By the way, what was it Reagan did

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: daveshel

The problem with this, of course, is that it really isn't provable one way or the other. It seems to me that Gorbachev and his cabinet are the best available resources if one wants proof, and they seem to credit Reagan. I credit Reagan for winning the cold war, although I was generally not a fan. Still, this is a complex question, and there were no doubt many overlapping factors that led to the demise of the USSR, so I don't think there's any way of knowing for sure.

Where are some of these quotes that Gorbachev credits Reagan with ending the cold war. How is Reagan responsible when Gorbachev ended the Soviet Union three years after Reagan left office? Also, specifically what do you attribute Reagans' success to? His arms race? His high military budget? From shinerbrooke's quote it sounds like Gorbachev didn't really fear Reagan but that if anything he saw him as a partner in peace (which contradicts arguments that he was rattled by Reagan).

Wisdom after the fall of the USSR:

Ladies and gentlemen, if it had not been for the Reagan defense buildup, if the United States had not demonstrated that it is willing not only to stand up for freedom but to devote considerable sums of money to defending it, we probably would not be sitting here today having a free discussion between Russians and Americans.
- Boris Pinsker, Soviet Economist.

American policy in the 1980s was a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union
- Oleg Kalugin, former KGB general (Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union, page xi.)

[Reagan administration policies] were a major factor in the demise of the Soviet system.
- Yevgenny Novikov, former senior staff member of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee (CPCC) (Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union, page xi.)

Ah. This is more convincing (except the last one where you edited the subject of the sentence).

These quotes do suggest the administration was a big source (but not _the_ ultimate cause). I concede it appears that many inside the beltway felt Reagan was instrumental. I still think Gorbachev had ultimate control and is himself the main cause but since the main question was what role Reagan played, I don't have too much more to say.

(Thanks etech for not quipping or insulting.)

Ronald Reagan has been widely credited for causing the collapse of the Soviet Union. Why is it that you don't want to believe it?

The problem is that if 1 person claims a thing, and it is true, and if 100000 people claim the same thing, and it is also true, it in no way explains the circumstances and means of how that truth came to be.

What was the particular circumstance of the USSR at the time.
What did RR do IN PRECISE TERMS that influenced the downfall of the USSR?
How did that come to pass?


These are specifics.

One could have a thread on how Bill Gates became a billionare, but people just saying "He worked hard" or "he ripped people off" or whatever doesnt address the specifics of the issue. I think some people are looking for how it was done, not just that it was.

Hopefully, someone can go through records of the former USSR and verify claims made in an an objective sense. This was a significant event in US history, and I can't say all the hows and whys, and I am not sure anyone has the full perspective and complete knowlege of that time (yet)

Um, the Soviet Union collapsed quite a while ago. It isn't like it happened yesterday.

That doesn't mean that there aren't people who are still alive to talk about the facts.

How many times has this topic came up before a few partisan idealogues set out to attempt to discredit a dead man?

I would reply if I could figure out your grammar.

Hey, it's been a long day.

Ditto.

 

[SViscusi]

To give credit for the end of the cold war to any one person is shortsighted at best and moronic at worst. It was two dynamic leaders along with a set of circumstances which allowed for what happed to happen.

The U.S.S.R. was stagnant for many years before Reagan?s presidency. There were supply problems, there were shortages, people were hungry and the country needed a new leader which brought about the election of Gorbachev in '85. He brought in a younger generation of people who were open to change, especially the countries relationship with the west. He brought about Perestroika and Glasnost which laid the groundwork for what was to come.

Reagan provided the catalyst for change, the outside pressure. He and his policies forced the Soviets to see that they couldn't win, and that change was necessary. Reagan's contribution was vital and without it the cold war would gone on even longer (I'm not even going to speculate), but Russia was already collapsing; they didn't have to support only one country, but every satellite state too.

Gorbachev and Reagan brought the wall down and ended the cold war together. Neither could have done it without the other with Gorbachev's part being the hardest.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Holy lengthy quotes!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Well, like it or not - History will not be revised as some have been trying to do for years. Reagan was very instrumental in the fall of the "Evil Empire". No, he alone didn't cause it - it was destined to be an eventual failure by it's very nature. However if not Reagan - who? Who would have stood up to them and forced the change? How long would it have taken for them to collapse on their own? Years - probably decades. He was the right leader at the right time to make it happen. I shudder to think what things would be like if he hadn't come along. Not only on the Cold War front but on alot of other things too.

CkG

 

[daveshel]

God rest Ronald Reagan's soul.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well Don_Vito, I see another thread has pretty much gone south.

Hardly surprising, given the subject matter. Interestingly (at least to me), this is something like the fourth thread in the last 3 days in which I have taken up the conservative side of the debate. Maybe they're right about attorneys playing both sides of the fence . . .

Well, sometimes attorneys have to play devil's advocate

It would have been interesting to have a discussion on RR and his methods. For you (and anyone else who has the measure of control to consider this rationally)- Do you think RR's tactics as best we know them today would have worked earlier?

I believe it really depends on the particulars of the world at that moment. I think we may have gotten bombed in our sleep if he had tried some of those things with Kruschev. Not because Kruschev was greatly superior to Gorby, but because he was bipolar, and how he responded depended on the day you caught him. One day, he might have been quite reasonable, but the next paranoid enough to launch.

If the USSR was less vulnerable to the price of oil, what would have happened?

What if Gorby realized that SDI was pretty much a sham, and adjusted?

Given foreknowlege of US capabilities and intent, what could the USSR have done to counter RR's strategy?

All hypotheticals, but interesting ones to me.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Hey, it's been a long day.

Ditto.

What is it with this mad outbreak of semi-civility here. Doesn't either of you have anything to say about the other's personal habits?

Damn. I'm heading over to the Video forum.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: etech
Infohawk...

Ah. This is more convincing (except the last one where you edited the subject of the sentence).

These quotes do suggest the administration was a big source (but not _the_ ultimate cause). I concede it appears that many inside the beltway felt Reagan was instrumental. I still think Gorbachev had ultimate control and is himself the main cause but since the main question was what role Reagan played, I don't have too much more to say.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What makes you think that
- Boris Pinsker, Soviet Economist.
- Oleg Kalugin, former KGB general
and
- Yevgenny Novikov, former senior staff member of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee

are "inside the beltway"?

I assumed they were in on the top Soviet govenrment's decisions, that they knew what was going on, that they were part of the Soviet administration. But maybe I assumed wrong (in which case your argument would be weaker because they wouldn't be as authoritative)?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: etech
Infohawk...

Ah. This is more convincing (except the last one where you edited the subject of the sentence).

These quotes do suggest the administration was a big source (but not _the_ ultimate cause). I concede it appears that many inside the beltway felt Reagan was instrumental. I still think Gorbachev had ultimate control and is himself the main cause but since the main question was what role Reagan played, I don't have too much more to say.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What makes you think that
- Boris Pinsker, Soviet Economist.
- Oleg Kalugin, former KGB general
and
- Yevgenny Novikov, former senior staff member of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee

are "inside the beltway"?

I assumed they were in on the top Soviet govenrment's decisions, that they knew what was going on, that they were part of the Soviet administration. But maybe I assumed wrong (in which case your argument would be weaker because they wouldn't be as authoritative)?

The term "inside the beltway" is a term used for Washington DC.

It is not, nor was it ever, used for the Soviet Politburo.

 

[daveshel]

It was tonight, etech.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: daveshel
It was tonight, etech.

Where?, when Infohawk made a mistake and incorrectly used it?

That's a poor argument, a mistake does not make for common useage of a term.

Try again.

edit/
Capital Beltway

The Capital Beltway is an expressway-class highway which circles the Washington, DC area. It is also commonly referred to in phrases such as Inside the Beltway when referring to issues dealing with American government and politics.

 

[rahvin]

SDI has been mentioned as a critical Regan initiative in the collapse of the Soviet Union and I thought I would expand on that a bit. Reagan got congress to spend a stupid amount of money on SDI R&D, they then used double agents to cherry pick plausible but unattainable designs from the brainstorming and selectively feed them to the Soviets who then spent billions researching and eventually failing at implimenting them. In addition under Reagans administration selective items of value the Soviets sought on the world market to help support their economy were booby-trapped and delivered to them through double-agents, this includes the software that resulted in the largest gas line explosion in history.

Later on Gorbechov approached Reagan for aid and Reagan told him to take a hike, rather than capitulate to a corrupt and unstable (economic) regime Reagan allowed the Soviets to collapse under their own weight rather than be bullied. His speech telling Gorbechov to tear down the Berlin wall and calling the Soviets the Evil Empire also contributed to the fall.

 

[daveshel]

It was a turn on words that worked for me, that's all. Language is not dead.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: etech

The term "inside the beltway" is a term used for Washington DC.

It is not, nor was it ever, used for the Soviet Politburo.

I've heard it used in reference to other centers of leadership or centers generally. I guess I could have said inside the Moscow beltway. It was a manner of speaking. Sorry it caused confusion.

(Anyway, this is off-topic so this will be my last post about the word lest it turn int a thread on the permissible scope of the term "inside the beltway.")

 

[Runner20]

Originally posted by: daveshel
It has been stated repeatedly in the last several days that Reagan was credited as being responsible for the end of the cold war. I don't exactly remember it that way. So, he had friendly relations with Gorbachev, but what actual steps did he take in terms of programs or policies that had anything to do with the breakup of the Soviet Union or tearing down the Berlin Wall?

My analysis was that the cold war ended because it had simply run its course. Other changes around the world including the pervasion of instantaneous global communication and computer technology eroded the ideological differences between the capitalist and communist systems. In the end it became too expensive for the communist system to enforce its ideology, both in terms of the cost of wars as well as the opportunity cost of missed business opportunities.

What did Reagan have to do with any of this?

WRONG.

Nothing runs out its course, something or someone has to end it. Reagan's beefing up of our military and strong policies caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. You libs are full of hate and lie like biatches.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: etech

The term "inside the beltway" is a term used for Washington DC.

It is not, nor was it ever, used for the Soviet Politburo.

I've heard it used in reference to other centers of leadership or centers generally. I guess I could have said inside the Moscow beltway. It was a manner of speaking. Sorry it caused confusion.

(Anyway, this is off-topic so this will be my last post about the word lest it turn int a thread on the permissible scope of the term "inside the beltway.")

Moscow does not have a "beltway".

I don't believe that you have ever heard it used in any other context than US politics.