>>You missed the point.

>No, I don't think so. You have a pretty good grasp of English, and your point is clear. Perhaps if Metin said something like what you have said, I'd cut him some slack.

>>Now tell me what did the US actually do that had direct impact on their economy and what is the significance of the direct US contribution in the economical downfall?

>Not an exhaustive list by any means:
>
>1) We helped Western Europe rebuild and rearm after the devastation of WW2;

That does not explain the downfall of the USSR...

>2) We provided a nuclear shield against Soviet attack, up to and beyond the point where Britain and France had their own nuclear abilities;

That does not explain the downfall of the USSR...

>3) Standing alongside our recovered allies, we helped protect the West against a potential Soviet invasion with very large Germany-based land and air forces, exercised on a constant basis, as well as a very large, two-ocean navy;

That does not explain the downfall of the USSR...

>4) We outspent the Soviet Union in military development, without crippling our economy;

That does not explain the downfall of the USSR...

>5) We funded and supplied the Afghan resistance, illustrating to the Soviets (and the world) what kind of problems their military forces suffered from.

Here you might have a minor point. However the choice to backout of afghanistan was up to the USSR and it could have avoided the cost of lives and money. Though the US provided help to the resistance the hard work was still done by afghanistan itself.

>I don't think any of those efforts were as insignificant as you make them out to be. In the end, because of their restrictive political system and inability to both compete with the US and our allies and meet the needs of their population (and client states), the Soviet Union died of exhaustion.

Those points (except the last one maybe) are about insignificant to contribute to the downfall of the USSR. The points you argue here certainly contributed in safeguarding western europe, but does not explain the downfall of the USSR.


>Nowhere will you find me saying that we did this alone. I have the utmost respect for contributions of other NATO member countries in the defense of the West, but you forget that the struggle against the USSR transcended the boundaries of continental Europe. Would the Soviet Union have eventually collapsed on its own, if the US had reverted to its pre-war isolationist policies? My guess is no.

My guess is yes. The political map would have looked different, but it does not change the poor economical, political and scientifical infrastucture that was caused by moscow politics. Russian communism would not have survived.

>Even banded together, the European nuclear club didn't have enough warheads to deter Soviet aggression.

Because, it the US could provide them cheaper. If that was not the case the french and brittish would have made sure there were earlier than they did. After all they had a nuclear program before WWII.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/france/nuke/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb#History

But discounting their weapons, the US did. As scary as it was, MAD kept the USSR in check, and our constant improvements to our nuclear arsenal was a major contributing factor to the costs of the arms race. Never mind the fact that we could spend billions developing non-nuclear weapons, put men on the moon, microwaves in every kitchen, and construct the Internet. Oh, wait, that was Gore's doing...

Again, that does not explain the downfall of the USSR. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union

You don't have to be einstein to conclude that the fall of the USSR came from within. Of course the pressure outside did not help either, but in the end it was micheal gorbatjev who was responsible.

>The long and short of it is that the US spent trillions doing all of this, and the Soviet Union just could not keep up. Could we have done it without our allies? Better to ask why we would have even bothered.

Again, that initself does not explain anything. It had enough nuclear head to bomb the earth several times, no matter how much the US would have spend on the other side. Its problem was the economy, poor leadership and military overstretch.

Got the point now?

Walter,