Warsaw to get statue of Ronald Reagan
Ex-U.S. president revered by many in Poland for role in end of communism

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14891745/

At least somebody remembers who did it. With revisionist history the way it is taught, most high schoolers probably think that JFK did it.

"Ich bin ein Berliner"

Heh... I wouldn't discount JFK's contribution that quickly. I think he played a key role in the fight against Russian hegemony.

A statue to Reagan is a cool thing. I think he was a good president and a good world leader.

In terms of Poland, my 'revisionist' thinking would give greater credit to Gorbachev and the Polish Pope.

In the end, Communism as a political force imploded. I'm just happy that it happened peacefully.

More or less:

http://www.jeremynicholl.com/cgi-bin/jn/ss.cgi?div=other&sid=single____&pn=1

There was that whole thing with tanks firing on the russian house of parliament. But overall, it could have been a lot worse.

It takes a short view to not credit Reagan for his due.

The political implosion was prefaced by the USSR finally seeing that for all the money they had sunk into attempting to keep up with the US militarily...they were still behind us.

Reagan forced them to keep upping the ante until they had to fold.

How the **** do you credit the Pope playing any role whatsoever?

I don't think Gorbachev played that much of a role, really, other than in broadening the collective horizons of the Soviet Union so that they were able to recognize, in Yeltsin's time, that they could no longer continue on as they had been..and that, indeed, after decades of living in a house of cards...that house was going to fall, and for no good reason since the USSR wasn't on par with the US militarily.

I don't think Gorbachev played that much of a role, really, other than in broadening the collective horizons of the Soviet Union so that they were able to recognize, in Yeltsin's time, that they could no longer continue on as they had been..and that, indeed, after decades of living in a house of cards...that house was going to fall, and for no good reason since the USSR wasn't on par with the US militarily.

Dan Quayle could have been President and pursued the same policies as Reagan, so could either Bush and other Presidents. There was nobody else doing what Gorbachev was doing. His role shouldn't be underplayed.

There was nobody else doing what Gorbachev was doing. His role shouldn't be underplayed.

You mean like loosing grip of his entire nation?

I will credit Gorby for not bringing out the tanks and squashing his people and those in the Eastern Bloc. I will give him that.

But short of that, he fought the collapse. No, your fatalism is misplaced. If it had been Andropov, Chernyenko, or Scheverdnadzi instead of Gorby, it may have happened just the same.

If any man was competing for the MOST influential, it would be Lech Walensa. His Solidarity movement, backed by Reagan, was one of the first cards to fall which really brought the house of cards down. His counterrevolutionary movement was copied throughout the Eastern Bloc.

All of Gorbys 'programs' were stop gap measures to help prevent the fall and collapse, from the pressures of the revolution on his hands. He was merely reacting, not acting.

You guys don't remember Poland and the Baltic States Counterrevolutions, do ya? Or the War in Afghanistan, or the Boycott of the Olympics(Carter)? Or SDI? Angola or Nicaruagua.

Gorby had lost all of his pieces but his bishop, and was being chased around the board by the time he ever did anything substantive.

I will credit Gorby for not bringing out the tanks and squashing his people and those in the Eastern Bloc. I will give him that.

Yep that's it. There's probably a hundred million people who are thankful for that.

More or less:

http://www.jeremynicholl.com/cgi-bin/jn/ss.cgi?div=other&sid=single____&pn=1

There was that whole thing with tanks firing on the russian house of parliament. But overall, it could have been a lot worse.

That is in 1993, Yeltsin is president at that time.

Dan Quayle could have been President and pursued the same policies as Reagan, so could either Bush and other Presidents. There was nobody else doing what Gorbachev was doing. His role shouldn't be underplayed.

If you think that...you're just a damn fool...well no, you just hate giving America credit for anything.

Guess what, there was noone else doing what Reagan was doing either. Your entire statement smacks of...retardation.

Of course noone else was doing what Gorbachev was doing...he was the only Premier. Just like Reagan was the only President at the time.

oh ffs.

OK fine. You can have a black and white world where Reagan won the cold war and everyone else did as they were told. I can have a few shades of grey where Reagan won the cold war and Gorbachev gave a soul to Russia communism.

No, Anka, you're view as posted seemed to be that Reagan was some mindless non-entity doing bubkis while the great and mighty Gorbachev single handedly ended decades of brinksmanship with his deft tongue, suave dance skills, and the glare off his forehead.

No, Anka, you're view as posted seemed to be that Reagan was some mindless non-entity doing bubkis while the great and mighty Gorbachev single handedly ended decades of brinksmanship with his deft tongue, suave dance skills, and the glare off his forehead.

Since you're blinkers seem to now extend to reading I'll explain my comments.

Isn't it true that most Republican Presidents would have followed a similar policy in Reagan's position, even if they wouldn't have executed it as well? Isn't it true that Gorbachev was entirely radical in his approach to communist governance compared to the absolutely stagnant years of Breshnev and Andropov? Reagan's achievements are far greater than Gorbachev's, but it needed both of them in place for the cold war to end in the way it did.

Prior to Reagan, only one Republican President since WWII increased defense spending and that was Ford. Nixon and Eisenhower both decreased defense spending.

However detente with the USSR wasn't isolated to Gorbachev's regime...Do I think Gorbachev was a poor premier? Of course not. He wisely took the courses of actions he had to in order to keep the USSR from falling apart or devolving to heavy handedness during his shift. However, he wasn't particularly revolutionary.

The USSR was driven to the point where it had to start thawing relations with the West in order to survive...and even that proved to be insufficient once they were able to witness the actual capabilities of these new weapons systems the US had been pushing out...with the knowledge of what was yet in the pipeline.

The deathknoll for the USSR was perestroika and glastnost..but not how most folks think. Perestroika opened up private enterprise, yes...but it provided various safety nets for these enterprises, which bankrupted the government as they failed during the early 90's.

Glastnost did, indeed, open up communication and free speech and politics in degrees, in the USSR...but as a result, regional elections started bringing in more nationalists and people were also able to more express their dissatisfaction with the cumbling economy.

So, yes, Gorbachev did play a significant role in the fall of the Soviet Union...via his failures. However, if I had to point to one single aspect of the '80's which spelled the demise of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, it would have to be Reagan's brinksmanship.

it would have to be Reagan's brinksmanship.

I must've been on vacation for this one. What brinksmanship?

My lasting impression of Reagan (besides humbling Carter in the debates) was standing outside the White House with Gorbachev saying 'trust but verify' referring to nuclear disarmament.

There are a lot of words for Reagan. Leader, statesman and negotiator come to mind. I never considered him as a brinksman.

Oh... I do have another impression of Reagan... he and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney singing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling" in a duet. Reagan was a cool guy.

Isn't it true that most Republican Presidents would have followed a similar policy in Reagan's position, even if they wouldn't have executed it as well

No!

All previous Republican Presidents(and Democrat too) relied on containment.

Reagan actively supported containment as well as roll back.

Reagan's brinksmanship was scary at the time. Nuclear war was a tangible outcome at the time, might have occured on proxy soil, but it was still tangibly possible.

His SDI program, if it were real, would have totally unbalanced MAD; and such was a terrible threat to the USSR. One they tried to keep up with with their own programs; which helped bankrupt them further.

I don't think any other President during the Cold War even came close, to paraphrase, "We are building a system that will totally negate all of your nuclear weapons and warheads while our are left intact". That is cutting your enemy off at the knees at the same time you are backing him into a corner. That was very unpredictable, and thought so at the time.

Now of course we know NOW that it was all smoke and mirrors, but we did not know it at the time. The Soviets surely thought SDI was real(or mostly real). We even had Americans protesting, in the streets, SDI because the consequences of it's success was frightening to many here.

Isn't it true that Gorbachev was entirely radical in his approach to communist governance compared to the absolutely stagnant years of Breshnev and Andropov?

Check out this movie
Moonlighting. 1982
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084354/

It is about Polish workers brought into Britain during this time, and being trapped because of the lockdown of Poland by the Soviets. It is accurate at the strife that the Reagan supported Poles were going through at the time. It has Jeremy Irons as the lead. Excellent movie if I remember correctly.

The Soviets were facing active counterrevolution at the time. Gorby's stance was to lessen the iron boot to make them happy sure. But their counterrevolution was being funded and supported by the Reagan administration.

The pressure for Glastnost and Perostroika came from the counterrevolutionaries(Lech Walensa and Solidarity mostly), the support for the counterrevolutionaries came from Reagan.

"Mr. President(Gorby), Tear Down This Wall!" While being at the wall.

Much more impressionable and forceful than saying that you are a Berliner.

Do you remember the Wall coming down? I do.

I must've been on vacation for this one. What brinksmanship?

When Russia would bet a new class of subs, Reagan would see their subs and raise them stealth tech.

Not nuclear brinksmanship...conventional. Reagan fought hard for nuclear treaties, yes (though he wasn't afraid to walk away if they weren't good enough, either), but he spent a ton on our conventional capabilities and dared Russia to keep up.

Ok... let's look at some credible information about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Here's one I read on the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University site.

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=article&item_id=1426

Here's a Wikipedia entry.

Quote

The Berlin Wall, and with it ultimately the Soviet Bloc, collapsed in November of 1989, shortly after he left office. Many credit Reagan with being instrumental in the 1991 downfall of the Soviet Union. Historians have not yet formed a consensus, with some considering Reagan to be a leading figure in orchestrating the collapse of Soviet Communism in 1991; other historians believe the demise of the Soviet Union was inevitable, and that Reagan hastened the day.

Unquote

Here's another one from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp

This one is from the Ashbrook Center. It summarizes the various perspectives about Reagan's impact on ending the Cold War.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v10n6/garrity.html

This one doesn't have the pedigree of previous links, but is written in media-speak sensationalism preferred by many.

http://www.counterpunch.org/blum06072004.html

... and another one written in the populist style.

http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/

I find this one the most fascinating. It's Gorbachev's own assessment on Reagan's role in ending the Cold War. I find it compelling and credible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32927-2004Jun10.html

All the links I've shown are American.

Some people, including folks on this board, believe Reagan ended the Cold War. Most credible and learned people acknowledge Reagan's significant contributions to the Cold War end, but also acknowledge that the Soviet Union collapsed from within, and was able to do so peacefully under the leadership of Gorbachev.

It's interesting that many scholars credit Reagan's personal conversion to using a peacemaking approach as a decisive factor in ending the Cold War. They contend that Reagan's early hawkish confrontational approach threatened to extend the Cold War.

I never claimed it was entirely Reagan's hawkish policies which caused the end.

I agree with most of those articles you've posted (Blum's is full of **** though).

Reagan spent the money...and bluffed alot. His willingingness to deal in certain areas, obviously played a role. He proved masterful in his ability to offer the carrot and the stick. He was masterful in playing good cop bad cop with his neo-con advisors ands supporters playing the bad cop role.

But those who would suggest Reagan had little or no role in the downfall of Soviet communism are churlish with outside agendas.

I'm a pretty damn liberal person. Conservatives tend to loathe me. But I'll be damned if I'll allow my disagreements with current American conservatism to cloud my views on Regan. His domestic economic policies were a disaster, sure... his increasing the 'war on drugs' was sheer lunacy that we've still not overcome, but his primary job, and his goal to watch the demise of Soviet communism was a success.

He played a major role and arguments against that either are made for another agenda, or fail to take into account certain effects.

He showed the Soviets that the US was economically capable of an arms race...when the Soviets weren't even capable of maintaining their current levels...and then he quietly offered them concessions.

I'm a pretty damn liberal person. Conservatives tend to loathe me. But I'll be damned if I'll allow my disagreements with current American conservatism to cloud my views on Regan. His domestic economic policies were a disaster, sure... his increasing the 'war on drugs' was sheer lunacy that we've still not overcome, but his primary job, and his goal to watch the demise of Soviet communism was a success.

You dont give yourself enough credit, you make both liberals and conservatives loath you!

You dont give yourself enough credit, you make both liberals and conservatives loath you!

Just try being a Libertarian.

If both Liberals and Conservatives don't hate you alike, you are just not doing a good enough job.

The Reagan 80's had some scary sh!t going on.
PMRC.
Moral Majority.
Meese Commission.
Post Regressive Memory crap and subsequent Satanist witch hunts.
Book burnings and banning, and music album bonfires.

And all the while we were also thinking that we were going to end up in some The Day After or Red Dawn apocalyptic type scenario because this whacko had his finger on the red button.

I was not a big Reagan fan at the time. But I do give credit where credit was due. The Reagan Doctrine was intrumental in the fall of the Soviet Union, clearly and obviously.

Despite all the things that he did which I did not like, which was/and is in the majority, he helped crush Communism and leave its remnants marginalized and alienated.