How powerful was the soviet union compared to the USA during the Cold War?

Question

Militarily, Economically, Culturally, Idealogically I would say that the USSR was only half the superpower the USA was.

Answer 1

Soviet power was exaggerated during the Cold War by self-interested parties (i.e. the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of) for their own benefit.

Throughout the Cold War, Soviet military forces were generally inferior to US forces. Soviet strategic nuclear forces were always inferior to US forces, quantitatively and especially qualitatively. The Soviets had an advantage in conventional and tactical nuclear forces in Europe, though given the Soviet experience of 1941, such advantage can reasonably be considered defensive.

Even the Cuban missiles, from the Soviet perspective, could be considered defensive. The US already had similar missiles in Italy and Turkey, plus an ICBM advantage of a few hundred to only a few dozen. This gave the US a first-strike capability for which the Soviets had no counter. In the context of the aggressive US posture of the period (overflights of Soviet territory, Kennedy's buildup, Curtis LeMay, etc), the Cuban missiles can be viewed as Soviet attempt to establish a credible deterrent - a sign of Soviet weakness, not strength, as the outcome of the missile crisis so clearly demonstrated.

Economically, the Soviet Union began the Cold War with an inferior system, and the gap between the US and Soviet economies only grew over time. About 40% of the Soviet economy went to military production, and so by the 1970s, despite having the largest area of grain producing land in the world, the Soviets couldn't feed even their own people, and were forced to import grain from the US - their arch-enemy.

By the 1970s, even the Soviet leadership recognized that excessive military spending was strangling their economy. The CIA even predicted that the USSR might collapse, if just left alone (though this finding was suppressed by the early neoconservatives: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc, and their "Team B" report). In the early 1980s, oil prices, which were the USSR's largest foreign currency earner, fell sharply, putting further strains on an already failing Soviet economy.

Culturally, the Soviets had little to offer. They suppressed many of the positives of traditional Russian culture, so much so that the term "Soviet culture" is practically an oxymoron.

Ideologically, the Soviets followed a hopelessly conflicted combination of communist economics and totalitarian government. The few historical examples where communism has worked have been small scale agrarian societies. It was impossible for the Soviet totalitarian system to make all the correct decisions necessary to make a communism work on such a large scale. Except for inspiring a few, mostly short lived, revolutions in desperately poor parts of the world, the Soviet model never had much chance of becoming a credible alternative. Although the democratic-capitalist model has it's own flaws, most countries recognized, even during the Cold War, that it works better than the Soviet model.

The USSR never had much hope to compete with the West over the long term. Of the many dimensions of national power, the USSR managed to be competitive only in military terms. After the pressure of the arms race was removed in the mid 1980s, Gorbachev was free to proceed with his attempt to reform the Soviet system, but by then the system was too weak to be reformed, and so its collapse inevitably followed.

Answer 2

If your avatar is a clue, maybe you are a little biased. Have you ever actually BEEN to the former USSR?

Clearly economically the USSR was a disaster in the end, but it worked well for a very long time. Muscovites loved the fact that a rented flat in Moscow cost exactly the same in 1990 as it did in 1917.

Militarily, I see little difference. The USA never challenged them directly since the knew it was pointless. Looking at comparable military campaigns, both the USA and the former USSR, and the new Russia, have a knack of getting into endless campaigns they can't win. The USSR left Afghanistan with its tail between its legs long before the current NATO campaign, similar to the USA in Vietman and Somalia.

Answer 3

The power of the Soviet Union really lay in the mythical Red Army. We must remember that it was this mythical Red Army which had smashed Nazi Germany to bits, long before the Western Allies even reached German soil. We actually met up with the Red Army at the River Rhine and not in Berlin, which had already fallen to the Red Army.

So, we must cast our minds back to the period of the immediate post-war years, from c1945-1960s from the Berlin Airlift on through to the building of the Berlin Wall in the 1960s etc.

The Russians got nuke weapons very quickly after WW2 and indeed took many of the German scientists from Penamunde. They did not however capture the famous German rocket scientist Werner Von Braun, designer of the V1 and V2 German rockets of WW2.

Since I was born in 1941 and grew up in the immediate aftermath of WW2 here in UK and joined the British Army in 1957 [1957-1964] I can say with hand on heart that I actually played a part in the Cold War.

There was never any doubt in my mind then and now that the United States of America is the undoubted supreme power in the world. It's message of FREEDOM, LIBERTY & DEMOCRACY is one which is both supported and echoed around the Globe by UK, a staunch ally of the USA.

Answer 4

USSR was never superior to USA in any way.They were marginally better in space technology.Diplomatically they were better and had stronger links with many Asian countries including India,China and Pakistan.There were two shops.If US shop refuced ,you could go to USSR.Now there is only one shop.Under iron curtain it maintained the status of another super power.It was actually only a balancing power in world politics.Now USA is the only super power.China is trying to step in the place of USSR.

Answer 5

Both countries could destroy ever civilization on the planet in a matter of minutes with a push of a button. Both had the ability to do it multiple times, with no chance of the other side stopping them.

Once you reach that stage you're at least equally as powerful as anybody else.. even if they can "destroy the world" a few more times than you can, or do it in a fancier way.

Answer 6

i would say that if they'd both started out with same meagre resources as the USSR did then the soviets would've won the cold war with ease

it wasnt a level playing field, not by a long shot, and yet the soviets led the space race for many years

capitalism is a flawed idea, as the next 100 years will prove - the days of american hegemony are numbered

Answer 7

I think you're right. In retrospect we can see that our CIA and our politicians hugely exaggerated the strength of the Soviet Union as well as their aggressiveness and plans for 'world domination'. They did this to justify enormous defense expenditures.

Nobody was as surprised as our own CIA when the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight. Because their job was not so much to collect real intelligence but to provide evidence for politicians to make the USSR look like a threat.

Answer 8

They had enough for USA to be afraid in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Just cause USA had more long range nuclear missiles, enough to wipe out USSR 10 times over, doesn't mean USSR didn't have enough to wipe USA out 5 times over. So by your logic.. yes... 50% more powerful... but it doesn't mean much.

Answer 9

Europe was in fear of Russia Mr. Reagan said in private, ask " why are WE in the UN" He didn't have much use for the U N but "Europe was unsure which side they wanted too be on If we pulled out of the U N they [Europe] would jump into bed with the soviets " He said in public "I don't want too contain them I want too destroy them" The U K and Europe went crazy We know WHO destroy them they don't want to know

Answer 10

well they put the first satelite into orbit sputnik,and also the fist man into orbit around the earth so they was just as technologically advanced as us.they also had more numbers in their army and larger number of tanks to wage land war.i would say militarily and technologicallyy there was ever bit the superpower as us but economicly they was only half