Well, WHICH WAS IT?
2006-09-15 00:01:28 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So jdmc turns me into a 9/11 conspiracist - quite a leap!! All I can say is, WOW.
2006-09-15 01:11:28 · update #1
Reagan had nothing whatsoever to do with it, saying that is like saying the sun rose this morning because my rooster was crowing.
It was Gorbachov, who saw that the Russian Empire could not hold together any longer on a basis of ideology, bad management and fear.
He tried to put Russian politics on a more democratic and open footing and got ousted for it by the ideologists of the Communist party.
His successors managed to salvage Russia and Siberia at the cost of losing their Western and Southern territories.
Reagan did nothing but hinder the process of democratisation in the USSR by launching his "star wars" programme, thus giving the Communist dye-hards ammunition against any opening up.
2006-09-15 00:12:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Soviet leadership at the end of the 1980s brought down the Soviet Union. Soviet leaders believed that allowing some forms of private business and some new freedoms, they could bolster their economy in a way that would allow them to remain competitive against the US. However, this basically caused the Soviet system to implode, as the satellite nations began seperating themselves from the USSR as they percieved the current Moscow leadership as weak.
2006-09-15 00:06:06 · answer #2 · answered by crazydavythe1st 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Soviets spent their huge spending on nuclear missiles rather of nutrition or starting to be nutrition so their human beings starved and needed a transformation in government. The nuclear warheads of the Soviet missiles have been produced from solid gold so it would fly straighter and attain and hit Washington, D.C. from Kiev interior the Ukraine. the classic Greeks might use solid gold arrow counsel and javelins via fact it would fly straighter and hit the objective. think of the kind of missiles the Soviet Union became making with solid gold warheads, Reagan might have spent all he needed; yet American farmers continued to boost nutrition. The Soviets of their appropriate Communist international even offered wheat from united statesa..
2016-10-15 00:41:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Soviet union actually not fail at all... Fact is.. they are just "reboot" their country to become greater nation within near future. At the moment they started winning in many ways againts US. Only time will tell the truth.
2006-09-15 00:10:42 · answer #4 · answered by mind advanture 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have to agree with historians (the people that count) that Reagan hastened the process of the collapse. Historians (the people that count) rate Reagan as a great President, there are those that disagree with facts because of either bias or ignorance. A conspiracy concerning 9-11 for example.
2006-09-15 00:36:17 · answer #5 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In an attempt to keep up with Reagan's defense spending, the USSR was driven very close to economic collapse. I could; therefore, draw an argument for either side.
2006-09-15 00:11:20 · answer #6 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Let's just say Pres. Reagan got in behind and pushed , speeded up a natural process.
2006-09-15 00:28:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Cuba and China haven't fallen
2006-09-15 00:03:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I could explain it to you, but I don't believe you could grasp the
concept.
2006-09-15 00:06:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
shutp you pile of sh*t. You skank whore pile of sh*t
2006-09-15 00:04:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋