One could argue that the priorities (particularly in increasing its military might) of the USSR proved to be problematic and eventually led to its downfall. From the beginnings of the coldwar, particularly from Stalin’s time, the USSR saw itself as being in competition with the west. Stalin sought to form a model of socialism that other countries around the globe would seek to adopt. Following Stalin’s death Krushchev came in to power who did not end the cold war but remained committed to the idea of eventually surpassing the west. In 1962, the world went on to a nuclear alert as a result of the Cuban missile crises and during this period the USSR gave up a huge sum to the development and expansion of its military arsenal. In 1964 krushchev removed from power by his colleagues. Increase in the soviet defence expenditure had already started during kruschevs last two years in power and this was even more intensified in the brezhnev era (1964-1982). Military development expenditures were such that the west assumed they had caught up in terms of military capabilities. This growing soviet military establishment meant that enormous stress were being placed on the economy and this pressure on the economy can be seen as eventually leading to its breakdown.
Another priority of the USSR was competing for influences in the third world. While the number of countries under communist rule increased during the Brezhnev era most of them were relatively underdeveloped and were consequently heavily dependent on soviet assistance. So apart from the Soviet Unions defence burden it also had problems with the rising cost of maintaining its satellite empire and supporting client states in the third world. The economy started to suffer due to high military expenditures and as the soviet economy declined it also undermined the communist ideological foundation of the whole of the soviet system and contributed to the declining appeal of communism in the underdeveloped world.
Also it can be argued that the problem of constant change of leadership made it difficult for the USSR to deal with its declining economy and the domestic problems that were brought about by Brezhnev’s excessive military spending. In the period 1982-1984 there were two changes of leadership (Andropov and Chernenko) that made it highly unlikely that there would be major alterations in foreign policy.
‘The role of the opposition forces’ (Holmes. L, 1998,pg 27) within the communist block is also seen as a factor contributing to the collapse of communism. Here it is the ordinary citizens that in the past have rejected their communist governments ‘(most notably in GDR in 1953, Poland and Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Poland again in 1970-71, 1976, 1980-81; there were also some outbursts in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia in 1953, Romania in 1977 and 1987, Yugoslavia in 1971 and 1981, the USSR in 1962 etc-(Holmes.L,1998,pg27)). Also the writings or works of dissidents, another source of opposition served to undermine the communist system in several countries.
The soviet economic crises can also be seen as creating a social crises within communism which had a part to play in it downfall. Due to the cold war the soviet under invested in its social services, this is reflected in the rise of infant mortality, rising alcoholism and also worker absenteesm. The system also produced inferior good so the soviet could not effectively compete in the world market. These were signs to overcome such problems a particular kind of reform was required that would also ultimately lead to the collapse of communism.
Another internal cause of the collapse of communism was due to Mikhail Gorbachev becoming the General Secretary of the CPSU in March 1985, and soon introduced reform in the economy (mainly perestroika and uskorenie - the policies of restructuring the soviet economy and institutions under Gorbachev). Gorbachev’s role was important, many saw him as a reformer leader who knew that the USSR needed a significant change. He soon realised quickly communism was responsible for the economic and social crises, that the existing soviet obligations towards the third world should be reduced and any new commitments avoided. For example he decided to cut back on soviet assistance to Marxist forces in Nicaragua, Cambodia (Kampuchea) Angola and Ethiopia and also cease the costly invasion in Afghanistan. He also saw the need to end the arms race in order to reduce defence expenditures as well as reducing tension with the west and thereby encourage badly needed western economic assistance to the Soviet Union. By altering the ideological foundation of soviet foreign policy as well as the basis of soviet defence strategy, Gorbachev himself was actually declaring that he was prepared to end the cold war. He gave communism a new face, one emphasising universal human values such as freedom and self-preservation rather than the necessity of a class conflict. Gorbachev was aware that USSR had insufficient economic strength to compete with the us in another technological arms race.
Another internal factor that led to the collapse of communism is the centres (USSR) inability to control what was happening at the periphery (outermost boundary) of the system. From about 1952-1989 Yugoslavia for example started to withdraw from the centre and saw an increase in decentralisation. In multinational states, ethnic tensions made the role of the central organ of government difficult. So in Yugoslavia and also in Czechoslovakia ethnic and cultural factors added to the problem of controlling the periphery. ‘The spread of communism and soviet influence to Afghanistan in the late 1970s represented the maximum extension of the soviet empire. The USSR had already lost its hold over Yugoslavia (from 1948), China (from about 1960) and Albania (during the 1960s); by the end of the 1980s, its grip on the rest of the external empire was released, while the USSR’s itself collapsed in 1991’-(Holmes.L,1998,pg35).
For the given dominance of the Soviet Union in the communist bloc, no radical change could come to Eastern Europe until the Soviet Union itself changed. As mentioned before Gorbachev’s rise to power saw also the introduction of changes that led to the collapse of communism. Gorbachev is seen as having given the go-head of Eastern Europeans to pursue their own goals, even if this involved overthrowing capitalism and also encouraging the East Europeans revolutions. Some regimes e.g. Romania, the GDR and Czechoslovakia remained opposed to the ideas of perestroika until their fall in 1989. countries like Hungary decided to accept changes due to uncertainties about the future. At an early stage two Eastern European regimes showed overt approval of the new soviet policies- Bulgaria and Poland. Soon other countries of the communist bloc were to follow the same trail. The most important reasons for the unfolding of this region was due to the withdrawal of soviet support from the regimes.
Overall it can be argued that the west and in particular the US won the cold war in terms of military capabilities this is reflected in for example in Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) programme which the media quickly labelled as the ‘star wars’. The USSR was unable to keep up with such technological capabilities. Some would argue the cold war was Reagan’s victory since it ended during his time in office. Reagan was seen as putting sufficient pressure on Gorbachev to accelerate the retreat from the third world. However USSR’s economy was already declining by the time Reagan entered the administration so the west is not entirely seen as the cause of the collapse of the Soviet block. It was clearly Gorbachev’s new policy that altered the face of communism. The communist system was failing to deliver the masses needs and eventually most of them saw marketization as the way forward which obviously undermined the communist ideology. Both sides paid a certain amount of price for example the loss of military personnel and civilians during the hot conflicts of Korea and Vietnam. However despite all the challenges faced during the cold war American Democracy or western free market capitalism survived and in that sense one could agree that ‘the west won the cold war’.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
- Waller, M, THE END OF THE COMMUNIST POWER MONOPOLY, 1993, Manchester University Press.
- Holmes, L, post-communist an introduction, 1997, Polity press in association with Blackwell publisher’s ltd.
- Powaski, R.E, The cold war – United States and the Soviet Union 1917-1991, 1998, New York Oxford University Press
