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

goldorak · 11-10-09, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

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

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.

AVGWarhawk · 11-10-09, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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.

AVGWarhawk · 11-10-09, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

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

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.

PeriscopeDepth · 11-10-09, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

So yes I don't think its an overstatement in saying he was at the right place at the right time.

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.

11-10-09, 04:04 PM	#6
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	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.