D
Dimiter_Popoff
Guest
On 2/26/2022 21:03, David Brown wrote:
No man ever has single-handedly defeated any empire, obviously.
But there is more to it than the obvious. Reagan was just made for
the job. Any good leader must be a good actor and act such that
his people will follow him; he was that *and* he believed what he was
doing was right. Or at least this is what the world saw.
Picking the next good actor to do a similar job is a difficult thing.
The actors are known by the characters they enact and this is not
enough for those who pick them to pick one. Hopefully they find someone,
not just anybody only because anybody will do better than Trump.
Indeed, I wonder to what extent did the Russians fall for it. Perhaps
those within the KGB knew, perhaps not. But the media effect on the
people in the East Block was huge, we all thought \"now let me see
the Russians match *that*\" (the media here was whining how bad they
were wanting to militarize space etc.).
On 26/02/2022 19:28, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 09:45:38 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 26/02/2022 07:07, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
The USSR was put to its knees on his watch.
Great man.
Correlation does not imply causation.
He was an actor - he did what people around him directed him to do. To
be fair on the guy, he /did/ have a reasonable (in comparison to many)
group of advisors, and he certainly put up a good show of leading.
(Remember Bush the elder? His must trusted advisor was his wife, and
her advice came from her astrologist.)
Most big things in the world happen as the consequence of long chains or
webs of interconnected events, influences and coincidences. Even the
leaders of the most powerful countries in world seldom have much direct
effect in the big picture. In particular, they seldom have much /good/
effect - but they /can/ screw things up fairly quickly.
The collapse of the USSR was the result of decades of pressure. Regan
contributed his few straws to the camel\'s back, just like his
predecessors. Other than that, he just happened to be the guy in the
office at the time. \"The USSR was put to its knees on his watch\" - he
was watching, he did not put the USSR to its knees.
While it is certainly true that there were decades of pressure, the
containment policy, Reagan did give the Soviet Union the final push,
by bankrupting the SU.
Their economy basically did not work, and their military was quite
expensive. Star Wars basically pulled the SU into a spending contest
with a far richer opponent, as did expanding the Navy to 600 ships
(target, not quite achieved), and the Army, etc, with no end in sight.
Size of economy does matter.
Crediting Regan with the final push (or crediting him with picking the
staff and advisors that did this) is reasonable. Making it sound like
he single-handedly brought down the USSR is not.
No man ever has single-handedly defeated any empire, obviously.
But there is more to it than the obvious. Reagan was just made for
the job. Any good leader must be a good actor and act such that
his people will follow him; he was that *and* he believed what he was
doing was right. Or at least this is what the world saw.
Picking the next good actor to do a similar job is a difficult thing.
The actors are known by the characters they enact and this is not
enough for those who pick them to pick one. Hopefully they find someone,
not just anybody only because anybody will do better than Trump.
\"Star Wars\" was quite successful, in its way - not bad for a bigger work
of fiction than George Lucas\'s version!
Indeed, I wonder to what extent did the Russians fall for it. Perhaps
those within the KGB knew, perhaps not. But the media effect on the
people in the East Block was huge, we all thought \"now let me see
the Russians match *that*\" (the media here was whining how bad they
were wanting to militarize space etc.).