"How Reagan Won the Cold War" Topic

It's a fact that RR was commander-in-chief from 1981 to 1989, and it's a fact that Communism was collpasing in Poland and then E. Germany and the Warsaw Pact generally, and then the USSR shortly after RR left office.

Yes, accepted. All the economic and social data we now have confirms this. My visits in the late 1980s to Eastern Europe, although anecdotal in nature, also help me believe this.

The question is whether those facts are coincidental or related in some cause-and-effect way. I say they are.

Ok, I say that you have in no way shown cause and effect. In fact, I argue that the best you can shoot for is a minor correlation, but more likely the real answer is a spurious coincidence.

First, it is clear (see the above quotes) that RR wanted to bring down Communism, at a time when most people (in the West at least — and certainly including many in the CIA and State, etc.)thought it couldn't be done. That doesn't prove cause-and-effect, but it does establish intent.

Indeed, it establishes merely the fact that Reagan was like every single president from Truman regarding the Soviet Union. In that regard, Reagan's efforts are not unique and indeed the efforts of presidents that went before him absolutely must be factored into the equation. If any single president needs to be given the "most credit" I'll vote for Ike or JFK.

Second, unless you think Schweizer made it all up, it is clear that Reagan had a strategy that was designed to bring down Communism.

Your "second" point is just the first rewritten. So, stripped away from all your quotes, all you're left with is: Reagan wanted the USSR to collapse. That's not much, and is greatly disappointing.

Your analysis is static: there's no time element, as it ignores the problems the USSR had from inception, but also the problems it had fitting into the changing post-WWII (i.e. global) economy. And you ignore the influence of previous administrations.

Your analysis is simplistic: it gives the Reagan administration all the credit for the collapse of the soviet union. As if no other factors were involved. Surely decisions by Soviet leaders themselves mattered? Politics in Eastern Europe?

I wouldn't be surprised to see a well-argued case that Reagan mattered but it difficult to see where you've provided any evidence whatsoever for him to be the most important element. If you're resting your case, then I've already won the argument.

P.S. I would be careful in relying upon Schweizer. As you already note, some from Reagan's administrations don't agree with him. Also, a real academic should be cited. Anybody who's written a book titled "Do As I Say and Not As I Do: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" should expect to have their credibility ruined.

doc mcb-

[It's a fact that RR was commander-in-chief from 1981 to 1989, and it's a fact that Communism was collpasing in Poland and then E. Germany and the Warsaw Pact generally, and then the USSR shortly after RR left office.]

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH

<and I'm spent….>

Thats what passes for critical analysis???? Yep The gipper was such a fearsome force of conservative virtue that, immediately upon RR's assuming office, the Iranian's released the hostages (fearing righteous american reprisals) and the "evil empire" started getting weak knees…. (perhaps the ball was long since in motion hmmmmm??????)

I just love it!

Gorby had a lot to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, just as Jeff Davis had a lot to do with the collapse of the Confederacy.

And I believe that I mentioned, above, the roles of JP II and Walesa and Thatcher and others. Obviously the victory in the Cold War came at the end of, well, the Cold War, which started back in 1945 or 1948 or so, so Truman and Churchill and Solzynitzn (whose name I can never spell) and so forth played major roles. I don't see how my analysis "gives the Reagan administration all the credit for the collapse of the soviet union." I'm arguing for a lot of credit, though.

No, my second point is that the Reagan took active steps to implement its desire: arming mujahdin, supporting Solidarity, condemning the "evil empire," pushing the Soviets into an expensive arms race, and getting the saudis to push oil prices down and so wipe out the major Soviet source of hard currency. I must have been too simplistic for you to catch that.

The influence of previous administrations? Well, give lots of credit to Truman, but Ike abadndone dthge Hungarians in 1956 and made it clear he stood for containment only. JFK was a Cold Warrior, sure enough, but he blew the Cuban missile crisis and mishandled Vietnam. The immediate previous administration was Carter's; right, that was certainly undermining the Soviets, we didn't attend their Olympics.

I'll try to bear up under the weight of your disappointment in my static and simplistic analysis.

abandoned the Hungarians, that is

By the by, is Paul Johnson "a real academic"?

[JFK was a Cold Warrior, sure enough, but he blew the Cuban missile crisis and mishandled Vietnam.]

**** Ummm come again? He blew the Cuban Missile Crisis. From what I gather, he kept his head while those around him were pushing for the "big one". On that point,none of us might be here today if it wasn't for him.

Mishandled Vietman? Interesting. I can't figure if his plans were to get us further involved in South East Asia or less. Could you expand on that?

[The immediate previous administration was Carter's; right, that was certainly undermining the Soviets, we didn't attend their Olympics.]

Purely symbolic. The olymics weren't a material component in the USSR's collapse. (palease….)

[I'll try to bear up under the weight of your disappointment in my static and simplistic analysis.]

That's very brave of you! ;^)

JFK (or at least his administration) seems to have been implimented in the assassination of President Diem. Some historians "credit" (i.e. blame)that for turning the war from a Vietnamese conflict, with us helping, into OUR war. The successors of Diem were generals, perceived to be and to some significant extent actually being our puppets. That was a major political disadvantage we never overcame.

On Cuba, the bottom line is that when all was said and done the Communists still controlled Cuba, eventually even with a Soviet armored unit there. We had a huge strategic preponderance in the early 60's but allowed a result that favored the enemy.

[No, my second point is that the Reagan took active steps to implement its desire: arming mujahdin]

Not to nitpick, but that bit of Realpolitik proved to be a brilliant idea now didn't it!
<rolls eyes>

Not to nitpick, but that bit of Realpolitik proved to be a brilliant idea now didn't it!

Yes, you're right — but one enemy at a time, I suppose.

Uh, rene, you did get that I was being sarcastic about carter and the Olympics? (I hope . . .)

[On Cuba, the bottom line is that when all was said and done the Communists still controlled Cuba, eventually even with a Soviet armored unit there. We had a huge strategic preponderance in the early 60's but allowed a result that favored the enemy.]

Yes, there we go.

Let's look at everything as an "us or them" equation. Like America gave, gives or will give a rat's ass about the cuban _people_. You don't have to like Castro (but I never heard Republican's decrying Samoza or the Shah). Still, our bellicosity for 46 years insured that Cuba would be at odds with the U.S. As long as we look at other nations as "our countries" America is going to get "rasberries" from much of the rest of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Uh, rene, you did get that I was being sarcastic about carter and the Olympics? (I hope . . .)]

Sorry,
long day I was a bit dense on catching that one.

On Us and Cuba:

But wouldn't you say that the US and Cuba have longer and more significant positive interactions than most other countries? I'll give you Americans in general often don't think too much about other countries in general; isolationism has a long history, for lots of reasons. But we went to war in 1898 partly to free Cuba, and did, while retaining Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Lots of American business and tourism in Cuba pre-Castro. And the Cuban exile community in Miami? It seems to me that our attitude towards Castro and Cuba is a lot more comlex than you seem to be saying.

When I said "the enemy," I meant of course the Soviets, and their puppet Castro, not the Cuban people. You may not consider Castro their puppet, I don't know. But we certanly had favorable feelings towards the Cuban people.

[ You may not consider Castro their puppet, I don't know. But we certanly had favorable feelings towards the Cuban people.]

Continuing the embargo 14 years after the fall of the USSR reinforces my view to the contrary. (one not extended to China I might add)

Yes, that is certainly inconsistent.

Seriously? Does anyone think the USSR would be with us today if Ronald Reagan had lost the election in 1984?

The cold war was an argument about economic and political systems.

The free(ish) market and democracy proved better at satisfying the needs and aspirations of its citizens than communism and totalitarianism.

Communism fell because communism didn't work and in the end not even communists believed in it. It bankrupted itself before admitting that though. The war in Afghanistan was the final straw that broke the back of the beast.

US policy since Truman: containment, waiting, and out-producing the USSR on every front was the right strategy, despite occassional set-backs.

Victory happened on his watch, to to say Ronald Reagan won the cold war is like saying John Wayne won WW2.

Victory happened on his watch, but to say Ronald Reagan won the cold war is like saying John Wayne won WW2.

[Victory happened on his watch, to to say Ronald Reagan won the cold war is like saying John Wayne won WW2]

Wait, are you saying that he didn't? Look man. The Duke led the "Flying Tigers", led the attack on Iwo Jima! I know. I saw the movie!

John/Sam: If it had happened when the Clintons were president, you'd be dancing in the aisles…

When I worked for the DoD, we called te Reagan years, "The Salad years" due to the heightened Cold War spending he initiated. (Trust me, a billion years later, I regret the cuts that were made to Carter's alt energy programs, but that's a separate thread)

WRT to "Star Wars" spends, the project I was working o was (somewhat) derailed by our subcontractor, due to the funding they received (or may not have mr. congressmen) for R&D on certain componenets of the system.

I'm sorry mcb but you've provided exactly no positive evidence to support your claim that Reagan was the chief, or even a large, cause for the collapse of the soviet union and its client states.

The fact that he "had a plan" and "took active steps to implement" it is one thing. It's entirely something else to show:

1. That the plan did in fact work (i.e. was a cause for the collapse).

2. That the plan was more important than other presidents' activities.

3. That the plan was more important than other factors, such as soviet politics, economics, and foreign policies.

4. That the plan was more improtant than other the interventions and activities of other political actors (whether government officials or protesters, etc.)

So did Reagan "win" the cold war? Or was he just a part of the overall downfall? I notice you've been backtracking a bit. I'll also point out that nowhere in any of your posts do you begin to address the four items I list here.

You're a terrible political analyst. I'd flunk you in my courses.

The simple truth was that the Soviet Union could not continue to spend 30% of its GNP on the military indefinitely. They ultimately bankruptced themselves.

And don't forget the Pershing IIs.

Fortunately, mlicari, I teach my own, so I'll never have to take yours.

[Fortunately, mlicari, I teach my own, so I'll never have to take yours.]

First Boulart, now Doc. Explains a lot.

doc mcb 01 Dec 2005 4:49 p.m. PST

First, it is clear (see the above quotes) that RR wanted to bring down Communism, at a time when most people (in the West at least — and certainly including many in the CIA and State, etc.)thought it couldn't be done. That doesn't prove cause-and-effect, but it does establish intent.

*NJH: But he didn't bring down Communism. He brought down the USSR – the objective doesn't coincide with the result. I don't know about the other branches of the service, but while enrolled in Air Command and Staff College, part of our studies were concerned with how to defeat Communism and the USSR with better opposing ideas and philosophies. However, I need to point out that intending to do something doesn't mean one is actually responsible for the outcome. Case on point – John and James intend to kill Bambi. They fire 550 rounds at the poor beasty, but none strike Bambi. Bambi wanders off out of sight, where he is attacked and killed by a pack of starving wolves. John and James discover the remains of Bambi, and they proudly congratulate themselves for their achievement – the Death of Bambi. They intended to kill Bambi – Bambi is dead, therefore they must have been responsible. Intending is not the same as doing.

Second, ……. But I suggest that it is established that Reagan's administration actively and aggressively pursued a strategy of undermining the Soviet Union economically and diplomatically and morally and militarily. That's method and opportunity.

*NJH: Every President since Wilson has been doing their level best to accomplish such. Reagan had the good common sense to continue their struggle.

Did the USSR fall or was it pushed? Well, Reagan intended to push it, and had the weapon and opportunity. The prosecution rests its case.

*NJH: Was Bambi shot or mauled? Well, John and James intended to kill Bambi they had weapons and opportunity. The prosecution rests its case. I think the Prosecution needs more than historical coincidence.

BTW-I served at the Pentagon Jan 81 to March 86. Reagan's golden years.

"The major particle accelerator that was the "test bench" for the star wars program (and never fuctioned) is, after languishing outside an Indiana University lab"

Space based particle accelerators were one of the proposed anti-missile defences. A beam of charged particles would be fired at launching enemy missiles. Unfortunately, the Earth has a magnetic field. And, as any high school physics student knows, what happens to a moving charged particle in a magnetic field? It gets deflected. It would never hit its target.

The other idea was using space based lasers. The problem is that it is easy to armour the missiles enough to negate them. The cost of building more powerfull lasers far exceeds the cost of adding more armour to the missiles. It isn't cost effective.

If missiles are to be destroyed, they have to be hit during the boost phase. It is cheap (compared to the cost of the lasers) and easy to overwhelm targeting sensors with decoys.

Also Star Wars could not handle missiles launched from submarines off the coast of America. The flight times are to short.

And these are what I remember off the top of my head.
The entire thing was a white elephant and the Russian knew it.

Don't forget the "smart pebbles", Stirling, which were supposed to float around in orbit and slam themselves into incoming missiles as they approached their apex.

James, don't you ever go to bed?

Funny you sould ask that. I've had a LOT of trouble sleeping lately … so, I get up, wander about, post, go back to sleep.

Gives the illusion of not sleeping, but, I'm catching cat naps all day.

A lot of what I'm getting in the way of reasoned argument here — that's not you, James — rests on the Soviet economy being bad and getting worse well before 1980. Sure, it's NOW clear that it was. And we know why. A command economy, lacking the price mechanism that transmits accurate information about supply and demand, awlays in inefficient, and the friction builds over time. There are no positive incentives to tell the truth in a command economy, which is why socialism tends towards totalitarianism with its negative incentives: tell the truth, make your quota, or we'll shoot you. With informers.

The upshot was that while the Russian economy was indeed going from bad to worse, nobody, and I mean nobody, knew how bad it was. The CIA chronically over-estimated the Soviet GNP, but apparently the Politburo themselves didn't have an accurate picture themselves either. As my quotes above show, the "best" economists in the US thought the Soviets were doing well. Reagan wasn't the only contrary voice, but he was one of only a few.

Recall what's going on in the 70's. We've lost in Vietnam and the dominoes are falling. Carter speaks of our "malaise." We're humiliated in the Muslim world by the hostage crisis, and the Russians are apparently about to conquer Afghanistan. Yes, I know they eventually lost there, and might have even without us arming the mujahdin, but they were demonstrating a ruthlessness (poison gas, pushing a large part of the population into Pakistan, etc.) that one could well fear might succeed.

Nobody at the time that I recall imagined that the USSR might come tumbling down. You all can believe that it just happened, would have happened regardless of whether we had a Reagan or a Carter as president, but I'm not buying it.

Focus on oil. The USSR exported a lot, it was one of the very few things they produced (besides weaponry) for which there was a market outside their own borders. It was their major source of foreign exchange, which they had to have to buy sophisticated products they couldn't produce themselves. I recall reading somewhere that every time the price of a barrel droped a dollar, it cost the Soviets a billion dollars annually in foreign exchange. If Reagan negotiated with the Saudis as the above accounts describe, our protecting them in return for flooding the oil market and driving prices way down, and if that put increased economic pressure on a system that was already weak, then how is it not thereby demonstrated that Reagan made something happen at least a lot sooner than it otherwise would have?

Not fell, pushed.

Funny you sould ask that. I've had a LOT of trouble sleeping lately … so, I get up, wander about, post, go back to sleep.

How can that be, James, with your pure heart?

It was Gorbi who insisted that had the price of oil and natural gas not risen in the early 1970's, the Soviet Union would have collapsed about a decade earlier (by the late 70's). Carter would have gone down as the conqueror of Soviet Communism.

Pphalen-

No. I don't think so.

[ But what would you say to an analogy with the Ottoman Turkish Empire, the "sick man" of Europe? It managed to totter along for centuries before finally collapsing in WWI. ]

Sure, but you do claim that David Lloyd George was "The Man Who Defeated the Ottoman Empire" ?

Or would it be more accurate to say that the old empire finally went tottering to its demise after a long, long illness?

[As my quotes above show, the "best" economists in the US thought the Soviets were doing well. Reagan wasn't the only contrary voice, but he was one of only a few.]

I wish I could find a book I read in the early-80s about "The Fall of the Soviet Empire." It was a scholarly tome that forecast the demise of the USSR for pretty much the exactly correct reasons. I can't remember the author or the exact title anymore, though. And let's face it; Kennedy's Berlin Wall speech had laid out the conviction that communism was doomed to fail. This was not a new concept. It was a minority view (on either side of the Wall) to think it would happen that soon, Yes, but we knew enough about the Soviet system by the early 1970s to rest assured of its ultimate demise. I think that comfort level is primarily responsible for the thaws in the Cold War at that time, and the whole policy of détente.

What you're claiming is that Ronald Reagan's policies "Brought Down the USSR."

At most, you might *might* (and I haven't seen you do this yet) be able to claim that Reagan's policies "hastened" the inevitable collapse of the USSR.

But given Reagan's stubborn inability to understand what "Perestroika" was all about, I think it's a real stretch to say that policies to defeat the enemy were coordinated with the very different way that enemy was busily un-inventing itself.

PS – No, Paul Johnson is not an academic historian. He's a clever writer of coffee-table histories, which are usually nothing more than collected clichées, written on topics he knows will be popular. One of my colleagues here who teaches Jewish history cringes whenever Johnson's "History" of the Jews is mentioned.

[How can that be, James, with your pure heart?]

My wife and 2 year old son left for the Philippines about two weeks ago and I miss them terribly.

Sigh, oh dear, I fear I will never meet the high standards of this board.

[Sigh, oh dear, I fear I will never meet the high standards of this board.]

I smell a martyr complex coming on.

[I smell a martyr complex coming on.]

Yeah…there is quite a strong odor here presently….

It's the odor of sanctimony, easily confused for martyrdom by the unsophisticated.

You're right, this is fun.

Well, see, I try to stay away from martyrs AND sanctimonious bastards … so, my nose just isn't that refined.

Wow, that's an interesting discussion here…
OK, there's an opinion from the side, "defeated by Reagan Crusade"
It was obvious for most of the people in Russia, including most of the communists that the country in mid 80s was losing ground. Nobody beleived that communism can be achieved in anybody's lifetime. The decrease of oil prices had a strong influence on speed up of the collapse of the country, as even at that time, SU still tried to support communist parties worldwide and "our bastards" that were busy fighting "US-backed bastards". New turn in arms race had some impact, but it was not the decisive one. The problem with military and sub military industry was formed years before – you just can't have any reasonable econnomy if you had ca 30% of your industry working only for war and ca.30% had more than 50% of their production dedicated to military. These enterprises enjoyed constant support of the state, the workers and engineers were getting much better wages, and they were interested in making their stuff – much more interested than collective farmer was interested to grow more grain.
Gorbachov saw all that problems, even that he was Andropov's protege he decided to abandon a way of hard discipline and sacrifices. He really thought that socialism could be reformed. However he made lots of mistakes, that were acted as nails into the coffin of SU. He got himself lots of enemies for what he was doing, on the other hand he just could not move fast and implement real changes in economy. He was not fast in removing the troops from Afganistan, he still didn't cut overseas help, he implemented the ban on alcohol that resulted in enormous losses, equivalent to value of Afgan war spendings. The people switched to windows cleaners, glues and some other absolutely weird stuff. His way of reforming military industry was terrible – instead of doing rockets the plants were ordered to make titanium shovels – I have one in my summer house, very nice but these plants at that time could not earn the money for themselves making kettles, bad radios and other stuff. So the only part of his reforms that actually worked was "glasnost" – even if there were a lot of closed issues, the people here got a glimpse of what was going in the west. And that was the final blow. The people saw that those poor workers, exploited by evil imperialists live much better than them. And from this moment no military coup could change the way the country was going. See what's going on in North Korea? They still think that everybody is their enemy and their life is the best in the world. SU could live like that – stop external donations, invest only in strategic nukes and pull iron curtain tight. It could work…but even with everything that happened in last 15 years I'm happy that we didn't go that way….

Barin,

Interesting post. Thank you.

So, would you say that it was "glasnost" that accelerated the collapse of the Soviet system?

Glasnost was an important issue in this collapse. With the iron curtain on, it was almost impossible for a simple worker on engineer to visit foreign country, and these people were getting lots of brainwashing before and after the visit. Still the rumours were circulating. But then you have everything opened – all of a sudden you learned that your leaders lied you all your life…it really didn't help in trusting your leaders.
Other issue that I didn't mention was the problem with national elites – they started thinking that instead of being second in SU they could be first in their own countries. As they were not too much afraid of central power in Moscow, they seized the opportunity to grab power on the very day of 1991 august coupe..

I think that part of the Reagan Hagiography is nothing more than this same sort of post-mortem inflation that many historical figures have indulged in, especially in eras of conflict. To wit: they grossly exaggerate and magnify the strength of the enemy, thus making their victory seem miraculous or perhaps even foreordained by the gods.

Ah..inflation theory..
If true, the same must be said about Harry, Ike, Jack, Lyndon, Dick, Jimmy, Jerry and Ron.

If false, than the credit to Reagan is correct.

But guess it depends on the meaning of what 'win' is!
A word somewhat alien to many on the left.

I always thought that Reagan was continuing policies started by Truman. He didn't really shake the boat as far as I can tell.

But hey, don't let that stop people from making ol' Ronald a saint.

[But hey, don't let that stop people from making ol' Ronald a saint.]

Well, everyone needs their fairytales to help them through life's difficulties.

One point strikes me and that is every American president since Harry Truman through Jimmy Carter would have been ecstatic to had Gorbachov to deal with.

Giving RR sole credit for winning the cold war is kind of like the practice many navies have and had of awarding ship's captains medal for heroism. While yes it was heroic for say Captain George Street to enter a Japanese-held harbor in Korea during WWII in a daylight surface submarine attack, if his crew had said "no way" there would have been no Medal of Honor for him. I know for a fact, that for that reason he initially refused going to President Truman for the ceremony. However his executive officer and chief of the boat convinced him to accept the Medal and keep it as the custodian for the entire crew.

As someone who lived through the Cuban Missile crisis I do think JFK deserves a lot of credit for not going all the way, despite several military muck-ups, and thereby ensuring that cockroaches didn't become the winner.