Ronald Reagan

[amadeus]

He was the opposite. Those presidents who followed the Keynesian model made the nation and all of the people in it far richer over time.

You're posting contradictory statements now: government spending under Reagan nearly doubled. The idea that the U.S. had a free market under perennial tax-hiker Ronnie is laughable.

 

[kochman]

I'm still waiting for you to explain what any of this has to do with Ronald Reagan. Nobody ever attributes this stuff to Thatcher or Mitterand, so what makes him so special?

He was the LEADER of the free world.
He entered into the arms race (allies helped, sure) with Russia to bring them down.
The UK or France's economy could never have supported a big enough arms race to bring the Russian Bear to its knees.

Only the strongest economy in the world could have.

 

[amadeus]

Again, the Soviet system was inherently flawed and still would have collapsed even if they spent nothing on their army.

 

[kochman]

Again, the Soviet system was inherently flawed and still would have collapsed even if they spent nothing on their army.

Absolutely, but it was sped up.

Just like our system... even if we currently had NO military spending, we would be deficit spending.

 

[Arakhor]

He was the LEADER of the free world.

That phrase may have meant something during the Cold War. It means absolutely nothing now.

 

[kochman]

That phrase may have meant something during the Cold War. It means absolutely nothing now.

Well, we are talking about things that happened during the cold war... so, uh, what's your point?

 

[Traitorfish]

He was the LEADER of the free world.
He entered into the arms race (allies helped, sure) with Russia to bring them down.
The UK or France's economy could never have supported a big enough arms race to bring the Russian Bear to its knees.

Only the strongest economy in the world could have.

Could you expand on this? This isn't really the dominant narrative in Europe, so I hope you'll forgive me my unfamiliarity.

That phrase may have meant something during the Cold War. It means absolutely nothing now.

I don't think it ever meant anything.

 

[Cutlass]

Actually most top Soviets did not. That was a fake claim by Reagan apologists. There was next to no change in Soviet policy due to Reagan. Who's first term defense buildup was only 5% above Carter's projected second term budget, by the way. And only that large because Reagan's election team decided it had to be 5% above Carter's proposal, not because of any other consideration.

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet economy was dead in the water in the 1970s?

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet's could not feed themselves in the 1970s?

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet military technology was not competitive with the new American weapons systems designed and entering production in the 1970s?

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet economy was dead in the water in the 1970s?

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet economy had no access to the start of the microcomputer revolution in the 1970s?

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet demographics were far poorer than the West due to alcoholism, bad diets, and bad health care in the 1970s?

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet's invaded Afghanistan the 1970s?

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet infrastructure was not up to coping with a dynamic economy in the 1970s?

And on and on. None of the factors that lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union had anything to do with Reagan.

 

[amadeus]

Could you expand on this? This isn't really the dominant narrative in Europe, so I hope you'll forgive me my unfamiliarity.

The theory was that Reagan's military spending increases in the U.S. caused the Soviets to raise their military spending, thus causing the Soviets to have less to spend on productive investments and leading to Soviet economic collapse.

 

[Cutlass]

The theory was that Reagan's military spending increases in the U.S. caused the Soviets to raise their military spending, thus causing the Soviets to have less to spend on productive investments and leading to Soviet economic collapse.

Except that the Soviet economy had already collapsed years earlier...

 

[amadeus]

I was just explaining it to Traitorfish, not giving it any value.

 

[Traitorfish]

Did the Soviets actually shift their investment to any significant degree because of Raegan's defence policies?

 

[amadeus]

Did the Soviets actually shift their investment to any significant degree because of Raegan's defence policies?

Actually, growth in Soviet military spending declined during the 1980s.

 

[Quackers]

Could you expand on this? This isn't really the dominant narrative in Europe, so I hope you'll forgive me my unfamiliarity.

Ideas and arguments are limited to a geographical domain?

 

[Traitorfish]

Ideas and arguments are limited to a geographical domain?

No, but their prominence varies from region to region.

 

[Ergo Sum]

I'm interested in where Kochmann is now because I've rarely seen any supporters of the "Reagan Cold Warrior" narrative actually have a coherent response to the facts as presented by Cutlass et al. The credence given this argument in the US is a testament to how Reagan has been reconstructed as a God-figure in the American political sphere.

 

[kochman]

“There was one vital factor in the ending of the Cold War. It was Ronald Reagan’s decision to go ahead with the Strategic Defense Initiative.” Margaret Thatcher

Genrikh Trofimenko was the head of the Kremlin’s leading foreign policy think tank in the 1980’s, and he later told an American audience that “Ninety-nine percent of Russian people believe that you won the Cold War because of your President’s insistence on SDI.”

Actually most top Soviets did not. That was a fake claim by Reagan apologists.

Source?
Here's mine.
http://historyhalf.com/winning-the-cold-war-part-ii-missile-defense/
It is sourced out too... not just your saying it is true, which is all you have offered.

There was next to no change in Soviet policy due to Reagan.

Source?
Oh, you have none.

Who's first term defense buildup was only 5% above Carter's projected second term budget, by the way. And only that large because Reagan's election team decided it had to be 5% above Carter's proposal, not because of any other consideration.

Arms Race was ignited in March 83.

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet economy was dead in the water in the 1970s?

It was dead in the water well before that.

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet's could not feed themselves in the 1970s?

This was going on since the USSR began, see the Ukraine... didn't matter, the power center kept the country going... until it was so completely bankrupt and broken due to arms race.

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet military technology was not competitive with the new American weapons systems designed and entering production in the 1970s?

He was responsible for SDI, which was the straw that broke the camel's back, again, per leading soviets (which I sourced).

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet economy was dead in the water in the 1970s?

I don't believe he was responsible for you repeating the same thing to make it look like you actually had something of substance... and, again, you have no source.

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet economy had no access to the start of the microcomputer revolution in the 1970s?

Did he take advantage of that with SDI amongst other programs, which the USSR couldn't compete with? Yes... thereby exposing the differences.

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet demographics were far poorer than the West due to alcoholism, bad diets, and bad health care in the 1970s?

You think this is what brought the USSR down over a decade alter?
And, how would such a socialist paradise have bad health care with a universal system anyhow?!

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet's invaded Afghanistan the 1970s?

He certainly helped give them a much harder time than they would have, which did impact their military spending, morale, etc. The initial invasion was quite successful actually.

So, was Reagan responsible for the fact that the Soviet infrastructure was not up to coping with a dynamic economy in the 1970s?

Source?

And on and on. None of the factors that lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union had anything to do with Reagan.

You haven't given a single source, as requested, and your points are vaguely tied to the break up of the USSR over a decade later, anyhow.

Funny how they hung on until just after Reagan.
It's a fact, I know you don't like it, because you can't accept that Reagan did anything positive.

 

[Arakhor]

So your argument is that because Reagan was the straw that broke the Soviets' back, he should be credited with winning the Cold War?

 

[kochman]

His actions directly sped up the process, which could have otherwise potentially been turned around due to some changes in policy, etc...
So, yes. Most certainly.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He was the LEADER of the free world.

No, he really wasn't.

Only the strongest economy in the world could have.

So he was the leader of the nation with the strongest economy.

Not the free world. I heard we were pretty free at the time, and we did have our own government thank you very much.