The Impact of the First World War - Dissertation Example

Section B Answer only ONE question. 2 This question is about the impact of the First World War. (a) Explain the extent to which each of the three leaders, Clemenceau, Lloyd-George and Wilson were satisfied with the final terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles was ratified as a result of the Paris Peace Conference, where it was finally signed after four months. The Treaty seemed to satisfy the "Big Three" but only to a limited extent. Germany had been weakened yet they were still strong enough to stop the spread of communism. The French border with Germany was safe from another German attack and the organisation, the League of Nations, created ostensibly to end warfare throughout the world. Clemenceau seemed the most satisfied with the Treaty because most of his aims during the Paris Peace Conference had been included in the Treaty. The fear of a German uprising was no longer in the minds of the French as all the land that Germany was required to hand over was returned; the most important regions being Alsace and Lorraine. Germany's army was down sized to a maximum of 100,000 men; they were denied the use of tanks. The air force was disbanded and the navy was only allowed to staff and operate six ships; however, no submarines were allowed to remain operational. The land fifty kilometres east of the Rhine was pronounced a demilitarised zone, where no soldier with a weapon could enter. Overseas land previously owned by Germany was given to different European countries. The Saar, Danzig and Memel were put under the control of the League of Nations. One of the more important outcomes was the "War Guilt Clause" that required Germany to take on full responsibility for starting the war. This was important as it would show the world France's reason for participation in the war was only to defend against the German attacks. This also meant that Germany would have to pay reparations to France for the physical damage caused during the war. Clemenceau was the most satisfied out of the three leaders with the humiliation of Germany, and France new found new power in the world. Wilson was very pleased because as a result of the Paris Peace Conference his vision of the League of Nations had become a reality. The League would make it possible to solve conflicts all over the world in a peaceful manner, displaying Wilson's desire for worldwide peace. He said as much: "To promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security." (Wilson) The cost of creating the League was losing his other 13 original ideology points to gain the global support that was necessary to start the League and make it a success. As the post-war world was in struggle of finding peace, there were a lot of countries intrigued by the international organisation that promised to bring the world peace. Wilson was of a peace loving nature and was clearly angered by the great number of restrictions Germany had to agree to in the Treaty as well as all the reparations they had to make. The harsh conditions that were imposed on Germany embarrassed and shamed Wilson. Nevertheless, he was very satisfied with the start of the League of Nations. One fact to be noted is that reparations to the United States were not mandated in the Treaty. It is true that the losses of the United States were not on the same scale as Britain and France because of their late entrance into the war. Lloyd-George was perhaps the least satisfied with the final terms of the treaty because of Clemenceau's persistence to bankrupt the German economy. As Lloyd-George's key point was to keep Germany's economy as stable as possible so as to increase European market strength, he was not happy with the end result. Most people in Great Britain had wished for revenge on Germany, and indeed received satisfaction as many of Germany's colonies went to Lloyd-George such as Egypt and parts of China, including important, major trading ports. These acquisitions greatly enriched great Britain's economy, a large amount of wealth coming from the Cantonese trade in China. This was the most rewarding condition for Great Britain in the Treaty, as they could more easily recover power and wealth quickly. Additionally, with the immense decrease in size of the Germans navy, the seas could once again be controlled by the British. With Lloyd-George's constant "on the fence" attitude at the Paris Peace Conference he was largely overpowered by the other two in his requests. This caused more frustration in Lloyd-George and among the British public who thought more reparations should be given to Britain. Lloyd-George was reasonably happy with the colonies gained, but was upset with the fact that the German economy was in very poor condition. None of the three leaders had all of their requirements met, but at least one major desire each was to keep them content. Clemenceau received the most satisfaction out of the humiliation of Germany and marvelled at the down sizing of their army. Wilson was not content with the unforgiving treatment of the Germans, but was very satisfied with the founding of the League of Nations even though he was compelled to surrender thirteen of his points in exchange for realisation of the one that he held most dear - the League of Nations. Lloyd-George was not as happy as the other two because of the destruction of Germany's economy, resulting in no help from the Germans to strengthen the European market (b) "The League of Nations failed because of America's absence in the organisation." How far do you agree with the statement Explain your answer. I agree to a large extent that the League of Nations failed because America did not join the organization. However, there were also other contributing factors such as the frequency of meetings of its members and structural weaknesses within the League. The most important reason why the League of Nations could not succeed in its aim of global harmony was the fact that the United States, the country that first proposed the idea of the organisation did not, itself, join. The U.S. Senate forbade America from joining on the grounds that they did not want to forsake national sovereignty, they didn't want to police the world, and many German-Americans, a significant percentage of the population at the time, resisted the idea of the States as a League of Nations member because of their indignance towards the United States' role in the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. As can be seen the reasons for the U.S. not joining are multi-faceted and complex. As a new world power, it wanted to enjoy its rising stardom without having to be restrained by a body such as the League of Nations. After all, they had just "rescued" Europe and East Asia; and they had the A-Bomb. The U.S. Senate saw the probable limitations that such a body could and would impose on their new found power. Additionally, the U.S. was the only country involved that had a large German population who, of course, shouldn't be punished for feelings of loyalty to their Fatherland and the way their new country of fealty was treating the old. It was somewhat a twisted sentiment on the part of the German-Americans since they, due to their large numbers could have actually helped Germany if the U.S. were a member; but the government did not complain and quickly adopted an isolationist stance. Because the U.S. did not join the League of Nations, the League lost much credibility in the eyes of other nations. Furthermore, the U.S. was a respected nation because it was a world power with economic might--and apparent flexibility; the loss of them as a mediator was a blow to the League's effectiveness in negotiations with other countries. Nations would have trusted the League more if the U.S. was part of it, as other countries leading the League were considered to be only looking out for their own interests; the US did not have that image. Also, the economic and political weight of the League would have increased exponentially had the U.S. joined, as they were a financial superpower with even more influence after World War I. Without the Americans, the League was less effective, both in terms of economic and arbitration power. Another fact and a major fault in the League of Nations' functioning involved the fact that the General Assembly met only once annually, with the Security Council only meeting a few more times per year. The aim of the League to unify the world through discussions rather than violence would be extremely difficult to carry out if the countries involved were only there to discuss issues once per year. Additionally, the Security Council, which consisted of the "Big Four", only met three or four times a year, which was also insufficient to bring peace to the world. The organisation would have been more successful had the nations involved been prepared to put more time and effort into making the world a better place, rather than make false claims and then not attempt to solve issues that would require more time input than was actually intended. Furthermore, when the General Assembly met and would discuss events, any decisions made would have to be by a unanimous vote. An organisation consisting of over 42 countries needing to reach a unanimous vote for any idea to be passed is an extremely unreasonable and completely unrealistic expectation. The veto power provided to the Big Four also proved to be problematic. Britain, France, Italy, and Japan had the ability to table any decisions made after hours of discussion if there was one simple idea on the agenda one of the powers disagreed with. This created a slow and arduous negotiation process, and was yet another reason why the League of Nations was ineffective in solving global issues and establishing, not even considering maintaining world peace. Another important reason for its failure was the structure of the League. The Security Council was given the greatest power in the League, and it consisted of Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. The rest of the world did not hold much faith in these powers, with good reason. Britain and France, two major colonial powers, were regarded as selfish and imperialistic by other nations, who believed that the two countries would only consider their national interests. Wielding so much power would ultimately be an opportunity for them to improve their own countries, and that suspicion by the rest of the world was the main seat of unrest within the League. The two main powers, Britain and France, also frequently disagreed with each other, and did not particularly get along. This caused even more disruption in the elite group that was supposed to be resilient and confident in their decisions, which weakened the structure of the League even further. Italy was also focused on their own territorial gain rather than the welfare of the rest of the world. Japan, the only Asian nation, was isolated from the other powers. As the only nation in the east, the entire responsibility of Asia's well being was placed upon the shoulders of Japan, an unreasonable and unfair obligation for Japan, who found it impossible to patrol the largest continent on earth. The four main powers were also distant geographically from the rest of the globe, with three powers concentrated on one small continent, and the other power being an archipelagic nation with no easy access to other countries. Without America as a member, problems such as frequency of meetings, and an unstable structure was proving to send the League of Nations crashing to its knees from its very inception. The League did not have enough resources without them to accomplish all their goals; although Britain and France were donors to the cause, their contributions were not nearly enough to sustain the continuous efforts of the League's idealistic aims. Obviously, without the resources to carry out a task, an organisation would be rendered, to all intents and purposes, useless. 3 This question is about Japanese aggression towards China and the War in the Pacific. (a) Explain why Japan adopted an expansionist policy towards China during the 1930s. The most important reason for Japan's expansionist policy was the rise of militarism in Japan. The military officers responsible wanted to make Japan a great power--comparable to the Westerners. The need to be on equal footing was seen in the worsening relations with Western Powers. Japan was unhappy because it was not treated equally by the westerners. Japan wanted a statement in the Covenant of the new League of Nations stating that all races were equal, but it was blocked by the western powers. This dogmatism was seen by the Japanese as an act of racism. In addition, Japan was forced to accept the decision made at the Washington Naval Conference of 1922, whereby her navy size was reduced to three-fifths the size of those of Britain and America. This provoked Japan's sentiment that the Western powers did not consider Japan to be their equal. From an Economic point of view there was reason to adopt the expansionist policy as well. Japan needed desperately to solve her economic problems of food shortages and unemployment. Before the Great Depression, Japan was able to export its goods and purchase raw materials and food from the profits of trade. The Great Depression in the early 1930s greatly reduced the prices of Japanese agricultural products. Japan's exports fell by 50% between 1929 and 1931. The Western countries' imposition of taxes on all Japanese goods also impacted her economy and added to her economic hardship. By 1931, half of Japan's factories had closed and million peasants were reduced to severe poverty. Hence Japan looked towards China, which had many valuable resources for her industries such as oil, iron and coal. Industrialisation also calls for a ready market, and China, with its huge population, was a profitable market for Japanese goods. Japan had to pursue her imperialist policy towards China to keep the Chinese market open to Japanese trade and to preserve her economic position in South Manchuria. Definitely the most important factor was the rise of militarism in Japan which advocated an expansionist policy towards its neighbouring countries, which was seen as a means to gain access to raw materials and potential markets for its goods. This was especially crucial after the Great Depression when the Western markets for Japanese goods shrank and higher taxation of Japanese goods was imposed. The militarists' domination of the government was strengthened by the successes of the invasion and control over Manchuria and North China. The increase in military strength and the leadership of Tojo pushed for further aggression towards China. The militarists wanted a new order in East Asia. Its aim was to create a political and economic bloc comprising Japan, Manchuria and China under Japanese domination. In 1940, Japan proclaimed an expanded version of the 'New Order' called the 'Greater East-Asia co-prosperity sphere' which included Southeast-Asia. The other contributing factor for the policy was the deteriorating relationships with the Western powers. Japan was forced to accept the decision made at the Washington Naval Conference of 1922 and the Western countries' imposition of taxes on all Japanese goods. The worsening relations with Western Powers simply made Japan evermore determined to be a great power comparable to the Westerners. (b) "The attack on Pearl Harbour led to the eventual defeat of the Japanese in the Pacific War." How far do you agree with the statement Explain your answer. I agree to a large extent that the attack on Pearl Harbour led to the eventual defeat of the Japanese in the Pacific War. However, there were also other reasons for Japanese defeat such as the Battle of Midway and the dropping of the atomic bombs. The most important factor that led to the eventual defeat of the Japanese in the war was Japan's decision to bomb Pearl Harbour, and execution of the plan. As a result of the war, the attack helped spark a turning point for the Allies. Germany now had to enter the war. This was because of Germany's Tripartite Agreement with Japan, they would undoubtedly be compelled to engage in war with America; something they were not ready to do. This eventually proved to be disastrous. The Japanese were trying to severely damage the U.S. fleet, and then force the U.S. into negotiations with Japan. Instead, what the attack did was to spur the U.S. to strengthen its navy, and more importantly, through bombing Pearl Harbour, Japan unified a divided America against the Axis powers. President Roosevelt did not know whether or not he should ask congress to declare war before the bombing, because he was afraid that he would not have enough popular support. The Japanese bombing at Pearl Harbour made up his mind for him. The U.S. declaration of war against the axis powers was only the first wave in the change of tide in the war. From the Japanese point of view it was very much a tactical coin toss. The bombing of Pearl Harbour was a pre-emptive strike aimed at knocking the U.S. out of being able to participate in a naval war for as long as possible. By destroying the main U.S. naval force, Japan hoped that in the time it took to retaliate, they would bee too powerful for any navy to defeat. They, however, miscalculated the resources of the U.S. and saw the retaliation come much faster than they had ever expected. However, it may be argued that Japan did indeed make the right tactical decision. After all, if history repeats itself-the U.S. joined World War I without being bombed, so Japan rightly assumed that if it did not destroy the fleet at Pearl Harbour, there would only be that much more Navy to fight against when the U.S. eventually did join the war. As mentioned above, another change in the tide that led to the eventual defeat of the Japanese was the Battle of Midway. At Midway, the Japanese hoped to take over the small U.S. base at Dutch Harbour in the Aleutian islands. To ready themselves for their huge assault, the Japanese, under Yamamoto, amassed over 200 ships, including the Yamato, which was the greatest battleship that the world had ever seen. Yamamoto thought that victory would be inevitable, but U.S. code-breakers, helped by intelligence units in Washington and Australia, were able to crack about 90 percent of the Japanese messages. Because of the help of the code-breakers, the Americans, under Midway commander, Raymond A. Spruance, were able to assess the grandeur of the impending strike. Armed with that knowledge the Americans were able to set up an adequate trap able to deter the Japanese. It was the first naval defeat of the Japanese in more than 300 years. At first, however, it seemed that the Japanese would win this huge naval clash. Almost all of the U.S. fighters which were carrying torpedoes were shot down before deploying their ordinance, and those torpedoes which did manage to get fired were too slow, thus allowing the Japanese ships to avoid the torpedoes. What did inflict heavy damage on the Japanese ships were the precise dive bombers. They succeeded so greatly that the Japanese were defeated at Midway with heavy losses. After this defeat, for the rest of the war, the Japanese were on the defensive. The final nail in the coffin for the Japanese was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although Japan had suffered conventional bombing and a naval blockade, the Japanese were unwilling to surrender. They felt that it was shameful to surrender and were prepared to fight to the very last man. President Truman was concerned that America would suffer enormous losses if they were to invade Japan hence he was prepared to use the atomic bombs on Japan. America dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on 6 August causing the deaths of 80 000 people. There was no immediate surrender from Japan, so two days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki which killed 40 000 people. The devastation of the two atomic bombs pushed the Japanese government to commit to immediate surrender. It is true that Japan with their history of honourable Samurai, ready and willing to fight to the last man (remnants of which were evidenced in their Kamikaze pilots, who when shot down, would guide their plane's crash to do as much damage to the enemy as possible-killing even in death). However, one must remember that this was an attitude adaptable to conventional weapons, not weapons of mass destruction. Yes, Japanese soldiers were ready to fight to the last man, however when 120 000 civilians are obliterated in 24 hours, I think even the strongest resolve to "fight to the death" will falter. After all, Japan went to war to keep its people alive, not to kill all of them. The most important reason for the eventual defeat of the Japanese was the attack on Pearl Harbour. There were two major consequences that stemmed from the bombing of Pearl Harbour. The first was the United States becoming involved in World War Two, and the second was the creation and dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan by the Americans. One other major event that proved a severe setback to the Japanese was the Battle of Midway. In June 1942, the US navy inflicted a serious blow to the Japanese, which it failed to recover from. The Americans won the battle despite fighting against heavier odds due to the fact that they had broken the Japanese radio code. This U.S. victory was a huge turning point in the Pacific Theatre since it severely weakened the Japanese. In my opinion, without the United States involvement in World War Two, the allies would have probably lost. The bombing of Pearl Harbour was a very strategic attack upon the United States by Japan, but all Japan did was awaken a sleeping giant. The events following the bombing had actually helped gain power for the Allies, with the Americans entering the war and creating and using the Atomic bomb. 4 This question is about the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe during the 1980s'. (a) Explain why Gorbachev introduced his policies of Perestroika and Glasnost in 1985. On taking office in 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev inherited an economy with a diminishing rate of industrial and agricultural output and both sectors were in desperate need of reform. Gorbachev chose to adjust the old system with a period of Perestroika. Perestroika translated literally, means restructuring and was the term attached to the attempts (1985-91) by the Prime Minister to transform the stagnant, inefficient command economy of the Soviet Union into a decentralized market-oriented economy. The first policy, Perestroika was formulated to restructure the centrally-controlled economy. Gorbachev had realised that Russia was falling further and further behind the west technologically. He decided to invest heavily in the machine-building industry in order to stimulate technological progress. Gorbachev was probably, if not the first Soviet president to realise, then the first to admit, even to himself, that Russian Socialism (Communism) could not continue without adapting itself to changing times. By investing considerably more it was expected that living standards would rise due to the fact that there would be more funds available for distribution. There would also be more competition in industry and as a result unproductive workers would be dismissed. There was also an attempt to delegate more responsibility to the management of the individual enterprises to induce them to make more decisions for themselves. Gorbachev hoped that by introducing such measures, he could encourage enterprise and boost the Soviet economy. It may be argued that, if at this point, Russia did what China has been doing for the past few decades, it might still be a world power today. By not making the use of "the best of both worlds" (i.e. a combination of Communism and Capitalism), the Soviet Union doomed itself to its present insignificance and shame. The second policy, Glasnost was developed in response to the lack of progress made under Perestroika. Gorbachev soon realised that his 'restructuring' was failing. He blamed this on the resistance of the upper-level ideological and economic structures. His reaction was an attempt to instigate reform from the bottom upwards. This led to the introduction of Glasnost meaning openness, his philosophy being that political change must be the precursor to economic change - the economic crises and subsequent events of 1989 - 1992 were to prove him wrong. The idea of Glasnost was to give the people a voice to criticise the conservative nature of the hierarchy and to bring about reform by this means. This was, however a fatally nave notion. This was especially so when Perestroika, a more plausible approach, failed to deal with two major economical issues - prices and ownership. So, to replace one failed attempt with a weaker one turned into a lesson learned for the president. Hence little progress was made This was largely because the supposed managers of enterprises were used to being told what to do and were almost incapable of independent thought and decision-making. It was an alien concept to them having been raised and educated in a Totalitarian system. The immediate reason for the introduction of the reforms would be to encourage the economy of USSR to pick itself up; and the ripple effect would be to meet the needs of the people. In addition, Gorbachev wanted to revive the people's faith in communism and the communist government. By 1985, the people were disillusioned with the political system, one facet of this system being a high level of corruption especially among the senior members of the Communist Party. They had access to consumer goods and were living in comfort while the common people were suffering. Glasnost was Gorbachev's solution to build the people's confidence in the political system and its leaders as well as to endeavour to end corruption by means of a more transparent government. (b) "The most important reason for the Soviet Union's collapse was because Gorbachev's reforms yielded unexpected results. How far do you agree with the statement Explain your answer. I agree to a large extent with this statement because these reforms were indeed the root causes that led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the change of the global order. At the same time, there were several other contributing factors which might have caused the same result given enough time such as the sheer size of USSR and the inherent economic problems before Gorbachev's time. The most important reasons were the reforms undertaken by Gorbachev. Gorbachev had inherited a weak economy and a system still suffering from the corruption that exploded during the later Brezhnev years. While corruption was always a problem it was being performed at a rate that was not overly atrocious to the masses in its obviousness. Under Brezhnev, it was just a matter of corruption not just being rampant but overtly so. It is this that society frowns upon. Apart from this, the Soviet bureaucracy also served to slow down the political process. It is because of these factors that two of the most important words during Gorbachev's time in power were 'Perestroika' and 'Glasnost' which were designed to increase the degree of decentralization and democracy in the system without abandoning the basic principles of socialism. Gorbachev had hoped that these reforms would strengthen the Union while also modernizing it. It is commonly accepted that he never intended them to help the break up of the USSR, but this is what happened. Perestroika (economic restructuring) was meant to boost the flagging economy by abandoning the old, centrally planned and controlled system and allowing more private enterprise. Gorbachev had hoped that by doing this he would be helping to put life into a stagnant economy while also damaging one of the strongest black markets in the world. Perestroika is considered to be the most important of all his reforms and was what Gorbachev felt was the answer to the economic problems that had hindered the Soviet Union for decades. However, instead of the economic benefits it promised, Perestroika proved to be ineffective and failed to improve the situation. To make matters worse, the dismantling of the planned economy lead to economic chaos, which is considered by many as one of the most important factors in the break up. For a country that was built from straw, especially one with all its anchor points tied to one central post, the Kremlin, one shake of that post by something like Perestroika proves severely damaging to a country which only other possible strengthening and unifying foundation is a mere ideal. Glasnost (openness) was an attempt by Gorbachev to engage the great majority of the population in the task of modernising the Soviet economy by subjecting the bureaucracy to political criticism from above and below. The full extent of Stalin's 'terror' was revealed, as were many other wrong doings of the Communist party throughout its time in power. However, by the late 1980's, Stalin was long gone, reduced to "the bogeyman", effective maybe for scaring young children. Furthermore, the average proletariat had no grasp of the complex changes involved in a complete restructuring of an entire system of thought, belief, custom, and policy. Totalitarianism had done its job: The Proletariat had lost its logical social consciousness. And even though enlightened about Stalin's Terror, it remained at that, knowledge that there was terror and it isn't so bad now. Though, there was no acknowledgment of the lasting effects that the terror left. As Orwell said: The [proletariat] cannot rebel until he awakes (until he is aware); and he will not awaken (be aware) until he has rebelled (Orwell 1949). Thus, with no criticism coming from below, it is in the hands of the elite to make the change. Unfortunately, the elite were quite happy where they were and therefore made no attempt to unload themselves of their comforts. With no middle class as an effecter for ostensible positive change, no such change came about. One other factor deemed to be at fault for the collapse of the Soviet Union was the massive rift that had occurred in the Communist Party by the late 1980's. The party had largely split into two groups, the conservative traditionalists who were opposed to the changes happening in the system and the reformists pushing for change. Some observers believe that "Gorbachev's biggest mistake lay in... 'Awkward attempts at maintaining a centrist position'". Gorbachev was a reformist but was not committed enough to reforms to satisfy that part of the party while the conservatives felt his changes would ruin the Communists. His inability to unite the two factions severely weakened an already damaged party and one of the key factors in the security of the USSR was the strength of the Communist Party. Just as his reforms had been, Gorbachev was nave and weak, unwilling to stand for one thing or the other. This is just not politically possible in a one party system such as that of the Soviet Union. More importantly, I feel, the entire horrifying dimensions of the contemporary crisis were revealed. The fact was that the Union was in a state of decline and the openness of Gorbachev's regime served to confirm for many citizens what they already believed, that the system wasn't working properly. Had he not taken the glasnost route to reform, Gorbachev may well have been able to avoid having to show the people just how bleak the situation was and it is in this respect that his role in the collapse was highly significant. Another contributing reason for the collapse of the USSR was its geography and the diversity of the numerous nationalities within the country. The wide spread of nationalities had always been a problem for the USSR. Some figures claim that there were as many as 800 different national groups and about 130 different languages within the Union (Census Data 1980). Many groups were angered by what they felt was a Russian bias in such areas as employment and benefits and many nationalities had suffered much oppression, particularly during the Stalin years, at the hands of the Communist party. National pride was often directed towards a person's own state and not the USSR as a whole and while it was not possible to show these feelings publicly, many people longed for independence from the Soviet Union. The nationalities problem is widely accepted as being one of the key factors in the collapse of the USSR and Gorbachev can hardly be blamed for it being a current problem; but he does come into criticism for the way he handled the situation, even though he did not create it. His use of force against dissenting republics such as Lithuania has been described as clumsy and ineffective and in the end his inability to solve the problem proved fatal for the Soviet Union. However I do not feel that this puts the responsibility at his feet, as it is commonly believed that the nationalities question was virtually unsolvable and it is therefore very difficult to suggest anyone else would have handled it much better than Gorbachev. His decision-making with regards to reform, however, could have been far better. Thus, just as the satellite republics broke away when their leashes were severed, the whole Eastern Communist Bloc, like a mistress turned out, gained a new, uncertain independence. The other contributing factors for the collapse of the USSR were the inherent economic problems. This is the one aspect that Gorbachev could not be blamed for: The way the Soviet Union had been run before he came to power, particularly by post-Stalinist leaders. Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko did not live up to the image of the strong, decisive leader that had been set in the times of Lenin and Stalin. The level of economic growth in the country had steadily fallen from the 1950's to the 1980's and by the time Gorbachev came to power were among the lowest in the Soviet Union's peacetime history. Leaders found it increasingly difficult to keep increases in living standards up to speed with those in the West, particularly the U.S.A., and, instead of increasing, agricultural output sometimes fell. When this is taken into consideration, the extent of responsibility Gorbachev has to take for the collapse lessens somewhat and if he is to be blamed then this blame should be shared amongst leaders who came before him as well. While there were other contributing factors to the collapse of the Soviet Union, none were as significant or seminal as the reforms brought into play by Mikhail Gorbachev. Mikhail Gorbachev played a very important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union. This can be seen by how reforms such as Perestroika and Glasnost facilitated the demise of the Union and by how he failed to remedy the problems that faced him when he came to power. In order of significance, the reforms take the first position. It was, after all these reforms that led to the rift in the Party and eventually the coup in 1991 that was the final end for the U.S.S.R. While the geographical size of U.S.S.R. with its varied ethnicity can be given second place. Finally, the inherent economic problems, not handled in a stern manner, can be considered as the last contributing factor which led to the dissolution of the second world super power. Read More