Since the ”Kill the prez” thread apparently got deleted, I’ll continue here :
---
---
@ tadou
I understand that it is easy to unquestioningly accept nostalgic Reagan myth-making and glorification, but from a purely historical perspective, it does not get much support. The claim of USSR crumbling from within simply has more explanatory power. Again, among historians, the vast majority universally acknowledge Gorbachev’s, not Reagan’s, role as being crucial to the break-up of the Soviet Union.
Economic stagnation had persisted in the USSR for decades before Reagan came to power in the USA, and while it is true that USSR was being seriously weakened by its attempts to match the USA as a world power, especially in the Brezhnev-Reagan era, the policy of Reagan (military build-up, political pressure on issues regarding Eastern Europe, etc.) was not the key factor nor especially pivotal in bringing about the decline of the Soviet Union. It was the recognition of existing economic problems that brought Gorbachev to power and started a chain of events which lead to the break-up of the Soviet Union (and end of the Cold War).
Gorbachov was very conscious about the need for fundamental reform, both economic and social. (perestroika ie. reconstruction, whereby the economy was to be made more efficient and glasnost ie. openness; Soviet citizens encouraged to voice their criticisms and debate reform). Ultimately, he failed inside the USSR. He simply faced the problem of any reformer who raises expectations which he then finds extremely difficult to fulfil.
His failed policies of reform fatally undermined the Communist Party (which had held the Stalinist system together so long) and effectively destroyed the old USSR and his own power. He, naively, (at least in the beginning) believed that a reformed Communist Party could maintain control of events till the end.
---
---
@ tadou
I understand that it is easy to unquestioningly accept nostalgic Reagan myth-making and glorification, but from a purely historical perspective, it does not get much support. The claim of USSR crumbling from within simply has more explanatory power. Again, among historians, the vast majority universally acknowledge Gorbachev’s, not Reagan’s, role as being crucial to the break-up of the Soviet Union.
Economic stagnation had persisted in the USSR for decades before Reagan came to power in the USA, and while it is true that USSR was being seriously weakened by its attempts to match the USA as a world power, especially in the Brezhnev-Reagan era, the policy of Reagan (military build-up, political pressure on issues regarding Eastern Europe, etc.) was not the key factor nor especially pivotal in bringing about the decline of the Soviet Union. It was the recognition of existing economic problems that brought Gorbachev to power and started a chain of events which lead to the break-up of the Soviet Union (and end of the Cold War).
Gorbachov was very conscious about the need for fundamental reform, both economic and social. (perestroika ie. reconstruction, whereby the economy was to be made more efficient and glasnost ie. openness; Soviet citizens encouraged to voice their criticisms and debate reform). Ultimately, he failed inside the USSR. He simply faced the problem of any reformer who raises expectations which he then finds extremely difficult to fulfil.
His failed policies of reform fatally undermined the Communist Party (which had held the Stalinist system together so long) and effectively destroyed the old USSR and his own power. He, naively, (at least in the beginning) believed that a reformed Communist Party could maintain control of events till the end.
