Did Reagan Win The Cold War For The U.S.?

You do? Last time I checked you don't have 16 carriers or 28 Divisions or 250000+ men parked in Germany or your Pershing IIs, MX Peacekeepers, 21 Seawolves, and hundreds upon hundreds of tons of gear lying around in reforger depots and last time I checked your GDP spent on the army has gone from 6% to 3.7%


I disagree BUT don't want to get into an
argument re this since as the OP I want to
keep this thread in the history sections & out
of "Chat". My apologies GDIS for bringing
matters re current politics up- I shouldn't
have done it.
 
When discussions about how to preserve the Eastern bloc come up in this forum, they always focus on internal Soviet factors. They never focus on Reagan, or who occupied the White House.

There's a reason for that.
 
I've said this before; Soviet/Russian paranoia caused the collapse of the USSR, not Ronny Raygun! They spent themselves out of existence in response to mostly non-existent threats. If I had to give credit to someone for the collapse, it would be Curtis LeMay and Hyman Rickover, two hard cases with single minded focus on their respective favorite toys...
 
I
The Cold War ended most unexpectedly in 1989-1990 with a U.S. victory. Many in the U.S.- including an overwhelming majority of the American people- give Ronald Reagan the credit for the
outcome. His strong attacks on the Russians made them realize, it is said, that this time they weren't dealing with a U.S. President who- like Carter- they could push around. Realizing this, they caved. As a British writer put it, "Ronald Reagan was successful in his dealings because he was right all along--- He believed that if the United States put forth its strength- military, material,
& moral- the Soviet Union could not live with it. And he was right."* Others give the credit to
Mikhail Gorbachev & the changes he ushered in to the U.S.S.R. & the Soviet bloc. Although I per-
sonally am in the latter camp, I nonetheless here ask-

Did Reagan(& his tactics)win the Cold War for the U.S.?

*- Godfrey Hodgson, THE WORLD TURNED RIGHT SIDE UP, p. 270 of the 1996, paperback edition.
it is complicated: my overall opinion is that all in all Ronald Reagan was a good president, but I understand that some die-hard, fringe-thinking liberal may disagree not with me, but with basic history facts.
That said Reagan's president was far from perfect and burdened by many contradictions and inequities.
Now, back to your thread, well, saying that Reagan broke soviet union is a gross exaggeration, but nonetheless he played a part, and an important part in it:sure, Soviet union dissolved out of internal problems, but Reagan exploited soviet weaknesses very well: his political posture was succesfull in obscuring soviet political image worldwide, and in forcing Soviet hand in an armament race they could not possibly win, while spending tons of money upon it.
 
The Russians themselves give credit to Reagan, why should we be different?

To give an example, US Policy prior to Reagan was to let the Soviets crush demonstrations behind the Iron Curtain. Hungary in 1956, Czechslovakia in 1968.

When Poland rose up against the Soviets in 1981, Reagan backed them to the hilt. The Soviets backed down, and Poland began the long road to reform.

There are statutes of Reagan in Warsaw because of his actions.
 
Did Reagan win the Cold War himself? Of course not. There were far too many factors in play for one man to win it by himself. If nothing else, he worked and stood atop the labor of 35 years to finish the job. However, the role he did play can't be underestimated. He was willing to push the Soviets while using more moderate diplomacy when it came down to it, all to put increased pressure on the stumbling colossus. He inspired America to get up and keep going after a decade of misery. You know how in '84 the Morning in America commercials resonated? It was because they were completely true. Reagan was a strong president who regardless of any opinions about his politics, woke America up from a national nightmare. He stood up to the Soviets, saw a wounded bear and kept on hamstringing it.

I'd say Reagan was the right man in the right place to do it. He's a Great American for that in my opinion, even if he didn't do it singlehandedly. In my opinion Reagan's the 2nd best President of the 20th century, just a hair behind FDR (and ahead of him on some days when I view FDR's missteps particularly harshly).
 
Reagan was a poor president at best. Demented and corrupt, he oversaw the Able Archer 83 military exercise that came close to start WW3, sold weapons to the Iranians to illegally fund one side of a civil war in Central America, let the HIV pandemic spiral out of control, ect.

Conservatives like to wank this absolute fraud, but the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991 due to internal issues within the Soviet Union years after Reagan left office, and also almost a decade after he should have left office due to Alzheimer's.

First reply shows why this thread is better suited to the Chat section. Bravo.

Anyway, with the exception of Kennedy (who came a hell of a lot closer to starting WW3 and had to cave to avoid it) and Carter, I’d say all of the Cold War Presidents led foreign policies that helped to win the Cold War, in various forms (as in, the others sped up the demise of the USSR in some fashion, while those two did not). Each had their own particular take, and some were more successful than others. If I were to pick anyone from that list to get the lion’s share, Reagan is a good choice. Nixon, meanwhile, certainly changed the board by realigning US-Chinese relations.

And, of course, though it should not need be said, I’m sure it actually does need to be said: in each case, it is the administration as a whole, rather than a singular Great Man, that does all the heavy lifting here. And, beyond that, the inherent strengths of the US political and economic system, particularly compared to the Soviets’.

Its a regular food pyramid of ‘reasons we won.’
 
Last edited:

Jerry Kraus

Banned
The Cold War ended most unexpectedly in 1989-1990 with a U.S. victory. Many in the U.S.- including an overwhelming majority of the American people- give Ronald Reagan the credit for the
outcome. His strong attacks on the Russians made them realize, it is said, that this time they weren't dealing with a U.S. President who- like Carter- they could push around. Realizing this, they caved. As a British writer put it, "Ronald Reagan was successful in his dealings because he was right all along--- He believed that if the United States put forth its strength- military, material,
& moral- the Soviet Union could not live with it. And he was right."* Others give the credit to
Mikhail Gorbachev & the changes he ushered in to the U.S.S.R. & the Soviet bloc. Although I per-
sonally am in the latter camp, I nonetheless here ask-

Did Reagan(& his tactics)win the Cold War for the U.S.?

*- Godfrey Hodgson, THE WORLD TURNED RIGHT SIDE UP, p. 270 of the 1996, paperback edition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not according to the Russians. They saw the Communist regime as inherently unstable, and bound to implode, sooner or later. That's why they aren't really particularly upset with the Americans, and why they shifted to a more capitalist economic model, in imitation of the Americans. Traditionally, the Russians have tended to Putin style Fascist-Capitalism, rather than Socialism. Socialism has tended to be more the style of Germany, historically.

Of course, many Americans equate Communism and Fascism, but, that's because of the anarchist colonial tradition in the U.S. that rejects all government at all. To Europeans, the distinction between Communism and Fascism is quite clear -- Fascists use government power to support he status quo, Communists use government power to uproot the status quo, for fundamental social change.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not according to the Russians. They saw the Communist regime as inherently unstable, and bound to implode, sooner or later. That's why they aren't really particularly upset with the Americans, and why they shifted to a more capitalist economic model, in imitation of the Americans. Traditionally, the Russians have tended to Putin style Fascist-Capitalism, rather than Socialism. Socialism has tended to be more the style of Germany, historically.

Of course, many Americans equate Communism and Fascism, but, that's because of the anarchist colonial tradition in the U.S. that rejects all government at all. To Europeans, the distinction between Communism and Fascism is quite clear -- Fascists use government power to support he status quo, Communists use government power to uproot the status quo, for fundamental social change.

Thats not even wrong.
 
In my view Reagan does deserve some credit, but actually for diametrically opposite reasons than many of those who worship at the altar of St. Reagan believe.

Reagan the war-hawk was a gift from heaven for the Soviets. A man whose loose rhetoric, willingness to spend on impractical but fearsome weapons systems and alarming foreign policy moves made foreign governments more willing to work with the Soviets (especially in Western Europe) and helped Soviet propaganda abroad and at home.

Contrary to popular belief, Reagan did not scare the Soviets into spending more on their military - the Soviets knew the US could outspend them, but they, unlike the US, had always known they were weaker so their fear did not increase. Reagan spending more on the military was just more of the same for a Soviet military planner. And while the Soviets were nervous that US technology could achieve what the majority of their own scientists assured them was impossible, the truth was that nothing Reagan could do could return the Cold War to the overwhelming superiority the US had enjoyed before 1970. Military technology meant that while the US continued to have the ability to obliterate the Soviets as a functional state and genocide the Soviet population, in the early 70s the Soviets gained the ability to do the same to the US.

We now know that the Soviets equivalent of Star Wars was not a reaction to Reagan's Star Wars - their research to space weapons had started in earnest in the mid 70s. Reagan's Star Wars pushed them to launch their Polyus battle station early but it did not result in much more funds aimed at Soviet space weapons programs. The Polyus was a kludged together test article that was mostly made out of spare parts left over from other programs.

All the things that really scared the Soviets - the Space Shuttle for example, or the US getting really serious about pushing human rights, were legacies of the Nixon era that Carter had continued and Reagan actually pulled back from. (EDIT: Actually, Ford may have started the US getting serious about human rights. Anyway, it was a big surprise to the Soviets when the US treated the Helsinki Accords seriously, and what the Soviets had at the time considered a diplomatic coup was instead used into a very effective stick to beat them with.)

As for Afghanistan, the US started destabilizing Afghanistan under Ford (yes, the US was messing Afghanistan up since before the Saur Revolution that brought the Communists to power), and Carter was the one who decided to fund the Mujahideen. Reagan here deserves at most gets credit for continuing the Nixon-Ford-Carter policies.

Rebuilding the US army after Vietnam mainly happened under Carter.

With deregulation, deregulation in the US started under Carter and most deregulation in fact happened under Carter and Clinton. While some particularly damaging deregulation happened to the US banking industry under Reagan, even worse would happen under Clinton and I think Reagan deserves neither the credit he gets from the right nor the blame he gets from the left. Reagan was simply following the consensus of previous and succeeding administrations by both US parties (and followed by many other parties abroad) in his own Reaganish way.

That Reaganish way is something that the left likes to minimize alot - but it had huge political effects. The guy was real gosh darned genial and a great salesman. After the damage that Nixon had done to US politics (damage that lingers to this day), and the foreign policy and economic disappointments of the 70s, under Nixon, Ford and Carter (first oil crisis, taking the US off gold, the fall of South Vietnam, fall of the Shah in Iran and Carter's malaise speech) Reagan's ability to sell optimism deserves respect.

So what did Reagan contribute?

See, Reagan was an optimist who really, really hated nuclear weapons and was scared to his marrow of nuclear war. So, when the USSR fell under the leadership of another optimist who hated nuclear weapons, Reagan was willing to ignore the US hardliners who said they could never trust the Soviets and that the best the US could hope for was a favourable balance of terror. He was willing to believe that Gorbachev was honest when he said he'd like to get rid of all nuclear weapons (Soviet leaders had claimed publicly for decades similar things) and tried to work with Gorbachev.

Reagan, the great optimist, sold the Soviet leadership on his optimism. And that really did help end the Cold War. Of course, neither Gorbachev nor Reagan was able to completely defeat their hard liners and both the US and Russia still have colossal stocks of nuclear weapons. But they did manage pave the road to significant cuts and the Soviet hope Reagan inspired did help convince them that there was a window to a future where they didn't need their empire in Eastern Europe and where instead of an adversary, the US could be a friend.

It may be that under a different president, the Soviets, even under Gorbachev would not have trusted that the US could be their friend and would have balanced internal reform with maintaining themselves as a competing power to the US, meaning they keep supporting their puppets in E. Europe, denuclearization doesn't proceed as far and either the USSR doesn't fall (though it would likely continue a relative decline), and the Cold War would continue to this day, the Eastern Block implodes violently or a close call as happened so often during the Cold War (Stanislav Petrov is only one of many people on the US and Soviet side who possibly avoided nuclear war - the Cold War was scary dangerous) actually results in a full nuclear exchange between the East and West.

So as false as St. Reagan is, the demon-prince Reagan is also a myth. We may owe him and Gorbachev our lives and our civilization.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
So as false as St. Reagan is, the demon-prince Reagan is also a myth. We may owe him and Gorbachev our lives and our civilization.

No one forecast an end to the Cold War, let alone the USSR imploding for it, and a soft, peaceful end.

You did need both Men for this to happen
 
Except Reagan went for 'Rollback' rather than Truman's 'Containment'

While Reagan often deviated from policy rhetorically, I think if you look at Europe, the policy was still one of containment. The build-up in Europe was intended to deter the Soviets from invading West Germany.
 
I think one has to ask for a counterfactual: Which plausible US president(s) for 1980's would not have won the Cold War? If we take away the WW3 possiblities, naturally.

I would argue Reagan's biggest contribution to the end of the Cold War was his aversion to nuclear war combined with the ability to grasp the moment with Gorbachev, thus enabling the peaceful end for the Cold War.
 
Top