It is a beautiful article that, in these days while you try to change the history of those years, for example by giving the license winner to Gorbachev and Reagan and Wojtyla you forget, remember some truth.
First shows how liberals were against communism that now have the same attitudes towards of Islam, and had once against nazismo.Il appeasement.Evidenzia all be summed up as Ronald Reagan was a staunch anti-communist but not a fanatic, incapable of understanding when to change tactics.
Highlight as Gorbachev was the perfect man for the `elite` occidentlai ogdevano that the benefits of the capitalist system but that they loved in `East Europe continues to dominate the bad.
Remember, The importance of the "white telephone" between the Holy See and the White House, in `a breakthrough in fundamental Communist totalitarian monolith. Remember
finally coem `s aggressive rhetoric of Reagan, the he said the truth about communism, has strengthened the Russian dissidents.
Ten years ago, Ronald Reagan, facing the Brandenburg Gate, said: "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you really want peace, prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and liberalization, come before this door. Open this gate, Mr. Gorbachev! Tear down this wall! ". Not long after, the wall crumbled to pieces and one of the most formidable empires in history collapsed so quickly that, in the words of Vaclav Havel," there was not even time to wonder. "With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the most ambitious social and political experiment of modern times ended in failure, and ended the supreme political drama of the twentieth century: the conflict between the free West and the East totalitarian. What will be probably the most important historical event of our times has already happened.
Considering all this, is natural to wonder what caused the destruction of Soviet communism. Yet, oddly, is a topic that nobody seems willing to discuss. This reluctance is particularly strong among intellectuals . Just think about what happened June 4, 1990, when Mikhail Gorbachev spoke before students and professors at Stanford University. The Cold War was over, he said, and the audience applauded with great sense of relief.
Then Gorbachev added, "And let's not argue about who has won." At this point the audience stood up. He set off a thunderous applause.
was understandable that Gorbachev wanted to avoid this topic. But why even the obvious winners of the Cold War were equally refractory to celebrate their victory or to analyze how it was obtained? Perhaps the reason is simply this: the Soviet Union, almost all wrong.
The doves and the advocates of appeasement did not understand anything. For example, in 1983, when Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire", Anthony Lewis, The New York Times, was so outraged that sifted all his vocabulary seeking the most appropriate adjective "simplistic," "sectarian "," dangerous "," outrageous. " eventually chose "primitive: the only word for it."
the mid-eighties, Strobe Talbott, then of Time magazine journalist and later the State Department official in the Clinton administration, wrote: "Reagan is counting on technological supremacy and economic American to win ", whereas" the Soviet Union had learned to live with a permanent, institutionalized crisis. "
The historic Barbara Tuchman argued that instead of employing a policy of confrontation, the West had to ingratiate himself with the Soviet Union by using the "tactics of the turkey stuffing: in other words, provide all the grain and consumer goods they need." If Reagan had followed this advice in 1982, today 's Soviet Empire would probably still alive . Hawks and included anti- much better the nature of totalitarianism, and included the need for a policy of rearmament as a deterrent to Soviet aggression. But they also believed that Soviet communism was a lifelong opponent and virtually indestructible.
This gloomy pessimism spengleri flavor echoes the famous words spoken in 1948 by Whittaker Chambers before the Un-American Activities Committee when he said, abandoning communism, "was leaving the deployment winning move in one of the losers. " The hawks did not even understand what steps were necessary to determine the final dismantling the Soviet empire. During the years of his second term, when Reagan supported the reform efforts of Gorbachev and signed agreements for arms reduction, many conservatives denounced his apparent change of course. "Ignorant and pathetic" With these words, Charles Krauthammer called the behavior of Reagan. William F. Buckley Jr. urged Reagan to reconsider his opinion on the regime to Gorbachev: "healthy as if it was no longer the evil empire is the same thing to change our opinion about Adolf Hitler." George Will complained that Reagan had "accelerated the moral disarmament of the West by elevating wishful thinking to the level of political philosophy."
Nobody likes that their skills are challenged, but the doves just can not admit that they were a mistake and that Reagan was right. Therefore this group in recent years has made great efforts to rewrite history. There is no mystery about the fall of the Soviet Union, say the revisionists: suffered from chronic economic problems and collapsed under its own weight. "The Soviet system was dissolved and fell apart for his own shortcomings and structural defects," writes Strobe Talbott, "and not because of anything done by the outside world." According to Talbott, "the threat Soviet is not what it once seemed. Indeed, the real point is that there was never a threat. The doves, in the great debate of the last forty years, had always right " .
Meanwhile, the" extreme militarization "built by Reagan and hard at the Pentagon, insists George Kennan , "has reinforced the same positions even in the Soviet Union." Far from accelerating the end of the Cold War, the politics of Reagan may have even delayed the conclusion. This analysis is striking, if only for the his audacity. The Soviet Union had actually serious economic problems. But because these problems would need to cause the end of the political regime? Historically it is a usual thing that nations pass through periods of economic recession, but the famine ol'arretratezza technological causes have not been sufficient to cause the collapse of a great empire. The Roman Empire survived the internal corrosion for centuries before being destroyed by the invasion of barbarian hordes. The Ottoman Empire continued to live as "the sick man of Europe" for generations, and finally fell only by the catastrophic defeat in the First World War.
Even the economic argument is able to explain why the Soviet empire has collapsed or because the collapse occurred at that precise moment. The revisionists say it happened, so it was inevitable. But if the collapse of the Soviet Union was so sure, because the revisionists have not been able to foresee it, and even proclaimed, to cite an article by Anthony Lewis in 1983 that the Soviet regime was "not going to disappear?
E 'equally difficult to argue that Gorbachev was the real architect of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev was undoubtedly a reformer and a completely new kind of leader for the USSR. But he had no intention to lead the party, and the whole system, into the abyss.
So when the collapse occurred, the more surprised was he. He did not expect the least to be excluded from power, and is still absolutely outraged by the fact that they have obtained only one percent of the vote in 1996 elections.
The man who knew everything from the beginning was, at first glance, an unlikely statesman.
When he became the leader of the free world, had no experience in foreign policy. Some thought it was a dangerous warmonger, others considered him a good person, but a bit 'messy. However, this proved insignificant puppet of California have a deeper understanding of communism as that of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. To deal with the Soviet Union, this amateur worked out a complex strategy that almost none of his colleagues would approve or even understand the way down. Through a combination of imagination, tenacity, patience and ability to improvise.
0 comments:
Post a Comment