2006-10-12 13:04:53 · 10 answers · asked by 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Reagan was a big part of the victory, but you must also credit British pm Margret thatcher and the former pope john Paul. It was the partnership of the 3 that defeated the USSR.
2006-10-12 13:09:16 · answer #1 · answered by mikeb721 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, and so many people at the time thought he was going to cause World War 3. It didn't happen, though. Granted, there are times he could've taken a harder line against the Hezbollah in Lebanon and their backers in Iran & Syria, and communism remains a threat to this day, but not as much of a threat as it was between the 1910's and 1980's.
Eastern Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czeck Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada, Cambodia, etc., are all free primarily because of Reagan. We can't ignore the efforts of others, though.
2006-10-12 20:18:49 · answer #2 · answered by ddey65 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Communism doesn't work, North Korea is proving that out again. The USSR went bankrupt trying to keep up with Reagan's military spending, that is true - but they were on the verge of collapse anyway.
China saw this coming and converted to more of a free market economy, dodging the bullet Russia didn't.
I'll give Reagan some credit, sure, but I'd give Poland and Lech Walesa more.
2006-10-12 20:11:53 · answer #3 · answered by jumping_in_101 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Some of his policies did a great deal of good. Chief among those was his willingness to have a productive dialogue with the Soviet Union. Reagan never stopped talking with them. He always spoke from a position of strength.
His policies in El Salvador and Nicaragua were not positive endeavors and did not reflect positively on US foreign policy.
We must also never forget the contributions of the Pope, Solidarity, and Gorbachev himself. A perfect storm if you will that brought positive change to the world.
2006-10-12 20:10:30 · answer #4 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ronald Reagan was very good in the manipulation of foreign diplomacy making the USSR crumbled due to bickerings of the Soviet Republics wanting to separate from Moscow. The US maintained its economy and won over the Cold War.
2006-10-12 20:09:04 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not solely. There were other factors, including the Soviet people just having enough, and the communist system just didn't work economically.
But yes, certainly Reagan's hard line on communism played an integral part in defeating Soviet communism.
2006-10-12 20:08:08 · answer #6 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. USSR had run it's course, and it collapsed during his watch. That's the real size of it.
--But he did delay the release of the Iran hostages for 3 months until after his election in 1980, thus committing treason and inhumane acts against his own people before sleeping all day for 8 years in that leather chair in the oval office.
In short, the bottom fell out of presidential ethics, accountability and standards during his term, building the moral bridge to the sillyass stunt that Bush has pulled in Iraq. Way ta go, Dutch!
2006-10-12 20:08:31 · answer #7 · answered by martino 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
They probably helped. Along with the support of others mentioned above.
The main cause was probably more this: Communism sounds good and makes a good theory - it is harder to make it work.
North Korea is a good example of this at the moment.
2006-10-12 20:18:53 · answer #8 · answered by 63vette 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Kevin. Reagan had a large part in it as well as the failure of communism.
2006-10-12 20:09:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hell no! The Russians just run out of money it was that simple.
2006-10-12 20:11:44 · answer #10 · answered by Old Guy 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋