Reagan

[The Vagabond]

NYE, the pressure from the outside world certainly played a huge role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Philosophically speaking, this is rather a meaningless statement, for everything in this world develops under an external pressure -- this is an inherently present factor. The external pressure can consolidate, if the internal pressure is strong enough. And the same external pressure can destroy if there is something wrong with the internal order.)

But this pressure had been built up for decades. Just don't exaggerate Reagan's contribution into this external pressure. He certainly deserves some credit. "Some" is the key word here.

[notyoueither]

Agreed. Success in the Cold War is due to people from Eisenhower to Reagan and from Churchill to Thatcher, and the people who served, adivsed, and elected them.

OMG, this post is going to result in Leftist overload!

However, there is still the issue of what the Gipper did for Americans about how they felt about themselves. As we've already agreed, he did a good job.

[notyoueither]

I guess you can throw Truman in there too, as a bone to the left.

[The Vagabond]

On a side note, let me say that the SU collapsed, and to hell with it. Thanks Ronnie and Gorby. It was too much of a burden for Russia to hold all the republics together in a single state. However, it is in Russia's vital interest to keep the ex-Soviet republics in its sphere of influence (but not in same superstate). Unfortunately, the evil West doesn't make this task easy on us.

[notyoueither]

I thought you were a Brit.

[The Vagabond]

You can't be serious, NYE. In one of my earlier posts I wrote "realize". How the hell can I be a Brit with that?

[The Mad Monk]

You're being too reasonable -- nye's been conditioned by exposure to Serb.

[notyoueither]

Just from other threads. And my own spelling isn't good enough that I analyse that of others.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
You're being too reasonable -- nye's been conditioned by exposure to Serb.

"Reasonable" is one of my working modes. Another one is "rational". Hmm... I mean "russianal".

[notyoueither]

Where abouts in Russia?

[The Vagabond]

Nizhny Novgorod, but I am currently in the States.

[Alexander's Horse]

Well all I can say, and I probably had better info than anyone here, is that at the time noone foresaw the Soviet collapse. The CIA got into trouble about that.

I remember sitting in meetings and briefings at the time whose basic agenda was "WTF is happening over there in Russia"? Noone picked it, noone understood it as it evolved. People just stood back in awe.

Reagan's "crusade" against the Soviet Union, including Star Wars, was basically a traditional containment policy. It wasn't aimed at bringing abou the downfall of the Soviet Union. He was already out of power when it all fell over.

The main thing in the Soviet Union itself was bread and butter issues - i.e. the lack of both. But the reform process quickly got out of control.

Gorbachev never meant to end Soviet rule but he didn't have the heart for Stalinist style repression and basically once that became clear to the people like Yeltsin and Lech Walesa it was all over.

[Q Classic]

Read some of the earlier posts. Their recollection agrees with mine (as an outsider). Reagan revitalised a beaten and demoralised population. People who can do great things often do not for want of leadership.

i have to admit, i was a kid during that time, less than 10 years of age. what i do remember of it, though was very little fear, not much in the way of demoralization, and a pride in american knowhow coupled with a terrified fear of japan, not soviet russia.

Right, and NK is a good indication of a hard line Soviet styled system crumbling from within on its own without a push, right?

isn't it? the system is dead there, and the dear leader is thrashing about with little success. the reason nkorea scares the bejeesus out of everyone there has is as much in part because of their weapons as the horror that could happen in the chaos following their collapse.

And just what did bring Gorbachev to power? The feeling among the old guard that more of the same old would be sufficient in light of the renewed vigour of the US, and the West in general?

gorby was a "different sort of leader" to the old politburo. not only was he much younger than anybody else ever installed, but he was also much more reformist than previously. they chose him in part because they hoped he would revitalize a dying system.
'course, his first mistake was trying to restrict the consumption of vodka.

Where we are heading is pointless. What if this, what if that? The fact remains that Reagan had the good fortune to preside over the demise of the Soviet Union and the ending of the Cold War.

and that's precisely what i'm saying! he didn't have to do much to have the soviet union's collapse. he was lucky enough to be there at the right time. (well, actually, his protege bush sr... since the falls happened in '89 and '91.)

The fact that he pushed the conflict and upped the ante can be discounted if you wish, but the fact remains that he, and some leaders in Europe and elswehere, did take action and did see a successful end to that action.

i'm not saying reagan was a bad president. since i was too young at the time to recall him well, but by virtue of the fact my parents liked him, he probably was pretty good. i like a bunch of his speeches.
that still matters not, because the soviets knew their system was rotting from the inside. they were enormously behind on every sector of technology except for maybe steel metallurgy; their financial system was nonexistent compared to the west's; they still were unable to acheive self-sufficiency in regards to food; the vast majority of their industrial plants were built with technology that dated from before the 70's. they had a chronic shortage of consumer goods.
now, if you want to believe that a system like that could continue indefinitely, then i can't stop you. from all the evidence i've seen, however, is that such systems invariably end up collapsing sooner or later.

imho, carter was a good man for the wrong time. a good georgia boy, though: one of the best ex-presidents we have, even if he has made a few mistakes.

[JohnT]

Well all I can say, and I probably had better info than anyone here, is that at the time noone foresaw the Soviet collapse. The CIA got into trouble about that.

Pretty much everything I read concurs with what AH has been saying - that with the exception of a few low-ranking "crackpots" whom everybody ignored, nobody saw the end of the Communist Bloc coming in 1989.

Otoh, the end of the "Soviet Union" was a common prediction after that date, which shows us that the various governments' predictative powers rely heavily on already existing trends.

[Q Classic]

i realize hindsight is 20/20. my argument is not that we could ahve predicted the collapse of the soviet empire at the time: it's that, looking back and seeing how conditions were, and looking at what reagan himself was actually doing, shows that reagan didn't have much to do with the death of the soviet system.

i thought all you conservatives who love democracy would have loved to hear that the soviet system just doesn't work?