15 years ago this week, the Soviet Union collapsed

[Little-Acorn]

On Dec. 8, 1991, Soviet premier Boris Yeltsin met with the leaders of several other regions of the Soviet Union, and signed an agreement saying that the Soviet Union was dissolved. They formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). With the release of the citizens from the inron grip of the Soviet government, law-abiding citizens and criminals alike sprang to life each having their effect on the countried involved as they experimented with freedom for the first time in living memory.

Some say that the American arms buildup by Ronald Reagan was instrumental in the Soviet collapse, when the Soviets tried to keep up and their economy failed as a result. But it is more likely that the Soviet system was heading for collapse anyway, due to inefficient central planning and an economic philosophy that discouraged effort and productivity. The Reagan arms race may have given it an extra push, but it was headed for collapse anyway.

The collapse of the Soviet Union freed more people from oppressive dictatorship at one stroke, than ever in the history of the world. It also demonstrated once and for all the unworkable nature of large, overbearing central government planning and socialistic economic theory.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

On Dec. 8, 1991, Soviet premier Boris Yeltsin met with the leaders of several other regions of the Soviet Union, and signed an agreement saying that the Soviet Union was dissolved. They formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). With the release of the citizens from the inron grip of the Soviet government, law-abiding citizens and criminals alike sprang to life each having their effect on the countried involved as they experimented with freedom for the first time in living memory.

Some say that the American arms buildup by Ronald Reagan was instrumental in the Soviet collapse, when the Soviets tried to keep up and their economy failed as a result. But it is more likely that the Soviet system was heading for collapse anyway, due to inefficient central planning and an economic philosophy that discouraged effort and productivity. The Reagan arms race may have given it an extra push, but it was headed for collapse anyway.

The collapse of the Soviet Union freed more people from oppressive dictatorship at one stroke, than ever in the history of the world. It also demonstrated once and for all the unworkable nature of large, overbearing central government planning and socialistic economic theory.

This important anniversary is more than likely blacked out in our schools. Just like in our mainstream media...

 

[Annie]

This important anniversary is more than likely blacked out in our schools. Just like in our mainstream media...

Hey, that would mean the kids had to understand that communism was a threat. To do that, teachers would have to teach the isms. That's very hard for many, as they don't understand it themselves. Yes, I'm very serious. You are expecting people that don't really understand their own system of government, to tackle another philosophy that they buy into to some degree, to teach this? LOL!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hey, that would mean the kids had to understand that communism was a threat. To do that, teachers would have to teach the isms. That's very hard for many, as they don't understand it themselves. Yes, I'm very serious. You are expecting people that don't really understand their own system of government, to tackle another philosophy that they buy into to some degree, to teach this? LOL!

How stupid of me to think that professionals should have that capacity...

(present company excepted of course)

 

[Annie]

How stupid of me to think that professionals should have that capacity...

(present company excepted of course)

Thank you for that. Most secondary teachers have not read Das Kapital and even if they did, they don't see how it got from that to the USSR or China or Cuba.

Then again, even when they try they don't understand capitalism or a federated republic so there you have it.

 

[deaddude]

Teachers tend to be fairly knowledgeabe about their chosen subject. Ask your average history teacher and he/she can probably give you a pretty decent bit on what communism is and what happened to the Soviet Union. However because most elementary school history/jr. high school classes tend to be either extremely broad (world history) or extremely narrow (various State history) these classes either do not have the time to make it to relatively recent history, or do not have the scope to explain it in terms of the big picture. Thus Communism is usually left to high school european history classes.

 

[Annie]

Teachers tend to be fairly knowledgeabe about their chosen subject. Ask your average history teacher and he/she can probably give you a pretty decent bit on what communism is and what happened to the Soviet Union. However because most elementary school history/jr. high school classes tend to be either extremely broad (world history) or extremely narrow (various State history) these classes either do not have the time to make it to relatively recent history, or do not have the scope to explain it in terms of the big picture. Thus Communism is usually left to high school european history classes.

Not really. I'm there and it's not true. In high school the current requirements for 'social studies' put the emphasis on 'global studies' and a special core, such as 'black studies' or 'government'. Yes, there is a class in 'constitution' related so the test may be administered, Cliff Notes, aka sparknotes, does a better job.

 

[deaddude]

Where do you teach Kathianne? I took a european studies class in my junior year which covered communism in pretty decent detail including the fall of the soviet union. Good teacher two.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not really. I'm there and it's not true. In high school the current requirements for 'social studies' put the emphasis on 'global studies' and a special core, such as 'black studies' or 'government'. Yes, there is a class in 'constitution' related so the test may be administered, Cliff Notes, aka sparknotes, does a better job.

Isn't at least some basic world history taught at the grade school level? What do teachers teach the 5th and 6th graders?

 

[Annie]

Isn't at least some basic world history taught at the grade school level? What do teachers teach the 5th and 6th graders?

Truly, it's weak, if the follow the texts. I do differently, but I'm way over qualified, not 'tootin my own horn' just the facts, degrees wise, (more importantly understanding wise.)

First there were schools to 'teach the Word'. Then there were schools to teach 'the government.' Now there are schools to teach the 'message' of inclusiveness, aka multiculturalism. "US is bad you know, they killed the Indians, whoops! Native Americans. They also started, enhanced, grew slavery-never mind the modifier, it was all their fault. No Euros or 'others.' Nope, all those fing colonists. Uh huh.

 

[glockmail]

On Dec. 8, 1991, Soviet premier Boris Yeltsin met with the leaders of several other regions of the Soviet Union, and signed an agreement saying that the Soviet Union was dissolved. .....

It's all Reagan's fault, ya know! He refuse to "fully fund" that program.

 

[red states rule]

Thank You Ronald Reagan! You brought down the Soviet Union without firing a shot

 

[1549]

Kath and ScreamingEagle

I would like to note that I was taught about the Cold War in three different history classes (8th grade, Amer. hist II, European history) between middle school and high school. After taking several in depth and analytical Cold War classes here at Rutgers, I can say that my Jr. High and High School teachers (in both Illinois and New Jersey) did a good job of teaching the Cold War.

Some say that the American arms buildup by Ronald Reagan was instrumental in the Soviet collapse, when the Soviets tried to keep up and their economy failed as a result. But it is more likely that the Soviet system was heading for collapse anyway, due to inefficient central planning and an economic philosophy that discouraged effort and productivity. The Reagan arms race may have given it an extra push, but it was headed for collapse anyway.

Conservatives preach that the Reagan arms buildup was instrumental because they will do anything to advocate military spending. In reality, Gorbachev would be in office today if he had not introduced glasnost and perestroika to the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was burdened by defense competition, but this was not because of Reagan. These problems had existed for years. Reagan in fact alleviated defense budget problems for Gorbachev at Geneva when the two agreed in principle that eliminating all nuclear weapons would be a worthy goal. This agreement never led to anything on paper because of Reagan's insistence on funding S.D.I. None the less, Gorbachev knew that Reagan was interested in peaceful ends, thus an arms race would not be necessary.

It was the prior decades of poor financial management, lack of technological advances, a stagnant work force, and alcohol that brought down the Soviet Union.

The Reagan Doctrine (rollback policy) had some short term success. Though we can all agree that it would be nice to go back in time and yell "DON'T DO IT!!!!" Reagan and his administration could not have known the future troubles we would have with those he was arming.

 

[1549]

Thank You Ronald Reagan! You brought down the Soviet Union without firing a shot

Read what I just wrote.

I think Reagan's policy toward the Soviet Union was more complex than any other President's. I admire the way he ultimately approached the Soviet Union, any liberal would admire this statesmanship. It is too bad conservatives portray him in the wrong light.

 

[red states rule]

Read what I just wrote.

I think Reagan's policy toward the Soviet Union was more complex than any other President's. I admire the way he ultimately approached the Soviet Union, any liberal would admire this statesmanship. It is too bad conservatives portray him in the wrong light.

Libs admired his statesmenship?

Is that libs were screaming Reagan was going to start WWIII?

Is that why the liberal media blew a gasket when Reagan walked out of the summitt in Reykjavik?

Like libs of today, the libs back in the 80's thought appeasement was the way to handle our enemies

 

[glockmail]

Kath and ScreamingEagle

I would like to note that I was taught about the Cold War in three different history classes (8th grade, Amer. hist II, European history) between middle school and high school. After taking several in depth and analytical Cold War classes here at Rutgers, I can say that my Jr. High and High School teachers (in both Illinois and New Jersey) did a good job of teaching the Cold War.



Conservatives preach that the Reagan arms buildup was instrumental because they will do anything to advocate military spending. In reality, Gorbachev would be in office today if he had not introduced glasnost and perestroika to the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was burdened by defense competition, but this was not because of Reagan. These problems had existed for years. Reagan in fact alleviated defense budget problems for Gorbachev at Geneva when the two agreed in principle that eliminating all nuclear weapons would be a worthy goal. This agreement never led to anything on paper because of Reagan's insistence on funding S.D.I. None the less, Gorbachev knew that Reagan was interested in peaceful ends, thus an arms race would not be necessary.

It was the prior decades of poor financial management, lack of technological advances, a stagnant work force, and alcohol that brought down the Soviet Union.

The Reagan Doctrine (rollback policy) had some short term success. Though we can all agree that it would be nice to go back in time and yell "DON'T DO IT!!!!" Reagan and his administration could not have known the future troubles we would have with those he was arming.

You've been taught half-truths. The liberal historians will write anything to deny Reagan his actual legacy, that of the greatest President in modern history.

 

[red states rule]

You've been taught half-truths. The liberal historians will write anything to deny Reagan his actual legacy, that of the greatest President in modern history.

Here is the liberal version on why the Soviet Union fell.............


Jimmy Carter Won the Cold War



"Short-circuiting the long-established principles of patient negotiation leads to war, not peace." - Jimmy Carter

On this 93rd birthday of the Anti-Christ, Gipper-worshipping dittoheads across the blogosphere are squawking like lovesick parrots about how "Reagan won the cold war". But history will reveal the real truth - the man who actually won the cold war was none other than the 39th president of the United States, James Earl Carter.

Carter strongly suspected that the Soviet Union might be a bully. From his grade school years, Carter also knew that the best way to deal with a bully is to make yourself very small and hope they don't notice you. Failing that, offer them your lunch money. Whatever you do, do NOT confront them - it will only make them angrier. Meekly submitting to a wedgie is better than getting a bloody nose. And perhaps in time, the bully will realize you're no threat and let you pal around with him. Carter applied this policy of d�tente to his dealings with the Soviet Union.

The French word for "I'm your bitch", d�tente with the Soviets was the dreamchild of Henry Kissinger and Tricky Dick Nixon. But it was future nobel laureate, Jimmy Carter, who perfected it to an artform. When the Soviets began rattling their nuclear sabres in the 70's, Carter cut national defense in order to make us seem less threatening. When the Soviets appeared unmoved by his overtures of peace, Carter offered them an olive branch in the form of the Panama Canal, Nicaragua, Taiwan, Ethiopia, Korea, Yemen, Angola, Kampuchea, and Afghanistan. He was in the process of handing them all of Eastern Europe when he was cruelly tossed out of office by the Moral Majority.

However, Carter's refusal to confront the USSR set the wheels in motion for its eventual collapse. Lured into a false sense of superiority, the Soviets overextended themselves, spreading their influence across the globe in much the same way the Roman Empire did. If allowed to continue on such a course, the Soviet Union would quietly fade away in just a few hundred years. All Reagan did was speed up the process by forcing the "evil empire" into an arms race.

By standing up to the Soviets and forcing them in to an arms race, Reagan brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. If it weren't for Sting's visionary Russians single soothing the tensions between the two world powers, I would very likely be typing this blog from a fallout shelter today. We owe him, and Jimmy Carter, a deep debt of gratitude.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/02/_shortcircuitin.html