Talk:Predictions of Soviet collapse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Predictions of Soviet collapse is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Zbigniew Brzezinski

Don't forget to include Zbigniew Brzezinski on this list.—thames 03:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

we need a cite. Here are clear statements otherwise: in 1976 he was predicting the Soviet Union would be practically unchanged for several more generations to come: "A central question, however, is whether such social change [modernization] is capable of altering, or has in fact already altered in a significant fashion, the underlying character of Soviet politics. That character, as I have argued, has been shaped largely by political traditions derived from the specifics of Russian / Soviet history, and it is deeply embedded in the operational style and institutions of the existing Soviet system. The ability of that system to resist de-Stalinization seems to indicate a considerable degree of resilience on the part of the dominant mode of politics in the Soviet context. It suggests, at the very least, that political changes are produced very slowly through social change, and that one must wait for at least several generations before social change begins to be significantly reflected in the political sphere." from his essay in The Dynamics of Soviet Politics, ed. Paul Cocks, (1976) pp 337-51

A few weeks after Reagan's prediction of the fall of Communism Brzezinski responded (June 9, 1983): "The Soviet Union may be beset by massive domestic crises by the late 1980s, but these problems will probably still be contained by the highly regimented and bureaucratically assertive Soviet political system. " In Quest of National Security p 14. Rjensen 05:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Brzezinski wrote The Grand Failure, which was published in 1989 before the collapse of Soviet power throughout Eastern Europe and the fall of the Berlin Wall. In that book he predicts such a collapse. See review here: [1]. Also, the Zbigniew Brzezinski article says that his master's thesis predicted a break-up of the Soviet Union along ethnic nationality lines, which this interview with Brzezinski corroborates.—thames 15:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Please add it-- i dont have time between classes now, I have learned that asking others to do things on talk pages never works, no one bothers. MAybe with a similar caveat as Kennan on this page, that he predicted its collapse, then change his mind. So please, add it. Thanks for contributions!Travb 17:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
At age 20 Brzezinski in 1950 in an unpublished paper predicted the breakup of the USSR. Indeed. The problem is that when he did publish he said the USSR would last for generations. His predictions in 1989 were pretty thin gruel. His basic explanation for the weakness of the USSR is copied from Reagan's 1982 address. [ "failed to take into account the basic human craving for individual freedom ..." (p. 242).] He said there were 5 possibilities for USSR: identified five alternatives: 1. Successful pluralization, 2. Protracted crisis, 3. Renewed stagnation, 4. Coup (KGB, Military) and 5. The explicit collapse of the Communist regime. Yes, but which was most likely. He said #5 "at this stage a much more remote possibility" than alternative 2 of renewed stagnation (p. 245) FALSE PREDICTION. He also predicted chances of some form of communism existing in Soviet in 2017 was a little more than 50% (p. 243). FALSE PREDICTION. Finally when the end does come in a few more decades it will be "most likely turbulent" (p. 255). Another FALSE PREDICTION. So here we have someone after Reagan left office making predictions that were wrong. Here's a man who will never win the office pool re the playoffs. Rjensen 17:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The value of his predictions is certainly debatable. Still, he warrants inclusion because a significant number of people include him amongst those who made predictions of the USSR's collapse. We would have an uncomprehensive article otherwise.—thames 18:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
yes WIKI should include him and explain what he said. It is Brzezinski himself who goes around boasting of his predictions. Rjensen 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kennan

Kennan needs to be cited. I will leave it on the page for a week or two, then I will delete it if it is not cited. I think it is important to verfiy everything on this page.Travb 17:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Working on it.—thames 17:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namespace

The longish title is quite unwieldy. Would my fellow editors approve of a page move to Predictions of the collapse of the Soviet Union or something to that effect? The Manual of Style prefers the most common terms in namespaces, and the USSR's article on Wikipedia uses "Soviet Union", so I think we ought to use it as well here. Also to consider, is collapse the best word? Should we consider "fall", "dissolution",or "breakup"? I don't necessarily have a preference on this point.—thames 18:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the suggestion of the even more concise Predictions of Soviet collapse from here would also be good.—thames 21:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

yes I prefer "Predicting Soviet collapse". Most of the predictors are individuals not groups, and it was not necessarily tied to Cold War. Rjensen 21:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "Predicting" would work, as namespaces are supposed to be nouns rather than verbs. But "Predictions of Soviet collapse" would still work just fine. If you and Travb aren't opposed I can go ahead and make that move.—thames 22:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
yes I'm ok with "Predictions of Soviet collapse" Rjensen 22:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
moved....Travb 04:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote about Reagan

Why does Reagan have a long quote from an "analyst" explaining how brilliant he was? This is not the case for anyone else in the article, and the analyst's statement is really only dubiously related to the subject of this article. The article (which, I agree, should be moved to something like Predictions of the collapse of the Soviet Union) is about predictions, not about policy. And, at any rate, the statements in that quote contain some highly debatable implications - i.e. that Reagan's hardline policies in the early 80s contributed materially to the fall of the Soviet Union - which should not be presented as fact, since it's highly disputed. john k 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

the literature about Reagan's prediction is about 50 times longer than anyone else, except Kennan, as explained in the snippet from a scholar. Predicitions and policy were very closely tied together and that's what makes the subject important. People who thought the USSR was invulnerable took a differnt policy. Kennan's ideas are esp important because they tied to policy as well. Rjensen 03:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Generally, I don't think we should exclude useful content. What would be more helpful would be expansion of the other sections. I would love to have quotes from analysts explaining why those various predictions were important or insightful or brilliant, etc. No one is excluding other sections from having long quotes, it's just that we haven't found appropriate quotes to put in yet. Instead of complaining about the imbalance, you could use Google, Nexis, or a library to help balance the article.—thames 04:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with john k,to my understanding, and correctly me if I am wrong, in the cited British speech Reagan quotes no where about the fall of the Soviet Union. The actual quote about the fall of the USSR was a speech in Florida. As per footnote one.Travb 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I think the long quote should remain.Travb 04:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It's very unclear what Ronald Reagan's 'prediction' actually consisted of, and bulky quotations lacking specifics are not clarifying what Reagan actually believed or acted on. Reagan seems to be mostly making a statement of faith that communism was destined to fail, not a rational prediction. Reagan didn't even understand that changes had started in the Soviet Union until Margaret Thatcher pointed it out to him.
Gorbachev, on the other hand, did not predict the political dissolution of the USSR, but predicted quite specifically that the USSR would collapse economically unless there was a major intervention (perestroika), although obviously the prediction was not stated publicly until he was in power and began glasnost, and by then it could be argued it wasn't exactly a prediction since he was inside the Soviet government and knew that the (economic) collapse had already started. Peter Grey 04:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read the first paragraph Peter. No one can second guess what Reagan actually thought. Reagan said: "I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last — last pages even now are being written." That seems pretty prophetic to me. I don't care for Reagan one iota, but I am not going to read much into what he said.
In regards to Gorby, add a verifiable, footnoted quote about this please.Travb 04:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is arguing that Reagan assembled a wide range of data, analyzed it, ran regressions, and concluded therefore that the Soviet Union was going to fall. But it's pretty black and white that he predicted the failure of Communism and the Soviet Union. If nothing else, the fact that he is (probably the most) popularly recognized of the various people who predicted the collapse certainly warrants his inclusion. I wouldn't be against including a section on Gorby if sources can be found.—thames 04:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there are some liberals who can't stand the idea that Reagan predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. Being a far left liberal myself, this does not destroy my belief system, but in others it might. Travb 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reagan was significant, not because he made nice speeches, but because he appreciated that economic forces could undermine the Soviet state, and that the competition in military spending could add to the stresses on the Soviet economy. The point is not that Reagan's was a lesser prediction than the others, but it needs a little more context to explain that it was a prediction, and not just a leap of faith or a lucky guess.

Citations for Gorbachev will be easy to find; all his biographers refer to his recognition that the CPSU command economy was failing, although it's very much a different kind of prediction, as he believed that with reform communism itself would survive. I'm not sure if that would fit with this article. It's an interesting irony that Gorbachev was one of the last to realize that the Soviet Union, as a political entity, was collapsing. Peter Grey 06:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not objecting at all to Reagan's mention in the article, or to the quote from Reagan. What I am objecting to is the hagiographical quotation of an otherwise unidentified "analyst" talking about how Reagan's personal role stands out, from an article which apparently is trying to show that Reagan the Hawk won the Cold War and destroyed the Soviet Union by his military build-up. The Knopf quote is part of an extremely debatable polemical argument, which probably the majority of scholars (who feel that Gorbachev's role was key to the break-up of the Soviet Union when it did, and that it was Reagan's more dovish foreign policy in his second term, which helped give Gorbachev the leverage to pursue his ultimately USSR-killing reforms) would reject. Furthermore, it is not even germane to the issue at hand, which is whether Reagan predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is simply inappropriate to provide a long quote from an article which is making a controversial argument and not to supply any counter-arguments. john k 06:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If Kenny can find a different interpretation than Knopf then he should present it, with suitable references please. Wiki does not blank out scholarly arguments that one editor happens to disagree with. If there is a debate Wiki's job is to present both sides, not to suppress news of the denate. And please avoid POV language like "hagiographical"--it shows a reluctance to engage in serious discussion about history. The Knopf quote is exactly germane to the matter of why we are discussing predictions in the first place. Rjensen 21:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
john k, I suggest you don't use such big words as hagiographical in the first place. I had to look up what the word meant. (A worshipful or idealizing biography.)
john k, Rjensen is not going to let you delete the paragraph without a fight, so unless you want to avoid a protacted revert war, I suggest doing as Rjensen asks: "If Kenny can find a different interpretation than Knopf then he should present it, with suitable references please. "Travb 21:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Russians laugh when you say that Reagan beat them in the Cold War. The Libertarian Economist magazine, on Reagans death, said that he hastened Communism death by 20 years. I think that Rjensen, as an apparent Reaganite, is over emphasizing Reagan's role in the collapse of the Cold War. But that does not lessen his prediction. If you want to argue Reagan's role of the collapse of Communism, I would suggest the Reagan talk page. I already started this conversation there.Travb 06:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Trav, I am arguing about the use of the quote from Jeffrey Knox in this article, which I think is inappropriate, as it doesn't really pertain to the issue of whether or not Reagan predicted the fall of the Soviet Union - Knox is using the fact of Reagan's prediction to make the argument that Reagan won the cold war. john k 18:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Kewl. john k delete it, and risk gettng into a revert war with Reaganite Rjensen. But I warn you, I have been in revert wars with Rjensen before, and it is not pretty. He is the most intellegent conservative I have ever been up against on wikipedia.
I personally could care less about keeping it in or leaving out the Jeffrey Knox quote, one way or the other.
But if the Jeffrey Knox quote causes this entire article to be in jeopardy as the earlier [[Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR|precuser to this article]] was voted for deletion by people simply because Reagan was on the list, I think it should be deleted. My number one concern is keeping this article on wikipedia.
BTW john k Can you vote here:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR
I would ultimately want to keep both the category and the article, because the category will draw more people to this article to contribute, but the category is in dire jeopardy. Please vote.Travb 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't particularly think there should be a category. As to this article, I think I shall wait and see if Rjensen responds. I've found him reasonable in other contexts. john k 03:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Józef Pilsudski

Let's not forget him either, despite making his predictions back in the 1920s. In fact, Brzezinski's master's thesis bears a striking resemblance to Pilsudski's idea of using nationalities to break apart the Soviet Union.—thames 04:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Frame for Predictions

We had this discussion over on the category page, since your efforts will probably get it deleted, I will soon, I will cut and copy it here:

[edit] Why limit to post-World War II?

Moved from: Talk:Mensheviks and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR

[edit] Moved from: Talk:Mensheviks

...Well, it is certainly true that the Mensheviks predicted that Lenin's experiment would collapse (see, e.g., Sukhanov's account where he confronts Kamenev on October 25, 1917), but so did everybody else in 1917-1922 or thereabouts. Shouldn't we limit the category to a later period, when the USSR looked stable, to make it more useful? Ahasuerus 14:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I was thinking about that too. But when is the cut off? Travb 14:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I would think that any predictions made during the Russian Civil War in 1918-1920 or the uprisings and famines in 1921-1922 would be too common to be notable. Then we have the famous intra-Party infighting in 1923-1927, although otherwise the regime looked fairly stable. Then the deterioration of the economy in 1928-1929, which led to the upheavals of 1930-1933, with more rebellions, famine, etc. Then we have a more stable economy in 1934-1939, but on the other hand, the Great Purge is under way from late 1934 on, the eradication of the old Bolshevik elite, accounts of gigantic conspiracies, etc. And then it's WWII time, with stunning Soviet defeats in 1941-1942.
So I guess anything pre-1945 would be of questionable notability. Hm, which reminds me that back in 1951 Collier's Weekly dedicated a whole issue to the "coming nuclear war with the USSR", which predicted a Soviet defeat after 2 years of fighting, an occupation of the former Soviet Union by UN forces and a re-establishment of democracy under UN auspices. I should probably dig it up and add it to the Colliers article. Ahasuerus 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from: User talk:Travb

Got it! Point your browser of choice to http://www.norfacad.pvt.k12.va.us/fac_staff/~rezelman/research.htm , search for "Collier" and check out the cover of the October 27, 1951 issue :) Ahasuerus 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from: Categories_for_deletion

...In a conversation with User:Ahasuerus we agreed to limit the time period to post world war 2, since before WW2 so many people thought that the USSR would collapse that it makes the category unwieldly. Maybe the title: Cold-War groups which predicted the collapse of the USSR? What do you think? "Predicted a Soviet collapse", which KonradWallenrod suggested is a great suggestion, but maybe not precise enough.... Travb 04:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Why limit to post-World War II? Why not just be selective in terms of the quality of the individuals or organizations making the predictions? KonradWallenrod 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to KonradWallenrod first posted here

thanks for your great suggestions, I agree, that we should be selective in terms of the quality of the individuals.

Andrei Amalrik and Emmanuel Todd definatly are the best canidates for the list. Please see this category's talk page for the reason why each person is on the list.

For example, I hesitated to include Ronald Reagan but included him only because I included Konrad Adenauer, who I am not familar with his writings.

I have already asked the German wikipedia to please expand on what exactly Klaus Mehnert wrote.

I created three pages just so that I could add them this category, Klaus Mehnert, Smenavekhites, and Problems of Communism (journal).

I wrote the staff of Problems of Communism (journal) to find the article which predicted the fall.

I will attempt to find all of the articles which "predict" this.

User:Ahasuerus, (as now mentioned above) said that he found a Collier's Weekly article which we may want to include

This category is definatly a work in progress.

KonradWallenrod wrote: "Why limit to post-World War II?" See User:Ahasuerus's response, above. Signed:Travb 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep the article. It's an important historiographical debate with numerous articles and books. It's important for several reasons--as John Gaddis argues, international relations theory is thin gruel if it can't make reasonable predictions. Rjensen 01:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen. I also agree with Ahasuerus: Leave the category to the baying pack, and write a stub today for an article on "Predictions of Soviet collapse." Anatopism 01:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Cold-War groups which predicted the collapse of the USSR done.Travb 20:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There does need to be some way to limit the meaning of 'predicted' and 'collapse' to something notable. That requires a context where the prediction was well-founded but contrary to conventional wisdom. Also we can note that while people may have predicted the 'collapse' of communism, or of post-Imperial Russia, no-one was predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union before 1922 (since it didn't exist yet). And after a few years of glasnost (1988, I think), people inside the Soviet Union were starting to predict collapse, but by then it wasn't such a stretch. (And of course Hitler's prediction of the military collapse of the Soviet Union in 1941 was something completely different.) Peter Grey 08:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Limits: Post world war 2. Emmanuel Todd and Andrei Amalrik should remain in the first paragraph, because they wrote entire books predicting that the Soviet Union will collapse. Will add sentence from Laqueur, Walter (1996). The Dream that Failed : Reflections on the Soviet Union, USA: Oxford University Press, today. Which will give a caveat: most people didn't seriously think that the USSR would collapse, even those who predicted it (Except for Emmanuel Todd and Andrei Amalrik).Travb 17:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not in the loop

Reagan's prediction is important because it shaped American foreign policy in a decisive way. The others---well, not really in the loop. We still don't have an Adenauer quote, and the DeGaulle I think is meaningless. (Stalin could have said it!) Brzezinski made his predictions when out of power. Kennan's ideas really caught the attention of top people, but he was never himself in a powerful job. Rjensen 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Did Reagan at any point predict the time frame when the collapse would occur? Peter Grey 03:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
good question (it needs to be researched). By "soon" Reagan meant the time was here to push it into collapse. The key point is that he turned policy around: "the USSR will collapse soon so let's push hard" (so to speak.) In East Europe (esp Poland) the word was out the system was on the verge of collapse, so they pushed hard. In USSR the sense of doom was very strong, esp as everyone could see the collapse of the leadership of three dying leaders in a row. Rjensen 03:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
"In four major speeches delivered in 1982, 1983, 1987, and 1988, Ronald Reagan said the system was going down.
1 At Westminster in 1982, he noted as simple fact that "of all the millions of refugees we've seen in the modern world, their flight is always away from, not toward, the Communist world," and he consigned Marxism-Leninism to the "trash heap of history."
2 In 1983, he said Communism is a "sad, bizarre chapter in history, whose last pages even now are being written."
3 In 1987, at the Brandenburg Gate, he stressed: "In the Communist world we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind - too little food." And he proclaimed that his cold war policies were based on the assumption that the Soviet Union was a "basket case." Economics, Reagan believed, was the Soviet Union's primary failing. As a good pupil of the market economists, he explained that weakness as derivative from the fact that it is impossible for government planners, no matter how sophisticated, to ever substitute for the judgment of "millions of individuals," for the "incentives inherent in the capitalist system." 83 These conclusions were out of line with the advice he had been receiving from experts in the C.I.A., the Defense and State Departments. Seemingly, the President had his own sources, some of whom were in the Defense Intelligence Agency and the RAND Corporation." --Anticipations of the Failure of Communism Theory and Society, Vol. 23, No.2, Special Issue on the Theoretical Implications of the Demise of State Socialism. (Apr., 1994), pp. 169-210.
83 Edwin Meese, "The man who won the Cold War," Policy Review 60 (Summer 1992):36-39.
No dates though...
Signed:Travb 08:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digging, I found some interesting info

I found this on a disabled "Rush Forum board" on Google cache, from anagramking Posted: Feb 8 2005, 11:25 AM :

Someone in the State Department wrote a thesis about the predicted fall of communism back in the early 60s. A number of economists had said that it would fail, because its economic model was incredibly flawed. Nixon also said that Commnunism would have fallen anyway, not that I would take him on his word for anything, anyway.

No references at all are provided, so the accuracy is suspect.

I will keep digging. I emailed the person who wrote this, inviting them to join us and provide references. Travb 20:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

He/she responded:

I had no idea anybody would ask me anything about anything I wrote on TRF. LOL. I'll answer what I can for you...

The someone in the State Dept. was likely "George Kennan, the American diplomat," as your wikipedia entry reminded me. My apologies for the incorrect time period for when he wrote his thesis. If something else comes to mind, I'll let you know. It's possible that the other guy from RAND, Neuberger, might have been in my mind as well. So yes, the accuracy is suspect, as you suggested. LOL.

As for the Nixon quote, I googled and I did find this citation, though I can't get to it, as it's mentioned in a forum that I can't readily access:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=+%22It+was+inevitable%2C+communism+was+going+to+fall+anyway%22&btnG=Search

Hitting google cache it is actually appears like a quote from Reagan, post-Soviet Union.Travb 01:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dream that Failed footnotes

Laqueur, Walter (1996). The Dream that Failed : Reflections on the Soviet Union. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195102827. p. 187-191

During the 1930s and 1940s, such predictions about the ultimate fall of the Soviet regime became less popular. But they never disappeared altogether, even not during World War II when Stalinism was riding the crest of the wave.11 (Predictions during World War 2, not included in this article)

When many Western observers noted the re-emergence under Stalin of Russia as a world power, G. P Fedotov, in his article "The Fall of Soviet Power," astutely noted that revolutionary enthusiasm in the Communist party was already a spent force.12 (Predictions before World War 2, not included in this article)

Various essays published in samizdat in the early 1970s were on similar lines, some quite specifically predicting the end of the Soviet empire."13

Predictions ranged from the pessimistic views of veteran foreign correspondents who had lived in the Soviet Union (such as Eugene Lyons, W. H. Chamberlin, and Isaac Don Levine), to that of Boris Souvarine and Bertram Wolfe to less prominent writers such as the Frenchman Michel Garder. 14

Bernard Levin drew attention in 1992 to his prophetic article originally published in the Times of London in September 1977, in which an uncannily accurate prediction of the appearance of new faces in the Politburo was made, resulting in radical but peaceful political change.15

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in a series of articles and interviews from 1975 onward discussed the possibility, indeed likelihood, of the breakup of the Soviet Empire. There were dozens of similar statements, now forgotten, made all over the Western world.16

Footnotes, page 223

11. See for instance Mark Vishniak, "Pravda Antibolshevizma," Novy Zhurnal 2 (1949), an answer to Milyukov's "Pravda Bolzhevizma." See Chapter 1, n. 23.

12. G. P Fedotov, in Novy Grad 6 (1932), reprinted in G. P Fedotov, Imperiya i Svoboda (New York, 1989). This was a review of a book by S. Dimitrievsky, at the time a recent defector.

13. S. Zorin and N. Alekseev, Vremya ne zhdzt (Frankfurt, 1970); Alexander Petrov-Agatov (manuscript), excerpts in Cornelia Gerstenmaier, Die Stimme der Stummen (Stuttgart, 1971), 156-67.

14. Eugene Lyons and Isaac Don Levine, in Dilemmas of Change in Soviet Politics, ed. Zbigniew Brzezinski (New York, 1969). In the same volume Brzezinski also considered the possibility that the Soviet political system would not be able to withstand a protracted rivalry with the United States (161). See also Michel Garder, L'Agonie du régime en Russie Sovietique (The Death Struggle of the Regime in Soviet Russia)[2] (Paris, 1965).

The symposium was launched with a review of a significant French book: L'Agonie du Regime en Russie Sovietique (The Death Struggle of the Regime in Soviet Russia) by Michel Garder, a military man who has long specialized in Soviet studies. (394) The death agony, he declares, is evident in "the conflict between a decaying regime that no longer has any justification other than the personal interests of those who profit by it" and "the upper strata of the technological intelligentsia. It is a contest, M. Garder argues, that cannot end in a compromise.

There is not enough flexibility in the dictatorship. He therefore sees a collapse:probably a non-communist and perhaps anti-communist take-over with the help of the military elites. "Recognition of the harebrained absurdity of a Marxist-Leninist religion," he believes, "has long ago become inevitable for the true elite of the country and is from day to day dawning upon millions of 'average persons." There will come a moment≈he sets the date, imprudently, as 1970≈when the technological masses "will feel impelled to seize power."[3]

15. Bernard Levin, in National Interest, Spring 1993, 64-65.

16. But Moynihan also expressed the view that liberal democracy, too, faced an uncertain future. Franz Borkenau and Wilhelm Staringer predicted the Sino-Soviet conflict even before Stalin's death.

Signed: Travb 02:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating! Good work.—thames 23:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, the above is temporary,just trying to dig up as many people as possible who may have predicted the fall.Travb 23:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Workers' Paradise Lost

Lyons, Eugene (1967). Workers' Paradise Lost. New York: Paperback Library. (Full book online)

[edit] Dr. Hans J. Morgenthau of the University of Chicago

Dr. Hans J. Morgenthau of the University of Chicago analyzes several types of inertia that may prolong the regime's life, but he is not optimistic on this score. In the past, when under fire, "the regime could fail back upon its doctrine," but now "the erosion of that doctrine heralds the crisis of the regime."

The Kremlin, he writes, "has only been able to control the challenge because it has the power to set relatively narrow limits to open dissent . . . . When a totalitarian regime reaches a stage when it can afford neither to suppress dissent altogether nor to give it free reign, the tendency of the leadership is to fluctuate narrowly between relative permissiveness and relative oppression."

The question, then, is how long can it maneuver in this tight squeeze? Professor Morgenthau sees a "great chance that the regime will be, forced either to revert to Stalinist methods to maintain itself, or else to destroy itself by submitting to competition for political power."[4]

[edit] Professor Brzezinski of Columbia University

This reluctance to consider the possibility, if not the likelihood, of revolution in Russia is understandable, in the temper of academic prudence. It is even more striking in the brilliant analysis contributed by Professor Brzezinski of Columbia University, who is--at this writing--serving with the State Department as a foreign-policy adviser.

He paints perhaps the most convincing picture of a regime in decline. The party has lost most of its relevance for the new period; in fact, "Soviet history in the last few years has been dominated by the spectacle of a party in search of a role." But officialdom isn't budging: "The apparatchiki are still part of an extremely centralized and rigidly hierarchical bureaucratic organization, increasingly set in its ways, politically corrupted by years of unchallenged power . . . . Institutional conflict combined with mediocre and unstable power makes for ineffective and precarious power, . . . The youth could become a source of ferment, the consumers could become more restless, the scientists more outspoken, the non-Russian nationalities more demanding."

In short, "decay is bound to set in" and "the stability of the political system may be endangered." Already he ' discerns a "re-opening of the gap that existed in pre- revolutionary Russia between the political system and the society, thereby posing the threat of the degeneration of the Soviet system."(397) He identifies in the USSR today some of the same "indicators" of explosion that marked France, tsarist Russia, Chiang Kai-Shek's China and Rakosi's Hungary just before their respective revolutions.

The logic of this analysis points clearly to potentials of collapse. But Brzezinski stops well short of such an "apocalyptic" conclusion. Should the Kremlin choose increasing dogmatism and unleash violence against dissenters, he says, "the possibility of revolutionary outbreaks could not be discounted entirely." But that is as far as he pursues the thought.

Instead he prescribes a basement-to-garret reorganization of the regime: "The progressive transformation of the bureaucratic communist dictatorship into a more pluralistic and institutionalized political system . . . seems essential if its degeneration is to be averted." He spells out the indispensable changes. He doesn't argue that such far-reaching reform, amounting to the advent of a parliamentary-constitutional government, can be peacefully attained. Given his own picture of a decaying, half-paralyzed master-class confronting a pre-revolutionary threat, hidebound by dogma and vested interests, it would seem more "apocalyptic" to expect his suggested transformation than to' foresee a nervous breakdown, such as Russia experienced several times in this century. [5]

[edit] Wolfgang Leonhard

A German specialist who was brought up in Soviet Russia, Wolfgang Leonhard, like the others, stresses "the contradiction between economic objectives and political power interests." Should the 314,000 local party organizations devote themselves to ideological tasks or to guiding the economy? The question is urgent and the Kremlin hasn't answered it, perhaps cannot answer it without surrendering its power. However senseless the Marxist-Leninist religion-plus-economy becomes in practice, Leonhard says, "it is not likely that the party will ever abandon a doctrine which so conveniently justifies the party's role in Soviet society as well as its position within the international communist movement." (398) In effect he poses the question "evolution or revolution?" without attempting to answer it. [6] (Note: Leonhard never really delved into predicting revolution)

[edit] Robert Conquest, the British student of Soviet affairs

Perhaps the most persuasive prognosis is set forth by Robert Conquest, the British student of Soviet affairs. He, too, finds "the conditions of a classical Marxist pre- revolutionary situation," but he is less sure that the regime can muddle through. Random patching will not suffice, he believes: "It therefore appears inevitable that the pressures will continue to build up. The question that remains to be answered is whether the political integument will be destroyed explosively or will erode away gently."

But he does not seem convinced that the present leaders can take adequate measures in sufficient time to forestall explosion and adds that "in the USSR today one would not expect a great deal of time to be still available." On balance he must warn that we "should not fall into the temptation of believing the status quo to be as stable as it may appear to the superficial glance."[7]

[edit] Eugene Lyons

This is substantially my own feeling. I dare not predict a revolution in Russia, much less set a date for it like M. Garder. But we should not rule it out. It seems to me more reasonable to expect a violent upheaval than to guarantee the stability and durability of the present regime. There is no conflagration but an abundance of materials so inflammable that a spark might ignite them.

Revolution has always seemed "impossible" until it occurs, after which everyone sagely agrees that it had been "inevitable." In the last months of 1916 and the first of 1917, foreign correspondents in Petrograd, including the most anti-regime among them, were still warning that the talk of revolution was premature. A week before the 1953 uprising in East Germany, not one political specialist would have ventured to forecast such an event. The rash of bloody rebellion in Vorkuta and other Soviet concentration camps certainly had not been foreseen by the Kremlin or anyone else.

In both Poland and Hungary, we were assured by Western journalists and diplomats until the moment of the uprisings, all elements of potential revolt had been liquidated. (399) Their Red Armies had been thoroughly indoctrinated, large percentages of their officers corps were party members. Soviet forces were stationed in both countries. The former bourgeoisie had ceased to exist and youth had been brought up by Marxist-Leninist teachers.

After the event, I made a limited survey of published comment on the satellite area during the preceding year by foreign tourists, reporters, and diplomats. While many of them noted grumbling and other signs of ferment, not one mentioned the possibility of popular rebellion, or mentioned it only to deny it. On the tenth anniversary of the Hungarian revolt, Robert Murphy, who had been Deputy Undersecretary of State at the time, told an interviewer, Bob Considine: "We were caught completely by surprise. Sure, we had CIA people in there. I know: I was on the State Department's CIA board. But there was no hint from them of what was about to break out so spontaneously, so emotionally."[8]

Signed:Travb 02:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future

Keyword: "Death of the Soviet regime A study in American sovietology by a historian"

  • Western Scholarship on the Rise and Fall of the Soviet Regime: The View from 1993
  • Richard Pipes's Foreign Strategy: Anti-Soviet or Anti-Russian?
  • Was the Soviet System Reformable?
  • Writing the History of the Russian Revolution after the Fall of Communism
  • The Crisis in Soviet Ethnography
  • Review: Review Article: The Cold War Revisited
  • From the Russian Soul to Post-Communist Nostalgia

Signed:Travb 03:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The other side of the coin: Lenin on the coming Communist revolution

Interestingly enough, the Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin also had trouble with predictions. On January 22, 1917, 6 weeks prior to the February Revolution which overthrew the Romanovs and 9 months before he came to power, he said:

Just as in Russia in 1905, a popular uprising against the tsarist government began under the leadership of the proletariat with the aim of achieving a democratic republic, so, in Europe, the coming years, precisely because of this predatory war, will lead to popular uprisings under the leadership of the proletariat against the power of finance capital, against the big banks, against the capitalists; and these upheavals cannot end otherwise than with the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, with the victory of socialism.
We of the older generation may not live to see the decisive battles of this coming revolution. But I can, I believe, express the confident hope that the youth which is working so splendidly in the socialist movement of Switzerland, and of the whole world, will be fortunate enough not only to fight, but also to win, in the coming proletarian revolution.

Ahasuerus 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My international affairs teacher said that if Marx was alive, he would disown Lenin, as a fake Marxist/Communist.
This seems to be born out by this study I read yesterday, quoted in this article:
Lipset, Seymour Martin, Gyorgy Bence (April 1994). "Anticipations of the failure of communism". Theory and Society 23 (2): 169 - 210. ISSN: 0304-2421 (Paper) 1573-7853 (Online). :
Marx...rejected as utopian proposals to build communism prior to the emergence of highly industrialized countries.
The other Russian Marxists, both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, ridiculed Trotsky's theory and rejected the idea that the working class would come to power in an underdeveloped country. In 1917, however, the Bolsheviks did take over. The historical record documents that this happened because Lenin, who was a strategic genius, in effect decided that Trotsky was right, although he never acknowledged this openly. On his return from Switzerland in April 1917, he proposed that the Bolsheviks plan for the seizure of power. All the other leaders of the party thought he had lost his bearings and rejected his policy. (etc, read the article...)
Marx's theory implied the effort to build socialism in a less developed society would result in a sociological abortion. If those words do not describe what happened in the Soviet Union, nothing does. Karl Marx anticipated that the premature creation of a socialist state would be a fetter on the means of production, not a goad, and would be repressive and reactionary. Marx would not have believed that the ruling class of the sociological abortion would give up as benignly as it has.
Finally, we would note that although Marx was right about the failure of efforts to create socialism in pre-industrial societies, he was wrong in anticipating the socialist revolution in advanced industrial ones. The United States apart, they all have significant socialist or social democratic parties, but without exception all of these have now given up socialist objectives; they all endorse the market economy as the best means to produce increased productivity and a higher living standard for the underprivileged. Socialism and Marxism may be considered failures not because of developments in the formerly Communist world, but because of their inability to point the way for the advanced countries.
Signed:Travb 18:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I deleted Klaus Mehnert

I deleted:

Klaus Mehnert referred to the advanced ideological exhaustion of the Soviet Union. [1]

His works are not referenced in the book, and it is rather vague whether he actually predicted the collapse. I messaged the German wikipedia about this, for more information but got no response.Travb 18:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headings by Phase rather than decade

I changed the headings to phases of the Cold War, rather than by decade. I think that's slightly more illustrative for the reader, as it places the predictions in the political/intellectual context of the time. It also reduces the number of headings, which is easier on the reader and casual browser.

  • Early Cold War is anything from post-WWII through 1969
  • Detente lasts from 1969 to 1979 or thereabouts
  • Late Cold War is from 1979 through 1989/1991 depending on when you date the exact end.

Hope this is cool with everyone.—thames 20:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

very good idea! Rjensen 20:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say that maybe the Early Cold War should only go to about 1963, and then 1963-1979 should be the next phase. The late 60s were more like the 70s, in terms of the acceptance of the permanence of the Cold War, and the lessening fear of nuclear war, than they were like the early cold war. john k 20:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Initially I thought "that idea sucks" but looking at it, it looks wonderful, good job.Travb 20:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Were any of these predictions precise?

Reading this article, it seems that a lot of people claimed that the Soviet Union would collapse - someday. That's hardly a controversial prediction for a Western politician to make, so I'm sure we could find hundreds of additional cites to add to this list if we wanted to. But, other than Andrei Amalrik, were any of these prognosticaters willing to put their reputation on the line and predict a date when they thought the Soviet Union would have collapsed by? Overall, this article seems to prove that academics and politicians say a lot of things and it's easy to look brilliant if you wait until events have occurred and then go back and look for the proper quotes. MK2 04:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Very few people made the prediction. at the time is was highly controversial to make the prediction, because it implied escalating the Cold War to hurry the process. Reagan in particular was attacked, with massive rallies all across the US and W Europe denouncing his policies. Rjensen 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Good comments and great insights, MK2 thanks for participating, we look forward to your contributions to this new endeavour in building this wikipage.
MK2 wrote: But, other than Andrei Amalrik, were any of these prognosticaters willing to put their reputation on the line and predict a date when they though the Soviet Union would have collapsed by?
The answer is yes. There was one specialist, Michel Garder who predicted a date of 1970 in 1965. See refrence to him above, and the page I created.
MK2 wrote: Overall, this article seems to prove that academics and politicians say a lot of things and it's easy to look brilliant if you wait until events have occurred and then go back and look for the proper quotes.
In the case of Bernard Levin, it was very self-serving, he did "go back and look for the proper quotes". Bernard Levin (himself) drew attention in 1992 to his prophetic article originally published in the Times of London in September 1977, in which an uncannily accurate prediction of the appearance of new faces in the Politburo was made, resulting in radical but peaceful political change.
But there were a lot of acedemics who predicted the collapse of the USSR, before the collapse.
It is amazing that all of Western acedimia was completly shocked by the fall, as Eugene Lyons said above:
Revolution has always seemed "impossible" until it occurs, after which everyone sagely agrees that it had been "inevitable." In the last months of 1916 and the first of 1917, foreign correspondents in Petrograd, including the most anti-regime among them, were still warning that the talk of revolution was premature. A week before the 1953 uprising in East Germany, not one political specialist would have ventured to forecast such an event...
What Rjensen said is 100% correct: There is a growing debate among scholars on the issue. John Gaddis argues that international relations theory is pretty thin gruel if it could not predict an event as big as this one.
Signed:Travb 05:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Assuming good faith, I believe the point was that the predictions, as described in the article in its current state, seem vague and unremarkable. I like to think it is simply a matter of time until the article finds the right level of detail. Of course, one can find any number of "predictions" that were mere lucky guesses if one searched far enough. General predictions of crisis in the Soviet Union was not a real stretch to people with real economic data (but there were not many of those because real data on the Soviet economy was secret). But some were predicting that economic pressure would force the Soviet leadership into embracing reform, accepting someone like Gorbachev, and ultimately endorsing limited forms of freedom of speech and democracy - that's a rather more significant insight. Peter Grey 05:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • My point was that these "predictions" were so vague, it's meaningless to say whether or not they came true and to ascribe any special insight to the people who made them. You could just as easily find a bunch of people who "predicted" the American invasion of Iraq or Clinton's impeachment or the Red Sox winning the World Series. And on a similar note, if the Soviet Union was still around in 2006 and we still lived in a bipolar world, I'm sure you could find quotes from every person cited in this article showing that they had predicted this as well. MK2 18:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Sovietologists and the CIA were completly caught off guard by the collapse. As I mentioned below, the point of this article is two fold, one too list who got it right and why they got it right, and two to learn from those mistakes so there will not be any more surprises in the future. People, a lot of people get paid to make predictions, and almost everyone was completly wrong. MK2, you may not think this article is worth anything, but several specialists and authors do (see the footnotes). Travb 19:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Collapse of US?

The big question I asked myself in creating this wikipage was if it could happen in the USSR, can it happen here? What can we learn from the collapse of the USSR and other empires, to foretell or avoid the collapse of our empire? What can history teach us?

Let me share my own (non-scholarly) prediction: that the 20th century was the American century, and the 21st century is the Chinese. That within 20 years America will collapse too, much in the same way that the USSR did, with different ethnicites in the US tearing the US apart.

Emmanuel Todd , who predicted the fall of the USSR recently came out with a book stating that the collapse of the US is on the horizon, "After the Empire — The Breakdown of the American Order." If I get up enough courage to fight the mindless and unimaginative "baying pack" (who voted to delete this category--and to borrow the term used by User:Anatopism), I eventually want to write a corresponding Predictions of US collapse, using current specialist's and achedemics predictions. Just like before the collapse of the USSR a small minority of specialist and acedemics have joined Todd in predicting the collapse of the US.

I know apocolypse books on the collapse of society in general and the collapse of the US in particular are a dime a dozen. So maybe this is too broad to write a wikiarticle on...In addition I don't know if I want to deal with the "baying pack".

I have already collected some articles on the subject of the predicted collapse of the US.Travb 04:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team B and Reagan

About two years ago I learned about Emmanuel Todd and found it facinating that someone predicted the collapse of the USSR. I had my brother's wife check out the book "The final fall: An essay on the decomposition of the Soviet sphere" from her university. I actually never got around to reading the book.

Then I was doing research on the Team B article. Team B was composed of the same neo-conservatives who cooked up the intellegence for the Iraq war. As I (and others, have written on the page):

The 1970's Team B experiment to study Soviet military capablities was created by American conservative cold warriors determined to stop détente and the SALT process. Panel members were all hard-liners. The experiment was leaked to the press in an unsuccessful attempt at an October surprise to derail Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential bid. The Team B reports became the intellectual foundation for the idea of "the window of vulnerability" and of the massive arms buildup that began toward the end of the Carter administration and accelerated under President Reagan.

Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfield all had a part in Team B. As the article states:

According to Dr. Anne Cahn (Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-1980) "I would say that all of it was fantasy... if you go through most of Team B's specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong."[9]

Just like the Iraq war, the neoconservatives created an imaginary threat, and the "braying herd" went along with it.

In the book Cahn, Anne H. (September, 1998). Killing Detente: The Right Attacks the CIA. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0271017910. Cahn briefly mentions Andrei Amalrik book. Surprisingly, I had found a second person who had predicted the collapse of the USSR, where up until 2 years ago, I thought no one had predicted the fall. The more research I did, the more I realized a lot more people had predicted the fall of the USSR. Thus this wikiarticle was born.

But back to Team B. Team B destroyed Detente, and caused an escalation of the Cold War. The members of Team B are vicious, murderous hawks. And these same members have now escalated the War on Terror too, also based on false intellegence.

User:Rjensen and I disagree on this point: I feel that the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway, without the huge arms buildup. Since this is alternative reality speculation, there is no way to prove this just like there is no way that User:Rjesen can prove that Reagan won the Cold War.

Was the collapse of the USSR necessarily a good thing?

In addition, unlike User:Rjensen and most Americans, I see the collapse of the USSR in 1991 as generally a bad thing, especially for the Soviets. I lived in the poverty and the debris of the former USSR for 2 and a half years, I saw people's dispair and I heard the vast majority wax nostalgic for the pre-Gorbechov USSR.

The collapse of the USSR ended the Cold War, but America simply found new public reasons to continue to expand its empire, first the war in drugs, and humanitarian missions, then the war on terror. In otherwords, America's foreign policy is the same today as before and during the Cold War.

Anyway, I am rambling. Maybe User:Rjensen, or some of you can provide me with some interesting insights into this.

Signed:Travb 05:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

did team B destroy detente. Well yes, without it we would probably be supporting the USSR even today. Was the USSR so feeble it had to collapse? no--it was less feeble than Cuba Vietnam and North Korea which are still with us. Lots of feeble countries hang on for 100 years or more. One method is denial-- you forbid people from traveling from the west. User:Rjensen
True on the latter part, but I think most scholars would say it was Gorbachev's reforms, and not American hawkishness, that led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Did the end of détente and Reagan's hawkishness and so forth bring about Gorbachev coming to power and his decision to make reforms? I'm not really sure, I haven't studied Soviet history enough to really say, but, at the very least, I think one can say that Gorbachev and his reforms weren't a necessary consequence of American policy - if another hard-liner had been chosen after Chernenko's death, or if Andropov hadn't gotten cancer, for instance, things could have gone very differently. john k 20:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Anecdote here: when I was the Fulbright professor in Moscow in 1986 I taught really bright Soviet kids. They were NOT allowed to have any contact with any other American but me and my wife. We brought baby twins with us and to get babysitters we relied on American and British college students studying Russian art/language/ history etc in Moscow. They were so frustrated they never could meet any Russians their age. It was traditional for the Fulbright professor to have a party for the Soviet students--in fact they were ordered in writing to attend. They came and were stunned to discover the apartment was full of the most forbidden thing in the whole world: American and British students. (What language would they speak. That was easy. The Russians explained they would never be allowed to visit the west and this would be the only chance in their lives to speak English with people like themseves, so they all spoke English.) My wife told me we had to go outside to smoke. "But you know I don't smoke" "Well you can start now; we have to leave these kids alone." Rjensen 06:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
...without it we would probably be supporting the USSR even today. I don't know. No one can know.
Interesting that during the Soviet Union, everyone had plenty of money, but the shelves were bare. Now the shelves are full, and no one has any money. The Russians people are chronic losers. They lost in pre-revolutionary Russia, they lost in Communist Russia, and they are losing out in Capitalist Russia.
Why did your wife say: "we have to leave these kids alone?"
I am jealous Rjensen, you saw the USSR. The entire time I was in Ukraine, I felt like I had just entered the movie theater at the closing credits, missing the entire movie.
Interesting, Rjensen, you are at least, or close to a generation older than me. I was in high school in 1986. In '86 I still believed all of the propoganda, how times change.Travb 07:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knopf quote (again)

Okay, so there is opposition to removing the Knopf quote. I won't remove it again without some kind of consensus that we should, but a couple of points here.

  1. Everybody listed, other than Reagan, simple has there views explained. That is to say, we have a quote, and we have some kind of paraphrase of their basic ideas about why the Soviet Union would collapse.
  2. For Reagan, on the other hand, we have two quotes, one of them very long and possibly not quite to the point, and then we have another long quote from somebody else which seems to be an incidental comment in an article largely devoted to explaining how Reagan won the Cold War. While the quote partially explicates Reagan's views on the possible collapse of the Soviet Union, it does it kind of obliquely. The quote is clearly being put forward as support for an argument that is not made in the quoted text itself - specifically that Reagan won the Cold War through his hawkishness.
  3. Beyond this, there is no explication at all of Reagan's views - just too quotes from Reagan and a quote from a Reagan acolyte about how great Reagan war.
  4. The Knopf quote is introduced with the comment "Analyst Jeffrey W. Knopf has explained why Reagan went beyond everyone else:" - but the rest of the article is devoted to mentioning various other people who predicted the end of the Soviet Union. Why is this sentence assuming that Reagan "went beyond everyone else?" Has this been demonstrated? We note other figures like Moynihan also predicting that the Soviet Union would collapse at around the same time.

I don't think that adding another quote would be a solution to this. What's objectionable about the quote isn't that it says Reagan made a prediction of Soviet collapse, it's that it is implying that Reagan won the Cold War. The latter is outside the scope of this article, and efforts to rebut it would be completely stupid in this article. The best thing to do is to provide a more neutral summary of Reagan's views here. The argument about whether Reagan won the Cold War simply doesn't belong here at all, even in the implicit form of Knopf's quote. It belongs somewhere else. john k 21:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The question of predicting the end of the cold war is very closely related to how the cold war actually ended. That I suggest is why this article attracts so much interest. Knopf makes the very strong point that beliefs in the vulnerability of the USSR were critical to the Reagan and Gorbachev policies. Put another way, if the Soviets themselves believed in 1983 they would last another hundred years, they probably would not have bought into the radical reforms of Gorbachev [glasnost & perestroika] that in fact destabilized and ruined their system. If Americans rejected Reagan's predictions they would not have funded his military buildup and would instead have supported the nuclear freeze alternative. Beliefs matter. (we have an interesting case right now in predictions of global warming.) Rjensen 21:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
john k wrote: What's objectionable about the quote isn't that it says Reagan made a prediction of Soviet collapse, it's that it is implying that Reagan won the Cold War.
Ah, now we get to the really meat of the matter. Lets say we could prove that Reagan won the Cold War. Would this completly destroy your belief system? That Reagan did something that most Americans and Westerners percieve as beneficial to the world? I simply look at the idea of Reagan winning the Cold War as one theory which doesn't ruin my entire beleif system. Even if Reagan did win the Cold War, what was the human cost of Reagan's policies? Reagan killed thousands of people in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and Grenada. He spent billions on weapons systems while neglecitng the poor. Please see my argument below. I argue that the collapse of the USSR was not necessarily a good thing, especially for the Soviets themselves.
I agree with john k, I think the last quote should go, but I am not going to ruin my temporary alliance with Rjensen fighting him, it takes to much emotional energy debating Rjensen. Travb 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Trav - the point isn't that Reagan winning the Cold War would ruin my belief system. The point is that the issue of whether Reagan won the Cold War is completely irrelevant to the topic of this article. It's a controversial subject which ought to be discussed in detail on its own merits somewhere else. Including just the quote from Knopf is obviously POV. john k 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Knopf quote simply doesn't belong. It does not justify Reagan's reasoning, nor does it evaluate the accuracy of Reagan's 'prediction'. It only comments on the significance of Reagan's "hope for the long term". Peter Grey 06:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Knopf quote is a scholarly analysis of why Reagan's prediction was different from the others. Do people want to debate the question of did Reagan win the Cold War? That's an interesting topic but let's look here at what the prediction meant in the early 1980s. Rjensen 07:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not clear that the quote is really saying that Reagan's prediction is different from other predictions of Soviet collapse. As far as I can gather, the quote is discussing how Reagan, in expecting Soviet collapse, was different from other American leaders who did not expect Soviet collapse (and thus paved the way for American victory in the Cold WarTM). And I don't want to debate the question of whether Reagan won the Cold War. john k 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that if you read Reagan's complete speech, you'll see that he spoke of these changes occurring in the Soviet Union in another generation - he was not predicting a collapse in a few years. He also spoke of the need to reduce military arms to promote change in the USSR, which contradicts both his actual program of increased military spending as well as the retroactive defense of this spending that's been offered in its defense.
As I've said before, if we want this to be an attempt at a NPOV discussion of the topic, we have to go back and review all the statements made on this topic by the significant players, both those that were correct and those that were wrong. Picking a handful of quotes (most of them taken out of context) by a few people will inevitably result in a partisan bias.MK2 02:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this article is problematic in that sense. A broader article, that provides more context, would be better. Unfortunately, it's hard to come up with a snappy title. john k 02:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Reagan doesn't fit with the other predictions, but since he had a contribution to the Cold War, a mention is justified. I don't think the Knopf quote makes its point very well, but as long as it stays on topic (predictions, not anything else), then some comment about Reagan is appropriate. Peter Grey

[edit] Why the Gorby reforms?

Why the Gorbachev reforms? why did they start under Reagan's watch? I was in Moscow in 1986 and talked to a lot of their intellectuals. They were terrified their system was collapsing and needed emergency surgery right away. Gorby provided it...the patient died. Now why did the Russians feel that way. Because the Ukrainians and Estonians wanted independence? no. Because they realized socialism doesn't work? no. Because the USA was a terrible monster, growing fast, with new computer technology the Russians lacked, building super weapons (Star wars), and talking much nastier than ever before? Yes. They predicted their own collapse if they did not turn their country around asap. Rjensen 21:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen wrote: I was in Moscow in 1986 and talked to a lot of their intellectuals.
I lived in Ukraine for two and a half years, and although I meet hundreds of Ukrainians, the ukrianians I met usually spoke English, and had a much more international outlook then the majority of faceless Ukrainians who I never talked with.
In researching this wikipage, some experts/authors said this was part of the problem in predicting and understanding the USSR, that the Sovietologists only got the opinion of the dissenters and intellectuals. the small minority of a county of tens of millions of people.
Most of the authors state it was nationalism that caused the collapse of the USSR. Something this complex, a collapse of an entire country, cannot be attributed to one man, whether it be Gorby or Reagan.
Articles on this subject:
Signed: Travb 22:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rjensen - I think this is to some extent true, but a) Gorbachev's response was not the only possible response to the Reaganite build-up, and was perhaps not the most likely response; and b) the economic problems of the USSR were long term, and quite possibly would have come to a head in the 80s whether or not there was a Reaganite build-up. At any rate, as I said above, this is not really relevant to the subject of the article. And to Trav, nationalism only caused the collapse of the Soviet Union when it was already terminally ill. It's like one of those opportunistic diseases that AIDS patients die of - a healthy system could have easily dealt with the nationalism of the republics. It's only because the Soviet Union was already on the verge of collapse that nationalism was able to work its magic. john k 21:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, the US is much healthier than the USSR right now. We also have democracy, which means that we can change things in the US before collapse. The problem is that both the democrats and the Republicans are beholden to business interests now, and business interests are interested in short term profits, not long term stability. I think people will look back on the fair trade agreement with China as the beginning of the end.
In regards to Gorby and Reagan, lets not debate alternative realities. It is what I crudly call "mental masterbation". There is no way to "prove" what Gorby or Reagan would do if neither was there, because in fact, history shows, they were there. I love alternate realty books, (Replay, by I believe Kim Grimwood is the absolute best fiction book ever written), but in a debate, there is really no point in arguing alternate realities. It is like arguing "what would happen if God made a rock that he could not lift", there is no point, and it is a waste of time.Travb 22:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
the way to handle the question is to ask what alternatives the Soviets had. Reagan was crowding them hard and the old detente system had failed. Expansion had failed (Afghanistan). They had to do SOMETHING -- a series of half-dead rulers left them with few options. Gorby proposed radical surgery--with the risk that it would kill the patient. Only a country under real pressure takes that option. (and it did kill the patient). Rjensen 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen wrote: the way to handle the question is to ask what alternatives the Soviets had.
What if I said that the USSR could continue with its same old same old, or that the KGB could have assinated Yeltsin, or the USSR could become a capitalist China. These are all alternate realities.
Rjensen wrote: Reagan was crowding them hard and the old detente system had failed.
I sortof disagree with this sentence, simply because I think Reagan's role was minor. But that said, there is no way to truly measure Reagan's contribution to the collapse of the Cold War either way. I will just concede that Reagan had a part in the collapse. What part it is hard to say, because there is no way to test this hypothesis. I do feel that some conservatives claiming that Reagan made the USSR collapse alone is incredibly naive. Hell, some people attribute the collapse of the USSR to the internet.
Also remember that Reagan's choosen successor, Bush made what is now called the Chicken_Kiev speech, in Kiev, in which he encouraged the ukrainians to not rock the boat. That speech is now despised by that small minority of Ukrainians who actually pushed for change.
Also lets keep in mind the thousands, even tens of thousands of people that the Reagan administration killed in our backyard.
I think if we want to give Reagan credit for the collapse of the Soviet union, we can also give Reagan credit for creating Osama Bin Ladin, and indirectly causing 9/11. I don't think you will have George Will or any other conservative ideologue praise Reagan for this. I think attributing Reagan with the creation of Bin Ladin is much more plausible than Reagan causing the USSR to collapse. Because the Reagan administration was much more involved with the creation of Bin Ladin then in undermining the Soviets. Reagan didn't cause Chernobyl, Reagan didn't cause the stupid decisions of the Soviet Politburo, Reagan didn't cause the ethnic and nationalism. Reagan didn't make Gorby, nor did he put in Gorby. Reagan didn't grain to be cut off from the USSR, I believe Carter did in reaction to the Afghanistan invasion. Sure Reagan helped cause the USSR to lose the war, but who did he help directly to cause the Soviet union to lose the war. Thats right, Bin Ladin.
See Rjesen, I think the reason you worship Reagan and want to seriously believe that Reagan saved the world, is that bluntly: because you believe that violence is the key to all of the world's problems. I suspect you are a realist. Like most Americans, you have bought into the fear and paranoia that neoconservatives peddle. The world is a dark, scary place, and only by America selling the most weapons and prememptively invading third world countries can we truly be safe. It is a recipe for perpetual war, and the death of millions and the suffering of hundreds of millions more. Sure everyone claims they want peace, but it is always peace on their own terms.
The problem is that history shows again and again that we, Americans, reap what we sow. Ever heard of the term Blowback? Please listen to: Author Kinzer Charts 'Century of Regime Change'. The people of the world have legitimate reasons why they hate and fear America. Whereas we watch "pression bombs" accidently drop on the wrong target, causing "collateral damage" while watch the morning news before work, and forget about it by lunch, there are real people underneath those bombs. Who lose family memebers and hold gruges, legitimate grudges against Americas imperialism. As Kinzer says, we Americans forget about this dozens of minor little wars, but it burns inside these people. They don't forget. Please listen to the broadcast and tell me what you think.
Anyway, I think I know your reaction already, I have debated enough conservatives to have an educated guess, but we will see if you prove me wrong.
Signed: Travb 01:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
while we are assigning credit we should keep the dates straight: USSR took over Afghanistan in Dec 1979 and it was Carter who responded by supporting the Mujahadin. As for chicken Kiev, most historians agree that Bush did not clear that speech with Reagan. Rjensen 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I think you are trying to be funny. :) I realize that Carter America's supposed "humanitarian president" (if Carter is America's biggest "humanitarian president" that says a lot about our other presidents through history) was the one who dealt with Afgahanistan. I did not know that he started the support for the Mujahadin, though. My point is that Reagan continued these policies, just as most US presidents continue the foreign policies of their predecesors. Question: Did Reagan help create Bin Ladin?
Rjensen wrote: "most historians agree that Bush did not clear that speech with Reagan."
Correct me if I am wrong, but Reagan wasn't abreast of much in his later years.
I am interested, who did Bush clear this speech with? And doesn't this point to the administration's policies? Was this the policy of America? i.e. that a stable viscious government is better than chaos and the unknown (a typical historical policy, and justification for the US supporting so many tryrannts and dictators).
Should Chicken Kiev be included in the article too, as showing how the Reagan administration really wasn't to hot on the idea of the collapse of the USSR?
I have to admit, your response underwhelmed me, and surprised me. I was expecting a little debate. But in retrospect, it was stupid for me to think that you would respond like someone on frontpage or other blogs, or even other more hot tempered people here on wikipedia.
YOUR REsPONSE
In retrospect, I shouldn't have been surprised because I have followed you posts, and you are not easily baited, and don't seem to be distracted much by tangents. That's what makes you so dangerous an adversary! (Among other attributes).Travb 02:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] conventional wisdom

I will attempt to find evidence that the majority of people believe that no one predicted the collapse of the USSR. I probably can't find it.Travb 01:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"conventional wisdom" is not a helpful term here. Rjensen 01:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Basically I am arguing that the majority of Americans believe that no one predicted the collapse of the USSR. What would be a better term? If you don't respond, I will assume you have none.Travb 04:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The talk page survived

The talk page survived, the category did not:

Category_talk:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR

signed:Travb 01:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology

Category:Astrology? funny. Someone just added this.Travb 04:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Did any actual astrologers make a correct prediction? 05:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Grey (talk • contribs).

[edit] Johan Galtung

Galtung is said to have made a pretty detailed prediction around 1980. No time to look for formal references here, but googling for "Galtung Soviet Union" brings up lots of articles mentioning this; a wikipedia-quality reference might be hiding in there somewhere, if anyone wants to take a look. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.250.8.115 (talk • contribs).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/e/Talk%7EPredictions_of_Soviet_collapse_afc5.html"