Why do people think we won the cold war? communism collapsed.?
918734
I know for sure that Communism is alive and well.\n\nMany of my junior high teachers are STILL there!
608798
The Cold War (Russian: Холодная война , Kholodna-ya voina) was the protracted geopolitical, ideological, and economic struggle that emerged after World War II between the global superpowers of the Soviet Union and the United States, supported by their alliance partners. It lasted from about 1947 to the period leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991.\nThe global contest was popularly termed The Cold War because direct hostilities never occurred between the United States and the Soviet Union. Instead, the "war" took the form of an arms race involving nuclear and conventional weapons, networks of military alliances, economic warfare and trade embargos, propaganda, espionage and proxy wars, especially those involving superpower support for opposing sides within civil wars. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was the most important direct confrontation, together with a series of confrontations over the Berlin Blockade and the Berlin Wall. The major civil wars polarized along cold war lines were the Greek Civil War, Korean War, Vietnam War and the Soviet-Afghan War, along with more peripheral conflicts in Angola, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.\n\nFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
257466
CRUSH CAPITALISM!!!!\nSeriously dude, how hard was that?  Think about Berlin, etc.  Also, a lot of the ethnic cleansing had been done in Russia by this point (enough Ukrainians killed off for Stalin).  Uncle Joe Stalin was in charge and FDR had given him rule over a lot of territory unnecessarily.  Comintern would be supported, and the Cold War against the US and the rest of the capitalist world be maintained, especially through vicarious conflicts, like the Korean War, where the Russian Communists supplied weapons and troops to a few idealogical Koreans to "give the gift" of Communism.  The Koreans requested help from the US and the Greeks, etc. (the Greeks had just recently defeated a Communist incursion).
721779
Personally I think it was destined to fail to begin with. Look at the methods of control that were used and the rampant corruption within the government. It’s a wonder it managed to stay afloat as long as it did. Reganomics really didn’t have as much to do with the USSR’s collapse as much as the slow attrition of the US economy and the world governments against a rapidly eroding communist regime that was finally becoming aware that their empires threshold of domination was long gone. In short, Reganomics was just the last straw that toppled the ‘evil empire.’ I think the true turning point in the sway of power within the USSR was the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. This upset the greater population to such a degree that the government would never again manage to maintain its sway of power to the effect it once had. The world view of the their government had a major impact and further exposed not only to the world the level of corruption the Russian government had, but also caused the Russian people to become more acutely aware of what the greater overview the world had of their government, and as such for once the Russian people agreed with them wholeheartedly. \n\nAgain in short, Reganomics was just the last straw.
261023
The USSR was actually the best thing to happen to the US.\n\nAt least the US had an ostensible enemy, and since a Mutual Assured Destruction was the only way to fight this enemy, War needed to be "defered" indefinately.\n\nNow, unfortunately - With the downfall of the USSR, the US has not only become a super-power, it has become a  "HYPER-power."\n\nThis makes other countries worry about our presence.\nThey believe that the US is out the "take over the world!"\n\nHell...  They can't even feed Detroit!!!!\n\nYou honestly think the US wants to take care of a bunch goat-eating Muslims who do nothing but sit in dirt all day and hum a bunch of sh-t?!?!??!?!?\n\nBelieve me, if the US wants the world,\nI'd be going to Katmandu on a domestic flight tomorrow.\n\nLighten up, world!
214759
Japan surrendered to us (the US) so of course we had some say in what kind of government would be formed.  \n\nI'm not sure China's history and why they became communist, but look at their neighbor (Russia) ... I'm sure that had something to do with it.
653074
The Ultimate War... However, one cannot assume that just because a country has a nuclear warhead they will use it... They haven't yet. America was the developer of the nuclear bomb, and we are also the only ones to have used it in a war (i.e. WWII). And we used it twice... Cuba is screaming at us, "Listen to me! We have nukes!" But they won't do shit with them. Russia, the Cold War, this Long War... All just government propaganda to get you to go along with gas prices and avian bird flu. Pride is not about nationality, it's about being a human being and being alive, for that matter... Just because your country says that you have a nuclear bomb doesn't mean they're going to use it... Just save it for a rainy day, I suppose. Just so that when everybody is dropping the bomb, that one little country (we'll call it Kerplakistan) can join in and not feel left out. If every country had a nuclear weapon, though, America would be bombed first, and we have more nukes than there are countries in the world! In conclusion, it may bring world peace, world destruction, or a wholly new world order.
1152286
We effectively did. The Russians stayed within the boundaries that were established at the end of World War II. We could have tried to push the Russians back into their own territory, but Harry Truman didn't want another 200,000 dead Americans.\n\nAnd containment largely worked for the 40 years that the Cold War raged... We won Berlin, drew to a tie in Korea and Cuba, and lost Vietnam (but the Russians didn't win).\nAnd the arms race effectively destroyed the Soviet economy; at a terrible cost to the US, but we won the Cold War.
72850
2 separate questions; 2 different answers.\nThe USA is the only country that really won WWII.  All other countries that participated either lost or broke even.  Our closest ally, Great Britain, was physically and financially exhausted after being in the thick of it during WWI and WWII.  All of Europe and parts of the Far East were a wreck.  You could possibly make the case that all of the European countries' colonies also "won" WWII, in the long run, because most became independent within 15 years or so after the war.  This might not have happened had the war not been fought.  \nAll of the other Allied countries broke even, in that they escaped being ruled by the Nazis or imperial Japan, with all the suffering and horror that would have accompanied either.  However, it took a while after the war for living standards in the Allied countries outside the USA to reach those of the pre-war era.  \nAfter the war, the USA embarked on an economic expansion greater than any other in history, and it has continued (with some ups and downs) until today.\nWho played the most important part?  IMHO, Great Britain played the most important part (I think this in spite of being an American who loves his country).  The armed forces of the UK led by the indomitable Winston Churchill, hastily raised after declaring war in 1939, managed to hold off the well-tuned Nazi war machine - completely alone - from early 1940 (after the fall of France) to mid-1942, when the US and the USSR started making a real difference in the war.\nThe contribution of the USSR cannot be denied or diminished.  Soviet soldiers fought bravely and desperately against incredible odds, and despite many deficiencies in equipment and training managed to smash the Nazis on the huge expanse of the eastern front.  But keep in mind that Stalin was quite happy to help Hitler carve up eastern Europe when it suited his purposes, and he was also supplying the Germans with much-needed food and fuel right up to the day of the Nazi invasion of the USSR.\nThe USA, in 1943-1945, finished the job that was begun by the UK and USSR.
1173607
U.S. Cold Warriors were convinced that if Vietnam fell to the communists, that the rest of Southeast Asia would "fall like dominoes."  So they sent American troops to prop up the weak South Vietnamese government and army.\n\nThe Vietcong's main goal was the overthrow of the South Vietnamese government, and unification with North Vietnam.
857437
We won a military victory.\n\nUnfortunately, this means very little. We've lost by just about any other account.\n\nFrom reading the other answers, there are still a fair number of people who believe that Iraq had something to do with terrorism. But that just isn't true. Saddam did not tolerate groups like Al Queada because extremist groups represented a threat to his power. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. And Iraq had no WMDs.\n\nThis is all stated very clearly in the bi-partisan congressional report, which you can go and read if you'd like.\n\nAnother congressional report that the 9-11/Iraq believers should read is the congressional terrorism report. Terrorism has increased world-wide since the invasion, so again we have not won on that front.\n\nWe've also dumped over $500 billion into this effort and have nothing to show for it as far as remuneration goes. The government has had to borrow more money from countries like China to pay for it since there isn't enough tax revenue to cover it, ploughing us further into debt. So we have not won on the economic front.\n\nFrom a political standpoint, we've spit in the face of the UN and burned all our political capital we had. We ignored our allies. Everyone was warning against this. And still we went in. Our credibility is now quite low throughout the world, especially in the Middle East. Again, no victory there.\n\nFrom a humanitarian view, we've lost. The people view us occupiers, not rebuilders. Tensions are high. Thousands have been killed, with more dying every day. It is now looking quite probable that a civil war is in progress and gaining momentum. The CIA predicted this was a likely outcome two years ago.\n\nAll of this could have been avoided if:\n\nA) We didn't go in in the first place. The policy of premption is at best a double-edged sword and at worst an excuse for empire building (see Nazi Germany for an example).\n\nB) If a plan had been developed to win the peace. We didn't have one, or at least not one that was feasible. From looking at the old videos of the time, there seemed to be the notion that the Iraqi's would welcome us with flowers and then join together in harmony and democracy. I find this amusing considering the place has been a hotbed of religious conflict for at least the past 1000 years.\n\nIn the end, we can claim a military victory. But we can claim little else.\n\n~X~
667322
Boy, there's a debate.\n\nShort Answer: The United States, and it did it by spend the Soviet Union into oblivion. The USSR suffered the fate of most empires -- it overextended itself and ran of the resources necessary to sustain its empire.\nBut the US did it at a terrible cost. We are now stuck with a military-industrial complex that is bleeding us drive and could very soon threaten our own superiority.\n\nSo philosophical answer: The Cold War isn't over yet, and we could still lose.
616173
the soviets and americans wanted to spread communism and democracy respectively and wanted to prevent the other from spreading their ideologies. this led to the cold war.
924756
People don't view communism as a great type of government, but if it works it is a great idea.  But it never works because there are constantly people trying to take advantage.  Then it becomes a totalitarian government.\n\nHope this helps
700936
He did not say US victory was no longer possible, he said US MILITARY victory was no longer possible... that is because we already achieved a military victory. If the US military was still fighting a uniformed, identifiable, credible military, they would prevail. Yet, a uniformed and state sponsored military that represents a nation (the US) must fight the most unbelievable and despicable cowards that ever crawled the earth. They are disgusting as they use human shields; babies and women to fight their unjustified battles. The sooner they are eradicated the better. Kissinger should remember this from his responsibility in Vietnam. Do not glorify his comments.
532836
We think we won the war not because we won it alone (although I would say the USSR has a much bigger claim on being a deciding factor than the UK) because you were losing alone, and we stepped in and helped turn the tide.  You were holding your own and preventing an invasion on the UK, but losing ground in the Pacific and couldn’t hold out forever in the UK proper, either.  The US stepped in, and was the help you needed to win on the Western European front.  The USSR has a stronger claim as well because it fought a vicious war with levels of self-sacrifice that the UK never even close to matched (although this isn’t to attack the UK – it is a good thing for the people there that they weren’t invaded and didn’t have any Stalingrads or Leningrad sieges), which is why they get more credit as well.  The US also feels like it deserves a thank you because it wasn’t invaded by the Nazis and of its geographic location meant that it probably could have held out indefinitely – unlike the UK, it had a choice about entering the war, but did so anyway, at a great cost in lives and money.  In the Pacific, the US provided more troops and infrastructure than did the UK (again, not because the UK was lazy or somehow worse at fighting, but because they had less men, less money and less production capacity as well as more pressing threats to the UK itself, and were stretched as far as it could be), and afterwards returned much of the area it freed to the UK.  We also were responsbile for the reconstruction and reformation of Japan.  The British helped there, true, but they had to work on reconstructing their own lands (much of which was funded by the US’s Marshall Plan), so the again the bulk of the effort was the US’s.  So we see it as we earned a decent share of the credit there too.\n\nIf anything, i woudl argue that the USSR deserves mroe credit - for positical reasons their contributions were downplayed by the West during the Cold War. I wouldn't give Canada too much credit fo rhelping form day one - their contributions were worthy, but they had no choice in helping; the Kig of England was their head of state. If England was bombed, they had to get involved.  The US only had to get invovled if to help the other states (it could have left Hawaii and the other Pacific holdings as the Japanese thought it would and continued peacefully as the continental US plus Alaska for a long time).\n\nPS Why are you so angry about htis?  Did you fight in WWII and feel you aren't getting your fair share of the redit?  are you generally bitter that yours is not the wealthiest adn msot powerful country?  If you are Canadian - be grateful for this.  You spend minimal amounts on your military because you know that the US woul dnever allow Canada to be invaded.  You then spend your money on social programs such as national health and inexpensive univeristy education.
422327
There are lots of reasons.  The infrastructure of the USSR was falling apart.  The cold war ate up all their resources.  They also had to implement some capitalistism in their economy so it wouldn't totally collapse, therefore not totally socialist.  The people were also terrified and pissed about being sent to Gulag.  Consult a history book for more.