the strategic strengths and weaknesses of America's 'containment of communism' policy since 1945.

    to all countries so as to be able to stimulate world trade, and conform to the USA's desire for "...free convertibility of currencies."5 In effect, this meant a conversion to a capitalist laissez-faire economy. This policy achieved a number of successes, for it helped revive the American economy by opening

  1. Gorbachev(TM)s reforms and policies, which were intended originally to strengthen the Soviet system, eventually ...

    Thus, Gorbachev's foreign policy, aimed at improving the standing of his country in the world and to strengthen its position as a superpower, resulted in the USSR losing the cold war and its superpower status. The "loss of Eastern Europe" in particular, while an essential step in ending the Cold

  2. "To What Extent Were Gorbachev's Policies the Catalyst to the Fall of the USSR?"

    Evaluation of sources- The first source to be considered is Mikhail Gorbachev's book "Perestroika: new thinking for our country and the world". This is a primary source, written directly by the mastermind behind the two most important policies implemented during the decade in the Soviet Union.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work