Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union

Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union

  • Downloads:4300
  • Type:Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date:2021-12-29 17:21:06
  • Update Date:2025-09-07
  • Status:finish
  • Author:Vladislav M. Zubok
  • ISBN:B09MR4XH6J
  • Environment:PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle

Summary

A major study of the collapse of the Soviet Union—showing how Gorbachev’s misguided reforms led to its demise

In 1945 the Soviet Union controlled half of Europe and was a founding member of the United Nations。 By 1991, it had an army four-million strong, five-thousand nuclear-tipped missiles, and was the second biggest producer of oil in the world。 But soon afterward the union sank into an economic crisis and was torn apart by nationalist separatism。 Its collapse was one of the seismic shifts of the twentieth century。
 
Thirty years on, Vladislav Zubok offers a major reinterpretation of the final years of the USSR, refuting the notion that the breakup of the Soviet order was inevitable。 Instead, Zubok reveals how Gorbachev’s misguided reforms, intended to modernize and democratize the Soviet Union, deprived the government of resources and empowered separatism。 Collapse sheds new light on Russian democratic populism, the Baltic struggle for independence, the crisis of Soviet finances—and the fragility of authoritarian state power。

Download

Reviews

Roger A

One of the best books I have read on the subjectThe collapse of the USSR and the current dynamics of Russia is central to my research agenda, so I read a lot of books on the subject。 This is one of the best, with a very perceptive and nuanced treatment。It reminds us that individual leaders can be central when fork in the road type decisions are made。 Gorbachev was not up to the job, while Deng was。 The latter knew when to consolidate rather than rushing further, and that such large social reconf One of the best books I have read on the subjectThe collapse of the USSR and the current dynamics of Russia is central to my research agenda, so I read a lot of books on the subject。 This is one of the best, with a very perceptive and nuanced treatment。It reminds us that individual leaders can be central when fork in the road type decisions are made。 Gorbachev was not up to the job, while Deng was。 The latter knew when to consolidate rather than rushing further, and that such large social reconfigurations require a strong state, not a weakened one。Putin reestablished stability but he cannot undo the damage of the 1990s, so Russia is now the junior partner to China。 。。。more

Jon-Erik

A very well researched book。 The central premise, despite some hedging, is that Gorbachev's messianic visions and poor execution caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was avoidable, and if the reforms had gone along the lines planned by Andropov, things would have been better。To some extent this is a refutation of the straw-man that Reagan won the Cold War with his military buildup, except there is plenty of information in this book itself to bolster that notion。 In the conclusion, the A very well researched book。 The central premise, despite some hedging, is that Gorbachev's messianic visions and poor execution caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was avoidable, and if the reforms had gone along the lines planned by Andropov, things would have been better。To some extent this is a refutation of the straw-man that Reagan won the Cold War with his military buildup, except there is plenty of information in this book itself to bolster that notion。 In the conclusion, the author argues contra this notion that the Soviet leadership knew for years it needed to reform。 Well, OK。 Then why in particular was it during that particular moment that it became urgent? Zubok almost seems to hold Gorbachev in contempt because he was unwilling to use force as Kruschev did in 1956 and Brezhnev did in 1986。In fact, for all of the criticism of Gorbachev, it's former Canadian Prime Minister Mulrooney's words that stuck with me“In 1985, he said, then Vice-President Bush had attended Chernenko’s funeral in Moscow。 What would Bush have done then if, meeting him after the funeral, Gorbachev had said: I will free Eastern Europe, I will dismantle the Warsaw Pact, a united Germany will join NATO, a UN force will start a war against Iraq, the USSR will sign the CFE and START agreements, there will be elections and democracy, I will develop personal ties with America, and economic ties with the West will grow。”And all of those things happened and there was no war with the west。 30 years on, it's easy to see the tensions in Ukraine and the actions of Putin abroad as avoidable if only this situation had been handled better。 But how? No one can know how history would have turned out and avoided World War 3 seems like a pretty big win to me。Indeed, it seems to me that the real bad actors here were Yeltsin and his cadre of opportunistic vultures snapping up the remains of the Soviet state with no real idea what they were doing。 Gorbachev actually accomplished a lot。But to the point about Reagan, or at least the US, until the very end, the inability to reduce spending on the military-industrial complex was perhaps the fatal flaw in Gorbachev's plans。 He saw that sector as the only world class industry and wanted to hang on to it, but it hampered other pieces he had in play。 So whether or not it was inevitable that the USSR collapse and whether or not it was Reagan's military buildup that was the final necessary cause, it certainly was an important factor。This book gives us a luxuriously detailed event-by-event account of the collapse from inside the halls of power, without much at all in the way of a sense of how things went for normal Soviet citizens。 There are a few hints, but not a lot of detail。 Despite those criticisms, I thought this book was excellent and I learned a lot。 In particular, I had never realized just how bad the economic situation in the Soviet Union really was in the late 80s and always assumed that the problems really began with the collapse of Soviet Union。 It seems that some of Gorbachev's attempted reforms had begun the cycle of plutocracy, but perhaps not irrevocably。 Recently, many have seen the Chernobyl disaster as sparking things off thanks to the popular TV series, but that seems very overstated as well。 We've heard Afghanistan was the straw that broke the camel's back too。 Neither of these alone seem sufficient given the evidence in Zubok's book。I also feel like I understand the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine much better。 And it seems that Russia's claims are stronger than many of us in the west seem to realize and that Ukraine's separation from Russia was indeed largely driven by nationalism and a cynical attempt by former communists to hold on to power and wealth。 This isn't an apology for an invasion, but it does seem that for countries bent on reversing the communist era, the transfer of land to the Ukranian SSR by Khrushchev was never intended to serve the purpose it has。 I don't know if the world would be a better place now if the USSR had a softer landing into the globalized world in a way more parallel to Eastern Europe。 But I do know that it was a system that deserved to collapse。 I also still bristle when I hear how much credit the USSR deserves for the defeat of Nazi Germany, as if they hadn't been largely responsible for the war's outbreak in the first place by agreeing to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in a cynical land grab。 People also act as if it's a simple footnote that the nuclear arms race and the broader Cold War is over, and as if we could have survived that way indefinitely, with no other nuclear near misses like the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Able Archer 83 panic。 Quite possibly, human civilization was saved by this, and we have Gorbachev to thank for that in large part too, along with Reagan and Bush 41, no matter how much we may have disagreed with their domestic policies--Zubok with Gorbachev's and American liberals with the latter two。 。。。more