100!!POINTS Many admirers of Ronald Reagan credit him and his policies with the fall of Communism. Is that claim justified?

The short answer is no. A country and even a system never just collapses at once; Rome for example collapsed over centuries. The Soviet Union fell because the American alliance system was better than what the Soviets imperial policy. The Soviets had to spend money to occupy that territory they gained after WW2 while America had no countries that did not cost much because they were politically independent but economically benefited from American trade (Japan, west Germany, south Korea compared to their counter parts of china, east Germany and North Korea for example).

It was also geography that helped each empire (empires aren't necessarily bad or formal) form. America was a maritime power with cheap transport costs and plenty of economic assets while Russia was a land power with rivers that froze and no warm water ports to connect to trade routes. When a country has to choose sides, they usually benefit more with the country that tries people in due to it's opportunities rather than the country that forces people to stay in their territory under the guise of the “people”.

Third problem was timing. Russia relied on high oil prices for their economic growth while America had a diviserfied economy. America wanted more producers of oil in a market and more countries producing stuff while the Soviets wanted only Russia producing anything. You can probably guess which was more popular and sustainable of these two options.

I hope it helps you...

this is written in my book..

c

explanation:

hope it

considered the turning point in pacific war. the japanese tried to lure the american navy out so it could be destroyed but failed. the americans were led by admiral chester nimitz. the victory by america would put them on the offensive for the remainder of the war.