It did. Are you saying Reagan’s words caused the wall to be torn down?
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
It did. Are you saying Reagan’s words caused the wall to be torn down?
[/QUOTE]
His words alone? No, not at all. I don’t believe anyone is saying that was the case. His words, coupled with his actions and the actions he caused the US to take since he was President, coupled with things that were happening in the Soviet Union both before and during Reagan’s presidency, coupled with things happening outside of the Soviet Union both before and during Reagan’s presidency, etc etc…that’s what caused the Soviet Union to finally fold it’s hand and go quietly into this good night.
The extent that Reagan did or did not affect the course of events is debatable (myself, I don’t believe he single-handedly destroyed the USSR…but that he had a detectable effect on speeding up their demise), but he did campaign on a platform of changing our relationship with the Soviets and spoke many times of winning the conflict and seeing the Soviet Union finally go down…it was one of his major themes in fact. And the ‘fact’ is that when Reagan took office the Soviet Union was still considered a strong and viable nation…when he left it was teetering on the brink of collapse, and shortly after he left it did in fact go completely tits up. So, it’s fairly natural for people to remember that this was one of Reagan’s goals, to remember that it was a major thrust of his administration…and then to look at the ‘fact’ that, in the end, there was no more Soviet Union.
Which was pretty much what I was getting at with the discussion about perceptions and facts. Perhaps you should have focused more on that than on looking up what the definition of ‘fact’ was on dictionary.com?
-XT
You make it sound as though the Russians and East Germans didn’t think anybody minded the wall until Reagan. “Oh, you want free passage? Well why didn’t you say so?”
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
You make it sound as though the Russians and East Germans didn’t think anybody minded the wall until Reagan. “Oh, you want free passage? Well why didn’t you say so?”
[/QUOTE]
You got all that from a one line throw away joke?? If so, then you read a hell of a lot more into what I was saying than I meant there to be. I’m well aware of the fact that there were a lot of folks behind the Iron Curtain, and in Russia itself who weren’t too thrilled with the way things were going, and who also wanted change…and who had as much or more effect on the eventual collapse as Reagan did.
-XT
No, I don’t intend this as a “gotcha” - I have no hidden surprise I’m going to spring on anyone. (“Well, for those of you who think Reagan was so great - would you still feel that way if you knew he often failed to return his library books on time?”) If I had to describe my OP, it would be more like a “WTF?” - I just don’t see what was so great about Reagan so I’m asking those who do to try to explain it to me.
For the record, I have the same feeling about Kennedy and Obama - two other presidents I feel were/are average in actual accomplishments but have devoted supporters who think they’re great.
The fact remains that Reagan DID pressure the Soviets - so heavily that the ‘peace’ movement around the world thought he was a monster who was going to start WWIII. It’s a fact that he began a large military buildup, and it’s a fact that the stingers he provided to the Mujahadeen were instrumental in turning that war against the Soviets.
It’s also documented fact that his administration issued a national security directive (Read it yourself: NSDD-75) that explicitly set in motion policies that were aimed at bringing the Soviet Union down or reforming it from within. It’s a fact that he (through George HW Bush) negotiated with the Saudis to lower the price of oil to further weaken the Soviet economy and he okayed the plan to sabotage their main pipeline.
All of these things were intended to push the Soviet System to the brink of collapse. And that’s exactly what happened. Leaders of the time such as Lech Walesa and Margaret Thatcher gave Reagan a lot of credit for helping bring down the Soviet System. Even Mikhail Gorbachev has acknowledged the pressure that Reagan put on them, and acknowledged his ability as a negotiator at Rejkavik.
I know there are many people who hate Reagan and everything he stood for, and they will never, ever give him a shred of credit for helping to bring down the Soviet Union. They’ll never be convinced, because to do so would be to repudiate all those people on the left who bitterly opposed everything Reagan did during those years.
However, for anyone else with an open mind or a memory of that time that isn’t clouded by partisanship, just read the historical record. You can start by going back and reading the National Security Directives issued during those years.
NSDD-75, issued in 1983, opens with the following:
It goes on to describe in detail what would be done to facilitate this - building up the military, working to strengthen Poland’s opposition to the Soviets through Solidarity, working against Cuban interventions in Angola and Latin America, countering any attempts to overthrow existing governments and install Communist regimes, creating strategic partnerships with countries like China to help cut the Soviets off from certain forms of trade, creating a propaganda offensive to re-affirm the superiority of western democracy and deny the Soviets a claim on the moral high ground, cutting the Soviet Union off from importing high technology with military use, etc.
This is what NSDD-75 had to say about policy towards the Soviets themselves:
Read that entire document, then go back and look at the events of the 1980’s with it in mind. You can see all of those initiatives at play, and you can see the effect they had on the Soviets. Anyone who believes that Reagan had nothing to do with the Soviet Union collapsing is either ignorant of or in denial of the facts.
Look at it like this. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. President Carter showed his opposition to this by boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics. The Soviets subsequently pulled their troops out of Afghanistan.
So does Carter deserve the credit for driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan? Personally, I think it was other people who made the main effort and deserve most of the credit. And I feel the same way about Reagan and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
For the record, I have the same feeling about Kennedy and Obama - two other presidents I feel were/are average in actual accomplishments but have devoted supporters who think they’re great.
[/QUOTE]
It works out the same way. You have to examine WHY people think a President is ‘great’. We can all look at the events that happened during Kennedy’s administration, for instance…but the perception of people and how it changes how THEY look at those ‘facts’ is going to be different because it’s filtered through all sorts of stuff, including their political orientation, their world view, their personal feelings, etc etc etc.
It’s interesting about Obama, for instance. A lot of the things he’s done (the ‘facts’, according to SBB’s helpful cite earlier) are seen in very different lights between different posters on this board. You can see how that plays out just by looking at the threads about the man. You and I have very different perceptions of what’s he’s done, what he’s accomplished, and what it all means. I DON’T see him as just ‘average’…I think he’s done a hell of a job so far, and I’m impressed. I’m no Obama is God convert, and I don’t agree with all of the things he’s focused on or is trying to do, but considering what he’s had to work with, where he started, and what I see he’s trying to do, it’s freaking impressive…to me. We can both look at and list the ‘facts’ of what he has or hasn’t done, but the way we look at them and what they mean is going to be very different…and the differences are going to get greater and greater as the gap between our political or world view widens. Ask a right winger what Obama has done or accomplished, and you are going to get a very different answer than if you ask a SDMB anti-Obama lefty, or if you ask a centrist or independent.
-XT
All of that is true enough, xtisme, but I think what the OP was looking for were the root causes of the feelings and perceptions.
He (and most of us) already know that our perceptions will differ, but without a base to work from, it’s impossible to know what started those perceptions.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Look at it like this. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. President Carter showed his opposition to this by boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics. The Soviets subsequently pulled their troops out of Afghanistan.
[/QUOTE]
I’d have to go with ‘no’ to that one. You are talking about something Carter did just before leaving office (the Soviets invaded in Afghanistan in 1979) with an effect that didn’t take place until 10 years later…during the Bush administration. I’m sure he had a non-zero effect, but it was pretty weak. A more positive effect that the US had on the war in Afghanistan was the money, training and arms we provided to the Afghan fighters, than a boycott of the Olympics, I’d say. Even then, that wasn’t the ONLY reason that the Soviets eventually gave up and left Afghanistan…just one reason among many.
If all Reagan ever did was give that one speech I’d agree. But that’s not all he did…or all he directed the US to do. If you really think about it, I think you’ll agree that Carter’s effect on the Soviet war in Afghanistan is substantially less than Reagan’s effect on the collapse of the Soviet Union.
-XT
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
All of that is true enough, xtisme, but I think what the OP was looking for were the root causes of the feelings and perceptions.
He (and most of us) already know that our perceptions will differ, but without a base to work from, it’s impossible to know what started those perceptions.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure how to answer that, to be honest. I guess we’d have to go through each perception that people have about Reagan and then track down the why of it. Sounds like too much work for me.
We could start with the perception that Reagan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union though, since that seems to be one of the focuses in this thread. You’d have to start with what the public’s perception (in the US) of how powerful and how much of a threat the Soviet Union was before Reagan took office. MY perception at the time was that they were a powerful country that was the only major rival and threat to the US. They seemed to be very strong, very powerful, and at the time I was very unsure if the US could or would continue to be able to stand up to them. How much of that was reality is, again, debatable, and my perceptions have changed over time obviously, especially in light of later events (such as the fact that they don’t exist anymore ;)). Then there was the perception of the difference in how the US would confront or not confront the Soviets, as characterized by the contrast between what Carter was doing, had done and had campaigned to do and what Reagan was saying in his speeches and on his own campaign. He campaigned specifically that the US would become more confrontational in it’s dealings with the Soviets, and that under him we wouldn’t back down to them anymore. He campaigned to revitalize the US military and make it stronger than it was PERCEIVED to be at the time. And, getting into office, he pretty much continued to focus on those things. How many of them he ACTUALLY accomplished, the PERCEPTION was that he was doing them…and he kept the heat on that focus pretty much throughout his presidency. And when he left office, the perception that I had was that the Soviet Union was on it’s last legs and on the brink of collapse…a perception that was born out 3 years later when they completely fell apart.
Did he do it all? No…that wasn’t my own perception even at the time. Certainly not now. But did he play a major role, and have an influence on how it all played out? My perception then was that he did, and while that’s changed somewhat over time, it’s still my perception that he played a role and had an influence over what happened.
-XT
So that’s why we had to invade Grenada! Of course! It probably also explains why we had to arm and support some of the most ruthless tyrants who ever set a boot on another mans neck. We were doing it to defend democracy! Yes, that’s all clear now.
To me, it seems like Reagan was just another link in the chain. Every postwar President had opposed the Soviet Union and Reagan was just continuing that policy. The particular details of his opposition to the Soviets were not anything substantially different than what his predecessors had done. Yes, Reagan was a “hawk” but there had been other hawks before him.
The Soviet Union didn’t collapse because of Ronald Reagan. The Soviet Union collapsed because of fundamental flaws in the Soviet system.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
The Soviet Union didn’t collapse because of Ronald Reagan. The Soviet Union collapsed because of fundamental flaws in the Soviet system
[/QUOTE]
That’s true on both counts…but that doesn’t mean that Reagan played no role in hastening that collapse. There was no one, single factor that caused the Soviet Union to finally collapse (except the root cause, which as you say is that it was fundamentally flawed and doomed from the start), but many things lead to that final collapse…and the external pressure that the US was putting on the Soviet Union all throughout the Cold War was certainly a major factor. And the ramped up pressure that the US put on the Soviet Union after Reagan came into office also was a factor.
That’s all I’m saying. The rest is all perception. Reagan campaigned on the premise of putting pressure on the Soviet Union. He gave myriad speeches with heated rhetoric about winning the Cold War and beating the Soviets. In office he devoted quite a bit of effort to making that happen. And shortly after he left office it happened. It’s not really all that amazing that people associate that collapse with Reagan’s efforts…and that for people who were ‘Reagan fans’ this was something to admire the man for. Right? Yeah…it’s more complex than most people realize. But that’s true for anything. Presidents are praised or demonized for how the economy works during their presidency, but realistically, a given President only has so much impact on what the economy is or isn’t doing. There are a myriad of complex factors that actually impact what the economy is doing. Yet, most people associate how it’s doing with how good a job the President is doing…or not doing. Presidents have breezed through re-election or be thrown down in defeat based on how the economy is doing.
-XT
Actually he did do that. In 1969 he created the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. This preserved the bay area from the tide of development.
How’s Cuba doing since the failed Bay of Pigs? It was once a lovely spit of land made miserable by dictatorship. Had Kennedy succeeded it would be a free country.
Yeah, it was such a lovely spit of land made miserable by the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Oh wait, you meant Castro.
Your criticism of Kennedy for the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion is baseless. He really had nothing to do with it.
Arguably, Kennedy should have realized that the Bay of Pigs invasion was not going to succeed without American intervention. So he should have either called it off or committed to American intervention. There was no benefit in going ahead with an invasion that was doomed to failure.
Realistically, Kennedy was new to office and inexperienced. He let himself get led by advisors. But that’s part of being President - you have to take responsibility for mistakes other people made in your name.
Bull, he was President, he knew about it and he let them go ahead. It is too easy to say he had nothing to do with it. Might as well excuse Reagan on Iran-Contra.