Let me start by saying that I think it's obvious that Ronald Reagan has to considered the single most important external force in bringing the Soviet Union down, and the idea that Jim would phrase it: ...on how Ronald Reagan had anything to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. is so nakedly partisan a way to phrase it as to invalidate the argument from the get-go. I think it would be similar to saying it would be interesting to see the discussion on how Churchill had anything to do with bringing down Nazi Germany.
Seriously, if you can't recognize the main opposition of a historical enemy as a reason for an empire's decline, then you are throwing out any investigation into cause and effect for historical studies.
And I am not a historian (and it was 20-30 years ago now), but I can submit a few facts which Liam and Jim will swear are worthless and unimportant and we'll have nothing resolved except to say that I will be further convinced that neither of you can remove the partisan filter over your views on politics of the 1980s and 1990s enough to have a serious conversation.
But here we go.
Following is a graph showing troop levels in Europe in the various decades in the second half the 20th century[1]. After dropping significantly in the 1970s, troop levels rose about 15% in the 1980s. My father was personally involved in German military training operations during the Reagan administration which were designed to provoke and worry the Soviets.
I know it's in vogue these days to argue that the massive military defense spending in the 1980s didn't provoke the Soviets into anything in particular, but the main evidence we have in that argument is the statements made by those who governed the USSR during those times, so I don't think that's a reliable rebuttal. We do know that Soviet defense spending rose in concert with the US's, and that their economy collapsed and ours didn't.
Then there is the plain economic rise of the US. I think it's safe to say that economic pressures on a rival power are as damaging as military pressure. Our increasing influence in Europe economically, coupled with the irrelevance of the Ruble made Poland, East Germany, Ukraine and other affiliated protectorates of the USSR turn toward the West and the United States during that time as it was the ticket out of the Soviet's failed standard of living. Standard of Living is a good illustration, by any measure, as a state got more independent of the USSR, the standard of living measures of its citizenry also increased. Belarus to Poland to East Germany with increasing standard of living is an instructive illustration.
Russia was also unable to ally economically with Japan and South Korea during the 1980s, which would have been their back-door escape to the European problem. The U.S. tied the Japanese and Korean economies directly to the West.
Politically Reagan was an enormous force allowing marginal and semi-marginal states to stand strong against Soviet imperialism; speeches such as Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall, The Evil Empire and we will transcend communism are all strong examples of how Reagan led the globe in resisting the urge to appease but instead to oppose Soviet expansion and influence.
Countering Soviet influence in India by strategically allying with Pakistan and by feeding Afghanistan's rebellious forces show an intense focus on foundering Soviet efforts to increase its influence and broaden its economic alliances.
I am not happy with some of the policies that came about during that time (most specifically the conundrum of special ties with Pakistan when India is more naturally our partner), but to argue that they didn't have a great influence on the Soviet Union's fall is just straight my-team-is-best denialism.
This whole exercise is a waste of time, I have significantly amended my feelings of Reagan and the 1980s poltical era over time as more information has come out, and as I have grown and refined my own political positions. But I don't think it's supportable to get to the level of revisionism necessary to say that Reagan was not the significant external force in the fall of the Soviet Union and the winning of the Cold War.
--
References:
[1] http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/images/chart3_sm.gif
11 comments:
Let me start by saying that I think it's obvious that Ronald Reagan has to considered the single most important external force in bringing the Soviet Union down,
It's good that I'm not the only naked partisan. Even if we accept that Russian over spending on its military was a response to American over spending on its military, and we accept that Reagan's jingoism sent shock waves of democracy and capitalism through the Eastern block what would make him more responsible than Truman or Eisenhower for the success of this policy? Why, because he was the last one to do it?
Also, even accepting the premise the Reagan was the single most important external force, doesn't mean that the internal forces weren't so much more important that the external that it is goofy to claim the fall of the Soviet Union as an accomplishment of Reagan--than not say Gorbachev.
So, here's my response to your few facts that will allow you to be further "convinced that neither of [us] can remove the partisan filter over [our] views on politics of the 1980s and 1990s enough to have a serious conversation."
After dropping significantly in the 1970s, troop levels rose about 15% in the 1980s. The idea here being that the world was demilitarizing and Reagan's deficit spending was largely directed and provoking the Soviet's into doing the same. This is a logical argument. I take it these troop levels were both US and Soviet? And I take it that the US started the escalation? I accept that for good or ill, American militarization under Reagan may very well have directly caused Soviet's to increased militarization that was the straw that broke the Soviet camel's back.
Then there is the idea that our economic expansion pressured the Soviet economy. So, we had rising deficits, slow job creation, and wage stagnation, under Reagan. The GDP was expanding for half of his years in office, right? What was so good about the American economy under Reagan? The growth of multinational corporations, maybe.
Finally, there is the power of rhetoric, Politically Reagan was an enormous force allowing marginal and semi-marginal states to stand strong against Soviet imperialism; speeches such as Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
This is the least persuasive for me. Not so much because I think it is useless or unimportant, but because I think Gorbachev's dismantling of the Soviet Union was so much more important. Saber rattling and calling our adversaries evil surely had less to do with facts on the ground that the work of those in the country.
I think Reagan's role in the fall of the Soviet Union is greatly exaggerated by the Heritage Foundation and other think tanks set up to promote his presidency & ideology. While my suggestion that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union is obviously designed to provoke, I think you matched it very well on the silly scale with the Churchill comment.
Like I said, I don't see that this is bridgeable.
Even if we accept that Russian over spending on its military was a response to American over spending on its military...
I don't know how you can think it's not. America's over-spending on getting into space was pretty obviously a response to the USSR's getting into space first. Military spending is hardly less subject to rival spending.
Why, because he was the last one to do it?
Perhaps, but also because he escalated and because of the directly provocative rhetoric. I think you under-estimate how important international rhetoric is. In fact, if you are so unmoved by rhetoric, then about 25% of your criticism of Bush Jr should be muted. His being an international ass/provocateur is a huge legitimate criticism in my mind.
What was so good about the American economy under Reagan?
The GNP (the measure most used to assess economic growth at the time) went through unprecedented expansion in his second-half. The pace was impossible for the Soviets to match. Again, I think you downplay how important image was to both the US and USSR. Look again at the space race, look also at agricultural rivalism.
Saber rattling and calling our adversaries evil surely had less to do with facts on the ground that the work of those in the country.
It wasn't about saber-rattling, it was about open defiance. It was deliberate provocation, which is different that just saying, "we'll fight you". It's about telling the world, over and over, if you have a dispute with the USSR, you have a friend in the US--we won't just help you under the table, we'll come to your defense, and our president, the single biggest icon on the world stage, will hit a podium in front of NBC and the BBC and Pravda and will say, not just that the Soviets are wrong, but that they are *bad*. This was a bigger deal than you give it credit for.
I think Reagan's role in the fall of the Soviet Union is greatly exaggerated by the Heritage Foundation...
Undoubtedly true, but it's more than made up for by the pretense that he was a passive observer in the Soviet self-implosion.
While my suggestion that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union is obviously designed to provoke, I think you matched it very well on the silly scale with the Churchill comment.
I was answering in kind.
Alright, so one thing that is absolutely happening here is that we are each assuming the other perspective is dominant. Do you think that among those who have an opinion on the topic most would argue that Reagan did not cause the fall of the Soviet Union? Do you think that if you took all references to Reagan and Cold War and did a Lexis Nexis search that most of them would say he didn't win the Cold War?
See, because I think your expressing the overwhelmingly conventional conventional wisdom, and my position is overwhelmingly in the minority.
Wowie. I came late to this, so I'll mostly leave it at "what Jim said." A couple of interesting tid bits:
1. I think the US won "The Cold War." Which is to say: we pushed our industrial-military capacity to the utmost, forcing the CCCP to do the same; we competed for allies; we competed to block each other's strategic objectives. This is what The Cold War was. In that Reagan was a Cold Warrior, he was on the winning team and I'll never dispute that.
2. Jim pointed out that there has been a relentless campaign to give RR the lion's share of the credit for the win. Though I don't know whether that is the dominant position out there in the US hivethink, there has been a large and vocal group of conservatives making that argument, which I think is a stretch.
3. My personal opinion is that RR followed in the footsteps of Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, and Ike in the execution of a fairly well-established policy. I don't think there was anything exceptionally courageous or innovative about his approach. He was the guy on watch when things started to come apart. I have always been somewhat bemused/annoyed by the claims that he personally was responsible for the win. (I also think that GHWB never gets enough credit for successfully managing the dissolution of the eastern bloc.)
4. There was a little weasel-wording in your response, Matt, which I just want to point out. You state that RR was the most important "external" force in the collapse of the Soviet Union. This betrays an agreement on what I have always held to be the central truth -- that our "win" in the Cold War was primarily by default. Our opponent self-destructed internally, and a wide and foresighted man came to power in Russia (Gorby) who initiated a brave and risky program of restructuring. So yes, you should give credit to RR and the rest of the cold warriors credit for pushing the Soviets to the brink of collapse. If we had ceded the contest before that point the outcome might have been different. But the reason we "won" was that their economy and industry were in shambles, (A cautionary tale for the US? I hope not.) and I think the example of the Soviet state has decisively discredited communism and vindicated capitalism as economic/governing philosophies.
Point #4 is really why the lionization of Ronnie annoys me. Communism was unsustainable and fell. Reagan contributed to its fall and probably hastened it; or maybe it was inevitable and we'll never know that for sure. But to use a baseball analogy, if the Yankees take a 10-0 lead into the ninth against a AAA team, the closer doesn't get the win; he gets a save. Give Ronnie the save and knock off the "he won the cold war" rhetoric.
That last line is directed more at the Heritage Foundation and other professional Reagan apologists, Matt, not at you.
Please don't call it a weasel word, if anything it was a concession that internal forces are important. I don't think it's weaseling that I was the first person to bring internal forces into the argument.
Reagan was indeed continuing policies that came before him, but of all the external factors, military spending by the US is the largest, and Reagan dramatically increased military spending as a percentage of the economy.
He also was much more explicit in his rhetoric of calling the USSR evil.
And I don't know that the Soviet Union would have fallen so quickly without US pressure. It may have been inevitable, but all empires fall.
So Liam, you and I may have to leave our disagreement at just the degree to which Reagan was the most important force, not whether he was.
And that is where I am as well. I saw you as presenting three reasons to give Reagan credit for undoing the Soviet Union. I accept one of them, expansion of US Military influence and spending, but quibble over whether it is fair to say that this meant Reagan was most important.
I reject that rhetoric can undermine our enemies. It can embolden our enemies and strain our relations with foreign governments. But I don't think Reagan's posturing sped the fall of the Soviet Union.
I reject that Reagan's expansion of the economy pressured the Soviet's because the economy was not that strong under Reagan. Based on the statistics named in the post.
I'll only say two more things on this based on Jim's last comment. On rejecting rhetoric, do you not think tear down this wall emboldened the citizenry of Germany to hasten their revolt?
On the economy of the 1980s: you have a *very* simplified understanding of economics and the time period involved. First of all, the perception of our economy was as important a factor as the actual strength of the economy in terms of its pressure on the Soviets. Second, to say the economy was not strong is to pretend you can know what is hard to impossible to know for anyone. I don't think economists today would agree on whether the economy of the 1980s can be considered strong or weak. If that is still under debate between award-winning economists, how can you make such a broad pronouncement? Finally, it isn't our economy, it's the perception of our economy, and the overwhelming perception of the day was that it was enormously strong.
I think that it's pretty clear that the economy of the early 1980s sucked for at least the period up to 1983. The last four years of the Reagan era were good. In retrospect, given that the 1984-2001 economy rocked*, a lot of people retrospectively have taken to viewing all of the 1980s as "good times." But this was objectively not the case.
Now given that we are discussing "credit" I think there is credit due to Paul Volcker for reining in inflation, and I think that there is credit due to Reagan for slashing marginal tax rates, which were (by modern standards) confiscatory in the olden days. I give Reagan a lot more credit for the economy than for Russia, for that matter.
* except 1991
On rejecting rhetoric, do you not think tear down this wall emboldened the citizenry of Germany to hasten their revolt?
Yes. And as I was thinking about this, I think the work of the State Department to keep USSR isolated was probably as useful as the military build up.
On the economy of the 1980s: you have a *very* simplified understanding of economics and the time period involved.
I think that is unfair. I am challenging conventional wisdom. Yes, the idea that the economy under Reagan was so wonderful but also that cutting taxes is the best way to stimulate the economy. I've done it by looking at statistics that we have available now. True, I'm not an economist. But we do know what the deficit did and we do know how many jobs were created and we know what happened to wages. You suggested the standard tool for evaluating the economy is GNP--I think that is true, but that GNP is not a good number to use, btw--in any case I went and looked at the GNP expansion under Reagan and it is not particularly remarkable.
Are you saying I have a very simplified understanding of the economy because I'm only focusing on government involvement? I mean, that's the topic of discussion.
If that is still under debate between award-winning economists, how can you make such a broad pronouncement?
Really? First because that is what we do here. But, more importantly, because I have to vote. Look, we're going to hear a lot of stuff over the next few weeks about how we need more Reagan style tax cuts. I've gone out looking for data; what I've found does not support this position.
I didn't want to continue this, but I need to clarify something for the sake of civility:
I think that is unfair. I am challenging conventional wisdom
I didn't mean simplified in terms of a simplistic or naive understanding. What I meant was, and I think I phrased it terribly, was that one measure can not tell the complete story. In fact you made that very point when you brought non-GNP measures into the debate. Your points are real, but I think they, again, are not relevant to the discussion. We're talking about the pressure the Soviets felt and reacted to at the time. GNP is no longer the tool we use to measure overall economic health, but it was then, and your graph shows what we all saw back then--unprecedented growth. In fact to use the word you thought I used, we described it at the time as explosive. And *that perception* certainly put an enormous pressure on the Soviets to play a game in areas that they couldn't. Like we've done in the 2000s, the USSR in the 1980s wrote checks they couldn't cash.
So I was concentrating on the perception of the US economy in the 1980s and you went into the territory of what 1980s policies did to some portions of our economy in later years. That was outside the scope of the debate.
Off topic again: Then I also went off the track of the debate by saying that I don't think economists are in agreement today on whether the Reagan tax cuts were bad. If you look closely at your graph, notice that Reagan's GNP was flat until a year or two into his tax cuts--then it takes off again. So he deficit-spent, on the theory that tax-cuts and deficit spending would stimulate a stagnated economy. To the extent that we can measure cause and effect, it looks like that was right. And it didn't take Clinton very long to right the ship and get us into the black, so I would argue that the repercussions of Reagan's policies might not have been the destructive force you are saying it was--it was intended to be a stagflation-fighting device. I don't think it would have worked as a long-term strategy, but that's why we have term limits and a two party system.
Got it.
Post a Comment