Ever since Ronald Reagan’s death, I’ve periodically railed against the bizarre right-wing myth that Mr Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II were responsible for the end of the Cold War.
Marc Fisher in Slate and Jonathan Steele in the Guardian have some excellent articles this week reminding people of the truth – that Soviet communism was an inherently unsustainable system, and that the decision to end it was made by the Soviet elite and Mikhail Gorbachev in particular.
Two small points from me: the economic issue dogging the Soviet Union in the 1980s was not spending to keep up with Reagan’s loony arms race, so you can’t even credit him with the country’s economic collapse; and why the hell would you want to as a right-winger anyway? If that’s your political boat, better to say that communism failed because the market is the only efficient way to allocate resources…
(via Geraldine)
Or even that as information is distributed so must decision making be.
There is a constant contradiction in the Reagan/Thatch/Pope fans’ argument. They tend to argue that the Soviet system was inherently unstable (which it was). But that being true, all the anti-Soviets need do is wait. But they didn’t wait, they took action; action which implies they didn’t really believe it was inherently unstable.
Helping the Soviet Union to collapse might have been legitimate in some ways, but overthrowing elected governments, installing dictators (including Saddam, of course), funding death squads in Central America et cetera went way beyond a gentle push. Indeed, if you genuinely believed the Soviet system to be unsustainable, a legitimate tactic would have been to allow it to over extend itself by taking on too many client states too quickly and then say ‘I told you so’ when it fell apart. (And if it didn’t fall apart, you’d have to accept you’d got it wrong.)
"There is a constant contradiction in the Reagan/Thatch/Pope fans’ argument. They tend to argue that the Soviet system was inherently unstable (which it was). But that being true, all the anti-Soviets need do is wait. But they didn’t wait, they took action; action which implies they didn’t really believe it was inherently unstable."
Replace ‘Reagan/Thatch/Pope’ with ‘Lenin/Trotsky’, and ‘Soviet’ with ‘capitalist’, and you’ve got the standard line trotted out against establishing the USSR in the first place. ‘Neoliberal captialism or barbarism!’ as the Reaganites might have said in homage…
It’s a tad misleading to imply that it’s a simple matter of unsustainable versus sustainable. The question is, for how long was it sustainable? Yes, it was destined to collapse eventually anyway, but did Reagan speed the process up? Personally, I reckon he did. And would it have been morally OK to let it collapse inevitably after, say, three hundred years? I think not.
> the economic issue dogging the Soviet Union in the 1980s was not spending to keep up with Reagan’s loony arms race, so you can’t even credit him with the country’s economic collapse
Well, accounts differ on that score. Gorbachev denied that his reforms were in response to pressure from the Americans, but then to do otherwise might have lost him his job. Shevardnaze (and I know I’ve probably spelt that wrong) has said that it was definitely arms spending that ended the USSR. They’re the two people in the best position to know, and they contradict each other. As far as I’m concerned, that means, at the very least, that it is wrong to make a statement like you just did as if it’s an established fact.
There’s also a bit of discrepancy between what lefties say now — "It was going to collapse anyway, so why did Reagan bother?" — and what they said then — "America can never win this fight and the USSR has a superior economic system that will outlast Capitalism, so why is Reagan bothering?" Just saying, like.
That’s fair Chris… up to a point.
I can’t defend establishing the USSR, as I believe that system to be flawed. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks were taking advantage of a system in a state of collapse. They hadn’t brought the collapse about, but had an ideology that they believed explained it. So you may argue that anti-Tsarists did indeed wait for the collapse and then took advantage of the resulting vacuum.
On the other hand, even if they did make a similar error to the Reagonites, the Reagonites are not let off the hook.
"When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can’t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989."
Lech Walesa, President of Poland 1990 – 1995
One of the reasons that people do not like giving Ronnie any credit is that he was demonised in the 1980s by many people, whom he proved wrong. He was said to be stupid and a warmonger. Over a million Peace protestors turned out in New York against his the arms race.
History demonstrates that these people and many liberal intellectuals were pretty stupid. History will judge, whether George Bush will be seen in the same light? Get ready, it is a possibility…
Not only that, the Polish communist regime allowed the Pope and the Catholic church an awful lot of leeway which similar governments didn’t. They let them operate, they let a church be built at Nova Huta (eventually), they let Cardinal Wojtyla leave Poland for Rome for the conclave, they let him return as Pope for a visit and hold huge masses, and then to go back to Rome. Consider how the Soviet Union treated the priesthood there – even after Stalin’s death – which resulted in many of their clergy being discredited, and they begin to look like one of the less repressive of the eastern bloc’s regimes.
clearly the communist system was on the way out. and clearly reagan was in the right place at the right time. the idea that he was some kind of visionary and played a key role in the demise of the USSR is fanciful. he was an old-school cold war american right winger. what did people expect him to say? keep the wall up?
and no doubt these same people will credit george bush with ANYTHING that goes right in the middle east in the next 50 years. it’s usually, sad to say, americans who don’t know diddly squat about the outside world who go along with this sort of simplistic shite.
Hello Teeveeddubya
“it’s usually, sad to say, americans who don’t know diddly squat about the outside world who go along with this sort of simplistic shite”
Actually I am English, born in Lancashire. I think that Lech Walesa, who gave quite a bit of respect to Ronnie, was Polish.
Whereas, I would not want to get into the ‘dumb Americans debate’, not because I think it is true, but because anyone who thought it was, is not really worth arguing with and are not capable of putting forward a logical argument. I seem to recall that America has 80 out of the worlds top 100 universities are American?
On the question of whether any US president would say "keep up" the wall, I think you are also incorrect. Henry Kissenger, for example, was an advocate of containment, i.e the status quo. Indeed Ronald Reagan went against the advice of the people around him, in deciding to take on Communism. I think the fact that 1 million people protested against Reagan is an indication that this policy was not popular with the electorate. However, don’t take my word for it:
“I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let’s remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs.”
Lech Walesa Polish President of Poland
As to whether George Bush will be seen in this light, history will be the judge, and it will only be known in a few years time. The historical parallels are interesting…Personally, if it were proven to be true, I would laugh my head off.
Lee,
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.
Hello teeveeddubya
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.
The Economist is written by bright graduates whose level of written authoritativeness is well above their level of genuinely being experts on what’s going on – based on my experience being interviewed as an expert for the Economist and being friends with Economist writers (unrelatedly). It’s a good newspaper, but it’s not equivalent to, say, a peer-reviewed journal.
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.
Test
Your analysis is at odds, with a the analysis of the noted cold war historian Lewis Gaddis and Natan Sharansky (9 year political prisoner within the Soviet Union of the )
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’.
Lee,
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.
Teevedubdubya
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.
Teevedubya
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.
Teevedubdubya
Come on, please I was hoping for some more wise words, from a great historian as yourself.
Don’t let me down.
Lee,
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.