OK, one last time. We are talking about one of the most significant events of the 20th century here. A big one. Like the russian revolution, for example. Lenin, it can safely be said, very obviously CAUSED the downfall of the monarchy in Russia. The founding of the independent Irish state. Michael Collins very obviously WAS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR the founding of the Irish Free State. World War 2. Winston Churchill very obviously PLAYED A HUGE ROLE IN the demise of Nazism. It’s not a matter of debate, it’s a matter of documented fact upon which any reasonable historian would agree. And it’s not a matter of Henry Kissinger’s, Natan Scharansky’s, Lech Walesa’s, or indeed the ECONOMIST’S or anyone else’s opinion. ( The Economist: a great read on the plane by the way, and usually free in business class).

Where is the objective, undeniable evidence that Reagan CAUSED the downfall of the USSR? It happened when he was president. big deal. still waiting for the PROOF.

Come on, please I was hoping for some more wise words, from a great historian as yourself.

Don’t let me down.

PS: I may have undersetimated the full power of your argument. After all who can fail to be impressed by:

3. People read THE ECNOMIST on planes.

4. Henry Kissenger once appeared in an advert for the ECONOMIST

5. Jerry Adams said that Bill Clinton was responsible for ending the Cold War (or something relevant like that).

All adds up to a coherent and compelling argument that Ronnie did not end the Cold War. Absolute genius.

PS: Generally, speaking it is better at building an argument if you can quote some other ‘sources’ to back up your assertions, rather than just quoting yourself.

I do not hold Henry Kissenger in high regard. He is held in high regard and is regarded as one of the most important figures in American foreign policy.

If I may can I summarise your argument:

1. Americans are stupid, therefore becasue they say Ronald Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Berlin Wall, it must be wrong

2. You were alive during the 80s, so you would have noticed if he had.

Well I must say, I am impressed by the power of your intellect and you have convinced me that John Lewis Gaddis, Natan Sharansky and Lech Walesa are all wrong.

Though to use the power of your own ‘logic’. I would also say that they were alive during the 80s, so they would have ‘noticed’, if Ronnie had not been responsible.

I do not think you are a good example of the supposedly superior European intellect.

you seem to hold henry kissinger in exceedingly high regard. coincidentally, so does henry kissinger. henry kissinger is only interested in henry kissinger. and has been for quite some time. he’s on more corporate boards than anyone in history. although, interestingly he once appeared in a TV commercial for the ECONOMIST. which you also place a lot of faith in. a good read on the plane, granted. but that’s about it.

of course Walesa and Scharansky praised RR. as Gerry Adams praised Clinton. hardly surprising. but it doesn’t make an ironclad case for Ronnie bringing down the Eastern bloc. I was alive during the 80s. i think i would have remembered it if RR had DONE something that could have been connected to the demise of communism. It fell apart all by itself.

logic? we are talking about history.

As I understand it, Henry Kissenger was an advocate of Détente, a French word meaning ‘relaxation’. Détente was supposed to ‘ease tensions’ between the superpowers. Soviet dissidents, such as Natan Sharansky (a political prisoner for nine years) saw this as ‘appeasement’. The difference is this whereas previous strategists/presidents had linked their foreign policy to Russias INTERNATIONAL conduct, Reagan linked US policy to Russias DOMESTIC policy. Reagan told Gorby at a summit “As long as you keep him (Sharansky) and other political prisoners locked up, we will not be able to establish trust”.

Ronnie, did not just make one speech he made hundreds. Also, he did not just make speeches, he did act and put his money were his mouth was. This is why Walesa and Sharansky speak so highly of him and this is what Ronnie did different to all before. He did want to spread ‘freedom’.

Reagan’s speech certainly gave hope to dissidents in Russia and particularly the then-satellite-states. However, it wasn’t a controversial speech even at the time, and would have been unremarked other than as a PR exercise had the Soviet Union not collapsed shortly afterwards.

Kissinger didn’t believe in actually "tearing down that wall". However, he did believe in providing American support at zero cost to things that were in the American interest. He would have been proud of, not opposed to, Reagan’s speech.

There is a lack of interest in foreign affairs everywhere, I live in the UK and most people are misinformed. You really have to be a geek to get to the bottom of most stories. I would also say that I work in an industry where many people are university educated and very fact oriented, when it comes to work, but they do not have the time to get to the bottom of most things.

I have heard the same argument, from a Texan Oilworker from Lancashire, but it is just his opinion and he is no bright spark. He is just playing to the crowd. And people hear what they want to hear anyway.

The assertions about Ronnie come from multiple sources. Not just US, when the ex president of Poland says so you have to listen. When Natan Sharansky (jailed for nine years in Soviet Russia) says so you have to listen. When The Economist says so, you have to listen.

Is there any logic to your argument, other than the Americans say so, therefore, it must not be true?

Please point to your sources.

i’m the first to admit i’m no historian. But i’ve heard the "reagan-brought-down-communism-singlehandedly" spiel a few too many times.

Reagan’s defense build up wasn’t entirely selflessly motivated. The american economy was in the toilet. defense spending helped buoy the economy.

i’m not saying americans are stupid. they plainly aren’t. but there is an understandable lack of interest in foreign affairs here ( i live in the USA) which politicians take advantage of. George W. Bush certainly has, and continues to do so.

Reagan was an extremely popular president who did some great things, but to give him sole credit (which is what many over here do) for the downfall of the USSR is stretching things. He was very PR savvy and railing against the "evil empire" wasn’t going to cost him too many votes over here.