Senior High 1 H2 History (International)

Topic: Origins of the Cold War (1945-1949)- Definition and Parameters of the Outbreak of the Cold War - Causes of the Outbreak of the Cold War [Factors]- Causes of the Outbreak of the Cold War [Events] - Causes of the Outbreak of the Cold War [Personality]- Historiographic Interpretation of the Outbreak of the Cold War

Topic: Globalization of the Cold War (1949-1985)- The Korean War - The Cuban Missile Crisis - Brezhnev Regime - Rise and Fall of Detente

Topic: The End of the Cold War (1985-1991) - Reagan’s Confrontational Cold War Policies - Gorbachev’s Domestic Policies: Glasnost and Perestroika - Gorbachev’s Foreign Policies: “New Thinking” - Disintegration of the Soviet Union- Historiographic Interpretation of the End of the Cold War

Origins of the Cold War: Definition and Parameters of the Outbreak of the Cold War

: The Cold War is essentially a conflict between the superpowers (USA and USSR) for po-litical, economic and military supremacy, although not amounting to a total war

: In relation to the chapter, the outbreak of the Cold War is considered as the period of 1945-1949 - Examples pertaining to it will mainly be extracted from this timeframe; unless differently

defined - The more common indicator, or trigger of the outbreak would be the event of the Berlin

Blockade & Airlift - Additionally, the causes of the Cold War are separated into events and factors

[Factors of the Outbreak of the Cold War]: Factors are the essential reasons for friction and disagreements between the superpow-ers- Namely, it sets the stage for further conflict between the two states that prevents their co-

existence and cooperation- It amounts to negative relations, up to open hostility between the two countries- Each factor must be supported by related evidence, that represents the factor and how

they contribute to the outbreak of the Cold War

: List of Factors1) Ideological Differences - [Political] Communism vs. Democracy- [Economic] Socialism vs. Capitalism

2) Mutual Misunderstandings - Cracks in the Grand Alliance -

3) Security Concerns

4) Expansionist Tendencies

[Events of the Outbreak of the Cold War]: Events are manifestations of the conflict between the superpowers that compounds the friction in deteriorating the bilateral relationship- Their occurrences encouraged the discord already present due to the factors to ferment

into open conflict with the opposing state- These actions must be in relation to the way it impacts superpower perspectives of each

other and how it promoted counter-responses that escalated to the Cold War

: List of Events1) Post-War Settlement Disagreements - Yalta Conference- Potsdam Conference

2) Sovietization vs. Containment

- [Political] Sovietization vs. Truman Doctrine- [Economic] Comecon vs. Marshall Plan- [Military] Warsaw Pact vs. NATO

3) Berlin Blockade & Airlift - Ostmark vs. Deutschmark - German Democratic Republic vs. Federal Republic of Germany

[Personality of the Outbreak of the Cold War]: Personality refers to the characteristics and actions of the superpower leaders - It is an analysis of how their persons had affected bilateral relations and contributed to

the outbreak of the Cold War - Mainly, it is a relation to their responsibilities in affecting the factors and events in direct-

ing them to the open conflict

: List of Personalities1) Harry Truman - Black-and-white personality - Inexperience in foreign policies

2) Joseph Stalin - Paranoid personality - Ambition in foreign policies

[Historiography of the Outbreak of the Cold War] : The historiography is the study of different perspectives on the outbreak of the Cold War- It takes four different viewpoints made by historians in analyzing namely, what was the

contributing factor to the Cold War - They pertain to ‘schools of thoughts’, and are always used in comparison to each other in

supporting a conclusion - When written, it must always contain all four schools of thought in the argument

: List of Historiography Approach1) Traditionalist (USSR to be blamed)

2) Revisionist (USA to be blamed)

3) Post-Revisionist (None to be blamed) - Mutual Misunderstandings - Action-Reaction Cycle

4) Post-Cold War Debate (Ideological Differences) - Political Differences- Economic Differences

Origins of the Cold War: Causes of the Outbreak of the Cold War [Factors]

[Ideological Differences] : The fundamental ideologies of both superpowers in the period 1945-1949 had set them at odds against each other as they were conflicting in nature- Ideologies have an impact on the goals and policies of the superpowers - It influences the actions taken by each superpower to realize their vision for their state- Hence, contradictory ideologies would lead to clashing policies, that sets the conflict be-

tween the two states

: Ideological differences would impact the outbreak of the Cold War in two ways: - Firstly, it caused USA and USSR to compete for political and economic supremacy, that

led to the creation of an atmosphere of hostility- Secondly, it made USA and USSR to perceive each other’s actions as undermining to

their policies, leading to an action-reaction cycle

[Ideological DIfferences - Political Differences]

Political Ideol-ogy

USA (Democracy)

USSR (Communism)

Determination Inclined to self-determination; pushes for free elections by a general electorate to decide on their government and identity

Establishing spheres of influence; creating Communist governments in neighboring states to ensure bordering states are friendly to central government

Party System Multi-Party system; advocates for multiple parties contesting for governmental representation to allow for democratic elections

1-Party system; only a Commu-nist party present in the state and all policies are to conform to the ideological viewpoint of Commu-nism

[Ideological Differences - Economic Differences]

Economic Ide-ology

USA (Capitalism)

USSR (Socialism)

Wealth Distribu-tion

Capitalistic distribution of wealth; individuals able to grow wealthy through promotions, work special-ization, investments and heading businesses

Socialistic distribution of wealth; individuals receiving equal pay for any form of jobs or positions, and businesses solely controlled by the state

Global Econ-omy

Free market economy; market is determined by free market forces, and trade is open to every coun-try

Command economy; market is determined solely by the govern-ment and trade is restricted mainly within the state or friendly countries to reduce influence by other currencies

[Mutual Misunderstandings]: Mutual misunderstandings pertain to misinterpretations of each superpowers’ goals and actions, that led to the antagonization of either party - It aggravated tensions between USA and USSR, triggering conflicting movements

Globalization of the Cold War: Brezhnev Regime

: Leonid Brezhnev was the secretary-general of the CPSU and Chairman of the USSR from 1964 to 1982- From Khrushchev, he had taken over a country wrecked with economic and political trou-

bles, following the Cuban Missile Crisis - His rule was characterized by conservative and authoritative policies - These policies must be analyzed in terms of how it contributes to the long-term surviv-

ability of the USSR, as it had set the context for events in the 1980s- The nature of Brezhnev’s policies can be been to bring either stagnation, stability or in-

stability to the Soviet Union

[Stagnation of Brezhnev’s Regime]: Stagnation is the period which no major changes was made to the system, with the USSR facing a slow and steady decline - It had not resolved the long-term problems of the USSR following Khrushchev’s time in

office - As such, these problems continued to persist despite some efforts to change them

around- It mainly revolves around the economic and political structure of the USSR

: Economic Stagnation - Industrial- Argument: Stagnation characterized Brezhnev’s regime for his industrial reforms were

unable to bring about development of the economy

- Soviet industrial developments were centered around quantitative rather than qualitative values, set by the central economic planning Gosplan committee

- It had continued to focus on heavy industrial commodities, to stimulate the growth of other industries

- However, this was detrimental to Soviet export abilities as the other countries empha-sized finished products and goods of greater quality

- As a result of not being able to satisfy the consumer demand from other countries, the Soviet industrial sector was unable to bring it sufficient gains, leaving it shackling the economy behind

- Additionally, Soviet military spendings on the military had increased from 13 to 20 billion roubles during Brezhnev’s rule, to build up conventional forces against the US

- This had pulled funds further away from economic growth, preventing the development of the industrial sectors

- Hence, by not changing the central idea of industry in the system, Brezhnev had allowed the industrial sector to lapse into further decline in the 1980s

: Economic Stagnation - Agricultural

- Argument: Stagnation characterized Brezhnev’s regime for his agricultural reforms were insufficient in stimulating the Soviet economy

- Agriculture is meant to be a source of state revenue for further investments in other sec-tors such as the economy

- However, by the end of Khrushchev’s rule, his failed policies such as the Virgin Lands Campaign had forced the USSR to import wheat from Canada, Australia and the US

- Further investments was made by Brezhnev, in terms of mobile machinery- However, this had not led to an increase in the agricultural sector, which remained low in

productivity and behind that of Europe and USA by 2/3 and 3/4 respectively- Brezhnev had failed to tackle the root problems of poor storage, transportations and dis-

tribution facilities, hence products were unable to be moved to redistributive centers- Additionally, continued state central planning had regulated the peasants to a point

where they are unable to effectively adapt to changing demands, leading to poor har-vests that further dragged down Soviet agricultural productivity

- This had severe impacts on the agricultural sector for it failed to efficiently utilize as ex-ports when they are unable to be moved effectively

- The result was that agriculture employed a disproportional percentage of workers; 22% of the workforce while revenue was only 17% of state income

- It clearly shows that agriculture was a failing point that Brezhnev failed to resolve, for continued need to import wheat was a sign that agriculture cannot be used as a founda-tion to build the rest of the economy on

: Political Stagnation - Argument: Stagnation characterized Brezhnev’s regime because the political system pre-

vented him from pushing through necessary reforms

- Brezhnev had kept the aging Soviet leadership; the cadre, with the conservative old guards having significant influence over Soviet policies

- The opinions of these Soviets were adhered to by Brezhnev who was more willing to work with them and follow their directions

- As the old guards emphasized on stability and consensus, there was no dynamism and a clampdown on radical change in the system

- Soviet economic failures meant that radical changes was needed such as greater decen-tralization in the agricultural sector to improve productivity

- It has been proven so, with private plots having only 4% of the Soviet arable lands, but contributing to 25% of total crop output

- However, Soviet mentalities tending towards socialism and centralized rule had reacted against agricultural decentralization, forcing back the reform

- Additionally, opposition advocating for strict central planning had halted industrial reforms to incite better productivity from managers by granting them wages on profitability basis

- These kickbacks by the political system made the entire economy sluggish, for there was an aversion to necessarily, radically altering the system by the old guards

[Stability of Brezhnev’s Regime] : Stability refers to the period of consistency; similar to stagnation but instead having slow growth and prosperity rather than a decline - The entrenchment of systems made for a smooth transfer of power and adherence to the

central government - This had allowed improvements in certain aspects of the USSR through being able to en-

force economic focus and stable societal order : Economic Stability - Technological Advancements

- Argument: Stability characterized Brezhnev’s regime for his policies brought about tech-nological progress

- The entire time, the USSR was still focused on the Cold War competition against the USA

- They were able to attain certain successes in this aspect for their defense industries were able to outmatch that of the US

- Brezhnev had allocated more funds to the defense sector, building it up to around 20-40% of the country’s GNP

- The continuous allocation of funding to defense and stockpile of ICBM made the USSR the largest standing army and attain nuclear parity with the US

- Further advancements were made where the USSR where they had successes in space with the 1970 soft landing and return of a robot craft, and 1970 launching of the first self-propelled vehicle to ride the lunar surface

- As a result of Brezhnev’s ability to divert the funding, he created technological successes for the USSR by improving the developments of certain industries

: Social Stability - Argument: Stability characterized Brezhnev’s regime because his policies prevented the

disruption of social order in the Soviet Republics

- During Brezhnev’s rule, there were rising unrests within the Soviet Union itself- Nationalism and fundamentalism became a key factor in the social order, with demon-

strations in the Baltic States and uprisings in the Muslim republics occurring against the USSR

- However, Brezhnev was able to retain the state control over the country’s media and se-curity, was able to clamp down on the dissidents by portraying them as belonging to privi-leged, ungrateful factions

- This had criminalized the activities of the revolters, turning local opinion agains them - By removing their ability to gain support from the masses, these nationalists were largely

left powerless and unable to create significant disturbances- This is seen in that no single state was able to breakaway during Brezhnev’s time in of-

fice- Hence, Brezhnev was able to create a stable social order by limiting the unrest and ability

of the uprisings from significantly destabilizing the state to force concessions

: Political Stability - Argument: Stability characterized Brezhnev’s regime because his policies created subor-

dinate loyalty, preventing political upheaval

- Khrushchev was ousted from power after the Cuban Missile Crisis by drawing the ire of multiple party members and loss his support base as a result of failure in policy making

- To counter this, Brezhnev had set up the Nomenklatura system to be loyal to him - He filled up key positions in the state with people drawn from a list of reliable Party per-

sonnel, thus allowing him to have full control over state mechanisms - Additionally, he created a system of privileges to party members such as access to spe-

cial shops and luxury goods such as healthcare - This created a promise of power and political influence in the CPSU, that encouraged in-

dividuals to remain in the good books of Brezhnev to gain these benefits - Hence, Brezhnev had secured the support of party members, such that he was able to

remain in power the entire time, making for a stable rule[Instability of Brezhnev Regime]

: Instability refers to the large, open unrest against the Soviet power, that was able to gar-ner significant attention and necessitated a full-scale response by the CPSU - This centered around large movements that defied the Communist regime - It had affected the social order of the state by having the state go on a campaign of per-

secution and suppression that left the entire population uneasy

: Political Instability - Argument: Instability had characterized Brezhnev’s regime, for his policies failed to curb

political uprisings against the USSR

- As a result of the Stalinist and Khrushchev rule, coupled with the de-Sterilization cam-paign, there were greater questioning and doubt against Soviet rule

- The speaking out against Communist rule had resulted in heightening unrest against the central government, to establish the interests of autonomy in the satellite states

- Resistance had grown to such a point that Eastern European countries had attempted to break away in the form of the Prague Spring of 1968

- Warsaw Pact members were called upon to contribute troops to militarily extinguish the uprising

- By such measures, it had created social friction in the USSR’s sphere of influence against the Moscow government as they were seen to be extremely harsh

- Further actions by the USSR cemented this hostility by enforcing stricter police mea-sures, reintroducing capital punishment and toughening the legal code

- More political activists and writers were arrested during Brezhnev’s regime- These acts of state intervention in civilian life had imbalanced the social order in Eastern

Europe, and led to continued revolts against the USSR, for the Prague Spring had led to the outbreaks of dissent in the Soviet Republics

Globalization of the Cold War: Rise and Fall of Detente

: Detente was a period categorized by a timeframe from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan- It was an improvement in Soviet-American relations, acting as an interlude during the

Cold War that led to better cooperation and mutual understanding in the 1960s-1970s- However, through this period, it clearly defined which aspects of the Cold War were fun-

damental and unchangeable, and which was open to alleviation by relaxation of tensions - This sets the context for the events in the 1980s which would dramatically lead up to the

implosion of the USSR and the end of the Cold War - Hence, how Detente was carried out and the reasons of it ending would have an impact

on the state of the Soviet Union and further relations between superpowers

: As the nature of a period of normalization, the question regarding Detente would be if it was able to end the Cold War - It provided an avenue for the Cold War to be peacefully resolved between the US and

USSR - Improved communication had shown signs of dependency of the US and USSR that may

have actually made Detente beneficially to the both of them, rather than continuing the ideological conflict

- Yet, as a result of fundamental differences and continued political pursuits, superpowers’ inability to concede would see a re-escalation of the Cold War after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

[Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan Ending Detente]

: Strategic Interests- Argument: Detente could have ended the Cold War but the Soviet invasion of

Afghanistan shattered the possibility, because the USSR took actions that threatened the strategic interests of the US

- Detente was to provide mutual advantage for both the US and USSR that provided them a reason to improve relations, so as to be able to benefit from foreign diplomacy

- Essentially, both superpowers were able to pursue their own interests without fear of in-tervention from the other party, such as the American involvement in the Vietnam War and Soviet intervention in the Angolan Civil War by aiding the MPLA

- Despite both of these actions being an ideologically-driven motive, the other party had re-mained neutral and separate from the conflict

- This had proven that Detente was able to allow superpowers to further their interests without being inhibited or threatened bilaterally

- However, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was entirely different from their pursuits in Africa, for it posed an economic rather than simply ideological threat to the US

- By aiming to conquer Afghanistan, it could allow the Soviet Union to use it as a staging ground to take over Middle Eastern oil fields that supplied the US and its economy

- Hence, this act of Soviet aggression had placed US economic and strategic interests in jeopardy, one which they were not willing to let pass

- Ideological interests were placed aside for the period of Detente based on mutual under-standing, however the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a clear detriment to American strategic interests in the region

- As such, this act had shattered the non-intervention policy of both superpowers: Retaliatory Actions

- Argument: Detente could have ended the Cold War but the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan shattered the possibility, because the US took retaliatory actions towards the USSR which reignited the Cold War tensions

- The improvement of relations during Detente had reduced the need for confrontation be-tween the two superpowers due to better mutual understandings then

- Cold War competition was greatly tamed with signed trade agreements that was benefi-cial on both sides; with the USSR having its much-needed imports on advanced technol-ogy and wheat due to its starved agricultural sector and the US from information on atomic energy

- This form of mutual exchanges had allowed the USSR to be able to secure its domestic economy, that was suffering badly from the lack of food due to failed agricultural policies

- However, as a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US took to place an em-bargo on foodstuff exported to the Soviet Union

- The embargo was highly detrimental to the USSR for it deprived them of the necessary imports, and it was seen as a means to starve out the entire population

- It thus necessitated the need for the USSR to turn towards equally aggressive measures to recover the essential imports by forcing the US into a concessionary state

- Hence, US retaliatory actions was a trigger for Soviet hostility as it was perceived as an aggressive measure to wither the USSR, disregarding previous agreements and hence shattered the possibility of Detente normalizing relations permanently

[Soviet Actions Ending Detente]

: Soviet Aggressive Foreign Policies- Argument: Detente could have ended the Cold War but Brezhnev’s misadventures in for-eign policy shattered the possibility, because it undermined the agreements made be-tween the superpowers

- Detente was able to provide military relief for both sides, where tensions were running high and the economy being wrecked by the continued manufacturing of nuclear arms

- By being able to agree on the need to reduce the arms race, the signing of arms control negotiations such as the NNPT in 1968 and SALT I in 1970 had benefitted both sides

- This was due to being able to cut down on the constant drain on positioning missiles against one another, hence neutralizing strategic threats during Detente and downplaying the necessity of continuing the arms race

- However, despite such agreements, the USSR continued in its politico-military aims of forcefully spreading its influence during the Cold War

- The deployment of SS-20s in Eastern Europe in 1977 was a sign of this commitment, that threatened the Western European states to increase Soviet bargaining power that provoked the US to similarly deploy its Pershing missiles against the USSR

- These actions carried out by the USSR convinced the USA of its fickle foreign policies and the need to be constantly aware of such offensive measures

- In defense of their interests, the US had to break from the USSR for continuing Detente would be to the detriment of US domestically and the Cold War

- Hence, Soviet failures in foreign policies and its dabbling in nuclear deployment had de-stroyed the agreements made between the superpowers, making it void and unable to provide a basis for better relations

[American Actions Ending Detente]

: American Aggressive Foreign Policies- Argument: Detente could have ended the Cold War but Carter’s idealistic policies shat-

tered the possibility, because it strained the relationship of superpowers

- Fundamentally, Detente was centered around the idea of mutual advantage and non-in-tervention that allowed both superpowers respite from the Cold War competition

- It respected the ideologies and practices of both superpowers, as established in the 1972 Joint Declaration on Principles that called for non-interference in internal affairs and recognition of sovereignty

- This had a normalizing effect on superpower relations as both would feel less threatened by each other, knowing that their domestic affairs were not targeted by

- However, by Carter’s term in office, he had focused on moral stance and human rights as pushed for after Nixon’s impeachment and a strong human rights lobby in Congress

- By focusing on human rights and signing a bill to cut off US aid to countries with a gross violation of international human rights, it was a bullet aimed towards the USSR

- This had appeared to the USSR as a means to remove its exports to the USSR, that was clearly an aggressive move initiated without a firm basis except for idealistic demands

- Hence, Carter’s policies invoked greater hostility from the USSR as it openly threatened their domestic state, which violated the non-intervention clause in the Joint Declaration on Principles concerning internal affairs

- As such, this act of aggression and subterfuge placed an immense strain on the continu-ation of good relations between superpowers as Carter’s policies had formed a bargain-ing chip on USSR’s interests

The End of the Cold War: Reagan ’ s Confrontational Cold War Policies

: In a multi-causal analysis of the end of the Cold War, the external force acting against the USSR and contributing to its collapse must be taken into account - Reagan’s confrontational policies referred to his offensive actions regarding the USSR

and the Cold War during his first term in office- It had renewed the Cold War that heralded the end of Detente, creating a competitive

and draining environment which impacted both the US and USSR - These foreign policies were meant to turn the Cold War into an ideological and economic

struggle, to diminish a flawed and illegitimate Soviet system and shore up perception of American weakness

: In taking into account Reagan’s policies, it will be evaluated in how far it had caused the USSR to self-implode - None of his policies called for outright military confrontation, hence it simply set the con-

text for USSR to play out its own downfall - Hence, his policies were meant to exacerbate existing weakness experienced by the

USSR so as to push it to a breaking point

[Reagan’s Escalation of the Cold War]

: The Economic Offensive- Argument: Reagan’s escalation of the Cold War was crucial in causing the collapse of

the Soviet Union, as his economic offensive removed the Soviet Union’s lifeline

- Reagan was highly suspicious of the USSR and highly disliked its ideology, seeing it as an untrustworthy system with malicious political leaders, after Afghanistan

- Hence, he acted to openly oppose this system and attempt it to force a change in it by making conditions unfavorable to the USSR and potentially incapacitate it economically

- He picked upon the Soviet Union’s achilles heel; its agricultural sector, to which it was highly inefficient to a point that it had to source out external supply from countries such as Canada, Australia and the U.S.

- Viewing the policies of Nixon and Carter as too soft on the USSR, he immediately re-stricted essential exports to the USSR, most notably grain and advanced technology

- As the USSR was no longer able to depend on the much-needed grain supply, to feed a population similar to the US but with only 1/3 of grain productivity, it was headed into a downward spiral

- The inability to supply even the most basic substance to the population immediately showed the failings of the Soviet government to its local population, making the govern-ment highly disliked to a point where multiple uprisings occurred against it

- Multitudes of local uprisings such as the Georgian protest in 1989 and Baltic Crisis in 1990 had severely destabilized the state

- Thus, Reagan’s economic policies were a significant factor in instigating the locals to rise up against the USSR and demand for independence, thus shaking up the government and causing it to lose control over its territory to secession, causing the collapse of USSR

: The Military Offensive

- Argument: Reagan’s escalation of the Cold War was crucial in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union, as his military offensive placed pressure on the Soviet economy

- Upon coming into offensive, Reagan killed the period of Detente and its arms reduction by accusing his predecessors of allowing the Soviets to attain strategic superiority

- In order to regain this loss advantage, Reagan had turned towards military build-up- This was seen in his policies of raising American defense spending by 40% in his first

term, and raising the national debt by $1.5 trillion - By willing to risk the US economy to such an extent was demonstrative of Reagan’s re-

solve to actively compete against the USSR and outdo its military - The threat to the Soviet defense as expounded by Reagan necessitated USSR to re-

spond in kind, raising its defense expenditure significantly up to 40% of its GNP - This meant that added pressure was placed on all other sectors of the economy that

were already failing, such as agricultural unproductiveness and industrial slowdown- It had further burdened the Soviet economy without much gain for it except being able to

keep up with the US military build-up, that diminished investment and growth in all other sectors of the economy

- By placing this added pressure on the Soviet economy, Reagan was able to overstretch the Soviet economy, leading it into a harmful decline that caused it to implode under con-tinued dissent to its rising inflation and economic crisis that prompted secessions

: The Ideological/Political Offensive- Argument: Reagan’s escalation of the Cold War was crucial in causing the collapse of

the Soviet Union, as his ideological offensive destroyed the legitimacy of the government

- Reagan had viewed the Cold War as an ideological debacle, and hence the US must take an aggressive and firm stance against the immoral Communism

- He had drawn greater focus towards the ideological flaws of the Soviet Union and in do-ing so, demonized the morality of the system and condemned it

- This act of discrediting the Soviet system brought greater scrutiny on Communism espe-cially within the regime itself, so as to make individuals lose faith in Moscow

- The ideological offensive raised doubts on Communism within Eastern Europe, making it highly unpopular and unfavored by the population

- It was so deeply ingrained to a point that Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe within a single year, that marked the disgruntled view of the local population

- Hence, his offensive had entirely delegitimatized the Soviet government and initiated its collapse with it losing its authority entirely over the whole of its original sphere of influ-ence, making it disliked and redundant by the populace

The End of the Cold War: Gorbachev ’ s Domestic Policies: Glasnost and Perestroika

: Amidst a failing Communist system, Gorbachev’s implementation of the twin policies to incite reform in the USSR had eventually failed to save the collapse of the USSR - The collapse of the Soviet Union refers to a period between 1964 and 1991 which saw

the implosion of the Communist regime through a process of events - To save the multiple aspects of the USSR, Gorbachev enacted multiple reforms - However, these reforms were namely limited to changes in policy still kept within the

framework of the societal, political and economic status quo order- Hence, his actions were never fully radical nor meant to alter the very system of Commu-

nism

: Overall, the failures of Gorbachev’s policies were that they had inadvertently exacerbate existing problems in the USSR to a tipping point - By 1985 upon coming into power, Gorbachev was faced with economic strain, political

stagnation and social instability in the USSR - These were factors that persisted throughout till 1991 - Thus, Gorbachev’s domestic policies will be evaluated within the framework of these fac-

tors, and how far they had pushed them over the edge

[Gorbachev’s Domestic Policies] : His two policies, Glasnost and Perestroika were meant to complement each other- Glasnost was a period of political and social openness where information and opinions

were freely granted to the population - Perestroika was a set of economic restructuring meant to incite greater productivity and

innovation under a more decentralized system - The effects of the two policies would compound on one another, for each depended on

the success of the other to work effectively

: Social Instability - Argument: Gorbachev’s twin domestic policies was crucial in causing the collapse of the

Soviet Union, as it led to a wave of revolutionary sentiments that spiraled out of control

- Gorbachev had initiated social and economic reforms in the form of Glasnost and Pere-stroika, which sought to alter the social structure of the country

- Glasnost was targeted at changing the population’s mindset and attitude towards political issues and their historical roots, by inviting greater reading towards the USSR past

- At the same time, Perestroika was initiated to liberalize the economy and give individuals greater influence in production matters, such as leasing out private plots to families

- However, both of these policies had brought about greater unrest in the Soviet Union, for it had inadvertently turned the population against the CPSU

- By allowing individuals to delve deeper into their ethnic roots and the failings of the Com-munist government, it destroyed the credibility of the government as people began to see it in a negative, failed light, that contributed to nationalist uprisings

- Perestroika had given them greater reason to seek breakaway as the policies failed to raise their standards of living, when local Communists had sabotaged the process by burying foodstuff and denying it to the local population

- Faced with heightened nationalists sentiments and worsening economic prospects in the USSR, both policies had incited uprisings to occur within the USSR that brought about the collapse of the government by preventing them having authority over the locals

: Political Stagnation

- Argument: Gorbachev’s policy of Glasnost was crucial in causing the collapse of the So-viet Union, as it had undermined the legitimacy of the Communist government

- In seeking to reject the Stalinist dictatorial legacy over the Soviet Union, Gorbachev had turned towards democratizing the system slightly so as to introduce pluralism

- This was so as to strengthen the view of the government in the eyes of the local popu-lace as elected by their say through elections and multi-party representation

- Glasnost advocated openness and free speech even in the Soviet government system, that led to Gorbachev holding open elections for the Soviet Congress in 1989

- This was to allow more parties into the government so as to appease the population fac-ing economic deprivation with political freedom, giving them a semblance of hope

- However, by allowing multiple parties into the government, it had distorted the nature of the Soviet Union as it invited contradictions and opponents to Communism

- As there were multiple opposing views, the central government was unable to operate properly due to impeding disunity; that which the local population was highly reliant on

- By destabilizing the centralized government system through political pluralism, Gor-bachev had essentially brought inertia to a governmental level, slowing down its policy-making and speed in tackling local problems such as food shortages

- This had broken the locals’ view of the Communist government, losing their credibility do-mestically, that saw individuals turning towards other governmental system such as the Russian Republic under Yeltsin rather than the CPSU under Gorbachev

- Hence, Glasnost heralded the collapse of the Soviet Union as the local population turned disgruntled towards it as it lost legitimacy, giving rise to opposing, secessionist states

: Economic Strain - Argument: Gorbachev’s policy of Perestroika was crucial in causing the collapse of the

Soviet Union, as it pushed the economy past its tipping point

- The economy has been the constant corpse shackled to the Soviet Union, as its failings had incapacitated its operation as a state, leading to inability to compete against the United States, and led to civil unrest

- Hence, Gorbachev’s Perestroika was meant to revitalize the economy by restructuring it in a way that it can bring about greater productivity in the long run

- He initiated reforms such as removing the central role of Gosplan and allowing managers to set wages and prices for workers

- These were meant to improve working condition and encourage better work and man-agement of the economy at a micro level

- However, it had backfired in managers allocating disproportionate wages in order to gain the favor of the workers, that overpaid them to an extent inflation became rampant

- By 1991 the crisis as a result of such practices had erupted to 250% inflation that made the entire economy untenable and unsustainable

- Hence, his policies had failed to rejuvenate the economy of the Soviet Union, but instead prompted its imminent collapse by overspending and having wrong allocation of re-sources

- Thus, Perestroika initiated the collapse of the Soviet Union by dooming its economy to a breaking point, that convinced Soviet Republics to reject any last-minute proposal of greater autonomy as remaining in an economic union will still result in them facing dismal food shortages and low standards of living

The End of the Cold War: Gorbachev ’ s Foreign Policies: “ New Thinking ”

: Aside for handling internal matters, Gorbachev had to turn towards the USSR’s interna-tional relations in the midst of the “Second Cold War” - Approaching Reagan’s second term, the improvement of bilateral relations between su-

perpowers had allowed reciprocation and greater cooperation- It ties in to how the Soviet Union operated in the period approaching its eventual implo-

sion; and how it had affected the domestic sector- Namely, it had impacted the domestic economy of the Soviet Union by giving a respite,

and reduced its overseas commitments such as in Afghanistan - However, this diplomacy came at an expense of having to relinquish Soviet prestige in

committing to worldwide Communism, and thus letting go of Eastern Europe

: Thus, Gorbachev’s policies should be looked at in how it benefited or costed the Soviet Union- In this, it may have provided an opportunity for the Soviet Union to rejuvenate its econ-

omy so as to be able to continue existing without internal strife - Yet, at the same time, it could contribute to the downfall of the Soviet Union by broad-

casting its weakness and dependency on a foreign power, much less its rival

[Gorbachev’s Foreign Policy - Decline]

: Concessionary Foreign Policy- Argument: Gorbachev’s foreign policy was crucial in causing the collapse of the Soviet

Union, as it had discredited the Communist regime

- Under rising economic pressures at home as a result of failed policies regarding eco-nomic revitalization and the need to spend excessively on the Cold War, Gorbachev had to turn towards improving relations with the US

- This was to enable the USSR to withdraw from the continued drains in the arms race, such that it has a chance of regaining economic stability in the long run

- To be able to cut down on the Cold War competition, Gorbachev had to accede to certain promises of withdrawing out of Afghanistan, and most notably, out of Eastern Europe

- By repudiating the Brezhnev Doctrine and allowing the Eastern European states to have greater governance without Soviet intervention, Gorbachev had demonstrated the Soviet regime to be weak and not influential, even domestically

- Hence, Gorbachev’s desire to see a reduction in the arms race with the US saw him priz-ing foreign relations over prestige of the CPSU, which shunned the party as dependent and subjected to the wills and whims of the US

- Thus, his policies delegitimized the local Communist regime, such that within a year, all the Communist states in Eastern Europe had fallen, that heralded the internal collapse of the Communist Soviet Union

[Gorbachev’s Foreign Policy - Saving Grace of the USSR]

: Economic Benefits - Argument: Gorbachev’s foreign policy could have saved the USSR, for it prevented the

immediate collapse of the Soviet economy

- “New Thinking” was able to improve and mend the broken bridges between the US and USSR, that reduced the competitiveness between the two countries

- Due to the emergence of hostilities that preempted the end of Detente, the US had re-stricted necessary exports of grain to the USSR

- The over-dependence of the Soviet Union on American grain is reflected in their con-sumption; where American grain took up 20% of its agricultural products

- Additionally, the Soviet economy was in shambles, with agricultural productivity being only 1/3 as compared to that of the US

- This clearly shows the dismal state of the Soviet Union and it would have been on a steep decline if it was unable to continue obtaining foreign grain, to feed a half-starved and rebellious population

- Thus, New Thinking and the improvement in relations restarted the American grain ex-ports to the Soviet Union, saving it from a possible food crisis

- By accommodating to the US and be able to obtain its valuable food imports, the Soviet Union was able to buy more time in shoring up the agricultural sector with the long-term policy of Perestroika, that was only made possible by improved superpower relations

The End of the Cold War: Disintegration of the Soviet Union

: As the Soviet Union approached economic and social disaster, the fabric of its political, economic and social came splitting at the seam - Between 1989 and 1991, multiple uprisings in the satellite states and the Soviet Re-

publics demonstrated the fragility of the system- As a result of cumulative events, the USSR sprouted into a period of rebellions and

coups- All this had preceded the collapse of the Soviet Union, for it destabilized the regime to the

extent that it was unable to prevent the series of secession and fragmentation

: Thus, this chapter will evaluate the extensiveness of external and internal factors - How the two had interacted in terms of events happening in the satellite states and within

the Soviet Republics and its contribution to the overall collapse of the Soviet Union

[External Factors]: External factors relates to events occurring outside of the USSR proper, meaning Eastern Europe, that had a direct impact on the running of the state on a whole

: Collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe- Argument: The USSR was destroyed by a series of nationalist revolts in the satellite

states as it had paved the way for the same to happen in USSR

- By 1989, dissent towards the USSR in the Eastern European states had reached a breaking point, for Gorbachev’s New Thinking raised public opinion against him

- His policy of openness had allowed locals to understand their economic plight and low standards of living compared to the West, inciting them to overthrow Communism and USSR’s control over them

- By repudiating the Brezhnev Doctrine and took on a policy of non-interference, Gor-bachev gave more room for Eastern Europe to determine their own destiny

- Within one year, all the Communist regimes had collapsed within Eastern Europe that re-moved Soviet influence over them

- While this was beneficial to Gorbachev who was willing to sacrifice Eastern Europe to build up the Soviet economy, this series of revolts had led to multiple nationalist uprisings to occur in the Soviet Union not long after

- For example, within one year of Eastern Europe declaring themselves democratic, upris-ings in the Baltic occurred with Lithuania and Estonia declaring independence

- Thus, by virtue of having the revolts in Eastern Europe occur, it prompted nationalist re-volts to similarly occur within the USSR that led to its eventual collapse

[Internal Factors]

: Internal factors relates to events occurring within the USSR that involved multiple stake-holders, regarding the Soviet Republics and non-CPSU politicians, that rocked the central Communist regime

: Nationalist Uprisings in Soviet Republics- Argument: The USSR was destroyed by a series of nationalist revolts in the Soviet Re-

publics as it led to the destabilization of the Soviet regime

- Nationalist revolts in the Soviet Republics had occurred largely due to failing living condi-tions for the locals

- Facing 250% inflation and a government inept to cope with the problem, multiple nation-alists protested and demanded for secession to form their own state

- This was to be able to better manage their own ethnic interests, such as the Baltic states carrying out a series of non-violent revolts and declaration of independence so as to de-fend against the influx of Russian immigrants

- However, this act had forced the USSR to counter by sending in military vehicles to Lithuania and placing an economic blockade on the Republic

- Such acts of resistance towards the Soviet regime had prevented the governance of these states by the central government, that wrecked relations between the locals and the CPSU, and destabilized the regime with constant confrontation

- Hence, as such destabilization gave rise to continued unrest, it had removed the author-ity of the government, thus destroying the USSR as a valid state government

: Conservative Coup- Argument: The USSR was destroyed by a series of conservative coups, as it had shat-

tered the image of the Soviet regime

- Gorbachev’s policies were becoming viewed as increasingly radical and unacceptable to the hardliner Communists in the CPSU, who wanted a return to centralized government

- His actions such as discarding Article 6 of the constitution, removing the right of the CPSU to be the domineering party in the state, frustrated the Communists as it meant a break from the central idea of the Soviet Union being a Communist movement ‘

- This had prompted the conservative factions in the CPSU to stage a coup against Gor-bachev to force him and the country to accede to their demands of de-radicalization

- However, despite the failure of the coup, it was significant as it portrayed Gorbachev as isolated from the rest of his party, and weak in the face of opposition

- It had discredited his personal image and that of the CPSU severely due to the extent of disunity in the party such that internal revolts would occur

- Hence, the conservative coups were significant in displaying the internal weakness of the central government, killing the reputation of the CPSU that forced Gorbachev to step down and the CPSU dissolved not long after

- Thus, it left the Communist state without a Communist government, that heralded the end of Soviet rule over the entire territory as it invalidated the need for a Soviet regime, as all Soviet republics declared independence within 5 months

: Rise of Political Challengers

- Argument: The USSR was destroyed by political challengers to the system, as they were able to demolish the Soviet regime

- The political liberalization brought about by Gorbachev in his policy of Glasnost had inad-vertently backfired on him when it instigated strong political rivals

- These individuals were able to come to power through the open election system; most notably Boris Yeltsin representing radical opposition to Gorbachev and the CPSU

- His election as the President of the Russian Republic increased his standing amongst the locals and even more so when he took the chance during Gorbachev’s coup to lead the protest in restoring Gorbachev

- In doing so, he portrayed himself as the real power in USSR politics rather than Gor-bachev, capturing his legitimacy and gaining the respect of the people

- His actions increasingly alienated Gorbachev as a weak figure, forcing him to step down as head of the CPSU and gave Yeltsin a free hand in enacting his own policies

- As Yeltsin’s interests lay in seeing the secession of the Russian Republic, so as to not tie Russia into a detrimental economic union, he was able to coerce the other Soviet Re-publics to sign the Belavezha Accords that formed the CIS

- Hence, the backfiring of Gorbachev’s policies led to the ascension of political challengers that were able to pursue their economic interests that aligned with the removal of the USSR as a political entity, that saw it being removed entirely upon the formation of the CIS