the arrogant myth

A recent death and the corresponding post on a friend's blog have reminded me of a widespread misconception that I feel is worth addressing. The claim is that the US brought about the end of the cold war. More specifically, it has been asserted that Reagan's policies were the key element. The first time I ever heard such a statement I was stunned. The prevalence of this view continues to frustrate me. As any one who actually lived in the East bloc during the fall can tell you, this historical myth is entirely fictional.

The cold war ended when the hostility between the USSR and the USA ended. The hostilities ceased when the USSR fell apart. The causes of the USSR's demise were internal forces. The USSR did not collapse because it was "defeated" or outperformed or any other such nonsense. It's own policies brought about the discontent that forced the issues which eventually broke the back of the dictatorship. From early on the USSR chose a path which was destined to end in ruin. It would have come to an end regardless of the activities of a far off nation about which Soviet citizens had been largely lied to. Nothing the US did significantly hastened or delayed the end. The Soviet military was not defeated. The Soviet economy suffered mainly from it's own poor management. The Soviet leaders were removed by their fellow citizens, not American policies.

I have heard many claims that Reagan caused the downfall of the Soviet Union, but these are never backed up with a solid cause-effect explanation. The justifications usually involve unrelated statistics or vague statements like "Reagan economically engaged the Soviets". People sometimes throw out true-sounding statements like, "The USSR couldn't compete economically with the US". Since when did the USSR need to compete with the US economy? The cold war was not a competition, it was a stand-off. Much like two men in a movie with guns aimed at each other; neither man is going to win by being richer. The economy would matter if it became so poor as to prevent the production of the necessary military equipment. But, this was clearly not the case since the Soviet Union maintained a more than adequate military until the day it collapsed.

Those who tout Reagan's policies as the winning move in the cold war must show how US policies unequivocally caused the Soviet Union's political destruction. The two chief mechanisms I have seen used to explain this are:

1. Reagan pushed the USSR into an arms race that drained the country

At the time Reagan was elected President the USSR had a larger nuclear arsenal and a far greater stockpile of conventional weapons. The Soviet arms build-up had basically peaked. Rather than responding similarly to Reagan's massive military spending in the 80s the Soviets made a request for arms-reduction that lead to the Geneva talks. The only significant drain on the Soviet military was the invasion of Afghanistan and if you want to give Reagan any credit for that you would need to give Osama Bin Laden even more credit. Besides, neither the Soviet military nor its economy were seriously harmed by the war in Afghanistan. The Soviet economy and infrastructure were already in poor shape before the war.


2. Reagan's policies gutted the Soviet economy, causing political failure

A common mistake is to confuse US prosperity with Soviet hardship. Neither one depends on the other. The Soviet Union and its satellite states were highly isolationist. The USSR's trade balance never went more than a few billion dollars in either direction while the US trade deficit reached $153 billion under Reagan. Others say that Reagan's middle-east policies caused a drop in the price of oil which undermined the Soviet economy. You may as well credit OPEC with ending the cold war. While the USSR did see a decline in oil sales to Western Europe most of its exported oil went to the East bloc satellites and was sold at well under market prices. And the decline in exports was not nearly enough to topple a dictatorship. The Soviet Union's real oil problems were caused by a huge decline in domestic oil production in the late 80s, for which Reagan certainly can't take credit.

Even if Reagan's policies had been able to negatively affect the Soviet economy they would not have been enough to destroy the USSR. Amid the worst years of the 80s the Soviet economy was still better off than during the execution of Stalin's five year plan. But, Stalin's government didn't collapse. Dictatorships are relatively effective at weathering economic hardships. The forces effecting political change in 1989 were far stronger than economics. Gorbachev's glasnost allowed some criticism of the government. People began to come in contact with western music and writings. Multi-party elections were held in 1989. Gorbachev chose not to intervene when Poland threw out the communist government. And in 1991 when the military hardliners attempted a coup it was the people of Russia who rallied around Yeltsin, not American politicians.

To give the credit for years of political change and the collective fight of many Soviet citizens for democracy to a foreign leader is not only inaccurate but unjust. To the contrary, while Gorbachev was introducing reform to his crumbling state Reagan was fueling anti-Soviet paranoia by ramping up military spending and speaking of a fantastical space-weapons program that never happened. Those who fought for political change in the USSR were driven by the desire to make their own country better, not by fear of American military might. Those who took sledge hammers to the Berlin wall did so not because of Reagan's exhortation, but because they themselves wanted to cross the line. Reagan and his policies did not bring about the end of the Soviet Union any more than a howling wolf is able to summon the moon.