Prove to me that Ronald Reagan ended the Soviet Union

[devilgrrl]

Because I never bought that line of bullshit.

Now, show me how wrong I am.

:popcorn:

[truebrit71]

1. He didn't. It is a right-wing myth.

aka Complete and total BULLSHIT.

[devilgrrl]

2. Oh but in another thread, people state that he did!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2711582#2711624

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2711582&mesg_id=2711651

[Missy M]

3. Neither did I.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. He didn't.

On another note, I've always wondered why his credited with ending Soviet communism but not with ending South African apartheid. I've never seen an answer to that one.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. He doesn't get credit for ending apartheid because he supported it. nt

[Crunchy Frog]

24. No, he just utilized "constructive engagement" as a tool to work against it,

and it was obviously fabulously successful.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. did you forget your 'sarcasm' smiley, there?

"Constructive engagement" was about as reality based as "compassionate conservatism".

[Crunchy Frog]

43. He was every bit as responsible for ending apartheid

as he was for tearing down the Berlin wall. I believe that sincerely. :)

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. Well, I agree with you there.

He had doodly-squat to do with ending either of them.

[TwilightZone]

5. He didn't. The Cold War ended the Soviet Union. They "fought" themselves into bankruptcy.

Reagan gets credit because he was in office at the time.

Oh, and because he told Gorby to "tear down this wall" that was already going to be torn down.

Symbolic staged bullshit. Sounds familiar, hmm? Statue of Saddam, anyone?

[toiletpaper]

31. I like this.

I think that, clearly Reagan did have a role, as did Pope John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher, and the rest of NATO.

Basically, the NATO alliance, with its strong economies, bankrupted the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. NATO spent so much money building up a military, the USSR tried to do the same, but its economic model couldn't compete.

Economics brought down the Soviet Union. Reagan's policies of building national defense caused the bad situation that was the communist economy to fall apart when they attempted to compete.

Where does the Pope enter into this? Simple...he helped foment unrest in Poland.

So, I have to give credit where credit is due. Was Reagan the "cause"? NO, he was, however, a part of it.

[TwilightZone]

33. Agreed.

I realize that my assertion was a simplistic one. What I generally object to is the claim that Reagan was responsible for "winning" the Cold War. Was he a factor? Sure, as were all of the other things that you mentioned.

They were already on their way down because of overspending on the military, as you noted - he and others just gave them a push.

[laconicsax]

41. Wasn't Bush in office at the time?

[avaistheone1]

56. True. The Soviets couldn't even afford to purchase socks for their people, never mind to continue

to wage war against the U.S. and the West.

[Mythsaje]

6. I've always thought most of the credit went to Gorbachev...

Not that the Repugs would EVER give him his due.

[alfredo]

7. The Soviet Union was on the way down for a long time. All we needed

to do is wait, help teach them the basics of open markets, a more democratic (law based) system, and a move from a military based economy to a consumer driven economy. Reforms were happening through the eighties, and the hope for a soft relatively painless transition were high.

Reagan's ego short circuited the transition. He wanted his legacy to be the end of the Soviet Union. So instead of allowing the Soviet system to open and change, he forced a crisis. Instead of an orderly transition we had chaos, loose nukes, and mafia control.

We had the goods on them for decades before Reagan. The Soviets were a paper tiger. They did not have the infrastructure to compete. All they were good for was to keep our level of domestic anxiety high.

[yurbud]

10. For MLK birthday: Martin, Abraham, & John mp3

I remember this song from when I was a kid. It got a lot of airplay after it came out in 1968, but I can't remember the last time I heard it on the radio.

http://www.janaconda.com/apics/dion.mp3

[LeftishBrit]

11. Absolutely agree!

If Gorbachev had stayed a bit longer, and carried out his own reforms without so much external pressure, the former Soviet Union might be more democratic and less corrupt today.

[yurbud]

16. The part of THE SHOCK DOCTRINE on what neoliberals did to Soviet Union was criminal

I remember reading before that the issue for the West was whether to guide Russia toward Euro democratic socialism or a weak Third World state they could pillage. They chose the latter, creating an unstable state with more nuclear weapons than us, and a reason to be mad at us since our economic advice let to oligarchy, unemployment, higher infant mortality, and lower life expectancy.

[smalll]

13. Except no one knew that at the time.

Reagan hoped it could be done. Pat Moynihan also predicted this sometime in the late 70s. But across the board, from left to right, basically no one else saw it coming. The Soviet Union and its control of eastern Europe seemed like a permanent fact when Reagan first became President.

I certainly had no inkling that the Soviet Union was a "paper tiger" at the time, on the way down. I suspect you didn't either.

[alfredo]

20. I spent the mid to late sixties in a government info collecting

agency. I learned a few things there. The years proved what I had heard and read. We just needed to be patient, and keep pressure on them. It was like playing chess in a way so you could win by attrition.

They were crumbling from within. Instead of reinvesting in infrastructure, they pumped money into the military. Roads, bridges, and utilities were failing, but the money went to the military industrial complex. Cronyism, hubris, paranoia, and greed did them in. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

[YankmeCrankme]

66. You are absolutely right.

This is what makes me so mad about where Russia is today;

"help teach them the basics of open markets, a more democratic (law based) system, and a move from a military based economy to a consumer driven economy. Reforms were happening through the eighties, and the hope for a soft relatively painless transition were high."

If we had done that, quite possibly, the whole region would be more stable, less prone to violence, help contribute to a better standard of living, strengthen democracy and improve human rights.

Instead we let the country fall into semi-anarchy to take advantage of their situation. This has lead to more problems and contributes to the uncertainty and dangers we face today.

[madrchsod]

8. well do you remember "red dawn"

some say it was only a movie




but was it?

[Winterblues]

9. The Sears & Roebucks catalog ended the USSR

People were tired of being denied some of the luxuries/essentials in life..They were tired of standing in lines for hours for a loaf of bread. It was not that Reagan frightened them into submission it was quality of life issues...

[progressoid]

12. But he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

And Gorby did! See, Ronnie made it happen!





:sarcasm: for those that might acutally believe I was series!!11!

[Tyler Durden]

21. You know that the wall was already being torn down when he said that....

Is that aphasia? Not sure.

[Zywiec]

35. Do you have your dates right?

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" - June 12, 1987

Berlin Wall comes down - November 9, 1989

That's almost 2 1/2 years in between. What part of the Berlin wall do you think was being torn down in 1987? I was living in Germany that year and don't remember anything like that happening.

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. You do know that it wasn't Gorby's wall to tear down.

It was an East German thing. To keep the E. Germans from tearing it down Gorby would have had to send in Russian troops, something he'd already showed he was not willing to do with Poland.

The E. Germans tore down that wall. Gorby declined to start a war over it.

[Johonny]

15. He was in favor

Of the CIA helping Bin Laden and the Afghan fighters continue their long protracted war that slowly bankrupt the USSR and made Gorbachev more friendly to capitalistic ideas and cut backs on the insane free for all cold war build up... or some crap along these lines.

[Marrah_G]

17. Afghanistan was the proverbial nail in the coffin- not Reagan

[alfredo]

36. Just like Afghanistan and Iraq will be ours.

[OzarkDem]

37. Exactly

[alfredo]

38. The Afghans will make sure it is very dangerous and very expensive.

[Marrah_G]

42. I'm not counting us out quite yet.

[dajoki]

18. Raygun just happened to be...

in the right place at the right time. The Soviet Union imploded after years of expansionism and military buildup, it was going to happen anyway. What pisses me off is that the men and women who died in Korea and Vietnam are totally ignored when it comes to beating communism, they where the ones on the front lines of the "cold war".

[PaDem]

22. how about all those peasants in Central America?

so many casualties of this countries manic obsession with communism. Reagan embodied all of that.

[dajoki]

34. Absolutely n/t

[Buzz Clik]

19. I invite lurking assholes to contribute to this thread.

Come on, guys. You know you want to sing the praises of St. Ronald. Go for it! Burn a sock puppet, and tell us how you can demonstrate that Reagan brought the Soviet Union to an end.

Surely you aren't afraid to post here at DU. Not you swaggering geniuses who can grind us into the dirt with half your brain tied behind your back.

Or, maybe devilgrrl is right.

[Virginia Dare]

23. I have no proof to offer, because he didn't..

and Lane Kirkland, Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul should get as much credit for it as Reagan when it comes right down to it.

[Perry Logan]

25. I read that the USSR didn't increase its military spending during the Reagan years.

That destroys the myth that Reagan drove them into bankruptcy. He was only driving us into bankruptcy.

[chicagolefty]

60. They most certainly did increase military spending during the Reagan years

They started a war in Afghanistan in 1979 and it lasted throughout the Reagan Presidency. Their spending was at an all time high during the early 80's. That spending didn't ease much until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Almost everything I've read indicates that the war in Afghanistan was the final straw that broke the camels back and brought about the end to the USSR.

I don't think Reagan was responsible for the Afghan war though. :)

[sandnsea]

26. An isolated economy ended the Soviet Union

And a series of presidents who didn't know how to deal with it until Gorbachev and perestroika.

[chicagolefty]

58. I agree, but they did over spend on the military as well

Had they not spent as much as they did on their military, their economy wouldn't have been in such dire straights.

In 1988 military spending was a single line item in the Soviet state budget, totaling 21 billion rubles, or about US$33 billion. Given the size of the military establishment, however, the actual figure was at least ten times higher. Western experts concluded that the 21 billion ruble figure reflected only operations and maintenance costs. The amount spent on Soviet weapons research and development was an especially well-guarded state secret, and other military spending, including training, military construction, and arms production, was concealed within the budgets of all-union ministries and state committees. Apart from considerations of state secrecy, this allocation of military spending to ministries other than the Ministry of Defense reflected the Soviet approach to managing resource allocation. Weapons produced by agencies such as the Ministry of General Machinebuilding or the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry were essentially provided as "free goods" to the Ministry of Defense.

By the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union devoted between 15 and 17 percent of its annual gross national product to military spending, according to United States government sources. Until the early 1980s, Soviet defense expenditures rose between 4 and 7 percent per year. Subsequently, they slowed as the yearly growth in Soviet GNP slipped to about 3 percent. In 1987 Gorbachev and other party officials discussed the extension of glasnost' to military affairs through the publication of a detailed Soviet defense budget. In early 1989, Gorbachev announced a military budget of 77.3 billion rubles, but Western authorities estimated the budget to be about twice that.

With the end of the Cold War, the combined military expenditure of Russia and other successor states of the USSR fell dramatically. In 1997 it was around one-tenth of that of the USSR in 1988. Between 1988 and 1993 weapons production in Russia fell by at least 50% for virtually every major weapons system. Weapons spending in 1992 was approximately 75% less than in 1988. Almost all of Russia's arms production is for sales to foreign governments, and procurement of major end items by the Russian military had all but stopped. By 1999 Russia had dramatically downsized its military and was no longer channeling one fifth of its national resources into maintaining it. In 1997 Russian military spending was only 1/7 of its Soviet era peak in 1988 and 2/5 of its level in 1992.

The full article is here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

Were we, the United States or more specifically Reagan, to blame for their military spending? Partially. But Reagan wasn't the only cold war era President nor was the United States their only cold war "enemy".

[baldguy]

27. The USSR collapsed under the weight of 50 yrs outrageous military spending.

For the 10 yrs against Nazi Germany and against America for the last 40. The Cold War ended when Gorby stopped bleeding his treasury dry for the Russian Military-Industrial complex.

Thats why they got rid of him.



Now with our principle military adversary gone for 16 yrs, what's OUR excuse for maintaining a Cold War-sized military budget?

[seemslikeadream]

29. That little tussle with Afghanistan helped a bit

[Faux pas]

28. I know he ruined California while he was governor and

figured he could ruin the whole country with the same strategy. I know he closed all the mental health facilities in the US and that's when homelessness really started to grow. I know he tired to bust up the unions b/c it made it more profitable for his rich business owner cohorts. I know he was an asshole and hope his stay in Hell teaches him something. And....I know he didn't bring down the Soviet Union.

(I also know that Obama has some kind of God complex going on and his faithful minions should be looking past that well polished veneer.)

[seemslikeadream]

30. I thought Brzezinski did

[ramapo]

32. Mikhail Gorbachev

Gorbachev allowed the Soviet Union to dissolve. He allowed glasost. He did not bring what could have been tyrannical power of a still strong state to bear. Yes, the movement of Solidarity might've gained hold in the Soviet Union which might've eventually resulted in the breakup of the state but it would not have been peaceful. The quick and peaceful dissolution of the state is a remarkable period in history.

Reagan benefited from the courage of Mikhail Gorbachev.

[JackRiddler]

39. The Soviet Union's ultimate doom was revealed overnight in August 1961 -

When they had to put up a wall in Berlin to keep people from leaving the East Bloc.

The imposition of Stalinism on so many unwilling nations by force of a Red Army occupation guaranteed that the Soviet empire would one day prove unsustainable against national centripetal forces.

The future failure became obvious with the Wall. Reform was impossible because allowing freedoms of assembly and travel would quickly lead to collapse, as became the case soon after such freedoms were allowed in the 1980s.

National resistance to political tyranny was as important in the Soviet collapse as the oft-cited economic stagnation.

The Cold War if anything may have served to sustain the Soviet model by providing an outside enemy and keeping power with the hardliners, whose use of force was thus legitimated.

The Western policy that most served to undermine the Soviets was the Ostpolitik adopted by West Germany in the 1970s under Brandt - the opening for detente. Once you had cultural exchanges and eight million West Germans visiting East Germany every year, it was guaranteed that East Germans would one day openly revolt in favor of the West German way of life. (How many Americans even know what Ostpolitik was?)

Reagan's war build-up was superfluous to this process, if anything delayed it. Afghanistan had at most a peripheral impact in draining resources and ruining the myth of Soviet military might.

Look at the actual history of how it went down: the peoples of Eastern Europe fought for decades to gain the first foothold, and they were put down over and over: 1948 in Czechoslovakia, 1953 in Germany, 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, 1970 and 1980 in Poland.

The first time that a deviation from the Soviet system was put down, the system fell apart. Once Poland was allowed a democratically elected government in 1989, once Hungary opened up the border that summer, the revolutions that followed by the end of the year in the GDR, Czechoslovakia and Romania and the regime change in Bulgaria became inevitable. The only other option would have been another military intervention in Hungary.

Logically, the declaration of independence by the three Baltic states (also late additions to the Stalinist empire) followed soon after. Here again, the only option would have been massive force.

Once the empire fell, the Soviet Union itself might have been saved except for the actions of the hardliners in staging the anti-Gorbachev coup of 1991. Gorbachev was restored after the popular uprising, but broken altogether, and the final powerlessness of the Moscow government was revealed for all to see. This cleared the way for Yeltsin's seizure of power in Russia and the devolution into the 15 constituent Republics in January 1992.

[Hoof Hearted]

44. He didn't - it's a big line of stuff that comes out of a bulls butt.

Republicans really need their fairy tales. It's the only way they can sleep.

[undercutter2006]

45. nothing to do with reagan, russian people ended it

when millions of people came out on the streets to block the military, and yeltsin was giving a speech on top of the captured tank - that's when it ended. without russian people it would not have happened, no matter how bad the economy was

[mtnester]

46. Don't you know ANYTHING?

The same way he ended the hostage crisis...

sheesh





:)

[GreenTea]

47. Reagan was long gone, three years out of office in December 1991 when

the Soviet Union collapsed.

http://www.coldwar.org/articles/90s/fall_of_the_soviet_union.asp

[pleah]

48. I never bought that line of BS either. Can't wait to see someone try to prove it.

[trackfan]

49. Gorbachev was the liberator

[sendero]

50. He did..

.. just like Bush's stewardship has brought us a vibrant economy.

The right wing lives in their own dream world, don't confuse them with facts.

[Jed Dilligan]

51. Prove to me that life has improved in Russia and E. Europe

as a result of the end of the USSR.

Prove to me that we're safer with lopsided wars and a runaway nuclear arsenal than we were under MAD.

Prove to me that a world with only one economic idea is better than one with two or more.

Then, I'll get back to you on who was responsible for all these great "improvements."

[BuyingThyme]

52. Well, since Chimpy has restarted the Cold War,

the Pukes can't really say ending it was a good idea in the first place.

[Fire Walk With Me]

55. He may not have ended the Soviet Union, but he certainly put a kabosh upon Democracy.

That we're still dealing with.

[Zorra]

57. I saw it on TV, over and over and over and over and over....n/t

[citizen snips]

59. The Soviet Union ran out money

by funding their massive military complex.

[BulletproofLandshark]

61. You can't prove a negative.

[asthmaticeog]

62. "Prove to me that X happened because of Y" is not a negative. nt

[BulletproofLandshark]

64. I guess I should have clarified.

I just meant Reagan didn't cause the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Xenotime]

63. right-wing place at the right-wing time.

[LTR]

65. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own bureaucratic weight

If any one person deserves credit for pushing the end along, it was Gorbachev.

Reagan didn't do shit. He was in the right place at the right time. In fact, the Cold War was at its peak in the early 80s (with incidents such as the Korean jet liner tragedy in '83), and things really got scary at times. The SU was pretty jittery at times because their leaders kept dropping like flies, ther were a few international incidents, Afghanistan was a pure boondoggle that was bankrupting them and Reagan was involved in a little sabre-rattling.

Diplomatically, Reagan got nothing done with Communist hard-liners like Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko. Gorbachev was a reformer, and was much more reasonable to work with. That made the job much easier.