Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
But what (or more appropriate who) pushed Gorbachev torwards reform and what do you mean by "underlying economic conditions."
|
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.
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.
Quote:
|
I believe our increases in military spending put tremendous pressure on the "underlying economic conditions," especially with regards to SDI, and this is why Gorbachev wanted so eagerly for us to pull SDI off the table. In fact, this is what cratered the talks in Switzerland.
|
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?
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.
Quote:
|
And what do you mean by "use human rights." My understanding is that, at best, this was given lip service by previous administrations, but never with any teeth.
|
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?
