Was Gorbachev forced into the economic reforms & to what extent did such reforms cause the collapse of the Soviet Union?

  • 0 votes

My understanding is the economic reforms were necessary in order to stop the Soviet Economy from collapsing. However such reforms were too late to have any relative impact so as to aid the economy. As a result, the money put into domestic policies enabled a greater gap in military terms to open up between the USA and USSR because the USSR simply could not afford to match the Soviet Union.

Is this a correct analysis? 

Posted Wed 6th June, 2012 @ 13:52 by Chris

2 Answers

  • 1 vote

as far as I'm aware, that seems to be correct

even if it was doomed to fail, Gorbachev had to attempt some form of economic reform as the living standards of the Soviet Union were so terrible he would not have any support from the people if he didn't attempt to address it.

if you want to talk about the 'gap' that developed, it might also be worth mentioning that the main issue with this was Reagan's announcement of the Strategic Defence Initiative, which the Soviets would have gone bankrupt trying to develop

hope that helps

Answered Sat 9th June, 2012 @ 16:59 by Cara
  • 0 votes

It is arguable that the reforms were necessary to stop the fall of the soviet union, however some would disagree stating that the soviet union was collapsing by itself due to the people power, the breaking of the Berlin wall is proof of this. This renders Gorbachev reforms slightly unnecessary, they simply aid the revolution that was happening as people pushed towards capitalist ideology. The Helsinki accords, Salt I and II can be seen to end the arms race officially, the soviet union having a poor economy from the very beginning due to comecon aid, warsaw and various international pursuits such as afghan could never really afford the arms race. so yeah ..

good luck :)

Answered Sat 9th June, 2012 @ 23:06 by boo