The night of 9 November 1989 had begun as a bureaucratic confusion. At a press conference in East Berlin, Günter Schabowski, a senior official of the Socialist Unity Party who had missed the meeting at which the relevant decision had been taken, was handed a note and read it aloud without fully understanding what it said. Asked when new travel regulations permitting East Germans to visit the West would come into effect, he glanced at the paper and said: “Immediately, without delay.” Within hours, crowds had gathered at the Wall’s crossing points. The guards, who had received no orders and had no clear sense of what the rules now were, eventually stood aside. People who had been separated from friends, families, and the western half of their own city for twenty-eight years walked through.
Schabowski had misread the note. The regulations were intended to come into force the following morning, subject to administrative procedure. But this was almost beside the point. The Wall fell not because a decision had been made but because the East German state had lost its capacity to maintain the coercive certainty on which all its authority depended. The crowds gathering at the crossing points understood this before the border guards did. The regime that had ordered the construction of the Wall in 1961 — to stop its own citizens from leaving — could no longer sustain the political will to shoot those who approached it in sufficient numbers. The accident of Schabowski’s press conference was only possible because the underlying machinery had already stopped working.
The fall of the Berlin Wall is the defining image of the Cold War’s end: the clearest single moment at which the long bipolar standoff that had structured world politics since 1947 visibly dissolved. But the image, like all defining images, simplifies a process that was longer, messier, and more contingent than the drama of a single night suggests. The Soviet bloc did not collapse because of the Wall’s opening; the Wall opened because the bloc had been collapsing, in different ways and at different speeds, for the better part of a decade. Understanding what happened requires going back to the structural crisis of the Soviet system in the early 1980s — and to the man who responded to that crisis in ways that accelerated its consequences beyond anything he intended or foresaw.
The System That Could Not Reform Itself
By the early 1980s, the Soviet economy had accumulated contradictions that its leadership was increasingly unable to ignore. The planned economy, which had driven genuine industrialisation in the 1930s and 1940s and had produced Sputnik and a credible nuclear arsenal, was failing to deliver the consumer goods, technological sophistication, and agricultural productivity that Soviet citizens saw, through the growing aperture of international communication, in the societies against which their system defined itself. Growth rates had been declining since the 1970s. The black market and the grey economy were filling the gaps that official production left, which meant that the state’s grip on economic life was already partial and degrading. Workers who received the same wages whether they worked well or badly had little incentive to do either, and the statistics that reported productivity to Moscow were themselves unreliable because the bureaucrats who compiled them had every reason to make them favourable.
The arms race with the United States was consuming a proportion of Soviet GDP that no Western analyst was quite sure how to calculate, but that all agreed was economically unsustainable. The Reagan administration’s military build-up in the early 1980s — including the Strategic Defense Initiative, whatever its actual technical feasibility — forced Soviet planners to choose between attempting to match American spending at costs they could not bear or accepting an expanding gap in military capability that their own strategic doctrine could not accommodate. The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which had begun in December 1979 and which its architects had imagined as a brief stabilising operation, had become a bleeding wound: by the mid-1980s, tens of thousands of Soviet soldiers had died in a war that could not be won against mujahideen fighters supplied with American Stinger missiles, and that was generating a sullen anti-war sentiment among the Soviet public that the authorities could suppress but not eliminate.
When Mikhail Gorbachev was appointed General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1985, he was fifty-four years old — young by the standards of a Soviet leadership that had become, under Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko, associated in the public mind with gerontocracy and stagnation. He had risen through the party apparatus in Stavropol and Moscow as a reformer who understood that the system needed to change to survive. What he proposed — glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) — were intended as controlled reforms, not as revolutionary transformations. Glasnost was designed to allow enough criticism of the system to identify and correct its failures, while keeping the party in control of the process. Perestroika aimed to introduce market mechanisms at the margins of the planned economy to improve efficiency without abandoning the fundamental architecture of Soviet economic organisation.
What Gorbachev did not fully anticipate was that a system which had functioned through the suppression of truth could not be reformed by releasing truth in controlled doses. Once glasnost permitted the press to report on the Chernobyl disaster honestly — the explosion at the nuclear power plant in April 1986 had initially been handled with the reflexive dishonesty of a system that had never admitted its own failures — it was difficult to enforce the boundaries of what could truthfully be said. Histories of Stalinist terror, suppressed for decades, began to be published. The nationalities — Ukrainians, Balts, Georgians, Armenians — who had been incorporated into the Soviet state by force began to articulate demands that glasnost had made expressible, and that the party’s own ideological framework could not easily contain.
The Year the Map Changed
The revolutions of 1989 were not simultaneous, and they did not all follow the same logic. Each country in the Soviet bloc had its own specific political culture, its own history of accommodation with and resistance to Soviet power, and its own configuration of forces that would shape how the transition unfolded. What they shared was the knowledge, spreading across the bloc with gathering speed after each successive country moved, that Moscow would not intervene to stop them. This was the decisive change — the abandonment of the Brezhnev Doctrine, which had justified Soviet military intervention in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 on the grounds that socialist gains were irreversible and the Soviet Union had both the right and the duty to defend them. Gorbachev’s foreign policy spokesman Gennady Gerasimov gave the new policy a sardonic name: the Sinatra Doctrine. Each country could do it their way.
Poland moved first. The Solidarity trade union movement, which had been driven underground after General Jaruzelski’s declaration of martial law in 1981, had never been fully destroyed. By 1988, a wave of strikes made clear that the regime could not stabilise the country through repression alone. In early 1989, Round Table negotiations between the government and Solidarity produced an agreement for partially free elections — only 35 per cent of seats in the lower house were genuinely contested, the rest reserved for the communist party and its allies. Solidarity won every single contested seat. In August 1989, Tadeusz Mazowiecki became the first non-communist prime minister in the Soviet bloc since the late 1940s. The Soviet Union did not move.
Hungary had been quietly liberalising for years, and in May 1989 its government took a step whose consequences it cannot have fully calculated: it began dismantling the barbed wire fence along its border with Austria. The Iron Curtain, in one of its most literal manifestations, was opening. East Germans, who could travel freely within the Warsaw Pact, began streaming through Hungary and into Austria. By September, the East German leadership — led by the ageing and increasingly delusional Erich Honecker — was watching tens of thousands of its citizens leave through a hole it had not made and could not close. When Honecker was replaced by Egon Krenz in October, the underlying dynamic had already escaped any individual’s control. The press conference at which Schabowski made his error was the punctuation mark at the end of a sentence that had been writing itself for months.
The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, which began on 17 November 1989 with a student demonstration and ended within weeks with the playwright Václav Havel as president-elect, was the most eloquent demonstration of how completely the Brezhnev Doctrine had been abandoned. Twenty-one years earlier, Soviet tanks had crushed the Prague Spring; in 1989, they stayed in their barracks. Romania was the exception that proved the rule: Nicolae Ceaușescu’s regime collapsed in violence rather than negotiation, and Ceaușescu himself was executed on Christmas Day. But even in Romania, the revolution was internal, driven by defections from within the security apparatus rather than Soviet intervention.
The Dissolution of the USSR
The revolutions of 1989 dismantled the Soviet bloc; the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself took two more years, and proceeded through a logic that Gorbachev struggled to the end to control. Having permitted the satellite states their freedom, he believed he could still hold the Union together through a reformed federalism that would give the constituent republics greater autonomy while preserving the central state. The Baltic republics — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, which had been incorporated into the USSR by Soviet-German agreement in 1940 and had never genuinely accepted Soviet sovereignty — were the first to move toward independence declarations, beginning in 1990. Gorbachev attempted to use economic pressure and, in January 1991, brief military intervention in Lithuania to reverse the Baltic independence movements. The intervention killed fourteen people and generated international condemnation without achieving its objective.
Boris Yeltsin, who had been expelled from the Politburo in 1987 after criticising the pace of reform and had rebuilt his political career through the new democratic institutions that glasnost had made possible, was elected president of the Russian Federation itself in June 1991. His relationship with Gorbachev had become openly adversarial: Yeltsin saw the Soviet Union as an obstacle to Russian reform and, not coincidentally, as a rival power structure to his own. When a group of hard-line communists attempted a coup against Gorbachev in August 1991, detaining the Soviet president in his Crimean dacha and announcing on state television that he was ill, Yeltsin’s response proved decisive. Standing on a tank outside the Russian parliament building, refusing to comply with the coup plotters’ orders, he became the symbol of resistance that the coup’s military enforcers found they were unwilling to shoot. The coup collapsed within three days. But it also destroyed the political credibility of the institutions Gorbachev led: the Communist Party was suspended, and the Union itself dissolved through the autumn. On 25 December 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president of the Soviet Union. The red flag over the Kremlin was lowered for the last time.
The End of History — and Its Discontents
The American political scientist Francis Fukuyama published his essay “The End of History?” in the summer of 1989, as the revolutions were beginning, and the book-length version in 1992, as the dust was settling. His thesis — that the collapse of Soviet communism represented not merely the defeat of a rival great power but the final vindication of liberal democracy as the end point of human political development — captured the mood of a Western political class experiencing something very close to euphoria. The Cold War had been won. The correct system had prevailed. History, in the Hegelian sense of a struggle between competing visions of how human societies should be organised, was over. What remained was the long, unspectacular management of a world in which no serious ideological rival to liberal capitalism existed.
The triumphalism was comprehensible given the scale of the victory, and it contained genuine truths. Liberal democracy had proved more resilient and more attractive than its communist alternative. The economic case for market economies had been decisively made against the Soviet model. The human costs of the Soviet system — the Gulag, the famines, the political terror — could now be documented and acknowledged in ways that the Cold War’s ideological pressures had sometimes made difficult. These were real achievements of Western liberalism, and they deserved recognition.
What the triumphalism missed was almost everything that would define the following three decades. The collapse of the Soviet state produced not a smooth transition to liberal democracy but a chaotic unwinding of political, economic, and social structures across eleven time zones, in which the principal beneficiaries were often the former nomenklatura — Communist Party officials who used their existing networks to acquire state assets in the privatisation processes that Western advisers designed and Russian oligarchs captured. The Russian economy shrank catastrophically in the early 1990s. Life expectancy for Russian men fell sharply. The political space that democratic theory required was occupied, in many successor states, not by functioning democratic parties but by nationalist movements that the Cold War’s bipolar structure had suppressed rather than resolved.
Yugoslavia, a nominally communist state outside the Warsaw Pact that had managed its multiethnic composition through the authoritarian unifying force of Josip Broz Tito, had begun to fragment before the Soviet Union dissolved. The wars that followed — in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and eventually Kosovo — were the most violent conflicts Europe had seen since 1945. The genocide at Srebrenica in July 1995, in which Bosnian Serb forces murdered more than eight thousand Bosnian Muslim men and boys in a town that the United Nations had declared a safe zone, demonstrated with devastating clarity that the end of the Cold War had not ended the capacity of European states to commit mass atrocity.
The World the Cold War Left Behind
The Cold War’s end was, in one precise sense, the end of the short twentieth century: the period from 1914 to 1991 during which the great ideological struggles born of the First World War’s destruction — communism, fascism, liberal democracy — fought out their contest. The historian Eric Hobsbawm, who had watched the whole span of it, used this framing in his magisterial account of the period, noting both the significance of what had ended and the uncertainty of what had begun. What began, he suggested, was an era whose shape was not yet clear, but whose dangers were already visible: extreme nationalism, environmental crisis, and the possibility that the disciplines imposed by bipolar competition would give way to a more chaotic disorder.
The nuclear arsenals that had guaranteed the Cold War’s peculiar stability did not disappear with the Soviet Union. They fragmented into successor states with varying degrees of political stability and varying relationships to the international frameworks designed to prevent proliferation. Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus inherited nuclear weapons and eventually agreed to relinquish them; but the knowledge of how to build nuclear devices was not contained by any border, and the materials that went missing in the chaos of Soviet dissolution became one of the defining security anxieties of the following decades.
The political geography of Europe had been redrawn with a completeness and speed that would have seemed impossible a decade earlier. Fourteen new states emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union alone; the reunification of Germany in October 1990 created the largest economy in Europe from two states that had been at the heart of the Cold War’s European division. The questions about what NATO was now for — whether an alliance formed to contain Soviet power had a purpose once Soviet power ceased to exist — were deferred rather than answered, and the expansion of NATO into former Warsaw Pact states in the late 1990s and 2000s would generate grievances in Moscow that a liberal triumphalism focused on the apparent finality of 1991 was ill-equipped to anticipate.
The wall fell, and what came after was not the end of history but the resumption of it: with all its violence, its competing nationalisms, its unresolved grievances, and its refusal to proceed along the trajectory that any single theory of political development had mapped for it. The crowds who walked through the Berlin crossing points on the night of 9 November did not know what they were walking into. Neither, it turned out, did anyone else.
Photo credit: George Garrigues
Leave a Reply