I May Not Be Terribly Bright, But How, Exactly ...

[Andrew D]

did Ronald Reagan "win the Cold War"?

What, exactly, did he do?

And how, exactly, did whatever he did "win the Cold War"?

Generalities will not suffice. Platitudes will not suffice. Empty slogans will not suffice. Pretty speeches will not suffice.

What, exactly, did he do? And how, exactly, did whatever he did "win the Cold War"?

[Joe Guy]

Very simple.

He was the President of the U.S. when the Soviet Union collapsed.

It was good timing.

[Lord Jim]

I May Not Be Terribly Bright

Apparently not, if you can't recall that I already went over this in detail numerous times at the CSB. If you think I'm going to either waste my time by going through it all again for the satisfaction of a pathological Reagan hater, or that I'm going to be bullied into no longer asserting the point by you trolling me about it, (as I see you've already done in another thread) you've got another think coming.

[Andrew D]

What I recall, Lord Jim -- and quite clearly, because it was so striking -- is your utter inability to answer my question at the CSB.

And you refuse to answer it now.

Instead, you claim to have answered my question at the CSB. So prove it.

And before you claim that you cannot prove it, because you cannot access the CSB archives, remember your own words:

In other words, unless you are certain that it was publicly posted and can therefore produce the post where it was made public, don't post it.

If you think it might have been posted on the CSB, but can't produce it because you can't access the CSB archives, don't post it.

The truth of the matter is that you are unwilling to answer my question, because you have no answer to my question.

[Lord Jim]

is your utter inability to answer my question at the CSB.

I can't be responsible for your faulty and/or delusional recollections...

I went over it in great detail, referencing memos and quotes that demonstrated the strategy of his Presidency from the very outset, showing that the strategy all along was first to restore our defense position and then negociate from strength; and the way that everything from the deployment of the Pershing II to SDI was calculated to make clear to the Soviets that there was no way they were going to be able to out compete us militarily, and that all they could accomplish by trying would be to further wreck their economy, that "containment" was replaced with "roll back" etc, etc, etc....

It's a complete waste of bandwidth and the time I have available to spend here, to bandy about with this again with someone who is quite obviously pathological on the subject of Ronald Reagan. No amount of proof would be sufficient for someone who's position proceeds from a pathology anyway.

Instead of trolling me about this, why don't you go back to explaining why everyone should be allowed to go everywhere butt naked, or why we should sink the ships on any country that won't pay us tribute, or some of your other unique and novel ideas?

Good night.

[Andrew D]

I would rather Lord Jim address the question rather than evade it. (I also would rather that he take counsel from his own advice to others, but I recognize the general human tendency, to which I am also susceptible, to be blind to the applicability to oneself of what one says that others ought to do.)

It is hard to see what points Lord Jim is actually trying to make. But the core of his argument is clearly military policy: "restore our defense position," "deployment of the Pershing II," "'containment' was replaced with 'roll back,'" etc.

That is summed up in "there was no way they were going to be able to out compete us militarily, and that all they could accomplish by trying would be to further wreck their economy". That is a common claim: The Reagan-era military buildup brought about the economic collapse of the USSR.

Notice the key word in the summation: "to further wreck their economy". That is an acknowledgement that the USSR's economy was already wrecked, so the Reagan-era buildup could only "further" wreck it.

That point bears repeating: The Soviet Union was already collapsing.

So the real question is how much difference Reagan's military-buildup policy -- a policy which ballooned the national debt, a fact which Reaganites hate to acknowledge -- made in the ultimate outcome. It is simply not serious to suggest that without Reagan, the Soviet Union would not have collapsed.

The answer to that question is disputed: Some historians conclude that the Reagan-era policies substantially accelerated the Soviet Union's collapse; other historians conclude that the Reagan-era policies only trivially accelerated the Soviet Union's collapse.

The core of the matter is that the Reagan-era policies did not cause the Soviet Union's collapse. Maybe they hastened it; maybe they did not.

The claim that Reagan "won the Cold War" is tantamount to the claim that the person who sneezed when a house of cards was already falling "brought down" that house of cards.

[rubato]

George Will suggested the idea that Reagan's "Star Wars" defense system had caused the Russians to spend themselves into bankruptcy trying to keep up with the arms race.

That theory was quickly and conclusively disproven by the fact that the Russians had not changed their defense spending at all. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that all of Reagan's increased spending was wasteful and harmful to us and brought no benefit.

They keep trying to cobble together ever-more elaborate ways of rescuing a dead story.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

The core of the matter is that the Reagan-era policies did not cause the Soviet Union's collapse. Maybe they hastened it; maybe they did not.

It's a non answerable question. Reagan was the President when the USSR collapsed. Did he hasten it, did he not, only not having Reagan as president, then having Reagan as president can answer that question. Every decision has a number of different consequences. The only thing that we know is that the decisions of Reagan at the time led to the demise, at the time, of the USSR. Had anyone else been president or if Reagan had a different policy, it is all speculation. IT was the right person at the right time. And many times, that is what forces the conclusion.

Contemplating the origin of naval lint will lead to a much more determinent conclusion.

[Crackpot]

The shirt you're wearing

[oldr_n_wsr]

The shirt you're wearing

Flannel
I like flannel.
I get bellybutton lint, but I think it's more from the T-Shirt I wear under the flannel shirt. and it's usually white. And we save it for making scarfs

[dgs49]

It is a bit funny that with all of the policy geniuses contributing here, none of you seem to be aware that it was long after Ronaldus Maximus left office that the USSR collapsed. It was formally dissolved on 26 December 1991. In fact, it was apparently in good condition when RR left office.

Further, the "common wisdom" is that after Carter did his best to eviscerate the U.S. military, Reagan showed that we could have guns AND butter, and that we would position ourselves militarily so that we could no longer be bullied by the current Head Commie. The USSR continued feeding its superfluous military juggernaut as well as a massive state apparatus, and found that they then lacked the resources to maintain its tight control on the outlying republics. Thus, the empire was dead.

The program derogatively referred to as "Star Wars," while possibly fatuous, was simply a shining example of "our" ability to devote resources the Russkies could only dream of in the campaign to make ourselves secure from their perpetual threats.

[Rick]

One of the greatest symbols of the "Cold war" was the Berlin Wall, Reagan told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" he complied, we won...

[oldr_n_wsr]

And I have a piece of it.

[Econoline]

Exactly WHO actually tore down the Berlin Wall, again?????








Funny, I don't see Mikhail Gorbachev (or Ronald Reagan either, for that matter) in any of those photos.

What bothers me so much about giving Reagan all the credit for "ending the Cold War" is that it diminishes the contributions of countless brave and determined people over the course of more than four decades, without whom Reagan's small but significant contribution would have been worthless.

BTW, an acquaintance of mine was in Berlin during the demolition of the Wall, and he brought me a small chunk of it. I put it on our mantle, but unfortunately, all it looked like was a chunk of broken concrete, and at some point over the years I lost it...

[Crackpot]

giveit back to Econo oldr

[MajGenl.Meade]

and at some point over the years I lost it

You just have to respect that kind of self-awareness

[Gob]

And I have a piece of it.

I was in Berlin when they were knocking it down, I had a bit of it, may still have it somewhere.

[oldr_n_wsr]

My cousins who lived nearby got a few pieces and sent me one. I was at the wall in 1975 went into Berlin and looked across at the "grey" (for lack of a better term) and there were reletives of ours who were still on that side. When it fell, I rooted for my family who were on that side. They stayed in their houses/jpbs over there but have a much better life now. My piece of concrete is in a lucite box. It is worth nothing to the world but worth more money than one can give to me.

[Scooter]

Reagan showed that we could have guns AND butter

At the cost of astronomical deficits, considering they were incurred in a time of great prosperity, that took ten years after he left office to eliminate.

[Rick]

We now have an operational shipboard laser...