NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok: if we can keep this thread as non-partisan as possible, please.

Since his death I have read a lot of claims on this board that Ronald Reagan was the primary cause of the fall of the Soviet Union and the removal of the Iron Curtain.

Could someone please explain to me what he actually did to bring this about, and why they believe the credit should lie primarily with him rather than anyone else.

no..not having any money was the downfall of the Soviet Union.

The soviet union fell because of economic problems. That's a fact. Ronald Reagan's involvement in that was no more than scaring russia into thinking we had a missile defense system, and that they had to try to build better missiles, which eventually spent them into bankrupcy. I don't buy that it was the straw that broke the back of communism though.

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rlod.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151673)

no..not having any money was the downfall of the Soviet Union.

They had major economic problems in the mid-80's and then lack of stability politically sent it over the edge.

(I am glad I became a commie (obviously not anymore...and glad), then I can know useless evens in history)

no..not having any money was the downfall of the Soviet Union.

They had major economic problems in the mid-80's and then lack of stability politically sent it over the edge.

(I am glad I became a commie (obviously not anymore...and glad), then I can know useless evens in history)

I tend to think that the economic troubles were the core of the political unstability.

I tend to think that the economic troubles were the core of the political unstability.

The late 80s were hardly the first time that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries faced economic troubles, though, was it?

Economic problems caused by policy instigated by Reagan. The Afgan War backed by the CIA bled the USSR of needed funding. So the planned ABM shield, AEGIS development, Stealth warplane development, Seawolf development/construction, Abrams construction. Reagan did something other US Presidents didnt. Out spend the USSR on keeping the military updated. While the Western Alliance always had better tech than the USSR, it wasnt by a wide margin. Reagan sought to widen that margin signifficantly, and the Russians couldnt keep up with the spending for new tech.

Not to mention a few accidents within the USSR(Chernobyl) helped to further accelerate the problems inside of the USSR. Without Reagan though, the Cold War may have continued for another 10-20 years.

Economic problems caused by policy instigated by Reagan. The Afgan War backed by the CIA bled the USSR of needed funding. So the planned ABM shield, AEGIS development, Stealth warplane development, Seawolf development/construction, Abrams construction. Reagan did something other US Presidents didnt. Out spend the USSR on keeping the military updated. While the Western Alliance always had better tech than the USSR, it wasnt by a wide margin. Reagan sought to widen that margin signifficantly, and the Russians couldnt keep up with the spending for new tech.

Not to mention a few accidents within the USSR(Chernobyl) helped to further accelerate the problems inside of the USSR. Without Reagan though, the Cold War may have continued for another 10-20 years.

Hmm. Interesting the way that you list only conventional weapons here: no mention is made of nuclear weaponry, which boths sides had in sufficient abundance to guarantee MAD. From what I have read of the Soviet response to the SDI program they considered it as ineffective as just about everybody else, and so surely that can't have been a major contributing factor?

During this time the SALT treaties were decreasing the stockpiles of WMDs. While both sides still had enough to contribute to see if the MAD theory would occur, we werent building up our nuclear arms anymore. Also, if the Russians considered the ABM Shield ineffective why did they make the US sign a treaty saying we would never develop such a thing? Because nothing is perfect from the start. It takes years to fix, and make something work right. That is what the Russians feared.

New York and Jersey, are we basically leading towards the claim that the USSR fell because it would have been unable to defend itself against US attack?

I'm not saying that. However an effective ABM shield which can defeat Russian nuclear arms(maybe not 100% but within "acceptable" percentages) it would tip the balance of power. This is what the Soviets feared. Both sides feared the balance of power tipping and hence the whole Cold War in a nut shell. The US just out spent Russia who attempted to keep up the Balance of Power.

Reagan built a bunch of badass guns and warships and stuff that scared those reds yellow. Who wouldn't be? I bright, caring, charismatic, handsome, clever, moral, loving, generous, compassionate man like Reagan with all kindsa badass gizmos? No wonder they went broke.

Economic problems caused by policy instigated by Reagan. The Afgan War backed by the CIA bled the USSR of needed funding. So the planned ABM shield, AEGIS development, Stealth warplane development, Seawolf development/construction, Abrams construction. Reagan did something other US Presidents didnt. Out spend the USSR on keeping the military updated. While the Western Alliance always had better tech than the USSR, it wasnt by a wide margin. Reagan sought to widen that margin signifficantly, and the Russians couldnt keep up with the spending for new tech.

Not to mention a few accidents within the USSR(Chernobyl) helped to further accelerate the problems inside of the USSR. Without Reagan though, the Cold War may have continued for another 10-20 years.

Hmm. Interesting the way that you list only conventional weapons here: no mention is made of nuclear weaponry, which boths sides had in sufficient abundance to guarantee MAD. From what I have read of the Soviet response to the SDI program they considered it as ineffective as just about everybody else, and so surely that can't have been a major contributing factor?
The arms race bet. US and USSR was going on across the board, so an important addition to the above list of conventional weapons systems is the Minuteman (mobile ICBM) deployment by the U.S. which spurred a similarly costly Soviet effort to develop and deploy their mobile ICBMs (SS24, SS25, SS27).

Nonetheless, it would be unwise to pin all or even most of the blame for the demise of Soviet Union on Reagan. -- A hugely important factor for the implosion of the USSR was the failure of socialism as an economic system (which meant that USSR could not safely sustain the arms race with the U.S. AND fight a war in Afghanistan), as well as remarkable degeneration of the Communist Party leadership (you start with Lenin & Stalin and end up with Gorbi-puke. Deng Xiaoping he was not.)

I don't think you can count Kruschev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin out of this loop.

Kruschev began a slow, cautious series of reforms - changing the Communist party into a complex of powerful political institutions that balanced each other out, an improvement over the Stalinist bludgeon used to further a dictator's rule. Khrushchev himself, however, bypassed his colleagues when he deemed it necessary and took enough unilateral decisions that adversely affected powerful interests within the Soviet system for them to coalesce against him in 1964.

Leonid Brezhnev was not a leader of comparable boldness to Khrushchev, but his quiet ways increased safety and stability in the USSR. Whereas Stalin had been a danger to the life and limb of officials even more than to ordinary workers, and whereas Khrushchev had been a threat to their peace of mind and security of tenure, Brezhnev’s style was relatively conciliatory and accommodating.

Gorbachev offered new freedoms of speech, curtailed the power of the party apparatus, and began introducing democratic and economic reforms (for example, community owned and not state owned collectives). Not surprisingly this infuriated the conservatives and the wealthy, who backed Yeltsin's coup against Gorbachev with the aims of re-establishing the Soviet system he had been dismantling. However, the increased turmoil and instability caused by the coup merely accelerated the breakup of the union and gave the former Soviet states the impetus to break away.

I don't think you can count Kruschev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin out of this loop.

Kruschev began a slow, cautious series of reforms - changing the Communist party into a complex of powerful political institutions that balanced each other out, an improvement over the Stalinist bludgeon used to further a dictator's rule. Khrushchev himself, however, bypassed his colleagues when he deemed it necessary and took enough unilateral decisions that adversely affected powerful interests within the Soviet system for them to coalesce against him in 1964.

Leonid Brezhnev was not a leader of comparable boldness to Khrushchev, but he personified the interests of the nomenklatura (the senior officeholders in different branches of the Soviet establishment). Whereas Stalin had been a danger to the life and limb of officials even more than to ordinary workers, and whereas Khrushchev had been a threat to their peace of mind and security of tenure, Brezhnev’s style was relatively conciliatory and accommodating.

Gorbachev offered new freedoms of speech, curtailed the power of the party apparatus, and began introducing democratic and economic reforms (for example, community owned and not state owned collectives). Not surprisingly this infuriated the conservatives and the wealthy, who backed Yeltsin's coup against Gorbachev with the aims of re-establishing the Soviet system he had been dismantling. However, the increased turmoil and instability caused by the coup merely accelerated the breakup of the union and gave the former Soviet states the impetus to break away.

You can't discount the power of badass gizmos.

Reagan ,or at leaste the US during the Reagan administration, turned the Cold War from diplomatic and proxy wars into an out-right arms race. There had been an arms race prior to Reagan taking office but it went to another level when Reagan was sworn in. Reagan may not have began the downfall of the USSR, but he held it's head under until the water until bubbles stopped coming up.

<pats Right-Wing Fantasy on head>

But both sides had bad-ass gizmos. Take the Mig for example, it is faster, more maneuverable, and has a better range than the F-15's and F-18's.

And it has already been established that both sides had enough nukes for mutually assured destruction.

Let me put it this way: I agree that trying to keep up with America economically was hard on the Soviets, but you can't ignore the nation's internal politics. The USSR might still exist (albeit in a different form) if Yeltsin hadn't overthrown Gorbachev.

During this time the SALT treaties were decreasing the stockpiles of WMDs. While both sides still had enough to contribute to see if the MAD theory would occur, we werent building up our nuclear arms anymore. Also, if the Russians considered the ABM Shield ineffective why did they make the US sign a treaty saying we would never develop such a thing? Because nothing is perfect from the start. It takes years to fix, and make something work right. That is what the Russians feared.
Um, SALT II treaty sought to limit (after all, the acronym stands for Strategic Arms Limitation Talks), rather than decrease, the warhead stockpiles. The treaty sought to accomplish this task by limiting the number of strategic delivery vehicles (bombers, ICBMs, SLBMs), but that didn't even cap the total number of warheads deployed because both sides were actively replacing older single warhead missiles with the MIRVed ones and because the US Senate never ratified SALT II.

As for your assertion that the USSR somehow "made" the US sign the ABM Treaty, I don't think there is any evidence to back up the view that the Soviets wanted the treaty and the Americans didn't. In fact, Kissinger defended the treaty before Congress as a way to limit the arms race: "By setting a limit to ABM defenses the treaty not only eliminates one area of potentially dangerous defensive competition, but it reduces the incentive for continuing deployment of offensive systems."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB60/

Obviously that was back in 1972 when the US was still stuck in Vietnam, the US economy was stagnant and the A-rabs were getting restless. In contrast, the economy was growing fast under Reagan and he was willing to go into debt if that's what it took to implement his strategy of relaunching the arms race and daring the USSR to keep up.

Reagan ,or at leaste the US during the Reagan administration, turned the Cold War from diplomatic and proxy wars into an out-right arms race. There had been an arms race prior to Reagan taking office but it went to another level when Reagan was sworn in. Reagan may not have began the downfall of the USSR, but he held it's head under until the water until bubbles stopped coming up.


I love that analogy. Made me laugh, heh.

Allow me to correct a few misconceptions :wink:

I don't think you can count Kruschev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin out of this loop.

Kruschev began a slow, cautious series of reforms - changing the Communist party into a complex of powerful political institutions that balanced each other out, an improvement over the Stalinist bludgeon used to further a dictator's rule. Khrushchev himself, however, bypassed his colleagues when he deemed it necessary and took enough unilateral decisions that adversely affected powerful interests within the Soviet system for them to coalesce against him in 1964.
Khruschev's reputation in the West as a "reformer" is largely the work of his son, Sergei, who moved to the U.S. and of propaganda orchestrated by Western "opinion makers" (during the Cuban Missile Crisis they lambasted Khruschev, but when Brezhnev came to power they switched their tune to make Ole' Brezhnev look bad by comparison). The bottom line is: carrying out Stalin's purges in the Ukraine and then turning on him after his death doesn't make one a reformer. As for reasons for Khruschev's removal, that would be his increasing crankiness and erratic behaviour -- specifically, poor handling (and eventual embarrassing climbdown) of the Cuba Crisis and costly economic mistakes (such as the hare-brained idea to plant maize everywhere, including frigid parts of Siberia).

Leonid Brezhnev was not a leader of comparable boldness to Khrushchev, but his quiet ways increased safety and stability in the USSR. Whereas Stalin had been a danger to the life and limb of officials even more than to ordinary workers, and whereas Khrushchev had been a threat to their peace of mind and security of tenure, Brezhnev’s style was relatively conciliatory and accommodating.
That is largely accurate, although one development that helped keep the USSR afloat and delayed the collapse was the sharp increase in oil export revenues in the 1970s.

Gorbachev offered new freedoms of speech, curtailed the power of the party apparatus, and began introducing democratic and economic reforms (for example, community owned and not state owned collectives). Not surprisingly this infuriated the conservatives and the wealthy, who backed Yeltsin's coup against Gorbachev with the aims of re-establishing the Soviet system he had been dismantling. However, the increased turmoil and instability caused by the coup merely accelerated the breakup of the union and gave the former Soviet states the impetus to break away.
:lol:
Gorbi-puke's idea of "reform" was criticise stagnation under Brezhnev, declare a war n drinking (ha!) and reshuffle the government time and again when half-hearted reforms (and lots ad lots of talk) failed to improve the economy. Of course, criticism of Brezhnev then extended to renewed spotlight on Stalin's purges and then to exposure of Lenin's crimes. Thus, Gorbi handily undermined the ideological basis for the Communist party rule and with it, his own authority. Yeltsin, himself an ambitious former Commie apparatchik who had a falling out with Gorbi, took advantage of Gorbi's unpopularity, his apparent success in eroding the foundations of Soviet state, and the blossoming of ethnic separatism: he rose to the leadership of the Russian Federation (then still the largest component of the USSR) and used his position to further weaken the USSR by wrestling more power from Gorbi-puke's weak hands. When the "old guard" in the KGB and the military realised the gravity of the situation it was already too late. Yeltsin easily faced down the August 1991 coup launched against Gorbi AND him, and together with the leaders of the Ukraine and Belarus dissolved USSR in December 1991 (thus leaving Gorbi, whom he hated, without a job).
There it is, a brief history of perestroika. :wink:

<pats Right-Wing Fantasy on head>

But both sides had bad-ass gizmos. Take the Mig for example, it is faster, more maneuverable, and has a better range than the F-15's and F-18's.
No its not :roll:

MiGs are badly overrated, as had been demonstrated by the Syrian-Israeli air clashes during the 1982 Lebanon war. Israel didn't lose a single fighter jet back then, and the MiGs were going down in dozens.

F15 is indeed less maneuverable than MiGs- but it is more or less like saying that an elephant is less maneuverable than a wolf. My bets are still on an elephant. F15 is HUGE compared to F16 or MiGs, and indeed less maneuverable, but F15 is more of a bomber than a fighter. It carries several times more ammo than a MiG type fighter jet, and it has a radar that reaches some three times further than that of a MiG. A MiG may have a chance in a close encounter- but that's only if it manages to get that close.

Besides, even if the mechanical part of the MiGs is comparable in quality to F16 or F18, the US fighter jets are much more software rich, have a better radar, targeting systems and carry better rockets.

Reagan ,or at leaste the US during the Reagan administration, turned the Cold War from diplomatic and proxy wars into an out-right arms race. There had been an arms race prior to Reagan taking office but it went to another level when Reagan was sworn in. Reagan may not have began the downfall of the USSR, but he held it's head under until the water until bubbles stopped coming up.

Which might of been relevant if the USSR had not been bluffing since the 60's to begin with.

Reagan was a small but loud voice. It was the sum of many parts. Reagan can take a part in that. However, you can't by any sense of common logic totally credit the Americans or more pointed Reagan with the collapse of the USSR. Lets not forget they imploded from within because of a government theory that didn't work.

Saying that Reagan was the one thing that brought down the USSR is like saying that the Germans sank the Titanic.
That ship sank itself :roll: