The Soviet Union collapsed without anybody invading them or kicking them out of where they were, unlike those other examples. You would be surpised at how many people looked positively on the Soviet Union and the idea of communism: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/citizen/Dec20/mic21220.html In 1982, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., had optimistic projections for the future of the USSR. "(t)hose in the United States who think that the Soviet Union is on the verge of collapse [are] wishful thinkers," who are, "only kidding themselves." Perhaps hindsight frustration with Reagan’s superior analysis of the situation explains why Schlesinger rated him among the lower third of US presidents. Strobe Talbot, then a columnist for Time and now a Deputy Secretary of State, wrote in 1984 that, if the Soviet Union really was in a crisis, it was "a permanent, institutionalized crisis with which the USSR has learned to live." Anthony Lewis of the New York Times called Reagan’s groundbreaking "Evil Empire" speech in which he presaged the triumph of freedom over despotism, "Simplistic", "Sectarian", "Terribly dangerous", "Outrageous" and "primitive…the only word for it." Finally, John F. Kennedy’s special security adviser, McGeorge Bundy, opined in response to Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) ‘’The Star Wars speech, with its false promise of unattainable safety, was a major contribution to international danger.’’ Clearly, the view that the collapse of communism was inevitable is shattered by these and other real-time sentiments expressed by some of the Reagan Administration’s biggest critics. One rightfully wonders whether President Clinton, faced with this type of resistance and polls indicating that 70% of the population supported a nuclear arms freeze, would have had the courage that Reagan exhibited in walking away from the 1983 arms talks with the Soviet Union. Though the president was crucified for the move at the time, a strong case can be made that this stance and his hard line on promoting peace through strength was what actually what forced Gorbachev and others in the direction of democracy.
MR. C, the fact that whether or not communism was viewed as inevitable or imminent at the time, and the question of whether or not it actually was inevitable or imminent are different questions. Really? This is what actually forced Gorbachev into perestroika? Not the collapse of the soviet economy and his lifetime of experience plugging the leaks of the decaying soviet system? Many many books have been written about this subject and very few of them take this simplistic of a view. I know that this dude who wrote this is/was an editor at the KSG student newspaper, but come on. This is a logical leap made with no supporting evidence.
When did the Taliban fight the Soviets? <hr color=red> I thought Democrats were instrumental in helping the mujahaddin to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Why 100% credit to Reagan?
I am just applying the same logic as is being applied to Reagan winning the cold war, dude, don't shoot the messenger.
They appointed seven between them? It can't have been seven since none of the Reagan/Bush nominees have retired, Clinton had two and Rehnquist (a Nixon appointee) and John Paul Stevens (a Ford appointee) are still on the court. So, there must've been five Reagan/Bush appointees to the Court, which is still a lot. And I'd say O'Connor has often been less conservative than her peers from the Reagan/Bush appointees.
Well, you forgot the retirement of Thurgood Marshall (replaced by Clarence) and I can't forget the 7th, but I know that 7 were replaced by the two of them. I'll check.
Oh, I'm sorry, it was 5. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/members.pdf Nevermind! Sorry about htat... wish I could edit.
Speaking of Supreme Court members, though. It sure has been a long time since one has been replaced. Nearly 10 years. I'm pretty sure that's the longest the U.S. has ever gone without a new member of the Court appointed.
I don't really think you can talk about Reagan the president as opposed to the Reagan Administration. Being brutally honest, the man's mind was failing him by his second term and that is pretty well documented. As such, I don't really put too much stock in thinking of him as the competent decision maker. Even before that, though, Reagan was known to rely heavily on his advisors, etc. such that they didn't just advise, but made a great deal of the decisions. The Reagan Presidency, then, was very much a group effort (more than a lot of others) with Reagan acting mostly as the image and motivator of the country. Regardless of positive or negative, the US attitude, direction, policies, etc. were dramatically changed between 1981 and 1984.
Can you give me some of those articles that show it was inevitable? Also, when did it become inevitable? When it first embraced communism, in the 80's, or somewhere in between? Internal collapses of regimes are extremely rare in history.
Yep, and we take it for granted that his ideas are right these days. Especially the communism one. It's amazing how it has fallen out of favor so fast. Unfortunately, I doubt beating Islamic fascism will be so easy.
Mr C, I see what you mean, but to be fair to all of us: we certainly do not all take it for granted that his domestic policies were right. To some of us, they seemed less than humane.
I meant to say "collapse of communism" was inevitable. No edit. my point was that the inability to contemporaneously predict its collapse doesn't necessarily mean that its collapse was not inevitable or imminent. Anyway, here's a number of the hundreds or thousands of books and articles written on the subject: Selected Resources Final Days: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Soviet Union by Andrei S. Grachev, Margo Milne. 224 pgs. The Collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union by William E. Watson. 175 pgs. How the Soviet Union Disappeared: An Essay on the Causes of Dissolution by Wisla Suraska. 190 pgs. Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse? Understanding Historical Change by Robert Strayer. 226 pgs. The Destruction of the Soviet Union: A Study in Globalization by David Lockwood. 264 pgs. The Dream That Failed: Reflections on the Soviet Union by Walter Laqueur. 231 pgs. Gorbachev and the Collapse of Communism, in History Review by Steven Morewood. 6 pgs. Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire, in Presidential Studies Quarterly by Andrew E. Busch. 16 pgs. Did the West undo the East?, in The National Interest by Stephen Sestanovich. 9 pgs. Riddles, Mysteries, and Enigmas: Unanswered Questions of Communism's Collapse, in Policy Review by Ilya Somin. 5 pgs. China as a Factor in the Collapse of the Soviet Empire, in Political Science Quarterly by Nancy Bernkopf Tucker. 18 pgs. The Economic Fallacy, in The National Interest by Vladimir Kontorovich . 11 pgs. A Fatal Logic: Sovietologists and the Collapse of Communism in the former USSR, in The National Interest by Martin Malia. 11 pgs. Last of the Empires: A History of the Soviet Union, 1945-1991 by John L. H. Keep. 482 pgs.
Oh wow. Let's see, I've got people calline me naive, a liar, stupid... All because I posted events that happened under various Presidents' watches? Was any of what I posted false? No, every single event I posted happened. It is history, and it has yet to be rewritten (although liberal academia is working hard on that). I presented these facts because I wanted to show a pattern of loss during the Cold War. We had surrendered half of the fu*king planet by the time Reagan came in. Truman gave up eastern Europe at Potsdam. He gave up China by pulling support for the Nationalists in '48. JFK got us into Vietnam without a strategy or adequate force to win, and the Democratic Congress ensured defeat when they refused to allow US troops to aid them in '75.Wilson, while he did send troops to White Russia, did not do nearly enough to crush the Bolsheviks. The pattern is clear - before Reagan, the boldest strategy anyone could come up with was "containment" - holding the line. And we didn't even do a real great job of that, if you'll read my post. It never occurred to anyone to go on the offensive, something that is at some point necessary for victory in any war. It just drives you guys crazy that Reagon went on the offensive and won. You just can't stand the thought of a conservative winning, so you'd rather pretend it didn't happen by rewriting history and ignoring reality. Doesn't surprise me. And BTW, as for the "neck and neck" comment - why does everyone assume that I was talking strictly about economies? Militarily, they were far more powerful than we were in every single respect by the time Reagan came to power. Until we got to the moon, they had won every single milistone in the space race. Technologically, they were about on a par with us. And quite frankly, no one at the time knew that their economy was in such poor shape. No one, so quit using hindsight to try to unjustify what was seen as the conventional wisdom of the time. At the time, it sure did seem like a "neck and neck" race. Many thought the USSR was winning.
Sure. For 50 years we were neck and neck with them, and then all of a sudden they dropped the ball. The premise of your entire argument is totally false. We were not "neck and neck" with them in any respect. We were ahead of them in virtually every military aspect as early as the late 1950's - U2 flights and later CORONA satellites verified all that. We were clearly ahead of them in economic & technological matters for decades before Reagan, and the intelligence gap was closed, and we surpassed the USSR in the 1970's there. Where exactly were we "neck and neck" with them? Outside of a few random events (Sputnik) that served to build the "red scare", they were on their way downhill long before Reagan. Reagan may have quickened the downhill move, but it was inevitable either way. We also may not have known all this at the time, but we now know so much about the internal workings of the USSR that makes it very, very clear when we look back on it. Any basic analysis of their economic structure (pre-Reagan) will show the path they were on. They collapsed because of the non-viability of their economic and political system more than any kind of arms race with the US.
You are just so out of your league here today. Again, I dare you to present Warren G. Harding's communist fighting policy. Or Henry Cabot Lodge's stance on sending US troops to fight the Bolsheviks. Since you are an expert on foreign policy of the early twentieth century, you must know, because I don't. Your take on Vietnam is just awesome. Nixon "saved vietnam for a couple of years" according to you, but LBJ lost south Yemen. You are being dishonest because you presented the facts in the light most favorable to your own shilling. And you know you did. And the ironic part is that it doesn't prove anything about Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union What did Reagan do that was so "offensive" btw? Looks to me like he just continued fighting pansy ass proxy wars. yeah, big deal, he talked tough (using advisors recycled from old administrations that were responsible for all the previous failures, btw), but did American soldiers ever suit up and go to war vs. the commies like they did in the 50's and 60's? Name one offensive military engagement we fought under Reagan. DId we do anything besides containment? Where did we roll back communism? I'll save the economic critiques because, to your credit, you realize your own limitations in that area.
Major: Your post is inaccurate and misleading. We were ahead of them in some areas, they were ahead of us in others. By 1979 there was no doubt at all who would win a conventional war in Europe. (They would) And read my above post. No one knew what sort of shape their economy was in, so don't throw that one at me. Yes, and had Reagan been elected in the 1960s perhaps that would be relevant. By the 1970s they had undoubtedly passed us up. They vastly outnumbered us, their tanks and aircraft were just as technologically sophisticated as what we had, and their navy was deemed on a par with ours, our only edge being the supercarriers. We know that now, we did not know that then. Back then it appeared that they were an economic powerhouse; how else could they produce such a powerful military? Again, hindsight is 20/20, and no one back then had the luxury of using it. Intelligence gap? How simplistic. Here's a less simplistic explanation: our ELINT and SATINTEL was always superior, their HUMINT was always superior. Still is. On intelligence? Then why did we keep catching spy rings and moles well into the 1990s? Curious...
SF: As I said, he won it without firing a shot. What he did is he went to Reykjavik and essentially told the Soviets that he would not disarm, and that he would not settle for the containment and appeasement policy of his predecessors. He basically told them that he'd nuke them if they didn't change their aggressive policies, and he assured them that America would from now on actually defend the free world, and not just give it lip service. He scared the sh*t out of them at Reykjavic. Even Gorby is on record as saying that it was that moment that he knew that he had lost the Cold War.
One other point: You guys seem to be forgetting that our economy was also in shambles at the time that Reagan took office. You conveniently forget what the Democratic Congress and Carter had done to it during the 1970s. If we had lost the Cold War, I wonder if Soviet historians would be claiming that our downfall was inevitable, simply because our economy was failing, too?
Oh man, now Carter caused the recession of the 70's too? I didn't know that. I must have conveniently forgotten it. I guess that recession was on the same plane with the problems caused systemic dysfunction of communism, right? It's funny how you want to divorce the inherent problems and eventual implosion of the Soviet Economy from everything else, considering that the musings of theoretical economists like Marx is its primary rationale for being. Funny, but not surprising.
