Reagan?

[forget_about_your_soft_spot]

Does anyone have any independent opinions on Reagan's responsibility in ending the Cold War? Were his administration's efforts a correlative or cause of the end of the "Evil Empire" (as Reagan himself put it)? Was it a joint effort with Gorbachev? Or did he simply run the Reds to ruin, as the neo-cons would have us believe?

 

I've been wondering for a while, and I figured what with Reagan's death, it would be an opportunity to discuss it; I imagine there will be much media coverage of his presidency over the next few days.

 

As well, do you think ruining the Soviet Union was worth it, even through all the collateral damage in South America, and continued suffering of Russian civilians even under the much deified free-market Capitalist system?

 

Just looking for some opinions...

 

Will

[Crusader]

This may sound stupid but I say the threat of American Nuclear weapons may have ended the Cold War. Come to think of it that would scare any country into submission. Sure, other countries have Nuclear capabilities but hell only the U.S. would kill every single person in a country to win a war. I'm sorry if I offended any of you Americans but you know it's true. You guys promote guns damnit.

 

As for the collapse of the Soviet Union, would it have caused any harm to keep them around? I don't really think communist beliefs condoned in invading or attacking neighbouring countries anyways. They had a dream, it was a bit idealistic but they had a dream. With the rise of capitalism there are they better off now or before? Are not the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? Isn't it like that in all the world?

[forget_about_your_soft_spot]

This may sound stupid but I say the threat of American Nuclear weapons may have ended the Cold War.

 

Well, that's essentially what the neo-cons are saying. When Reagan came to power, he essentially vowed to "out-gun" the Soviet Union, the prevailing theory being that the American economy could run the Soviet military complex into economic ruin. With the military complex strongly tied to the civilian state-governed economy in Russia, the notion was that over-arming the Soviet army would run the USSR into ruin.

 

I do not necessarily agree, mind you. I think it was more of a combination of Gorbachev's desire for disarmament, and the natural collapse of a long faltering Soviet economy. Remember, by the time the USSR "fell", it wasn't just a military surrender - there were bread lines and poverty was the rule more than the exception. I'm attempting to determine which story has more truth to it...

 

Come to think of it that would scare any country into submission. Sure, other countries have Nuclear capabilities but hell only the U.S. would kill every single person in a country to win a war. I'm sorry if I offended any of you Americans but you know it's true. You guys promote guns damnit.

 

Well, Gorbachev and his military advisors actually had nerves of steel, from what I've read. We inched towards nuclear destruction many times, as a result of false readings, misunderstanding or just plain shoddy equipment (on both sides, it should be noted). As for the idea that only American's promote guns - well, the policy of escalation only worked because the USSR also built guns, more than they could afford. Assuming you believe the neo-con version of events, anyway.

 

As for the collapse of the Soviet Union, would it have caused any harm to keep them around?

 

It may have. I don't imagine we could have teetered on the edge much longer without some sort of accidental nuclear launch. As much as the Americans like to paint Reagan as a calm, rational leader, and as much as the Russians do the same with Gorbachev, I imagine it was only a matter of time before we experienced the terror of mutually assured destruction.

 

I don't really think communist beliefs condoned in invading or attacking neighbouring countries anyways.

 

As of Reagan's presidency, the USSR consisted of the following countries. Countries marked with an asterix are the ones which chose to join the Soviet Bloc voluntarily:

 

(Inside the USSR)

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Belarus

Ukraine

Georgia

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Kazakhstan

Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan

Tajikistan

Kyrgyzstan

 

(Outside the USSR)

East Germany

Poland

Romania

Bulgaria

Czechoslovakia

Hungary

 

... so, whether or not Marx's original doctrine condoned forceful invasion, the Leninist-Stalinist/Soviet doctrine certainly did.

 

They had a dream, it was a bit idealistic but they had a dream. With the rise of capitalism there are they better off now or before? Are not the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? Isn't it like that in all the world?

 

Well, yes, but here we have the freedom to complain about wealth concentration. In Soviet Russia, it would have gotten you shot or arrested. I'm no neo-con (in fact, I'm a raging leftist: in America, I'd vote for Kucinich; here, I'll vote for Layton), but the USSR, even well into the 80's, was not exactly a happy place to live. Of course, it could be mentioned that it's virtually the same today, only the concentration of wealth has shifted even *more*, to the ogliarchs which took control of the economy during the process of economic liberalization.

 

Will

[Crusader]

wow, well said.

[forget_about_your_soft_spot]

Err... thanks, I guess. ;)

 

I'm a bit of a Cold War/USSR/Communism geek, mostly because my grandmother lived in the Ukraine under Stalin's rule.

 

Will

[no yu begin wher i end]

They say that Reagan ended the Cold War, but it was Gorbachev who got the Nobel Peace Prize...hmmm....

[Moonlight_Graham]

A warm sleece sweater ended the cold war.

[HoboFactory]

The collapse of the USSR was almost in entirety the result of internal matters, Reagan's influence is over-stated and virtually insignificant by comparison. People who say otherwise probably know alot about Reagan and his actions but next to nothing about what was going in in the USSR at the time.