> On Mar 16, 12:15Â 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? Â Clean/messy? Â Potential timeline?
>> Fallout? Â Aftermath? Â 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_ Â 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.
>
> Â 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).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, at least you acknowledge that Reagan deliberately speeded up the
process. Gorbachev was trying to fundamentally change Russian/Soviet
society so that it could compete effectively with the U.S. and
Europe. Rather than trying to help, Reagan deliberately bankrupted
the country by supporting the Rebels in Afghanistan. The whole Iran-
Iraq War was a factor too, I expect, in keeping oil prices low, and in
keeping the whole region well supplied with unlimited weapons to fight
the Soviets with. The geopolitical economy was being manipulated in a
variety of ways to undermine the Soviets, and to profit the U.S. The
U.S. loved the Iran-Iraq war. They even put up with the Iraqis
destroying a U.S. ship in the Gulf with hardly a complaint!
