Nemo sez:

"Meaning, the Soviet Union fell, not because not enough citizens could buy a new car every two years, and own their on ranch style, 3 bedroom two bath dacha... but because they did not have the money to build a superior military."

I'm not sure if you are trying to disagree with me, but yes yes, we do indeed agree, indeed.

Inter sez:

"but the bottom line was, the communists taught peace and goodwill to mankind themselves, contrary to popular american belief that's not an american invention, only the communists did a good job of teaching it and practicing it. after all is said and done, they didn't behave like the tyrants that americans had the world believe for decades."

Interesting.............Ok, I'm dense today. I'm trying to find the satire here, inter. Help me out. Is this what passes for History in the universities today?

buttholesurfa sez:

"And besides, who ever quit a war because their equipment is outdated? I mean that thought is so dumb only an American can believe it's true."

Unless my eyes failed me, I think it was the Iraqis in Gulf War 1 who surrendered en masse after being bitch-bombed for a month. ("Bitch-bomb"---I just made that up. Feel free to use it.) And the Iraqi pilots who ran/flew to (I forgot) to prevent their destruction. Oh, sorry, the column heading out of Kuwait City (or wherever) didn't get a chance to surrender. For a minute I thought I was debating an intelligent person. I stand corrected. Dumb foriegner.

your line of thought is what passes in universities today. it goes like this. i know A is bad, so now I am going to look for things that prove A is bad.

real education goes like this. Open mind. Observe what's going down, without interpretation. then, after all observations have been recorded, check your ego at the door, and assemble the observed facts with the suitable methodolies, honestly.

all Communist nations taught peace and justice. that was an essential component of their dogma. the 'international' aspect of their dogma was blind to places of origin, races, gender, status, wealth. their women drove tractors, cranes, managed factories, had daycare centers, long maternity leaves, etc. the communists preached equality of the sexes and races, and practiced it. where they fell down is in the believe that an entire nation's affairs can be planned, directed, managed from the top. social clubs can be effectively managed, and even military units, and even armies and once on a while a war can be managed well from the top, but not the life of an entire nation. there just is no replacement for individual initiative, talent, goodwill, the nuclear power of greed. Communism was a good ideal theoretically, but not workable with the inferior talents of mankind. The real world works on self-interest and screws where success happens even though it wasn't planned.

The Soviet system failed because “their own population didn't want the Communists in power anymore.”

“the communists fell because their own people wanted to travel. they fell because their civilians were not interested anymore in communism. that's how it fell. people went on the streets to protest. the soldiers let them mount their tanks, kissem, and joined the 'revolution'.”

The idea that the Russian people rose up and threw out the Communist government because of a low standard of living is putting the cart before the horse. Additionally, to believe in a “bottom up revolution” because of lack of economic opportunity, and travel options is ignoring the question…

Why did the Hungarian, Polish, Czechoslovakian, Lithuanian, and other people successfully throw off the Soviet yoke?

The Russian people had a low standard of living because the hard line communists controlling their nation spent all their money on the military. Why? Because the Soviets primary mission was to conquer other nations, thereby spreading communism. Failing this, the system collapsed.

Correction to the above:

Why did the Hungarian, Polish, Czechoslovakian, Lithuanian, and other people NOT successfully throw off the Soviet yoke?

...especially in the east. but even in the prosperous west, there is average european well enough off to live in a 2400 square foot house with swimming pool, three cars, two motorcycles, two vacations, plus weekend trips to vegas. and still, you dont see the French surrender to the Americans, do you?

what killed the Communists, is that their totalitarian regimes squashed the dreams, hopes and aspirations of their populations. Hollywood movies that they saw promised self-destiny, the fat sausage, the idiot making it rich, the glass baubles.....and voila, like the American Indians, they traded their lands for a jug of whisky and a bag of glass baubles. oh, ok, here I go being a cynic again, but it was the frustration and suppression that made the people lose their Communist joke. And to the credit of the Communist regimes, they let it happen without bloodshed. Imagine the American government surrendering because they're incompetent, and letting someone else give it a try.

Nemo, I think you're missing the point a bit. Only about 500 GLCMs were deployed - enough to add to Soviet reluctance to invade Western Europe, but not enough to fundamentally change the strategic balance. In the '80s, the Soviets maintained superiority in numbers of nuclear devices, and maintained it throughout the '80s. Both sides were able to provide a credible theater-level deterent to the other. Any attempt for either side "out-produce" the other might be technically possible, but would have only increased the amount of land mass of Europe that would have been turned into a glass parking lot in the case of a theater war.

TERCOM was an interesting solution to a pre-GPS problem of not wanting to have to deploy expensive "Beryllium Baby" AIRS inertial systems on Tactical missiles, but didn't fundamentally change the balance between the two countries. Neat trick, though.

I might agree very loosely with you, though, that the general Reagan-era military buildup kept pressure on the Soviets to continue an unsustainable military production system (that was costing them > 20% of their GDP, compared to 5-6% of ours), and contributed to the economic pressures that eventually dragged the Soviet system down. GLCM was only a small component of this, though, and one that was negotiated away at the first opportunity, along with Pershing 2, to get rid of the Soviet SS-20s (which had deployed more warheads than the GLCM and Pershing 2 put together).

intersurfa:

all Communist nations taught peace and justice. that was an essential component of their dogma. the 'international' aspect of their dogma was blind to places of origin, races, gender, status, wealth. their women drove tractors, cranes, managed factories, had daycare centers, long maternity leaves, etc. the communists preached equality of the sexes and races, and practiced it. where they fell down is in the believe that an entire nation's affairs can be planned, directed, managed from the top. social clubs can be effectively managed, and even military units, and even armies and once on a while a war can be managed well from the top, but not the life of an entire nation. there just is no replacement for individual initiative, talent, goodwill, the nuclear power of greed. Communism was a good ideal theoretically, but not workable with the inferior talents of mankind. The real world works on self-interest and screws where success happens even though it wasn't planned.

Are you seriously buying that propaganda?!!! Jews were heavily persecuted in Communist countries. Ethnic minorities were slaughtered under Stalin, and were second-class citizens even in later days. Anytime after initial revolution, Marxist-Leninist teachings were given only the most cursory lip-service (which seems to be about the only part you've heard), and a heavy-handed dictatorship maintained strict control, solely for the purpose of maintaining their own power. I visited the USSR in 1984, and saw this myself.

"The Russians would have rolled across Europe had it not been for the US military to at least stand in their way, and they were fed the slavs to keep them happy. Nor did the Russians see fit to excuse themselves from Eastern Europe after the war, nor were they happy with the Hungarians for wanting out. I guess the Russian soldiers at the Berlin Wall were there to direct traffic."

Hmmm... and someone else claimed the US stopped the Russians at the Elbe. Utter bollocks. The US stopped themselves at the Elbe, and restrained the British, because those self-regarding idiots Eisenhower and Roosevelt thought they knew how to handle Stalin and could negotiate with him. They didn't want to provoke him. Churchill couldn't believe their naîvety at Yalta. I'm always astonished – although not surprised – that Neville Chamberlain gets such a kicking from US politicians looking for an analogy about 'appeasement', whereas Roosevelt's and Eisenhower's utterly disastrous mis-judgement of Uncle Joe is swept under the carpet.

As for the assertion that the entire Soviet system folded due to a specific weapon system (nuclear cruise missiles), I don't think I have enough 'L's, 'O's and more 'L's to do that justice. Do you really think it got to 1989 and they went "F**ck it Ivan, those cruise missile's have got us beat. The game's up, let's just jack it in, my furry hat's off to you Ronnie. Open them barriers!"? The whole Soviet bloc was economically and politically bankrupt, their time was up. A specific tactical nuclear weapon really didn't make much difference. From my understanding, if you must pick a weapon, it was the space threat and the whole 'Rods from God'* concept which ended the military game. It was just to daunting and expensive.

Do you know the joke in Germany at the time? (the unlucky hosts of those shitty tactical cruise missiles)? A tactical nuclear weapon is one that falls on Germany. I was lucky enough to grow up next to Upper Heyford F-111 base so I guess the joke would have been on me too.

*Has anyone ever admitted to actually pursuing that by the way? Couldn't help but notice the Chinese anti-satellite missile test a year or two back, although that could just be to knock out GPS, which would cripple the US military in a stroke.

"most europeans have a low standard of living....but even in the prosperous west, there is average european well enough off to live in a2400 square foot house with swimming pool, three cars, two motorcycles, two vacations, plus weekend trips to vegas"

You're a sweet guy but you really just don't get it do you? People in Europe don't want to live like Americans. We generally find it tacky, in bad taste and rather crass. A 2,400 sq ft house with swimming pool in Nowheresville, Ohio. 2,400 sq ft isn't really that big anyway is it. Rather have a 1,200 sq. metre apartment in London thanks. But, I have to admit, two cars more than I can drive at one time and a few weekends in, er, Vegas, really is aspirational. Maybe worth giving up free healthcare, a fat pension and 6 weeks a year free to sail on the Med, ski the Alps and explore Tuscanny...

Sign me up for your green card, please.

C-Tips said= "As for the assertion that the entire Soviet system folded due to a specific weapon system (nuclear cruise missiles), I don't think I have enough 'L's, 'O's and more 'L's to do that justice. Do you really think it got to 1989 and they went "F**ck it Ivan, those cruise missile's have got us beat. The game's up, let's just jack it in, my furry hat's off to you Ronnie. Open them barriers!"?

Actually, what I said was;

"The United State’s deployment of nuclear tipped Ground Launch Cruise Missiles (GLCM) to Europe, and The United Kingdom had much more to do with the fall of the Wall, and the end of The Soviet Union, than the events described in this article."

Put in simpler terms, deployment of nuclear armed GLCMs to Europe and the UK was the final straw to a system allready ready to collapse...and had more effect than the actions, or lack of, the individuals in the article.

As for the the facts of what effect the GLCMs had on the Soviets, that is a matter of record, (Soviet, that is) not my opinion.

The effect of the nuclear weapon deployed by the US (NATO) on their host nation population (such as yourselves) that is irrelavant...since it is the effect on the enemy that concerns us here.

nemo:

C-Tips said= "As for the assertion that the entire Soviet system folded due to a specific weapon system (nuclear cruise missiles), I don't think I have enough 'L's, 'O's and more 'L's to do that justice. Do you really think it got to 1989 and they went "F**ck it Ivan, those cruise missile's have got us beat. The game's up, let's just jack it in, my furry hat's off to you Ronnie. Open them barriers!"?

Actually, what I said was;

"The United State’s deployment of nuclear tipped Ground Launch Cruise Missiles (GLCM) to Europe, and The United Kingdom had much more to do with the fall of the Wall, and the end of The Soviet Union, than the events described in this article."

Put in simpler terms, deployment of nuclear armed GLCMs to Europe and the UK was the final straw to a system allready ready to collapse...and had more effect than the actions, or lack of, the individuals in the article.

As for the the facts of what effect the GLCMs had on the Soviets, that is a matter of record, (Soviet, that is) not my opinion.

The effect of the nuclear weapon deployed by the US (NATO) on their host nation population (such as yourselves) that is irrelavant...since it is the effect on the enemy that concerns us here.

Yeah maybe, although it didn't feel very irrelevant when I understood exactly what a 'tactical' nuclear exchange might entail for myself and my family, as I'm sure you might imagine. We all breathed a sigh of relief when the last Raven screeched away.

56 square meters is normal in normal EU places, but not London. The queen of England doesn't have a 1,200 sqare meter appartment in her huge ass B. Palace.

But, aside from that, you dont get it. My point was, it's not all about material things. But, your point and mine go only so far. There are boatloads of Europeans who'd trade their world anyday for the American experience, 2400 square feet in Florida with the convertible, the bikini and sunshine. Even if the convertible is a Chrysler, and once they drove the Sebring top down, would pick it over any Euro cabriolet any day.

But those are individual choices. Europe today isn't bad enough to pick up and leave. Some in Eastern EU can't wait to get the hell out of there, and maybe 99% of the non-EU eastern Europeans would trade anything for 2400 square feet in Florida. What collapsed the Commie regimes is their obvious incompetence and squashing of the individual spirit. Although, quite a few of them want Communism back, today.

...the world does NOT rotate around the Jews.

No argument that minorities were destroyed in Communistregimes. you might actually want to point out other Soviet minorities that experienced 'ethnic cleansing' in the Soviet Union, like Lithuanians and some other ethnic groups whose name doesn't come to mind at the moment, but who suffered far worse then ethnic Soviet Jews who didn't even practice their own religion. The Soviet Jews saw an opportunity to leave the Soviet Union, noone else was permitted to leave, and wailed loud and hard. Many that were permitted to leave were not even practicing Jews. When they got to Israel and the US it became obvious that they knew nothing about their religious rituals. And when they got to Brighton Beach, promptly started a Mafia bigger then what's there. Brighton Beach dentists and health insurance companies, the FBI can sing legends. But, when it comes to Jews in Eastern Europe, there is not nearly the admiration among the rest of the European population that there is in the US.

Thanks for making my argument for me (that the Soviets did not treat minorities equally, as you said in your earlier post). Jews simply came to mind first, because I saw a little of it firsthand during a visit to the USSR in 1984. That seems to be your hangup more than mine. I didn't want to go into a minority-by-minority listing of Soviet mistreatment of minorities, and a discussion of Russification in various areas, without a bit more research of specific situations. So, I stuck with the example I had witnessed myself. Thanks for listing the Baltic republics for me. If I remember, many of the southern republics were treated as second-class citizens. Despite the fact that both Stalin and Beria were from there, Georgia and Russia certainly have emnity that goes back long before 1991.