 |
| |
|
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
I was going to post this in Che's Vietnam thread, but the discourse moved away from the point I wanted to make.
I really hate and despise how Reagan gets all the credit for ending the Cold War. I don't hate it because I think that Reagan did things that lengthened the cold war, or made it worse. In fact, I'm willing to accept that his policies ended up putting more international pressure on the USSR than existed before. I hate the crediting of Reagan because he was not critical to the collapse of the USSR.
The people who were are the people of the Warsaw Pact, the people making up Solidarity, the people "living in truth" in Hungary, in the Czechleslovakia, and elsewhere. It was these people who undid the totalitarian regimes in place in their countries, not by challenging it outright, but by building communities outside the jurisdiction of the State. These people were somewhat supported by the West, primarily by John Paul II and the Church, but not really by the US (where was the US in 1948? In 1956? In 1968? And didn't something go down in 1960 as well?).
It was these people who forced reform in the Warsaw Pact, who made Gorbachev realize that the USSR could not survive without restructuring, and whose power prevented Gorbachev from brutally repressing the breakaway republics the way he may have wanted to.
The dominant theory of power in the West holds that force equals power, and this has precluded recognition of the resistence in Eastern Europe. They didn't use force, they did not resort to violence (Romania is the exception), so in the eyes of many, there has to be some other impetuous for the collapse of the USSR. These people have turned to Reagan, for he is an obvious substitute. He was the most prominent anti-communist, he stepped up the rhetoric, he must be responsible.
And this really points to a greater failing. We like to look for problems in the USSR in its economy. It was Communist, therefore in its economy we can find its fatal flaws. And here, we are deluding ourselves. Yes, Reagan's arms race put a strain on the Soviet economy, but that, on its own, is meaningless. The South's economy was in shambles during the Civil War here, and yet they fought on. The economy only becomes an issue when there are greater problems.
And the real problem is the authoritarian/totalitarian state. In the Warsaw Pact, it was the violence of the state that became the problem. In the face of a hostile state, and especially with that state being the puppet of a foreign power, the power of the discontented masses won the day. Hannah Arendt argues that violence and power are mutually exclusive, and that a state perpetuated by violence must eventually fall. The Eastern Bloc demonstrates just that. The people opposed the state monopoly of violence with constructive nonviolence, building broad movements like Solidarity that did not violently challenge the state but created a system where the violence of the state became irrelevent.
In order to maintain control over the Eastern Bloc at this point, the USSR would have had to kill the vast majority of the people there. Had Gorbachev sought to retain control, he would have fought a bloody war that in the end would have failed just as the Soviets failed in Afghanistan, and we failed in Vietnam. It is in recognizing this that Gorbachev shows his leadership skills.
The question, then, is how this transfers into the implosion of the USSR. Basically, the totalitarian USSR only survived because it kept people ignorant about the West, with the people accepting their oppression because they accepted the state-constructed differences between themselves and the West. When Gorbachev allowed liberalization of the Warsaw Pact, people in the USSR demanded the same rights, especially in places like the Baltic Republics, which still remembered their pre-WWII independence. Once again, with the people on the side of reform, Gorbachev would've had to fight a very difficult guerilla war to maintain Soviet unity. It is worth noting that when the hardline communists launched a coup, the spirit of reform had spread so much that the soldiers themselves, often thought by politicians to be pawns without independent thought, identified with the reformers more than their superiors, and refused to obey orders.
So, my overall point is that the "Reagan Ended the Cold War" crowd not only distort history, they do it in such a way as to rob a truly brave group of people the recognition these people deserve. Once again, Reagan did contribute to an economic crunch that exacerbated conditions and may have shortened the USSR's life by a couple of years. But the seeds for the defeat of the USSR were sown in ashes of the Prague Spring of 1968, and were tended by the people of the Eastern Bloc. Had Reagan been the only power opposed to the USSR, we would still be in a cold war today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
This phenomenon is dealt with in last year's "The Unconquerable World" by Jonathan Schell.
I know I've mentioned this book in a few threads on similar threads about power/politics/international relations/state-citizen relations, but it's certainly worth another mention. One day someone will say "oh. yeah. I read that on your recommendation...its was good" and then I'll be happy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
It all started going downhill for the Rooskies when I took up my post on the border with East Germany in late '75. Lets see, born in '58, plus 17, yeah, '75. As a Cavalry trooper I was charged with the mission of crushing the red menace if they dared venture forth from their dark lair. It is said that they were about to do so, but the imposing sight of my slight but wirey 17 year old form standing astride the border, resolutely with weapon held high, gave them pause, and left a yellow puddle at their feet.
Yup, I won the cold war in my early days, left them commies an empty shell which nevertheless took some time to fall. Reagan finished my work, finished that evil empire, God bless him.
That was just the begining for me, I'll have to tell you the epic saga of my entire life one day, but most of you are far too young to hear the tails of my greater conquests.
You see, chicks dig me, but who can blame them? Were it not for Ted Striker, I would be the foremost stud on these forums.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
It all started going downhill for the Rooskies when I took up my post on the border with East Germany in late '75. Lets see, born in '58, plus 17, yeah, '75. As a Cavalry trooper I was charged with the mission of crushing the red menace if they dared venture forth from their dark lair. It is said that they were about to do so, but the imposing sight of my slight but wirey 17 year old form standing astride the border, resolutely with weapon held high, gave them pause, and left a yellow puddle at their feet.
Yup, I won the cold war in my early days, left them commies an empty shell which nevertheless took some time to fall. Reagan finished my work, finished that evil empire, God bless him.
That was just the begining for me, I'll have to tell you the epic saga of my entire life one day, but most of you are far too young to hear the tails of my greater conquests.
You see, chicks dig me, but who can blame them? Were it not for Ted Striker, I would be the foremost stud on these forums. |
GIVE 'EM HELL LANCER!!!!!!! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral
I was going to post this in Che's Vietnam thread, but the discourse moved away from the point I wanted to make.
I really hate and despise how Reagan gets all the credit for ending the Cold War. I don't hate it because I think that Reagan did things that lengthened the cold war, or made it worse. In fact, I'm willing to accept that his policies ended up putting more international pressure on the USSR than existed before. I hate the crediting of Reagan because he was not critical to the collapse of the USSR.
The people who were are the people of the Warsaw Pact, the people making up Solidarity, the people "living in truth" in Hungary, in the Czechleslovakia, and elsewhere. It was these people who undid the totalitarian regimes in place in their countries, not by challenging it outright, but by building communities outside the jurisdiction of the State. These people were somewhat supported by the West, primarily by John Paul II and the Church, but not really by the US (where was the US in 1948? In 1956? In 1968? And didn't something go down in 1960 as well?).
It was these people who forced reform in the Warsaw Pact, who made Gorbachev realize that the USSR could not survive without restructuring, and whose power prevented Gorbachev from brutally repressing the breakaway republics the way he may have wanted to.
The dominant theory of power in the West holds that force equals power, and this has precluded recognition of the resistence in Eastern Europe. They didn't use force, they did not resort to violence (Romania is the exception), so in the eyes of many, there has to be some other impetuous for the collapse of the USSR. These people have turned to Reagan, for he is an obvious substitute. He was the most prominent anti-communist, he stepped up the rhetoric, he must be responsible.
And this really points to a greater failing. We like to look for problems in the USSR in its economy. It was Communist, therefore in its economy we can find its fatal flaws. And here, we are deluding ourselves. Yes, Reagan's arms race put a strain on the Soviet economy, but that, on its own, is meaningless. The South's economy was in shambles during the Civil War here, and yet they fought on. The economy only becomes an issue when there are greater problems.
And the real problem is the authoritarian/totalitarian state. In the Warsaw Pact, it was the violence of the state that became the problem. In the face of a hostile state, and especially with that state being the puppet of a foreign power, the power of the discontented masses won the day. Hannah Arendt argues that violence and power are mutually exclusive, and that a state perpetuated by violence must eventually fall. The Eastern Bloc demonstrates just that. The people opposed the state monopoly of violence with constructive nonviolence, building broad movements like Solidarity that did not violently challenge the state but created a system where the violence of the state became irrelevent.
In order to maintain control over the Eastern Bloc at this point, the USSR would have had to kill the vast majority of the people there. Had Gorbachev sought to retain control, he would have fought a bloody war that in the end would have failed just as the Soviets failed in Afghanistan, and we failed in Vietnam. It is in recognizing this that Gorbachev shows his leadership skills.
The question, then, is how this transfers into the implosion of the USSR. Basically, the totalitarian USSR only survived because it kept people ignorant about the West, with the people accepting their oppression because they accepted the state-constructed differences between themselves and the West. When Gorbachev allowed liberalization of the Warsaw Pact, people in the USSR demanded the same rights, especially in places like the Baltic Republics, which still remembered their pre-WWII independence. Once again, with the people on the side of reform, Gorbachev would've had to fight a very difficult guerilla war to maintain Soviet unity. It is worth noting that when the hardline communists launched a coup, the spirit of reform had spread so much that the soldiers themselves, often thought by politicians to be pawns without independent thought, identified with the reformers more than their superiors, and refused to obey orders.
So, my overall point is that the "Reagan Ended the Cold War" crowd not only distort history, they do it in such a way as to rob a truly brave group of people the recognition these people deserve. Once again, Reagan did contribute to an economic crunch that exacerbated conditions and may have shortened the USSR's life by a couple of years. But the seeds for the defeat of the USSR were sown in ashes of the Prague Spring of 1968, and were tended by the people of the Eastern Bloc. Had Reagan been the only power opposed to the USSR, we would still be in a cold war today. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Thue
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 1970
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
It all started going downhill for the Rooskies when I took up my post on the border with East Germany in late '75. Lets see, born in '58, plus 17, yeah, '75. As a Cavalry trooper I was charged with the mission of crushing the red menace if they dared venture forth from their dark lair. It is said that they were about to do so, but the imposing sight of my slight but wirey 17 year old form standing astride the border, resolutely with weapon held high, gave them pause, and left a yellow puddle at their feet.
Yup, I won the cold war in my early days, left them commies an empty shell which nevertheless took some time to fall. Reagan finished my work, finished that evil empire, God bless him.
That was just the begining for me, I'll have to tell you the epic saga of my entire life one day, but most of you are far too young to hear the tails of my greater conquests.
You see, chicks dig me, but who can blame them? Were it not for Ted Striker, I would be the foremost stud on these forums. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I think it can be truthfully said that the Reagan years were a turning point in the Warsaw pact alliance. For reasons not fully clear the Soviet Union decided that it would not hold it's zone of influence together by brute force. When dissident East Europeans challenged them in 1990 and 1991 virtually the entire second world unravelled. I'm convinced that it was during the period from 1980 to 1988 that the crucial changes in attitude occurred. Was it due to Reagan's aggressive military expansion? Arguably the SU could have refused to match him, secure in the knowledge that they had more than enough nukes to wipe out the world and also that cheap guerillas were an effective means of discomforting the west. Was it Reagan's showboating challenges to the SU's heavy handed means of controlling its people and its allies? Reagan wasn't the first western leader to challenge the SU on this issue, but he may have had the most flair of any challenger since Winston Churchill. On the whole I think that Reagan was one of many chips in the wall that finally collapsed in 1991. Many of these chips may have been as much internal as external.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
The Baltics must be some of the most anti-Russian people if they choose to praise nazis of all people for fighting the communists. Then again if that is only a minority it is ok. Butit has raised some eyebrows in an EU that is not nor should it be accustumed to such exhibitions....
Saras?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
it was in the news but some months ago.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-05-2005 06:26
|