Full Version: Reagan and the Soviets
There is an on-going disagreement about whether or not Ronald Reagan's policies brought the Cold War to an end.
In one camp, there are those who believe that it was Reagan, almost alone, who ended the "Soviet menace". They point to the fact that it was Reagan's stated policy not to co-exist with the Soviets, because co-existence with the Soviets (as they existed in 1981) was impossible. How Reagan won the Cold War.
In the other camp, there are those that argue that the Soviet Empire was already collapsing before Reagan appeared on the scene. They point to the intrinsic frailty of the Communist system. Did Reagan's Military Build-Up Really Lead to Victory in the Cold War?
Question for Debate: Were Reagan's policies a major influence on ending the Cold War?
EDIT: added poll to the question.
I voted - Major Influence. Reagan wasn't solely responsible for ending the Cold War, but his unyielding pressure, commitment to building our own defenses, and patience were an essential component.
Margaret Thatcher said it best:
Margaret Thatcher said it best:
QUOTE
Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform.
Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire.' But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors.
So the president resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures.
Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire.' But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors.
So the president resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures.
Question for Debate: Were Reagan's policies a major influence on ending the Cold War?
Simply put... No.
Reagan's policy of outspending the Soviet Union made no difference to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Soviet military spending remained at a constant level throughout the period and did not rise to meet the 'threat' from America for the simple reason that the Soviets did not believe in an American first strike...
...It was Stalin's legacy of the command economy and the unwillingness of the old guard revolutionaries to reform that slowly strangled the Soviet Union.
Reagan's contribution to the process was that of an onlooker able to use events to style himself the victor. By performing before the camera's of the western media, Reagan used speeches of extravagant rhetoric in much the same manner as a tribal shaman might wave his arms at an exploding volcano to impress his powers upon his tribe.
It may be of interest that the Russians today spend almost exactly the same proportion of GNP on defence as the Soviet Union did. So are we to assume that Reagan's policies are still in effect?
editted to add a word
Simply put... No.
Reagan's policy of outspending the Soviet Union made no difference to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Soviet military spending remained at a constant level throughout the period and did not rise to meet the 'threat' from America for the simple reason that the Soviets did not believe in an American first strike...
QUOTE
The Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military expenditures. Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s. Neither the military buildup under Jimmy Carter and Reagan nor SDI had any real impact on gross spending levels in the USSR. At most SDI shifted the marginal allocation of defense rubles as some funds were allotted for developing countermeasures to ballistic defense.
Link...It was Stalin's legacy of the command economy and the unwillingness of the old guard revolutionaries to reform that slowly strangled the Soviet Union.
Reagan's contribution to the process was that of an onlooker able to use events to style himself the victor. By performing before the camera's of the western media, Reagan used speeches of extravagant rhetoric in much the same manner as a tribal shaman might wave his arms at an exploding volcano to impress his powers upon his tribe.
It may be of interest that the Russians today spend almost exactly the same proportion of GNP on defence as the Soviet Union did. So are we to assume that Reagan's policies are still in effect?
editted to add a word
No,I don't believe Reagan's policies were a major influence in ending the cold war. No matter who was president, the Soviet Union and her communist countries were doomed to fail.
There was a article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution today from an author who was involved in the cold war. His statement is as follows. The information is free but you may have to register to read the entire report.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion...4/13szanto.html
It was the inept empire, actually, and it killed itself
By ANDRAS SZANTO
Published on: 06/13/04
In the current orgy of commemoration, Ronald Reagan's steely resolve in the face of the Communist threat is taken as an article of faith. The "Great Communicator," we're reminded, put the world on notice that he was serious about bringing down the "evil empire." And that he wasn't afraid to spend big to win.
But the burnished vision of Reagan as St. George, single-handedly slaying the fire-breathing dragon of totalitarianism, is an exaggeration. In fact, communism's epic meltdown was more of a suicide than a capitulation
I was there. As a 19-year-old conscript in the army of the Hungarian Socialist People's Republic, I saw firsthand, in early 1983, that the days of superpower equilibrium were numbered
Soon we were headed in our armed amphibian vehicles into "enemy territory." We couldn't fire out from them, even if we had been allowed to use live bullets -- the gun holes were sealed shut. Not much later, we ran out of gas. This, then, was the formidable adversary that threatened the free world.
But it wasn't just that the military prowess of the Warsaw Pact was less than stellar. In other realms of life, too, change was in the air.
The United States had already won the culture war. Some people in my crowd shared a passion not only for Coke and Pepsi but also for such decadent indulgences as poppy tea (a crude form of heroin) and hashish. Kids swapped bootlegged tapes of the latest Western albums. Adults lined up to see movies by the likes of Woody Allen. The Young Artists Club of Budapest in 1984 was a hotbed of social and sexual transgression. Religion too was thriving alongside the bubbling subcultures.
All this was unfolding with little awareness of the Gipper. The spotlight was on the Politburo chiefs who followed Leonid Brezhnev, above all Mikhail S. Gorbachev -- it was he, the unlikely reformer, who, in our eyes, got things moving in Russia.
No one man deserves credit for the fall of communism. Reagan played his cards well, but in Eastern Europe, as elsewhere, history was one step ahead of the politicians
It seems that this young man at the age of 19,was a witness to the undoing of the Soviet Union and its communist allies.
Reagan just happened to be the President at the time. Enough said.
There was a article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution today from an author who was involved in the cold war. His statement is as follows. The information is free but you may have to register to read the entire report.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion...4/13szanto.html
QUOTE
It was the inept empire, actually, and it killed itself
By ANDRAS SZANTO
Published on: 06/13/04
In the current orgy of commemoration, Ronald Reagan's steely resolve in the face of the Communist threat is taken as an article of faith. The "Great Communicator," we're reminded, put the world on notice that he was serious about bringing down the "evil empire." And that he wasn't afraid to spend big to win.
But the burnished vision of Reagan as St. George, single-handedly slaying the fire-breathing dragon of totalitarianism, is an exaggeration. In fact, communism's epic meltdown was more of a suicide than a capitulation
I was there. As a 19-year-old conscript in the army of the Hungarian Socialist People's Republic, I saw firsthand, in early 1983, that the days of superpower equilibrium were numbered
Soon we were headed in our armed amphibian vehicles into "enemy territory." We couldn't fire out from them, even if we had been allowed to use live bullets -- the gun holes were sealed shut. Not much later, we ran out of gas. This, then, was the formidable adversary that threatened the free world.
But it wasn't just that the military prowess of the Warsaw Pact was less than stellar. In other realms of life, too, change was in the air.
The United States had already won the culture war. Some people in my crowd shared a passion not only for Coke and Pepsi but also for such decadent indulgences as poppy tea (a crude form of heroin) and hashish. Kids swapped bootlegged tapes of the latest Western albums. Adults lined up to see movies by the likes of Woody Allen. The Young Artists Club of Budapest in 1984 was a hotbed of social and sexual transgression. Religion too was thriving alongside the bubbling subcultures.
All this was unfolding with little awareness of the Gipper. The spotlight was on the Politburo chiefs who followed Leonid Brezhnev, above all Mikhail S. Gorbachev -- it was he, the unlikely reformer, who, in our eyes, got things moving in Russia.
No one man deserves credit for the fall of communism. Reagan played his cards well, but in Eastern Europe, as elsewhere, history was one step ahead of the politicians
It seems that this young man at the age of 19,was a witness to the undoing of the Soviet Union and its communist allies.
Reagan just happened to be the President at the time. Enough said.
Reagan's policies helped bring down the Soviet Union, just ask Gorbachev. Had we not gotten aggressive and dealt from a position of strength, it would not have happened.
There are times when the only thing enemy truly understands is the power and strength being brought to bear against them. This was one of those times.
We face a similar situation today in the WOT, and we will be just as successful.
There are times when the only thing enemy truly understands is the power and strength being brought to bear against them. This was one of those times.
We face a similar situation today in the WOT, and we will be just as successful.
I voted major influence. Obviously Kennan's strategy papers, the Polish solidarity and the Soviet command economy also played major roles. Interestingly enough, I've heard and read many who would place more responsibility with the Poles for ending the Cold War. But in Lech Walesa's own words, he gives high praise to Reagan for exactly that.
From 11 June WSJ:
I try to be objective in my own analysis of the Cold War, and I don't claim Reagan single handedly won the conflict. But I fear many will not give him the credit that is due, simply because of political disagreement.
From 11 June WSJ:
QUOTE
GDANSK, Poland--When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989......
In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.
In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.
I try to be objective in my own analysis of the Cold War, and I don't claim Reagan single handedly won the conflict. But I fear many will not give him the credit that is due, simply because of political disagreement.
I think my views are similar to DTOM's on this matter. I think Reagan both gets too much credit and too little credit for his role in the end of the Cold War.
One thing to remember is that is was Carter and not Reagan that was president when detente ended.
Reagan used strong rhetoric and an enhanced spending program (the seeming impossibility of the project was probably the most frustrating part of it from the Soviet's side. it was like claiming to make a double secret super special weapon.)
This was a heightening of COld War policies started under President Truman and pursued actively by several other presidents including Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon.
But our actions were mostly in context to the ending of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union and its leaders played the most prominent role in this. They were the actors and the planners who took the Soviet Union down a road that led to problems. Gorbachev was one of the most successful failures of all time and I respect his tremendous accomplishments of this time (de Klerk as well)
1989 will go down as one of the great revolutionary years of all time along with 1968, 1848, and 1830. From Easter Europe to the Soviet Union to South Africa, to China it was a time of great advancement of popular sovereignty and democracy.
Reagan deserves credit for accelerating the collapse of the Soviet Union and hopefully (speculation here ) helping to create the climate in which Gorbachev came to power.
One thing to remember is that is was Carter and not Reagan that was president when detente ended.
Reagan used strong rhetoric and an enhanced spending program (the seeming impossibility of the project was probably the most frustrating part of it from the Soviet's side. it was like claiming to make a double secret super special weapon.)
This was a heightening of COld War policies started under President Truman and pursued actively by several other presidents including Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon.
But our actions were mostly in context to the ending of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union and its leaders played the most prominent role in this. They were the actors and the planners who took the Soviet Union down a road that led to problems. Gorbachev was one of the most successful failures of all time and I respect his tremendous accomplishments of this time (de Klerk as well)
1989 will go down as one of the great revolutionary years of all time along with 1968, 1848, and 1830. From Easter Europe to the Soviet Union to South Africa, to China it was a time of great advancement of popular sovereignty and democracy.
Reagan deserves credit for accelerating the collapse of the Soviet Union and hopefully (speculation here ) helping to create the climate in which Gorbachev came to power.
There seems to be little doubt that Reagan's massive defense build-up and hardline policies contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. However as Fred Kaplan points out in an article at Slate, Reagan benefited as much from anything in the change of Soviet leadership from Yuri Andropov to Konstantin Chernenko to finally a dance partner he could deal with---Mikhail Gorbachev.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102081/
But in a separate article, Kaplan points out how the law of unintended consequences kicked in following the Soviet Union's humiliation in Afghanistan.
After the last Soviet troops departed, Afghanistan fell off the American radar screen. Over the next few years, Shevardnadze's worst nightmares came true. The Taliban rose to power and in 1996 gave refuge to the—by then—much-hunted Bin Laden.
Ten years earlier, had Reagan taken Gorbachev's deal, Afghanistan probably still wouldn't have emerged as the "friendly, neutral country" of Gorby's dreams. Yet it might have been a neutral enough country to preclude a Taliban takeover. And if the Russian-Afghan war had ended earlier—if Reagan had embraced Gorbachev on the withdrawal, as he did that same autumn on the massive cutback of nuclear weapons—Osama Bin Laden today might not even be a footnote in history.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102243/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102081/
But in a separate article, Kaplan points out how the law of unintended consequences kicked in following the Soviet Union's humiliation in Afghanistan.
After the last Soviet troops departed, Afghanistan fell off the American radar screen. Over the next few years, Shevardnadze's worst nightmares came true. The Taliban rose to power and in 1996 gave refuge to the—by then—much-hunted Bin Laden.
Ten years earlier, had Reagan taken Gorbachev's deal, Afghanistan probably still wouldn't have emerged as the "friendly, neutral country" of Gorby's dreams. Yet it might have been a neutral enough country to preclude a Taliban takeover. And if the Russian-Afghan war had ended earlier—if Reagan had embraced Gorbachev on the withdrawal, as he did that same autumn on the massive cutback of nuclear weapons—Osama Bin Laden today might not even be a footnote in history.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102243/
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 13 2004, 03:06 PM)
Reagan's policies helped bring down the Soviet Union, just ask Gorbachev. Had we not gotten aggressive and dealt from a position of strength, it would not have happened.
Not true. In his most recent interview Gorbachev denies that Reagan's position on Soviet Union influenced his political decision and moves.
QUOTE
But if he had warm, appreciative words for Reagan, Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions. Was it accurate to say that Reagan won the Cold War? "That's not serious," Gorbachev said, using the same words several times. "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost $10 trillion," he said, referring to the money Russians and Americans spent on an arms race that lasted more than four decades. "We only won when the Cold War ended."
By Gorbachev's account, it was his early successes on the world stage that convinced the Americans that they had to deal with him and to match his fervor for arms control and other agreements that could reduce East-West tensions. "We had an intelligence report from Washington in 1987," he said, "reporting on a meeting of the National Security Council." Senior U.S. officials had concluded that Gorbachev's "growing credibility and prestige did not serve the interests of the United States" and had to be countered. A desire in Washington not to let him make too good an impression on the world did more to promote subsequent Soviet-American agreements than any American intimidation, he said. "They wanted to look good in terms of making peace and achieving arms control," he said of the Reagan administration.
By Gorbachev's account, it was his early successes on the world stage that convinced the Americans that they had to deal with him and to match his fervor for arms control and other agreements that could reduce East-West tensions. "We had an intelligence report from Washington in 1987," he said, "reporting on a meeting of the National Security Council." Senior U.S. officials had concluded that Gorbachev's "growing credibility and prestige did not serve the interests of the United States" and had to be countered. A desire in Washington not to let him make too good an impression on the world did more to promote subsequent Soviet-American agreements than any American intimidation, he said. "They wanted to look good in terms of making peace and achieving arms control," he said of the Reagan administration.
I personally wholeheartedly agree with Gorbachev and think that he is the person who should get all the recognition for ending the Cold War. He destroyed so many pillars in the foundation of the Union that it could no longer exist. Reagan happened to be in the right place and in the right time. If Chernenko didn't die in 1984 and lived to that day, Soviet Union would still be there and I would not have the pleasure to participate in the America's Debate.
Let's remember that the thawing in relation started way into Reagan's second term, and the historic treaties were signed in 1988, when it was Reagan's last year in office (and a lot of his time was taken by the whole Iran-Contra affair). Soviet Union in the early eighties had the capability to incinerate United States many times over - it didn't need to follow the USA's military buildup.
QUOTE
"All that talk that somehow Reagan's arms race forced Gorbachev to look for some arms reductions, etc., that's not serious. The Soviet Union could have withstood any arms race. The Soviet Union could have actually decided not to build more weapons, because the weapons we had were more than enough."
So my position is identical to Gorbachev's and I think he is the man who is owed all the gratitude from the Eastern Europeans and the others. Reagan was a great politician and as such he was a great salesman - and this whole idea that he was the world's savior was, in my opinion, one of his biggest sales.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 13 2004, 03:06 PM)
There are times when the only thing enemy truly understands is the power and strength being brought to bear against them. This was one of those times.
Passion, would you care to offer any proof (beyond the sort of "well the SU did collapse, didn't it?" rhetoric) that the Soviet Union was responding to U.S. pressure? There have been several sources presented suggesting that this statement is true, and several indicating it is false; but none from you. From where (beyond general inference) do you draw your conclusions?
With a tip of the hat to English Horn- who I feel is in one of the best positions to debate this topic since he actually lived there as well-
I voted "no influence whatsoever"- and in fact, it was even less than that.
There are a few reasons that make the whole Reagan mythos in conflict with common sense.
1) Defying the history and power structure of Russia- any REAL change in power and revolution has one overwhelming common denominator- blood, lot's and lot's of human blood.
2) Basic lack of knowledge of the power structure of the USSR by most Americans- including many in Reagan's circle of friends. How many poeple here can name the major players in USSR goverment at the time of the cold war? Where is the money coming and going in that country?
3) The insular nature of Russian culture. It is a closed society then, and still is one now. Sure, they like some rock music or some jeans, but visit there and it is a alien world, completely different values and needs in thier culture. The outside world has so little influence it is amazing.
There has been very little change in law in the Russia since the end of the "cold war"- and really, we are almost back to pre-Gorbachev days, with Putin being called in many circles "the good Stalin". He is rounding up most of the Oligarchs- who backed Yeltsin, and arresting them or driving them into exile.
Here is a link on the Russian Oligarchs:
http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?art=130
And most of all, the entire debate really ignores the insular nature of Russian culture, the age of Russian culture, and to some degree, it's stagnation.
Communism was a 70 year "experiment" in a 1300 year old culture. There was actually very little legal change in law from Stalin and the Czars. Can't own private land? Well, guess what, the Czar technically owned everything in thier time too, the ones that "owned" land did that at the pleasure of the Czar.
Only the linguistic terms of goverment rule changed, not really actual law.
The same is true now.
IMO- the real reason for the whole "cold war ending" was that Oligarchs needed to find a way to get thier enormous capital out of the country.
I voted "no influence whatsoever"- and in fact, it was even less than that.
There are a few reasons that make the whole Reagan mythos in conflict with common sense.
1) Defying the history and power structure of Russia- any REAL change in power and revolution has one overwhelming common denominator- blood, lot's and lot's of human blood.
2) Basic lack of knowledge of the power structure of the USSR by most Americans- including many in Reagan's circle of friends. How many poeple here can name the major players in USSR goverment at the time of the cold war? Where is the money coming and going in that country?
3) The insular nature of Russian culture. It is a closed society then, and still is one now. Sure, they like some rock music or some jeans, but visit there and it is a alien world, completely different values and needs in thier culture. The outside world has so little influence it is amazing.
There has been very little change in law in the Russia since the end of the "cold war"- and really, we are almost back to pre-Gorbachev days, with Putin being called in many circles "the good Stalin". He is rounding up most of the Oligarchs- who backed Yeltsin, and arresting them or driving them into exile.
Here is a link on the Russian Oligarchs:
http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?art=130
And most of all, the entire debate really ignores the insular nature of Russian culture, the age of Russian culture, and to some degree, it's stagnation.
Communism was a 70 year "experiment" in a 1300 year old culture. There was actually very little legal change in law from Stalin and the Czars. Can't own private land? Well, guess what, the Czar technically owned everything in thier time too, the ones that "owned" land did that at the pleasure of the Czar.
Only the linguistic terms of goverment rule changed, not really actual law.
The same is true now.
IMO- the real reason for the whole "cold war ending" was that Oligarchs needed to find a way to get thier enormous capital out of the country.
QUOTE(moif @ Jun 13 2004, 04:58 PM)
It may be of interest that the Russians today spend almost exactly the same proportion of GNP on defence as the Soviet Union did. So are we to assume that Reagan's policies are still in effect?
From http://www.theodora.com/wfb/russia_defense.html
"the Intelligence Community estimates that defense spending in Russia fell about 15% in real terms in 1994, reducing Russian defense outlays to about one-fourth of peak Soviet levels in the late 1980s; although Russia may still spend as much as 10% of its GDP on defense, this is significantly below the 15% to 17% burden the former USSR carried during much of the 1980s; conversion of military expenditures into US dollars using the current exchange rate could produce misleading results "
Russia's Defense spending is significantly lower than the Soviet defense spending of the 1980s, and in fact were it up to the Kremlin, it would be lower still. One of the single largest budget items in the Russian defense budget is maintenance and upkeep on its vast nuclear missile arsenal. Russia would like nothing more than to scrap all its older style missiles, replacing them with newer production (such as the world-leading Topol-M missile) and cut its nuclear arsenal in half. Unfortunatly scrapping and safe disposal also costs a great deal of money...
Back to the topic:
The single element most singly responsable for the collapse of the USSR was the 1985/1986 Oil price collapse. It had to cut off its longstanding policy of supplying Oil to its sattelites at below world prices, and lost a huge source of income which had kept the economy boyed since the OPEC crisis of the early 1970s. This removal of one of the main financial links to the sattelites hurt their economies as well, but also reduced dependency.
Following the oil crisis, from 1973 to 1985 energy exports accounted for 80 percent of the USSR's expanding hard-currency earnings. In 1985 and 1986, World oil prices plummeted by 69 percent, and the dollar, the currency of the oil trade, drops like a stone. Almost overnight, the windfall oil and dollar profits the USSR had enjoyed for more than a decade were wiped out. These oil profits maintained the Soviet economy and war machine, helping keep the deficit (which was still high) under control. The loss of these profits crippled the Soviet economy. between 1984 and 1991, the Soviet deficit balooned from 9% to 20% of the GDP. As real amount spending remained more or les the same, this can only be explained by a massive drop in revenues: oil.
This was written in 1985 by John Haldane, a Middle East and OPEC specialist working with the US departments of Commerce and Treasury:
"Steadily weakening oil flow in the Soviet Union cut total Communist production by I percent during the first half of this year. Soviet oil production during the first six months of 1985 was 11.9 million barrels per day (b/d), down from 12.3 million b/d in the comparable 1984 period. (...) The USSR is well aware that failure to supply its allies with vitally needed oil could lead to unpleasant political problems. With Premier Gorbachev pushing for modernization of domestic industry and agriculture, more Russian oil will be needed at home. This can only drive up world oil prices from non-Communist sources and enhance the status of Mideast producers."
In summation, as Regan had nothing to do with the oil crisis, he can at best be described as having a marginal impact on the Soviet collapse. His hard line approach DID prevent the USSR from reducing military spending by any significant margin, which may have sped up the collapse somewhat...
Most interesting discussion here thus far I think. 
There is a lot of talk about the mechanisms of the Soviet decline in terms of economics and the like and while that may answer much of the question concerning "how", I'm not so sure it answers entirely the question of "why". I found Vermillion's post and links very informative and I'll discuss that a bit later on. However, I think that in order to understand the "Cold War", in addition to historical facts, one needs to also understand the psychology of the Cold War and how Ronald Reagan affected that. It was in this area where he truly made the difference and why I give him major credit for helping to end it. This is from one American's perspective who lived through most of it - me. This is going to be long, sorry about that, but 30+ years is a long time. Actually no, I originally wrote like a 5000 character history before I even got to the Reagan years, so in the interest of brevity, I excised it and cut the chase.
Ronald Reagan was labeled by his opponents as an old-school, hardline anti-Communist and we were warned that he would return us to the really dark days of the Cold War. Some even predicted that he would get us into a Hot War with the Soviet Union. He didn't help that image any when he labeled the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" and called them "barbarians" after they shot down KAL 007 off Saklin Island. Even Lady Thatcher said she "blanched" the first time Reagan used the term "evil" to describe communism. But, that was Reagan. He firmly believed that communism was evil and oppressive and he called it like he saw it. Ronald Reagan knew that communism would eventually collapse under it's own weight, but he wanted to help that process along. Lady Thatcher understood that. From her eulogy...
When that man of goodwill did emerge, Reagan met with him in Reykjavik where Gorbachev offered not just a reduction of nuclear missles, but the elimination of them from Europe entirely! All the US had to do was stop working on SDI. It was a stunning offer, and if Reagan accepted it, he could walk out of there with a truly amazing political accomplishment, but he refused and walked out, not willing to trade his principles and core beliefs for political gain. A year or so later, Reagan stood at the Berlin Wall and despite the opposition of his state department and his other diplomatic advisors demanded 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!". Not long after that, the Soviets returned to the table and Reagan got his deal, minus the SDI demand and the Soviets agreed to dismantling all nuclear IRBMs. And, of course, not long after that, the wall came down. Something I, as a child of the Cold War never thought would happen in my lifetime.
So, did Reagan cause that, or was he just, as some here have suggested in the right place at the right time? Was he just dealt a winning hand? Well, I reference here old song by Kenny Rogers. It's called "The Gambler". Part of that song goes.....
I would submit that at the VERY least, President Reagan knew how to play his hand.
There is a lot of talk about the mechanisms of the Soviet decline in terms of economics and the like and while that may answer much of the question concerning "how", I'm not so sure it answers entirely the question of "why". I found Vermillion's post and links very informative and I'll discuss that a bit later on. However, I think that in order to understand the "Cold War", in addition to historical facts, one needs to also understand the psychology of the Cold War and how Ronald Reagan affected that. It was in this area where he truly made the difference and why I give him major credit for helping to end it. This is from one American's perspective who lived through most of it - me. This is going to be long, sorry about that, but 30+ years is a long time. Actually no, I originally wrote like a 5000 character history before I even got to the Reagan years, so in the interest of brevity, I excised it and cut the chase.Ronald Reagan was labeled by his opponents as an old-school, hardline anti-Communist and we were warned that he would return us to the really dark days of the Cold War. Some even predicted that he would get us into a Hot War with the Soviet Union. He didn't help that image any when he labeled the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" and called them "barbarians" after they shot down KAL 007 off Saklin Island. Even Lady Thatcher said she "blanched" the first time Reagan used the term "evil" to describe communism. But, that was Reagan. He firmly believed that communism was evil and oppressive and he called it like he saw it. Ronald Reagan knew that communism would eventually collapse under it's own weight, but he wanted to help that process along. Lady Thatcher understood that. From her eulogy...
QUOTE
Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform.
Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's `evil empire'. But he realised that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors.
So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation.
Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's `evil empire'. But he realised that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors.
So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation.
When that man of goodwill did emerge, Reagan met with him in Reykjavik where Gorbachev offered not just a reduction of nuclear missles, but the elimination of them from Europe entirely! All the US had to do was stop working on SDI. It was a stunning offer, and if Reagan accepted it, he could walk out of there with a truly amazing political accomplishment, but he refused and walked out, not willing to trade his principles and core beliefs for political gain. A year or so later, Reagan stood at the Berlin Wall and despite the opposition of his state department and his other diplomatic advisors demanded 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!". Not long after that, the Soviets returned to the table and Reagan got his deal, minus the SDI demand and the Soviets agreed to dismantling all nuclear IRBMs. And, of course, not long after that, the wall came down. Something I, as a child of the Cold War never thought would happen in my lifetime.
So, did Reagan cause that, or was he just, as some here have suggested in the right place at the right time? Was he just dealt a winning hand? Well, I reference here old song by Kenny Rogers. It's called "The Gambler". Part of that song goes.....
QUOTE
You got to know when to hold 'em,
Know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away
And know when to run.
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table;
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done.
(snip)
Every gambler knows that the secret to survivin'
Is knownin' what to throw away and knowin' what to keep
'Cause every hand's a winner, and every hand's a loser,
And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep."
Know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away
And know when to run.
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table;
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done.
(snip)
Every gambler knows that the secret to survivin'
Is knownin' what to throw away and knowin' what to keep
'Cause every hand's a winner, and every hand's a loser,
And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep."
I would submit that at the VERY least, President Reagan knew how to play his hand.
Sorry Aquilla, but a Kenny Rogers lyric and anecdotes related in an eulogy does not persuade me. You have yet to draw a connection between his actions and the collapse of the Soviet Union, at least in my mind.
What your story tells me (always the cynic I am...) is that Reagan took a perfectly good offer, walked away from it, and accepted the offer later on. The difference, the U.S. got to waste $100 billion dollars in the process.
The psychology of the Soviet Union is an interesting subject. What people have to understand is that the communist philosophy dictated that the Communists were right; and it was only a matter of time before the Communist revolution would sweep across the globe. There was no philosophical pressure to expand forcefully into capitalist strongholds; only the desire to foster communism wherever it reared itself. George Kennan, the man who drafted the policy of containment, likened Soviet Communism to a cloud of gas; it would expand into whatever space opened up for it, but it couldn't and wouldn't apply hard force to boundaries erected in its place. Under this characterization, the boisterous militarism of Reagan had just as much of an impact as the detente approach of earlier administrations; it just came at a much higher price.
What your story tells me (always the cynic I am...) is that Reagan took a perfectly good offer, walked away from it, and accepted the offer later on. The difference, the U.S. got to waste $100 billion dollars in the process.
The psychology of the Soviet Union is an interesting subject. What people have to understand is that the communist philosophy dictated that the Communists were right; and it was only a matter of time before the Communist revolution would sweep across the globe. There was no philosophical pressure to expand forcefully into capitalist strongholds; only the desire to foster communism wherever it reared itself. George Kennan, the man who drafted the policy of containment, likened Soviet Communism to a cloud of gas; it would expand into whatever space opened up for it, but it couldn't and wouldn't apply hard force to boundaries erected in its place. Under this characterization, the boisterous militarism of Reagan had just as much of an impact as the detente approach of earlier administrations; it just came at a much higher price.
Likewise, Joe, your analogy to the Soviet Union as a simple "cloud of gas" that was simply looking for someplace to go peacefully unheeded belies history. The Berlin Wall was built out of bricks and mortar, not gas. The Soviet artillery that moved into Afghanistan was made of steel, not air. And, those Soviet missles that were moved into Cuba weren't there as tourist attractions.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 14 2004, 04:16 PM)
Likewise, Joe, your analogy to the Soviet Union as a simple "cloud of gas" that was simply looking for someplace to go peacefully unheeded belies history. The Berlin Wall was built out of bricks and mortar, not gas. The Soviet artillery that moved into Afghanistan was made of steel, not air. And, those Soviet missles that were moved into Cuba weren't there as tourist attractions.
I can understand that Americans are uneasy about Soviet missiles in Cuba, but let's not forget that Turkey, as a member of NATO, was a perfect launching pod for missiles (not to mention all the missiles spread out through the Western Europe). And Turkey is a neighbor to Armenia, a Soviet Republic back then. So, in the eyes of Russians, missiles in Cuba were nothing more than a defensive measure, a response to an act of agression.
As for Afganistan, boy, only if Americans didn't bother helping afgani fighters back then... Russians would win and it probably would have been another third-world pseudo-socialist society, just like Turkmenistan, or Tajikistan, or any one of those third-grade former Soviet Republics... but without poppy fields, Al Quaeda training fields, and most importantly, without Taliban. Russians had no business in Afganistan, but I don't think things could have gone much worse the way they are without them.
Aquilla, you don't seriously think that "Tear down this wall!" speech had an impact on Gorbachev's thinking process? While very impassionate, and delivered in a grand manner, that was nothing more than a speech - Russians could have just shrug it off and walk away (kind of like they did with the "evil empire" remark, although, contrary to popular belief, it was played over and over in Soviet Union by propaganda machine, so to some degree that remark only provided the Soviet propaganda with extra material).
As an example of how different leadership makes all the difference - look at the Kennedy/Kchruschev summit in Berlin in 1960s. Despite all the impassionate pleas delivered by Kennedy, Kchruschev just couldn't care less.
Granted, but you can no more prove that they were there to threaten U.S. interests than I can prove they were there to defend Soviet interests. Like I said, it wasn't my analogy I used, but the analogy of the person who coined the term 'containment' and was responsible for that policy.
I'd hate to think that you were oversimplifying my analogy to discredit it; so I will explain in more detail. Here is something I wrote in another thread:
The Soviets felt quite confidently that communism would eventually triumph. As such, there was no pressure on them to create Communist revolutions. What they did do is encourage communism (and the pseudo-communist revolutionaries of the 70's and 80's) wherever it appeared; as the SU was the 'vanguard' of the global communist revolution. External Soviet militarism (the arming of its borders as opposed to the armed repression of internal satellites) was simply a response to aggression of military pressure placed on them. Kennan, as a man who studied the Soviets extensively (while posted in the SU following WW2), felt that:
Elsewhere in that memo he defines such expansionist tendencies in the terms I have provided. What is clear is that this policy was not pursued by Reagan. Now, Kennan, and major IR scholars since have found this appraisal of the Soviet mindset to be fairly reliable; so how then can it be applied to Reagan's policy? Quite simply it can't. The Soviet Union collapsed due to the internal pressures that had been building since the initial revolution, coupled with the continuing viability of Capitalism, which eroded the patience of the revolutionary hopefuls.
I'd hate to think that you were oversimplifying my analogy to discredit it; so I will explain in more detail. Here is something I wrote in another thread:
QUOTE
The Soviet Union, whether or not they practiced it economically, embraced communism as a political ideology. One of the key elements of that ideology is historical determinism. Any communist "KNOWS" that eventually communism will succeed over the whole world.
The Soviets felt quite confidently that communism would eventually triumph. As such, there was no pressure on them to create Communist revolutions. What they did do is encourage communism (and the pseudo-communist revolutionaries of the 70's and 80's) wherever it appeared; as the SU was the 'vanguard' of the global communist revolution. External Soviet militarism (the arming of its borders as opposed to the armed repression of internal satellites) was simply a response to aggression of military pressure placed on them. Kennan, as a man who studied the Soviets extensively (while posted in the SU following WW2), felt that:
QUOTE
In these circumstances it is clear that the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies. It is important to note, however, that such a policy has nothing to do with outward histrionics: with threats or blustering or superfluous gestures of outward "toughness."
Elsewhere in that memo he defines such expansionist tendencies in the terms I have provided. What is clear is that this policy was not pursued by Reagan. Now, Kennan, and major IR scholars since have found this appraisal of the Soviet mindset to be fairly reliable; so how then can it be applied to Reagan's policy? Quite simply it can't. The Soviet Union collapsed due to the internal pressures that had been building since the initial revolution, coupled with the continuing viability of Capitalism, which eroded the patience of the revolutionary hopefuls.
I voted minor influence. I rmember reading a qoute by gorbachev that reagan didn't bring down the soviet union but he was a help in it's downfall. I think at best, he played a small part of inspiring russians to change their government. I would say that others were more insturmental and effective ate influencing this though (any number of western rock bands for instance)
while looking for quotes by gorbachev on reagan, I cam across this article a good way into the article I read this
so in other words, we COULD have possible gotten rid of nuclear weapons AND not spent billions (or was it trillions) on a system that didn't work (and STILL DOESN'T) and kept from creating a huge deficit! thanks gipper
while looking for quotes by gorbachev on reagan, I cam across this article a good way into the article I read this
QUOTE
But Reagan eventually held four summits with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. At Reykjavik, Iceland, in 1986, Reagan and Gorbachev were on the brink of a deal to abolish all nuclear weapons, but Reagan scuttled it when Gorbachev insisted that the United States abandon its research and development of a missile defense system.
(emphasis added) so in other words, we COULD have possible gotten rid of nuclear weapons AND not spent billions (or was it trillions) on a system that didn't work (and STILL DOESN'T) and kept from creating a huge deficit! thanks gipper
I'm not going to derail this thread with an in-depth debate over the Cuban Missle Crisis and whether the Soviets put those missles there for defense purposes or not. Fact of the matter, they did try to put missles into Cuba - that is an undeniable fact. Neither will I debate the merits of SDI, we can do that elsewhere, but once again, the fact of the matter is that SDI was important enough to the Soviets for them to demand we stop it in return for them dismantling the nukes in Europe. That too is an undeniable fact. Must have been pretty darn important to them to make that demand.
I doubt very seriously that anyone is going to find a link where Gorbachev says something along the lines of "We were going to take over the world, but that darn Reagan stood in the way. and even at that would most likely be relegated to "anecdotal". There are no hard facts to uncategorically prove or disprove things. In other words each "side" must make their case based on circumstances.
Along those lines, I would like to return to Vermillion's post here concerning the oil situation in the Soviet Union during the mid-1980's. I found that most enlightening because it may have answered in my mind a burning question.
From Vermillion's post (emphasis mine).....
Later on he goes on to explain the Soviets had a cash problem because of lowered oil prices on the world market in 1985-1986. I now wonder if that wasn't the reason the Soviets made their offer in Iceland. Did Gorbachev realize that the Soviets were going to have to eliminate part of their nukes anyway because of finances and try to entice Reagan to do the same thing in the US? Back to my poker analogy here. Was Gorbachev attempting to bluff Reagan into giving up SDI and at the same time disarm? Pretty darn clever if you ask me. I don't think I want to play poker with that guy......
I doubt very seriously that anyone is going to find a link where Gorbachev says something along the lines of "We were going to take over the world, but that darn Reagan stood in the way. and even at that would most likely be relegated to "anecdotal". There are no hard facts to uncategorically prove or disprove things. In other words each "side" must make their case based on circumstances.
Along those lines, I would like to return to Vermillion's post here concerning the oil situation in the Soviet Union during the mid-1980's. I found that most enlightening because it may have answered in my mind a burning question.
From Vermillion's post (emphasis mine).....
QUOTE
Russia's Defense spending is significantly lower than the Soviet defense spending of the 1980s, and in fact were it up to the Kremlin, it would be lower still. One of the single largest budget items in the Russian defense budget is maintenance and upkeep on its vast nuclear missile arsenal. Russia would like nothing more than to scrap all its older style missiles, replacing them with newer production (such as the world-leading Topol-M missile) and cut its nuclear arsenal in half. Unfortunatly scrapping and safe disposal also costs a great deal of money...
Later on he goes on to explain the Soviets had a cash problem because of lowered oil prices on the world market in 1985-1986. I now wonder if that wasn't the reason the Soviets made their offer in Iceland. Did Gorbachev realize that the Soviets were going to have to eliminate part of their nukes anyway because of finances and try to entice Reagan to do the same thing in the US? Back to my poker analogy here. Was Gorbachev attempting to bluff Reagan into giving up SDI and at the same time disarm?
Pretty darn clever if you ask me. I don't think I want to play poker with that guy......
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 14 2004, 09:07 PM)
Did Gorbachev realize that the Soviets were going to have to eliminate part of their nukes anyway because of finances and try to entice Reagan to do the same thing in the US? Back to my poker analogy here. Was Gorbachev attempting to bluff Reagan into giving up SDI and at the same time disarm? Pretty darn clever if you ask me. I don't think I want to play poker with that guy......
Pretty darn clever if you ask me. I don't think I want to play poker with that guy...... Its not actually all that clever in a sense, both sides used START and other arms reduction treaties to simply get rid of their older style missiles. Nobody was RIFing their newer missiles. It just so happens that a larger percentage of the Soviet Arsenal were older style missiles. Gorbachev was quite anxious to get rid of them, in particlar liquid fuelled missiles which are 50 times more expensive to maintain at readiness.
I truly believe that the Polish Solidarity movement was the biggest factor (outside anything the US did) to bring hope and provide inspiration for the end of downfall of first the Warsaw Pact and then the Soviet Union.
However, contributing to this, Reagan initiated a sweeping and unprecedented program of covert actions and economic-warfare initiatives that acted to greatly weaken the Soviet economy, its support for so-called "wars of liberation," and its hold on its power in Eastern Europe.
Two such programs; NSDD 32, authorized covert U.S. support of the Polish free union, Solidarity, and other anti-Soviet institutions in Poland to weaken and neutralize Soviet influence in that country. NSDD 32 basically authorized U.S. aid to the illegal Solidarity labor federation for the express purposes of creating clandestine Polish newspapers and broadcasting operations
And NSDD-66, which authorized the United States to wage economic and resource war on a strategic triad of resources deemed critical to the survival of the Soviet economy, including technology, trade and credits.
This especially targeted Soviet imports of advanced Western technology and also Russia's oil industry, upon whose earnings Moscow depended for the bulk of its hard currency, these sources said.
NSDD-66 Link
NSDD-32 Link
So, while not lionizing St. Ronnie, it is evident to me that he did play an important role in winning the Cold War.
However, contributing to this, Reagan initiated a sweeping and unprecedented program of covert actions and economic-warfare initiatives that acted to greatly weaken the Soviet economy, its support for so-called "wars of liberation," and its hold on its power in Eastern Europe.
Two such programs; NSDD 32, authorized covert U.S. support of the Polish free union, Solidarity, and other anti-Soviet institutions in Poland to weaken and neutralize Soviet influence in that country. NSDD 32 basically authorized U.S. aid to the illegal Solidarity labor federation for the express purposes of creating clandestine Polish newspapers and broadcasting operations
And NSDD-66, which authorized the United States to wage economic and resource war on a strategic triad of resources deemed critical to the survival of the Soviet economy, including technology, trade and credits.
This especially targeted Soviet imports of advanced Western technology and also Russia's oil industry, upon whose earnings Moscow depended for the bulk of its hard currency, these sources said.
NSDD-66 Link
NSDD-32 Link
So, while not lionizing St. Ronnie, it is evident to me that he did play an important role in winning the Cold War.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Jun 13 2004, 11:29 PM)
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 13 2004, 03:06 PM)
There are times when the only thing enemy truly understands is the power and strength being brought to bear against them. This was one of those times.
Passion, would you care to offer any proof (beyond the sort of "well the SU did collapse, didn't it?" rhetoric) that the Soviet Union was responding to U.S. pressure? There have been several sources presented suggesting that this statement is true, and several indicating it is false; but none from you. From where (beyond general inference) do you draw your conclusions?
Dear UJ,
If you're going to single me out I suggest you have the decency to quote me accurately. Nowhere did I resort to the 'rhetoric' which you attributed to me.
As to where my views in this matter come from, they are born from historical accounts. Fact, RR was viewed as someone not prone to idle threats. Fact, he made clear his intent to fight communism at every turn. Fact, he forced the USSR to decide if they had the resources to match our defense spending which would have Star Wars as its most expensive component. Add this to the mix of world politics at the time and the USSR folded their tent.
Not even RR's staunchest admirers give him all the credit for winning the Cold War. But only those in total denial believe he was merely in the right place at the right time.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jun 15 2004, 12:33 AM)
Fact, he forced the USSR to decide if they had the resources to match our defense spending which would have Star Wars as its most expensive component. Add this to the mix of world politics at the time and the USSR folded their tent.
This is not a fact at all, we know now that at the same time the US defense budget was soaring under Regan, the Soviet Defense budget was remaining about the same and defense spending was becomming significantly more efficient. Star Wars was an enormous bluff which the USSR did not respond to, except to develop its own space based capacity. Defense spending did not rise, nor did military panic beset the kremlin, nor anything of the kind.
To quote Frances Fitzgerald's Book: "Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars, and the End of the Cold War
"From 1983 to 1987 the Strategic Defense Initiative alarmed Soviet leaders because it threatened to reverse what they saw as the trend toward strategic stability and stable costs. Nonetheless, they did not respond to it by creating their own SDI program. That is, they continued their existing research programs on lasers and other advanced technologies, plus their existing design-work on space weaponry, but they did not mount an effort to test or develop SDI-type weapons. In addition they studied counter-measures to space-based weaponry, but since the American SDIO never designed a plausible system, they had nothing specific to study, and their military spending was not affected.
Due to the failure of the SDIO to develop even a remotely possible system, by the end of 1987 the Soviet leadership no longer regarded SDI program as a threat."
The USSR had K-Sats and ground based lasers before the US did, the SDI program did allow the US to close a technology gap between them and the USSR, but it was in no way an additional strain on the Soviet budget, nor responsable for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet defence budget stayed essentially the same proportion of the total economy from 1975 until 1984. In 1985 and 1986 there was a small increase in the defence budget, directly related to the war in Afghanistan and the Kremlin,s decision to expand its blue water Navy. The Typhoon class submarine was a significant proportion of that. (Notably, it remains an unequalled technological marvel to this day). However of that increase, the amount allocated to strategic weapons did not change. In 1987 Gorbachev reduced the overall defence budget back to the percentage it had maintained in 1984. The SDI did not even cause a blip on the Soviet economic radar.
Were it not for a dramatic collapse in revenue caused by the oil price collapse, and the resulting instability in the republics caused by the elimination of the oil subsidy, the USSR would still be functional today.
Someone mentioned that Polish Solidarity was important, it was but it was an effect, not a cause. Remember that when Solidarity started, everyone in the west exopected the USSR to roll in the tanks, and no serious response to this was planned. It was a shock to the CIA when the Sopviets ALLOWED Solidarity to grow. he only reason this happened, and was allowed, was because of the end of the oil subsidy and the loss of capitol. The USSR was looking for cheaper alternatives to large scale military maneuvers, and Poland found itself no longer dependent on cheap oil from Soviet sources.
If people are going to claim RR had any MORE significance to the ending of the Cold war than any previous President, they are going to need to back it up. As I said in my last post, about all you can say is that his hard line approach did not allow the USSR to scale back its defence budget, thus MAYBE accelerating the collapse by 2-4 years.
EDIT to add:
People should really read a few of the post-Cold war analysies of the SDI initiative. It was even more of a phenominal waste of money than was supposed at the time: The very basic fact was that the proposed shield was a technological impossibility at the time, and even if it DID somehow work could never deal with the saturation attack of over 12,000 Soviet ICBMs that would likely be launched.
However, even ignoring the practical and technological impossibilities, it also had numerous crippling design flaws. Even if the system somehow worked as advertised, it was intended to destroy extra-orbital missiles at their apex.
Thus is would not have had ANY effect on non ballistic missiles such as Cruise or most Submarine launched missiles. It would also not have been effective against the short and medium range missiles targeting Europe. As it was planned to destroy misiles at the apex, so Soviet MRV or MIRV missiles would already have scattered. The list goes on. It was a VERY interesting project for the US to have researched and studied, but the vast sums spent on development of a project which was impossible and had not been properly researched was asinine.
QUOTE
If people are going to claim RR had any MORE significance to the ending of the Cold war than any previous President, they are going to need to back it up.
Vermillion, other posters are offering up just as much evidence in their favor as you are. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't by default make you correct, anymore than it makes them correct. I actually agree with much of what you say, I simply think that many of Reagans policies had more to do with the fall of the SU than you do.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jun 15 2004, 02:06 PM)
Vermillion, other posters are offering up just as much evidence in their favor as you are. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't by default make you correct, anymore than it makes them correct.
Actually, I believe you are mistaken. Upon reading your message I went back through the posts in this thread, and the only evidence at all offered up that Reagan had more than a minor contribution to the fall of the USSR was in fact your one post regarding Polish solidarity and economic warfare.
Polish solidarity I already explained WAS significant, but was an effect rather than a cause. I neglected to deal with the economic warfare points however, my bad.
At this point it is actually impossible to tell the effect of economic warfare policies, such as the ones you listed, and many others. However it is worth mentioning that such economic warfare policies and initiatives existed throughout the entire existence of the USSR, even before WWII. There were also similar initiatives launched by the USSR against the US.
There is no reason to assume these last initaitives had any more impact then the dozens or even hundreds that had gone before. In particular the warfare against the Soviet oil industry seems to have had little efefct as Soviet Oil output rose steadily until the demise of the USSR; the drop in oil profits came from the reduction of oil prices rather then any economic warfare on the part of Regan.
Obviously, US and Western policy played a part in the demise of the USSR, that cannot be argued. Without constant Western pressure the USSR would have been able to reduce costs and modernise more effectively. But the debate here is not if the US contributed to the fall of the USSR, its wheither Reagan himself did, and I have seen no real evidence he did so any more than any other US president.
QUOTE
so in other words, we COULD have possible gotten rid of nuclear weapons AND not spent billions (or was it trillions) on a system that didn't work (and STILL DOESN'T) and kept from creating a huge deficit! thanks gipper
Thankfully, Reagan was aware of the simple fact that the USSR had a HUGE advantage in conventional arms, which is what led them to propose eliminating the entire nuclear arsenal to begin with, thereby preventing Europe from becoming Russian puppet states. Or was it the western rock bands that were going to prevent the assault?
(sorry, couldn't resist )
What I find unusual about all this talk of the SDI programme, and how it relates to the fall of the Soviet Union, is the fact that the Soviets had already militarised space long before Ronald Reagan proposed the SDI.
The assumption that the American SDI research was going to overwhelm the Soviet missile threat is absurd because it fails to take into account that the Soviet Union already had a space weapons research programme that had been in effect for decades.
Before Reagan was even sworn into office the Soviets had had two military space stations in orbit (Salyut 3 & Salyut 5) and had been doing enough research and experimentation to put them years ahead of the US.
When Reagan proposed SDI, the Soviets probably had a far better understanding of the logistics and technology needed to make it work than any one else!
The CIA revised report on the Soviet economy illustrates the lack of fear of SDI in the Soviet Union, and hindsight shows us today that the Soviet estimation of the SDI was correct.
It was a bluff that didn't work on any one but die hard Reagan supporters.
The assumption that the American SDI research was going to overwhelm the Soviet missile threat is absurd because it fails to take into account that the Soviet Union already had a space weapons research programme that had been in effect for decades.
Before Reagan was even sworn into office the Soviets had had two military space stations in orbit (Salyut 3 & Salyut 5) and had been doing enough research and experimentation to put them years ahead of the US.
When Reagan proposed SDI, the Soviets probably had a far better understanding of the logistics and technology needed to make it work than any one else!
The CIA revised report on the Soviet economy illustrates the lack of fear of SDI in the Soviet Union, and hindsight shows us today that the Soviet estimation of the SDI was correct.
It was a bluff that didn't work on any one but die hard Reagan supporters.
I have a housefull of poeple right now that all lived in Russia during that period of time. Many of them were goverment officials at the time, though minor in the larger scheme of things, two of them would be the equivilent of a state governer's chief of staff- so they understand the situation far better than anybody on this site.
When I told them of many americans belief that somehow the US had any effect whatsoever on the former Soviet Union- it caused an uproarus belly laugh.
AS someone here said- was echoed by these folks "Oh yeah, we heard Reagan tell us to tear down the wall and call us evil, and we all started shaking in our shoes, and crying about how we were evil, and needed to change, so we immediately tore down the wall"
It is a national delusion by the US right wing to even think that the US had any effect whatsoever on that country.
DTOM actually touched on one, if not the only, reall influence that might have put perestroika forward- Rock music and Pepsi and Blue Jeans.
Frank Zappa had far far far more to do with the policies of Perestroika than Reagan, hands down. His bringing of rock music to Russia on a large scale invigorated the whole perestroika movement.
When I told them of many americans belief that somehow the US had any effect whatsoever on the former Soviet Union- it caused an uproarus belly laugh.
AS someone here said- was echoed by these folks "Oh yeah, we heard Reagan tell us to tear down the wall and call us evil, and we all started shaking in our shoes, and crying about how we were evil, and needed to change, so we immediately tore down the wall"
It is a national delusion by the US right wing to even think that the US had any effect whatsoever on that country.
DTOM actually touched on one, if not the only, reall influence that might have put perestroika forward- Rock music and Pepsi and Blue Jeans.
Frank Zappa had far far far more to do with the policies of Perestroika than Reagan, hands down. His bringing of rock music to Russia on a large scale invigorated the whole perestroika movement.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 15 2004, 12:24 PM)
Frank Zappa had far far far more to do with the policies of Perestroika than Reagan, hands down. His bringing of rock music to Russia on a large scale invigorated the whole perestroika movement.
Yes, I would give more credit to Zappa and a guy named Herb Brooks. Herb had more to do with the fall of the USSR than Reagan. Ronnie's timing was right, that's all.
Incredible....
It is amazing for me to come here and read about the glory of the Soviet Union, how advanced they were and rich in natural resources. How much smarter they were and how they were so far ahead of the US in nearly every conceivable category. Gee, one wonders of they actually built that wall to keep people from entering the Soviet Empire. Such a glorious time for such a glorious place. Why it would seem they could have crushed poor little us like a bug if they weren't so humane and kind-hearted. One must wonder why the Soviet Union no longer exists today.....
Ronald Reagan told them to tear down the wall, and it came down not too long afterwards. - Pure coincidence.
Ronald Reagan re-built the US Military and in doing so "put pressure" on the Soviets, yet he didn't we are told. We are told he squandered precious American treasure on a system the Soviets "knew" wouldn't work. Because, after all, if it would have worked, they'd have invented it after all wouldn't they? They were so much "better" than we were.
Still though, today there exists a United States, the lone superpower in the world and it has survived, but the Soviet Union hasn't, although some would even claim otherwise. Maybe there never was a wall? Maybe there never was a Soviet Union? Or maybe it still exists today which I'm sure thrills the holy hell out of people living in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Lithiuana, Georgia and all of other former Soviet states.
There is a paradox happening here. On one hand we are told how great and inventive the Soviet Union was, how "superior". And, on the other hand we are told it was crushed by it's own weight, and Reagan only happened to be the President of some third world nation at the time. He was the best speaker, so he got the credit. Simply amazing.
Never was so true the old cliche 'Denial isn't just a river in Egypt".
It is amazing for me to come here and read about the glory of the Soviet Union, how advanced they were and rich in natural resources. How much smarter they were and how they were so far ahead of the US in nearly every conceivable category. Gee, one wonders of they actually built that wall to keep people from entering the Soviet Empire. Such a glorious time for such a glorious place. Why it would seem they could have crushed poor little us like a bug if they weren't so humane and kind-hearted. One must wonder why the Soviet Union no longer exists today.....
Ronald Reagan told them to tear down the wall, and it came down not too long afterwards. - Pure coincidence.
Ronald Reagan re-built the US Military and in doing so "put pressure" on the Soviets, yet he didn't we are told. We are told he squandered precious American treasure on a system the Soviets "knew" wouldn't work. Because, after all, if it would have worked, they'd have invented it after all wouldn't they? They were so much "better" than we were.
Still though, today there exists a United States, the lone superpower in the world and it has survived, but the Soviet Union hasn't, although some would even claim otherwise. Maybe there never was a wall? Maybe there never was a Soviet Union? Or maybe it still exists today which I'm sure thrills the holy hell out of people living in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Lithiuana, Georgia and all of other former Soviet states.
There is a paradox happening here. On one hand we are told how great and inventive the Soviet Union was, how "superior". And, on the other hand we are told it was crushed by it's own weight, and Reagan only happened to be the President of some third world nation at the time. He was the best speaker, so he got the credit. Simply amazing.
Never was so true the old cliche 'Denial isn't just a river in Egypt".
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 15 2004, 07:51 PM)
Incredible....
It is amazing for me to come here and read about the glory of the Soviet Union, how advanced they were and rich in natural resources. How much smarter they were and how they were so far ahead of the US in nearly every conceivable category. Gee, one wonders of they actually built that wall to keep people from entering the Soviet Empire. Such a glorious time for such a glorious place. Why it would seem they could have crushed poor little us like a bug if they weren't so humane and kind-hearted. One must wonder why the Soviet Union no longer exists today.....
It is amazing for me to come here and read about the glory of the Soviet Union, how advanced they were and rich in natural resources. How much smarter they were and how they were so far ahead of the US in nearly every conceivable category. Gee, one wonders of they actually built that wall to keep people from entering the Soviet Empire. Such a glorious time for such a glorious place. Why it would seem they could have crushed poor little us like a bug if they weren't so humane and kind-hearted. One must wonder why the Soviet Union no longer exists today.....
What are you talking about?
None of the sarcastic rant you posted was even hinted at by the posters here. This is my field of speciality, but if you can find anywhere I said, implied, or even hinted that the USSR was some kind of paradise or (I quote you) "so far ahead of the US in nearly every conceivable category", then I will bow down and apologise.
Nobody suggested it was a glorious place, nobody suggested they were smarter, nobody suggested they were humane or kind hearted, nobody suggested they were much better than the United States.
Please restrict your sarcasm to places where it is useful. If you want to actually try and deal with any of the arguments that have been posted here, feel free. But posts like that last serve no purpose but to stifle debate and risk the closing of the thread.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Jun 15 2004, 01:49 PM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 15 2004, 07:51 PM)
Incredible....
It is amazing for me to come here and read about the glory of the Soviet Union, how advanced they were and rich in natural resources. How much smarter they were and how they were so far ahead of the US in nearly every conceivable category. Gee, one wonders of they actually built that wall to keep people from entering the Soviet Empire. Such a glorious time for such a glorious place. Why it would seem they could have crushed poor little us like a bug if they weren't so humane and kind-hearted. One must wonder why the Soviet Union no longer exists today.....
It is amazing for me to come here and read about the glory of the Soviet Union, how advanced they were and rich in natural resources. How much smarter they were and how they were so far ahead of the US in nearly every conceivable category. Gee, one wonders of they actually built that wall to keep people from entering the Soviet Empire. Such a glorious time for such a glorious place. Why it would seem they could have crushed poor little us like a bug if they weren't so humane and kind-hearted. One must wonder why the Soviet Union no longer exists today.....
What are you talking about?
None of the sarcastic rant you posted was even hinted at by the posters here. This is my field of speciality, but if you can find anywhere I said, implied, or even hinted that the USSR was some kind of paradise or (I quote you) "so far ahead of the US in nearly every conceivable category", then I will bow down and apologise.
Nobody suggested it was a glorious place, nobody suggested they were smarter, nobody suggested they were humane or kind hearted, nobody suggested they were much better than the United States.
Please restrict your sarcasm to places where it is useful. If you want to actually try and deal with any of the arguments that have been posted here, feel free. But posts like that last serve no purpose but to stifle debate and risk the closing of the thread.
My post was hardly a response simply to you, Vermillion, but to a variety of the things that have been written here by a variety of posters. My questions were simple, not sarcastic. How can one explain the wall and why did it come down? I can direct your attention to another thread here where you wrote, among other things.....
QUOTE
Sorry, I didn't quite understand your sentence there... but if you meant what i think, I have to say again that at the end of the Cold war, the USSR was as advanced as the US in many field, and ahead of the US in some. Only in one major field were they significantly behind the US, and that was in the use of computers. Now of corse, computers are a huge area to be behind in, in general the USSR was 2-4 years behind the US, and the computers they did have tended to be copies of Apple and IBM models from a few years ago.
Oddly enough the USSR produced brillint software programmers, and there was a huge export of them to the west in the early 1990s.
Given the enormous explosion in the use of computers in the last 15 years, it is likely that had the USSR not collapsed, the mthical technological gap wouldhave become a reality, however as I said in above posts, post-Soviet Russia is still producing weapons systems of all types equal to or better than the US is producing.
Oddly enough the USSR produced brillint software programmers, and there was a huge export of them to the west in the early 1990s.
Given the enormous explosion in the use of computers in the last 15 years, it is likely that had the USSR not collapsed, the mthical technological gap wouldhave become a reality, however as I said in above posts, post-Soviet Russia is still producing weapons systems of all types equal to or better than the US is producing.
Still though, there is that nagging little question about Reagan standing at that wall and demanding it come down. And, by golly, it sure did.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 15 2004, 05:21 PM)
Still though, there is that nagging little question about Reagan standing at that wall and demanding it come down. And, by golly, it sure did.
Didn't it come down in 1990, way AFTER Reagan was out of office?
Seriously, how do YOU explain that it came down? That Soviets got scared of Reagan? They decided to Listen to his demand?
By the way, all US presidents, starting with Kennedy and including Reagan, DEMANDED Cuba to break the slavery of communism and embrace democracy. Are you saying that Cubans got more stomach than the Russians?
By golly, quite peculiar - Reagan was able to break down Soviet Union and yet he couldn't do ANYTHING with Cuba The answer is that Cuba needs its own Gorbachev who will break the system from inside. Soviet Union's collapse was an inside job, and Reagan had very little to do with it.
The Berlin Wall fell on 9November1989, less than 9 months after Reagan left office. I don't think it fell by itself, and I don't think it was any coincidence that Reagan was the first American President to stand before that wall and call for it's destruction in such terms. JFK went to Berlin and proclaimed he was a Jelly-donut, but that's hardly the same thing. SO, what can I say? That's the history, them's da facts.
Aquilla
The Soviets didn't pull the wall down. The people of Germany did.
SDI didn't work and it cost a lot of money before this was admitted. Its a historical fact.
The Soviet military budget didn't increase during Reagans time in office. Another historical fact (apparently provided by the CIA).
The Soviet Union already had a military space programme dating from the 1960's. Yet another historical fact.
Why is it so difficult to understand that these simple facts all point to the conclusion that the Soviet Union did not collapse because Ronald Reagan rattled his sabre or made a speech with nice sound bytes?
I'm glad you made this point since it lets me add a thought I've been pondering on since Reagan died and all these various threads began.
It seems to me that the real loser of the cold war is in fact the USA. Not because it lost in any conventional manner, but precisely because it won.
Russia and the various Eastern block nations all came out of the cold war with new governments, some good, some bad, but all new. The Communist menace has been replaced and in its stead is the possibility for these nations to redefine themselves.
Not so the United States, which like some unstoppable juggernaut still ploughs ahead with the same cold warriors at the helm initiating the same sort of cold war ideology they did back in the 1980's.
Take your pick...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2591283.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/13/bush.visit.02/
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/rob00340.htm
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0346/mondo5.php
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/8904618.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from...ent/3211825.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994318
Who said anything about the Soviets being superior? Who said America was a 'third world nation' ?
I don't see any one saying that. What I see is people putting forward clear headed arguments demonstrating cause and effect and pointing out that Ronald Reagan simply acted a part against the back drop of events in the Soviet Union.
Who appointed you judge and jury?
QUOTE
Ronald Reagan told them to tear down the wall, and it came down not too long afterwards. - Pure coincidence.
The Soviets didn't pull the wall down. The people of Germany did.
QUOTE
Ronald Reagan re-built the US Military and in doing so "put pressure" on the Soviets, yet he didn't we are told. We are told he squandered precious American treasure on a system the Soviets "knew" wouldn't work. Because, after all, if it would have worked, they'd have invented it after all wouldn't they? They were so much "better" than we were.
SDI didn't work and it cost a lot of money before this was admitted. Its a historical fact.
The Soviet military budget didn't increase during Reagans time in office. Another historical fact (apparently provided by the CIA).
The Soviet Union already had a military space programme dating from the 1960's. Yet another historical fact.
Why is it so difficult to understand that these simple facts all point to the conclusion that the Soviet Union did not collapse because Ronald Reagan rattled his sabre or made a speech with nice sound bytes?
QUOTE
Still though, today there exists a United States, the lone superpower in the world and it has survived, but the Soviet Union hasn't, although some would even claim otherwise. Maybe there never was a wall? Maybe there never was a Soviet Union? Or maybe it still exists today which I'm sure thrills the holy hell out of people living in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Lithiuana, Georgia and all of other former Soviet states.
I'm glad you made this point since it lets me add a thought I've been pondering on since Reagan died and all these various threads began.
It seems to me that the real loser of the cold war is in fact the USA. Not because it lost in any conventional manner, but precisely because it won.
Russia and the various Eastern block nations all came out of the cold war with new governments, some good, some bad, but all new. The Communist menace has been replaced and in its stead is the possibility for these nations to redefine themselves.
Not so the United States, which like some unstoppable juggernaut still ploughs ahead with the same cold warriors at the helm initiating the same sort of cold war ideology they did back in the 1980's.
Take your pick...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2591283.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/13/bush.visit.02/
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/rob00340.htm
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0346/mondo5.php
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/8904618.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from...ent/3211825.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994318
QUOTE
There is a paradox happening here. On one hand we are told how great and inventive the Soviet Union was, how "superior". And, on the other hand we are told it was crushed by it's own weight, and Reagan only happened to be the President of some third world nation at the time. He was the best speaker, so he got the credit. Simply amazing.
Who said anything about the Soviets being superior? Who said America was a 'third world nation' ?
I don't see any one saying that. What I see is people putting forward clear headed arguments demonstrating cause and effect and pointing out that Ronald Reagan simply acted a part against the back drop of events in the Soviet Union.
QUOTE
Never was so true the old cliche 'Denial isn't just a river in Egypt".
Who appointed you judge and jury?
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 15 2004, 03:51 PM)
Incredible....
It is amazing for me to come here and read about the glory of the Soviet Union, how advanced they were and rich in natural resources. How much smarter they were and how they were so far ahead of the US in nearly every conceivable category. Gee, one wonders of they actually built that wall to keep people from entering the Soviet Empire. Such a glorious time for such a glorious place. Why it would seem they could have crushed poor little us like a bug if they weren't so humane and kind-hearted. One must wonder why the Soviet Union no longer exists today.....
Ronald Reagan told them to tear down the wall, and it came down not too long afterwards. - Pure coincidence.
Ronald Reagan re-built the US Military and in doing so "put pressure" on the Soviets, yet he didn't we are told. We are told he squandered precious American treasure on a system the Soviets "knew" wouldn't work. Because, after all, if it would have worked, they'd have invented it after all wouldn't they? They were so much "better" than we were.
Still though, today there exists a United States, the lone superpower in the world and it has survived, but the Soviet Union hasn't, although some would even claim otherwise. Maybe there never was a wall? Maybe there never was a Soviet Union? Or maybe it still exists today which I'm sure thrills the holy hell out of people living in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Lithiuana, Georgia and all of other former Soviet states.
There is a paradox happening here. On one hand we are told how great and inventive the Soviet Union was, how "superior". And, on the other hand we are told it was crushed by it's own weight, and Reagan only happened to be the President of some third world nation at the time. He was the best speaker, so he got the credit. Simply amazing.
Never was so true the old cliche 'Denial isn't just a river in Egypt".
It is amazing for me to come here and read about the glory of the Soviet Union, how advanced they were and rich in natural resources. How much smarter they were and how they were so far ahead of the US in nearly every conceivable category. Gee, one wonders of they actually built that wall to keep people from entering the Soviet Empire. Such a glorious time for such a glorious place. Why it would seem they could have crushed poor little us like a bug if they weren't so humane and kind-hearted. One must wonder why the Soviet Union no longer exists today.....
Ronald Reagan told them to tear down the wall, and it came down not too long afterwards. - Pure coincidence.
Ronald Reagan re-built the US Military and in doing so "put pressure" on the Soviets, yet he didn't we are told. We are told he squandered precious American treasure on a system the Soviets "knew" wouldn't work. Because, after all, if it would have worked, they'd have invented it after all wouldn't they? They were so much "better" than we were.
Still though, today there exists a United States, the lone superpower in the world and it has survived, but the Soviet Union hasn't, although some would even claim otherwise. Maybe there never was a wall? Maybe there never was a Soviet Union? Or maybe it still exists today which I'm sure thrills the holy hell out of people living in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Lithiuana, Georgia and all of other former Soviet states.
There is a paradox happening here. On one hand we are told how great and inventive the Soviet Union was, how "superior". And, on the other hand we are told it was crushed by it's own weight, and Reagan only happened to be the President of some third world nation at the time. He was the best speaker, so he got the credit. Simply amazing.
Never was so true the old cliche 'Denial isn't just a river in Egypt".
Aquilla, wasn't it you who admitted that MIG planes were way ahead of F-15's when they just came out? Didn't you say that in some air-to-air situations MIGs had an 1.5 second advantage which is an eternity in the military combat? Didn't you mention something about SU planes being the technological marvel? Are you denying that Soviet Union posessed some very advanced military capabilities? If not, why was Western world afraid of them?
Now if you'll take a look at how those old Soviet Republics are doing - with the exception of Baltic states all of them are doing significantly worse than they did during USSR days. Because, truth to be told, most of those republics produced nothing except for natural resources and agriculture. Soviet Union was pumping a lot of money into those republics to bring the standards of living on par with the rest of the country. Now that they are free and independent they need to survive on their own - which, turns out, not such a simple task. Look at GDP or average yearly income for countries like Armenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kirgyzstan, Azerbajan, Georgia, etc. and compare it with the same during USSR times - you'll see a sharp drop. That's why in so many of those republics communists come back to power (same, by the way, applies to Poland, East Germany, etc. - after brief romance with freedom and democracy, people vote in communists hoping to get back the security of old times.)
I don't know if it's my posts you irony is directed to... I never said that Soviet Union was a "glorious place". I said several times that standards of living were significantly lower, and some freedoms we are so accustomed to here were supressed. However, Soviet Union the way I know it was nowhere close the gloomy "Evil Empire" that Reagan announced it to be. It was a country with an excellent educational system, generous social benefits and hard-working people living fairly normal lives. As Cruising Ram pointed out, this is a country with a 1000 year old history. 70 years of communism is nothing but a blip.QUOTE
The Berlin Wall fell on 9November1989, less than 9 months after Reagan left office. I don't think it fell by itself, and I don't think it was any coincidence that Reagan was the first American President to stand before that wall and call for it's destruction in such terms. JFK went to Berlin and proclaimed he was a Jelly-donut, but that's hardly the same thing. SO, what can I say? That's the history, them's da facts.
You didn't answer my question about Cuba though
"...all US presidents, starting with Kennedy and including Reagan, DEMANDED Cuba to break the slavery of communism and embrace democracy. Are you saying that Cubans got more stomach than the Russians? Why Reagan was able to break down Soviet Union and yet he couldn't do ANYTHING with Cuba?"
QUOTE(English Horn)
Aquilla, wasn't it you who admitted that MIG planes were way ahead of F-15's when they just came out? Didn't you say that in some air-to-air situations MIGs had an 1.5 second advantage which is an eternity in the military combat? Didn't you mention something about SU planes being the technological marvel? Are you denying that Soviet Union posessed some very advanced military capabilities? If not, why was Western world afraid of them?
According to the best information we had, the MIG-29 had a certain combat envelope where it enjoyed a significant air-air advantage over the F-15, that is true. We were never able to verify that however since when the Gulf War began, the Iraqi Mig-29's didn't engage our F-15's, they ran to Iran instead. Sometimes, they made it. Sometimes, they didn't.
I don't know that I ever said the Sukhoi airplanes were a "marvel", their specs were pretty impressive, but one has to be careful with that sort of thing. The Mig-25 had some impressive specs as well and an Israeli F-15 took one of them out. So who knows? However, getting back on topic here. Thanks to Reagan, we were already well into development of the F-22.QUOTE
You didn't answer my question about Cuba though
Nope, I didn't. It's not on topic.
QUOTE(moif)
It seems to me that the real loser of the cold war is in fact the USA. Not because it lost in any conventional manner, but precisely because it won.
Ok, Moif, you got me on that one. 
Aquilla
Apparently, if ridicule is the only answer you can come up with...
Do you deny that the USA is currently run by some of the same politicians who served under Reagan?
QUOTE
Ok, Moif, you got me on that one.
Apparently, if ridicule is the only answer you can come up with...
Do you deny that the USA is currently run by some of the same politicians who served under Reagan?
QUOTE(moif @ Jun 15 2004, 03:53 PM)
Aquilla
Apparently, if ridicule is the only answer you can come up with...
Do you deny that the USA is currently run by some of the same politicians who served under Reagan?
QUOTE
Ok, Moif, you got me on that one.
Apparently, if ridicule is the only answer you can come up with...
Do you deny that the USA is currently run by some of the same politicians who served under Reagan?
There are some, Colin Powell for one. Probably a few others who occupied slots in the Reagan Administration, but for the most part, not many major players I don't think. Most of the top members of the Reagan Administration have gone on to do other things although they'll help out when needed. I guess I don't really know what your point is though, the Reagan Administration was a pretty darn good group of people. Frankly, I'd like to see more of them involved directly nowdays.
The point was that America is still controlled by the same crowd of cold warriors now as it was under Reagan. Nothing changed. America's defence budget is nearing the trillion dollar mark as if the cold war was still in effect.
The Berlin wall may have been torn down in Germany. But in the hearts and minds of the Bush administration, its apparently still in place. Donald Rumsfeld roams Iraq (apparently) looking for the very chemical weapons he gave to Saddam Hussein under Reagan and President Bush is still peddling the SDI dream.
Most of America's enemies during the Cold war, benefitted by losing in that they lost their oppressive cold war governments. In some cases, such as Kyrgyzstan, the government they have now is just as bad as the one they had before (Which has not stopped the USA from co-operating with them) but on the whole. Nations like the Czech republic, Poland and Ukrania have benefitted from their loss.
Its a simple point. Surely it can't be that hard to grasp.
Those who consider Reagan's legacy as being one which ended the cold war might possibly like to consider why the USA is still in cold war mode on the basis of a terrorist threat which in his day, Ronald Reagan (apparently) helped to create.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102243/
The Berlin wall may have been torn down in Germany. But in the hearts and minds of the Bush administration, its apparently still in place. Donald Rumsfeld roams Iraq (apparently) looking for the very chemical weapons he gave to Saddam Hussein under Reagan and President Bush is still peddling the SDI dream.
Most of America's enemies during the Cold war, benefitted by losing in that they lost their oppressive cold war governments. In some cases, such as Kyrgyzstan, the government they have now is just as bad as the one they had before (Which has not stopped the USA from co-operating with them) but on the whole. Nations like the Czech republic, Poland and Ukrania have benefitted from their loss.
Its a simple point. Surely it can't be that hard to grasp.
Those who consider Reagan's legacy as being one which ended the cold war might possibly like to consider why the USA is still in cold war mode on the basis of a terrorist threat which in his day, Ronald Reagan (apparently) helped to create.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102243/
QUOTE(moif @ Jun 15 2004, 09:11 PM)
The point was that America is still controlled by the same crowd of cold warriors now as it was under Reagan. Nothing changed. America's defence budget is nearing the trillion dollar mark as if the cold war was still in effect.
Those who detract from the Reagan legacy might do well to consider that it is the same leaders today who viewed freeing others as the goal of US foreign policy under Reagan.
QUOTE(moif)
Those who consider Reagan's legacy as being one which ended the cold war might possibly like to consider why the USA is still in cold war mode on the basis of a terrorist threat which in his day, Ronald Reagan (apparently) helped to create.
From your Slate article:
QUOTE
Reagan can't be blamed for ignoring the threat of Osama Bin Laden. Not for another few years would any analyst see Bin Laden as a significant player in global terrorism; not till the mid-1990s would his organization, al-Qaida, emerge as a significant force.
Let's try not to shift the discussion from the Soviets to the Terrorists, though.
The SDI was a threat to the Soviets. Gorbachev urged the Politburo not to continue to be afraid of SDI. The first article I cited How Reagan won the Cold War.
QUOTE
This analysis may have calmed Gorbachev a bit, but not entirely. At a Politburo meeting in March 1986, Gorbachev said, "Maybe we should just stop being afraid of the SDI! Of course, we cannot be indifferent to this dangerous program. But [the Americans] are betting precisely on the fact that the USSR is afraid of the SDI. … That is why they are putting pressure on us—to exhaust us."
If somebody says, "Maybe we should stop being afraid of the bogeyman," it usually means he is afraid of the bogeyman. It's pretty clear that in the spring of 1986 Gorbachev and all those around with him were at least a little afraid of the SDI bogeyman.
If somebody says, "Maybe we should stop being afraid of the bogeyman," it usually means he is afraid of the bogeyman. It's pretty clear that in the spring of 1986 Gorbachev and all those around with him were at least a little afraid of the SDI bogeyman.
The threat may never have really about the "Star Wars" program itself, however. It was about the Soviets technological lag behind the United States. It was not a historical lag, but a lag which began in the 1980s and became a crisis in the 1980s.
SOVIET INNOVATION: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
QUOTE
Central to an understanding of Soviet science and technology is an understanding of the innovation process. Innovation, which is the transfer of a scientific discovery (new product or process) into production, has long been a problem for the Soviet Union. Despite a strong scientific base, the country has had a mixed record of innovation. Although in some--particularly defense- related--industries Soviet scientists and engineers have scored major technological successes, in many other--particularly consumer--industries they have failed to implement useful innovations. In the late 1980s, the status of innovation was a key concern of the leadership, which sought new policies and institutional arrangements to facilitate the process.
QUOTE
From the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, Soviet leaders' response to these innovation difficulties has been a series of economic and organizational reforms. They have introduced measures aimed at improving planning and at providing greater financial incentives to organizations engaged in innovation. They also have tried to overcome the barriers separating research, development, and production facilities. The implementation of reforms accelerated under Gorbachev, who viewed the improvement of Soviet science and technology as crucial to his goal of economic restructuring ( perestroika--see Glossary).
In September 1987, the CPSU Central Committee and the Council of Ministers issued called decree "On the Changeover of Scientific Organizations to Full Cost Accounting and Self-Financing." Basically, the decree changed the way in which all types of scientific organizations were financed. Instead of receiving state funds allocated to finance the operation of the entire organization, scientific establishments would be financed on the basis of specific research, planning, and design projects. These would be arranged through contracts with other organizations, primarily industrial enterprises (see Glossary). The theory behind this change was to encourage scientific organizations to generate a "product" more useful to industry and to assume more responsibility for the applicability of their output. To increase the incentives for assuming greater responsibility, the decree also stipulated that the basic source of an organization's wage and incentive funds would be the profits earned by that organization. A similar decree, the Law on State Enterprises (Associations), was issued at approximately the same time. It granted to industrial enterprises greater authority to manage their own operations and established a closer link between funds for worker benefits and enterprise profits.
In September 1987, the CPSU Central Committee and the Council of Ministers issued called decree "On the Changeover of Scientific Organizations to Full Cost Accounting and Self-Financing." Basically, the decree changed the way in which all types of scientific organizations were financed. Instead of receiving state funds allocated to finance the operation of the entire organization, scientific establishments would be financed on the basis of specific research, planning, and design projects. These would be arranged through contracts with other organizations, primarily industrial enterprises (see Glossary). The theory behind this change was to encourage scientific organizations to generate a "product" more useful to industry and to assume more responsibility for the applicability of their output. To increase the incentives for assuming greater responsibility, the decree also stipulated that the basic source of an organization's wage and incentive funds would be the profits earned by that organization. A similar decree, the Law on State Enterprises (Associations), was issued at approximately the same time. It granted to industrial enterprises greater authority to manage their own operations and established a closer link between funds for worker benefits and enterprise profits.
The Soviets knew that eventually, they would lose the technological battle with the United States. They also knew that eventually, when they lost that battle, they would be at the mercy of the Americans.
The Soviet Army was strong, even at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev's decision to change the way the Soviet system worked was fueled by the technological gap which was brought to the fore by Reagan's announcement of the SDI. It started the domino effect in motion, leading to the change in the Soviet system, which led, in short order to the bloodless revolution and the fall of the Soviet Empire.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 15 2004, 09:21 PM)
My post was hardly a response simply to you, Vermillion, but to a variety of the things that have been written here by a variety of posters.
Really? Well then by all means feel free to point out where ANYONE posted anything like the silly implications you made, in this thread or the others in the History section. Please cite who you were referring to when you made fun of people who said that the USSR was better than the US, or more advanced in every way, or smarter than the US, or that the USSR was a humane and glorious place. Please copy the phrase or text where ANYONE here said, inferred or even hinted at any of that.
Yes, I made a comment, backed by sources and easily verifyable, that at the end of the Cold war there were several military technologies where the USSR was more advanced than the west. I will happily stand by it and prove it to you again, six ways from sunday. What does that have to do with anything? Do you disagree with that fact?
QUOTE
Still though, there is that nagging little question about Reagan standing at that wall and demanding it come down. And, by golly, it sure did.
Now I don't even know what you are arguing. Do you think he brought it down with the power of his voice? Do you think the USSR, previously unaware that he did not like the wall, rushed to sheepishly dismantle it as soon as he made his wishes clear?
The funny thing is, in this thread it has already been explained in great detail, and with clear sources, why the wall came down and the cold war ended. It had nothing to do with Regan's speech. I note amid your sarcasm you did not bother to actually address any of those substantive points at all...
On this page alone you assert repeatedly that the wall coming down had something to do with Regan asking it to come down. Care to provide any causal link whatsoever?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 16 2004, 02:18 AM)
Gorbachev's decision to change the way the Soviet system worked was fueled by the technological gap which was brought to the fore by Reagan's announcement of the SDI. It started the domino effect in motion, leading to the change in the Soviet system, which led, in short order to the bloodless revolution and the fall of the Soviet Empire.
That is quite the statement.
The problem is that there is no evidence of that. The USSR still had a technological lead in many key areas, and though they did obviously and clearly lag behind the US in commercial and luxury goods, services and technologies, they did so no more in 1989 then they had at any other point in their national history.
Furthermore, SDI was hardly evidence of a technological gap in and of itself because a) it was in one of the fields in which the Soviets were already ahead, and
it didnt work.There is further no evidence at all that SDI in any way contributed to anything. In fact if you want to get technical, the largest single military drain on the USSR in the 1980s was the decision in the late 1970s to create a Blue water navy. Defence spending was static during most of the SDI period, and even in the two years it went up (1985 and 1986) the extra money was spent on conventional weapons, primarily the Typhoon class submarine; strategic spending remained static.
SDI was simply another in a long line of technological tit for tat which had been going on for decades. The USSR introduces MRVs, so the US introduces MIRVs, so the USSR introduces 10 warhead MIRVs. The USSR produces ground mobile ICBMs (SS-20 and such) and the US produces the MX... and so on and so on.
SDI did not cost the USSR anything extra at all, whereas it cost the US a fortune. The fall of the USSR was due to a massive loss of national revenue and a weakening of the dependencies of the sattelite states, both caused by the same thing.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Jun 15 2004, 07:31 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 16 2004, 02:18 AM)
Gorbachev's decision to change the way the Soviet system worked was fueled by the technological gap which was brought to the fore by Reagan's announcement of the SDI. It started the domino effect in motion, leading to the change in the Soviet system, which led, in short order to the bloodless revolution and the fall of the Soviet Empire.
That is quite the statement.
The problem is that there is no evidence of that. The USSR still had a technological lead in many key areas, and though they did obviously and clearly lag behind the US in commercial and luxury goods, services and technologies, they did so no more in 1989 then they had at any other point in their national history.
Furthermore, SDI was hardly evidence of a technological gap in and of itself because a) it was in one of the fields in which the Soviets were already ahead, and
it didnt work.There is further no evidence at all that SDI in any way contributed to anything. In fact if you want to get technical, the largest single military drain on the USSR in the 1980s was the decision in the late 1970s to create a Blue water navy. Defence spending was static during most of the SDI period, and even in the two years it went up (1985 and 1986) the extra money was spent on conventional weapons, primarily the Typhoon class submarine; strategic spending remained static.
SDI was simply another in a long line of technological tit for tat which had been going on for decades. The USSR introduces MRVs, so the US introduces MIRVs, so the USSR introduces 10 warhead MIRVs. The USSR produces ground mobile ICBMs (SS-20 and such) and the US produces the MX... and so on and so on.
SDI did not cost the USSR anything extra at all, whereas it cost the US a fortune. The fall of the USSR was due to a massive loss of national revenue and a weakening of the dependencies of the sattelite states, both caused by the same thing.
The problem that your argument contains, Vermillion, is that it fails to answer a central question. If the Soviets were advanced as you claim in SDI technology, so advanced that they "knew it wouldn't work", then why did Gorbachev make it such an issue? What purpose did that serve for him? Why wouldn't Gorbachev have wanted for Reagan to spend billions on something he "knew wouldn't work" instead of spending it on airplanes, ships and submarines that would work? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Is it your contention that Gorbachev played Reagan and opposed SDI so strongly so that Reagan would take the bait and work on it?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 15 2004, 03:24 PM)
I have a housefull of poeple right now that all lived in Russia during that period of time. Many of them were goverment officials at the time, though minor in the larger scheme of things, two of them would be the equivilent of a state governer's chief of staff- so they understand the situation far better than anybody on this site.
When I told them of many americans belief that somehow the US had any effect whatsoever on the former Soviet Union- it caused an uproarus belly laugh.
AS someone here said- was echoed by these folks "Oh yeah, we heard Reagan tell us to tear down the wall and call us evil, and we all started shaking in our shoes, and crying about how we were evil, and needed to change, so we immediately tore down the wall"
It is a national delusion by the US right wing to even think that the US had any effect whatsoever on that country.
DTOM actually touched on one, if not the only, reall influence that might have put perestroika forward- Rock music and Pepsi and Blue Jeans.
Frank Zappa had far far far more to do with the policies of Perestroika than Reagan, hands down. His bringing of rock music to Russia on a large scale invigorated the whole perestroika movement.
When I told them of many americans belief that somehow the US had any effect whatsoever on the former Soviet Union- it caused an uproarus belly laugh.
AS someone here said- was echoed by these folks "Oh yeah, we heard Reagan tell us to tear down the wall and call us evil, and we all started shaking in our shoes, and crying about how we were evil, and needed to change, so we immediately tore down the wall"
It is a national delusion by the US right wing to even think that the US had any effect whatsoever on that country.
DTOM actually touched on one, if not the only, reall influence that might have put perestroika forward- Rock music and Pepsi and Blue Jeans.
Frank Zappa had far far far more to do with the policies of Perestroika than Reagan, hands down. His bringing of rock music to Russia on a large scale invigorated the whole perestroika movement.
Dear Cruising Ram,
At the risk of questioning your integrity I must say this sounds a bit like Kerry's foreign leader support story. Can you share the idnetities of these former Soviet officials with us? Also, how they all happen to be in your home at present?
I've read many accounts of Russian citizens who supported RR's policies wholeheartedly. But the only one's I've seen who opposed them were from those who fell out of power as a result.
Maybe your houseguests can shed more light on this?
Sincerely,
Passion
Aquilla
Because Gorbatjev understood that SDI presented the escalation that he didn't want to follow. He's made it quite clear in numerous interviews since his time in power that he had come to understand that neither side could win the cold war.
He knew that if the Americans poured billions of dollars into SDI, then this would just lead to more and more confrontation, and he wanted to stop that.
He must also have known that the USSR had several times as many nuclear weapons as America, and if he was to get something in return for dismantling his surplus nukes, then SDI was the perfect barter since SDI wouldn't work.
America would stop its SDI, the Soviets would get rid of all their expensive surplus nukes, and both sides would still have a credible arsenal at the end of the deal.
editted to add:
Not half an hour later, I came across this interesting article.
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0616/p01s04-woeu.html
Because Gorbatjev understood that SDI presented the escalation that he didn't want to follow. He's made it quite clear in numerous interviews since his time in power that he had come to understand that neither side could win the cold war.
He knew that if the Americans poured billions of dollars into SDI, then this would just lead to more and more confrontation, and he wanted to stop that.
He must also have known that the USSR had several times as many nuclear weapons as America, and if he was to get something in return for dismantling his surplus nukes, then SDI was the perfect barter since SDI wouldn't work.
America would stop its SDI, the Soviets would get rid of all their expensive surplus nukes, and both sides would still have a credible arsenal at the end of the deal.
editted to add:
Not half an hour later, I came across this interesting article.
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0616/p01s04-woeu.html
QUOTE
"I understand America's measures as a continuation of the arms race," says Viktor Baranets, military columnist for the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper. "With our slim budget we are making an effort to catch up with the rich American chariot."
"They think that we're kind of crazy to be pursuing [missile defense]," says Marshall Goldman, of the Davis Center for Russian Studies at Harvard. "It is just another example in their minds of how the US is still fighting the cold war."
And missile defense is not the only issue.
Work by the US on new types of nuclear weapons helped prompt the largest Russian military exercises since the Soviet era earlier this year. Russia is especially alert to the "possible reemergence of nuclear weapons as a real military instrument," which it views as an "extremely dangerous tendency that is undermining global and regional stability," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov wrote in the journal Russia in Global Politics. "Even a minor reduction in the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons would require Russia to revise ... the use of its units."
"They think that we're kind of crazy to be pursuing [missile defense]," says Marshall Goldman, of the Davis Center for Russian Studies at Harvard. "It is just another example in their minds of how the US is still fighting the cold war."
And missile defense is not the only issue.
Work by the US on new types of nuclear weapons helped prompt the largest Russian military exercises since the Soviet era earlier this year. Russia is especially alert to the "possible reemergence of nuclear weapons as a real military instrument," which it views as an "extremely dangerous tendency that is undermining global and regional stability," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov wrote in the journal Russia in Global Politics. "Even a minor reduction in the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons would require Russia to revise ... the use of its units."
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 16 2004, 06:07 AM)
The problem that your argument contains, Vermillion, is that it fails to answer a central question. If the Soviets were advanced as you claim in SDI technology, so advanced that they "knew it wouldn't work", then why did Gorbachev make it such an issue? What purpose did that serve for him? Why wouldn't Gorbachev have wanted for Reagan to spend billions on something he "knew wouldn't work" instead of spending it on airplanes, ships and submarines that would work? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Is it your contention that Gorbachev played Reagan and opposed SDI so strongly so that Reagan would take the bait and work on it?
Not only does my argument completely address your 'central question', but that same 'central question' has already been asked and answered in this very thread. As you apparently missed it the first time around, I will simply repost the relevent section for your re-edification:
QUOTE
(Vermillion)
"From 1983 to 1987 the Strategic Defense Initiative alarmed Soviet leaders because it threatened to reverse what they saw as the trend toward strategic stability and stable costs. Nonetheless, they did not respond to it by creating their own SDI program. That is, they continued their existing research programs on lasers and other advanced technologies, plus their existing design-work on space weaponry, but they did not mount an effort to test or develop SDI-type weapons. In addition they studied counter-measures to space-based weaponry, but since the American SDIO never designed a plausible system, they had nothing specific to study, and their military spending was not affected.
Due to the failure of the SDIO to develop even a remotely possible system, by the end of 1987 the Soviet leadership no longer regarded SDI program as a threat."
The USSR had K-Sats and ground based lasers before the US did, the SDI program did allow the US to close a technology gap between them and the USSR, but it was in no way an additional strain on the Soviet budget, nor responsable for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet defence budget stayed essentially the same proportion of the total economy from 1975 until 1984. In 1985 and 1986 there was a small increase in the defence budget, directly related to the war in Afghanistan and the Kremlin's decision to expand its blue water Navy. The Typhoon class submarine was a significant proportion of that. (Notably, it remains an unequalled technological marvel to this day). However of that increase, the amount allocated to strategic weapons did not change. In 1987 Gorbachev reduced the overall defence budget back to the percentage it had maintained in 1984. The SDI did not even cause a blip on the Soviet economic radar.
"From 1983 to 1987 the Strategic Defense Initiative alarmed Soviet leaders because it threatened to reverse what they saw as the trend toward strategic stability and stable costs. Nonetheless, they did not respond to it by creating their own SDI program. That is, they continued their existing research programs on lasers and other advanced technologies, plus their existing design-work on space weaponry, but they did not mount an effort to test or develop SDI-type weapons. In addition they studied counter-measures to space-based weaponry, but since the American SDIO never designed a plausible system, they had nothing specific to study, and their military spending was not affected.
Due to the failure of the SDIO to develop even a remotely possible system, by the end of 1987 the Soviet leadership no longer regarded SDI program as a threat."
The USSR had K-Sats and ground based lasers before the US did, the SDI program did allow the US to close a technology gap between them and the USSR, but it was in no way an additional strain on the Soviet budget, nor responsable for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet defence budget stayed essentially the same proportion of the total economy from 1975 until 1984. In 1985 and 1986 there was a small increase in the defence budget, directly related to the war in Afghanistan and the Kremlin's decision to expand its blue water Navy. The Typhoon class submarine was a significant proportion of that. (Notably, it remains an unequalled technological marvel to this day). However of that increase, the amount allocated to strategic weapons did not change. In 1987 Gorbachev reduced the overall defence budget back to the percentage it had maintained in 1984. The SDI did not even cause a blip on the Soviet economic radar.
Initially, the USSR did not know much about SDI, and they saw it as a dangerous escalation in direct violation of an ABM treaty the USSR and US had signed in good faith. Soviet A-sat technology was somewhat more advanced than the US, but this massive investment would likely reduce the if not eliminate the gap. It was not until several years later that the USSR realised that SDI simply posed no threat at all. Hoever even in those intervening years there was no new investment into a response or a reaction to SDI, except perhaps a slight refocus in Soviet espionage. SDI made no difference whatsoever to the USSR's military budget or military investment, nd played no part whatsoever in the eventual fall of the USSR.
Again, if you wish to actually challenge any of these facts, or present any of your own, please feel free.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Jun 16 2004, 01:05 PM)
Again, if you wish to actually challenge any of these facts, or present any of your own, please feel free.
Much of what you present as "factual" in actuality comes from a book written by Frances FitzGerald, which isn't surprising. She's hailed by the left as some sort of an "expert" on SDI because she's an established liberal, anti-Reagan, and very much anti-SDI. From a book review by the admittedly right wing National Review, we read the following......
QUOTE
Clearly, presidents who want to be "unconnected to other nations" don't become enraged when foreign leaders turn down proposals to share military technology. But FitzGerald continues in this inaccurate vein throughout her entire dense narrative, whacking conservatives at every opportunity. (Reagan's defense advisers, she writes, came from the "fringes of their profession.") She also recycles the most tired cliches about the 1980s: "a time of false prosperity, indulgence, and speculation, when even the most solid middle-class citizens dreamed of getting something for nothing." She believes ordinary Americans are idiots: "Most Americans wanted military spending and a tax cut; they wanted a tax cut and Social Security with cost-of -living increases; they bought junk bonds and forgot the risk associated with them." They're phonies, too: "They went to visit theme parks rather than real places."
More seriously, she suggests Cold War hawks had little to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. "I don't know any American Soviet scholar who believes that the United States ended the Cold War," she recently told the Chicago Tribune. But FitzGerald herself makes little use of Soviet sources. Didn't the Kremlin leaders, in fact, worry greatly about SDI? "Yes, they were very worried," she says in an interview. "But they knew perfectly well that missile defense could be overwhelmed offensively." So why were they worried? "The program had a magical effect on both Americans and Russians." Huh? "It's magical thinking." Her best explanation of why the Russians took SDI seriously amounts to a theory that they were self-deluded, just like the silly Americans who visit theme parks rather than real places.
More seriously, she suggests Cold War hawks had little to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. "I don't know any American Soviet scholar who believes that the United States ended the Cold War," she recently told the Chicago Tribune. But FitzGerald herself makes little use of Soviet sources. Didn't the Kremlin leaders, in fact, worry greatly about SDI? "Yes, they were very worried," she says in an interview. "But they knew perfectly well that missile defense could be overwhelmed offensively." So why were they worried? "The program had a magical effect on both Americans and Russians." Huh? "It's magical thinking." Her best explanation of why the Russians took SDI seriously amounts to a theory that they were self-deluded, just like the silly Americans who visit theme parks rather than real places.
You will note I did not label her as a "Reagan hater". I don't know her. But, the admittedly right wing Review also says this about her....
QUOTE
At the center of Way Out There in the Blue is an attempt to understand the character of Reagan. Much of it is plain biography. FitzGerald's colored view of the man is clear from the title, which comes from a line in Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman: "He's a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine." Yet calling FitzGerald a Reagan hater would be simplistic, and mistaken. She's actually fascinated by Reagan and avoids falling into the trap of dismissing him, in typical liberal style, as an "amiable dunce." But she certainly doesn't like him. "He didn't appeal to Northeast city people like me," she told the Washington Post earlier this year. "What bell was ringing with other Americans that I couldn't hear?"
But, you want facts, not opinion even though what you presented was indeed opinion, footnoted as it may be. As the review I cited says there is a circular argument there with respect to SDI. It didn't worry the Soviets because they knew it wouldn't work, but it did worry the Soviets because it was some kind of an "escalation". We shouldn't test it because it won't work and we know it won't work because it hasn't been tested. And how do we resolve this seeming paradox? Your "expert" claims it is just simply "magic". Magic and the stupidity of the American people who elected Ronald Reagan in the first place. Perhaps she didn't hear the bell I heard when I voted twice for Ronald Reagan, and that's ok. I sure can't hear the bells she does either.
Im curious. If one cannot come up with any pro-arguements or research links to support an opinion, instead they simply resort to attacking the source of others research, name it 'rightist' or 'leftist' in order to devalue it, is that considered debate worthy of this site? This is a rhetorical question, bit it seems to me we could do this all the time. The National Review is not known for moderation.
Even the Review doesnt come up with anything to refute this statement.
Noone here come up with any research to refute it either.
QUOTE
"I don't know any American Soviet scholar who believes that the United States ended the Cold War," she recently told the Chicago Tribune.
Even the Review doesnt come up with anything to refute this statement.
Noone here come up with any research to refute it either.
QUOTE(Artemise @ Jun 16 2004, 02:09 PM)
Im curious. If one cannot come up with any pro-arguements or research links to support an opinion, instead they simply resort to attacking the source of others research, name it 'rightist' or 'leftist' in order to devalue it, is that considered debate worthy of this site?
I wasn't attacking Ms. FitzGerald, Artemise. I was just putting her comments, labeled as "fact" into context. Lady Margaret Thatcher, certainly a person in the know, credited Ronald Reagan with "ending the Cold War without a shot being fired". Are her comments equally as valid as Ms. FitzGerlad's comments are? Should they too be treated as "factual"? If so, then this debate is over.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.