What was a decisive factor of winning the Cold War by America? The factor was the American-Chinese alliance established in 1970. The reversal of alliances that destroyed the Soviet Union economically. It secured China from north and boosted the USA. With whom Chineses allied themselves? The answer: with an imperialist-capitalist enemy against whom they waged a hot war in Korea, against the hostile entity that meddled in Chinese affairs during Chiang Kai-Shek's civil war. With whom Americans allied themselves? The answer: with a country that just finished cultural revolution and was killing millions of people, with a country that was openly saying that doesn't recognize Taiwan and threatened with invading it, and it happened when USA was obliged to defend Taiwan according to the law. The USA allied itself with China over Taiwan's interest and over all these ideological aspects. Even Japan and South Korea were against it. But USA did what it wanted, only to fuck up Soviet Union that was considered as the main enemy. All American obligations were suspended by Kissinger who visited China and reversed alliances.
All people who believe in NATO and "unity of the West" should have this story in mind.
The winning factor might have been that America wasn't commie and that China is capitalist.
Jack Parker
Reality is more complicated than ideological propaganda. Soviet Union with centrally planned economy was developing faster than the capitalist USA yet in 50s-60s.
Nathan Lopez
>What was a decisive factor of winning the Cold War by America?
Gorbachev.
Adrian Bailey
Nope. He was just leader personifying geopolitical weakness of Soviet Union that was created before he became first secretary.
Isaac Campbell
Your right Poland. There were developing faster. So what happened? When you study economics, it becomes perfectly clear.
In a of the most prominent and useful models for measuring how economic growth is created is the Neoclassical Growth Model. This model posits that 3 main inputs can be used to explain Real GDP: 1) The Labor Supply 2) The stock of physical Capital (such as tools, factories, etc.) and 3) Total Factor Productivity (a proxy of technological growth). When modifying the function to percentage change terms and perform out regression, we see that the Soviet economy during the 50s-60s was achieving it's growth primarily through increases in Capital and Labor. In fact, for much of the Soviet Unions existence, the growth rate in it's Total Factor Productivity (a proxy for technology) was actually declining. Why is this relevant when the other two factors were growing? Well, Capital and Labor are subject to diminishing marginal returns. Giving each fisherman a second pole won't make them more productive. However, improve the technology of the pole, and each fisherman can now make increase their output even further.
Thus, the communist system didn't allow for the private sector to innovate and improve its Total Factor Productivity, eventually collapsing the economy and ending the system. In the long run, the success of nations is 99% driven by economics. Hence why the market liberalizing policies of Deng Xiaoping massively improved the standard of living of any Chinese citizens. Nothing can stop the invisible hand's work
Nathan Perez
>In a I meant "One of"
>perform out regression Meant "performing"
Grayson Young
Read Kissinger's book "On China". He explains there how American-Chinese alliance played a main role in fucking up Soviet Union economically and geopolitically.
Josiah Parker
>Reality is more complicated than ideological propaganda. This is true
>Soviet Union with centrally planned economy was developing faster than the capitalist USA yet in 50s-60s. Because the USSR had much more room for development than the US. Improving an underdeveloped nation is much easier than developing a nation which basically creates the new standard for being “Developed”.
Luke Adams
Oi, did you not even read what I posted? The book you're recommending is most likely a intended to be an entertaining historical book giving the reader a perspective of the thoughts and views of the writer as some of the unfolding events played out during the time. I seriously doubt Kissinger wrote the book with the intent of saying "these actions irrefutably led to the decline of the Soviet Union". The underlying cause of the decline was the constant reduction in technology year over year in the Soviet Union
Gavin Nguyen
Kissenger is obviously biased because he wants to play up his own importance to the downfall of the Soviet Union. The fact that the USSR could so easily have its economy rattled by the US opening trade relations with China shows the fundamental unsustainably with Soviet’s system.
Nathan Gomez
You are right about everything you said, but it doesnt refute my claim about critical importance of American-Chinese deal for disintegration of Soviet Union.
Brandon Murphy
I'm sure what your saying was a factor. Everything factored into play in some way. However, even if the USA and USSR weren't in a dispute during the time, if you just let their economies run for 50 years, the USSR would have still collapsed. Perhaps you can argue that these actions sped up the collapse, but the declining Total Factor Productivity would have ultimately led to standards of living stagnating or declining at some point, and likely would have still collapsed the system.
I will take a look at your book user, as I have been looking for new books to read, and haven't gotten around to any historical books yet, so this will be a refreshing read
Isaac Fisher
It caused the inevitable downfall of the USSR to happen sooner, sure, but the Soviet Union was slowly bleeding to death because of US cultural dominance. Nobody wanted to move to the USSR, they wanted to go to America.
Christopher Diaz
>China >capitalist...
James Ross
The alliance with China didn't really have anything to do with it, the Soviet Union fell because Reagan waged an all-out offensive on their unsustainable system.
Jacob Martinez
That is a nice picture
Joseph Reed
Soviet Union fell because of Afghanistan and Chernobyl
America's input was just arming the mudhadeens
David Murphy
Reagan was just the culmination of the American culture consciousness which had been progressively weakening the Soviets. Reagan’s policy-making was actually pretty weak and regretful. His best trait was his cult of personality which put him in the right place at the right time to look like a badass Hollywood actor telling Gorbachev to tear down walls and popping Soviet jokes.
Matthew Martinez
Now the thing is even Kissinger begrudgingly admitted that "Reagan was the first president to take the geopolitical and geostrategic offensive against Moscow."
Brayden Lee
China will fail in the end too--all totalitarian systems end up choking to death.
Easton King
False preposition
Levi Lewis
That’s naive. The CCP has shown to be a pragmatic ruling government capable of evolving with the times. It doesn’t adhere to any strict ideology. It would stupid for the US to underestimate them just because we won the Cold War.
Luis Hall
No. No it really did.
Julian Reed
In their case they'll literally choke to death on their nuclear pollution levels.
US-Chinese alliance is a glorified meme from the Cold War.
There is no deciding factor in why USA won the Cold War, alliance with China is just a small factor.
William Roberts
>summoned the CCP 50 cent army from the woodwork :^)
Levi Brooks
Actions like Chinese investment in Africa are a sign of desperation more than anything--they're frantic attempts by the CCP to provide employment for their vast population to prevent social unrest. China is resembling a star swelling to a red giant prior to going supernova.
Jaxson Gonzalez
They like the USSR also have no exportable culture--nobody cares about any Chinese movies, TV shows, or books and nobody wants to live/emigrate there.
Bentley Kelly
The Soviet Union was spending a staggering 60% of total GDP on defense by the 80s, and there was no stopping it--like a runaway freight train, it kept on going until the end in 1991.
