Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Things were going to shit there for a while, but Gorbachev's predecessors (e.g., Chernenko and Andropov) lacked either the will or the inclination to attempt reform. Why was Gorbachev different? Did the Politburo elect him because there was a recognition that they needed to try something different, or did he spring this on them? It would take a Kremlinologist to answer that question.
|
Those are good questions, but I would posit, again, that Gorby didn't have much choice in the matter. It was either reform and attempt to hold power, or not reform and . . .
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop By underlying economic conditions, I mean the whole state of the country. It was a corrupt, festering mess. In the 80s, I recall reading a book by/about a MiG-25 who defected, and his account of living there before he left. There were many such accounts at the time, but I don't know anyone who concluded at the time that the Soviet Union was doomed, even though it now seems obvious in hindsight.
|
I assume what you mean, among other things, is that revenues far outweighed "necessary" expeditures (i.e., military)?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop We spent a lot of money on defense even before Reagan was elected. The question I'm asking is, why do you think the relatively small (relative to the overall budget, not relative to the size of increases in other years) increases in spending under Reagan put "tremendous" pressure on the Soviet Union? Is there some sort of tipping point involved? If so, did Reagan know this, or was it dumb luck?
|
From my recollection, Reagan doubled military spending. I can't remember over what period, but I'm pretty certain our military spending doubled, and to me that is not relatively small. It wasn't to most of the doves at that time either. Don't you remember all the protests? the "Day After" TV show? The "War mongerer" moniker? And to answer your question, basd on my readings this was a conscious decision.
Quote:
|
As for SDI, there were a number of good reasons for the Soviets to want SDI off the table. Doubtless cost is one. But something more needs to be shown to establish that this is what brought the empire down. We made the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan more expensive by supplying Stingers to the mujahedin, but was that the expense that made the difference? Without more, call me skeptical.
|
Like all of pressures we put on the USSR, no one of them was sufficient to bring them down. It was a hollistic approach. Aphganistan was part of it. So was Grenada, which was the first time in history where a country that had turned communist was turned away from communism. Funding (even prior to Iran-Contra) the contras was further pressure. Working with the Pope and the AFL-CIO in Poland was still more. Deploying the Pershings in Western Europe was more. Etc.
Quote:
|
What you call "lip service" nevertheless emboldened dissent within the Eastern Bloc, and it was these forces that brought the whole thing crashing down. And what do you think Reagan did in this regard that was any different?
|
I'm not sure this is accurate, but I'd be willing to be educated. The doctrine pre-Reagan was one of containment. What did Nixon/Carter do in order to embolden?
