Communism Soviet Union The simplest explanation for the collapse of the Soviet Union is that the system was not sufficiently stable to withhold both its own needs and the demands of an arms race. The very ideal of communism is that a nation will be freed from the demands of over-production and over-consumption which are the predicted bane of capitalism. Ideally, freed from the requirements of making a profit for the capitalist

The Soviet Union had been administered for the past 70 years through a tight control on information. Gorbachev's policy of openness threw open the floodgates. The Soviet people had been kept on a tight leash through tight control on information and "fear" by an oppressive government. (Kedzie, 1997) the lifting of the fear factor did not result in, as Gorbachev had hoped, improvement in the social and economic conditions

Therefore no media coverage had been given to rise of Berlin Wall. However, it falling also marked the end of an "evil" social order. This event triggered mass celebrations, some of which had been "cooked" by the media while others had been completely "natural." Resolution of Issues November 9, 1989 saw the fall of the Berlin Wall and it also marked a special occasion in for German families, which had been

Another view which is in fact closely linked to the above analysis is that the fall of communism began from within the system. This view is supported by the fact that that the very strict totalitarianism of the Soviet Union began to change after the death of Stalin. After Stalin's death the rigidity of Soviet Communism began to weaken, which was so to result in a reassertion of personal and

Economic development of Eastern and Western Europe over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries obviously differed, but not to the extent that historians or economists have frequently imagined. Put simply, the economic histories of Eastern and Western Europe are frequently viewed according to either region's differing political organizations, with the capitalist West opposed to the Communist East, but in reality, the period of time defined by the rise

Anticommunism / Communism In Red Scare or Red Menace? John Earl Haynes seeks to rectify deficiencies in the historiography of American anticommunism. Prior examinations, he contends, have failed to accurately explain critical components of the opposition to communism in the years after World War II. In so doing, he indicates, these works have misunderstood and incorrectly characterized the nature of anticommunist activity. Haynes identifies four principal shortcomings in earlier depictions. First, he