Reagan

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

NOONE predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. It came as a complete surprise.

And I don't think you can credit Reagan with that.

I think you can credit him with leading in the right direction, that being towards the blood-letting of the Red Army in Afghanistan and the buggering of the Soviet economy beyond repair through a quickened arms race.

Hey, I'll take the old guys luck, any day of the week.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by notyoueither
On the Soviets bit... what would have happened if nobody pushed at the house of cards? Can't say can you? Neither can I. All I can say is that Reagan (and like-minded allies) did push. A lot. That is why they get credit in my books.

Reagan certainly deserves some credit. Just don't exaggerate his merits too much. Gorby should get uncomparably more credit. If it was not for him (Gorby), the Soviet Union would still exist, and even 10 Reagans wouldn't have changed that. But, again, the Soviet Union was eventually doomed. Gorby just accelerated the process (by a couple of decades at least).

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

NOONE predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. It came as a complete surprise.

This is quite a paradox, a perception paradox actually. Many in the Soviet Union did realize the extent to which the system was rotten. Nonetheless they still believed that the power of the Soviets was forever.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
On the Soviets bit... what would have happened if nobody pushed at the house of cards? Can't say can you? Neither can I. All I can say is that Reagan (and like-minded allies) did push. A lot. That is why they get credit in my books.

There are 2 theories, both of which do not involve Reagan.

Firstly, the Soviet Union inevitably collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, particularly the long term decline brought about by the economic morass of state planning.

Secondly, Gorbachov lost control of a reform process which was never meant to lead to the removal from power of the communist party.

The second theory is more credible because China managed to move away from the planned command economy without the communists losing power.

[notyoueither]

I would have considered Gorbachev to be in the final 10 picks for person of the century for the previous 100. However, this thread is about Reagan and whether he was a good or bad president. My view is he was a good one.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
There are 2 theories, both of which do not involve Reagan.

Firstly, the Soviet Union inevitably collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, particularly the long term decline brought about by the economic morass of state planning.

Secondly, Gorbachov lost control of a reform process which was never meant to lead to the removal from power of the communist party.

The second theory is more credible because China managed to move away from the planned command economy without the communists losing power.

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

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?

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. 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. People who don't like them can cry in their beer for all I care, it won't change what happened.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I would have considered Gorbachev to be in the final 10 picks for person of the century for the previous 100.

Yeah, he should be there. However, the perception that he destroyed his country works strongly against him.

However, this thread is about Reagan and whether he was a good or bad president.

Yes, but the collapse of the SU is an important point in this discussion.

My view is he was a good one.

And so is mine.

Interestingly, this proves that to be a successful president one doesn't need to be too intellectual. Other qualities may be more important.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


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

More an example of how a Stalinist state can stagger on regardless of external events and pressures

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?

The dynamic was more he was the last man standing. It was more about generational change and Gorbachev had impressed his seniors. There isn't any evidence they gave much thought to the outside world. Remember Reagan was an old man himself when in office.

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. 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. People who don't like them can cry in their beer for all I care, it won't change what happened.

It was more a case of Reagan taking dangerous risks which might have led to the Soviet Union fighting for survival rather than falling over. There isn't a cause and effect relationship.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


There are 2 theories, both of which do not involve Reagan.

Firstly, the Soviet Union inevitably collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, particularly the long term decline brought about by the economic morass of state planning.

Secondly, Gorbachov lost control of a reform process which was never meant to lead to the removal from power of the communist party.

The second theory is more credible because China managed to move away from the planned command economy without the communists losing power.

There is one huge difference with China. In modern conditions, to consolidate such a multinational state as the SU, a powerful ideology is needed, and the internationalist communist ideology did that job rather well. Once you weaken the ideology (which is inevitable in the reforms ala China), there remains nothing to hold such a state together. It simply falls apart.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by notyoueither
... of course I think Americans were certainly ready for it. I don't pick Yanks to be too enthusiastic about taking second place to anyone for very long. After Vietnam and Watergate they were generally beat though. Carter was a very good man, but he didn't have the stuff to make Americans forget. Reagan was the right man at the right time.

At least that's what it looked like to me from where I sit.

I agree about Carter. He was in many ways a good president, but unprepared to fight the political battles he needed to in order to take control of the agenda. By the time he decided to be a hard ass he was already tainted by failed detente in Nicaragua, the ouster of the Shah in Iran and the hostage mess etc. The failed rescue mission of the hostages was simply a sign of how low his nemesis (the "class" of '74 in Congress, overwhelmingly Deomcrats) had let the U.S. military sink.

Reagan in contrast took the fight to congress in order to see his agenda through. Part of the reason that those deficits were so high was that he was willing to compromise in order to get his programs rolling. He had no other choice really, as congress was solidly democratic with only a Bob Dole led minority in the senate able to wield any influence from the right sight of the aisle.

[Alexander's Horse]

There is something in that - although in 1989 there was a concerted effort by Chinese students to go down a different path. The Chinese communist leadership, mindful of what had happened in Russia, moved swiftly to crush the pro democracy movement.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The Chinese communist leadership, mindful of what had happened in Russia, moved swiftly to crush the pro democracy movement.

The Chinese leadership would have crushed it irrespective of Russia. Besides, in 1989 it was not yet completely clear what would happen to Russia.

[The Vagabond]

FYI, I rated Reagan 8 of 10.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

More an example of how a Stalinist state can stagger on regardless of external events and pressures

The dynamic was more he was the last man standing. It was more about generational change and Gorbachev had impressed his seniors. There isn't any evidence they gave much thought to the outside world. Remember Reagan was an old man himself when in office.

re Korea. There is very little external pressure. That is my point. No pressure, no failure.

I doubt very much that the Politburo allowed what Gorbachev did just for shits and giggles. They were desperate. No thought to the outside world? You mean while they were experiencing their own Vietnam rachetted up by 10 factors, and 'the enemy' were rapidly closing the arms gap with stuff they could never hope to duplicate? Yeah, I guess they were only concerned with the price of cabbage in Kiev.

btw, WTH does Reagans age have to do with it? He was a Washington outsider. That probably contributed to his being an effective leader for that time.

It was more a case of Reagan taking dangerous risks which might have led to the Soviet Union fighting for survival rather than falling over. There isn't a cause and effect relationship.

Dangerous risks for you were standing up to the challenge for others.

btw, are you arguing for or against one thing leading to another? What could have happened is not the point. The point is what did happen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

On the Soviets bit... what would have happened if nobody pushed at the house of cards? Can't say can you? Neither can I. All I can say is that Reagan (and like-minded allies) did push. A lot. That is why they get credit in my books.

I concur. The Soviet Union may eventually have fallen, but who knows when? I think the final push by Reagan, Thatcher, and Co. may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

[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?