U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-08-2019, 08:42 AM
 
1,074 posts, read 254,375 times
Reputation: 3918

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwatted Wabbit View Post
The press and the left LOVED the Soviet Union. That went on for decades. They still love communism.


The Left (and the Right) was happy that with the ascent of Gorbachev, the Cold War rapidly ended.

Margaret Thatcher (usually not lumped in with 'the left') recognized his potential, and did so early. This quote from an interview with the BBC comes from 1984, when Chenenko was still in power and Gorbachev was merely a potential successor:
"I like Mr. Gorbachev. We can do business together."

Good luck finding a quote in which Thatcher professes to like any of the other three Soviet General Secretaries who's tenure in office coincided with hers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwatted Wabbit View Post
Look up Time Magazine's slobbering all over Gorby the Great, I'm sure back issues are available. It was sickening. "His hands! His hands have a variety of functions!" "His eyes!" It was amazing that adults actually wrote such slobber.
Unlike your made-up strawman quote, mine are actually real.

At a press conference in 1988, Reagan very specifically attributed the dramatic change in the USSR and the easing of East-West tensions (and the resultant decrease in the possibility of a catastrophic war) to Gorbachev, noting that the change was internal to the Soviet Union.

Reagan was always optimistic about U.S.-USSR relations. His diaries reveal repeated professions of his certainty that if he could 'just talk to a Soviet leader face-to-face', he could convince them that the United States 'was not a threat'. This was rather naive, as a significant degree of paranoia is a built-in component of communism. He could never had done so with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko. But with Gorbachev it was possible, in part because of Gorbachev's own naivete (he quite wrongly thought communism could survive his relaxing of government control and strict adherence to ideology) but also because Gorbachev lacked the raging paranoia of every Soviet leader who preceded him (except Khrushchev, who was paranoid but not to the off-the-charts degree of the other five General Secretaries who came before Gorbachev).

You seem to have swallowed the Reagan hagiography that is regularly promulgated by the usual mythmakers - it's what you're dutifully regurgitating here. In reality, Reagan faced resistance over his overtures to the Soviets from both Left and Right. In 1984, after unwittingly going to-the-brink with Able Archer (as discussed earlier in this thread), Reagan took a significant step back wit conciliatory statements (the Ivan and Anya speech, for example) and parallel de-escalatory military moves. Caspar Weinberger opposed him on this. John Glenn (Senator, D-Ohio) excoriated Reagan. In 1987 Reagan secretly invited Nixon to the White House (he was clandestinely admitted) and wooed him for public support regarding his rapprochement to the Soviet Union. Nixon refused, specifically over Reagan's proposal to completely eliminated ballistic missiles. [On a side note, one can only imagine your hysterical reaction had a Democratic President ever proposed to the USSR a complete elimination of all ballistic missiles to the USSR, as Reagan did at Iceland in 1987 - and for the clowns that spin the fantasy that it was all a ploy for public consumption, Reagan's pitching of it in private meetings such as the one with Nixon and his descriptions of his desire for as much in his diary render such pleadings nonsense]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwatted Wabbit View Post
And on and on like that, like the grade school girls that they are, love Gorby, hate Reagan.
Here in the real world, Time Magazine named Ronald Reagan Man of the Year twice - once as President-elect, another as President. They also bestowed the same award on Lech Walesa. I assume those who have an even remotely historical clue understand the sheer absurdity of labeling a publication that would do such a thing. You can also check out Time's continual coverage (spanning years after the disaster) in no uncertain terms of the Soviet leadership's cover-up of the degree of the Chernobyl meltdown.

In short, you need to get a new shtick beyond the vapid and shrill label 'communist!' for that which you simply find insufficiently reverent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-09-2019, 06:09 AM
 
20,570 posts, read 11,466,441 times
Reputation: 20779
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post


The Left (and the Right) was happy that with the ascent of Gorbachev, the Cold War rapidly ended.

Margaret Thatcher (usually not lumped in with 'the left') recognized his potential, and did so early. This quote from an interview with the BBC comes from 1984, when Chenenko was still in power and Gorbachev was merely a potential successor:
"I like Mr. Gorbachev. We can do business together."

Good luck finding a quote in which Thatcher professes to like any of the other three Soviet General Secretaries who's tenure in office coincided with hers.



Unlike your made-up strawman quote, mine are actually real.

At a press conference in 1988, Reagan very specifically attributed the dramatic change in the USSR and the easing of East-West tensions (and the resultant decrease in the possibility of a catastrophic war) to Gorbachev, noting that the change was internal to the Soviet Union.

Reagan was always optimistic about U.S.-USSR relations. His diaries reveal repeated professions of his certainty that if he could 'just talk to a Soviet leader face-to-face', he could convince them that the United States 'was not a threat'. This was rather naive, as a significant degree of paranoia is a built-in component of communism. He could never had done so with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko. But with Gorbachev it was possible, in part because of Gorbachev's own naivete (he quite wrongly thought communism could survive his relaxing of government control and strict adherence to ideology) but also because Gorbachev lacked the raging paranoia of every Soviet leader who preceded him (except Khrushchev, who was paranoid but not to the off-the-charts degree of the other five General Secretaries who came before Gorbachev).

You seem to have swallowed the Reagan hagiography that is regularly promulgated by the usual mythmakers - it's what you're dutifully regurgitating here. In reality, Reagan faced resistance over his overtures to the Soviets from both Left and Right. In 1984, after unwittingly going to-the-brink with Able Archer (as discussed earlier in this thread), Reagan took a significant step back wit conciliatory statements (the Ivan and Anya speech, for example) and parallel de-escalatory military moves. Caspar Weinberger opposed him on this. John Glenn (Senator, D-Ohio) excoriated Reagan. In 1987 Reagan secretly invited Nixon to the White House (he was clandestinely admitted) and wooed him for public support regarding his rapprochement to the Soviet Union. Nixon refused, specifically over Reagan's proposal to completely eliminated ballistic missiles. [On a side note, one can only imagine your hysterical reaction had a Democratic President ever proposed to the USSR a complete elimination of all ballistic missiles to the USSR, as Reagan did at Iceland in 1987 - and for the clowns that spin the fantasy that it was all a ploy for public consumption, Reagan's pitching of it in private meetings such as the one with Nixon and his descriptions of his desire for as much in his diary render such pleadings nonsense]



Here in the real world, Time Magazine named Ronald Reagan Man of the Year twice - once as President-elect, another as President. They also bestowed the same award on Lech Walesa. I assume those who have an even remotely historical clue understand the sheer absurdity of labeling a publication that would do such a thing. You can also check out Time's continual coverage (spanning years after the disaster) in no uncertain terms of the Soviet leadership's cover-up of the degree of the Chernobyl meltdown.

In short, you need to get a new shtick beyond the vapid and shrill label 'communist!' for that which you simply find insufficiently reverent.
Well, dang, I can't rep you again right now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2019, 11:23 AM
 
15,222 posts, read 13,855,944 times
Reputation: 7009
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
Gorbachev appears to have understood as well that the Soviet system just wasn't working. Thus, his attempted reforms, which were a combination of desperation (willing to try anything, including ideas long antithetical to communism) and naivete (the hope that the might actually work).

No, he was NOT willing to "try anything."
If he would have been willing to do that ( namely - allowing the private sector to flourish along with the state-controlled sector,) the Soviet Union would have still been here.

This would have been much more successful model for Russia comparably to what they have now.
The world would have been a much better/stable place than what it is now as well.



P.S. Gorbachev is still hated in Russia with passion for his stupidity and ineptness (many simply consider him a downright traitor.)

Not sure who is hated there more - Gorbachev, Yeltsin or Chubais.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2019, 11:30 AM
 
15,222 posts, read 13,855,944 times
Reputation: 7009
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post


The Left (and the Right) was happy that with the ascent of Gorbachev, the Cold War rapidly ended.

Margaret Thatcher (usually not lumped in with 'the left') recognized his potential, and did so early. This quote from an interview with the BBC comes from 1984, when Chenenko was still in power and Gorbachev was merely a potential successor:
"I like Mr. Gorbachev. We can do business together."

Good luck finding a quote in which Thatcher professes to like any of the other three Soviet General Secretaries who's tenure in office coincided with hers.



Unlike your made-up strawman quote, mine are actually real.

At a press conference in 1988, Reagan very specifically attributed the dramatic change in the USSR and the easing of East-West tensions (and the resultant decrease in the possibility of a catastrophic war) to Gorbachev, noting that the change was internal to the Soviet Union.

Reagan was always optimistic about U.S.-USSR relations. His diaries reveal repeated professions of his certainty that if he could 'just talk to a Soviet leader face-to-face', he could convince them that the United States 'was not a threat'. This was rather naive, as a significant degree of paranoia is a built-in component of communism. He could never had done so with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko. But with Gorbachev it was possible, in part because of Gorbachev's own naivete (he quite wrongly thought communism could survive his relaxing of government control and strict adherence to ideology) but also because Gorbachev lacked the raging paranoia of every Soviet leader who preceded him (except Khrushchev, who was paranoid but not to the off-the-charts degree of the other five General Secretaries who came before Gorbachev).

You seem to have swallowed the Reagan hagiography that is regularly promulgated by the usual mythmakers - it's what you're dutifully regurgitating here. In reality, Reagan faced resistance over his overtures to the Soviets from both Left and Right. In 1984, after unwittingly going to-the-brink with Able Archer (as discussed earlier in this thread), Reagan took a significant step back wit conciliatory statements (the Ivan and Anya speech, for example) and parallel de-escalatory military moves. Caspar Weinberger opposed him on this. John Glenn (Senator, D-Ohio) excoriated Reagan. In 1987 Reagan secretly invited Nixon to the White House (he was clandestinely admitted) and wooed him for public support regarding his rapprochement to the Soviet Union. Nixon refused, specifically over Reagan's proposal to completely eliminated ballistic missiles. [On a side note, one can only imagine your hysterical reaction had a Democratic President ever proposed to the USSR a complete elimination of all ballistic missiles to the USSR, as Reagan did at Iceland in 1987 - and for the clowns that spin the fantasy that it was all a ploy for public consumption, Reagan's pitching of it in private meetings such as the one with Nixon and his descriptions of his desire for as much in his diary render such pleadings nonsense]



Here in the real world, Time Magazine named Ronald Reagan Man of the Year twice - once as President-elect, another as President. They also bestowed the same award on Lech Walesa. I assume those who have an even remotely historical clue understand the sheer absurdity of labeling a publication that would do such a thing. You can also check out Time's continual coverage (spanning years after the disaster) in no uncertain terms of the Soviet leadership's cover-up of the degree of the Chernobyl meltdown.

In short, you need to get a new shtick beyond the vapid and shrill label 'communist!' for that which you simply find insufficiently reverent.

Reagan probably sincerely believed in that, but as the history proved, it was not true.
Soviet paranoia as it turned out, was well-founded.
As soon as Russians let their guard down and trusted America, America went full speed ahead, trying to take an advantage of Russia in each and every sense of it - be that economy or military, with NATO expansion ( that as it has been promised was not supposed to take place.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 07:51 AM
 
1,074 posts, read 254,375 times
Reputation: 3918
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
No, he was NOT willing to "try anything."
If he would have been willing to do that ( namely - allowing the private sector to flourish along with the state-controlled sector,) the Soviet Union would have still been here.
You're confusing Gorbachev's willingness with his ultimate decision. The latter is not necessarily a reflection of what he was willing to do, only the course he chose in the end.

Of course, you're not really here to talk history but just to fluff Soviet communism, so there's that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
P.S. Gorbachev is still hated in Russia with passion for his stupidity and ineptness (many simply consider him a downright traitor.)

Not sure who is hated there more - Gorbachev, Yeltsin or Chubais.
Yes, the we-love-Stalin! Russian populace doesn't like Gorbachev. No surprise...

Quote:
A record 70 percent of Russians approve of Soviet leader Josef Stalinís role in Russian history, according to a poll published by the independent Levada Center pollster on Tuesday.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/...gh-poll-a65245

Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Reagan probably sincerely believed in that, but as the history proved, it was not true.
Soviet paranoia as it turned out, was well-founded.
As soon as Russians let their guard down and trusted America, America went full speed ahead, trying to take an advantage of Russia in each and every sense of it - be that economy or military, with NATO expansion ( that as it has been promised was not supposed to take place.)
And you even serve up the "But! But! The U.S. promised not to expand NATO!" tripe, which Gorbachev himself has occasionally denied, such as in his memoirs (while also occasionally claiming otherwise). It is true that James Baker told Gorbachev that President Bush would not push for NATO expansion. And he didn't. But that was hardly binding on future U.S. Presidents. It is worth noting that Eduard Shevardnadze, Soviet Foreign Minister under Gorbachev, always maintained that assurance that NATO would never expand east was ever made.

It's really classic.

"Stalin had to kill millions because half a century later the West had the arrogance to let free countries join an alliance if they so wished!"
"Brezhnev was rightly paranoid because NATO expanded years after he died and the USSR expired of incompetence!"
"Putin had to invade Georgia and Ukraine because Hungary is in NATO!"


At any rate, the decision of, say, Poland or Romania or Estonia to join NATO is ultimately the decision of Poland/Romania/Estonia, not Russia. But, of course, I understand that a full-time excuse-maker for Russia such as yourself sees those countries as nothing more than pawns to do Moscow's bidding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:06 AM
 
15,222 posts, read 13,855,944 times
Reputation: 7009
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
You're confusing Gorbachev's willingness with his ultimate decision. The latter is not necessarily a reflection of what he was willing to do, only the course he chose in the end.

Of course, you're not really here to talk history but just to fluff Soviet communism, so there's that.

I am confusing?

What do you know about Gorbachev and his "willingness," how far he was willing to go or not?
What are the sources of your information, who/what Gorbachev REALLY was?

Yes, let's talk history here, what kind of figure he was.
Once we'll be clear on that, we can move to the next subject - the reasons behind the rise of Stalin's popularity in today's Russia and the rest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 12:10 PM
 
20,570 posts, read 11,466,441 times
Reputation: 20779
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
You're confusing Gorbachev's willingness with his ultimate decision. The latter is not necessarily a reflection of what he was willing to do, only the course he chose in the end.

Of course, you're not really here to talk history but just to fluff Soviet communism, so there's that.



Yes, the we-love-Stalin! Russian populace doesn't like Gorbachev. No surprise...


https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/...gh-poll-a65245



And you even serve up the "But! But! The U.S. promised not to expand NATO!" tripe, which Gorbachev himself has occasionally denied, such as in his memoirs (while also occasionally claiming otherwise). It is true that James Baker told Gorbachev that President Bush would not push for NATO expansion. And he didn't. But that was hardly binding on future U.S. Presidents. It is worth noting that Eduard Shevardnadze, Soviet Foreign Minister under Gorbachev, always maintained that assurance that NATO would never expand east was ever made.

It's really classic.

"Stalin had to kill millions because half a century later the West had the arrogance to let free countries join an alliance if they so wished!"
"Brezhnev was rightly paranoid because NATO expanded years after he died and the USSR expired of incompetence!"
"Putin had to invade Georgia and Ukraine because Hungary is in NATO!"


At any rate, the decision of, say, Poland or Romania or Estonia to join NATO is ultimately the decision of Poland/Romania/Estonia, not Russia. But, of course, I understand that a full-time excuse-maker for Russia such as yourself sees those countries as nothing more than pawns to do Moscow's bidding.
Can't rep you again yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:36 AM
 
Location: Mars City
5,320 posts, read 2,267,235 times
Reputation: 7847
Ronnie embraced the Cold War deeply, and wore it daily as a proud badge. In his administration, we simply saw a vivid Poster Boy for the movement. No surprises or mysteries.

The key point is that the Soviet Union had been changing for quite awhile, and many/most Americans saw that and understood it. But he was stiff, older, still stuck back in an earlier time, and not up to date. That's where the irritation and even controversy between his group and the American public came from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:04 PM
 
Location: New York Area
16,497 posts, read 6,508,071 times
Reputation: 12700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azureth View Post
The USSR had always been an evil empire based on the worst dictators and people one could imagine, even bringing us towards nuclear war. So in 1983 when he gave the speech, why was there any controversy at all? It's akin to saying Nazis are bad guys yet anyone would disagree?
The intellectual mindset was, and is, one of accommodation, not one of telling stark and obvious truths. Sort of like Hans Christian Anderson's The Emperor's New Clothes. The voters told us that the earlier appeasement vision was bankrupt in the thumping Reagan gave Carter. Like so much TDS nowadays, the intellectual elites are just not listening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:35 PM
 
20,570 posts, read 11,466,441 times
Reputation: 20779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
Ronnie embraced the Cold War deeply, and wore it daily as a proud badge. In his administration, we simply saw a vivid Poster Boy for the movement. No surprises or mysteries.

The key point is that the Soviet Union had been changing for quite awhile, and many/most Americans saw that and understood it. But he was stiff, older, still stuck back in an earlier time, and not up to date. That's where the irritation and even controversy between his group and the American public came from.
At the time Reagan took office, there had been no outwardly visible change at all in the Soviet Union.

There was not, in fact, much national controversy over Reagan's "Evil Empire" speeches at the time he made them--a few bleats from the intellectual far left were hardly heard.

Remember, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan not long before Reagan took office, and that provided all the context he needed. The nation generally went along with Reagan as far as handling the Soviet Union was concerned. His "Star Wars" initiative was wildly popular. Even Democrats were busy trying to prove they could be tough, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top