regan dies from assasination, john lennon lives.
- Thread starter radical_neutural
- Start date
Actually...
Actually he had national security advisor Robert McFarlane, who had already
been serving the Reagan administration since 1981. Colonel Oliver North had already been working with on the covert operations as early as 1982, in an effort to go around the Boland Amendment that prevented transfer of illegal funds to the Contras in Nicaragua. As such, President George H.W. Nush would be in the middle of the entire mess...
Phenabob said:
Actually he had national security advisor Robert McFarlane, who had already
been serving the Reagan administration since 1981. Colonel Oliver North had already been working with on the covert operations as early as 1982, in an effort to go around the Boland Amendment that prevented transfer of illegal funds to the Contras in Nicaragua. As such, President George H.W. Nush would be in the middle of the entire mess...
Actually...
Two points:
-First, consider that the aftermath might have been different under President George H.W. Bush. Consider that President Ronald Reagan had charisma as his main tool of negotiation. Bush was many things in his line of work, but he was certainly not charismatic.
-Second, another consequence is greater suspicion towards the Soviet leadership. In the mind of George H.W. Bush, the fact that a Soviet military officer refused to obey an order given by his superior signals that the Politburo has little or no control over its military personnel...
The fact that you have President George H.W. Bush treating the Soviet Union with less ability to convince the leadership of his plans for security, but under the belief that the Soviet military in both morale and its personnel is collapsing! This creates a completely different situation than one presented by Ronald Reagan in 1984....
AMBOMB said:So, the Soviet satellite wouldn't have malfunctioned if George Bush had been president?
Two points:
-First, consider that the aftermath might have been different under President George H.W. Bush. Consider that President Ronald Reagan had charisma as his main tool of negotiation. Bush was many things in his line of work, but he was certainly not charismatic.
-Second, another consequence is greater suspicion towards the Soviet leadership. In the mind of George H.W. Bush, the fact that a Soviet military officer refused to obey an order given by his superior signals that the Politburo has little or no control over its military personnel...
The fact that you have President George H.W. Bush treating the Soviet Union with less ability to convince the leadership of his plans for security, but under the belief that the Soviet military in both morale and its personnel is collapsing! This creates a completely different situation than one presented by Ronald Reagan in 1984....
Mr_ Bondoc said:
You're assuming that anyone in the United States even knew about it right after it happened. Secondly, I really don't see the relevence of charisma. Thirdly, the fact that a Soviet officer disobeyed orders under this extreme circumstance was not an indicator that the government had no control over the military. Reagan didn't think so (assuming he even knew it happened) and Reagan was an idiot. Bush, who's certainly smarter than Reagan was, wouldn't have thought so either. And this incident didn't and wouldn't have lead anyone to believe the Soviet military was collapsing in terms of morale and personnel. If anything, it raised opinion of Soviet military personnel because it showed that at least one Soviet officer had the ability to use his brain.
Last edited:
I think you underestimate Reagan quite a bit there, AMBOMB. Reagan used a very efficient negotiating technique (both stick and carrot - Reagan was not as hardline in regards to the USSR as many people seem to think) and he used his considerable personal charm to negotiate quite often, which proved to be deceisive at several stages during his presidency.AMBOMB said:
Without Reagan at the helm the situation in Europe would no doubt be more explosive. Reagan had a steady hand and was personally essential to all the disarmament talks. The many flash points and situations during Reagan's presidency alone opens up for all kinds of butteflies if he is removed from the equation. Furthermore Reagan picked a few good men along the way, Schultz is one of them, that also proved important.
Andropov and Bush Sr actually met once, I think it was at Brezhnievs funeral, and Andropov did not think that much of Bush Sr.. Senior made a go at breaking the ice by commenting on their former service on opposing teams, so to say, and Andropov thought Bush was something of an amateur.
Regarding the economic state of the USSR and Gorbachev. There is no doubt the introduction of SDI made the Soviets aware that they might if not was going to lose the arms race. That alone gave the reformniks strenght and influence that they might not otherwise have had. Remember, it was not a given, that Gorbachev should come into power, far from it.
Reagan's rearmament programme and focus on high technology made it obvious for the Cardinals of Kremlin
) ) that reform was needed and needed now. Had another President been in the White House, history would have been very different indeed as the Soviets might, and probably would, have postponed real reforms and picked another General Secretary than Gorbachev which would have made the situation in Europe really, really interesting...I've just read 1983 by Ramush Dahlberg and it gives an interesting view into these matters. A lot of us have these weird prejudices about that time, and quite often they just don't hold up...
Furthermore, Reagan gave American back its selfesteem and confidence, and while one might disagree with his politics, it is hard to argue with success: the world is still here and the US of A is its only superpower...
And Lennon?! Well, he and Yoko would most likely have been the worlds premier freakshow for a long time - had it not been blown up that is. And with Lennon still around with Yoko on backing vocal, then the 90's fascination of Beatles and their sound might never appear as it did OTL, which would mean no Brit Pop and thus a rather lame British muscial scene and perhaps even no Cool Britannia!
Best regards!
- B.
Last edited:
Gorbachev didn't institute reforms because he was afraid Russia would lose the arms race. He instituted them because he wanted to turn the Soviet economy around.Mr.Bluenote said:I think you underestimate Reagan quite a bit there, AMBOMB. Reagan used a very efficient negotiating technique (both stick and carrot - Reagan was not as hardline in regards to the USSR as many people seem to think) and he used his considerable personal charm to negotiate quite often, which proved to be deceisive at several stages during his presidency.
Without Reagan at the helm the situation in Europe would no doubt be more explosive. Reagan had a steady hand and was personally essential to all the disarmament talks. The many flash points and situations during Reagan's presidency alone opens up for all kinds of butteflies if he is removed from the equation. Furthermore Reagan picked a few good men along the way, Schultz is one of them, that also proved important.
Andropov and Bush Sr actually met once, I think it was at Brezhnievs funeral, and Andropov did not think that much of Bush Sr.. Senior made a go at breaking the ice by commenting on their former service on opposing teams, so to say, and Andropov thought Bush was something of an amateur.
Regarding the economic state of the USSR and Gorbachev. There is no doubt the introduction of SDI made the Soviets aware that they might if not was going to lose the arms race. That alone gave the reformniks strenght and influence that they might not otherwise have had. Remember, it was not a given, that Gorbachev should come into power, far from it.
Reagan's rearmament programme and focus on high technology made it obvious for the Cardinals of Kremlin
I've just read 1983 by Ramush Dahlberg and it gives an interesting view into these matters. A lot of us have these weird prejudices about that time, and quite often they just don't hold up...
Furthermore, Reagan gave American back its selfesteem and confidence, and while one might disagree with his politics, it is hard to argue with success: the world is still here and the US of A is its only superpower...
And Lennon?! Well, he and Yoko would most likely have been the worlds premier freakshow for a long time - had it not been blown up that is. And with Lennon still around with Yoko on backing vocal, then the 90's fascination of Beatles and their sound might never appear as it did OTL, which would mean no Brit Pop and thus a rather lame British muscial scene and perhaps even no Cool Britannia!
Best regards!
- B.
Eh, yes, but somebody put Gorbachev in charge, right? Those somebody was the reformniks, and they were in a position to do so because the future looked bleak indeed for the USSR.AMBOMB said:
Brezniev and Andropov both did their best to boost production and what not, but seen in comparison to the west, or more specifically the US, it slowly began to dawn on them that something needed to be done if they were to keep up with the Americans. Especially after Reagan put rearmament, SDI and hight tech weapons and equipment on the top of his aganda.
The Soviets tried to match the build up of the US, but saw that they would fail if not drastic steps were taken, thus Gorby enters the stage. At the time of Gorbachev the Soviet Union was crumbling internally because of the already very, very high military expenditures. There was nothing in way of consumer products. Computers were, well, nearly unheard of. The USSR needed to import grain, time and time again, grain that had to be paid for and so on, but the USSR had little to sell... Reagan's politics hammered these facts home, facts that the Soviet leadership might otherwise have ignored for some time
Furthermore, Reagan's particular use of the stick and carrot in negotiations made the Soviets pull back in honour and that was damn important.
Best regards!
- B.