Introduction
The Cold War lasted over 40 years with slow thawing; however, during the administration of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the final years of the Cold War proved to be an era of the tension finally melting. This metaphorical thawing of tensions fully melted with the United States and the capitalist economic system being victorious against the USSR and the communist economic system. The conditions of Reagan’s administration must be examined in order to determine probable causation for the results of the end of the Cold war. How did the conditions during the Reagan/Gorbachev administration lead to the end of the Cold War, compared to the conditions of earlier administrations?
Political, societal and economic factors were examined in order to determine whether the United States became reigning champ of the Cold War purely by luck, or through a vast spread of hegemony to be regarded as “the superpower.” Political factors examined within the USSR was the greater free-market ideas implemented, destalinization, the Revolutions of 1956, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. All of the factors coincided with each other, such as destalinization gave greater freedom and liberty to the general population of the USSR. Economic and societal factors that led to the end of the Cold War was brain drain found rampant within the USSR. When many of the educated population of the USSR with specific professions leave, the economic turns to ruins and helps the economy where the educated population leaves to. Many of these countries these educated populations flocked to were alike or were the United States due to their opportunities because of a free-market economy (Investopedia and Editors of Encyclopedia Brittanica- “Berlin Wall”).
The free-market economy of the United States thrived under Ronald Reagan due to trickle down economics. The United States had been going through economic downturn; however, either due to Reaganomics or the boom-bust cycle, the United States went through a boom and could now spend more. This way they could easily outspend the Soviets due to the new amount of wealth gained through Reaganomics; meanwhile, Gorbachev had to focus on relaxing communist policies and garner capitalist ideas within his country. This extreme destalinization could not be implemented successfully swiftly, so the economic downturn was expected to happen. The United States reformed their economic policies at a perfect time since it coincided with economic downturn with the USSR, highlighting that capitalism survived longer than capitalism, with many focusing on the Fall of the Berlin Wall as a case study to prove this (Investopedia and Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica- “Berlin Wall”).
“Ever since the world’s first communist government was set up in Russia(USSR) in 1917, the governments of most capitalist states viewed it with mistrust and were afraid of communism spreading to their countries” (Lowe 122). The USSR’s resentment towards western capitalist powers is a deeply rooted explanation, but Stalin focused on the antagonistic nature of the capitalist nations against the communist revolution as they “sent troops to Russia to help the anti-communist forces” (Lowe 122). Later on during World War 2, tensions directly emerged between the two future superpowers regarding military strategy, the atomic bomb and which nation occupies Japan. George Kennan, the author of the “Long Telegram” and former U.S. Ambassador to the USSR in 1952 states, “Stalin’s motives were sinister… and that he intended to spread communism as widely as possible through Europe and Asia, thus destroying capitalism” (Lowe 123).
This theory of the spread of communism acting as a domino effect is highlighted in Kennan’s “Long Telegram,” released in 1946, which guided the United States to adopt a policy of containment. Kennan warns the United States that the Soviets believed that "there could be no peaceful coexistence (between the United States and the USSR)” (Kennan)
Kennan utilizes detailed negative imagery to portray “communism (like a) malignant parasite which feeds only on diseased tissue” in order to propagate his agenda of containment, or else the parasite would control the United States (Kennan). Kennan’s “Long Telegram” is a credible source since the author of it is a former United States Ambassador; however, there are several limitations found within. Kennan expresses his voice after living several years in the USSR and observing society, comparing it to his western ideals. Kennan publishes this telegram in order to forward his agenda “of long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of expansive Russian tendencies” (Kennan). The “Long Telegram” holds large value when observing post World War 2 foreign policy between the United States and the USSR because it would serve as the backbone; however, there are many limitations such as biases found throughout the document. The superb diction such as comparing communism to a “parasite” paints the capitalist economic system as vastly superior to communism. (Kennan).
The “Long Telegram” left an impact on Truman that propelled the Marshall Plan’s existence. The Marshall Plan aided Western European economies in order to rebuild their economies after World War 2; however, many revisionist historians view the goal of the Marshall Plan as “designed to increase US political influence in Europe” (Lowe 123). Arguably this can be viewed as the beginning of the Cold War since both sides were waiting on “aggressive intent,” but both sides were reluctant in order to avoid mutually assured destruction. (Lowe 123)
Flash forward to the late 80s, and we find that the Western World, capitalism and therefore, the United States reigned supreme as a superpower. Two prominent leaders arise when talking about the fall of the Soviet Union- Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan. We find that Gorbachev must quickly find a way to revitalize communism within the USSR or else economic and social downturn would keep plaguing the Soviet Union; however, “once the process of reform began, it proved impossible to control it” (Lowe 207). When observing the fall of the USSR, the paradigm shift in favor of winning the Cold War reveals to be a rabbit hole of economic patterns and societal liberation. How did the conditions during the Reagan/Gorbachev administration lead to the end of the Cold War, compared to the conditions of earlier administrations?
Pre-Gorbachev Administration
For the best comparison of Gorbachev, a direct comparison to Nikita Khrushchev will be used since he brought many reforms during the 1960s. As Stalin’s successor, Khrushchev’s policies during his administration were cleverly nicknamed “destalinization” (Wilson). Both leaders during their administrations were placed into similar conditions. Both leaders were considered significant reformers (Gibney). During both administrations, there was pressure to increase the standard of living within Russia, and also Russian elites pressured the government into security. Like Gorbachev would in the late 1980’s, Khrushchev eased some political tensions by getting rid of the Cheka, a secret police that Stalin would often use in order to quiet down socio-political thought that conflicted with his (Tompson).
On February 25, 1956, Khrushchev delivered a speech to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that exclaimed: “[the intent] to destroy the image of the late dictator as an infallible leader and to revert official policy to an idealized Leninist model” (Gibney). The new leader did not expect this reflection of the past administration of Stalin. Instead of leaning towards future pro-Stalin propaganda, Khrushchev expressed the brutality and excess of power within the leader to model the foil of himself. Greater social freedom was on the brink once Stalin died, Khrushchev exclaimed this vision from the beginning of his administration (Tompson).
The beginning of Khrushchev's term as General Secretary was met with critical points within the history of the Soviet Union. After Stalin’s death, Poland faced many reforms that brought about further liberalization, and one example was the pardon of 100,000 political prisoners. This liberalization was brought about due to there being a shift in power. Workers in Poznan staged a strike where they demanded better working conditions and better wages. The strike lost control once 30,000 people joined in and it became a full-scale riot where the workers lynched a police officer. The minister of defense ordered suppression of the uprising and 60 participants of the riot were killed (Gibney).
Not only did Khrushchev face early difficulty in Poland, but also in Hungary. In October of 1956, about the same time as the Polish riot, Hungarian rebels began a revolution as a result of Khrushchev's speech that criticized Stalin’s rule. Khrushchev's liberalization tone sparked the conversation of freedom and independence from the USSR in Hungary and discontent of authoritarian Soviet rule suppressing the population became exclaimed. Imre Nagy became the premier of Hungary and promised the rebels a multiparty system rather than the one-party communist system imposed by the Soviets. In order for Nagy’s reforms in Hungary take over Soviet rules, he appealed to the United Nations for western aid against the Soviet Union. The United States declined as it would be a confrontation against Russia and other western powers feared that their participation would bring about another world war due to their alliances. The Soviet Union invaded Hungary and captured Nagy, eventually executing him (Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica- “Hungarian Revolution”).
While the uprisings in Poland and Hungary were suppressed, the prospect of greater freedom from a suppressive government was still lingering. Compared to Stalin, Khrushchev can be viewed as liberator since Khrushchev was not as authoritarian. Khrushchev noticed the discontent and horrors of Stalin’s term and wanted to change that and improve human rights within the Soviet Union; however, creating greater freedom from revolutions and rebellions would only show the weaknesses of the Soviet Union in an international scale, and other countries might take advantage and dissolve the Soviet Union. A slow increase in liberty in both society and the market was a better course of action compared to instantly implementing a government and economy precisely like the United States’ because it would cause instability since the economy would be newly emerged and unstable due to lack of experience with capitalist markets (Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica- “Poznan Riots”).
Perestroika and Glasnost
Perestroika means restructuring in Russian, and this correlates because Perestroika was a movement for the political realignment, or restructuring, of the communist party Soviet Union. During Gorbachev’s administration, this movement strongly influenced Gorbachev’s decision on limiting the communist party by giving Russian local governments more power than they had years before. Later in the 1980s, because of these perestroika policies, Russia finally began having democratic elections with non communist candidates in the ballots(Keenan, Louis, and Vodovozov). This easing of political restrictions was deemed glasnost. Glasnost is Russian for openness, so naturally, during Gorbachev’s administration, elections became a lot more open to the Russian public, and the public could criticize the government without having to face severe punishment. Both of these policies reflect western ideals raised by enlightenment writers that promoted individualism. One of the reasons for this shift to western ideals was due to the relationship shared between Gorbachev and Reagan. Another factor to this shift toward western ideology is also the weakening of the Russian economy, due to Reagan’s effects on the United States economy through Reaganomics. The economic policies of Ronald Reagan caused an effect of more Americans spending; thus the capitalist economy of the U.S would be fueled even as Americans were becoming in debt due to credit. While this system of economics would lead the US to a great era, the Soviet Union was facing a depression due to their communist system during the 1980s (McMoran).
Reykjavik
The Reykjavik Summit was a meeting scheduled between President Reagan and President Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Iceland on October 12, 1986. Ronald Reagan was able to use the Star Wars Program (SDI) as a tool for anti-appeasement for the summit; however, Gorbachev would later use Reagan’s stubbornness for SDI against him. Regardless, Gorbachev missed his goal for the summit of the liquidation of nuclear weapons from both sides. Another factor within the summit was Reagan’s rhetoric on the many human rights infringed for Soviet citizens as a means to explain his distrust for Gorbachev, and exclaimed how the Soviets would often break nuclear treaties on why the United States should expand their nuclear arsenal. The result of the Reykjavik Summit was Gorbachev expanding the Perestroika movement to comply with these arguments Reagan made since Gorbachev realized that this was the only way to finally bring an end to the Cold War. Reagan successfully used the summit against the USSR. Before the Summit, Reagan had the goals of eliminating all of Soviet Union’s nuclear arms by the year 2000, a prophecy that would not come true (Wayne).
The summit’s topics were not finished. Many of what was discussed within the Reykjavik Summit influenced the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty because one of the topics brought up during the summit was the removal of intermediate-range forces within Europe. Through this treaty, the United States and Russia agreed to disarm or move nuclear and conventional missiles found within short range(500-1000 kilometers) and intermediate range (1000-5500 Kilometers). Under this treaty, the USSR and the United States were able to observe and inspect each other’s military bases in order to allow for more transparency for the two superpowers and trust (Wayne).
This greater transparency and trust compared to past administrations of containment and distrust like Eisenhower, allowed for US sentiment to reach into the Soviet Union. As tensions kept thawing during the Cold War, as the USSR interacted more with the United States, the more reforms the USSR would attempt to pass (Wilson).
Reaganomics
As a Republican, Reagan sought to deregulate the United States economy by passing many devolutions minded proposals. This change of a very tight regulated economy was different from the past administration's tight federal control that caused economic stagnation- especially during the Carter and Ford administration. By deregulating the economy and giving businesses more liberty and imposing fewer taxes on them, he theorized that his fair laissez-faire economic system would trickle down to the lower classes. American economist Arthur Laffer, a member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board, argued: “increasing tax rates beyond a certain point is counter-productive for raising further tax revenue” (Investopedia).
Within Reagan’s first term, he was met with high inflation and a high unemployment rate left by past administrations. With these laissez-faire based ideas of how the economy should run, the American economy immensely benefited. A 1996 analysis by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, states that the U.S. economy was at its prime since “real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years” (Niskanen and Moore); however, many people who think entirely deregulating the economy will give businesses to much control juxtapose that the reason why Reaganomics was so successful, was because the United States was coming out of recession and this boom within the economy came from cycle of busts (Investopedia). Libertarians prefer to have laissez-faire capitalism for their economy, so think tanks that have a libertarian bias would speak highly of Reagan because he deregulated the federal government when interfering with the United States economy. This libertarian bias does not hinder the analysis much as it only fails to mention the boom and bust cycle since I used more than one source I was informed of this economic trend. The United States economy boomed under Reagan not only because of his economic system but also because of the boom and bust cycle. The boom was able to cycle in because he treated the economy different from previous presidents.
Reaganomics did include not only fewer taxes but also higher military spending. In 1980, military spending was at 71.32 billion dollars: In 1987, 456.5 billion dollars. The USSR in comparison only spent 21 billion rubles(about 33 billion USD) within its military spending (Niskanen and Moore). The Soviet Union could no longer compete in militaristic advancements with the United States since its economy was slowing down. There was also a more significant issue in human rights, created by the reforms that began with Khrushchev, Soviet Union would address by implementing more spending within its rations for the population, so it could no longer neglect human rights as Stalin did for greater military spending. Whether any country would want to or not, they could not neglect their population’s human rights as they would be judged entirely internationally, the Soviet economy could no longer compete and thrive compared to the economy of the United States as they had done in past years. The Soviet economy would either have to adapt to a free market economy or die altogether.
Fall of the Berlin Wall
Germany during the Cold War played a symbolic role. East and West Germany were divided by a wall on August 13, 1969. West Germany represented the western capitalist ideals of the United States, and East Germany represented the profound communist ideals of the Soviet Union. Before the wall was built, West Germans and East Germans were free to move in and out of each other's foreign controlled sectors. Premier Khrushchev ordered a wall to be built between East and West Berlin to end the open border policy. Within two weeks the wall was built, and many German families were split, and it also split foreign relations between the West and the East (History.com Staff).
These two sections of Germany acted as an experiment to see if Germany would fair better through communism or capitalism. Before the wall, many East Germans would travel to West Germany often for their jobs. By creating the wall, Khrushchev hoped that it would end the brain drain within East Germany and create more jobs. While there was a wall dividing both blocs, Eastern Germans and Western Germans would often hear stories of each other’s conditions from people the small percentage of people who safely crossed the wall. John F. Kennedy’s response to the wall was, “a whole lot better than a war” (The Editors of Encyclopedia Brittanica- “Berlin Wall”). Throughout his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, Kennedy states the importance of United States aid to West Germany since they represent “the world of freedom… All free men, wherever they may live, citizens of Berlin.” (Kennedy)
West Germany had a better standard of living compared to East Germany. As the years continued, emigration between the two blocs became a lot more lenient, especially once Gorbachev came into power. Because of the more lenient emigration, stories about the struggles of rations of the eastern bloc got out to the western bloc. The reason for the rations was because brain drain included not only the engineers and architects but also farmers. Farmers feared that the deprivatization of their crops would hinder them and overwork them, so many farmers immigrated to the western bloc because of the capitalist system implemented there. The Soviet Union overshadowed this reason for erecting the wall and instead preferred to boast that it erected the wall to stop fascist ideologies from penetrating the eastern bloc. One of the leading economies that was getting East Germans money was technology (History.com Staff).
Reagan used the symbolic representation of the wall for his advantage and to emphasize the sinking of the vast Soviet Union. Despite the advancements in technology made to contend and emulate the western bloc, the eastern bloc could never contend with the comparative laissez-faire economic system of the west. Reagan’s administration recognized the failures of the Berlin Wall because of the liberalization of policies for emigration. Reagan set the stage for the Soviet Union to admit that the communist economic system has failed in the experiment of the two Germanic blocs and that capitalism reigns supreme. Reagan challenges Gorbachev to admit to this defeat on June 12, 1987, directly ordering him to “[liberalize], come to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall!” This speech Reagan gives is effective and lives in infamy. Gorbachev kept his strategy of reforms rather than complete absolution of communism. The people of the eastern bloc benefited from the lenience brought by Gorbachev, but that only made them crave further freedom. Many East Germans would protest and often threaten government officials for complete absolution of the wall and Soviet occupation (History.com Staff).
On November 9, 1989, Gunter Schabowski, an official from the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, declared the borders to be open finally. Flocks from both blocs began tearing the wall with hammers and chisels. Many people celebrated the fall of the wall, and on October 3, 1990, East and West Germany were united once again. Thus the experiment of communism vs. capitalism proved to be in favor of the West, and the free market economy reigned supreme. This collapse became evident to both the West and the East, marking the final years of the Soviet Union (Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica- “Berlin Wall”)
Conclusion
The end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union marks the end of an era. The match between capitalism and communism ended after several hard hitting rounds. The policy of containment argued by Kennan and put in place by Eisenhower was eventually made discrete when diplomacy was preferred as evident by meetings held by Gorbachev and Reagan. The factors that led to the end of the Cold War are still issues we currently see within the post-postmodern era as issues like brain drain are still prominent affairs. The shift of political power within an international sphere can be predicted by examining prior events that are seemingly alluded to in current issues (Editors of Encyclopedia Brittanica- “Berlin Wall”).
The improvements to the economy within the United States, paved by Reaganomics, contrasted the failing economy of the Soviet Union. Previously the Soviet Union had been easily outspending the United States, but Gorbachev promised greater destalinization through the perestroika and glasnost policies. Gorbachev was not met with several rebellions like Khrushchev began his period of destalinization. The implementation of this, while promising in societal and economic freedom, would cause an economic downturn since the Soviet Union did not have experience with such a tremendous free-market compared to their previous greatly communist economy. The contrast between Reaganomics and communism was opposites. During the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was a metaphorical win for capitalism and the western world. The Eastern bloc had failed with its communist economy and the capitalist economy of the Western bloc thrived. This is due to brain drain from East Germany to West Germany because of better opportunities caused by a free-market (Tompson and Investopedia).
The Eastern and Western Bloc was a case study set on an international stage to determine what economic system was the best. They were symbolic of the whole Western and Eastern world’s contending views.