[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sinful *
**Without Reagan would the Soviet Union have fallen?
Reagan increase Defense spending by 7% a year from 1981 to 1985 creating an effective and efficient military that offered to Soviets total destruction if they ever decided to attack. The build-up and modernization of the military also gave credibility to Ronald Reagan’s desire to bargain from a position of strength.
[QUOTE]
THe USSR already had almost 3 times as big an army and was more than a match to the US army. NATO had NO change of succeeding in an attack. The eastern block had a slight change of succeeding in an attack save for nuclear weapons. NATO essentially gave up on matching the eastern block with conventional weapons and relied completely on nuclear (nucular) weapons before and after Reagan. Measly 7% didnt change anything.
This sinful guy just keeps starting threads like this and never really participates or responds. The OPs are just simplistic nonsense and trying to respond is a waste of time.
True, however keep in mind Reagan’s armaments race helped cause the Soviet collapse. With increased spending on defence, Reagan forced the Soviet U to increase THEIR defence budget, which crippled their economy (7% sounds minor, but keep in mind the poor Soviet economy).
Nonethless, the Soviet economy wasn’t great in the first place. The Russian currency wasn’t performing well at all in any time period; their entire economy depended on the loyalty of their workers (which they didn’t get; all they got was corruption and greed). There was very little incentive to work hard in the Soviet Union; you weren’t likely to get paid well anyway.
The advaice in robotics from the USSR wasn’t surprising. Hey, if you can’t get the lazy workers to work “for the motherland”, you can always get some robots to do it!
I’d suggest that it was a combination of things. Firstly, the Red Army lost its aura of invincibility in Afghanistan. Secondly Margaret Thatcher showed the West that it could stand up to bullies and win by retaking the Falklands, stopping the decline from Suez and Vietnam. Thirdly, the Catholic Church elected a Polish pope and started the Velvet Revolution. And fourthly, Ronald Reagan decided to meet the Soviet Union head-on. The combination broke the Soviet Union and the world is a better place for it.
He sure did, and I actually think Carter deserves more credit than Reagan for making the decision to first support the Afghan mujahidin. On the other hand, Reagan certainly ratcheted that support up quite a bit as the war progressed, and the Soviets didn’t really start to bleed until his watch, so I think he deserves credit for that too.
If nothing else, the Reagan Administration deserves credit for its 1986 decision to supply the mujahidin with Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, which may well have marked the turning point of the war.
On the other hand, you’re absolutely right that the Reagan Administration’s support for Zia ul-Haq and his particular method of waging the jihad paved the way for many of the problems Afghanistan and Pakistan have experienced since.
When Jimmy boycotted the Moscow Olympics. That’s what brought them crashing down.
Now, of course, that’s silly. But then so is trying to assign credit for any such a massive shift in the geopolitic to any one person.
The best take I ever heard on it was P.J. O’Rourke (paraphrased, direct quote unavailable) “The entire Soviet systems, army, secret police, gulags and all- collapsed due to the simple fact that no one wants to buy Bulgarian shoes.”
Economic collapse is a lot like a stock market bubble bursting: it is a question of mass psychology. The Soviet Union was about to collapse any day now for years, and then, one day, it just happened. No one caused it, no one could have caused it.
Perhaps its a generational thing, but I find it hard to accept that anyone who actually saw RR selling Boraxo on Death Valley Days (as I did) could ever take him seriously. He is a stunning success in terms of right-wing image making, and the lessons learned are applied to this day: find a likeable doofus, stuff his head with the correct opinions, tell him what a genius he is when he parrots said opinions, and show him where his mark is. With RR, a professional actor, they had the best material to work with, thier most recent effort falls rather short.
I gotta tell ya that when I saw Reagan at the summit in Moscow in 1988, he was already on the mental downslide. Nancy had to tell him to wave to the crowd at the coffee held for embassy employees (this is not hearsay, I was there and then saw it on tape later). His speach was confused and halting, and I can’t believe that he was solely responsible for the SU collapse. On the bright side, I did get to meet Dave Brubeck there.
To paraphrase A Whitney Brown: “Who ever thought that comunism didn’t work was because there was no money in it?”
There were multiple reasons why the Soviets “Fell”. Afganastan policy hurt them. The Pope John Paul II directly challenged the Soviet leadership. Poland began to fight back against it’s Russian Puppet Goverment.
But of course the big one is Chernoble. You remember that one right? The Nuclear Plant that went boom? Lots of people died, and much of the most fertial Soviet Lands were contaminated with radiation.
After a disaster like that, the Soviet Goventment realized it needed help and needed to change. Boris Yeltzin did more to encourage Soviet union change than Gorbochev.
While Regan did challenge the Soviet power-he was not ONLY reason the Soviet Union fell. In fact, it would be safe to say that George W. Bush understanding of global politics allowed the Soviet Union to “change” without taking credit or gloating over the Soviet Unions
Well, of course, it might be some sort of prejudice, I suppose. Clearly, there is a great divide between our seperate visions of the man: reverence as opposed to bemused consternation. And I suppose its possible that all those years, beneath that exterior of vapidity there was a statesman. I suppose Don Pardo was a medievil scholar as well, and Alex Trebeck did fundamental work in the properties of quarks.
THe USSR already had almost 3 times as big an army and was more than a match to the US army. NATO had NO change of succeeding in an attack. The eastern block had a slight change of succeeding in an attack save for nuclear weapons. NATO essentially gave up on matching the eastern block with conventional weapons and relied completely on nuclear (nucular) weapons before and after Reagan. Measly 7% didnt change anything.
I recommend the book The Rise of Russia and Fall of the Soviet Empire.
Was Reagan responsible for the collapse of Soviet Communism? No, not exactly. At least no single handedly. He did play an important role though. If one person gets too much credit though, it’s Gorbachev. His policies did lead to the collapse, but it was certainly not his intention. He strongly believed in communism, and his more liberal policies were mostly a response to pressure from the west and(even moreso) a need to generate more money than communism was producing in order to keep up with the arms race. You have to give him credit for one thing though, he was unwilling to unleash a large scale military crackdown on his own people when protests for democracy began erupting throughout the country(not to say that he didn’t do so on smaller scales). He likely could have maintained control for at least a few more years had he done so. Basically, the collapse of the soviet union was a complex event, and it is impossible to give credit to any one man.
In analyzing what role Reagan may or may not have played in helping to end the Cold Warm it should also be noted that CIA analysts were predicting in the early 1980s that the USSR was much weaker than popularly thought and, I believe, that it might collapse within the next decade. Sadly, this didn’t fit Reagan’s view of the nigh-almighty “Evil Empire,” and many analysts who refused to change their predictions to conform to the prejudices of the White House were sacked. Among other things, this terrible politicization of the intelligence community meant that the collapse of the USSR caught Washington almost completely by surprise when it finally occurred in 1991.
Italics mine. Just a nitpick. From Truman to Bush the US followed a policy of containment, not appeasement. Big difference. In appeasement things are negotiable. In containment country A draws a line in the sand and smacks country B whenever it attempts to cross it.
As for your question: he was a bustery hard-liner, just like Kennedy and Johnson. I think he was just in a lucky place at lucky time. The Cold War can be thought of as a war of attrition with money. We were richer. We won.
Lec Walesa and the Solidarity labor union had a huge part in weakening the Soviet Union. Ironically conservatives hate organized labor and its “ties” to communism.
Airman, if you’re questioning this statement, I must disagree.
It’s a generalization, and Icerigger may have stated it polemically, but it is not inaccurate to assert that the Republican party has historically not been in love with organized labor, and vice versa.
Dubya’s recent overtures to organized labor (preceded by the rise of the ‘Reagan Democrats’ who crossed party lines in the 1980’s to vote Republican) may be in the process of mending this rift, but they don’t change what was true in the past.