>Oh, here we go again. You are twisting your own words to suit a changing position. Why is it I have to constantly remind you of your own posts:
>
>The russians build the wall to prevent people escaping to the west, but I fail to see what that has to do with the freedom of europeans in general. Most of the eastern european countries were under sovjet control. I don't see how the US made an end to it. The fall of the sovjet empire came largely from within. I don't see a particular significant US role in this whole process.
>
>"Significant" does not mean "direct action". No, we did not invade, assault, buy out, or otherwise directly tamper with the USSR. But that is not what you said, either.
>
>The Soviet Union collapsed for many reasons, not the least of which was the cost of fighting the Cold War with the US. I have made that point repeatedly with my posts. It is not a theory that I pulled out of thin air. So either justify your position, or piss off.

Ohh, insults..... You'll have to do better than that Dan. The arms race was a drain on the russian economy, in so far you're right. However, the choice of keeping up with the arms race against the US was a choice, not a neccesity to the ongoing existance of the USSR. By then the USSR already did know that the cold war would not heat up. It was their decision to start the war in afghanistan. It knew that nuclear threat was enough to keep the status quo. IOW the enormous expenses they did, was their choice, not the one of the US. You simply cannot bring an empire down by threats (or phychological pressure) alone.

The economy did drag the USSR down. By the time gorbatchev got to power there already was no way back. Too many old leaders had done nothing to solve the enormous problems in their empire. Under glasnost and perestrojka things eventually got worse and caused the empire to collapse.

What do you think would have happened if the USSR was able to have a fruitfull economy?

You love reading things into my messages, that aren't there, heh.... Great..


Walter,