Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Republican (American?) Arrogance makes us lau
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:52:00 EST
 <1992Aug19.015027.11470@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
 <1992Aug19.033655.5007@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Aug19.142537.14894@husc3.harvard.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Another opinion from Germany

In article <1992Aug19.142537.14894@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
> In article <1992Aug19.033655.5007@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.015027.11470@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>>>In article <92231.213054A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET> <A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET> writes:
>>>>"I know what is right for the world, and I know what is right for the USA
>>>>Outside the USA it is felt that the USA did not change a thing
>>>>in East Germany, USSR, etc.  It just happened and Bush was only a
>>>>spectator like everybody else. (If some person deserves some credit
>>>>than it is Gorbatsjov)
>>>
>>>The thing is that Bush does not have a coherent  domestic policy and is
>>>prepared to do anything to get reelected.  Hence, the republicans try to
>>>hoodwink the American public into believing that Bush was a major player
>>>in bringing down communist dictatorship in Europe.  As a European, you
>>>were closer to the events and can see the republicans' claim for what it is -
>>>ridiculous propagander.  
>>
>>  Well, his opinions are just that, his opinions.  To assume that they,
>>in any way, represent the views of all Europeans or all European literature
>>is just mistaken.
>>
>>  On a personal level, I know people from England, France, and even Croatia
>>that disagree with the above opinion.  As a regular reader of _The Economist_,
>>I can assure you that it gives credit to the policies of Republicans and
>>their influence on the end of the Cold War (so at least one bit of
>>European literature provides some credit to the Republican policies.)
>>
>>  Certainly giving Gorbachev and Yeltsin their full credit is just.  However,
>>to pretend like U.S. policies had no effect upon the Cold War victory
>>seems a bit odd.
>>
> Please, _The Economist_ is a conservative magazine, a pal of MAggie
> who did all she could to pal up with Ronnie.  Dont take it as
> the definitve opinion of Europe.
> 
> On the whole, America is perceived as arrogant by Europeans I would
> think.  

	By some, yes.  Not by others.  But what does that have to do with
Reagan's part in ending the cold war?  Certainly Bush is grandstanding, but
even he is careful not to say something like "I did it".  He knows he was
merely an observer.  He's just trying to cash in on it.

> The status quo in power might like to not say that because
> they want our money and support.  But in general, I think the poster was
> pointing out the Bush was taking sole resposibility for ending the
> Cold War which is ridiculous. He lucked out by being president
> like Ronnie did.  GOrby deserves credit and in Bush's world vsion
> he Bush is the only one he did anything.  The reply about Bush
> looking for something positive in terms of his pathetic domestic
> policies was right on target.

	Ronnie was a different matter.  His policies had a tangible impact on
the xUSSR.

	From a couple of months back:

From: krzystek@milton.u.washington.edu (Jerzy Krzystek)
Date: 7 Jul 92 18:08:23 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jul7.180823.6592

I have been long enpough in the US to realize that Reagan-bashing is
quite a popular sport here. The present dispute on soc.history merely 
confirms it.

As for the economics I am afraid I will never be able to say who
is right: those who say he was a charlatan, or those who claim
his competence.

However, when foreign policy is concerned, I have quite a clear
view. Maybe because I happen to have lived most of my life under
the influence of the Evil Empire (graciously *not* in it, though).

I am thus quite amused reading such lines as the following:

>From: sarwate@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Sanjiv Sarwate)

>It is a great tragedy that Ronald Reagan and George Bush will be credited
>with something they were only peripherally involved with, namely, the collapse
>of communism in Eastern Europe.  I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but
>the Soviet system would have collapsed without U.S. interference. 

This was already answered quite well, but to me inevitably revokes the
story of Einstein, who was denied recognition in his home country
(Germany), because, as it was said at the time, he only did 
(i.e. fomulated the specific relativity theory) what others undoubtedly
would do anyway.

I am afraid I and many other people lived in quite another bubble,
which was burst precisely by Reagan and his foreign policy. This
bubble had iron walls and was not at all easy to burst. This was
not a tragedy to the people living in this iron sphere - it was
a liberation.

I remember well the years of Nixon/Ford administration and the detente.
Under the detente the communist system was well and stable. Even more,
it tended to expand (Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Cambodia etc.). And
this despite the chronically ill and arms-burdened economy.

Perhaps somebody could quote the available statistics. According to
my volatile memory, oficially the Soviet Union was spending less
of GNP on military than the U.S. (4% vs. 6%). This was done in such 
a way that most of the military sector was hidden under civilian names.
E.g. the nuclear weapon production was hidden under the "Ministry of
Medium-Size Machinery", and as such had a completely civilian budget.

The CIA and other Western of course suspected this and had their own
estimate of the military spending, on the order of 12% of the GNP.
We, behing the iron curtain, knew very well that this was still way
too low an estimate.

In the last year or two of the glasnost' the CIA uplifted their estimate
to something like 25% of the Soviet GNP.

Then came out two Soviet specialists (this must have been in 1990)
and produced their own version of between 30 and 40% of the GNP.
I tend to believe their numbers. They mean that the Soviet Union and
its satellites ran practically war economies, and this all the time
since World War II. This did not prevent them from functioning, of course
at the expense of the standard of living of their inhabitants.

And then came Reagan and Gorbachev. I think the most crucial test of
wills between the two was the problem of medium-range nuclear weapons
in Europe. The Soviets had quietly stationed their SS-20 rockets aimed
at Western European targets. The U.S and its allies belatedly responded
by introducing Cruise and Pershing II missiles in 1984-85.

I was living at the time in Western Germany and could see the incredible
propaganda show put up by the Soviets. A very vocal leftist minority
organized mass protests, like a 60-mile human chain between Stuttgart and
Ulm. Somebody was paying for the logistics of such mass operations. 
(Funnily enough, almost nobody protested against the SS-20). The
presss was ambivalent. The pro-American Germans felt largely intimidated.

But Reagan persevered. The Soviets gave up and both the American and
Soviet missiles were eventually withdrawn from Europe. The strategy
of 'stick and carrot' worked wonders.

I think that from this moment on Gorbachev realized that the decades-all
policy of Molotov of dealing with the U.S. by creating fait-accomplis
failed miserably. And the Soviet Union cannot compete with the U.S. in 
the next arms race (the much-villified Star Wars program was already on 
the horizon).

For this Gorbachev can certainly be given credit. However, I do not think
he did it voluntarily. He was just realistic. But almost to the last
moment he thought he was in fact saving the Soviet Union when it was
quite clear that it could not survive the once-started process. So
he was not *that* realistic.

It is also amusing that at the end of his posting, Mr. Sarvate quotes
Koestler:

>"We all thought one could treat history like one experiments in physics. The
>difference is that in physics one can repeat the experiment a thousand times,
>but in history, only once."  -Arthur Koestler, DARKNESS AT NOON

Koestler's book, very good in itself, had as a purpose to
explain the incredible happenings of Moscow Trials in the thirties.
In particular, why the old Bolsheviks like Bucharin confessed to heinous
crimes attributed to them by the prosecution. He developed psychological
theories etc.

Well, even he understood almost nothing. It turned out (the documents
are available now, e.g. at the recent exposition at the Library of
Congress) that instead of sophisticated psychology, the background was
sheer physical and mental terror.



Jurek Krzystek

University of Washington, Seattle
-----------------------------------------------

> I'm afraid your friends in Europe dont cut it with me.  I did
> graduate work in England and my spouse is Enlgish.  So I've
> met them, talked to them and even lived there. 

	Well, good for you.  But apparently the people who live in Germany feel
otherwise.  Being on the front line makes a difference.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41088 alt.politics.elections:11188 alt.politics.clinton:2485 alt.politics.bush:2397