(Untitled)

[tubspigot1]

I suggest for anyone to read Ann's new book, "Treason." I love her section on how Reagan "won" the Cold War, completely ignoring the fact that the US's policies hardly had any impact upon the USSR. I suggest anyone who decides to read her book to finish it (or the sections on the Cold War at least) and then read Charles Maier's "Dissolution." (

Comments

[bcrs1]

First of all, Ann's new book is "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), which might I add, made a fabulous Christmas present. Treason is older

[tubspigot1]

No, the end of the cold war was due not to US policies, but due instead to the inherent problems of a centrally planned economy. How would the US's cooperation kept the Soviet Sattelites from remaining within the union? How would internal collapse have been prevented by US policies? Where was the truce? I dont remember one! The biggest issue between the US and the USSR was Eastern europe and saying that the US had that big of a influence totally discounts the strength of Polish, Hungarian, and Czech grass-roots movements. But nevermind, it all boils down to Reagan, apparently. And China's form really never came that close to resembling the soviet form. Remember the Sino-Soviet split? And what CHina has now totally differs from the Soviet model--they are mostly capitalist now. And just because it happened during Reagan's tenure does not mean that it was due to him. Ann's main argument stems from the fact that he opposed things...and that doesnt make for a peaceful end. How did Reagan plan an important role? Was it more important than

[bcrs1]

The truce came when Gorbachev and Reagan gained a mutual respect for each other and called an end to the conflict between their two nations.

And I even admitted that it was a stretch to include China in that... I was simply illustrating that NO countries with their brand of Communism last. I am admittedly short on examples of strong Communist countries (to back up my point further).

And perhaps the USSR WOULD have collapsed regardless of Reagan, but the US and USSR would NOT have become amicable withOUT the cooperation and diplomatic abilities of Reagan AND Gorbachev. At least not for many more years. Their inabilities to run their nation is not the point. Reagan's role in bringing the nations out of long standing impasse IS the point.

[tubspigot1]

Read Matlock's book on Reagan and Gorby. I had a much longer post, but I lost it. Anyways, I sum up what he says.