> On Mar 17, 4:18 pm, Jack Linthicum
earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> On Mar 16, 12:15 pm, "Michael G. Koerner"
dataex.com> wrote:>
>>>>> On Mar 8, 1:59 pm, "Sid9"
bellsouth.net> wrote:>>>>>>
hotmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 12:13 pm, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> []>>>>>>>> Gorbachev was still in power in 1989 when it came down, and
>>>>>>>> the Soviet Union intact, although, struggling from the devastating
>>>>>>>> effects of the War in Afghanistan.
>>>>>>> I strongly suspect that the attempts to match Reagan's "Star Wars"
>>>>>>> program had been much more devastating for the Soviet economy. Afghan
>>>>>>> War was a disaster mostly in the terms of prestige and common
>>>>>>> illusions.
>>>>>> Star Wars was a waste of American resources.
>
>>>>> IIRC, it also resulted in a serious technological advancement.
>
>>>>>> Our CIA knew damn well that the Soviet economic
>>>>>> system had failed.
>
>>>>> Yes. This was the whole point: Soviet attempts to match up at least a
>>>>> fraction of the American expences meant total collapse of the system
>>>>> (instead of a much slower death by stagnation).
>
>>>>>> The Soviets could not feed their own people
>>>>>> Food stores were empty of food.
>>>>>> The only economy that was functioning was an
>>>>>> underground black market system.
>
>>>>> Thanks for explaining this but I happen to have 1st hand experience in
>>>>> THIS. :-)
>
>>>>>> We need only have been a little patient and
>>>>>> the Soviet Union would have collapsed.
>
>>>>> Well, it could easily take a decade or more comparing to OTL. Impact
>>>>> of the Reagan's program on the Soviet economy was easily visible
>>>>> inside the Worker's Paradise.
>
>>>> ObWI - Soviet collapse W/O Ronald Reagan? Clean/messy? Potential timeline?
>>>> Fallout? Aftermath? Etc?
>
>>> It would probably happen because economy was in a really bad shape by
>>> the early 80's and it was just a continuation of a trend that started
>>> much earlier. While situation with a heavy industry & military
>>> equipment still _looked_ more or less OK (mostly because it was
>>> difficult to see the results), shortage of the consumer goods was
>>> quite obvious. Probably situation could be kep under control for a
>>> while by 'tightening the screws' but only for a while. In OTL
>>> Andropov's attempts to 'improve discipline' were an ill-conceived
>>> joke: people had been taken from their working places to catch other
>>> people who were not on _their_ working places (both groups ending up
>>> in the shops trying to buy goods that would dissapear by the end of a
>>> day). Probably this scenario would end up with a violent clash. Or,
>>> again, it may end up by the 'top' more or less giving up as in OTL and
>>> selecting some transitional figure which qould guarantee their own
>>> well-being (as opposite to the Rumanian model). For how long Army
>>> could serve as a reliable instrument is anybodys guess. Except for the
>>> top, the officers were underpaid and not well-provided socially
>>> (especially in the terms of the living conditions). Not necessarily
>>> competent as well. Soldiers were 18-19 years olds, underfed,
>>> undertrained (see their performance during the 1st Chechen War), ill-
>>> treated and with the fresh memories about things not being too rosy at
>>> home. Corruption and stealing were comm so Army's loyalty and
>>> readiness to kill their own people would be a tricky issue. Of course,
>>> there were some elite units better supplied and trained but there was
>>> no guarantee of their loyalty as well.
>
>>> 'Soft' scenario like Gorby's probably would result in something close
>>> to OTL: people with the proper connections getting ownership of the
>>> state enterprises, rights of export, etc. A precise amount of a social
>>> and economic mess could vary depending on the details.
>
>>> Timeline? Probably without adventures abroad (direct or by proxy)
>>> regime could prolong its existence for a while but the Catch 22 was
>>> that these adventures were needed to maintain prestige and to play 'we
>>> are the Great Power' card (chauvinism as a partial compensation for a
>>> shortage of consumer goods). OTOH, this would hardly improve situation
>>> with agriculture with a need to buy grain abroad and a resulting need
>>> in a hard currency (ATL would be high gas and oil prices). Plus, of
>>> course, lagging in technology (ATL - Soviet leaders are smart enough
>>> not to try technological competition with the US).
>
>> The Soviets seemed to be unable to stop development of costly
>> offensive weapons, or at least to find or two that served their
>> purposes.
>
> Indeed. There was no end to it and I doubt that, short of a total
> collapse of economy (OTL scenario), the Soviet leaders would ever stop
> going in this direction.
>
> Of course, it may be assumed that there was some rationale behind this
> insanity (I'm NOT saying that the following really was their
> consideration): being a close competitor, made the SU dangerous enough
> for the US to get some concessions (like grain supply). Look at the
> Yeltsin's times: as soon and as long as Russia was considered
> reasonably harmless, it was treated with ..... errrr..... "no respect"
> on more than one account. Now they are trying to build up their
> military as a part of self-image of a 'Great Power'. Somehow it looks
> very important to them.
>
> [snip; you don't have to convince me :-)]
Old CIA joke, the Soviet Union is Romania with a very large armed
force..
