 |
|  |
 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001 time: 22:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
There are 2 theories, both of which do not involve Reagan.
Firstly, the Soviet Union inevitably collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, particularly the long term decline brought about by the economic morass of state planning.
Secondly, Gorbachov lost control of a reform process which was never meant to lead to the removal from power of the communist party.
The second theory is more credible because China managed to move away from the planned command economy without the communists losing power. |
Right, and NK is a good indication of a hard line Soviet styled system crumbling from within on its own without a push, right?
And just what did bring Gorbachev to power? The feeling among the old guard that more of the same old would be sufficient in light of the renewed vigour of the US, and the West in general?
Where we are heading is pointless. What if this, what if that? The fact remains that Reagan had the good fortune to preside over the demise of the Soviet Union and the ending of the Cold War. The fact that he pushed the conflict and upped the ante can be discounted if you wish, but the fact remains that he, and some leaders in Europe and elswehere, did take action and did see a successful end to that action. People who don't like them can cry in their beer for all I care, it won't change what happened.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999 time: 23:31
|
|
quote: Read some of the earlier posts. Their recollection agrees with mine (as an outsider). Reagan revitalised a beaten and demoralised population. People who can do great things often do not for want of leadership. |
i have to admit, i was a kid during that time, less than 10 years of age. what i do remember of it, though was very little fear, not much in the way of demoralization, and a pride in american knowhow coupled with a terrified fear of japan, not soviet russia.
quote: Right, and NK is a good indication of a hard line Soviet styled system crumbling from within on its own without a push, right? |
isn't it? the system is dead there, and the dear leader is thrashing about with little success. the reason nkorea scares the bejeesus out of everyone there has is as much in part because of their weapons as the horror that could happen in the chaos following their collapse.
quote: And just what did bring Gorbachev to power? The feeling among the old guard that more of the same old would be sufficient in light of the renewed vigour of the US, and the West in general? |
gorby was a "different sort of leader" to the old politburo. not only was he much younger than anybody else ever installed, but he was also much more reformist than previously. they chose him in part because they hoped he would revitalize a dying system.
'course, his first mistake was trying to restrict the consumption of vodka.
quote: Where we are heading is pointless. What if this, what if that? The fact remains that Reagan had the good fortune to preside over the demise of the Soviet Union and the ending of the Cold War. |
and that's precisely what i'm saying! he didn't have to do much to have the soviet union's collapse. he was lucky enough to be there at the right time. (well, actually, his protege bush sr... since the falls happened in '89 and '91.)
quote: The fact that he pushed the conflict and upped the ante can be discounted if you wish, but the fact remains that he, and some leaders in Europe and elswehere, did take action and did see a successful end to that action. |
i'm not saying reagan was a bad president. since i was too young at the time to recall him well, but by virtue of the fact my parents liked him, he probably was pretty good. i like a bunch of his speeches.
that still matters not, because the soviets knew their system was rotting from the inside. they were enormously behind on every sector of technology except for maybe steel metallurgy; their financial system was nonexistent compared to the west's; they still were unable to acheive self-sufficiency in regards to food; the vast majority of their industrial plants were built with technology that dated from before the 70's. they had a chronic shortage of consumer goods.
now, if you want to believe that a system like that could continue indefinitely, then i can't stop you. from all the evidence i've seen, however, is that such systems invariably end up collapsing sooner or later.
imho, carter was a good man for the wrong time. a good georgia boy, though: one of the best ex-presidents we have, even if he has made a few mistakes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|