Why did the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991?

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,680
San Antonio, Tx
that concerns the West in the first place, why didn't it collapse then?



there was no digital revolution in 1991 except for the massive advent of CDs.



he is hated by them actually.



all the above mentioned does not lead to a country be destroyed.

to destroy a country, especially like that of USSR measure, you need something else.

the media and schools keep quiet about that the USSR was destroyed by a unified massive effort on the part of Western states in order to set an example that no country should ever stand up to them.

.
Let’s be clear: the Soviet Union committed suicide, but Russia is still there. Russia is having a difficult time dealing with its loss of worldwide influence, but the current US administration is making it easy for them. Russia will continue and is not going away.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,680
San Antonio, Tx
because oil plays no role as to a country be destroyed or not.

any country is proof to any economical problem to keep itself from collapse.

countries collapse only if raided, plundered and destroyed by a foreign force.

that is what happened with the USSR.
Did it ever occur to you that the ex-Soviet leadership killed the Soviet Union? Of course it did, but it’s a hard pill to swallow.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,680
San Antonio, Tx
I digress... I can understand where you're coming from but its not really that clear cut. There are significant differences even in countries such as Australia you would not perceive them from the outside.
There are lots of sectional/regional differences in the US. Many of these are rooted in the way in which these regions and states were settled in the first place, not to mention how a few of these areas were acquired from Mexico. By “acquired”, I mean taken in war or the threat of war by the US. This includes Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Partly, this was caused by the Mexicans themselves because they needed colonists to settle the land. Native Mexican populations didn’t have much desire to settle a region like Texas because the Apache, Comanche and others were quite active (and effective) in Texas. So they turned to US immigrants who were eager to make ranches and farms in Texas.

Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California were part of the old Spanish Empire and became part of Mexico. The US fought at least one war against the Mexican government and gained these new states as a result. Nobody said it was fair, but it happened.

The American South was settled quite differently from the way in which most of the 13 colonies were settled. For one thing, the South was not nearly as heavily settled by whites as the north was, and, of course, the south’s economy was based on the cultivation of cotton and chattel slavery. The south’s economy was dependent at the time on widespread use of slave labor. The advent of the cotton gin turned what was becoming an uneconomical way to process cotton back into a very profitable enterprise. In order for the South to make up for its relatively rather low white population, southern politicians succeeded in getting congress to approve counting Black slaves as 3/5th of a person, which seems fairly outrageous since these folks had no voice in anything. There was little industry in the south compared to the north.

California was a bit of an outlier because up until the 1860s a couple of mountain ranges made it very difficult to get there. The railroads changed all that and it must have decimated the west coast shipping industry, not to mention the sailing vessels that were abandoned in San Francisco Bay by sailors who wanted to cash-in on the 1848 Gold Rush.

More later...
 
Likes: VHS

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,680
San Antonio, Tx
Where am I going with the above paragraphs? If you should be so happy to entertain a statement that communism is backwards, you should at least also spend the time to get to know and understand the life and times of Joseph McCarthy. Then come back to the water cooler to discuss things about McCarthyism. Let me leave this by saying it is the practice and consequences of a life of making accusations of subverted or treasonous ideas in the absence of the proper regards for the place of evidence, or even understanding where any evidence would come from in the first place. It's liable to its own set of nuances, that come with political propaganda, without even having a clue about the problems of political propaganda in the first place.

But don't let the 6 o'clock news cycle get in the way of a good argument.
McCarthyism ran from about 1950 to 1957, or shortly before McCarthy basically committed suicide by alcohol. He was definitely a scourge upon the land and caused a lot of people to retreat in the face of his baseless accusations. He wasn’t the first practitioner in US history to practice the politics of fear and he won’t be the last. President Eisenhower hated him, but I think Tricky Dick Nixon rather admired him.

It is interesting (to me, anyway) that once McCarthy met his match in hearings he was conducting against the US Army, its counsel basically demolished McCarthy in a single committee hearing that left the Senator from Wisconsin basically sputtering incoherently for all the world to see. He was done after that, but he had done plenty of damage in the meantime. There is a newsreel that you can probably find online that shows this remarkable senate session.

My point here is that McCarthy was finished by 1957, a good 33 years before the Soviet Union fell apart and I rather doubt that there was anything the Senator did that brought the demise of the SU about. In other words, basically zero effect, since his ridiculous charges were aimed against law-abiding US citizens. McCarthy was pretty effective at hurling false charges around, but, like the emperor who wore no clothes, the Army’s lead attorney knew how to expose him for the nutjob he was.

I think some people make way too much of the Senator’s baseless accusations which had no effect on the demise of the Soviet Union. That demise was a home-grown affair, a suicide.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,174
Brassicaland
There are lots of sectional/regional differences in the US. Many of these are rooted in the way in which these regions and states were settled in the first place, not to mention how a few of these areas were acquired from Mexico. By “acquired”, I mean taken in war or the threat of war by the US. This includes Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Partly, this was caused by the Mexicans themselves because they needed colonists to settle the land. Native Mexican populations didn’t have much desire to settle a region like Texas because the Apache, Comanche and others were quite active (and effective) in Texas. So they turned to US immigrants who were eager to make ranches and farms in Texas.

Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California were part of the old Spanish Empire and became part of Mexico. The US fought at least one war against the Mexican government and gained these new states as a result. Nobody said it was fair, but it happened.

The American South was settled quite differently from the way in which most of the 13 colonies were settled. For one thing, the South was not nearly as heavily settled by whites as the north was, and, of course, the south’s economy was based on the cultivation of cotton and chattel slavery. The south’s economy was dependent at the time on widespread use of slave labor. The advent of the cotton gin turned what was becoming an uneconomical way to process cotton back into a very profitable enterprise. In order for the South to make up for its relatively rather low white population, southern politicians succeeded in getting congress to approve counting Black slaves as 3/5th of a person, which seems fairly outrageous since these folks had no voice in anything. There was little industry in the south compared to the north.

California was a bit of an outlier because up until the 1860s a couple of mountain ranges made it very difficult to get there. The railroads changed all that and it must have decimated the west coast shipping industry, not to mention the sailing vessels that were abandoned in San Francisco Bay by sailors who wanted to cash-in on the 1848 Gold Rush.

More later...
These are mentioned because someone mentioned the USA previously.
The inland USA is way poorer than the coastal areas; then, the Southeast is way poorer than the Northeast.
I haven't even memorized the shapes and names of the US states; even so, I have a brief idea about American areas of prosperity:
The first tier should be the original 13 colonies.
California and others on the Pacific Coast are also quite prosperous (except for Alaska.)
List of U.S. states by GDP per capita - Wikipedia

Let's do the last 15 states:
Mississippi, Idaho, West Virginia, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Maine, Kentucky, Montana, Florida, New Mexico, Tennessee, Missouri, Michigan, and Nevada.
Why are these states so subpar in economic performance?
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,680
San Antonio, Tx
well, you guys... scary how you West folks misunderstand life's events; and this while the West is still in possession of forces to destroy the world completely.

of course China is better than Russia as has always been, so don't make mistake about China... also, of course we Soviets were extremely weak against you Westerners because we had lived in a state where most things were for free, and then we got thrown into a world where you pay for everything.

Russia was doomed as it opened itself to the world market without a proper defense of own manufacture in advance. 1990s followed, over which the West gloated, and which obviously would never be forgotten and forgiven by Russians.



freedom? what freedom?.. the free pay no taxes, only levy them. Europe and the West are good old feudalisms, only covered up by 'democracy-schlemocracy' propaganda.
“The free pay no taxes”. Really? How naive can you be? How is national defense paid for without taxes? Oh yes, the ‘government’ pays for it secretly - ROFL.
The funny thing is, I agree that throwing a people who are blissfully unaware of the true cost of things into a capitalist world can cause large disruptions in a society unused to such things. But the truth seems to be that the ex-soviet economy was well and truly plundered and stolen from the inside by ex-soviet apparachiks (sp?) who got away with it. It wasn’t “evil westerners’ that did this, although there may have been some involvement - it was an inside job: theft from within.
About soviet industry: if the manufactured products from the SU were good and outstanding, there would be and would have been an international market for them.
Ex-Soviet arms - planes, tanks, etc - were very good in some instances and those products have found a place in the world market and will continue to do so as long as the quality is maintained.