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.
I've enjoyed most of the discussion on this thread, and I've learned quite a bit (which is good because I've been needing to do some research on this topic for my novel). My reading of these posts was very quick, however, so I probably missed and/or misunderstood a few things, so let's see if I get this straight:
There is (unsurprisingly) a basic split (mostly liberal/conservative?) between: (1) The USSR would have collapsed anyway, no matter who was president and (2) Certain Regan policies were instrumental in pushing them over the cliff.
I would like to read the very best historical sources for each side of the argument, and I'm hoping that some of you folks could help me choose the best of the best. Perhaps some of you from each camp would be willing to give a quick list of what you see as the very best books or articles supporting your position?
At the moment I am inclined to think as follows: I suspect that the USSR was basically crumbling for the various reasons mentioned, and thus probably would not have lasted much longer no matter whether the president had been Regan or Carter. But I would be interested in hearing arguments for or against thinking that a second term for Carter (specifically) would have let the USSR survive longer.
What if FDR had declined to oppose Nazi Germany? Who can say? Perhaps today Western Europe would be a fascist entity still putting people into ovens. Or perhaps Nazism would have collapsed from its own weight.
But the fact was that FDR decided to fight, just as Reagan did/ The only difference is that liberals acknowledge the courage of one, but not the other.
At the moment I am inclined to think as follows: I suspect that the USSR was basically crumbling for the various reasons mentioned, and thus probably would not have lasted much longer no matter whether the president had been Regan or Carter. But I would be interested in hearing arguments for or against thinking that a second term for Carter (specifically) would have let the USSR survive longer.
From what I've read, the USSR was certainly crumbling by the end of the 70s, although perhaps only Andropov and a small circle of aides around him realized it. The "books" of the USSR were so closely held that few even at the top levels of government had the full picture...and all of them were extremely old hard-line Stalinist ideologists. You have to understand that a man did not survive in high-level Soviet politics without being so thoroughly indoctrinated that he repeated politically correct ideology even in his sleep.
But even Andropov understood the reality, and faced with what he perceived to be an equally hard-line Reagan, IMO he made a rather daring decision to pull Gorbachev out of the political hinterlands into the Kremlin "center." Gorbachev and his wife Raisa were already known even to the West as comparatively modern, cosmopolitian thinkers. I believe Andropov realized the Soviet Union would need someone like that to deal with Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Andropov was the one who put Gorbachev into position to very quickly move into power as the old guard died off.
I don't think for a moment that Andropov expected Gorbachev to "sell the store," but to the extent that Reagan forced Andropov to put a "young thinker" in power, Reagan did hasten the demise of the Soviet Union and make it more peaceful than it might have been had it crumbled without going through Peristroika.
It seems to me that the Russian part Soviet Union was about to have a civil war and the real leadership decided to cut an run before the collapse. They simply blamed Ronny Raygun for the inevitable.
Decades later we have a genuinely intelligent ruthless thug as the new Czar. The difference is Putin is RUSSIAN first, last, and always. The EU bankers are less than pleased.
I've enjoyed most of the discussion on this thread, and I've learned quite a bit (which is good because I've been needing to do some research on this topic for my novel). My reading of these posts was very quick, however, so I probably missed and/or misunderstood a few things, so let's see if I get this straight:
There is (unsurprisingly) a basic split (mostly liberal/conservative?) between: (1) The USSR would have collapsed anyway, no matter who was president and (2) Certain Regan policies were instrumental in pushing them over the cliff.
I would like to read the very best historical sources for each side of the argument, and I'm hoping that some of you folks could help me choose the best of the best. Perhaps some of you from each camp would be willing to give a quick list of what you see as the very best books or articles supporting your position?
At the moment I am inclined to think as follows: I suspect that the USSR was basically crumbling for the various reasons mentioned, and thus probably would not have lasted much longer no matter whether the president had been Regan or Carter. But I would be interested in hearing arguments for or against thinking that a second term for Carter (specifically) would have let the USSR survive longer.
I've enjoyed most of the discussion on this thread, and I've learned quite a bit (which is good because I've been needing to do some research on this topic for my novel). My reading of these posts was very quick, however, so I probably missed and/or misunderstood a few things, so let's see if I get this straight:
There is (unsurprisingly) a basic split (mostly liberal/conservative?) between: (1) The USSR would have collapsed anyway, no matter who was president and (2) Certain Regan policies were instrumental in pushing them over the cliff.
I would like to read the very best historical sources for each side of the argument, and I'm hoping that some of you folks could help me choose the best of the best. Perhaps some of you from each camp would be willing to give a quick list of what you see as the very best books or articles supporting your position?
At the moment I am inclined to think as follows: I suspect that the USSR was basically crumbling for the various reasons mentioned, and thus probably would not have lasted much longer no matter whether the president had been Regan or Carter. But I would be interested in hearing arguments for or against thinking that a second term for Carter (specifically) would have let the USSR survive longer.
Get yourself a copy of The Age of Reagan by Steven Hayward. Also Lou Cannon's biography of Reagan.
Hayward especially brings out how Reagan brought in people who were what used to be called 'country club conservatives' like George Schultz, HW Bush, etc. because a) like many successful presidents, Reagan wanted varied viewpoints on his team so that every idea would be debated and tested before being adopted; b)Reagan recognized that there a shortage of 'movement conservatives' with the experience and CV to work in the WH.
But this meant that many times, Reagan faced fierce opposition from his own team. Hayward opens the book with an account of how practically his entire team tried to talk him out of the 'tear down this wall' speech. His chief of staff, secy of state, the entire state dept tried to get him to drop the line that was to become his signature.
In explaining the significance of President Reagan's "Tear Down This Wall" address, his speechwriter Peter Robinson recently quoted a Russian dissident's recollection: "Reagan challenged the empire. To us, that meant everything. After that speech, everything was in play."
This comes from someone who was there, not some snot-nosed partisan 30 years later trying to revise history for the sake of an upcoming election.
As I remember it, the 1980's were a race to bankruptcy. Reagan outspent the Soviets but still bankrupted the US. We are still paying for it.
US debt/GDP ratio was 42 in 1990 (Reagan left office in 1989). The debt/GDP was 73 in 2013. Reagan did increase the debt, but it was nearly all due to military spending, and he obtained bang for the buck, namely the dissolution of the USSR. Now our debt/GDP has almost doubled, and what have we gotten back for it? Virtually nothing.
Translation: Conservatives stand for less government spending on fellow Americans, and more for the bloated military industrial complex. Another reason why they remain the biggest threat to the prosperity of America.
Right-wing conservatism = the real evil empire
Is not defense of the Republic for the benefit of "fellow Americans?" Without defense, we wouldn't have survived as a Republic for over 200 years.
Care to explain how (in your mind) conservatism is "the real evil empire?"
American prosperity comes from the freedom of individuals to act according to their best interests, without government over regulation which hampers entrepreneurship, slowing economic growth and job creation.
Many defense contractors (if not all) began as small businesses, begun by individual entrepreneurs. In my lifetime, I have worked for two such small businesses, both begun in somebody's garage. Ryan Aeronautical comes to mind.
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.
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.
