“The superpowers often behave like two heavily armed blind men feeling their way around a room, each believing himself in mortal peril from the other, whom he assumes to have perfect vision.” — Henry Kissinger

The Cold War was history’s biggest engagement between two forces, the USA and the USSR, the first time that superpowers had faced each other across the globe and separated by both scant distance and oceans. Both were gigantic countries in land mass, particularly the Soviet Union, and both had diametrically opposed ideologies — the Soviets believing in Marx’s Communist utopia, the Americans keeping their faith in their original Revolution and free market and democracy. It was a dicey proposition who would win. The Russians had more consistency of leadership, being a one-party state, but the Americans’ two major political parties swapped duties with just as much fidelity to cause. It was a Democrat who almost waged World War 3 with nukes, and a Republican who closed the curtain on the conflict.

What are some of the lessons we can learn from this nonviolent (between the two directly) but proxy-filled adventure spanning 50 years?

allies are important

The USSR had a small circle of captive East European satellite nations as its allies. They weren’t very impressive. The best fighters would have been the East Germans, but they were outnumbered 2:1 by the West Germans under Washington’s control. And even had they fought, they would have been of unreliable loyalty to Moscow.

Washington had France, Britain, Germany and Italy on its side, not to mention Turkey and Canada, among many others. The total manpower and GDP resources were colossal. In any direct one-on-one conflict between America and the Russian Empire, America would have edged out ahead; with allies, it would have been a handy victory for the West.

ideology matters

A number of Westerners were taken in by Communist ideology. This included everyone from British spycatchers to American university professors to members of Hollywood’s elite. Communist ideology made the Russians stronger than they really were.

American ideology — blue jeans and the vote — was persuasive, too, but in a more indirect way. It’s hard to conceive of the vote if you’ve never voted and blue jeans were just an image on the screen for most in the Soviet lands, but rumors of American freedoms and riches abounded nonetheless.

In a battle of ideologies, the East had the advantage with the intellectuals; the West had the advantage with the common people. Generally speaking, the intellectuals are more important, but Moscow had no way to directly mobilize its converts to fight on its behalf.

win soon or risk being asphyxiated

What killed the Soviet Union more than anything else was the long-term “containment” policy enacted by early Secretaries of State against the mighty Eastern colossus.

Time passed… and passed… and passed. Generations wilted away. By the time of Mikhail Gorbachev, the first General Secretary to be born within a Communist system, the USSR had lost most of its initial drive and momentum — something the Americans had been counting on.

In any battle of dynamic ideologies, you must take to the field early or risk losing your soul in the battle to come. The Russians acquired the A-bomb in 1949, and should have taken to the field against the Europeans in the mid-Fifties, shortly after Stalin’s death. The Russians had a much bigger and better army than the demilitarized Continentals, and were combat-hardened against the Wehrmacht.

The Russians should have followed German policy of unlimited submarine warfare against the islander Brits. Concurrent with waves of attacks against Bonn and Paris (the Italians were irrelevant as they still couldn’t fight). Victory would have been hard-won, but it probably would have sided with the Soviets, since they had the land war edge. With the complete sinking of the Royal Navy, the United Kingdom would have been vulnerable to a Soviet invasion force from the skies — paratroopers landing in London, Manchester and Liverpool.

With the European colossus completely harnessed to the Soviet sphere of affairs, the global battle would have tilted decisively to the Russians.

don’t elect a reformer

Gorbachev spelled the downfall of the Communist way of things. I suspect he was chosen because he was a reformer. Once he started changing things, things would spiral out of control and the mind-lock of Communism would be broken. It’s hard for one man or a handful of men to challenge a system from within, but giving aggressive hope to 15 Republics was enough to break the grip.

If the Communists had really wanted to win, they would have had to attempt a selective change to the economic system in secret. Introducing elements of competition and profit-sharing would give it some of the vitality of capitalism. But you needed not a reformer, but a tough-minded executive with limited goals. Just squeeze more out of the economy. Forget about societal openness and freedom. Make sure, once again, you operate in secret, so as not to get hopes up by the general populace, which was bound in chains.

Even after 1980, the Soviets still could have won: Europe was decadent, weak, and for years NATO nations had been spending below their minimum mandated amounts. A proper ideological war had never been waged by the Communists. Their allies in the intelligentsia of the West had never been properly tested out. There was much that could have been done. A lot of American workers hate their bosses and want state-provided health care. Communism is an attractive system.

conclusion

Poor leadership led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Stalin was too cautious. Lenin died too soon to effect the potential change only he could have offered. Khrushchev was a clown. The geriatrics who ruled in the 1970s were useless relics.

The dynamic American political system, accepting only the best entrants to its halls, churned out a succession of truly great leaders, from Truman to Reagan. By the time of California’s Ronald Reagan, America was beginning to assimilate the microchip into its economy, and talking up the Star Wars missile defense system, adding further pressure to the wheel which Russia was strapped on. Without conscious direction from Soviet leaders, and proper ideological manipulation, the USSR was doomed from 1981 on.

What really doomed the USSR was the Finland invasion just before World War 2 started. The poor Soviet performance in that war convinced the Nazis that the USSR was weak, insipid, unfightworthy. If the Soviets had stayed out of World War 2, they could have let the capitalist countries destroy one another, and swooped in for the kill. That was really their best chance during the long twilight century. But Stalin couldn’t resist the Finland infiltration. Lenin would have made a better leader.