Nicholas’s answer to “This book is full of revisionist history and incorrect statements! I know it is fiction but so full…” > Likes and Comments
18 likes · Like
The problem w/your statement that the USSR would have collapsed of it own weight is that few refugees from the captive nations believed they'd live to see it happen. How do I know? Because beginning in 1975, I worked in an office for more than 14 years in which many of my colleagues came from Iron Curtain countries and all but 1 could not conceive of such a thing happening. Despite the flaws in the book, Follett makes it clear from the outset that the imbalance of resource allocation in the Soviet Union was a critical factor in its collapse. Once Reagan changed the status quo, that is, spurred economic expansion by way of lowered tax burdens and increased defense expenditures including development of the SDT, the Soviets were doomed. But who believed in 1986 when the NYTimes excoriated Reagan for walking away from the Reykjavic summit that within 3 years the Berlin Wall would be torn down and within 5, that the USSR would cease to exist? In retrospect, it all seems inevitable but it didn't seem so at the time. Remember, this was the same Ronald Reagan who was regularly dismissed as, "an amiable dunce," "Ronald Raygun" and, "The Nuclear Cowboy." Btw, it's, "tectonic," not, "techtonic."
Larry, please. Read some factual stuff and not your local news rag. The soviet system stagnated under Brezhnev and went into final collapse as the leadership began to shift every couple of years after his death. It was an untenable economic system. But because the people had been so effectively cowed, between the gulags and the holodomors, and were minimally provided for without much effort, it was never going to be a revolution. People who think Reagan was behind its collapse seem unaware that what actually happened was a putsch by hardliners against Gorbachev. And they lost because several republics, the Baltics and Ukraine, were already starting their escapes. When Ukraine declared indedpendence on August 24, 1991, that was the last straw. Without Ukraine, Russia fell apart. That's why there's a war going on since 2014.
Lidia, I totally agree with you. Our family had spent decades hoping for and watching the gradual decline of the Communist system. Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the Iron Curtain. It fell from within due to inefficiency of its economy and the harsh treatment of its citizens. Unfortunately, now they are in the hands of equally corrupt leadership Very sad.
I've heard a lot of people say that the Chernobyl disaster and losing the war in Afghanistan were big factors too. Not as big as oil prices, of course, but still very significant.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Larry
(new)
Mar 14, 2016 12:05PM
The problem w/your statement that the USSR would have collapsed of it own weight is that few refugees from the captive nations believed they'd live to see it happen. How do I know? Because beginning in 1975, I worked in an office for more than 14 years in which many of my colleagues came from Iron Curtain countries and all but 1 could not conceive of such a thing happening. Despite the flaws in the book, Follett makes it clear from the outset that the imbalance of resource allocation in the Soviet Union was a critical factor in its collapse. Once Reagan changed the status quo, that is, spurred economic expansion by way of lowered tax burdens and increased defense expenditures including development of the SDT, the Soviets were doomed. But who believed in 1986 when the NYTimes excoriated Reagan for walking away from the Reykjavic summit that within 3 years the Berlin Wall would be torn down and within 5, that the USSR would cease to exist? In retrospect, it all seems inevitable but it didn't seem so at the time. Remember, this was the same Ronald Reagan who was regularly dismissed as, "an amiable dunce," "Ronald Raygun" and, "The Nuclear Cowboy." Btw, it's, "tectonic," not, "techtonic."
reply
|
flag
Larry, please. Read some factual stuff and not your local news rag. The soviet system stagnated under Brezhnev and went into final collapse as the leadership began to shift every couple of years after his death. It was an untenable economic system. But because the people had been so effectively cowed, between the gulags and the holodomors, and were minimally provided for without much effort, it was never going to be a revolution. People who think Reagan was behind its collapse seem unaware that what actually happened was a putsch by hardliners against Gorbachev. And they lost because several republics, the Baltics and Ukraine, were already starting their escapes. When Ukraine declared indedpendence on August 24, 1991, that was the last straw. Without Ukraine, Russia fell apart. That's why there's a war going on since 2014.
Lidia, I totally agree with you. Our family had spent decades hoping for and watching the gradual decline of the Communist system. Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the Iron Curtain. It fell from within due to inefficiency of its economy and the harsh treatment of its citizens. Unfortunately, now they are in the hands of equally corrupt leadership Very sad.
I've heard a lot of people say that the Chernobyl disaster and losing the war in Afghanistan were big factors too. Not as big as oil prices, of course, but still very significant.
