No, Reagan Did Not Win the Cold War
John Lewis Gaddis has a new book out called The Cold War: A New History, in which he eulogizes Reagan as a visionary and the winner of the Cold War. Salon’s review of the book offers the following tidbit:
When John Lewis Gaddis, a history professor and expert on the conflict, teaches Yale undergraduates about the Cold War, “hardly any of them remember any of the events I’m describing.” His students, he reports, “have very little sense of how the Cold War started, what it was about or why it ended in the way that it did.”
Exactly. And that’s why revisionists like Gaddis are able to get away with this crap.
- Reagan didn’t win the Cold War; if anything, he prolonged it by years. Gorbachev began pushing for reform in the early 80s, and Reagan’s reactionary bluster actually gave the Kremlin hardliners ammunition to maintain the status quo.
- Reagan didn’t beat the Soviets by outspending them; the Soviets weren’t trying to keep up with us at all. They had long since abandoned the arms race, betting (accurately) that there was almost no chance of a hot war with the U.S.
I was at the IMF in the early 90s, working with the Russians and the newly independent republics. Those folks would have laughed their asses off if somebody had told them that Ronnie Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. When I first heard Reagan referred to (on TV) as the guy who had “won the Cold War,” I almost choked to death on my coffee. It was Republican revisionism, pure and simple.
As Goebbels said, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Think of that whenever somebody tells you that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.
6 Responses to “No, Reagan Did Not Win the Cold War”
-
Dr Marco says:
The problem is that everyone believes the stupidity that Reagan won the Cold War. Goebbels might have been evil, but he seemed to know the powerful effects of persistent/perennial lies on human beings.
By the way, the Soviets lost a quarter of its population fighting the Nazis. How could they engage in an armed race with the US? They knew their limitations. The “Red threat” was fear-inspiring, mind-controlling propagandaJanuary 29th, 2006 at 7:56 pm EST -
Violet Socks says:
One of the things that’s interesting about living through these Republican Times is that I get to see first-hand how effective propaganda is. That stuff really works. And these Republicans have got it down cold.
-
Michael Bains says:
Wow! I’m sure you know how very few people understand the facts about perestroika and glasnost. It’s refreshing to find a post that points out this obvious and rational bit of History. I have an article from the time of Reagan’s death with the Headline to the effect of “For Many, Reagan Years Not a Good Time”. It’s posted prominently in my cube at work so that any who come in there are unlikely to miss it.
Sure, Gorby didn’t necessarily (LOL!) want to break up the USSR, but neither did Ronnie “Can-I-call-them-Evil-on-TV-Mommy?” Reagan have a damned thing to do with the fall of that politically and financially unbalanced behemoth.
What he did do is create the largest and most burdensome national debt-load in the history of civilization. His and Dubya’s Admin give total lie to the idea that Republicans are about small government.
And neither one of those IDists or any of their devotees had/have the intelligence or moral virtue to understand that observable fact. To be clear, the one’s with the intelligence have not the morality.
Thanks for the post Violet, and for reminding me via your comments what a great site you’ve got! lol! I read so many I forget that quality trumps quantity 7 times outta 10.
-
Violet says:
Thank you, Michael, and it’s good to see you here again.
Reagan hagiography drives me absolutely bonkers. I remember when he ran in ’76 and was laughed off as the dim-witted reactionary tool that he was. Then America went into a fugue state and elected the idiot. Now he’s Saint Ronnie. Jesus H. Fucking Christ.
I remember one of his campaign ads with the “It’s Morning in America” theme. The first time I saw it I thought it was a McDonald’s commercial. No joke — McD’s was running a similar kind of ad at the time. The Reagan spot was completely devoid of political content — just a sunrise, happy people, a gooey-voiced announcer… It was like televised opium for the masses.
-
rich truxel says:
The red threat” – Propaganda / Mind Control
Absolutely – I grew up in the 70’s terrified of the U.S.S.R. In fact I even agreed with those omnipresent cries for “peace at any price” and “better red than dead” and “I’d rather live on my knees than die on my feet.” LBJ put it best when he declared “the cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.”
I did not get over this fear until the mid 80’s. As everyone pointed out – we lived in fear of the Soviets from the end of WW2 thru the early 80’s, when they started to fear us.We were afreid to upset the balance of power or confront the continuing military expansion. The CIA was runing our policy – maybe that is why Bush and the CIA were so opposed to enhancing our ability to project force?
Sure those glasnost / accommodation policies were great! Though maybe not for the dozen or more nations taken by the Soviet military between 1950 and 1980.
Here is the biggest thing overlooked in all of these discussions:
“We DID win the cold war!!!”
Yes, by making this statement I am guilty of a Reagan like declaration of the obvious, but it should still be the beginning of any discussion. Regardless of the reasons for this, Reagan was scoffed at for even considering triumph, esp. by Bush, in the 1980 primary.DEFENSE:
Were Reagan’s policies intended to cause harm to the Soviet economy? No – he abandoned that goal of 30 years of U>S. Policy.
Did his policies irresponsibly upset the balance of power and increase tensions among soviet leadership? No- They intentionally upset the balance of power and increase tensions among soviet leadership, whereas maintaining the status quo had been the purpose of policy since the beginning of the cold war.2) The economies of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. spiraled downward in the 70′s. Both used the same cures – economic planning, hard / tight monetary policies, government planning and regulation, rationing and price controls, etc. By the early 80′s both were at the lowest point in 50 years. In response the soviet union cracked down harder in an attempt to stabilize the economy while The U.S. dropped the policies that were effectively stabilizing (or stagnating) our economy.
For all those dems who vilify RWR – The high tax rates peaked in the Nixon years and were modestly reduced under Carter. Most significant business regs and all protectionist trade policies were also in place by the mid 70′s.
For the cons who vilify Carter: He was much more involved in deregulation the Reagan, and signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and trade which opened up trade.
Reagan had little to do with the demise of Soviet Military power, much to do with the change of our armed forces that dragged home from Viet nam in 75 to that which went to the first gulf war in ’91.
Reagan had little to do with the economic turnaround from stagnation and decline to growth in the 80′s and 90′s, but the preexisting policies conservative republicans policies of high tax rates and excessive regulation had much to do with the declines.
Quote from 1st inaugural:
“The U.S. is suffering from an economic decline of vast proportions. Standards of living are below were they were 10 years ago. This did not come upon us quickly and it will not go away quickly – but it will go away because you and I, the individual people of this great nation have always had the ability to overcome anything that stands in our way. But let me be clear -regarding the present crisis your government is not the answer to our problems – Your government is the problem. It is my intention to scale back not only the size but also the influence of the federal establishment…”For those who laud the economic prosperity of the Clinton years I could not agree more. The economy of the mid to late 90′s was the best of the century – and the time if least government influence in the economy.
Another thing lost in current debate:
Reagan was the biggest Washington outsider ever elected. He was much more contentious regarding republican traditions and within the party primaries than with the general population and general elections. He lost the 72 and 76 primaries, and the republicans gathered around Bush as the favorite in 80, which Reagan one by the skin of his teeth. He was then elected twice by the largest majority in modern history. -
Steve32 says:
rich truxel says: “For those who laud the economic prosperity of the Clinton years I could not agree more.”
Wow! Talk about revisionist history. I remember clear as a bell that almost exactly two weeks after the first inauguration of Clinton, one of the economic indicators took a clear upswing, and Clinton of course grabbed that sound bite and claimed all credit–when he hadn’t even made decisions on who most of his staff would be let alone had the time to implement policies to turn around a complex national economy. And the economy was tanking by the end of Clinton’s administration, due to the rampant pork barrel of Dems magnified by their holding both branches of government, which had finally been realized by the public who had just elected a Republican led Congress (and oh the wailing and knashing of teeth by Democrat appointees to Congress getting the boot due to party change, but they had relied on ruling in perpituity and so had not covered their figurative butts for post-appointment.
That is not to say that the Republicans have done great. Unfortunately they seem to have mostly wanted to “get back” for 30+ years of pork by balencing with their own excesses of pork.
But let’s get back to the blog. Reagan made hard choices that did bring about big changes which did help to turn around the economy. One of those, changing the Civil Service Retirement System into a new Federal Employee Retirement System for new Feds was really a method of screwing federal workers and making us subsidize Social Security and bailing that out from Congress’ pissing the money away every year (along with other factors). Unfortunately, saving the system with that move just covered over the flaws, and Congress continues to spend and waste with profligateness. Thus, not only has a significant chunk of my retirement been pissed away, but it’s also being lost for only a few years of extension of the inevitable end of Social Security long before I’ll see any of it, since true reform of Congressional excesses looks to be impossible.
