So where was Reagan in all this, playing hop scotch? [Archive]

Stealth Hunter

11-09-09, 11:17 PM

IBut I have yet to see one single acknowledgment of the real reason the wall fell....Ronald Reagan.

The Wall fell because the people of Germany (West AND East) had finally had enough of the Soviets. They were the ones who broke it down with hammers, chisels, pickaxes and their own hands; not Reagan. And they risked their lives in doing so, because it was unclear even then if the Russians would let them proceed or not. They could have been shot for what they did.

If it were not for his brilliant economic war against "The Evil Empire" that forced the Soviets to bankrupt themselves that wall may have still been there to this very day!

LOL. He had no such "brilliant economic war" against them. The Soviet Union collapsed over a few decades (similar to the death of the Roman Empire; it took time), since the 1960s really. For one, the military was not what it once was; the war in Afghanistan had taken a hefty toll on them. Poor economic management was also to blame. Elaborating, the mills and industrial plants that churned out millions of weapons, tools, equipment, etc., from the 1940s to the 1960s were gradually breaking down in quality. With time, they became old and problematic. The government's central planning could no longer properly provide for everyone and shortages were common for most households. The standard of living was incredibly low compared to other surrounding countries, and this only made the people even more rebellious towards their overlords (though the amount of corruption in the bureaucracy certainly didn't help).

Their military still had some power, skill, and control, but everything else was just useless. And as a result, the people grew fed up with it. It was inevitable that any small push in any direction would make the whole thing collaspe onto itself. A country as large and complex as the Soviet Union does not fall simply because of the actions of one man in one short time. It takes many combined problems over the course of ages to truly produce anything bad for a government that great. Much like our economy now: it was so large and complex that it took the combined efforts of numerous things to reduce it to what it is now.

He gave a speech about the wall and Soviet Union, he put on his tough-guy acting skills (he did get something useful out of Hollywood afterall), and people bought it without bothering to investigate any further the reasons for the fall of Communism in Europe- let alone the death of the Soviets. Reagan was an actor. A good, convincing actor. But an actor nevertheless, not a president. He could convince people that he was a president, but his flattering words and moving speeches did not solve anything. They never do. All they do is waste time, no matter who the person is that's doing the talking. They can inspire and provoke emotion, but they do not get anything done. The taking of action gets s*** done, precisely what he lacked and precisely what the people of Germany and Russia had.

mookiemookie

11-09-09, 11:32 PM

Oh god, gag me

http://img.moronail.net/img/8/5/1085.jpg

http://thisishistorictimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/editorial_20090314.gif

You want fun with Reaganomics, ask me about the Laffer Curve. :roll:

Stealth Hunter

11-09-09, 11:45 PM

nikimcbee

11-10-09, 12:24 AM

GoldenRivet

11-10-09, 02:11 AM

Sea Demon

11-10-09, 02:13 AM

Well really, he wasn't a damaging president. Reagan, I mean. He was just the kind that didn't take very much (if any) action when a situation arose. And most of the actions he did take were ineffective in the end. They just sort of... faded away into the annals of history, no consequences or effects felt. He was charismatic, there's no denying that; and it was through his charisma that he was capable of exceptional acts of persuasion. To put it bluntly, he became famous and well-known because of said charisma and persuasion feats, but in reality his time in office yielded dull and meh results.

I can tell you one thing. If we had a President Like Jimmy Carter during this time, the wall never would have fallen. Jimmy Carter was nothing more than Brezhnev's lapdog. Offering every concession he could manage to embolden Soviet positioning at the expense of American geo-politics. Carter and Democrats like him presented no pressure to the Kremlin in any way at all. The Soviets never had any reason to pursue "glasnost" policy or "perestroika" with Carter in the Oval Office.

When Reagan was inaugurated, he began a program designed to apply vast amounts of pressure on the Soviet military machine, and their positioning in global geo-politics. It was a vast series of moves. Most of us remember the effects in pursuing military programs en masse that the Soviets had little answer to. All were very aggressive. Some of these things heavily pursued and pushed for from Reagan's administration were the B-2 program and stealth technology in general, the Seawolf SSN program, the Peacekeeper missile program, more cruise missile capabilities, hit to kill technology directives against ICBM's, etc. Reagan made a nuclear war a complete losing proposition for the Soviets and had assured them that we would intend to build an infrastructure capable of nullifying much of their offensive capabilities. And to add insult to injury, we would share the technology with them. Not only did Reagan do these things, yet he was also extremely critical of Soviet oppression as a whole. He never let up one minute. Some of the biggest help for the Soviets in our own government came from the Tip O'Niel Democrats in Congress.

Simply put, the Soviets were unable to respond to any of the things pursued aggressively by the Reagan Administration. Nor could they respond to the heavily criticized Soviet restrictive society which Reagan criticized in the same room with Gorby over an American style steak dinner. The Soviets had also been kicked in the nutz hard in Afghanistan, which many people in the Reagan government at the time will still probably neither confirm or deny any involvement.

Trying to remove Reagan's role is merely a ludicrous and total distortion of history. I know people wish history isn't what it truly is sometimes. But it is nevertheless what it is. Guarandamnteed if Carter, then Mondale would have been at the helm, there would never have been any pressure at all for the Soviets to allow for their collapse. Without the military and geo-political pressure....no glasnost, no perestroika, and no reason to fear WW3 against a weak-kneed, concession offering President like Carter, if there were problems, dissent, or chaos at the Berlin Wall. The Germans had nothing to do with this also. The Soviets themselves could have used 1/10th of it's air and armor in the region to deal with them.

Reagan did what he did, and got what he wanted by his actions. Without him in his role...it would have never happened. Nor would there be reason for it to happen without Reagan's role.

Onkel Neal

11-10-09, 02:21 AM

I can tell you one thing. If we had a President Like Jimmy Carter during this time, the wall never would have fallen. Jimmy Carter was nothing more than Brezhnev's lapdog. Offering every concession he could manage to embolden Soviet positioning at the expense of American geo-politics. Carter and Democrats like him presented no pressure to the Kremlin in any way at all. The Soviets never had any reason to pursue "glasnost" policy or "perestroika" with Carter in the Oval Office.

When Reagan was inaugurated, he began a program designed to apply vast amounts of pressure on the Soviet military machine, and their positioning in global geo-politics. It was a vast series of moves. Most of us remember the effects in pursuing military programs en masse that the Soviets had little answer to. All were very aggressive. Some of these things heavily pursued and pushed for from Reagan's administration were the B-2 program and stealth technology in general, the Seawolf SSN program, the Peacekeeper missile program, more cruise missile capabilities, hit to kill technology directives against ICBM's, etc. Reagan made a nuclear war a complete losing proposition for the Soviets and had assured them that we would intend to build an infrastructure capable of nullifying much of their offensive capabilities. And to add insult to injury, we would share the technology with them. Not only did Reagan do these things, yet he was also extremely critical of Soviet oppression as a whole. He never let up one minute. Some of the biggest help for the Soviets in our own government came from the Tip O'Niel Democrats in Congress.

Simply put, the Soviets were unable to respond to any of the things pursued aggressively by the Reagan Administration. Nor could they respond to the heavily criticized Soviet restrictive society which Reagan criticized in the same room with Gorby over an American style steak dinner. The Soviets had also been kicked in the nutz hard in Afghanistan, which many people in the Reagan government at the time will still probably neither confirm or deny any involvement.

Trying to remove Reagan's role is merely a ludicrous and total distortion of history. I know people wish history isn't what it truly is sometimes. But it is nevertheless what it is. Guarandamnteed if Carter, then Mondale would have been at the helm, there would never have been any pressure at all for the Soviets to allow for their collapse. Without the military and geo-political pressure....no glasnost, no perestroika, and no reason to fear WW3 against a weak-kneed, concession offering President like Carter, if there were problems, dissent, or chaos at the Berlin Wall. The Germans had nothing to do with this also. The Soviets themselves could have used 1/10th of it's air and armor in the region to deal with them.

Reagan did what he did, and got what he wanted by his actions. Without him in his role...it would have never happened. Nor would there be reason for it to happen without Reagan's role.

Thank you :up:

Without Reagan's leadership, the Russians would still own East Germany.

Aramike

11-10-09, 02:40 AM

Thank you :up:

Without Reagan's leadership, the Russians would still own East Germany.Indeed.

It makes me wonder why people of certain political ideologies will do whatever they can to minimize the accomplishments of those on the other side...

I mean, one REALLY has to spin and avoid reality to not see the impact that Reagan had on the former USSR.

OneToughHerring

11-10-09, 02:56 AM

Oh yea, it was Reagan who one evening appeared at the wall with a sledge hammer and started hammering away. By next morning he'd demolished most of it and all those germanians gathered around to gaze at Ronnie hammering away at the wall and Ronnies muscles glistening in the sun and all the germanians yelled "Yeee, Ronnie!". :haha:

Freiwillige

11-10-09, 03:07 AM

He built up the U.S. military to its greatest size since WWII knowing full well that Russia would try and follow suite. We with the west could more than afford the expenditure knowing that Russia could not. In the end his 8 year boost and aggressive policy's towards the C.C.C.P. bankrupt them into collapse and left the U.S. the only superpower in the world.

It only took 20 years of mismanagement to put us where we are today. I love politicians:damn:

OneToughHerring

11-10-09, 03:52 AM

He built up the U.S. military to its greatest size since WWII knowing full well that Russia would try and follow suite.

Actually the Soviets didn't try to follow suit and didn't follow up with SDI which is often touted as the "thing that brought the USSR down". Any other suggestions?

We with the west could more than afford the expenditure knowing that Russia could not. In the end his 8 year boost and aggressive policy's towards the C.C.C.P. bankrupt them into collapse and left the U.S. the only superpower in the world.

It only took 20 years of mismanagement to put us where we are today. I love politicians:damn:

Oh, the west could afford it? How? Does money grow in trees in the west? The money that is put into the military in the west is not put into some other place, for example road maintenance or building oil drilling equipment. The USSR came to an end because people like Gorbachov and Honecker decided that it had come to an end. That's about it.

That's why Gorbachov is very popular in Germany and George Bush sr. (or jr.) isn't.

And the US hasn't been a superpower in the world since the 50's.

Aramike

11-10-09, 05:15 AM

Actually the Soviets didn't try to follow suit and didn't follow up with SDI which is often touted as the "thing that brought the USSR down". Any other suggestions?LOL!!! Rather, LMAO!!!

REALLY? The Soviets did NOT follow suit?

It seems that it is a well documented fact that, under Reagan, the US increased military spending to 7% of GDP. In response, the Soviets increased military spending to ... wait for it ... 27% of their GDP.

Even the most conservative estimates of Soviet spending in response to Reagan's build up run to around 17% of their GDP.

http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union#Dissolution_of_the_US SR

Yeah, you're about as wrong as you can be on that point, pal. To the point of humor.

Oh, and as an aside, I've never met anyone who thought that SDI had anything to do with bringing down the USSR, and I'm wondering where you gleaned that line of reasoning from.Oh, the west could afford it? How? Does money grow in trees in the west? The money that is put into the military in the west is not put into some other place, for example road maintenance or building oil drilling equipment. The USSR came to an end because people like Gorbachov and Honecker decided that it had come to an end. That's about it. That entire comment is a joke on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.

Yes, the west could afford it. The western nations are still enjoying prosperity. The USSR isn't around. That's point one.

Point two is that the USSR collapsed because of Gorbechev's failed perestroika, which he felt was necessary in large part due to the economic ruin military spending had imposed upon the USSR. Ol' Gorbie didn't DECIDE to see the end of the USSR - he tried to reform the USSR, and that reform had UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES which led to its end.

Point three is something called "glasnost". That meant that he had decided upon a policy of enhanced government transparency. Ultimately, that meant the people began to realize how bad off they really were. Oh, and that impoverishment was largely due to incredible amounts of GDP being allocated to military spending.

Again, I wonder why it is that people of opposing political ideologies seem to ALWAYS reduce themselves to bending, twisting, and outright ignoring the facts whenever it pertains to the opposition being responsible for something good and impactful...

Freiwillige

11-10-09, 05:44 AM

The Reagan Doctrin

Kenneth S. Deffeyes argued in "Beyond Oil" that the Reagan Administration encouraged Saudi Arabia to lower the price of oil to the point where the Soviets could not make a profit from selling their oil, so that the USSR's hard currency reserves became depleted.

America's vast military build up caused Russian defense expenditures the escalate from 15 to 17% in the early eighties to above 30% towards the end.

Reagan also had other ideas to hurt the Soviet economy like reducing Europe's dependence on Russian natural Gas.

The Communists were running out of time but they could have staved off total defeat and re inflated their economic situation had it not been for Reagan's Doctrine.

OneToughHerring

11-10-09, 06:30 AM

Aramike,

the link you provided (the Wikipedia one doesn't really cover the issue) only claims that Reagan had some influence in it. Some. So the argument here is did Reagan have some influence in the collapse or none at all. Am I right here?

So, how do we go about proving that Reagan had even some influence? And also that the main decisions weren't made by people like Gorbachov, Honecker and other similar East-European leaders?

Also from the link you provided:

"Reagan’s most controversial defense initiative was SDI, the visionary project to create an anti-missile defense system that would remove the nuclear sword of Damocles from America’s homeland. Experts still disagree about the long-term feasibility of missile defense, some comparing it in substance to the Hollywood sci-fi blockbuster Star Wars. But the SDI’s main effect was to demonstrate U. S. technological superiority over the Soviet Union and its ability to expand the arms race into space. This helped convince the Soviet leadership under Gorbachev to throw in the towel and bid for a de-escalation of the arms race." So you never heard this claim before? Granted that the writer doesn't link the SDI directly with the collapse of the USSR but as a part of the process that led to the collapse.

Skybird

11-10-09, 06:45 AM

It is widely believed over here that America tend to exaggerate Reagan's role in it, and has a very different view of the meaning of it all as well, thinking of it in terms of a total victory of the capitalistic system that now took over the world, and so on. I tend to agree with that scepticism on the american view of it all. The Soviet union would have been mismanaged even without an arms race, and Gorbatchev certainly did not react to american pressure in general when allowing Germany off the hook. He has said repeatedly that the USSR had brought itself into a mess all by itself, the arms race just contibuting to the general mess. In fact, as I posted it, Washington even called him to think about sending troops to keep the situation in Eastgermany under control", initially. To be fair, Washington gave up it's resistence earlier than the French and British, already in January at the latest it was official policy to now support reunification, not only in lip-confessions, but in solid policy. the French took longer, and Thather needed to be fought against by her own staff until late spring the following year, for she was icy about Germany.

As a forestory to reunification, I think the blow delivered to the Soviet system by Polish Solidarnosc and a series of unforseeable, lucky events and misunderstandings leading thr Hungarians to make decisions that were not talked about with the Russians first, were much more important.

Reagan gets overestimated very massively in egneral, like Kennedy too. The merit of American policy in the cold war is that it made a clear statem,ent that an invasion into the West would necessarily lead to a war with america as well. But without the braveness of the Poles andhungarians and eastgermans, that alone would not have meant much to enforce reunification. In fact, German reunification was no goal in American, British, Russian, Eastgerman or French politics at all. the only nation on Earth that had clearly set it's sights on reunifiaction and explciitly said so, was Wetsgermany (which does not mean that the events of autumn 1989 had been forseen, planned or adminsitred by the Westgermans - we were overrolled by events as much like anyone else.

The triggering factor were the people marching in protest in Eastgerman streets, who were refusing to be intimidated by the tools of power anymore. the opening of the border, btw, was an accident. The spokesman of the Eastern regime, who in a press confernece even almost forgot to mention that Eastgermans had won their right to travel freely, and needed to be asked for it by a reporter, oversaw that their was a timeline saying that this was not valid until 0400 the next day. Instead he said that according to his knowledge this was valid from rifght the present moment on. Less than one hour later masses and masses of people stormed the wall. It went so quickly that even th eastgerman borderguards were paralysed and knew of nothing. There were some calm heads on duty that night, ordering the magazines of their servicemen's weapons to be collected and kept separate from weapons. and one officer'S private initiative it finally was that led to the first gate beeing opened uncontrolled - before people had to stand in line and got a stamp in their papers - and even the wrong stamp, which said that they had been expatriated.

you see, in those weeks there were so many individual, singular events, curious stories, which were not coordinated and ordered at all. It was a spectacle that ran by itself, almost, and really very undirected. I still see it as a miracle that nothing, really nothing serious happened. and it started weeks earlier, with flocks of Eastgermans fleeing via the green Hungarian border, and the German embassy that was besieged for long (one of the most famous unfinished sentences of history being spoken there, the scene today sends tears to my eyes).

goldorak

11-10-09, 08:05 AM

I've notice countless articles about the Fall of the Berlin Wall and there are even several posts about the Wall coming down way back in 89', But I have yet to see one single acknowledgment of the real reason the wall fell....Ronald Reagan.

If it were not for his brilliant economic war against "The Evil Empire" that forced the Soviets to bankrupt themselves that wall may have still been there to this very day!

Thank you Ronald for your part in making it possible for the wall to fall.

You sir, Rock!:rock:

No. The Wall fell because primarily Gorbachev took a hands-off approach.
If the Soviets wanted they could have intervened militarily as they had done in Hungary in '56 and later in '68 in Tchekoslovakia.
Americans have a very one-sided view on the events of '89.
The USA didn't beat the Soviets, the Soviet empire collapsed/imploded all by itself (and many historians had written about it years before the events came to pass, it was a matter of when not if; for instance Hélène Carrère d'Encausse wrote about it in 1979 !!! in a book titled "L'Empire éclaté : La révolte des nations en U.R.S.S" in english "Shattered Empire, The revolt of the soviet states") and it was a MIRACLE that violence didn't ensue at least in eastern europe. Because in the Balkans the collapse of communism and death of Tito well it opened a new whole can of worms and we are still dealing with the consequences of that bloody aftermath.

Tribesman

11-10-09, 08:07 AM

You want fun with Reaganomics, ask me about the Laffer Curve.
Forget that disaster which led to the current economic meltdown, look at the other problems he gave us with the geopolitics of the cold war.
Iran/Iraq yeah great move.
Afghanistan, wonderful I wonder how that worked out.
Pakistan, superb.
Saudi, well at least their good citizens ain't attacking NY at the moment.
South and Central America, hey look at some of the fruitcakes down there now as a backlash from the interventions.

Oberon

11-10-09, 08:31 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO-BLggwqRU

We were lucky with Gorbachev, very lucky, and lucky that he wasn't overthrown until after the fall of the wall and the ending of the Warsaw Pact. All of the players had their parts to play in the end of communism in Eastern Europe, it wasn't a single person that knocked down the wall, it was a combination of factors. Reagan, Maggie, Gorbachev, and the East German Freedom movement, and the sane thinking of key people at the wall on that fateful evening. :03:

AVGWarhawk

11-10-09, 09:17 AM

Onkel Neal

11-10-09, 09:32 AM

The Wall fell because the people of Germany (West AND East) had finally had enough of the Soviets. They were the ones who broke it down with hammers, chisels, pickaxes and their own hands; not Reagan. And they risked their lives in doing so, because it was unclear even then if the Russians would let them proceed or not. They could have been shot for what they did.

They only climbed on the wall after it was clear to them the Soviets under Gorbachov would not mind so much.

The real heroes of the Berlin Wall were the Polish shipyard workers of Solidarity, They did all the heavy lifting 10 years earlier.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/Strike_Gdansk_1980.jpg

August

11-10-09, 09:51 AM

Reagan:up: Whether anyone believes he was instrumental in getting the wall down or not, Reagan made Americans feel good about America. That is half the battle for any President. Reagan is and will be my most influentual President in my lifetime.

You hit the nail on the head here AVG. Unless one lived through that time it's difficult to understand the depth of the post Vietnam national funk.

I think Charlie Daniels said it best:

Well the eagle's been flying slow and the flag's been flying low
And a lot of people are saying that America's fixing to fall
But speaking just for me and some people from Tennessee
We got a thing or two to tell you all
This lady may have stumbled but she ain't never fell
And if the Russians don't believe that they can all go straight to hell
We're gonna put her feet back on the path of righteousness
And then God bless America again

And you never did think that it ever would happen again
In America, did you?
You never did think that we'd ever get together again
Well we damn sure fooled you
We're walking real proud and we're talking real loud again in America
You never did think that it ever would happen again

From the sound up in Long Island out to San Francisco Bay
And ev'ry thing that's in between them is our home
And we may have done a little bit of fighting amongst ourselves
But you outside people best leave us alone
Cause we'll all stick together and you can take that to the bank
That's the cowboys and the hippies and the rebels and the yanks
You just go and lay your head on a Pittsburgh Steeler fan
And I think you're gonna finally understand

And you never did think that it ever would happen again
In America, did you?
You never did think that we'd ever get together again
Well we damn sure fooled you
We're walking real proud and we're talking real loud again in America
You never did think that it ever would happen again

Skybird

11-10-09, 09:54 AM

They only climbed on the wall after it was clear to them the Soviets under Gorbachov would not mind so much.
Wrong in that the protests and mass escapes already had began several weeks earlier - when it was not clear at all to anybody that the Soviets would not start shooting and would not tell the VoPo and Volksarmee to shoot as well. Just days earlier people crossing the border in Hungary still felt to still run for their lives. Their are some very dramatic videos and the despair to be seen in the faces, and the tension, was real.

The real heroes of the Berlin Wall were the Polish shipyard workers of Solidarity, They did all the heavy lifting 10 years earlier.
Yes, they were not the first, but the first to be successful. The first were those rebellions that had been put down by Soviet tanks.

SteamWake

11-10-09, 10:11 AM

Skybird

11-10-09, 10:16 AM

goldorak

11-10-09, 10:26 AM

Typical responses right down the line...

You cannot deny the fact that Regan was instrumental in the bringing down of the wall.

Post all of your thoughts and cartoons to the contrary. History is histor no matter how much you wish to revise it.

No Reagan was not instrumental in bringing down the wall.
This is just happy wishing on your part. History tells another story.
Stealth Hunter is absolutely correct in his analysis. A country as big as the Soviet Union, rife with contradictions DOESN'T just collapse overnight.
The socio-economical, political and military problems what would ultimately lead to the implosion of the U.S.S.R spanned decades, and as I said any historian worth his salt would have forseen the collapse of the Soviet System years, even decades before it came to pass.
Reagan was not needed for that, thinking otherwise is a distortion of historical facts and indulging in self-importance.

SteamWake

11-10-09, 10:34 AM

Yea sure whatever

We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace), if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe), if you seek liberalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalization), come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall![9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_down_this_wall#cite_note-text-8)

Skybird

11-10-09, 10:36 AM

Such regimes do not collapse by themselves just automatically - as can be seen in North Korea. If there would not have been Gorbatchev (who ruled out the use of force from the beginning, and very principally so, he said) but somebody like let's say Cruchtchev II. - history today maybe would look different. For the Russians, he is a weak leader until today, the one who destroyed the Soviet Union. For us Germans he is the most decisive leader of all the national leaders who had a word in the events of 1989. That's why he is extremely popular over here. The views of him could not be more polarised than they are between Russians and Germans. When some years ago he brought his terminally ill wife to a hospital here in Müster, and later she nevertheless died, there was a strong emotional reaction throughout Germany as if they were two popular and beloved people of ours.

goldorak

11-10-09, 10:44 AM

Yea sure whatever

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan
We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall![9]

If you think so (that Gorbachev acted because of Reagan's rhetoric), I've got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. :DL
You may not want to accept it, but history will show just how inconsequential Reagan really was in bringing down communism in europe. :03:

AVGWarhawk

11-10-09, 10:58 AM

Skybird

11-10-09, 11:06 AM

Reagan as much directly contributed to the tearing down of the wall as Kennedy was a true Berliner.

Sorry, but he is massively overstimated, because he made his people feel good with his low sounding voice of his, you see. ;)

The wall was not teared down by either Reagan or Gobatchev or the Westgermans. It were the Eastgermans. Reagan did not much to help it and official Us policy did not want it, Gorbatchev did not want it happening, but refused to prevent it by force.

France did not want it. England did not want it. Westergermany did not expect it either (but always said that it was the goal of inner-German politics). The only ones who both wanted it and pushed for it, were the Eastgerman people. They did the deeds, they took the risks.

They just had simply enough of it, and history opened the window of opportunity by having put a relative "philantropist" in charge of the Kreml. What, regarding these events, cannot be said of Thatcher, Bush and Mitterand. If it would have gone according to them in Octobre, Novembre 1989, the Eastgermans would still live in tyranny.

goldorak

11-10-09, 11:11 AM

I do not believe anyone can belay that Reagen was at the very least part of the overall reason for the collapse. Was he the sole proprietor of the collapse? Certainly not. I do however think most here need to give more credit to Reagan that what has been offered thus far.

He was at the right place at the right time and he enjoyed the show.
If another guy were president of the United States at the time, the Soviet System would still have collapsed. It ran literally out of fuel with or without and kind of american ingerence, and the deck of cards came crumbling one on top of the other. The problems of the Soviet System didn't begin and end with the Reagan administration. From an historic point of view you have to see the big picture.
Reagan had a great rhetoric, and he was lucky to be president during the last days of communism and to witness its downfall.

ETR3(SS)

11-10-09, 11:18 AM

He was at the right place at the right time and he enjoyed the show.
If another guy were president of the United States at the time, the Soviet System would still have collapsed. It ran literally out of fuel with or without and kind of american ingerence, and the deck of cards came crumbling one on top of the other. The problems of the Soviet System didn't begin and end with the Reagan administration. From an historic point of view you have to see the big picture.
Reagan had a great rhetoric, and he was lucky to be president during the last days of communism and to witness its downfall.Actually George H. W. Bush was president when the wall came down, and when the Soviet Union collapsed.:03:

AVGWarhawk

11-10-09, 11:21 AM

Skybird and goldrak....you guys are nuts......as I stated, Reagan was certainly a part but not the sole reason for the wall coming down. Stop belittling what he did do at this critical time....

Some conservatives now contend that the Reagan-Gorbachev diplomacy was irrelevant to the unraveling of Soviet power. They credit his much more hard-line defense buildup and his Strategic Defense Initiative, hallmarks of his first term in office, with determining the outcome of the Cold War and forcing Gorbachev to capitulate.

Such contentions gloss over an important distinction. It was one thing for Gorbachev to decide that the Soviet Union could not compete with the United States in military terms. It was another for him to abandon the Cold War entirely, refusing to do anything to stop the changes that swept through Eastern Europe in 1989, culminating with the fall of the Berlin Wall in November.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20091110/OPINION04/911100317/1054/OPINION/How+significant+was+Reagan+s+challenge?

goldorak

11-10-09, 11:26 AM

Actually George H. W. Bush was president when the wall came down, and when the Soviet Union collapsed.:03:

I know, Reagan was not president at the time the wall collapsed, but he still witnessed the events.
And many people still think that it is because of his presidency that communism collapsed in europe.
So yes I don't think its an overstatement in saying he was at the right place at the right time. :03:

AVGWarhawk

11-10-09, 11:30 AM

I know, Reagan was not president at the time the wall collapsed, but he still witnessed the events.
And many people still think that it is because of his presidency that communism collapsed in europe.
So yes I don't think its an overstatement in saying he was at the right place at the right time. :03:

It is an overstatement no matter how you cut it. Read the article link I posted above. The collapse did not happen overnight as Skybird said. It was a culmination of MANY things INCLUSIVE of Reagan's actions/speeches that precipitated the wall coming down. How can anyone deny Reagan was not a part of it?

goldorak

11-10-09, 11:37 AM

It is an overstatement no matter how you cut it. Read the article link I posted above. The collapse did not happen overnight as Skybird said. It was a culmination of MANY things INCLUSIVE of Reagan's actions/speeches that precipitated the wall coming down. How can anyone deny Reagan was not a part of it?

I read the article and I agree to a certain extent with the conclusions.
I also said that the Soviet Union didn't collapse overnight, and that socio-economical, political and military problems that spanned decades were the root cause of its downfall.
I also never said Reagan didn't play a part in all of this, I just think that his part was pretty small in the grand scale of the events of '89.

Tribesman

11-10-09, 11:37 AM

History is histor no matter how much you wish to revise it.
That is true to a certain extent, yet it is those who are heavily elevating Reagans role in the events who are revising history.
The best summary so far for the resasonfor that revisionis is AVGs.....
Reagan made Americans feel good about America.
That feelgood factor has among some morphed into a revision of the reality of events to fit their rose tinted view and a blindness to the actual outcomes of his presidency.

How can anyone deny Reagan was not a part of it?
That is a little off target, the topic starts with a perfect example of the revisionism.
"the real reason the wall fell....Ronald Reagan."

SteamWake

11-10-09, 12:11 PM

Aramike

11-10-09, 12:17 PM

the link you provided (the Wikipedia one doesn't really cover the issue) only claims that Reagan had some influence in it. Some. So the argument here is did Reagan have some influence in the collapse or none at all. Am I right here? Actually, the argument you were proposing was that the Soviets did NOT try to follow suit with Reagan's defense spending. Which was wrong.

And that spending directly led to many of the policies which ultimately collapsed the USSR.

Regarding SDI, my point still stands.

AVGWarhawk

11-10-09, 12:22 PM

I read the article and I agree to a certain extent with the conclusions.
I also said that the Soviet Union didn't collapse overnight, and that socio-economical, political and military problems that spanned decades were the root cause of its downfall.
I also never said Reagan didn't play a part in all of this, I just think that his part was pretty small in the grand scale of the events of '89.

However small...still a part:up: I'm just getting the feeling here some believe Reagan was not a part however small. Lets look at it like a carburetor, without the mixture needle (a very very small part) the carburetor will not work.

Onkel Neal

11-10-09, 12:24 PM

AVGWarhawk

11-10-09, 12:29 PM

Dont waste your breath. Their minds are made up and thats all there is to it.

Yes and no, completely crossing any sentence out with Reagan noted in it concerning the collapse would be a great injustice not only to Reagan but the entire incident as a whole. For those such as Skybird who relish and bask in the glow of obtaining factual evidence, I'm surprised at his response that Reagan was nothing more that a guy at the podium saying a few things.

AVGWarhawk

11-10-09, 12:35 PM

That is true to a certain extent, yet it is those who are heavily elevating Reagans role in the events who are revising history.
The best summary so far for the resasonfor that revisionis is AVGs.....

That feelgood factor has among some morphed into a revision of the reality of events to fit their rose tinted view and a blindness to the actual outcomes of his presidency.

That is a little off target, the topic starts with a perfect example of the revisionism.
"the real reason the wall fell....Ronald Reagan."

To which a few harped in that Reagan was nothing short of a stuffed shirt. Seems there is revisionism on both fronts but who am I to judge? :shifty:

Freiwillige

11-10-09, 12:57 PM

That is true to a certain extent, yet it is those who are heavily elevating Reagans role in the events who are revising history.
The best summary so far for the resasonfor that revisionis is AVGs.....

That feelgood factor has among some morphed into a revision of the reality of events to fit their rose tinted view and a blindness to the actual outcomes of his presidency.

That is a little off target, the topic starts with a perfect example of the revisionism.
"the real reason the wall fell....Ronald Reagan."

Actually the last sentence in the first post is as follows.
"Thank you Ronald for your part in making it possible for the wall to fall."

My initial argument was not to give the man full credit but to at least have him and his policy's acknowledged in having an effect on the events. The biggest revisionists seem to be in the media, If it doesn't fit their leftest spin it didn't happen.

Skybird

11-10-09, 01:52 PM

Dont waste your breath. Their minds are made up and thats all there is to it.
Same could be said about your opinion claiming more credits for Reagan than he deserves. ;) but you only do so under explicit ignoration of several facts that had been mentioned in this thread already.

You just claim more merit for America, or more precisely: a different quality of merits, than legitimately is yours, by all reason.

SteamWake

11-10-09, 02:28 PM

Same could be said about your opinion claiming more credits for Reagan than he deserves. ;) but you only do so under explicit ignoration of several facts that had been mentioned in this thread already.

You just claim more merit for America, or more precisely: a different quality of merits, than legitimately is yours, by all reason.

Never claimed that Regan deserved all the credit but rather that trying to say he had no influence is a misnomer.

But there I go ignoring my own advice.

Yall enjoy your debate now ;)

PeriscopeDepth

11-10-09, 03:13 PM

So yes I don't think its an overstatement in saying he was at the right place at the right time. :03:
I am no conservative or Reagan lover, but he was one of the great American Presidents. And it was by more than just being at the right place at the right time, he was the right man for the time. Reagan saw the end was near for the USSR, and did everything he could to hasten it (mainly rhetoric and military spending/intimidation). I don't know if somebody else would have been so aggressive... he played the game well.

PD

Aramike

11-10-09, 04:04 PM

No one can really argue that Reagan was solely responsible for the fall of the USSR. Frankly, the Soviet Union would have fallen regardless of Reagan's policies. It's economic system was, by and large, incompatible with the larger, more effective economies seen in the West. In other words, whatever they spent was well and truly gone. Due to capitalistic systems in place in the West, much of the money that was spent there was recycled and funnelled into other industries.

So when the USSR began spending 20+% of its GDP on defense, they were actually losing roughly a fifth of their total resources. However, when the US spent FAR LESS of its GDP on its military, the resources being tied up were even a smaller percentage, as much of that money went towards the creation or securing of further resources themselves.

In other words, the growth of the US military directly led to growth in the US economy. On the other hand, the growth in the USSR military led to depressing the Soviet economy.

Money was being SPENT in the USSR. Money was being CIRCULATED in the United States.

Alas, capitalism bites another one in the ass.

Ultimately, Reagan understood this very simple concept - capitalism can spend (to an extent) and sustain growth. Socialism cannot. Its markets reflects what the STATE thinks a commodity's value is - not what the value ACTUALLY is.

Therefore, we merely had to spend them into oblivion.

Like I said, however - I don't believe that the USSR would have survived without Reagan. But I do believe that Reagan hastened its death considerably.

sergbuto

11-10-09, 05:04 PM

Aramike

11-10-09, 05:37 PM

I agree 100% with Stealth Hunter. It was people of Eastern Germany who brought down the wall as well as it was people of Russia who brought the communist regime down. I was there I know what I am talking about. People actually laugh when they hear Americans saying the US won the Cold War. There was no Americans around when people were standing against the tanks. Some of those people I know personally, they do not even like Reagan.First off, just because one is in the vicinity of an event occuring, it in no way means that person knows what they are talking about.

Secondly, you're clearly taking the very short-sighted view. Did you bother to consider what actions brought to bear the economic pressures that caused the people in Eastern Germany and the USSR to be susceptible to this type of revolution? Sure, those people did the legwork - legwork that wouldn't have been possible had the USSR not spent itself into oblivion.

And finally, yes - the West (the US specifically) won the Cold War. It's over, and of its two main participants, the Cold War claimed the existance of one, while the other remains standing tall.

That would be victory, friend.

Stealth Hunter

11-10-09, 06:05 PM

First off, just because one is in the vicinity of an event occuring, it in no way means that person knows what they are talking about.

Though the same can be said for a person who is not in the vicinity of an event occurring. Indeed moreso.

Secondly, you're clearly taking the very short-sighted view. Did you bother to consider what actions brought to bear the economic pressures that caused the people in Eastern Germany and the USSR to be susceptible to this type of revolution? Sure, those people did the legwork - legwork that wouldn't have been possible had the USSR not spent itself into oblivion.

The thing that killed the Russians in the end was indeed tied into the economic side of things, but not on the part of the United States. Or the Western World for that matter. The USSR killed itself in the end. Blundering military escapades in the Middle East, production and job problems, central planning issues, and a general desire among the people to switch over to a more Democratic Republican form of government, combined with the fact that it was just too massive to manage without incurring serious problems from present problems. Again, it was like the Roman Empire: too big, too many differences among the people in terms of politics, too many problems with trade, finances, and the economy, and too much money with nothing to do with it (or at least implement it effectively).

And finally, yes - the West (the US specifically) won the Cold War. It's over, and of its two main participants, the Cold War claimed the existance of one, while the other remains standing tall.

What are you talking about? The Cold War didn't just end willy-nilly when Communist Russia died. You forget that it was about Communism as a whole, containing it and eradicating it from the face of the Earth. And that was an appalling failure on the part of the United States (and West in general). Cuba's still Communist, China is now a major superpower (bigger than us in terms of population, military strength, and production to name a few things off a long list), Vietnam didn't change any after the United States pulled out of the war (other than becoming a key player in the list of Communist states), and North Korea isn't getting along too well right now with South Korea.

Tall... lol. Yet people all over (here alone) are chiming in that the Health Care Reform bill will bring about the death of the United States as we know it; at least they're quick to remember and return to reality that our economy is in shambles, we're borrowing money from China, our job situation (while it has improved) is still pitiful, and we're still fighting (and losing) a war in the Middle East on two fronts. Seems rather foolishly bold to say "tall".

That would be victory, friend.

I wonder if the Chinese were reading this how they'd be reacting right now. Probably laughing their asses off. Can't blame them.:haha:

Aramike

11-10-09, 06:21 PM

Though the same can be said for a person who is not in the vicinity of an event occurring. Indeed moreso.Indeed, the same could be said.

Not moreso. Not less so.The thing that killed the Russians in the end was indeed tied into the economic side of things, but not on the part of the United States. Or the Western World for that matter. The USSR killed itself in the end. Blundering military escapades in the Middle East, production and job problems, central planning issues, and a general desire among the people to switch over to a more Democratic Republican form of government, combined with the fact that it was just too massive to manage without incurring serious problems from present problems. Again, it was like the Roman Empire: too big, too many differences among the people in terms of politics, too many problems with trade, finances, and the economy, and too much money with nothing to do with it (or at least implement it effectively).I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, there are some points to be made. First, the central committee hardly ever cared about the will of the people regarding anything. However, especially following Chernobyl, there was somewhat of a cry for glasnost, as additional transparency would likely have saved lives in that event.

Next, the Soviet adventures in the middle east were indeed costly, made costlier by the fact that they were proxy wars with the United States.

Finally - and I wonder why you gloss over this - the spending of roughly a quarter of their GDP for military build-up in response to Reagan led them into the economic abyss. Under previous administrations they got off rather easily in comparison, what with repeated and sustained calls for detente. Reagan abandoned that approach and literally FORCED them into reactionary spending through a US build-up and a shift in American policy and rhetoric.What are you talking about? The Cold War didn't just end willy-nilly when Communist Russia died. You forget that it was about Communism as a whole, containing it and eradicating it from the face of the Earth. And that was an appalling failure on the part of the United States (and West in general). Cuba's still Communist, China is now a major superpower (bigger than us in terms of population, military strength, and production to name a few things off a long list), Vietnam didn't change any after the United States pulled out of the war (other than becoming a key player in the list of Communist states), and North Korea isn't getting along too well right now with South Korea.Nice try at "gotcha".

Except that, historically speaking the Cold War is considered to have ended in 1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

And your description of the Cold War is, well, uninformed at best.

Here's a more apt one, from the above link: The Cold War (1945–1991) was the continuing state of political conflict, military tension, and economic competition existing after World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) (1939–1945), primarily between the USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) and its satellite states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_states), and the powers of the Western world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world), including the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). Note the date beside "Cold War".Tall... lol. Yet people all over (here alone) are chiming in that the Health Care Reform bill will bring about the death of the United States as we know it; at least they're quick to remember and return to reality that our economy is in shambles, we're borrowing money from China, our job situation (while it has improved) is still pitiful, and we're still fighting (and losing) a war in the Middle East on two fronts. Seems rather foolishly bold to say "tall".10% unemployment is not hot, but its certainly not an economy in shambles.

But standing tall means far more than economic inconvieniences. Like it or not, the US is a nation quite capable of imposing its will world wide. That is standing tall.I wonder if the Chinese were reading this how they'd be reacting right now. Probably laughing their asses off. Can't blame them.:haha: Actually, I think they'd be laughing, along with me, at your complete misunderstanding at the historical period the phrase "Cold War" refers to.

The Chinese were bit players during the Cold War, despite their communist regime. That's because the Cold War wasn't about communism - it was about communist expansion, primarily westward.

OneToughHerring

11-10-09, 06:34 PM

First off, just because one is in the vicinity of an event occuring, it in no way means that person knows what they are talking about.

Being far away doesn't mean that person knows what they are talking about either. Actually less so. And that's the whole point.

Secondly, you're clearly taking the very short-sighted view. Did you bother to consider what actions brought to bear the economic pressures that caused the people in Eastern Germany and the USSR to be susceptible to this type of revolution? Sure, those people did the legwork - legwork that wouldn't have been possible had the USSR not spent itself into oblivion.How about giving some actual links to facts that "the USSR had spent itself to oblivion". Are you saying they owed money to someone? Who? How much?

And finally, yes - the West (the US specifically) won the Cold War. It's over, and of its two main participants, the Cold War claimed the existance of one, while the other remains standing tall.

That would be victory, friend.Or in fact the Russians won because there was no third world war against them, just like there was two in the earlier half of the 20th century. Of which both were won by the Russian people. And they actually had to do some fighting on their own soil, for the survival of their people. Not just bombing Japanese and German civilians from high in the air.

longam

11-10-09, 06:40 PM

Pink Floyd was the real reason! :O:

AVGWarhawk

11-10-09, 06:53 PM

Pink Floyd was the real reason! :O:

I thought there was a covert mission by Floyd. So those pigs flying really meant something:hmmm:

SteamWake

11-10-09, 07:05 PM

Pink Floyd was the real reason! :O:

All in all its just another brick in the wall....

Go on do it agin.

How can you have any puddng if you dont eat your meat ;)

sergbuto

11-10-09, 07:06 PM

First off, just because one is in the vicinity of an event occuring, it in no way means that person knows what they are talking about.

You mean, by not being at the actual event but by listening to the Fox news, one would get a better idea on what's going on :o

Secondly, you're clearly taking the very short-sighted view. Did you bother to consider what actions brought to bear the economic pressures that caused the people in Eastern Germany and the USSR to be susceptible to this type of revolution? Sure, those people did the legwork - legwork that wouldn't have been possible had the USSR not spent itself into oblivion.

Economic pressures on population as being the main reason for the revolution in the USSR is to large extent a myth cultivated by US and western media. In seventies despite high oil prices, those economic pressures on the population were much worse compared to eighties (again speaking from experience of being there, not from listening to the media).

Stealth Hunter offered quite a view by comparing the USSR destruction with that of the Roman empire but I do not think that is it.

The starting and important point here is Gorbachev. He was a politician of new generation and formation. Naturally, he was and actually is a strong communism supporter but long before getting into power he thought that the actual system is wrong. He wanted to revise the system but underestimated the fact that Russia as whole its history says is a country of extremes. Instead, people started to push hard for having all the changes immediately which broke the whole thing.

CaptainHaplo

11-10-09, 08:31 PM

Man alive - everything from the "cold war" was about defeating communism of any kind, and not just staring down a communist entity that had a deep seated desire to unite Western Europe, and would have been able to, had it not been for the US and its "M.A.D." strategy - to a claim that America had nothing to do with the fall the berlin wall, or of the soviet union.

That's like saying the Germanic Barbarians had nothing to do with Rome falling.

Now, I am going to give a rather balanced view. The USSR was rotten inside, ripe with corruption and repressed strife. It was led by a bold reformer who believed in the IDEALS of communism, and was driven to push the system to fulfill those ideals.

Lets face facts here - Communism is the PERFECT "equality" system - in theory. However, it is never attainable because it relies on the absence of base traits that exist in every man. Mikhail failed to understand that there was this fatal flaw in the system. He thought that by clearing out the corruption that could be found, by making the government transparent to the people, they would support the system. Instead, they saw how the system was a total failure. They were thus 'ripe' for something different.

Reagan offered that. He repeatedly and publicly challenged the Soviet leadership with the visible prosperity of the US, and endorsed a free society with free markets as the way the people of the Soviet Republic could attain that prosperity. A people can be looking for something different, but in Reagan's work they saw what they were looking for, and demanded that their government provide it. This was something the Soviet leadership had not prepared for. Gorbachev still thought the system could be saved, if only it could be purged into a pure system. The Party leaders - in whom much of the corruption was due to, resisted because it was a threat to their power. Mikhail was caught between 3 opposing forces, and he realized that his own survival, both politically and likely physically, rested in creating an ally out of one of them. He turned to the only one that had any long term record of success - and that was the US. Had he tried to appease the hardliners, the financial situation would have simply worsened, with no salvation possible until the system completely crumbled under its own weight. This would have required him go against the people, which would have Tianimen look like a girl scout picnic. Second option - give the people what they want, was to destroy the system he believed in so much. The last option, open the government, provide a tool for prosperity (aka a free market) in the hopes that it could stabilize the situation and then allow for a resurgence of communal thought, was the only option he could see as even plausible. With the US as a "model" and a thaw in the cold war, he could claim a "kinship" of spirit with Reagan, and later Bush, to placate the people into believing he was doing all he could to change the system. It was simply the only way he could stay in power.

Remember - the Soviet premiership at that time was nowhere near as powerful as it had been just decades ago. Yuri Andropov changed everything when it came to that equation.

It was not JUST Ronald Reagan. It was not JUST Mikhail Gorbochev. It was NOT just the economic and political pressures from outside the USSR. It was not JUST the rotten core of the Soviet Union.

It was the convergence of these leaders, at that time, with those factors, that created the outcome of the wall falling, and the later breakup of the Soviet "republic".

The foundations for the wall coming down were laid in the early 1980's, by not one single leader or one single factor. To try and minimize the impact each of the leaders and each country had on the equation is to either seriously misunderstand history, or is an attempt to score a political point at the cost of intellectual honesty.

Aramike

11-11-09, 12:27 AM

You mean, by not being at the actual event but by listening to the Fox news, one would get a better idea on what's going on :oOh wait, that's right - if one disagrees with a mindless drone liberal they must have gotten their information from Fox News.

Except I'm not conservative, and my sources are historical in nature, and based upon many first-hand perspectives.Economic pressures on population as being the main reason for the revolution in the USSR is to large extent a myth cultivated by US and western media. In seventies despite high oil prices, those economic pressures on the population were much worse compared to eighties (again speaking from experience of being there, not from listening to the media). Wow, you're really off in La-La Land, aren't you?

Do you KNOW what GDP is? Do you KNOW how the USSR's percentage of GDP increased to FACTUALLY impossible levels in response to US increases?

These are facts, and obviously discussing what really happened with you is pointless due to the fact that you clearly choose to ignore them because they don't support the rosey picture of "All-Hail Eastern Europeans" that you've manufactured for yourself.

Certain things certainly happened, and while I have stated repeatedly that I do NOT believe that Reagan CAUSED the downfall of the USSR, he certainly hastened it.

But let's not let reality get in the way...

Aramike

11-11-09, 12:39 AM

Being far away doesn't mean that person knows what they are talking about either. Actually less so. And that's the whole point.Wow, is there an echo in the room?

StealthHunter said something just as silly.

And my response was that where one is distance-wise in relation to an event in no ways qualifies them as any sort of authority on that event itself. No moreso, not less so.

That's akin to saying that because there was a rock concert in your town, you know more about it than anyone else, despite not attending it, not reading reviews, despite not knowing anyone truly involved.

Being near or far from an event means absolutely nothing. How about giving some actual links to facts that "the USSR had spent itself to oblivion". Are you saying they owed money to someone? Who? How much?I've already given plenty of links to that effect.

Plus, this is common knowledge. Just Google, say, "USSR economics circa 1985". Or better, "USSR economy collapse".

Obviously you're dodging accountability for your statement that the USSR did not respond to US defense spending under Reagan, which is patently false. Either you're out-and-out lying, or don't know what you're talking about. There's no middle ground.

And one would have to be a total dolt to think that economic collapse has to do solely with debt, or that debt really even matters terribly. How about the exhaustion of the resources which would allow one to secure such debt?

Owing money never killed any nation. Being unable to SECURE LOANS is what destroys economies.

Again, I find myself curious as to why you're attempting to debate something you CLEARLY understand so little about ... you're attempt at ruining the economic feasibility argument is, well, extraordinarily laughable. Any first year economics student could illustrate that argument's flaws.

In fact, I've already had one take an attempt. She still hasn't stopped laughing.Or in fact the Russians won because there was no third world war against them, just like there was two in the earlier half of the 20th century. Of which both were won by the Russian people. And they actually had to do some fighting on their own soil, for the survival of their people. Not just bombing Japanese and German civilians from high in the air. :har::har::har::har::har::har::har::haha::haha::ha ha::haha:

OneToughHerring

11-11-09, 03:49 AM

Wow, is there an echo in the room?

StealthHunter said something just as silly.

And my response was that where one is distance-wise in relation to an event in no ways qualifies them as any sort of authority on that event itself. No moreso, not less so.

Meaning I know as much as you know about things in Wisconsin and you know as much as I know about things in Finland. :doh:

Plus, this is common knowledge. Just Google, say, "USSR economics circa 1985". Or better, "USSR economy collapse".

So you can't show any links. Figures.

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::haha::haha::ha ha::haha:

That's the attitude US has to killing civilians. That's why you're the no. 1 hated country in the world.

sergbuto

11-11-09, 04:44 AM

It was not JUST Ronald Reagan. It was not JUST Mikhail Gorbochev. It was NOT just the economic and political pressures from outside the USSR. It was not JUST the rotten core of the Soviet Union.

It was the convergence of these leaders, at that time, with those factors, that created the outcome of the wall falling, and the later breakup of the Soviet "republic".

The foundations for the wall coming down were laid in the early 1980's, by not one single leader or one single factor.

Talking about the importance of a single factor, you know there was somewhat similar situation when Khrushchev came in power. USSR was doing much worse than US in terms of economic and military powers and Stalin's supporters were at key posts in the state. Khrushchev started the reforms but quickly stopped them just in responce to hostile economic and political pressures from outside the USSR.

Onkel Neal

11-11-09, 09:33 AM

Economic pressures on population as being the main reason for the revolution in the USSR is to large extent a myth cultivated by US and western media. In seventies despite high oil prices, those economic pressures on the population were much worse compared to eighties (again speaking from experience of being there, not from listening to the media).

The starting and important point here is Gorbachev. He was a politician of new generation and formation. Naturally, he was and actually is a strong communism supporter but long before getting into power he thought that the actual system is wrong. He wanted to revise the system but underestimated the fact that Russia as whole its history says is a country of extremes. Instead, people started to push hard for having all the changes immediately which broke the whole thing.

I disagree. I don't watch Fox News at all, for one. I did read two of Gorbachev's books, and yes, he was a strong communism supporter, and no one was more surprised than he when the reforms (injections of capitalism and liberty) he injected into the Soviet system brought the whole thing down. It may sound like an oversimplification, but in the long run, the only way a govt can keep a communistic system in place is by force. People eventually will reject it. I visited Russia 4 times, including the period when Yeltsin sent in the tanks in Oct 1993, The people there I met were sick to death of being told how to live and having a communist paradise that consisted of repression and chronic economic disaster. That was no myth.

What are you talking about? The Cold War didn't just end willy-nilly when Communist Russia died. You forget that it was about Communism as a whole, containing it and eradicating it from the face of the Earth. And that was an appalling failure on the part of the United States (and West in general). Cuba's still Communist, China is now a major superpower (bigger than us in terms of population, military strength, and production to name a few things off a long list), Vietnam didn't change any after the United States pulled out of the war (other than becoming a key player in the list of Communist states), and North Korea isn't getting along too well right now with South Korea.

I wonder if the Chinese were reading this how they'd be reacting right now. Probably laughing their asses off. Can't blame them.:haha:

The Chinese have been moving farther and farther from Mao and their Communist princicples for 30 years. what are you talking about? They may still be a one-party state, but it is Communist in name only.

Oberon

11-11-09, 09:33 AM

I think also the Sino-Soviet split helped as well, forcing the USSR to thaw relations with the US to prevent an anti-Soviet US/China alliance.
I mean, the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union began with Khrushchev's reforms in my opinion, but it was a combination of factors, not just one single person or event, which led to the end of communism in Europe. Like the dominos falling in Berlin the other day ;)

ETR3(SS)

11-11-09, 12:04 PM

That's the attitude US has to killing civilians. That's why you're the no. 1 hated country in the world.You've got a lot of balls to say something like that, and on this day of all days! You had better have one damn good explanation of that comment.:nope:

Onkel Neal

11-11-09, 12:30 PM

You've got a lot of balls to say something like that, and on this day of all days! You had better have one damn good explanation of that comment.:nope:

Ha, I think that statement says a lot more about him than it does the US ;)

AVGWarhawk

11-11-09, 12:39 PM

That's the attitude US has to killing civilians. That's why you're the no. 1 hated country in the world.

At least until someone needs something.....then we are all buddy buddy :shifty:

Aramike

11-11-09, 02:58 PM

So you can't show any links. Figures. Considering that, as I've stated, I've ALREADY posted some links, why should I have to?

But, alas, considering that you can't do even the most rudimentary research:

http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-economic-growth
http://www.indopedia.org/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union.html

There's plenty more where that came from, but I'm not going to sit here and post the same things over and over while you plug your ears and scream "LALALALALALALALA".

Aramike

11-11-09, 02:59 PM

Ha, I think that statement says a lot more about him than it does the US ;)Indeed.

I wonder if being that ignorant of reality comes naturally or takes practice...

August

11-11-09, 03:30 PM

Indeed.

I wonder if being that ignorant of reality comes naturally or takes practice...

You guys don't recognize your classic internet troll? My advice:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cnUe2D6K76g/RpfB5U7pXPI/AAAAAAAAAYU/IvZXVFSX1Xk/s400/trolls.jpg

Yeah I know, I should follow my own advice more often!

nikimcbee

11-11-09, 04:49 PM

The Chinese have been moving farther and farther from Mao and their Communist princicples for 30 years. what are you talking about? They may still be a one-party state, but it is Communist in name only.

Good observation:yeah: There was a great Frontline show a couple of years ago about China, and that was something that I totally noticed. The modernized half of China (the eastern half with modernized industry) is laissez faire with gov't intervention. As long as business doesn't make the gov't look bad, they leave them alone.
Then there's the Western half of China, they are still following communism pretty closely, and they are back ass backwards. They have horrible healthcare:hmmm: (the gov't controlled healthcare btw) a horrible standard of living, etc. This, btw, is a major challenge for the Chinese gov't to keep the peasants on the their half of the country producing food for the rest of the country. The show was pretty interesting.

Aramike

11-11-09, 05:25 PM

You guys don't recognize your classic internet troll? My advice:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cnUe2D6K76g/RpfB5U7pXPI/AAAAAAAAAYU/IvZXVFSX1Xk/s400/trolls.jpg

Yeah I know, I should follow my own advice more often! Very true. I just can't help myself sometimes, its WAY too easy!

OneToughHerring

11-11-09, 06:01 PM

Considering that, as I've stated, I've ALREADY posted some links, why should I have to?

But, alas, considering that you can't do even the most rudimentary research:

http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-economic-growth
http://www.indopedia.org/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union.html

There's plenty more where that came from, but I'm not going to sit here and post the same things over and over while you plug your ears and scream "LALALALALALALALA".

Your links are contradicting each other. The second link doesn't even mention economy but talks at lenght about the Glasnost and Perestroika which were part of Gorby's politics. The first one talks about a lot of reasons but doesn't pin it on any specific one reason. So...which link should I believe in?

Looking at the statistics from the Answers.com link it's also interesting that the population of USSR grew throughout it's existence, despite the purges etc. with the only dip being during WW 2. Not the case for present day capitalist Russia where population and average lifespan especially for men has taken a steep dive.