Trade freedom for security?

[NotNow]

I respectfully disagree.  As do most historians.  I would be interested in hearing your theory on this, or where you heard such a thing.  For a more conventional explanation of the fall of the Soviet Union:

http://www.coldwar.org/articles/90s/fall_of_the_soviet_union.asp

[finehoe]

As do most historians. 

I don't think you can back up the statement that "most" historians believe that.

Even the director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise Institute (hardly a 'liberal' organization) states that America was not the catalyzing force that caused the USSR to fall:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_collapse_of_the_soviet_union_is_wrong?page=0,0

[NotNow]

Thanks, it is an interesting read.  While I certainly appreciate the views of Gorbachev, I'm not sure that you really want to start accepting the views of former world leaders as the end all historical record. 

While the root cause of the fall of the Soviet Union is, of course, the failure of communism, the policies and pressure of the Reagan administration in concert with Gorbachevs liberalization of freedom of expression certainly hastened that fall.  President Reagans policy of unwavering principles and strength gained the respect of the world.  While those who want to see a weak or defunct America might not like it,  they understood what his policy was and they respected it.  An good example would be the release of hostages by Iran immediatly upon President Reagan taking office.

[ben says]

They understood what his policy was and they respected it.  An good example would be the release of hostages by Iran immediatly upon President Reagan taking office.

God your opinions are warped....yes, opinions, not facts...because whatever you've been saying for the past day or so on this thread has no basis in reality.

I respect most, if not all views, as long as they are informed. Yours...not so much. You strike me as someone who, no matter how many facts are thrown their way, refuses to change their mind/give on any issue.

[NotNow]

Interesting.  So Gorby's views are real history to you.  And Mr. Bush's views?  Or do you discount what he says because of his political affiliation?  We all know the answer.  Gorbachev's recollections are important to read, but are just that..Gorbachev's recollections. 

Rewriting history seems to be a favorite pastime of yours StephenDare!  You can write whatever you want on your little blog here, but any serious study of history will point out the same factors that I have.  I know that you were an adult at the time. (Or at least almost)   President Reagan openly stated his intentions prior to taking office.  The hostages were released upon his inauguration.   If you want to believe that the Iranians first cooperated with a candidate not even elected, and then a President elect while holding American diplomatic hostages I can not stop you.  I heard the accusations that came out years (actually right at reelection time) later.  Anyone can say anything, and you can believe whatever you want.  But the real facts speak for themselves.

Your "sources" and thesis also speak for themselves.

Ben says....how old are you?  Were you even an adult in 1980/81?  If you didn't actually live though it, just where did you get your ideas about the failure of communism in the USSR?   Just google up the fall of the USSR and read for God's sake.   This is not a difficult subject.

[NotNow]

Interesting.  So Gorby's views are real history to you.  And Mr. Bush's views?  Or do you discount what he says because of his political affiliation?  We all know the answer.  Gorbachev's recollections are important to read, but are just that..Gorbachev's recollections. 

Rewriting history seems to be a favorite pastime of yours StephenDare!  You can write whatever you want on your little blog here, but any serious study of history will point out the same factors that I have.  I know that you were an adult at the time. (Or at least almost)   President Reagan openly stated his intentions prior to taking office.  The hostages were released upon his inauguration.   If you want to believe that the Iranians first cooperated with a candidate not even elected, and then a President elect while holding American diplomatic hostages I can not stop you.  I heard the accusations that came out years (actually right at reelection time) later.  Anyone can say anything, and you can believe whatever you want.  But the real facts speak for themselves.

Your "sources" and thesis also speak for themselves.

Ben says....how old are you?  Were you even an adult in 1980/81?  If you didn't actually live though it, just where did you get your ideas about the failure of communism in the USSR?   Just google up the fall of the USSR and read for God's sake.   This is not a difficult subject.

I think that finehoe has pointed out to you that a serious study of history would differ with your take on these events.  And I cannot claim to be any smarter than you on this issue, NN, as I truly believed the same thing for probably the same reasons that you did.

I was very disappointed to find otherwise, as Reagan was a childhood hero of mine and the source of a lot of inspiration.

Im sure that you remember that President Herbert Walker Bush was a spook, in fact he was our fearless leader under Ford who recalled him back from China and appointed him to helm the CIA. ( and hopefully you don't think that the former House Minority Leader pulled his name out of a hat.) And you probably know that George speaks pretty perfect Spanish, but a lot of people don't realize that his arabic is almost flawless and his conversational chinese isnt half bad.

Bush, the guy most likely in charge of the October surprise (although his testimony had just as much 'out of the loop' response as Ronnie's before Congress) has never publicly discussed Iran Contra with any detail, so Im not sure why you were referring to him----or his politics, which I would be very surprised if you knew much about, incidentally.

There is a reason why he has worked so tirelessly as a member of the Carlysle Group, after all.



But havent you ever questioned the timing of the release of the hostages yourself?  It doesnt smack of stage managing to you?

Even retrospecitively?

Is it really easier to believe that the Iranians (who we happened to immediately start selling weapons of mass destruction to) were just so 'respectful' of Reagan's manly swagger that they just panicked, abandoned ship and turned over all the hostages without any previous deals?

Well, dude, I don't know if you know this yet, but the Brooklyn Bridge is finally about to be sold to private investors, and everyone who crosses it is going to have to pay a toll if they want to get to the other side.

The profits raised from the tolls are going to be in the billions of dollars per year, and I happen to have a few hundred shares extra that have been issued prior to the news conference next month.  You seem like a good schmoe.  If youve got cash, Ill share my future billions with you and sell you a few shares in the Brooklyn Bridge LLC.

Are you interested?

Btw, it would be interesting to see your thesis that the failure of the Soviet system was due to a failure of communism.  Most serious people would tell you that it was due to a failure of totalitarianism and an inability to absorb so many ethnic and religious regions into a cohesive empire. 

Russia after the empire fell is certainly healthier without the money absorbing obligations of simultaneous development necessary in a communist state.  After all, there wasnt much going on in the 20th century 'economies' of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Khazakstan and the like, yet their central government was still morally on the hook for developing their infrastructure and educating their medieval societies.

All in all, communism wasnt so bad for regular people in that part of the world.  Literacy, lifespan, public health, and what we would call 'progress' all skyrocketed in a single generation under it.

I think that you might tend to underemphasize the true costs involved with maintaining the infrastructures of modern societies.  Infrastructure is the real reason why the US is in the economic slump its in now, and we havent been communists since the days of the Puritans.

When Gorbachev tells you that the costs of paying for the damages done to Belorussia, Georgia, and the Ukraine were crippling, you can take that to the bank.  You might have noticed how any obligation of the 'Soviet Union' to clean up those three countries disappeared on the collapse of said union and were not transferred to Mother Russia?  Nice trick really (for the Russians---for everyone else, not so much)

A typical StephenDare! post.  Long, full of broad statements and accusations, and totally unsubstantiated. 

Do you REALLY think that Bush the elder would have risked not just his political future but his freedom in a bid to make Ronald Reagan look good?  Really?  That is your belief?  (By the way, Bush the elder does not speak Farsi, the persian language).  I'm not going to address all of the snide statements in your post.  But your totally unsubstantiated premise is laugable on its face.  Your little conspiracy theory lacks any credibility, as will most ideas based on anything Michael Moore says.  Your accusation against President Bush without a shred of evidence is irresponsible and .... well, the usual description of your actions of this type.  This has become laughably common for you.

I would be interested in your source for your claim that we "immediatly began selling weapons of mass destruction" to the Iranians.  That is, of course, a false statement.

I am equally amused at your inferring that the breakup of the Soviet Union was somehow planned or managed.  It obviously surprised the Soviets as much as it surprised us.  THAT is the power that a nations citizens have when they speak with one mind. 

I am not surprised by your statement:"All in all, communism wasnt so bad for regular people in that part of the world.  Literacy, lifespan, public health, and what we would call 'progress' all skyrocketed in a single generation under it." but I am always a little taken aback when you reveal your true colors.   Of course there are hundreds of dissidents who wrote copiously about the terrible toll of communism, most notably Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov.  You might even read Finehoe's reference for a grim description of the Soviet communist system and the sorry society that it created.  Communism has never worked, in any country.  Your usual whining that "communism in its pure form has never been tried" is a red herring, as it has been instituted as well as the true believers could do it.  And it still failed miserably.  This is why your constant claims of some previous life as a Reagan Republican amuses me so much.  You never miss any opportunity to rail against Repulicans (including President Reagan) or an opportunity to take up for communism. 

I stand by my statements which were actually confirmed by Finehoe's reference and my own.  Or, as I have suggested to others, just google "fall of the USSR".  Again, in the mainstream, this is not a difficult subject.  Your conspiracy theory on the other hand....

[NotNow]

You are the one making the claim that the Iranian hostage release was a "staged event" set up by Bush the elder.  But you can't prove it.   Even your own reference says that Bush was not involved!  All of the extra rhetoric is just that.  You cling to Gorbachev's statements and refuse to acknowledge the common knowledge of the fall of the Soviet Union.  Read a history book. 

Of course you can't source your claim for the sales of "weapons of mass destruction" to Iran because it is not true.

I see you stand by your statement :"All in all, communism wasnt so bad for regular people in that part of the world.  Literacy, lifespan, public health, and what we would call 'progress' all skyrocketed in a single generation under it."   Obviously, this is contested by the statements of literally thousands of the citizens that lived under the system.  Did you read Finehoe's reference?  Of course you didn't.  YOUR statement is the one that is laughable.  Anyone with sense and even a mediocre knowledge of the old USSR knows that statement is communist party line bullshit.  Would you mind listing the "pure communistic societies that have existed for centuries in the church"?  It appears that Marx missed that as well.

The conventional history of the Reagan administration is quite clear.  Your warped and made up version of the Iranian hostage crisis is just another internet exercise in imagination.  For a guy that likes to talk down to people you sure don't seem to know the difference between facts and beliefs.

[Adam W]

You are the one making the claim that the Iranian hostage release was a "staged event" set up by Bush the elder.  But you can't prove it.   Even your own reference says that Bush was not involved!  All of the extra rhetoric is just that.  You cling to Gorbachev's statements and refuse to acknowledge the common knowledge of the fall of the Soviet Union.  Read a history book. 

Of course you can't source your claim for the sales of "weapons of mass destruction" to Iran because it is not true.

I see you stand by your statement :"All in all, communism wasnt so bad for regular people in that part of the world.  Literacy, lifespan, public health, and what we would call 'progress' all skyrocketed in a single generation under it."   Obviously, this is contested by the statements of literally thousands of the citizens that lived under the system.  Did you read Finehoe's reference?  Of course you didn't.  YOUR statement is the one that is laughable.  Anyone with sense and even a mediocre knowledge of the old USSR knows that statement is communist party line bullshit.  Would you mind listing the "pure communistic societies that have existed for centuries in the church"?  It appears that Marx missed that as well.

The conventional history of the Reagan administration is quite clear.  Your warped and made up version of the Iranian hostage crisis is just another internet exercise in imagination.  For a guy that likes to talk down to people you sure don't seem to know the difference between facts and beliefs.

I think the most difficult part of analyzing the success or failure of Communism in the USSR is that it's not a simple thing - one of my old professors (a right-winger, no less) used to refer to the 'twin peaks' of Stalinism: the great progress made that brought Russia (and the USSR) from being a backward, agrarian, feudal nation into the modern world and the massive human (and environmental) cost in doing so.

I think the USSR had a lot of promise, in theory, but it never achieved it - which is little surprise, if you see how the same lot have gone about their approach to "democracy" in the post-Communist world. They may have had nearly universal employment, education and healthcare. But they also had a repressive police state with long queues for basic necessities and an entrenched Nomenklatura, which essentially mirrored the ruling class of the capitalist Western world.

Many socialists reject the notion that the USSR and its clients were socialist societies at all. The term "state capitalist" has been around for as long as the USSR was in existence (the term, I think predates the USSR, but was increasingly applied to the Soviet experiment), though it seems that these dissenting views have often been drowned out by the might and sheer numbers of Marxist-Leninist parties and their adherents.

I think no one really has one clear idea or answer for why the USSR crumbled. I don't think there is one simple reason. I do reject the notion that it was simply because of Reagan's arms race: that has been essentially debunked as a sole cause, though I think most historians would consider it to be a significant contributing factor. Similarly, I wouldn't have thought the Chernobyl disaster could ever be considered the sole reason for the dissolution of the USSR and I've never seen that reason proffered by a reputable historian. It certainly has could be considered a contributing factor on the list of woes that the USSR was experiencing in the late 80s that helped hasten its decline, though.

[BridgeTroll]

If I was Gorbachev... I would certainly blame the fall of my government on a nuclear meltdown... as opposed to a political meltdown...

Gorbachev was out manuvered, outwitted, out politiced, etc, etc, etc...

Yep... nuclear meltdown... sure... ok... lol. 

[finehoe]

President Reagans policy of unwavering principles and strength gained the respect of the world.  While those who want to see a weak or defunct America might not like it,  they understood what his policy was and they respected it. 

Like when he "unwaveringly" cut and ran from Lebanon?   In 1982, President Reagan ordered American Marines into Lebanon as part of a "multinational peacekeeping force." In 1983, there were several bombings targeting Americans in Lebanon, including the well-known Marine barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines.  Reagan insisted that the U.S. would keep military forces in Lebanon. But then he abruptly changed course and ordered a complete troop withdrawal.  Many historians trace our troubles with al-Qaeda back to that instance.  Even the 9/11 Commission Report specifically mentions the emboldening of Osama Bin Laden by the "fleeing" of the American Military from Lebanon. Bin Laden viewed it as weakness and believed he could attack us on our soil without repercussions.

[NotNow]

President Reagans policy of unwavering principles and strength gained the respect of the world.  While those who want to see a weak or defunct America might not like it,  they understood what his policy was and they respected it. 

Like when he "unwaveringly" cut and ran from Lebanon?   In 1982, President Reagan ordered American Marines into Lebanon as part of a "multinational peacekeeping force." In 1983, there were several bombings targeting Americans in Lebanon, including the well-known Marine barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines.  Reagan insisted that the U.S. would keep military forces in Lebanon. But then he abruptly changed course and ordered a complete troop withdrawal.  Many historians trace our troubles with al-Qaeda back to that instance.  Even the 9/11 Commission Report specifically mentions the emboldening of Osama Bin Laden by the "fleeing" of the American Military from Lebanon. Bin Laden viewed it as weakness and believed he could attack us on our soil without repercussions.

Agreed.  Bad decision.  Bad outcome.  No justice for fine Marines lost.  I will not argue with this.

[finehoe]

I do reject the notion that it was simply because of Reagan's arms race: that has been essentially debunked as a sole cause, though I think most historians would consider it to be a significant contributing factor.

Except the facts don't back that up.



The above graph comes from http://dept.lamar.edu/polisci/TRUE/True_art_tlp.html

Things to note:

This graph measures spending in comparative dollars. Since the US had a larger economy than the Soviets, we can assume that if a 1:1 comparison between the two was made in terms of percentage of GDP, the Soviet Union would have a higher result. If you compare 1985 levels, for example, the US is probably spending around 6-7% of GDP on defence while the Soviets were spending around 13-14% of GDP.

-   The Soviets passed the United States in the early 70s and peaked  around 1982.
-   The US increased spending dramatically under Reagan, with a peak around 1985 and greater than the USSR.
-   Soviet defence spending plateaued between 1981 and 1988.
-   Soviet defence spending collapsed from 1989 onwards.

(If you want to complain about the standard of Soviet data, remember that experts have been dealing with this for decades. In short, if your argument against my position involves attacking the reliability of the statistics in question, please complain to the thousands of experts over the past few decades who have made it their business to work out reliable stats.)

The graph clearly shows that, in real terms, the Soviets did not increase military spending much in response to Reagan. In fact the opposite appears to be the case: Reagan was responding to the Soviets. Soviet defence spending in the 1970s was pretty big and Reagan obviously did spend up big in response. But did the Soviets respond to Reagan's spending by increased spending? No they didn't.

[Adam W]

I think that's a very simplistic way to look at it. And it's also a very literal way to read my post. My point was that the arms race (regardless of who started the arms race) was a contributing factor, but not the sole factor. Sorry if it appeared to give one side more credit than deserved.

[finehoe]

I think that's a very simplistic way to look at it. And it's also a very literal way to read my post. My point was that the arms race (regardless of who started the arms race) was a contributing factor, but not the sole factor. Sorry if it appeared to give one side more credit that deserved.

I understand your point.  But my point is that (as shown by the chart above) is that not only was the Reagan arms buildup NOT the sole factor, it's stretching it to even say it contributed.  And you're right, those who worship at the alter of St. Raygun are being very simplistic in their view that Reagan caused the USSR to go broke. 

[Adam W]

I think that's a very simplistic way to look at it. And it's also a very literal way to read my post. My point was that the arms race (regardless of who started the arms race) was a contributing factor, but not the sole factor. Sorry if it appeared to give one side more credit that deserved.

I understand your point.  But my point is that (as shown by the chart above) is that not only was the Reagan arms buildup NOT the sole factor, it's stretching it to even say it contributed.  And you're right, those who worship at the alter of St. Raygun are being very simplistic in their view that Reagan caused the USSR to go broke.

Finehoe - my understanding has always been that increased American spending (coupled with sabre-rattling, etc) forced the Soviets to maintain their unrealistic spending levels when they might've been able to ease off (as opposed to the USA spending more on defense and the USSR then spending more in a vain attempt to catch up). The problem I have with your interpretation of the graph is the assumption that the Soviet defense spending would've remained constant without the US buildup. It's not that simple, as it's entirely possible they would've decreased defense spending (as necessary) in response to other economic pressures had the US not appeared to be arming and up for a fight.

It's also worth noting that their adventures in Afghanistan didn't help. We share part of the blame there, though I suspect the Afghans would've handled them okay on their own (it might've just taken longer).

It's all academic. As I said before, there appear to be myriad reasons for the collapse of the USSR. I think Reagan or the USA (Reagan probably gets far too much credit, when many in the Defense and Intelligence services deserve much more) at least provided pressure.

Edit: I'd like to add one thing - I don't think that Reagan or any of those guys actually really though they were going to bankrupt the USSR. I think they were just psychos who were spoiling for a fight and were trying to win a war. Who knows.