So Reagain didn't win the Cold War, just accepted Gorby's surrender? What kind of crock is that. If the other guy in a war, (hot or cold) surrenders, you've won. End of story. I can't believe how some folks are trying to rewrite history.

Some people just cannot accept that a Republican, especially a conservative Republican, could ever be right. (er, make that correct).

So Carter's one year of "human rights" brought down the Berlin Wall, but Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" didn't. Not.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=2747709

Amen.

AHEM?!

Clearly Carter's hangdog wimpiness caused such loss of heart among Soviet planners that they could only surrender.

But you know how slow bureaucracy moves, so the surrender that should have occurred in the summer of 1980, to President Carter, didn't occur until 1991, under President Bush.

Soviets to Carter: "You had me at 'malaise'."

Come now give credit where credit is due, obviously it was “Mommy’s” astrologer calling the shots and if you want to understand who benefited the most you need to take a look at the oligarchs who currently run Russia. Organized crime won the cold war.

Really, none? I thought it was supposed to be Japan and Germany that won the Cold War, and the US and the USSR that lost it?

I find it fascinating, though, that all these revisionists conclude that anyone but ANYONE won the Cold War except the United States.

I guess the nuclear threat wasn't nearly as great as the nuclear freeze types made it out to be in the 1980s, eh?

Anybody else notice Reagan not entering into this argument during his twilight of post office lucidity? The man knew how to win with grace, and he would tell you the most important definition of "winner" is "beneficiary." In that sense , Russians, Czechs, Americans, Japanese all won the Cold War.

In comparing the current state of mafia-ridden Russia to what it would be had they won the Cold War, you cannot compare today's situation with that of Russian in 1980. (Although then was pretty clearly worse than today on balance.) You have to compare the current situation to what another quarter century of cynical, crumbling, increasingly isolated, already mafia corrupted Soviet society would have visited upon their own people. North Korea offers a kind of cruel laboratory study.

Really, none? I thought it was supposed to be Japan and Germany that won the Cold War, and the US and the USSR that lost it?

Who said that?

Wars are not ended by the actions of one man or in the case of the world wars even one nation alone. The emotional tendency to reduce complex realities to slogans and attribute miraculous achievements to the singular leadership of one man exists and is exploited in totalitarian societies as well. To succumb to this impulse is no great achievement.

none, try telling that to a Democrat who is absolutely positive that Bill Clinton was the reason the economy did so well in the late 90's.

However, I think the point can be aptly made that Reagan made a greater contribution to ending the Cold War than any other player on the scene 1981-1989. And that is what sticks so annoyingly in the craw of those like, um, you perhaps.

“I think the point can be aptly made that Reagan made a greater contribution to ending the Cold War than any other player on the scene 1981-1989.”

But apparently not without invoking Clinton.

Yes, obviously you can reduce history to a coloring book without perspective, you can even call it moral clarity if you like but what’s the point?

It seems to me there is a problem with linking to a long detailed piece that concludes with this:

(In the final analysis, I don't believe that either Pershing episode or the impact of Reagan's rhetoric provides the sort of evidence one would need to say that Reagan 'won' the Cold War rather than that he accepted Gorbachev's surrender.)

A problem with the description (or is it a rebuttal?) like this.

Duh

Who won the Cold war?

Reagan.

(Even if the author doesn't quite agree.)

This kind of thing gives blogging a bad name and rightly so.

NoneNuts, what do you care about something "giv[ing] blogging a bad name"? You don't even have a blog. If you don't like what you read on someone else's blog, go start your own.

You don't even have a blog

Well Mary, actually I do and you're welcome to argue with me in the comments section.

"Wars are not ended by the actions of one man or in the case of the world wars even one nation alone. The emotional tendency to reduce complex realities to slogans and attribute miraculous achievements to the singular leadership of one man exists and is exploited in totalitarian societies as well. To succumb to this impulse is no great achievement."

Wars may not be won by one man alone, but without that one man they _CANNOT_ be won. A crowd, mob or civilised committee never achieves anything without someone to guide it along, someone with the vision and fortitude to plan and to carry out those designs. Without that you have movements like the current Palestinian uprising, a pain in the ass to be sure, but not an uncotainable threat to others, nor a benefit in any sense to itself. Lack of leadership, see?

Reagan and his policy was the reason the USSR crumbled as quickly and as thoroughly as it did. As I posted earlier:
Reagan = cause
Gorby = symptom

EOS.

I knew I should have saved it.

One of Russia's papers, Ivestia (sp) even said RR won it. I think it was 6/11.

Someone posted it somewhere.