I suggest for anyone to read Ann's new book, "Treason." I love her section on how Reagan "won" the Cold War, completely ignoring the fact that the US's policies hardly had any impact upon the USSR. I suggest anyone who decides to read her book to finish it (or the sections on the Cold War at least) and then read Charles Maier's "Dissolution." (
(
Read more... )
Also, although the end of the Cold War cannot be contributed ENTIRELY to Reagan, certainly a considerable portion of it can. The Cold War was the US versus the USSR. Without cooperation from BOTH sides, by definition, the Cold War would have continued. Both Reagan and Gorbachev were outstanding diplomats (well, the Soviets didn't care much for Gorbachev and his 'radical' ideals... but look what he accomplished. Hopefully history will draw a parallelism between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gorbachev in a few generations. Anyway, I disress....). Without the dilpomatic abilities of these two men and a willingness on BOTH their parts to reach a truce, I argue it would not have happened, at least for considerably longer. However, to argue that Reagan didn't play an important factor? That's just stupid.
And of course the USSR had the odds stacked against them since the 1960s (I would argue long before that, but I'll grant you the 1960s as a starting point). Historically, extremely FEW nations that operated under their brand of communism flourished (actually, and this depends on your angle, China is the only one that comes to mind.) But this shouldn't undermine Reagan's role in helping the Cold War come to an end. Both he and Gorbachev deserve props for that, I believe.
Reply
Reply
And I even admitted that it was a stretch to include China in that... I was simply illustrating that NO countries with their brand of Communism last. I am admittedly short on examples of strong Communist countries (to back up my point further).
And perhaps the USSR WOULD have collapsed regardless of Reagan, but the US and USSR would NOT have become amicable withOUT the cooperation and diplomatic abilities of Reagan AND Gorbachev. At least not for many more years. Their inabilities to run their nation is not the point. Reagan's role in bringing the nations out of long standing impasse IS the point.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment