Recent Real Life event reminicent of TrekLit Event *SPOILERS*

[Rush Limborg]

It's interesting, Sci, that Reagan seems to have been about the only one to see the instability coming. Note all his wisecracks about the inefficiency and incompetence of the Soviet's system--and his message that the Union would eventually collapse, it was just a question of when.

All his enemies called him crazy for that, claiming that if the Soviets had any weaknesses, they were weaknesses that the Empire had learned to cope with.

And these were the same "wise men" that later said, after the Union collapsed, that said collapse was inevitable, for the reasons you've mentioned.


BTW...how did Gorbachev get into power anyway?

Could it be that the Soviets realized that they needed to go in another direction...because they realized that their economy was on the brink of collapse?

This begs the question: what caused this brink, anyway?

 

[Malleus]

Gorbachev came to power because Andropov was his bureaucratic patron, but he narrowly won his vote in March 1985.

The Soviets were merely stagnating, and the depression only started in 1990 with the introduction of more market reforms after the initial wave in the late 1960s. Today's oil-based Russian economy is much more unstable than the manufacturing-based Soviet economy, with a bureaucracy bigger than the Soviet bureaucracy ever was.

But that's a subject more appropriate for another forum.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Indeed....

 

[Sci]

It's interesting, Sci, that Reagan seems to have been about the only one to see the instability coming. Note all his wisecracks about the inefficiency and incompetence of the Soviet's system--and his message that the Union would eventually collapse, it was just a question of when.

All his enemies called him crazy for that, claiming that if the Soviets had any weaknesses, they were weaknesses that the Empire had learned to cope with.

I'll be happy to give Reagan credit for recognizing that the Soviet system would inevitably collapse. But I don't think it reasonable to give him credit for the collapse -- and I think that we should bear in mind that while he may have thought the Soviet Union would collapse, he didn't know it was going to collapse imminently.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Well, I'd say both Reagan and Gorbachev deserve credit.

Many times, Reagan had to give "Mike" a not-so-gentle nudge in the right direction, and demand that he prove his desire for reform: his demand that the Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan, for one; his "tear down this wall" speech, for another.

Here, you're right about diplomacy being the superior option: the friendship Reagan built with "Mike", and the constant discussion they had where Reagan proved the superiority of our system, was instrumental.

Still, the Gipper would not nearly have been as effective in this if he hadn't been so firm and uncompromisisng beforehand. In that scenario, Gorbachev wouldn't have felt the pressure he did to initiate those reforms, and they would've been more gradual.

I think we can both say that no two other men could have achieved this kind of result. Gorbechev was, at long last, a Soviet leader who could be reasoned with--and reason Reagan did. "Mike" was the gun, "Ron" pulled the trigger.

 

[Sci]

^Well, I'd say both Reagan and Gorbachev deserve credit.

Many times, Reagan had to give "Mike" a not-so-gentle nudge in the right direction, and demand that he prove his desire for reform: his demand that the Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan, for one; his "tear down this wall" speech, for another.

Here, you're right about diplomacy being the superior option: the friendship Reagan built with "Mike", and the constant discussion they had where Reagan proved the superiority of our system, was instrumental.

Still, the Gipper would not nearly have been as effective in this if he hadn't been so firm and uncompromisisng beforehand. In that scenario, Gorbachev wouldn't have felt the pressure he did to initiate those reforms, and they would've been more gradual.

I think we can both say that no two other men could have achieved this kind of result. Gorbechev was, at long last, a Soviet leader who could be reasoned with--and reason Reagan did. "Mike" was the gun, "Ron" pulled the trigger.

I don't know that I agree with every aspect of that argument, but I would consider that a much more defensible argument than attributing things primarily to U.S. military spending.

And you are quite right about the need for both the carrot and the stick in dealing with a Soviet Union that had already demonstrated its rivalrous nature.

On the other hand, though, something to consider: What kind of foreign policy might the Soviet Union have developed if the U.S. under Woodrow Wilson hadn't intervened in the Russian Civil War? The U.S. tried, pre-emptively, to destroy the U.S.S.R. before it could really get itself off the ground, and that set the tone for U.S.-Soviet relations for the rest of the Soviet Union's existence. Might the Soviet Union have developed a much less aggressive, expansionist foreign policy if it hadn't been forced to struggle for its very existence so early on? If the U.S. and the other Western powers had treated it, again, as a potential ally instead of a new enemy?

 

[Rush Limborg]

^We did treat it as a potential ally. Recall the Big Three of the Allies of WWII. The US and UK allied with the Soviets to take down Hitler--and part of the bargain gave Eastern Europe to them.

And then, after the war, Stalin got agressive, and kicked off the Cold War....

 

[Sci]

^We did treat it as a potential ally.

No, we did not. The U.S., British Empire, and their allies invaded Russia and intervened in the Russian Civil War on the side of the pro-Tsarist forces in 1918.

Now, I'm not saying that treating the Bolshevik government well from the beginning would have been guaranteed to make the Soviet Union less hostile. But I am saying, there's a distinct possibility that Soviet imperialism might have been tempered had they not felt as though they were under an existential threat from the very beginning.

Recall the Big Three of the Allies of WWII.

The U.S.-U.K.-U.S.S.R. alliance didn't form until 1941, 23 years after the intervention in the Russian Civil War.

And then, after the war, Stalin got agressive, and kicked off the Cold War....

I don't disagree that the Soviet Union drove the start of the Cold War. What I'm arguing is that the Soviets became hostile and imperialist in part because of the attempt on the part of the World War I Allies to destroy the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War -- again, because we reacted to them by assuming hostility instead of staying out of an internal Russian conflict and then trying to use diplomacy to create an ally, or at least peaceful and mutually-agreeable relationship, out of the newborn Communist government.

 

[captcalhoun]

we were trying to support the Tsar as our pre-existing ally against a bunch of rebellious thugs.

it's not like Iran where the US booted out a legit government and installed the Shah...

 

[Sci]

we were trying to support the Tsar as our pre-existing ally against a bunch of rebellious thugs.

As opposed to a murderous thug who made people call him "Your Majesty?"

Thuggery was what it was going to be either way. It didn't stop us from being able to form a peaceful alliance with the Tsar; it shouldn't have stopped us from being able to form a peaceful relationship with the Bolsheviks. And as I've said before, treating them like the enemy from the onset just creates a new enemy.