DId Reagan REALLY have that much to do with the fall of the USSR?

[Daliman]

It seems to me that, while he may have helped a little, that communism fell in Russia due more to the fact that they had a new leader who wasn't as hardline, and that communism, as an economic model, just doesn't work very well, given that individual creativity is stifled by lack of incentive. I also heard before that Russia was good at producing big consumer products, such as cars,(although their design was crap for previous given reasons), but were not very good at making the little things. Either way, it seems to me Mother Russia fell more due to gout than Ronnie giving her a push down the stairs.
Any insight?

[andyfox]

When I was a kid, the conservative Republicans, Reagan among them, complained that the Russians were outspending us on defense, that we needed to up our defense spending to keep up. In fact, they were spending so much because they were so inefficient.

Managing a gigantic geographic entity like the U.S.S.R. would have been a daunting task for any government. An inefficient criminal conspiracy like the Soviet Communist government was destined, as Reagan said, for the ash heap of history.

[Non_Comformist]

I think the non polictical consensus is that it was destined to impload but that A) Reagan recognized this and B)took on the USSR where they were weakest by forcing them to spend more money than they were able to produce.

[Cyrus]

Very briefly :

Reagan gambled enormously with his foreign policy and, particularly, against the Soviet Union. He tore down nuclear control treaties that were more symbolic than anything, but that tearing down conveyed to the Russkies a dangerous message about American intentions - namely that the U.S. was priming up for war.

The SDI program (Star Wars) was a good example of a gambler's folly. The Russkies were finding themselves having to choose between a world where their most reckless and dangerous adversary would be untouchable in an attack (or wanted to be!) and a world whereby they would attack from a position of weakness and hope for the best. Ever went all in with Ace-crap heads up as the short stack?

The fact that Reagan gambled recklessly (and won out of luck) is demonstrated by the fact that Gorbachev was the catalyst for the Soviet Union's collapse through a series of ill-thought out and badly executed "reforms". However, it took a series of unlikely events for Gorbachev to finally take over! (Successive and unexpected deaths of General Secretaries Andropov and Chernenko.)

If you bear in mind that the Politburo at the time, was getting stacked with hostile and more conservative ideologues as a response to Reagan's belligerence, one realizes that Reagan's follies had a lucky break. And that's all there was to it.

We are supposed to learn from History. Not shape it to our theories or political beliefs.

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

"When I was a kid, the conservative Republicans, Reagan among them, complained that the Russians were outspending us on defense, that we needed to up our defense spending to keep up. In fact, they were spending so much because they were so inefficient."

Not only were they inefficient, they were also poorer! The Soviets were spending far, far less than American politicians at the time would have us believe.

The CIA, we now know, was actually very accurate in its spying, analysis and reporting on Soviet military expenditures and strength. But the politicos would have none of it.

Ike warned about the dangers of the "military - industrial complex" as constituting a great danger for democracy if left unchecked. We did not listen to Ike. The primary beneficiaries of the Cold War economic priorities were the defense-related businesses.

...Come to think of it, since the Russkies were managing to sorta keep up with the West, durign the Cold War, with fewer resources and less money, well, that makes 'em, ya know, a li'l, efficient!..

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

The Soviets couldn't rationally attack us even if they feared someday becoming impotent against us militarily. The Ace-rag analogy is not truly apropos.

For one thing, MAD still held, and the amount of potential overkill on both sides was immense. For another thing, their conventional military machine was rapidly decrepifying. They simply couldn't win.

They were also slowly going broke over many years. In their last throes they spent much of their gold reserves for hard currency. Reagan's Star Wars simply gave them a little push along the path of economic ruin, as well as making them face the fact that they had no win against the West, period.

The Soviets were neither stupid nor suicidal. They saw the writing on the wall and knew the time was coming when they would have to change--which they managed to do after a fashion.

So Reagan's Star Wars had about as much chance of actually provoking a Soviet attack against us, as Mason's meteor has of actually landing on your head.

[HDPM]

Reagan did quite a lot. This country was on the rocks after losing in Vietnam (and then having a liberal congress give even more away after Nixon), Nixon's total debacle, and Carter's totally limp presidency. This was a country that couldn't land 6 helicopters in a third world country to get our citizens back. After Carter let them be taken basically. Make no mistake about it, in those years, the Iranians knoew that to jack with the Soviets meant annihalation. To jack with Carter meant a disappointed little reprimand from a weak man. This country was stifled with a 70% income tax. So Reagan came in and correctly pointed out how rotten the Soviets were. The idiots on the American left who apologized for the Soviets have never really been called on it. The Soviets were in fact evil and there was nothing good about them. Contrary to advice from many apologists, Reagan had the guts to say what the Soviets actually were. And he had the guts to crank up military spending. Which we needed. Not just new warheads, but the military had major problems in that era.

I disagree with M some because SDI was destabilizing. The USA talked MAD, but really was about angling for first strike capability. And not just under Reagan. But Reagan at least took the whole thing seriously, unlike Carter, who would yell at the guy with the football and shoo him away when he was on vacation in Plains. Oh, no big deal if you are 20 min or whatever away from the football in the cold war you dolt. Not that the Soviets couldn't have a spy in your administratition.

Even if the Soviet Uniion were going to fall, nobody seemed willing to give it a little push. Reagan was, with helping the war in Afghanistan (justified IMO even with the current problems) or spending on SDI. To use a ridiculous metaphor, even if the USSR was a crippled old man in a wheelchair, it was evil, and I'm glad somebody had the guts to talk about pushing it down some concrete steps. because there were a lot of apologists around, still are I guess. But they should be relegated to university faculties and not have any influence on the world. Not having them teach students would be good too. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

The big disappointment of his presidency is that government spending rose. (Of course there were other problems, Iran Contra etc...)This would have been a truly great nation if we cut spending on social programs while increasing the revenue to spend on a military build up with the tax cut and improving economy. We might be a free nation today. Instead, the Christian right has too much power and the appropriators in both parties spend recklessly. People on the left keep talking about how Reagan changed everything around to the right, but I think the democrats won an important victory and now have a forever entrenched welfare state. Maybe the time to deal with domestic socialism was 1948 not 1988, I dunno.

There is my middle of the road post for today. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

I actually agree that SDI was theoretically a bit destablizing but think the chanthe chances of Cyrus getting hit on the head by that meteor. The instinct for self-preservation trumps the desire to rule the world (except for the Islamic jihadist nutcases, apparently). So what I'm really saying is yes, it was psychologically and strategically destabilizing, but the chances that would translate into a full-blown war were nearly nil.

I agree with the spending critique. We did need to spend on the military then, but not on so many other government programs.

The only way to keep government spending under some control is to give it less money to spend. Even that doesn't always accomplish the goal as it spends in deficit at times. Therefore the only solution to government overspending is to always give the government far less than it proposes taking.

Curious question: how much of our federal budget is for non-essentials? (roughly considering essentials to be the basics outlined in the Constitution, that is).

Wasn't the country starting to coming out of the depression anyway, even without FDR's New Deal? I suspect things would have turned out just fine if left alone a bit longer.

[Cyrus]

The whole post if choke full of facile arguments and arbitrary assumptions. I wonder about the way you're putting your mind to work around such issues.

"The Soviets couldn't rationally attack us ... MAD still held "

This ignores the nuclear strategy of both parties. Trust me, there was a lot of strategy beyond MAD. You need to stoke up on the literature.

"They simply couldn't win ... They were also slowly going broke ... Reagan's Star Wars simply gave them a little push."

Then it was a small thing that Reagan did!...

"In their last throes they spent much of their gold reserves for hard currency."

Where did you get that??

"[The Soviets] saw the writing on the wall and knew the time was coming ... [They had to] face the fact that they had no win against the West, period ...they would have to change."

I'm sorry but this is a childish line of logic! You are saying that the Russian communists would willingly do away with their regime because they saw they were licked?? Like some fatalist old boxer who goes belly up? Where do you get such preposterous ideas? This is colossaly simplistic!..

"Reagan's Star Wars had about as much chance of actually provoking a Soviet attack against us, as Mason's meteor has of actually landing on your head."

I don't know the chances of that meteor but, if you were to look up the American side's analysis of the situation at the time, it was consistently and rightly gloomy because Reagan's policy was offering no alternative to the opponent but either to self-destruct or go for broke. If you happened to be reading anything from "Foreign Affairs" to "The Atlantic" you'd know.

The chances of Mason's meteor landing anywhere are not that much dimmer than the chances Gorbachev had of ascending to the throne of the USSR. You have not accounted for the fact that it took two rapid and successive deaths of the General Secretaries for Gorbachev to assume power. Multiply the probability of each of those three events happening (Andropov dying; Chernenko dying; Gorbachev chosen) and then tell me about meteors.

[Zeno]

I like your poker analogy. Reagan did indeed play a huge No-limit poker hand and it was about time someone forced the game. He sucked out and won. And now the left will never be able to forget or forgive him.

I am disappointed that no war occurred. I had plans to be smoking a cigar when the fireballs lit up the sky and then be glibly flicking the ashes off same as the first shock and heat wave vaporized my small frame. A sardonic smirk frozen on my face. But no such luck. Humanity survived. Such are the vicissitudes of the fates.


Le Misanthrope