Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter
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.