Jump to content

Did Reagan win the Cold War?


Recommended Posts

The argument is not whether the Cold War ended (it obviously did). The argument, as I understand it, is whether communism in Eastern Europe ended due to external pressures (primarily applied by Reagan) or internal pressures (desire for individual freedoms).

both external and internal pressures

 

but remember, we were a push of buttom away from a catastrophic war.

 

IMHO, right or wrong. Reagan deserves all the credit in the World.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia was already moving away from the one party system. All Reagan did was drive communist hardliners to destroy any smooth transition Russia could have made to capitalism. You could say it was a good idea as it destroyed the only challenging super power but left the entire world f-ed up. The former communist bloc is decades away from joining the rest of Europe and is draining the tax dollars of EU countries, Russia, America and Israel in aid, immigration and trade deficits.

 

Does Reagan deserve credit for all of this? No, no one could see this playing out.

And anyways George H. W. Bush had more influence in foreign policy than any vice president in recent memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Gorbachev deserves a lot of credit too. If there were a different leader of the USSR at the time who knows what might have developed.

 

He knew the state was in trouble. Glasnost & peristroika was intended to reform the communist system there, but wound up leading to it's collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little bit of both....

 

It was going to happen sooner or later, but I do think Reagan expeditied the process significantly.

 

If not for Reagan it may still be going on to some degree.

 

But the real lynchpin was Gorbachev. THink of all the Premiers in the last 30 years... It would of never happened under them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, it is clear the Eastern bloc collapsed due to a combination of internal and external pressures. But all of the internal and most of the external pressures were in place prior to Reagan's presidency. I guess I wonder how crucial Reagan's presidency was to the ultimate demise. Would the Eastern bloc have fallen nonetheless? In other words, I personally suspect that Reagan's presidency just sped-up an inevitable process. Any dissenters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any real proof that the Russians really spent themselves into the ground? I was under the impression they were already starving to death and their military was largly a farce (fake tanks, hollowed rockets, ect.)

If this was true, then countries all over the world have been investing in a lot of fake Russian gear the last 10 years as they've sold off inventory to raise cash. I suspect they'd be somewhat irked if plywood tanks and nonfunctional rockets were delivered. Dude, obviously the russians had a military, but we vastly over estimated it...maybe conveniently...and by the way, how many russian nuclear missiles are hitting the market?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...how many russian nuclear missiles are hitting the market?

When did this enter the discussion? the point is that russia's military was not as advanced and strong as we made it out to be. Forgive me, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the 7 or 8 administrations that dealt with the Russian bear and their estimations of Soviet military power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

advanced and powerful are 2 different things. The question is whether or not reagan's unprecedented miltiary build up was a good idea in response to russian advances and it is my honest opinion it was not.

Thats right b/c carter's military cuts were obviously more effective than the military build up. Either way Reagan is in part responsible for the end of the cold war, along w/ Gorby, thatcher, and even good ole yeltsin. Reagan alone did not win the cold war but if a US president is going to be given the credit for it, it would have to be reagan b/c his negotiations with gorby and the pressure he put on soviet polciies is a contributing factor that caused the hard shell of the USSr to crack and expose its weak and soft interior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats right b/c carter's military cuts were obviously more effective than the military build up. Either way Reagan is in part responsible for the end of the cold war, along w/ Gorby, thatcher, and even good ole yeltsin. Reagan alone did not win the cold war but if a US president is going to be given the credit for it, it would have to be reagan b/c his negotiations with gorby and the pressure he put on soviet polciies is a contributing factor that caused the hard shell of the USSr to crack and expose its weak and soft interior.

 

Now how about Bush senior? How about any competent man on earth could have held negotiations with a country crumbling from other pressures. Are we going to give clinton credit for peace in the middle east? that's absurd.

 

Reagan's military build-up, which did close to nothing to end the cold war, is his legacy. Therefore, his legacy is bunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

his legacy was hes great speeches and his way of showing american strength

 

So that's your argument? Well guess what, speeches and image mean crap. FDR and Kennedy had great images and they were crappy presidents. Nixon and hoover have terrible images, but they were great presidents.

 

So if that is all that can be truly credited to Reagan, I say he's officially worthless and his administration was a HUGE waste of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn your history needs some fine tuning. Hoover was prehaps one of the worst presidents in history right behind jimmy carter. In fact most of what later became 'the new deal' where expansions of programs that hoover started near the end of his admin to relieve the problems of the depression. If FDR was the father of US social programs Hoover is the grandfather. Nixon was a great president and in fact had he stayed in office he would have done great things to reduce spending and to reform the bureaucracy. However, Reagan did a lot to bring lessen govt control over the individual by allowing people to keep more of their own money to influence investments and economic growth (including job growth) which lasted up until 2001. Reagan was a great president domestically, and by the way increasing defense spending was what every cold war president did for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoover was prehaps one of the worst presidents in history right behind jimmy carter. In fact most of what later became 'the new deal' where expansions of programs that hoover started near the end of his admin to relieve the problems of the depression. If FDR was the father of US social programs Hoover is the grandfather.

 

Hoover supported two programs. The RFC and the FDIC. No one here is going to doubt the usefullness of the FDIC or the RFC in stabilizing banks. In fact, Hoover did not wish to make anymore programs, so you better get your history straight mister.

 

Hoover was a great president because he had some god damn balls. He knew it was not right to start all of those socialist programs and so he sought after doing only the essentials and he told americans to be rugged individuals. There is nothing more he could have done, and yet the economy recovered when he was still in office. He was the last true libertarian president.

 

However, Reagan did a lot to bring lessen govt control over the individual by allowing people to keep more of their own money to influence investments and economic growth (including job growth) which lasted up until 2001.

 

Whoa, you accuse me of bad history telling and you come out with this udder nonsense? What I said was true and of backing, this is totally untrue and of no backing.

 

By giving the upperclass taxcuts, Reagan did not pour rights onto us. His decentralization of bureacracy only increased state bureacracy. Quite frankly, it was bull.

 

Furthermore, economic growth to the april of 2000 had NOTHING TO DO WITH REAGAN, unless the economic downturn of the early 90s was Reagans falt. I mean, do we credit hoover with the war boom of the 40s? That's ridiculous and so is the very notion you just put forward. Computer technologies was a brand new amrket (computers were rather archaic before then) and opened the door for a widely speculatory market. Furthermore, gas prices plunged. I would say this is what helped make the gigantic boom which convinced us all that we would be millionaires by the year 2005.

 

Reagan was a great president domestically, and by the way increasing defense spending was what every cold war president did for the most part.

 

Reagan was not a great president domestically because he failed to curtail bureaucracy.

 

I like no presidents of the cold war era besides nixon, because he achieved results, especially intternationally. However, Reagan's claim to ending the cold war is debatable at best (because his actoresque good guy bad guy speeches were merely a show for the media) and his increase in spending, even with increased government revenue, was unprecedented. He was a terrible president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...