I think you're not giving Reagan enuogh credit.
I think you give Reagan way too much.
Just in terms of the USSR, he did a lot to refocus attention at them, on the world stage. Calling them evil, demanding the destruction of the Berlin Wall, and then of course the enormous spending spree he went on. While the spending above all is hurting us now, what he did really did hurt the Soviets, perhaps forcing them to "reorganize" a few years earlier then they would otherwise have had to.
How did the U.S. spending hurt the Soviets? I want to see how our overspending of financial affected a the overuse of resources practice they were already well immersed in 20-30 years before their 'downfall'?
There is no doubt in anyone's mind (except perhaps deluded Communists) that the Soviet Union fell because it was corrupted in countless ways. But the fact of the matter is, Reagan and Wilson did a lot to force this realization a few years then it might have occured otherwise.
Please explain how. Just saying that Reagan & Wilson 'forced' what was an inevitable collapse doesn't make it so. What Reagan and Wilson did was engage in an interventionist policy which had the result of filling the minds of Americans with the belief that it was Reagan who actually brought down the Soviets all by himself. It is the origins of 'AMERICA **** YEAH!' culture. Thanks.
The thing that Reagan and Wilson accomplished was to force that downsizing a few years earlier then it might have otherwise have happened. I'm sure the Russians would love to have some of the resources in former Warsaw Pact nations, like oil, metals, etc.
And the bigger idea behind the fall (or restructuring, whicever you prefer) of the Soviet Union is that Communism "lost." Idealogically, this was a critical victory for NATO.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW! The Russians
already had massive deficits
before the 80s. They
already had bureaucratic issues
before the 80s. They
already had massive shortages of food supplies
before the 80s. If anything Reagan - as always - just happened to be at the right place, at the right time to take credit for something which any historian will tell you, he had little work in.
As proof of this take the reforms of Gorbachev which if anything were more 'harmful' to the USSR. Gorbachev in an effort to continue, the then, 20 year old de-Stalinization of the USSR advocated the
political liberalization of Soviet society while retaining the
same economic organization. What happened as a result? The country continued to spiral down in all aspects.
Now take a look at China, which has done exactly the opposite. While China has liberalized its market, it has maintained the same political structure and one party rule. The result? A country which is now becoming a rival the U.S. 's claim to being the world's only superpower. All this while remaining just as oppressive, evil and threatening as it was in the 90s, 80s, 70s and 60s. If anything it's liberalization of it's market has made it more dangerous.
Seriously, this isn't rocket science. Reagan's role in Soviet downfall is minimal when you compare it to the economic damage their structure was doing to them. The claim Americans make to victory is quite dishonest.