ronald reagan

It is good that Gorbachev and the Soviets got mentioned, but there were other players who need recognition for forcing Gorby's hand. That is: Poland (Solidarity, Lech Wałęsa) and East Germany (DDR, Die Vende and the Autumn Revolution), and the other satellite states. To account for Poland and Solidarity, we have to include Pope John Paul II and the Vatican's "Divisions" that united the Poles most effectively. The dismay of the DDR regime's stalwarts in summer 1990 as their faith in communism crumbled was palpable as they searched for a new faith, religious or otherwise.

Bruce's points carry weight. Reagan's financial impacts on the American economy, concerned with defense in Europe, preceded considerably his time in office. As early as the late 1960s, none other than Democratic Party Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Mike Mansfield[Montana], already had raised issues with continued US military deployment in Europe. [1]

Reagan did inherit the arms build up and things like the double-track decision but his administration should receive credit for expanding the former and keeping NATO leadership unified to enact the latter. The "unwavering commitment" John refers to shows up in what Dobrynin called an "uncompromising ideological offensive" and helped cast the Cold War in terms favorable to the US in a way few other politicians could have managed.

Gorbachev's policies of glasnost and perestroika destroyed the USSR. They were the policies of a true Leninist believer. Free examination of the past and present doomed the system. Once the people understood the system was all a lie it was finished. A true accounting of history (facts not fantasy) killed the USSR.
Ronald Reagan can be likened to a man in a storm raining gold who had the presence of mind to turn his umbrella upside down.
As for the aftermath, that is another story.

It does seem like the podcasters are in that common, ethnocentric trap of seeing the United States as the actor and everyone else as sort of cardboard figures whose role on the world stage is to be acted upon. I still remember two historians where I did my post-Navy retirement doctoral work in the 1990s. The Americanist economic historian argued that Reagan's increased defense spending brought the USSR to its knees. The Russianist, whose work is on the Stalin era, contended that its own internal contradictions brought down the Soviet Union.

Mike is right that we should remember Gorbachev, a reformer who rose to the exalted post of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and proceeded to introduce "new political thinking," and the concept of "reasonable sufficiency" with regard to the armed forces.

One minor point -- my understanding, back in the 80s when I was focused on the USSR, was that Gorbachev was quite likely a protege of Andropov. He might not have risen so high without the support of an "eminence grise."

Reagan was not the Gipper; he only pretended to be this Notre Dame football star from History.

I think Reagan deserves some of the credit, certainly. I'd highlight his willingness (going against his own ideas) to believe that Gorbachev was serious in his reform efforts and work with the Soviet leader.

Like so many things, of course, there are *lots* of people who helped cause the end of the Cold War, from Gorbachev, to the national populations of Eastern Europe and the USSR.

Interesting to me. No mention of Gorbachev. Remember him?

If memory serves me correctly, he was the one who started the process that ultimately led to the dissolution of the USSR - without any bloodshed. Would Reagan's Cold War "victory" been possible with, say, Andropov still in power, or Breshnev?

I SERIOUSLY doubt that.

My personal opinion - the true victors of the Cold War were all of us.