Why did the Cold War really end?

Matt Beat

United States Historiography since 1877 HI 702XA

Dr. Schneider

April 12, 2016

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! Many often use those six famous words by

Ronald Reagan to conveniently summarize an oversimplified version of how the Cold

War ended. Those words harken the assumption that the governments of both the

United States and the Soviet Union are to credit for leading its peaceful demise. True,
 1

both Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev deserve much credit for helping the world

get past this conflict that shaped much of the twentieth century, but historians have

consistently debated why the Cold War really ended ever since. There is no definitive

consensus.

John Tirman articulates three main schools of thought regarding why the Cold

War ended, each neatly fitting into three political ideological camps of right, center and

left. In the conservative camp, Tirman describes the interpretation that the aggressive

policies of Reagan, with his strong language and militaristic expansion, intimidated

Moscow so much that it bankrupted itself. The centrist view contends that the Cold War

started to end almost right after it began, during the Truman administration. This

interpretation argues that the decades-long policies of containment whether it be

through the nuclear race, proxy wars, or foreign aid to the Third World ultimately led to

the Soviet demise. The third perspective, according to Tirman, is that the massive

militarism and imperialism of the United States during the Cold War caused the

American public to revolt. Fed up, they pressured their leaders for a more peaceful end

to the strained relationship. This narrative is usually associated with the New Left

intellectuals who emerged during the 1960s and 1970s. Tirman favors this narrative,

calling this revolt one of the great achievements of the twentieth century. 1 Indeed, in

1981, about one-third of Americans wanted all nuclear weapons destroyed. By 1983,

that number was about four out of five.2 Reagan himself shocked many Americans when

he announced his goal of eliminating nuclear missiles. However, Tirman acknowledges

that narrative isnt entirely complete.

1 John Tirman, John. "How We Ended the Cold War." The Nation. October 14, 1999. Accessed April 11,
2016. http://www.thenation.com/article/how-we-ended-cold-war/.
2 Ibid.
 2

Most people who lived during the height of the Cold War, even during its later

years, simply did not see the Soviet empire collapsing so abruptly. Even in 1989,

Kenneth Waltz wrote, (The Cold War) is firmly rooted in the structure of postwar

international politics, and will last as long as that structure endures. 3 Michael Cox

writes, For over 40 years careers had been made, journals produced, books written,

budgets justified and international conferences organized on the assumption that

something would continue to exist: the Soviet Union. 4 According to Cox, an ignorant

understanding of the Soviet Union caused a widespread failure to anticipate the end of

the Cold War. Many Americans assumed the Soviet Union was stronger than it actually

was. Cox argues it was so weak that it is amazing it lasted as long it did. The Cold War,

therefore, ended not because any side won, but because of one sides inevitable

collapse. Still, historians continue to debate what caused the Soviet Union to collapse.

Did external factors outweigh internal or vice versa? Is the abruptness of its collapse

evidence for why it did? Was its collapse really as abrupt as it seemed? By examining

the following sources hopefully answers to these questions will become clearer.

In The Cold War, John Lewis Gaddis claims that George H.W. Bush and

Gorbachev had no clue how monumental of a year 1989 would be. Calculated

challenges to the status quo, of the kind John Paul II, Deng, Thatcher, Reagan, and

Gorbachev himself had mounted over the past decade, had so softened the status quo

that it now lay vulnerable to less predictable assaults from little-known leaders, even

from unknown individuals.5 Despite the token acknowledge of unknown individuals,

3 Roberts, Adam. "An Incredibly Swift Transition: Reflections on the End of the Cold War." The
Cambridge History of the Cold War: 518. doi:10.1017/chol9780521837217.025.
4 Cox, Michael. "Why Did We Get the End of the Cold War Wrong?" British Journal of Politics &
International Relations 11, no. 2 (2009): 161-76. doi:10.1111/j.1467-856x.2008.00358.x.
5 Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War: A New History. New York: Penguin Press, 2005, 240.
 3

Gaddis still seems to lend much of his narrative of how the Cold War ended to the Great

Man theory. His heroic illustrations of John Paul II, Deng, Thatcher, Reagan, Gorbachev

and others can downplay the grassroots nature of the fall of the Soviet Union. Sure, it is

easier for historians to write a narrative by connecting major, influential characters, but

much is lost between those connections, and often those characters are just reacting to

events beyond their control.

Timothy Garton Ash did have a clue how monumental year 1989 would be. He is a

British historian who witnessed firsthand how Eastern Europe was transforming. He was

there for the establishment of Solidarity in 1980, and watched events evolve throughout

the decade. In places like Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin, and Prague, he recalled how

relatively peaceful the revolution was, comparing it to the Revolutions of 1848. While he

credits John Paul II for sparking the changes and pays tribute to the hands off approach

of Gorbachev, ultimately Ash credits the most the same revolutionary conditions Alexis

de Tocqueville described in France in the 1840s and 1850s. The rulers no longer

believed in their right to rule. In fact the ruling elites, and their armed servants,

distinguished themselves by their comprehensive unreadiness to stand up in any way

for the things in which they had so long claimed to believe, and their almost indecent

haste to embrace the things they had so long denounced as capitalism and bourgeois

democracy.6

The Eastern Europeans freed themselves, and Gorbachev let them, but often its not

him getting the credit. Ronald Reagan often gets the credit. According to Victor

Sebestyen, its often for the wrong reasons. The classic narrative is that the toughness

6 Ash, Timothy Garton. The Magic Lantern: The Revolution of '89 Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest,
Berlin, and Prague. New York: Random House, 1990, 142.
 4

of Ronald Reagan brought down the evil empire of the Soviet Union. But Reagan was

misunderstood...It was only after Gorbachev emerged and Reagan tried a new, more

conciliatory approach that a process began which ended the Cold War. 7 In his book,

The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan, James Mann goes much more in depth about

Reagans role in ending the Cold War, and reaches the same conclusion. Mann argues

that Reagans military buildup and tough talk during his first term did not end the Cold

Warhis decision to work with Gorbachev his second term did. If Reagan had not been

responsive, then events might have taken a different course during the crucial period

from 1985 to 1989.8 Travis Cram claims Reagans pragmaticism and principles do not

have to be at odds with each other. Reagans strong opinion of the Soviets, when

coupled with his pragmatic hope for dialogue, sometimes threw up barriers as it

simultaneously created opportunities. 9 To some, this seems reckless, but Cram, Mann,

and several others still credit Reagan more than all others to helping end the Cold War.

And yet, Gorbachev risked so much more than Reagan did, to a point where his own

people turned against him. As Conor OClery points out in Moscow, December 25, 1991,

as the rest of the world adored Gorbachev as evidenced by his Nobel Peace Prize,

Russians resented him due to their perception that he weakened the nation. Gorbachev

was a principled man who stood firm on issues when a growing number of people hated

him and supported his political rival, Boris Yeltsin. OClery writes of Ted Koppels

interview of Gorbachev on December 25, 1991. Koppel asks if Gorbachev could retain

7 Sebestyen, Victor. Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire. New York: Pantheon Books, 2009,
xx.
8 Mann, Jim. The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War. New York: Viking,
2009, 346.
9 Cram, Travis J. "Peace, Yes, but World Freedom as Well: Principle, Pragmatism, and the End of the
Cold War." Western Journal of Communication 79, no. 3 (2015): 367-86.
doi:10.1080/10570314.2015.1035747.
 5

power if he wanted, given that he is still head of the Soviet armed forces. There are

people who change their positions to make sure they keep power, replies Gorbachev

coyly. To me that is unacceptable. If what is happening didnt matter to me and if I

wanted to remain in government more than anything else, then that would be not too

difficult to achieve.10 Gorbachev knew there would be pain for Russians, and probably

knew his reforms would take years if not decades to truly improve his country, yet he

held firm on his policies. Reagan lost fans, too, but he didnt have to risk his countrys

standing in the world like Gorbachev did.

Much like his entire country, Deng Xiaoping seems to get less attention from Western

historians regarding his prominent role with ending the Cold War. Gaddis writes of

Dengs role transforming China from a command economy into a market economy, but

he spends less than two pages doing so. 11 David Barboza writes, Historians have

largely focused on Mao, the revolutionary commander-philosopher who led the

Communist takeover in 1949. But scholars have begun to conclude that it was Deng,

Maos diminutive and long-suffering lieutenant, who deserves credit for truly reshaping

China after Maos death.12 If the Cold War was mostly about free markets versus

controlled markets, and if its historiography relies on Great Man theory, then Deng

should be included as someone who helped end it. Deng ended communism and

embraced capitalism (albeit without explicitly admitting it), and he did so long before the

10 O'Clery, Conor. Moscow, December 25, 1991: The Last Day of the Soviet Union. New York:
PublicAffairs, 2011, 94.
11 Gaddis, The Cold War, 214-15.
12 Barboza, David. "The Man Who Took Modernity to China." The New York Times. 2011. Accessed April
11, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/books/the-impact-of-deng-xiaoping-beyond-tiananmen-
square.html?_r=0.
 6

Soviet Union collapsed. Admittingly, Dengs role could be diminished due to his

reactions to the 1989 protests in Tiananmen Square.13

Paul Krugman writes that capitalism ended the Cold War. He discounts the role of

technological change and globalization because despite those two developments the

Soviet economy still worsened. The market does not require people to believe in it; but

the centrally planned economies that live inside a market economy, known as

corporations, do...Luckily, under capitalism an individual company can fail without taking

the whole society down with it - or it can be reformed without a bloody revolution. 14 He

adds that the Soviet Union succeeded during World War Two because it successfully

managed a huge amount of production.

Some argue that consumer capitalism, in particular, ended the Cold War. Emily

Rosenberg writes, Communist promises of future consumer abundance seemed

increasingly hollow. West European and Japanese citizens embraced consumerist

lifestyles beyond the dreams of those in Communist systems. 15 After calling for

modernization in China, Xiaoping established an open-door policy toward the West

and Japan. Consumerism swept through the country with breaktaking speed. The

Roaring Twenties of the United States were the Roaring Eighties of China, as

household savings between 1978 and 1990 went from $1.85 billion to $62.5 billion.

Although there were tighter controls compared to China, by the 1980s more than 90

13 Ibid.
14 Krugman, Paul. "Capitalism's Mysterious Triumph." Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1997.
Accessed April 11, 2016. http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/Russia.htm.
15 Rosenberg, Emily S. "Consumer Capitalism and the End of the Cold War." The Cambridge History of
the Cold War: 508. doi:10.1017/chol9780521837217.024.
 7

percent of Soviet households had a television and received programming from the

West.16

Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch write about the impact of the television show

Dallas on Romania. It was one of the few Western shows allowed by President Nicolae

Ceausescu because he was convinced that it was against capitalism. However, that

decision backfired tremendously. While Ceausescu's people faced widespread poverty

under his Communist regime, the characters of Dallas seemed to benefit greatly from

the fruits of capitalism. In demystifying wealth production and pouring enough sex,

scandal and whiskey to drown communism here and abroad "Dallas" arguably

stimulated our domestic political economy every bit as much as the Reagan-era tax

cuts.17 Unlikely figures like David Hasselhoff and household names like the Beatles and

Pink Floyd also helped bust through the Iron Curtain, thanks to outlets like Radio Free

Europe and Radio Liberty. In reality, capitalism created an environment for consumers

to desire Western culture, and consumers in the Eastern bloc seemed to want it more

than everybody else. One need go no further than to visit any of these countries and be

bombarded with offers to buy the visitors shoes, blue jeans, even the shirt off ones

back, to perceive the hunger for things Western in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. 18

The American government knew how influential music could be defeating Communism.

In fact, the Carter administration helped the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band become the first

American band to tour in the Soviet Union.19 Indeed, the Soviet government was worried

16 Ibid, 505-509.
17 "How 'Dallas' Won the Cold War." Washington Post. 2008. Accessed April 11, 2016.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042503103.html.
18 Prados, John. How the Cold War Ended: Debating and Doing History. Washington, D.C.: Potomac
Books, 2011, 131.
19 Schreck, Carl. "Spies, Spooks, And Rock 'n' Roll At Twilight Of The Cold War."
RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty. April 18, 2014. Accessed April 11, 2016.
 8

about the influence of American music. Oleg Kalugin, a former KGB officer, writes in his

memoir, (Rock culture) was believed to present a danger to Communist ideology, and

the Party bosses wanted the KGB to stamp out these insidious influences. 20 In the

Soviet Union during the 1960s, rock and roll records could not be sold or played on the

radio. Despite the fact that Communist governments aggressively tried to ban rock

music, the underground movements in the Eastern bloc just grew more rapidly and

sophisticated. Fans used x-ray film to create recordings that could only play a few times

before wearing out and they made electric guitars from whatever scraps on the street

they could find.21

The effort to undermine Soviet control through music grew in the 1970s as more

and more bands produced songs in their native languages. In Czechoslovakia,

authorities arrested a band called The Plastic People of the Universe for disturbance of

the peace. In reality, they were arrested for what they represented open rebellion

against the Communist regime. This action directly inspired dissidents like Vclav Havel

to create the text of Charter 77.22 During the late 1980s, Western artists like David

Bowie and Michael Jackson performed in West Berlin and pointed the speakers over

the Berlin Wall into East Berlin. In each instance, East German authorities tried to break

up the crowds only to create riots and chants of tear down the wall! 23 Rock and roll

http://www.rferl.org/content/spies-spooks-and-rock-n-roll-at-twilight-of-the-cold-war/25354132.html.
20 Ibid.
21 Tash, Joe. "New Documentary Reveals How Rock and Roll Music Helped End the Cold War." Del Mar
Times. May 1, 2014. Accessed April 11, 2016. http://www.delmartimes.net/news/2014/may/01/new-
documentary-reveals-how-rock-and-roll-music/.
22 Buruma, Ian. "'Gimme Shelter from Dictatorship'" Jordan Times. April 10, 2016. Accessed April 11,
2016. http://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/ian-buruma/gimme-shelter-dictatorship.
23 Ryback, Timothy W. Rock Around the Bloc: A History of Rock Music in Eastern Europe and the Soviet
Union. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990, 208-210.
 9

was more of a political force in Communist countries than it was arguably anywhere

else.

Scholar Adam Roberts describes three additional causes to the end of the Cold

War that have yet to be mentioned. First of all, he argues that a stable international

system made it possible for people to take political risks. The United Nations played an

active role with helping with the Soviet Union implement new policies. In addition, there

were no major regional conflicts in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Western powers,

through detente and other measures, were no longer seen as a terrible threat to Soviet

security24. Interestingly, Gaddis argues that detente was ultimately ineffective and just

systematized. For just as the Cold War had frozen the results of World War II in place,

so detente sought to freeze the Cold War in place. Its purpose was not to end that

conflict...but rather to establish rules by which it would be conducted. 25

Related to detente is the second cause to which Roberts attributes ending the

Cold War, the Helsinki Accords. Roberts argues the Helsinki process helped establish a

basis for human rights within the Eastern bloc and reinforced the idea that diverse

states could compromise and cooperate.26 Journalist Thanassis Cambanis echoes this

sentiment. The importance of Principle Seven (of the Helsinki Final Act), he writes,

became evident almost before the ink was dry. Civic groups sprung up across the

Eastern Bloc, determined to exercise their right to monitor their own governments

compliance with Helsinki.27 Cambanis argues the Helsinki Final Act represented an

24 Roberts, "An Incredibly Swift Transition,525-527.

25 Gaddis, The Cold War, 198.
26 Roberts, "An Incredibly Swift Transition,528-529.
27 Cambanis, Thanassis. "How a Handshake in Helsinki Helped End the Cold War." BostonGlobe.com.
June 7, 2015. Accessed April 11, 2016. https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/06/06/how-handshake-
helsinki-helped-end-cold-war/YggtezKJGdM7d7jv8uEy5I/story.html.
 10

enormous paradigm shift. Without it, perhaps Charter 77, Solidarity, and the Moscow

Helsinki Group wouldnt even exist.

Political scientist Brian Frederking goes further, arguing that a series of

assertions, directives, and commitments all led to the end of the Cold War. These

speech acts represent the shift from the brinkmanship of the 1950s and 1960s to the

pragmatic diplomacy of detente in the 1970s.28 They also represent the commitment to

ideals by both sides in the Soviet Union. Ultimately, ones side commitment proved to be

delusional, and the other side proved to be inspirational.

Adam Roberts argues that nationalism is another major cause of the end of the

Cold War, arguing that nearly all political developments which occurred between 1989

and 1991 involved it in some way. Just like Austria-Hungary before, the Soviet Union

could barely hold on to its many different ethnic minorities. The Soviet governments

responses, and sometimes non-responses, were shaped by a growing awareness both

of the costs of maintaining a vast empire and of the failure of the Communist dream of

overcoming national divisions within a new classless society. 29

The nationalism of Afghanistan deserves special attention. According to Rafael

Reuveny and Aseem Prakash, the Soviet-Afghan War was a major factor for the

collapse of the Soviet Union. Afghanistan consists of three major ethnic groups:

Pashtuns, Tajiks, and Uzbeks. Both Tajiks and Uzbeks also resided within the Soviet

Union, so there were many protests in this areas about an unjust war against people of

the same ethnicity. Additionally, Reuveny and Prakash argue the war increased the

28 Duffy, Gavan, and Brian Frederking. "Changing the Rules: A Speech Act Analysis of the End of the
Cold War." International Studies Quarterly 53, no. 2 (2009): 327-29. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2478.2009.00536.x.

29 Roberts, "An Incredibly Swift Transition,532.

 11

perception that the Soviet Union was an evil empire. The original mission was to quell

an uprising by unfriendly rebels, but as the years passed, the mission became unclear,

and the media portrayed the Mujaheddin as helpless victims against an unjust

superpower that committed horrible atrocities. After 1986, however, it was clear they

were not helpless, as the United States had supplied them with plenty of missiles to

defend themselves. Reuveny and Parkash argue the war demonstrated that the Red

Army was weak and that the Soviet government had lost control over them. What

started out as a small skirmish turned into a ten-year boondoggle. More than one million

Red Army soldiers fought ins this conflict, and tens of thousands were injured. Finally,

Reuveny and Prakash claim that the Soviet-Afghan War led to an increase in glasnost,

or an open discussion of political and social issues. The media had felt less restraints

from the Communist Party, so they had reported more openly about how the war was

really going, and this helped fuel its increasingly negative image. Reuveny and Parkash

conclude, It is only dramatic and significant events that cause empires to collapse, not

ongoing standoffsand the only event that fits this bill is the Afghan war, perhaps one

of the most over-studied but underestimated military conflicts in the history of the

twentieth century; one that analysts of the end of the Cold War continue to ignore at

their peril.30

While most did not see the end of the Cold War coming, perhaps its important to

evaluate someone who did. Herb Meyer, a former special assistant to the C.I.A. director,

wrote a secret memo that predicted the end of the Cold War in 1983. He wrote, The

Soviet Union has failed utterly to become a country. After sixty-six years of communist

30 Reuveny, Rafael, and Aseem Prakash. "The Afghanistan War and the Breakdown of the Soviet
Union." Review of International Studies Rev. Int. Stud. 25, no. 4 (1999): 693-708.
doi:10.1017/s0260210599006932.
 12

rule, the Soviet Union remains a nineteenth-century-style empire, comprised of more

than 100 nationality groups and dominated by the Russians. He added that only half

the country could even speak Russian, and that the Soviet economy was on the brink of

disaster. The East European satellites are becoming more and more difficult to

control.31 In other words, the Soviet Empire was a relic just barely holding on.

The West had not won the Cold War; the Soviet side had lost it, writes Brian

Cozier.32 Cozier probably does best at summarizing a complex narrative. The evidence

that gives credit to those who for ending the Cold War usually falls short. Perhaps

historians waste their time examining why the Cold War ended they should be

examining why the Soviet Union failed. Its almost cliche to argue that freedom was an

undercurrent to every explanation why the superpower fell. However, the leaders who

influenced its destruction, the developments within the United States, the triumph of

capitalism over communism, the rise of consumerism and decline of tightly-controlled

production, nationalism, militarism, imperialism, and multilateralism all revolved around

a decline of totalitarianism. It took several decades for much of the world to discover

that the less governments gotwere involved with everything other than the general

welfare, the better off everyone was. Sure, self interest still drives many decisions, but

self determination has given more people a chance at a better quality of life. Its no

coincidence that the Cold War ended when overwhelmingly more people demanded

this.

31 Meyer, Herbert. "Memo for Director of Central Intelligence." CIA. Accessed April 12, 2016.
http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000028820.pdf.
32 Crozier, Brian. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire. Rocklin, Calif: Forum, 1999, xvii.