reasons for american winning the cold war?

Answer 1

WE did not win the cold war! millions of Poles, Russians, Bulgarians etc. stood up against the soviet system leading Gorby to glasnost, perestroika, from there massive ground swell pro-democracy activities started then Boris Yeltsin at the soviet congress on the tank. It is pure ego to think that military spending by us did what millions of brave people risking their lives could not do. we may have aided but it was them.

Answer 2

Lots of words, few have said it well. I am going to go back and agree that it was the men and women of East Europe that brought down the Soviet Union. To have survived the weight of Stalinism, even if for only a decade (approximately between Yalta and the 20th Congress), and still have hope after Hungary in 1956, or the whipping of Czechoslovakia for reading into Marxism-Leninism too literally. That in 1980 Solidarity could still exist in Poland, or that in 1988 Hungary could get rid of Kadar and bring democratic reforms the same year. If the people of Eastern Europe had let them, the Soviets could have used them to conquer the world. They never did let them, and we owe to them the vast majority of praise for the destruction of the USSR.

Answer 3

The Russians finally realized that maintaining control over other countries makes a country poorer in the long run. To keep armies in other countries and to keep them supplied with weapons was costly. All they did was occupy countries against their will. And the cost of weapons was always increasing. The regimes they were supporting in Eastern Europe were all unpopular with the people in those countries.
When you promise the workers and farmers everything sooner or later you'll have to deliver. People in Russia and its Eastern European satellites realized that they couldn't deliver on their promises. Instead of a "dictatorship of the proletariat"
they had a "dictatorship of the bureaucrat"

Answer 4

A good question. There is a debate about whether in fact the Soviets simply 'collapsed' under the weight of their own inefficient bureaucracy and moribund economy, without the 'assistance' of the West. I tend to see it as largely that way, but the West's (and primarily Reagan's) contribution was critical in keeping up the pressure on the Soviets to respond militarily to Reagan sponsored military technology developments and interventions all around the world (notably Afghanistan). By the time of the Soviet collapse military spending was approximately 25% of GDP (and the US was spending trillions of dollars as well) at a time when it couldn't really afford to do that because of falling export dollars from oil, and a stagnant internal economy. The Soviets were never given a 'holiday' by the US to re-adjust their economy, and certainly not a jot of assistance by the West economically.

When Gorbachev wound down the military in order to 'save money', he triggered the collapse as a huge proportion of Soviet industry was geared to supporting the military. Effectively he triggered the 'mother of all recessions' and the country collapsed. Eastern Europe, sensing which way the wind was blowing abandoned Russia and stampeded their way towards NATO and the material attractions of the West. And - credit to them - groups and individuals that had fought and resisted Soviet domination in Eastern Europe rose up and asserted the national identity of their countries.

So the answer that 'Reagan did it' is good enough for me. But it shows more credit to him, when you understand that he did it largely (but not entirely) without actually 'going to war'. But then you can ask, was he calculating all this, or was he just a bellicose politician who didn't like what he saw (the Soviets) and wasn't diplomatic enough to cover up his disgust? Or was he simply a 'force of destiny' representing in a pure form the ideals of liberty and capitalism that was 'bound' - sooner or later - to overcome the failed implementation of communism in the Soviet Union?

I tend to think that there was a degree of calculation in his moves, but importantly these moves also accorded with his fundamental ideals and inclination. Interestingly, when politicians act in accordance with their principles they can achieve great things, as in this case. Most of course subvert their principles to their ambition and wonder why things just don't seem to 'go their way'. Not to say that you don't have to watch out for the politician who follows a set of ideals and inclinations that are 'right off the end of the bell curve', such as one A. Hitler, and some of more recent memory...

Answer 5

The NWO/illumunati made a fortune from the "cold war". It was determined new games were needed to keep the "fools" in line, and to dramatically reduce their numbers. Chemtrails, anyone ? :)))

Answer 6

We didnt win....The Soviet Union just collapsed, so it was kinda like they forfeited.

Answer 7

God - Guns - Guts - and - Ronald Regan.