XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   XPost: soc.culture.nordic, soc.culture.baltics   
   From: anton.usenet@gmail.com   
      
   David Friedman kirjoitti:   
   > In article ,   
   >  Anton  wrote:   
      
   >> Communism did not suffer a military defeat, let alone that it fell   
   >> because of such. The unarmed civilian pupulations1 defeated communism -   
   >> not armies with guns.   
      
   > The Soviet Union suffered a pretty direct military defeat in Afghanistan   
   > (as the U.S. did in Vietnam, of course). It also lost some of its proxy   
   > conflicts elsewhere.   
      
   Both lost some, won some. Vietnam didn't bring US society down nor did   
   Afghanistan bring the USSR. If military played in any part of getting   
   the USSR and communism down it is the economic impact of the arms race.   
      
   > How important that was to its fall I don't know. I would suggest that   
   > the immediate cause was both the unarmed civilian populations rising   
   > against it and the armed military population being unwilling, or   
   > believed unwilling, to use its arms against the civilian population that   
   > was doing the rising.   
   >   
      
   I totally agree with this last paragraph.   
      
   --   
   Anton   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)