You'd better read the book called "The rise and fall of great empires" written by paul kennedy. It will give you a far better understanding of the events. It will also give you a definition of military overstretch.

>>The US had no significant role in the fall of the warsaw pact as the main reason was the economic reasons from within. The US had little to do with the actuall fall AFAICS. It has to do with the beginning of it.

>What do you think weakened the Soviet Union to the point where it could no longer control its empire? Did Gorbachev wake up one morning and suddenly decide "hey, we suck, lets pull the plug"?

The failed ideology of communism, perhaps ??

>>Sure I do. But a question to you. What were the motives behind this? Do you have a full understanding of all the motives?

>Umm, yeah, I think I have a pretty good idea.

I doubt if you have. Lets hear your version..

>>>The West won the Cold War, not solely due to the actions of the US, but in a large part because of it.
>>
>>Again, I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Please read back, the argument I'm making here is that I don't agree with the statement that if the US did not help us, we would not have freedom up here because we would have been occupied by the russians. I find that a very strong statment because the cold war on the european continent was controlled by the allies, not US only. It is very unlikely that the other allied forces would have sit and waited to be overrun by the russians.

>You really need to read up on your history. Continental Europe was a basket case after the war. We helped get you back on your feet. If Russia had decided to march in the '40s or '50s, they would have either conquered a large part of Western Europe or it would be glowing in places right now.

Again, you're beeing too ego-centric here. There is a lot more outside of contenental europe than US only. A 16 million Canadians and a 60 million british do not count do they??

>Once the economies and populations of the West started to recover, then they were able to contribute more and more to their own self-defense. If Europe and the US had not stood together, though, we would have very different international boundaries over there. I'm not dismissing the Allied contribution. However, you are dismissing the US contribution. Who's insulting whom here?

I'm not dismissing the US contribution (When are you going to read what I'm saying). Please read back. We are thankfull of the help the US gave us. But bear in mind the following.

- The US *charity* of the marshall plan was not only because the felt they had to help us out of *charity*. It simply was in the US interest to do so. Nonetheless we were thankfull as it speeded up our recover from the war.

- Nuclear arms were developped in france and brittain at that very same time. If we agree upon the cold was stayed cold because of nuclear thread, then I don't see why we would not have managed without the US.

>>The cold war ended because of the fall of russian communism asa result of bankrupcy, not by the muscles showed by the west. The west did not beat comminism, but (russian)communism beat itself to death.
>
>This is not my only source for this conclusion, but from http://americanhistory.si.edu/subs/history/timeline/end/index.html:
>
>Throughout the 1980s, the Soviet Union fought an increasingly frustrating war in Afghanistan. At the same time, the Soviet economy faced the continuously escalating costs of the arms race. Dissent at home grew while the stagnant economy faltered under the combined burden. Attempted reforms at home left the Soviet Union unwilling to rebuff challenges to its control in Eastern Europe.

Which can be summarised as military overstretch. Anyway the economy was the main cause of the fall. What in this statment is saying that the US (and the US only) was the cause of the fall?
Please read paul kenedy, the rise and fall of great empires.

>I rest my case.

Glad you identified, I was right.

Walter,