202. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:31 PM PT
s. In fact, it proved to be the ultimate bargaining chip. And we
played it for all it was worth."
George Schultz.
203. teller - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:32 PM PT
Psuedo--shouldn't you be delivering room service?
204. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:32 PM PT
Envision: The American diplomats killed in Afghanistan in 1978 -- a year before the Soviet invasion.
205. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:34 PM PT
National Review, February 19, 1990
"The book's most poignant image is of Ronald Reagan in 1987 at the Martin Marietta Company standing by a mockup of the Zenith Star chemical laser, promising the workers that they were not building "a bargaining chip, " even as his chief arms-control advisor, Paul Nitze, was talking to the Soviets about limiting it, and the Pentagon was about to administer the coup de grace. Even more ironic is the fact that the chemical laser might have been in orbit by 1987 had the Reagan Administration not opposed it so strenuously in favor of a
"comprehensive" SDI."
Review of "Guardians of the Arsenal: the Politics of Nuclear Strategy."
206. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:36 PM PT
As JayAckroyd says, the Soviet Union had begun collapsing in the 1970s. The process would have been completed with or without Reagan. The most one can say, IMO, is that he may have speeded up the process by a couple of years.
207. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:40 PM PT
PE
Post 206 is charming, but as valuable as "The Broncos were bound to win the Super Bowl. At best, Terrell Davis just sped the process up by a few years."
I wanted to use terms you could understand.
208. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:43 PM PT
As for the concern over hundreds of billions, in the scheme of global competition and a Cold War, even if it contributed a mere 15% to the collapse, it seems a reasonable price.
Of course, as Rask said, the real failure of the Reagan Administration was Jim Watt, so let's keep our eye on the ball.
209. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:43 PM PT
Message #207
So, in other words, Reagan should be given a large amount of credit for a process which would have happened anyway with or without Reagan? Or perhaps you are saying it wasn't inevitable?
210. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:44 PM PT
I'm saying that it would not have made a jot of difference who was elected president in 1980, 1984 and 1988.
211. Ronski - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:44 PM PT
jonesatlaw,
You are not suggesting that FDR stood up to Stalin at Yalta, are you?
We negotiated Stalin out of Vienna, but used no force. After imposing neutrality on Austria, we lost interest.
American forces held Western Bohemia, but either to placate Stalin, or trusting that he was at heart only an agrarian reformer, we left, and ignored the communist agitation in both Hungary and Czechoslovakia. We made no real efforts to ensure free elections in Poland.
Anyway you slice it, it sounds like appeasement to many of us who are of Eastern European extraction.
212. teller - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:46 PM PT
Psuedo-are you writing from the front desk? that's a firing offense.
213. Ronski - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:46 PM PT
I nominate Gorbachev as one of the greatest American presidents of the 20th century.
214. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:48 PM PT
Ronski: There was never any hope for free elections in Poland after the war. It was doomed in June 1944, when the Soviet army arrived in Warsaw and did nothing as the German army eliminated the Polish resistance who naively rose up in order to support the Soviet army.
215. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:48 PM PT
PE
He should be given credit for managing the inevitable in dangerous times, for speeding up the inevitable, and for the inevitable becoming "evitable" under his stewardship (and, more accurately, the stewardship of his aides in the last two years).
The "inevitably" argument usually fails for three reasons. First, it assumes that the "collapse" would have been "disappearance." Second, it ignores the fact that, even in collapse, the Soviets were a dangerous adversary, with tenacles throughout the world and significant arms capability. Three, it is conjecture, albeit educated conjecture, and it pales in comparison to the known facts of what happened.
But don't mind me. Clinton passed FMLA and has had to deal with a very thorny Haiti, so rank him right up there.
216. teller - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:49 PM PT
There is no hotel administration degree offered at your "college," Pseudo. . . . Now check my bags!
217. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:49 PM PT
"American forces held Western Bohemia, but either to placate Stalin, or trusting that he was at heart only an agrarian reformer, we left, and ignored the communist agitation in both Hungary and Czechoslovakia."
Whose forces were in Western Bohemia?
Communist agitation in Czechoslavakia and Hungary was not ignored. There was little that could be done about it.
218. teller - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:50 PM PT
who's the best writer in the fray?
219. Ronski - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:50 PM PT
PE,
Yes, it was Poland, after all.
But what about the threat of force? Lily-livered cowards they were, all of 'em.
220. Ronski - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:52 PM PT
PE,
The Yanks.
221. teller - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:52 PM PT
who's the best writer in the fray?
222. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:54 PM PT
Teller
Pseudo is very Mencken.
223. teller - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:54 PM PT
what about me? :(
224. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:55 PM PT
teller
You can do little faces. That's something.
225. teller - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:56 PM PT
Don't you marvel at the eloquence, erudition, and strength of my prose? I am the greatest!!!!!!!!
226. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:57 PM PT
109109 (Message #215)
"He should be given credit for managing the inevitable in dangerous times, for speeding up the inevitable, and for the inevitable becoming 'evitable' under his stewardship..."
Well, this is a diminished claim, then. What was so particularly dangerous about 1985-89? Or, rather, what would have particularly dangerous had it not been for Reagan in 1985-89? I'd say the world situation in 1981-85 was more dangerous and precarious than in 1985-89.
"The 'inevitably' argument usually fails for three reasons. First, it assumes that the 'collapse" would have been "disappearance.' Second, it ignores the fact that, even in collapse, the Soviets were a dangerous adversary, with tentacles throughout the world and significant arms capability."
The inevitability argument makes NO such assumptions. Re the second assumption, where did these 'tentacles' matter in the 1980s? Central America? North Korea?
"It doesn't Three, it is conjecture, albeit educated conjecture, and it pales in comparison to the known facts of what happened."
What are the known facts? Reagan was in office when Gorbachev came to power, and wasn't in office when the Soviet Union disappeared.
"But don't mind me. Clinton passed FMLA and has had to deal with a very thorny Haiti, so rank him right up there."
Did you see my ranking of Clinton? Please involve me in your preposterous partisan spew from the GOP thread.
227. teller - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:59 PM PT
Pseudo--do you think i'm a good writer?
228. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 1:59 PM PT
"Please involve me in your preposterous partisan spew from the GOP thread."
I feel sure there is a typo in there somewhere.
229. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:00 PM PT
Ronski- I married a Zagurski, and so I am empathetic to your point re Yalta, however I was referring to the earlier issues I mentioned in the other posts. By Yalta, FDR was failing in health and I think this weakened our position as well. But, the soviet domintion of eastern Europe was preventable only at a horrendous price. Remember the Plowman had no concern for his losses, and had the largest land force in the world, with better tanks, our trucks, and some of our better aircraft. Further, the nations that were lost were politically and socially devastated. The tears in their political fabric would have made establishing democracy difficult.
230. Wombat - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:00 PM PT
PE:
The Kabul embassy incident took place in February 1979 (still before the Soviet invasion).
During one of Churchill's visits to Moscow, he and Stalin divided eastern Europe into spheres of influence, complete with percentages denoting Stalin's vs. Churchill's perceived interests. The results were not dissimilar to how Eastern Europe ultimately ended up (with the exception of Poland).
231. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:01 PM PT
Ronski: No, forces under WHOSE command were in Western Bohemia?
Threat of force over Poland, over a fait accompli? In war-weary in 1945? You must be kidding.
232. jayackroyd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:02 PM PT
Message #215
They weren't dangerous times. That was a lie. The Soviets were on life support. The country was ruined by corruption and the fundamental incapability of a centrally planned economy to function. The disservice Reagan did to the nation was piling up a huge deficit to combat a false threat. You can't blame him for thinking up the big lie on this score. That one goes to Kennedy. But he said the big lie so often and with such sincerity (I think he believed it) that people like you think there was a threat from a country where half of the schools didn't even have flush toilets.
Moynihan talks about this in his new (very interesting) book called Secrecy. I don't have it with me, so I have to power paraphrase. He quotes a general who was in charge of planning nuclear attacks, who, after his first visit to the Soviet Union in the early 80s, began to question the whole thing. Runways were potholed, airplanes obviously not maintained. The country was a wreck, and it had been falling apart steadily since Brezhnev.
233. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:03 PM PT
Wombat: Yes, the "percentages" deal. However, Churchill was merely ratifying what was going to be the status quo. I mean, how can anyone not see that the defeat of Germany would not involve the presence of Soviet troops in the centre of Europe?
234. Ronski - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:06 PM PT
PE,
As for there being nothing that the West could do about communist agitation in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the same might have been said about Greece and Turkey two or three years later, and yet much was done; but then, communist control of the Eastern Mediterranean seemed more important than the simple loss of freedom by Czechs, Slovaks, Magyars, Poles, Kashubians, Rusyns...(oops, here I go again).
And what was that business in another thread about my being Eastern European-centric? I've posted about Ainus, Amerindians, Celts and Italic. Hhrrumphh.
235. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:06 PM PT
"Well, this is a diminished claim, then. What was so particularly dangerous about 1985-89? Or, rather, what would have particularly dangerous had it not been for Reagan in 1985-89? I'd say the world situation in 1981-85 was more dangerous and precarious than in 1985-89."
I'll accept that. And in that he was diminished mentally in the last 2 years of his second term, it works.
"The inevitability argument makes NO such assumptions. Re the second assumption, where did these 'tentacles' matter in the 1980s? Central America? North Korea?"
Keep context. The model is ranking of Presidents. If a monumental nuclear threat that is testing your resolve in various regions, including Central America (plus the worst economic crisi faced since the Depression, which we have not addressed) = "it would not have made a jot of difference who was elected president in 1980, 1984 and 1988", so be it. But with such a grand sweep, is there anything left to discuss?
"What are the known facts? Reagan was in office when Gorbachev came to power, and wasn't in office when the Soviet Union disappeared."
No wonder Reagan was so popular. It appears to have been a simpler time.
"Did you see my ranking of Clinton? Please involve me in your preposterous partisan spew from the GOP thread."
You'll get no spew from me unless you mind your manners.
236. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:07 PM PT
Jay,
A huge country, falling apart, has hardline leaders and nuclear weapons. This isn't dangerous?
237. Wombat - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:08 PM PT
PE:
Of course. Some people apparently do have trouble seeing this.
US forces under Patton had entered Western Czechoslovakia by the end of the war in Europe. They were pulled out (over Patton's objections).
238. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:10 PM PT
jayck
"They weren't dangerous times. That was a lie. The Soviets were on life support. The country was ruined by corruption and the fundamental incapability of a centrally planned economy to function. The disservice Reagan did to the nation was piling up a huge deficit to combat a false threat. You can't blame him for thinking up the big lie on this score. That one goes to Kennedy. But he said the big lie so often and with such sincerity (I think he believed it) that people like you think there was a threat from a country where half of the schools didn't even have flush toilets."
This view is historically juvenile. When an aggressive, if weakening, adversary with an equivalent nuclear arsenal is challenging you worldwide, the times, they are a dangerous. Even without the plumbing.
And I don't know you well enough to lie to you.
239. teller - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:10 PM PT
does anyone think i'm a good writer
240. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:11 PM PT
Ronski (Message #234)
"As for there being nothing that the West could do about communist agitation in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the same might have been said about Greece and Turkey two or three years later...."
You're joking right? There were no Soviet troops in Greece and Turkey. Moreover, Turkey was neither devastated by war (because it wasn't in the war) nor lacked a functioning government.
241. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:11 PM PT
"Even without the plumbing. "
Especially without the plumbing.
242. verdeazul - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:13 PM PT
I always kinda' wanted
to go bass fishing with Gerald
Ford. You know, knock back a few
Buds. Eat crusty pastrami sandwiches
with sun-melted cheese on rye.
Get goofy on a few Percodans from
Betty's stash. Sing a few bars of
"Summertime". Watch mosquitos
gettin' "stoned" on MY blood....
Talk about "Squeaky" Fromm's tits -
Yuk, yuk, yuk....
dreaminzul~
243. Ronski - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:14 PM PT
jonesatlaw,
My point is that FDR can hardly be lionized for facing up to Stalin. Granted, both he and Churchill were tired, and there was no sympathy at home for fighting the Russians. But to say that they acted bravely in the face of Stalin's aggression would be too much. They caved. They had good reasons from their point of view, but not from the view of the democrats and liberals left stranded under Stalin. I also question your assertion that democracy could not have thrived under most of Eastern Europe; until Munich, Czechoslovakia remained democratic (though every other E. European country fell under some kind of athoritarianism, generally of the right).
244. Ronski - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:18 PM PT
PE,
I believe Soviet troops were pulled out of Hungary and Czechoslovakia before the respective putsches ('47 and '48), or at least out of part of those countries, but I will check.
245. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:19 PM PT
Message #236
"A huge country, falling apart, has hardline leaders and nuclear weapons. This isn't dangerous?"
What are you saying quelled the danger? Reagan's unremitting hostility in 1981-85 or his mollycoddling in 1986-89?
246. Ronski - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:20 PM PT
PE,
(But you're right in that I do sometimes kid.)
247. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:21 PM PT
Teller: You remain, IMO, an atrocious prose stylist, fond of padding and prone to gratuitous displays of simulated dignity.
248. ChristiPeters - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:21 PM PT
teller -
Not until you learn to capitolize.
249. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:33 PM PT
teller
I don't know if you are a good writer. But I'm sure you are a good person.
250. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:41 PM PT
Message #245"What are you saying quelled the danger? Reagan's unremitting hostility in 1981-85 or his mollycoddling in 1986-89?"
Actually, I was just questioning his dismissal of the Soviet Union as not dangerous. A country with that much power, falling apart at the seams, can often be *more* dangerous for its instability.
However, don't you think unremitting hostility was a better plan in 81-85, given the Soviet leaders during that time (Brezhenev, Andropov, Chernenko)? Hardliners all. Then in comes Gorbachev, who is clearly moving in the right direction, in Reagan's opinion. Time to back off? I also agree with Niner that he was much diminished mentally by then, but if there is one thing he stayed focused on in his second term, it'd be the Soviet Union.
Also, I don't think Reagan should get credit for quelling the danger, per se. But there are so many ways that the dissolvement of the Soviet Union might have gone badly, don't you think? The Communists might have tried to re-establish control by cracking down even harder--doomed though an effort like that would be. There could have been more violence, more civil war, more instability. Gorbachev saw the inevitable and moved towards the right exit. He thinks that Reagan's hard line attitude and firm stance helped.
Of course, Reagan was incredibly simple-minded and his stance pretty much equated to "Communism is Bad". No genius he.
However, I consider all the possibilities for the Soviet Union's dissolvement and then envision Carter winning a second term. I think it's certainly arguable that the outcome might have changed.
251. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:47 PM PT
CalGal's favorite presidents:
WJC
JFK
WGH
GC
TJ
252. Msivorytower - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:47 PM PT
Shit, I missed all the fun again.
"But there are so many ways that the dissolvement of the Soviet Union might have gone badly, don't you think?"
Given that Reagan wasn't even in office when the SU finally collapsed, I don't think you can argue his presence made much difference to the direction it took in it's nosedive. That credit has to be given soley to Gorbachev.
I think Reagan was largely irrelevant to the events that took place. Or, more precisely, he was president at the right time, and gets credit that doesn't really belong to him. Certainly the SDI threat only accelerated the panic of the Soviets, it neither jumpstarted it, or brought it to a climax (as others have said).
The economic ineffiencies of the Soviet system is what finally brought this whole thing to a head. The SDI threat only forced the system to break more visibly by forcing continued expenditures on military programs that could have been re-directed to propping up the economy elsewise (agriculture was a mess and had been for decades) and staving off that day. But the day was inevitable.
253. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:49 PM PT
I don't see that referring to the Soviet Union as the 'Evil Empire' in any way equated to 'unremitting hostility', although I do recall the distinct sound of liberals machine gun defecating in their shorts at the time.
254. Wombat - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:51 PM PT
Best to worst (complete with shallow and subjective comments):
1) FDR (others have dwelt on his good points, so I don't have to)
2) Eisenhower (prescient on industrio-military complex; allowed McCarthy plenty of rope; presided over good times in US. A pragmatist.)
3) LBJ (Did better than JFK would have on Civil Rights, other social programs. Too bad about Vietnam.)
4) Teddy Roosevelt (his trustbusting was overrated, sound and fury on progressive issues, comparatively little action. An imperialist, gunboat diplomatist.)
5) Truman (Exceeded expectations, secure in his decisions. A stand-up guy.)
6) Woodrow Wilson (Great intentions, poor results. Today's world, for better or for worse, resulted of his actions.)
7) Richard Nixon (The ultimate pragmatist--who'd a thunk it? Most of the programs that the Republican Class of 94 wanted to do away with were his. Russia, China openings.
8) JFK (Sainted as a result of his premature death. Libido makes Clinton look like a monk. How did he get away with it?)
9) Jerry Ford (What the country needed after Watergate. Too bad he didn't win a second term.)
10) Ronald Reagan (His impact on the United States and the World cannot be understated. His willingness to abandon the US social contract I found despicable, and it has corrupted political debate ever since.
11) George Bush (Response to the invasion of Kuwait was masterful, end game deplorable. Saddled with Reagan's legacy. A better man than his party permitted.)
12) Herbert Hoover (Outstanding technocrat, unable to cope with the Depression.)
13) Calvin Coolidge (According to his wife, he knew that a crash was coming. Did nothing.)
14) William H. Taft (Nonentity)
15) Warren Harding. (Had no business being President and knew it. Fell in lust alot.)
16) Jimmy Carter. (Had no business being President, but thought he did. Don't blame me, I never voted for him.)
255. verdeazul - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:53 PM PT
Does Al Haig count? He
was something like 3/4ths of
a president for about 10-15
minutes. Not long enough to
really screw things up too much
(Unlike Ron who was anywhere
from 1/8th to 3/8th a president
for years and years - thank God
for "Little Nan", her Little Gun
and her obviously astute astrologer).
polizul~
256. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:55 PM PT
Tommy,
I'm not sure who 4 and 5 are on your list, but you really are a moron, you know. For one thing, I'm arguing that Reagan *helped* in the effort. For another, you could actually see who my picks were in Message #66, and saved yourself looking again like an idiot.
257. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:56 PM PT
MSIT -
Don't waste too much energy trying to run Reagan down. Recycling the massively discredited canard that his administration policies didn't have a major effect on the fate of the Soviet Union is *not*, repeat, *not* energy efficient.
258. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:57 PM PT
calgal (Message #250)
I don't object to unremitting hostility in 1981-85; I rather liked it. My point was that if the Soviet Union were especially dangerous because it was falling apart, then why would unremitting hostility been the right course of action?
thomasD (Message #253)
You don't know what you're talking about.
259. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:57 PM PT
CalGal -
Hey, I just listed your *favorite* presidents. I didn't say that you thought they were the best ones.
260. CharlieL - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:57 PM PT
teller, you are definitely a poor writer. However, you are a fantastic whiner.
Now take your whining somewhere else.
261. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 2:58 PM PT
Message #257
Since the Soviet Union was falling apart since the late 1970s, why is that position a canard? You might try an argument once in a while, ThomasD.
262. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:00 PM PT
Message #257
Why is it a massively discredited canard, to suppose that Reagan had little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union? Who has it been discredited by? On the contrary, today the belief in Reagan's credit is held and disseminated only by conservative think-tanks and the conservative campfire faithfuls.
263. Msivorytower - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:01 PM PT
What is this thing about Nixon?
I cannot see it. I'm sorry, the Watergate issue overshadows everything in his presidency for me. It changed the faith the public had in government, it began the era of anti-government wingnuts growing in size and legitimacy, and, I think, can be blamed as the beginning of real disengagement by the country from any sense of civic purpose and responsibility.
Am I foaming about Nixon? Yes. He was a disaster for the country.
264. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:02 PM PT
It's amusing, ThomasD's attempt to make the idea that Reagan should be given a lot of credit for the fall of the Soviet Union, more mainstream than it really is.
265. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:03 PM PT
Re. 261 -
'Falling apart'?
The Soviet Union had been much more debilitated economically, and had weathered a disastrous war and near genocidal internal policies only a few decades previously without any serious danger of dissolution.
The fact of the matter is that the '80's are when the Soviet leadership and populace became convinced that their socio-political-economic system truly could not compete, largely thanks to the international policies of you-know-who.
266. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:03 PM PT
"[Watergate] changed the faith the public had in government."
Well, it helped, but I think Vietnam also had a lot to do with it. If the environment of public mistrust of government hadn't existed to begin with, the Pentagon Papers saga would not have been possible.
267. CharlieL - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:03 PM PT
I happen to believe that Ronald Reagan was the best President the United States ever had in the 20th Century, if you define the 20th Century as "the years 1981-1989."
If you must also include 1901-1980 and 1990-1999 in that definition, he is the worst.
268. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:04 PM PT
Message #252
"Given that Reagan wasn't even in office when the SU finally collapsed, I don't think you can argue his presence made much difference to the direction it took in it's nosedive. "
You act as if the form of the nosedive (great form, rip entry), was inevitable. Would Gorbachev have been able to make the changes that he did in the years leading up to the dissolution of the Soviet Union? Would he have been able to stay in power? You act as if the Soviet Union didn't make decisions in the context of the US presence and leadership. Of course they did. Just as the US did.
I don't *know* that things would have been different had Reagan not been there, mouthing off against Communists. But it's fairly silly to insist that the *method* of dissolution was inevitable, given the multitude of things that could have happened. Look at the method (which unquestionably was Gorbachev's accomplishment) and see who made that path easier to take. I think Reagan gets some of that credit.
269. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:07 PM PT
thomasd (Message #265)
Yes, falling apart.
"The Soviet Union had been much more debilitated economically, and had weathered a disastrous war and near genocidal internal policies only a few decades previously without any serious danger of dissolution."
You don't know what you're talking about. The Soviet Union experienced MASSIVE economic growth in the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s. Economic growth just stopped -- vanished -- in the early 1970s. This is the whole key to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
"The fact of the matter is that the '80's are when the Soviet leadership and populace became convinced that their socio-political-economic system truly could not compete, largely thanks to the international policies of you-know-who."
But this is false, empirically. We KNOW now in hindsight that mutterings about reform began within the central committee of CPSU in the late 1970s, even under Brezhnev. They blew into a debate after he died.
270. Msivorytower - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:12 PM PT
PE
Actually the Vietnam protests were an expression of exactly how empowered people felt they were during the 60's. Yes, there was massive disapproval of the War, but had Nixon not been an egomaniac and control freak then the resolution of the War would have simply been another example of democracy at work.
As it was, Nixon's treachery overshadowed any good that came from his ending of the war, as the American public wished. It poisoned the political scene for my generation and those just coming of age. And their disaffection with government has been at the heart of the more radical anti-government movement of the last two decades.
271. Msivorytower - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:20 PM PT
"You act as if the form of the nosedive (great form, rip entry), was inevitable."
First I don't know what the hell you mean by "great form, rip entry".
Second, my point (and it ain't original here) was simply that Reagan had little or no influence on the form either. Whatever "form" the breakdown of the SU took, Reagan was largely irrelevant to it. Rather, Gorbachev, the political scene of the SU at the time, the particular economic crises it faced, and the democratic wave that hit the population of the SU at the time is what finally determined the direction the "nosedive" took.
Surely you can't claim we did anything to foster greater efficacy in the SU population. Their role in the final collapse was simply good timing, as well.
272. CharlieL - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:23 PM PT
MsIT, "great form, rip entry" are two criteria for judging a dive. "Rip entry" means going into the water with a minimal splash.
273. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:25 PM PT
Ms,
Nosedive. Dive. Great form, rip entry. Score: 8.5. Would have been higher, but the follow through was weak.
274. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:26 PM PT
Reagan era policies that undermined the Soviet economy and overall confidence in their system:
1) Heavy support for Afghanistan insurgency lasting from 1981 to end of Soviet bloc, creating Soviet Union's own Vietnam in their back yard. Destroyed myth of Soviet military strategic or armament prowess.
2) Engineered massive drop in world oil prices by removing price controls, freeing up reserves, etc., thus drying up Soviet Union's primary source of foreign revenue.
3) Took a tit-for-tat stance against the Soviet Union regarding their foreign adventurism, in effect, virtually stopping the advance of Soviet bloc world influence. Countries in which Communistic governments gained control between 1974-1981: 10. Countries in which Communistic governments gained control between 1981-1989: Zero.
4) Reagan and his administration gained more foreign respect than existed for a US adminstration since Nixon, if not Eisenhower by employing more rational and less inexplicable means of approaching foreign policy in general than the world had come to expect from the US (whether one agrees with the ideas or not - that's not the point).
5) Established unequivocal negotiating parity vis a vis the Soviet Union down for the first time in history wrt to medium range missiles in Europe, thus setting the stage for arms reductions talks that could be approached for the first time without massive dissimulation and obfuscation.
6) The Reagan era saw the longest US peacetime economic expansion to date, showing all but the brain dead that economic expansion, Republicans, peace and the US form of government could indeed coexist.
Whew. My fingers are getting tired. Got more if you want it, PE, but I suspect that this will pooh-pooh you out.
275. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:30 PM PT
Although Soviet growth had screeched to a halt in the early 1970s, output actually began contracting in 1979. In that year, Yuri Andropov, the head of the KGB, began considering economic reforms to save the union. Notice that all this happened even before Ronald Reagan was elected.
Brezhnev died in 1982, and upon assuming power, Andropov cleared out many of Brezhnev's hardliners and replaced them with radical reformers. One of these was Mikhail Gorbachev, whom he promoted from the Ukraine to become one of his top lieutenants. One of Andropov's first acts was to draw up a list of reforms to save his dying country. This list contained the very demands that the dissidents had been making throughout the 70s!
Almost all of Gorbachev's ideas for Perestroika were taken from Andropov's list. Andropov was never able to put his reforms into action because he was terminally ill throughout his tenure and died before he could implement them.
After Andropov died, the Soviet Union had to put up with 18 more months of non-leadership under another invalid, Konstantin Chernenko. By the time he died, the Politburo was impatient for change. Not only did it elect a young and healthy Prime Minister, but it elected a reformist with radical ideas for change. This was Mikhail Gorbachev, who at last was able enact the reforms that his mentor Andropov had called for.
American conservatives don't look at this background: they only see the surface events. Reagan began rattling sabers in 1981-2, and Gorbachev began reforming and pacifying in 1986, therefore, one must have caused the other. They don't see that Reagan's first defense budget (passed in 1981 and enacted in 1982) was only 5.9 percent of the GDP -- the really large defense budgets (6.4 and 6.5 percent of the GDP) came in 1984 and 1985. Star Wars was not proposed until 1983. Grenada was not invaded until 1983. The Boland Amendment prohibiting assistance to the contras passed in 1982, and illegal funding of
276. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:31 PM PT
And I forgot to even mention Star Wars:)
277. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:31 PM PT
The Boland Amendment prohibiting assistance to the contras passed in 1982, and illegal funding of the contras did not start until 1984. The Pershing missiles were not deployed to Europe until 1984-85.
But notice that all these dates fall after 1982, when Andropov came to power with his list of radical reforms, based on dissident demands and his knowledge of an economy in crisis. The conservative claim that Reagan brought the Soviets to their knees is simply ahistorical.
278. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:33 PM PT
ThomasD blithered:
"Whew. My fingers are getting tired. Got more if you want it, PE, but I suspect that this will pooh-pooh you out."
Have you ever read any of many 100-post disquisitions in the International thread? You are simly out of your league.
279. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:37 PM PT
thomasd (Message #274)
1) Afghan insurgency began under Carter. It would have continued regardless of who was elected in 1980, short of Gus Hall and Angela Davis.
2) "Engineered massive drop in world oil prices by removing price controls, freeing up reserves..."
Nonsense. Where the hell do you get this idea? The OPEC cartel effectively collapsed in 1982-83!
3) "Took a tit-for-tat stance against the Soviet Union regarding their foreign adventurism, in effect, virtually stopping the advance of Soviet bloc world influence. Countries in which Communistic governments gained control between 1974-1981: 10. Countries in which Communistic governments gained control between 1981-1989: Zero."
This is certainly true, although I don't see how this undermined the Soviet Union.
"4) Reagan and his administration gained more foreign respect than existed for a US adminstration since Nixon..."
Do you really think Regan was competent in foreign affairs? What about Marines in Lebanon and the reflagging debacle in the Persian Gulf?
"The Reagan era saw the longest US peacetime economic expansion to date..."
Which he had little to do with.
280. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:38 PM PT
Re. 277 -
I'm certain that the Soviet system would not have suddenly collapsed in the timely, peaceful way it did if Jimmy Carter had served a second term, followed by Walter Mondale. Most likely, we'd still have a close economic and ideological descendent of the Soviet government installed. It's not rationsal to simply assume that after the devastating history that the Soviet government ably endured, that a mere relative breeze from a balance sheet with have brought the entire edifice tumbling down, then or now.
281. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:39 PM PT
Message #278
Excuse me. ThomasD, you are out of your DEPTH, not your league, though the latter may also apply.
282. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:44 PM PT
To the extent the conservative claim that Reagan brought the Soviets to their knees is that strident and without nuance, or solely based on parallel timing, it is as ahistorical as determining that, since Andropov was early Reagan, and he did a few things, Reagan had nothing to do with the end of the Cold War or the collapse of the Soviets.
Much like the broad brush, thick eyebrowed: "I'm saying that it would not have made a jot of difference who was elected president in 1980, 1984 and 1988."
Nite folks.
283. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:45 PM PT
1) Until the Soviets crushed it.
2) Brought on by a world oil glut largely engineered by the Reagan administration, using strategies including those I mentioned. The US was by far the worlds #1 oil consumer.
3) Suddenly stalled expansionism is not merely anti-Marxist, I've no doubt it was deeply disturbing to Soviet leaders.
4) If you insist on perfectly unblemished foreign policy after the fact, you're going to have to search far and wide.
284. cllrdr - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:48 PM PT
"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan
285. Msivorytower - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:50 PM PT
Actually, 109
You'd have to show that Reagan had a significant influence on Soviet policy and actions for the analogy you make to hold. The historical record is more supportive of Andropov's role than for Reagan's, at least wrt to the internal politics of the SU.
286. Msivorytower - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:51 PM PT
Hahahaha, cllrdr
Well, you said it better than I did.
287. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:55 PM PT
I think it's pretty safe to say that Reagan's policies provided a quite substantial final shove to an already internally weakened Soviet Union, as PE has described. There's no reason to think that the eventual fate of the Soviet Union would have resembled anything such as actually occured, with presidents such Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale running the show from our side.
288. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:57 PM PT
Re. 285 -
MSsesIT -
Of course Reagan-era policy had an effect on the Soviet Union. Remember something called the 'Cold War'?
289. Msivorytower - Dec. 4, 1998 - 3:59 PM PT
ThomasD
You cannot be claiming that Reagan suddenly discovered the Cold War? That we hadn't a policy well formulated and followed by virtually every president since Eisenhower?
Surely you aren't saying Reagan was responsible for creating the Cold War policies of the 80's?
290. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:02 PM PT
Re. the Cold War, which began during the Truman administration. That's somewhat of a black mark against our side, IMO. If such a spirit of intransingence hadn't been *initially* adopted against the Soviet Union, much subsequent struggle and suffering could probably have been avoided. And then there's Truman's shortcomings which helped bring on the Korean War, and caused us to do a poor job of strategy in it.
291. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:02 PM PT
109109 (Message #282)
The conservative claim rests entirely on the timing of the Soviet collapse and on the theory that peace-through-strength in the form of the defence build-up worked. You can't use the latter as an argument, since that is the argument to be proved. The timing argument is simply ahistorical because the historical record IS that the desire for reform had been germinating before Reagan was even president.
"To the extent the conservative claim that Reagan brought the Soviets to their knees is that strident and without nuance, or solely based on parallel timing, it is as ahistorical as determining that, since Andropov was early Reagan, and he did a few things, Reagan had nothing to do with the end of the Cold War or the collapse of the Soviets."
Nonsense. The historical record IS that Andropov and Gorbachev had realised the need for reforms before Reagan came to office. A thing can't cause something if it doesn't precede the effect.
292. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:04 PM PT
ThomasD (Message #283)
1) The aid to the Afghan muhahideen began under Carter. period.
2) "Brought on by a world oil glut largely engineered by the Reagan administration, using strategies including those I mentioned. The US was by far the worlds #1 oil consumer."
The release of the U.S. strategic oil reserve did not cause the oil glut. You don't know what you're talking about. If you insist otherwise, I will have to look for some figures.
"Suddenly stalled expansionism is not merely anti-Marxist, I've no doubt it was deeply disturbing to Soviet leaders."
The Reagan Doctrine in practise applied only to Central America and Afghanistan, since Congress had cut off aid to UNITA, and the Reagan Administration itself decided no longer to finance RENAMO in Mozambique or anti-Marxist rebels in Ethiopia. So, if this is pressure brough to bear on the Soviet Union, it was more like mosquito pressure.
"If you insist on perfectly unblemished foreign policy after the fact, you're going to have to search far and wide."
I'm saying that Reagan's foreign policy was generally no less amateur than Carter's. The U.S. hasn't had decent foreign policy direction since Nixon-Kissinger.
293. CharlieL - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:04 PM PT
thomasd, the "Cold War" was in full swing in the late '50s when I and the other kids in my elementary school were doing "duck and cover" exercises.
Of course, at that time, Reagan was a Democrat, he hadn't gotten rich and changed parties yet.
294. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:05 PM PT
ThosD & Niner: Post hoc ergo prompter hoc?
295. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:05 PM PT
Yes, but the salient fact is that both Andropov and Gorbachev intended to preserve the Soviet system, which would have been entirely feasible if the US had continued in the decaying spiral of the '70's.
296. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:08 PM PT
Pseudo,
Message #258
I didn't think you were objecting to it. I think it was the right thing to do (although I'd rather he have done it without the deficit).
"My point was that if the Soviet Union were especially dangerous because it was falling apart, then why would unremitting hostility been the right course of action?"
For one thing, during this period, the Soviet Union had four leaders--two of whom only served for a short time. This disarray resulted in Brezhnev's policies (anti-US) being carried on well after his death. Yes, you are right that Andropov was the initiator of many of the Gorbachev reforms, but he didn't live long enough to enact them. Gorbachev finally did, but in the period of 81-85, Soviet foreign policy still primarily consisted of anti-US rhetoric and hardline stances. Also, the Soviets refused to come to the arms negotion talks after Reagan proposed that "zero option"--from before Andropov's death until the time Gorbachev was elected.
I think unremitting hostility was the right response to take. Anything else might have given the Soviet Union the idea they could get away with this sort of behavior. Had Andropov stayed in power, maybe hostility wouldn't have been the right approach. On the other hand, maybe Reagan wouldn't have been so hostile. As it was, though, with the Soviet Union in disarray politically and economically, I think it was helpful that they be reminded that the US wouldn't fuck around. I doubt that Carter would have given that impression.
297. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:08 PM PT
To say that aid to the Afghan mujahedin began under Carter is like saying that the Vietnam War began under Eisenhower.
298. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:08 PM PT
Oops--left this off 296.
While Gorbachev came into power largely with the help of the KGB, I think it can be argued that the improvement of relations between the US and the Soviet Union helped his reform efforts. Particularly as the KGB began to realize where he was headed and withdrew their support. The improvement occurred in part because Reagan dropped the rhetoric once there was a Soviet leader willing to allow reforms that were fixing that bad nasty old communism.
Obviously, the end of the Soviet Union was inevitable. Obviously, credit for it must be given to Gorbachev. What the US President had to do during that time was react in ways that would drive the Soviets to the right decisions. I think Reagan did a good job.
(btw, I think both of us rated Reagan in the same spot, so I'm hardly lionizing the man.)
299. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:10 PM PT
thomasd (Message #290)
What horseshit. U.S. hostility was a RESPONSE to Soviet actions, not some mindless intransigence. If the Soviet Union had not been already bent on expansionism, how do you explain the Katyn Forrest massacre? How do you account for Stalin's allowing the non-communist Polish resistance to be exterminated by the German army even as the Soviet army watched it happen across the Vistula? Why did Stalin send troops into Iran in 1946, in violation of Yalta?
Do you ever know what you're talking about?
"And then there's Truman's shortcomings which helped bring on the Korean War, and caused us to do a poor job of strategy in it."
Which was that? You mean the failure to clearly include Korea in the U.S. defence perimeter?
300. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:13 PM PT
Re. 299 -
Yes, that, and the resulting overreaction by Truman, especially prosecuting the war north of the 38th parallel.