You're viewing part of a thread.
What would you call the siedge of Moscow if not nearly losing?
History is rife with "nearly"s. The USSR had to content with y'know, actually being in the middle of both world wars and suffering the material consequences. And then went on to go toe-to-toe with the golden child of capitalism (safely nestled on its distant continent, far from the material consequences of war, with all the post-war industrial economic advantages that wrought).
The US had a freakish advantage, no one should have gotten even close. And the USSR got smacked down bad through both wars. And yet, they were stiff competition. It's like gloating that your thoroughbred greyhound barely beat out a half-blind, 3-legged street dog in a race. The fact that it was close should be your sign.
That's a very narrow view of what happened after the second world war. URSS occupied half of the European continent. It basically was the last empire in Europe with all the resources and human capital at its disposal to do anything it wanted. Not to mention war reparations.
And it lost. The ideology wasn't working. It took 40 years for that empire to collapse, but collapse it did because it was built on the wrong principles.
I'm sure famine, sanctions, and concentrated international sabotage had nothing to do with it.
There was no famine in URSS post world war 2. What are you talking about?
Last I checked, 1946-1947 comes after 1945, double-check my math though.
And let's circle back around to the far more important concentrated international sabotage if you please.
The Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 because of the famine in 47?
And let’s circle back around to the far more important concentrated international sabotage if you please.
International sabotage? Do you have evidence of sanctions against USSR and their allies which weren't matched back by USSR & their allies?
Someone else already linked 'Killing Hope' by William Blum. I recommend perusing it.
Killing Hope’
That doesn't answer the question. At most, it just shows that KGB were more incompetent or not endowed with literary talent.