Friend or Foe:
Why Ronald Reagan Was Not Responsible For Ending
the Cold War
IDP4U1
Mr. Cotey
12/18/09
Savoula Stylianou
0
Ronald Reagan is one of the most respected and well-liked presidents in the
history of the United States and one of the most important accomplishments that he is
accredited with is ending the Cold War. During this 50-year period in time, two of the
world’s greatest superpowers were at odds, both having the power and ability to
annihilate the other at any given moment. People at this time were forced to live in fear
and terror, not knowing what the next day would bring or if they would even live to see
tomorrow. The Cold War began, arguably, with several stands taken by the United States
to aid the global community post World-War II, such as the Marshal Plan and the
creation of NATO1. It can be argued that the Cold War also ended with several platforms
originated from the United States. The man at the helm of the operation was Ronald
Reagan. History shows that the strides this president took towards seemingly ending the
war actually prolonged it. Strategies like brinkmanship and positive nuclear proliferation
did not portray the message of a man whose goal was to end a war, but rather a man who
had no problem continuing a war until his country won. Thus, Ronald Reagan did not end
the Cold War. Reagan escalated the arms race, took a hostile approach to the Soviet
Union, and was not as crucial as Gorbachev in ending the war.
At the beginning of Reagan’s presidency, he was a self-proclaimed nuclear
abolitionist. He pleaded for peace in his speeches and ordered his subordinates to write
studies on its application. Therefore one would assume that this desire would help him to
end the war. Yet if that were true, he would not have pushed so hard for the institution of
the Strategic Defence Initiative, a project that dealt directly with nuclear weaponry. Past
1
Cold War." Ibiblio.org - people. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/coldwar.html>.
1
presidents had mostly used détente as a means of dealing not only with the Soviet Union,
but with all external countries. This policy had worked quite well until John F. Kennedy’s
time in the Cuban Missile Crisis when he was forced to slowly climb up the escalation
ladder to brinkmanship in order to ensure the safety of his nation. The next time that this
harsh and unnecessary policy would be brought to the United States would be during
Reagan’s presidency. “Push it to the edge”2 was his policy and the only result this
brought was a war that went on far longer than necessary. Brinkmanship dictated that the
United States continue the arms race and hold nuclear weaponry against the Soviet
Union. Meagan’s hope was to put them into a position where they had no choice but to
surrender. This was a fruitless dream since the Soviets already knew they could not enter
war and were smart enough to try to make peace before it was too late. In trying to end
the war, Reagan was purposely sabotaging the stiff relations with the Soviets in order to
force them to implode on themselves, crippling the status quo of the nation and thus
proving the hegemonic power of the United States. However this president discounted
one important element: the Gorbachev factor. Ronald Reagan came to power years earlier
than Mikhail Gorbachev did and in that time he managed to cripple his country’s
economy, enlarge the already increasing budget deficits and national debt of his country,
and completely alienate the Soviet Union, calling them ``the evil empire``3. Gorbachev’s
political and economic reforms remain unmatched in Soviet history. It is true that the
USSR was in turmoil after World War II, but Gorbachev became the new voice of the
2
Brinkmanship - Everything on Brinkmanship (information, latest news, articles,...)." SpiritusTemporis.com - Historical Events, Latest News, News Archives. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. <http://www.spiritustemporis.com/brinkmanship/>.
3
English, Robert D. Russia and the Idea of the West: Gorbachev, Intellectuals and the End of the Cold
War. USA: Columbia UP, 2000. Print. (page 24)
2
Soviet Union and brought hope and change into the hearts of the people. Through
policies like glasnost and perestroika, this president was doing far more for his country
than Reagan was during wartime. He disassembled the previously dominant Communist
party in his country and made headway for democracy in the Soviet Union4. The changes
he made for his country during the Cold War were far more significant. Gorbachev knew
the Soviet Union would not be able to last through another war and he took the necessary
steps to end it, unlike Ronald Reagan. Some critics suggest that the war would have
ended regardless of the steps taken by Reagan. In fact, Mikhail Gorbachev was the only
one who realized the imminent danger that a war could bring not only to the Soviet Union
but to the rest of the world as well. Gorbachev was willing to end the war as quickly as
possible to end the threat of a nuclear holocaust. Therefore Ronald Reagan cannot be
recognized as “the man who ended the war”5 – he was merely in office when it ended.
Cold War historians and Reagan supporters alike give the credit for ending the
Cold War to Ronald Reagan. According to Washington Post writer David E. Hoffman, by
switching from détente to brinkmanship, Reagan left no room for relations between the
US and the USSR to remain at a standstill as they had been for years before. The war
ended because Reagan was willing to take relations a step further, something past
presidents were too afraid to do6. This is why CBS reporter Jamie Holguin believes the
war did not end with presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt or even John F. Kennedy.
Reagan managed to fight for his Strategic Defence Initiative dream which he believed
4
Khasbulatov, Ruslan. The Struggle for Russia : Power and Change in the Democratic Revolution. New
York: Routledge, 1993. Print. (page 306)
5
Miller, Laura. "Did Reagan win the Cold War? | Salon Books. 25 Jan. 2006. Web. 23 Sept. 2009.
<http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/01/25/gaddis/>.
6
WashingtonPost.com: Superpower Summits Archive." Washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology
and Washington area news and headlines. Web. 9 Oct. 2009. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/inatl/longterm/summit/archive/oct86.htm>.
3
would be able to protect his beloved United States in the case of a nuclear attack.7 An
article published in The Los Angeles Times stated that:
“though this strategy would come under attack by critics on several
occasions, it was the best idea that the Reagan administration could come
up with to ensure the maximum security of the country in a time where the
world could have been blown up at any given moment.”8
His creative and ingenious idea for this project showed just how devoted he was to
ending the war. Within his near decade of presidency, Reagan managed to create new
legislations for his country to increase employment and decrease inflation. He also
mended international relations and promoted peace and the abolition of nuclear
weaponry, says occasional Cold War historian Fred Kaplan. “In fact, his hard line tactics
in dealing with nuclear proliferation were what saved his country from MAD”.9 His
absolutist views led the country to success because he was unwilling to give up on
winning the Cold War and allowing the US to once again be on top in the global
community. Reagan refused to settle for anything less than the full surrender of all
nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union and in the end he achieved his goal.10 Published
author James Mann notes that through the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces)
treaty of 1987, Reagan managed to stop the production of all nuclear artilleries, which
was a large accomplishment considering the global arms race that had been brewing since
7
Reagan's Cold War Legacy - CBS Evening News - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines: Business,
Entertainment & World News - CBS News. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/10/eveningnews/main622398.shtml>.
8
Concessions to Stay on Table, Gorbachev Says - Blames Reagan for Failure of Talks but Still Offers
Hope of Future Nuclear Arms Agreement - Los Angeles Times." Featured Articles From The Los Angeles
Times. Web. 9 Oct. 2009. <http://articles.latimes.com/1986-10-13/news/mn-3018_1_nuclear-arms>.
9
Kaplan, Fred Ron and Mikhail's Excellent Adventure: How Reagan Won the Cold War. Slate Magazine, 9
June 2004. Web. 23 Sep. 2009 <http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/>.
10
Ibid
4
the end of the second World War in 1945.11 It is commonly believed and generally
accepted that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War because he was able to complete a task
that no other president could: ending a war while remaining on good terms with the
opposition. Of Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev said this: “You know, you can’t really
explain it. I felt something and he felt something – that we could talk to each other.”12
After Reagan’s presidency ended and George H.W. Bush took over, relations between the
Soviet Union and the United States took two large steps back13, onlookers such as John
Lewis Gaddis report. For these reasons, it can be said that Ronald Reagan was mostly
responsible for the conclusion of the Cold War. However, there are several arguments to
be made for the opposite opinion.
Reagan critics believe that the past president had a spell of good luck when the
war ended. After all, it was Mikhail Gorbachev who received a Nobel Peace Prize for his
work in restoring his country through political and economic reforms, not Reagan. The
president hid behind his nuclear abolitionist attitude when in reality he was willing to use
as many nuclear weapons as possible to beat the Soviet Union in this war. “There is no
other way to explain why he would receive letters from little children who wanted to
know why he was trying to blow the world up,”14 author Allan M. Winkler suggests.
Furthermore, it is believed that Reagan was the hero of the signing of the INF treaty
when truthfully, CBS news reporter Dan Rather acknowledges, he determined the timing
11
Mann, James. The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War. USA: Viking,
2009. Print. (page 19)
12
Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement. Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=53
7775>.
13
Bonnell, Victoria E., Ann Cooper, and Gregory Freidin, eds. Russia at the Barricades: Eyewitness
Accounts of the August 1991 Coup. USA: ME Sharp, 1994. Print. (page 2)
14
Winkler, Allan M. Cold War a history in documents. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Print. (page 22)
5
of that document by using his wife’s astrologer to read USSR General Secretary Mikhail
Gorbachev’s horoscope first15. It was no secret that Reagan disliked the USSR and this
was made blatantly transparent in his speech on June 12th, 1987 regarding the Berlin
Wall, where he pleaded with the General Secretary to “Come here to this gate! Mr.
Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”.16 William Blum notes
that Reagan criticized the Soviet Union for using the Berlin Wall as a defence tactic and
refusing to tear it down when he was doing the same thing with the SDI when he refused
to give it up. He held on to this “Star Wars” dream so ardently that when the time came
for peace to be made and all signs of nuclear weaponry to be set aside, he was averse to
doing so.17 Cold War onlookers, such as citizen Jack Mackdaniel, believed that Reagan’s
strong dislike for the Soviet Union and more importantly its communist regime led him to
put his own country in jeopardy in favour of trying to stop the spread of communism to
the rest of the world.18 Even though approaches like the iron curtain and containment had
failed, Reagan was not going to give up until he had completely destroyed the USSR and
communism. “This can be seen by looking at his switch from détente to brinkmanship
early on in his presidency,” describes writer Laura Miller. “Reagan believed that the only
way to bring the war to a stop was to push the buttons of the Soviets until they gave in to
15
The Cold War: Mikhail Gorbachev | Newsflavor." Newsflavor | News In Any Flavor: Daily News, Latest
News, Local News, Breaking News, US News, World News. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/the-cold-war-mikhail-gorbachev/>.
16
Ronald Reagan Speech 'Tear Down this Wall'" The History Place. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/reagan-tear-down.htm>.
17
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) (United States defense system) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia."
Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/568214/Strategic-Defense-Initiative>.
18
Reagan's Star Wars | Cold War: A Brief History | History of the Atomic Age | atomicarchive.com.
Atomicarchive.com: Exploring the History, Science, and Consequences of the Atomic Bomb. Web. 9 Oct.
2009. <http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page20.shtml>.
6
the United States”19. Some critics will say that the USSR folded like a house of cards, but
this is untrue. The state of the Soviet Union was poor at the time and that is why
Gorbachev was willing to compromise with Reagan – he was looking out for his country
and what was in their best interests. The General Secretary himself said: “[We] cannot
hope to win if war breaks out.”20 Therefore it cannot be said that Reagan took the
initiative and ended the war on his own. The Soviet leader outsmarted President Reagan
and knew that his country was economically unstable and would not be able to last
through another war. Lastly, author James Mann had this to say on Reagan’s abilities to
end the war: “… it is quite odd that this president supported brinkmanship so strongly at
the beginning of his presidency when in his second term he strayed far away from this
policy in dealing with the Iran-Contra Affair. A man who could not stick to one political
policy during his eight-year reign could surely not have been the sole contributor to the
end of a war that could have been disastrous.”21
This is a hotly debated issue because some see Reagan’s actions during this time
period as necessary and cleverly executed while others see them as superfluous and
precarious. It was not necessary to switch from détente to brinkmanship in order to attain
peace when brinkmanship was, in fact, a violent and hostile approach, notes Reagan
hawk Whittaker Chambers22. Writer Stephen Kotkin believes that holding on to the SDI
19
Miller, Laura. "Did Reagan win the Cold War? | Salon Books. 25 Jan. 2006. Web. 23 Sept. 2009.
<http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/01/25/gaddis/>.
20
Kotkin, Stephen. Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000. USA: Oxford UP, 2003. Print.
(page 309)
21
Mann, James. The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War. USA: Viking,
2009. Print. (page 216)
22
Reagan and Cold War." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 16 Dec.
2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15beschloss.html>.
7
so fervently was a hindrance in the long road to peace during the war.23 Finally,
promoting the use of nuclear weaponry in an attempt to tear down the Soviet Union and
its communist regime were all strategies that did not help to end the Cold War24, says
historian and author Michael A. McFaul. Thus Ronald Reagan did not end the war.
Historians have argued this issue since the end of the war nearly twenty years ago and
there is still no consensus on who was primarily responsible for the cessation of this era
of panic and fear. This time period was highlighted by the new involvement of nuclear
artillery in the global community and inclusively the escalation of the arms race.
"I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us
nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind
and world peace, to give us the means of rendering those nuclear weapons
impotent and obsolete."25
Ronald Reagan spoke these words on March 23rd, 1983 when he first introduced
his idea of the SDI to the United States. Initially one’s reaction to that quote would be to
assume that the president held true to his nuclear abolitionist status and had hopes for
peace in the world. However, this assumption would be incorrect as this quote is harshly
misleading. The Strategic Defence Initiative, dubbed “Star Wars”, was started by Ronald
Reagan as a defence tactic intended to be used against the Soviet Union and their ICBMs
(intercontinental ballistic missiles). Though the project gained initial approval from the
US Congress in the mid 1980s, this president’s dream would soon be shattered. The
monumental costs and unfeasible technicalities would doom the SDI. According to Dr.
23
Kotkin, Stephen. Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000. USA: Oxford UP, 2003. Print.
(page 45)
24
McFaul, Michael A. Russia's Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin. USA:
Cornell UP, 2001. Print. (page 16)
25
Reagan and Cold War." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 16 Dec.
2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15beschloss.html>.
8
Ernest Partridge, the SDI could never have worked even if it had been completed. The
space shield would only protect against ICBMs, which were only a small portion of
nuclear armaments that could have been used to attack the United States26. The project
failed to account for bombers, offshore submarine missiles, or even perhaps tramp
steamers. Furthermore, many Soviets saw the introduction of the SDI as a hostile act on
the part of the US that signalled they were preparing for an imminent war. Author
Frances Fitzgerald notes that the USSR was afraid of the SDI and what it could mean for
the world. Between 1985 and 1987 Gorbachev spent a great deal of time trying to
convince the Reagan administration to drop the project before it was too late. At this
point, Reagan would offer a strange compromise – to share the SDI in an effort to ensure
that a nuclear revival never happened. To this Mikhail Gorbachev replied: “You don't
want to share even petroleum equipment, automatic machine tools, or equipment for
dairies”27. Needless to say, simply the idea of creating an SDI was a step taken by the
United States in preparation for war. By definition it was a form of nuclear proliferation
to which the Soviets had no choice but to respond with their own research on lasers and
other weaponry to combat this multi-million dollar mechanism. Simply put, the SDI was
created to further the arms race. The USSR had no choice but to respond with their own
nuclear armament to protect their own country in the case of an outbreak of war. In trying
to end a war and truly “give [us] the means of rendering those nuclear weapons impotent
26
BBC ON THIS DAY | 8 | 1987: Superpowers to reverse arms race." BBC NEWS | News Front Page.
Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/8/newsid_3283000/3283817.stm>.
27
Kaplan, Fred Ron and Mikhail's Excellent Adventure: How Reagan Won the Cold War. Slate Magazine,
9 June 2004. Web. 23 Sep. 2009 <http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/>.
9
and obsolete”28, Reagan actually escalated an arms race that was already in the works. He
had the intention of using the SDI to combat nuclear attacks and anyone who anticipates
such a form of aggression and violence must be preparing for a war and wanting to win.
Ronald Reagan was setting up the country to fight in a nuclear war. Not only that, but he
was going to make sure that they won. For no other reason would one imagine a farfetched idea like Star Wars – an idea that any reasonable thinking individual would deem
precarious and unnecessary. This is not to say that the president did not try to convince
the American people that the SDI was for their own protection. That being said,
protecting the citizens from hardware in space is not promising them much. Therefore the
SDI was one hundred percent a fallacy that was only initialized to satisfy the purpose of a
man who was strategizing to go to war. Escalation of the arms race was all that was
conceived from this project.
Reagan’s escalation of the arms race can also be seen through his obscene
military spending that would eventually leave his country in an economic downturn.
Journalist Wyatt Andrews reports that early on in his presidency, Mr. Reagan had spent
over 1 trillion dollars building up the US military29. Surely that much money was being
put into the defense budget for a purpose – perhaps it was because the president knew
that he was involved in an arms race unlike any that the world had seen before and he
knew he needed to step things up if he was going to win the race and eventually, the war.
Within Reagan’s first term as president, the defense budget more than doubled between
1980 and 1985. It skyrocketed from 142.6 billion dollars to 286.8 billion dollars. The US
Navy also saw an increase in its artillery from 479 combat ships to 525 combat ships.
28
Reagan and Cold War." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 16 Dec.
2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15beschloss.html>.
29
Reagan and the Russians. The Atlantic Monthly 273.2 (1994): 35-37. Print.
10
New advancements were being made with the introduction of new tanks and new attack
aircrafts as well. Reagan had the Pentagon working double time to train a larger number
of soldiers and acquire as many new forms of nuclear weaponry as possible. His spending
became so appalling that he basically put his country into a recession. This period of
economic turmoil would later be referred to as “Reaganomics”. The president was more
than content to keep adding onto the budget deficit and even run the country bankrupt,
which he nearly did, so long as he could have the upper hand over the Soviets and their
military.
Gorbachev and his people received the message and naturally they started to work
on bulking up their military as well. There was nothing else they could do in case a war
did break out. Reagan was making decisions and taking actions based upon the
assumption that the Soviet Union would be unable to keep up with the United States and
would eventually give up. In 1978 he was quoted as saying “the Soviet Union cannot
possibly match us in an arms race”30. Therefore it would seem that Reagan had nothing to
lose. He knew he could beat them if war were to arise. He packed up the US military
budget and organized his country for the fight to win the arms race. On Reagan’s intense
desire to build up his military, his secretary of defence at the time, Caspar W. Weinberger
stated that: “He [Reagan] said this is a Cold War that needs to be won. It was a matter of
demonstrating to them [the Soviets] that they couldn't win a war. In order to do that we
had to regain our strength.31” Little did Reagan know when he was putting such a strong
30
Reagan and the Cold War by Patrick J. Garrity." Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at
Ashland University. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v10n6/garrity.html>.
31
Reagan guided huge buildup in arms race -- baltimoresun.com." Baltimore Sun breaking news, sports,
weather and traffic in Baltimore - baltimoresun.com. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.pentagon08jun08,0,1171608.story?page=2>.
11
focus on nuclear concessions and weaponry attainment that by wanting to win a war he
was not considering what the best way to achieve peace was or what the best plan of
action would be to save the greatest number of civilian lives. He was not thinking of the
effects that winning the war would have on the US, the USSR, or the world in general.
This arms race could have become a hot war that would have resulted in millions of
civilian totalities and total global terrorization; and Ronald Reagan was the one who
escalated it. The actions taken by President Reagan were not the actions of a man who
wanted to end a war. They were the actions of a man who was indifferent to whether the
war ended or not, so long as he had won. A part of this strategy to triumph over the
Soviets was his switch from détente to brinkmanship.
Détente: the easing of tensions or strained relations between nations as by
negotiation or tacit understandings32. Brinkmanship: the practice of seeking advantage by
creating the impression that one is willing and able to push a highly dangerous situation
to the limit rather than concede33. The United States of America had been living in an era
of détente for twenty years thanks to presidents such as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
However, when Reagan came to power in 1981, a change in political policy for the
country happened. The president made the conscious decision to move his country from
détente to brinkmanship. By its very definition, brinkmanship was a much more
aggressive approach to international relations and how they should be handled. By
making this alteration to the country’s foreign policy, Reagan sends a message to the
Soviet Union that he is willing to go to the brink to win the war, regardless of the cost or
number of civilian lives put in jeopardy. Détente was a strategy that dictated peaceful
32
33
Brinkmanship and Detente. Cold War Thaws. Class Zone Learning. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
Ibid
12
negotiations and compromise as a method of dealing with conflict. Mr. Reagan did not
discover that compromise is the best way to end a divergence of such large proportions.
“Sticking to détente would have meant a quicker end to the Cold War. Brinkmanship did
nothing but prolong poor relations with the USSR,” says Cold War historian Archie
Brown34. By looking at this switch in political policy, it can be seen that Reagan is
preparing to fight a war. Yes, the Cold War ended, but that was not the original intention
of this president. A man who was trying his best to end a war would not have taken such
a hostile approach to the enemy, as Reagan did. During the time before Ronald Reagan
became president, the war had remained cold – no bomb had been used. This was
because détente was the political policy in place during those years. A calm, peaceful
way of dealing with the Soviet Union was the only way to ensure that a hot war did not
break out. Reagan took an enormous chance in switching to brinkmanship, a strategy that
could have brought war to the United States and total annihilation to the rest of the world
within seconds. To say that the hostile approach taken by Ronald Reagan towards the
Soviet Union was for the protection of the country and for the good of the people would
be a fallacious lie. By waving the red flag in front of the bull’s face, the president was
taking a chance that the bull would fight back, thus leaving the lives of American and
Soviet civilians in the balance.
President Reagan inherited poor relations with the Soviet Union when he was
elected to his first term in office and he made his disdain for the USSR and their policies
blatantly obvious. In his March 8th, 1983 speech to the National Association of
34
Brown, Archie. The Gorbachev Factor. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. Print. (page 12)
13
Evangelicals, Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as “an evil empire”35 and called the
arms race “[a] struggle between right and wrong and good and evil”36. These are not the
words of a peaceful man. As far as Reagan was concerned, ending the Cold War was
insignificant so long as he defeated communism. Author Peter Schweizer notes that “It
was a struggle that consumed more of his attention than any other endeavour…death
threats while waging it left him sitting up at night…and it brought him three assassination
attempts.”37 Even before Reagan came into office he had a predisposed dislike towards
the USSR. In examining his forty-year battle with communism, it can be seen that this
disinclination affected his actions in trying to end the Cold War. Past presidents had their
own ideas on how the Cold War should end. Immediately after WWII, Harry S. Truman
instituted two failed policies in trying to deal with the spread of communism via the
Soviet Union. Containment was a policy that was trying to contain communism in the
West; while the iron curtain was a strategy to separate the countries split up in the
Warsaw Pact and the creation of NATO. Both were failed attempts at trying to “slay the
Soviet dragon”38. Reagan had no intention of keeping relations between the two feuding
nations civil and amiable. Instead he referred to General Secretary Gorbachev as a
“hardline Bolshevik”39 (referring to a harsh political party in the Soviet Union that
included Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin), basically calling Gorbachev as bad as an evil
tyrant. In general, Reagan should not have been called the man who ended the war but
rather the crusader for the end of communism in the war. On communism, Reagan said
35
English, Robert D. Russia and the Idea of the West: Gorbachev, Intellectuals and the End of the Cold
War. USA: Columbia UP, 2000. Print. (page 102)
36
Ibid
37
Brinkmanship and Detente. Cold War Thaws. Class Zone Learning. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
38
Ronald W. Reagan. Encyclopedia of World Biography. Thomson Gale. 2004. Encyclopedia.com. 23 Sep.
2009 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.
39
Mikhail Gorbachev's Glasnost and its affect on Russia." HistoryOrb.com - Articles, Birthdays & Today in
History. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. <http://www.historyorb.com/russia/glasnost.shtml>.
14
this: “The years ahead will be great ones for our country, for the cause of freedom and the
spread of civilization. The West will not contain Communism, it will transcend
Communism.”40 Here Reagan implies that communism is the opposite of freedom and
civilization, that communism is the epitome of all things erroneous in the world. Even
before a hot war broke out, Reagan’s preconceived notions towards the Soviet Union
were flooding through his decision making process. His antagonistic approach to the
USSR did not help to end the war. It only prolonged it. Reagan did not have a positive
outlook on his opposition and a mindset for peace instead of warfare and this eventually
hindered his chances of ever being able to claim he ended the war.
Reagan’s intense desire for the cessation of the spread of communism in the West
was what drove most of his actions during his presidency. Just because he did not agree
with communism did not mean that it was his job to destroy it. In examining the
decisions made by this man during the war, it is shown that Reagan has no respect for the
organization of his opponent country and had every aim to tear down their structure and
beliefs. An example of this is the Berlin Wall. It was built in 1948 with the purpose of
protecting the city of Berlin from the Allied forces. Several civilians were unable to exit
the city of Berlin and thus the United States took an aggressive stand and began the
Berlin Airlift. Several years later, Reagan delivers one of his most famous speeches at the
Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin on June 12th, 1987. In it he says:
“There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that
would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General
Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to
40
BBC - History - World Wars: The Soviet Union's Last Stand." BBC - Homepage. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/soviet_stand_01.shtml>.
15
this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this
wall!”41
However inspiring this speech was for the people within the city at the time, it did not
affect any immediate change for the Soviets. The Berlin Wall was not torn down until
1989 - two years after Reagan made his speech. This shows that Reagan’s interference in
Soviet affairs with the Berlin wall had no impact on the state of affairs. His
unsympathetic address to Mikhail Gorbachev did no good. In fact, Mr. Gorbachev had
every intention to “tear down this wall”42. When asked in a press conference if he would
ever see the Berlin Wall fall he answered “Why not?”43. Simply put, the president’s entire
front towards the Soviet Union was unfruitful and vain.
Ronald Reagan did not end the Cold War using his hostile tactics towards the
USSR. His menacing speeches and deep disdain for the country and its policies was
manifested in his every move and every word. Peace was not an objective of this
president as can clearly be seen in his switch from détente to brinkmanship. The lives of
all Americans were put into jeopardy because of this man’s deep desire to crush the
Soviets. Both countries had nuclear power, and both countries could have blown each
other up in seconds, but that knowledge did not stop Ronald Reagan from pushing his
opposition to the edge and ensuring that they knew how serious he was about winning the
war. Some may say that the Cold War would have continued for several more years had
this president not taken a stand and switched to brinkmanship. After all, détente was
doing no good for past presidents in the effort to end the war. However, taking such an
41
Ronald Reagan Speech 'Tear Down this Wall'" The History Place. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/reagan-tear-down.htm>.
42
Ibid
43
Brown, Archie. The Gorbachev Factor. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. Print. (page 99)
16
aggressive stance against the opposition was not the best way to ensure peace for both
countries and for the global community. Brinkmanship was harsh and unnecessary.
Moreover, most of Reagan’s actions towards the Soviet Union throughout his presidency
were unwarranted and superfluous. Historian John Gross suggests that “threatening the
enemy to attain a reaction, as Ronald Reagan did in his brinkmanship policy, is no way to
make peace.”44 The one man whose actions did well for his country and who saw change
occur under his leadership was Mikhail Gorbachev.
Reagan and Gorbachev are the two men who were most in the public eye during
the Cold War. The world was looking at them for a solution After World War II most of
the Western countries were in poor shape. Knowing this, the US initiated programs they
thought they could use to help, including the Marshall Plan. As far as the Soviet Union
was concerned, reviving themselves after the war was an internal job. That is why the
role of Mikhail Gorbachev in Soviet history is so crucial. It is through his ingenuity that
reforms came to the nation. A principal example of this is in glasnost and perestroika. By
definition, glasnost means “openness” and perestroika means “restructuring”. Gorbachev
mentioned these two terms several times in his speeches throughout his ruling years and
they became two key themes to his time as president. Perestroika referred to the
economic and political reform that the general secretary hoped to implement in the
country. It would mean a revolution for the nation including the contesting of new
political parties in the country, the development of the governing role of the Soviets, and
the promotion of democracy in the Communist Party. On the effects perestroika has on
the economy, in his 1987 book Perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev says that:
44
Bonnell, Victoria E., Ann Cooper, and Gregory Freidin, eds. Russia at the Barricades: Eyewitness
Accounts of the August 1991 Coup. USA: ME Sharp, 1994. Print. (page 23)
17
“Perestroika is the all-round intensification of the Soviet economy,
the revival and development of the principles of democratic
centralism in running the national economy, the universal
introduction of economic methods, the renunciation of
management by injunction and by administrative methods, and the
overall encouragement of innovation and socialist enterprise.”45
Perestroika was an initiative taken by Gorbachev with the intention of rebooting the
economy and the political spectrum of his beloved USSR. On the other hand, glasnost
was a strategy that is equivalent to what other countries in the world enjoy to be “freedom
of the press” and “freedom of speech”. According to the Communist regime, these two
concepts were totally foreign and in Joseph Stalin’s opinion, “utterly worthless”46.
Mikhail Gorbachev detested lies and wanted the people of the Soviet Union to learn the
truth about their history. He believed that the country could not prosper without help
from the people themselves. Democracy was foreign to them due to a past filled with
fraudulent leaders, such as Vladimir Lenin and Mikhail Gorbachev’s predecessor Yuri
Andropov. “Without glasnost there is not, and there cannot be, democratism, the political
creativity of the masses and their participation in management.”47 That is what
Gorbachev says about his policy and the ramifications it has on the people. During the
late 1980s it is vividly evident that both the US and the USSR were not in top form. Both
countries needed strong leaders to implement change in the country. While Reagan had
SDI to offer to his country, a project that never got itself off the ground, Gorbachev had
policies of freedom and democracy for his people. Some critics, including Cold War
45
Perestroika Defined (1987)." The History Guide -- Main. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.historyguide.org/Europe/perestroika.html>.
46
Perestroika and Glasnost." Seventeen Moments. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1985perestroika&Year=1985>.
47
Glasnost and perestroika - History of glasnost and perestroika | Encyclopedia.com: Dictionary of World
History." Encyclopedia - Online Dictionary | Encyclopedia.com: Get facts, articles, pictures, video. Web.
13 Dec. 2009. <http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O48-glasnostandperestroika.html>.
18
specialist Raymond L. Garthoff, believe that glasnost and perestroika were failures.
Glasnost led the USSR to have too much freedom that could not be kept under control by
the government. Perestroika carried too much weight and failed because such radical
changes were totally thwarted by the hardliners in the Gorbachev cabinet who believed
the communist way of doing things was just fine48. That being said, these two policies are
a distinctive factor in why Mikhail Gorbachev is a more important figure in the end of the
Cold War than Ronald Reagan. While Reagan offered an escalation in the arms race and
the total fear of MAD, Gorbachev offered economic, political, and social change that
would be revolutionary for his country. Most importantly, these two policies were based
internally in the USSR and required that the people of the country work together with
their leader to get themselves out of the economic recession. Glasnost and perestroika
were key in the presidency of this man as they were life-changing policies for the people
of the Soviet Union that would lead to Gorbachev being one of the most popular leaders
in the history of the nation.
Under Gorbachev’s rule, the Soviet armed forces were cut by ten percent, a
significant decision made by the leader to show President Reagan that he had no desire to
fight a full-blown war. Furthermore, 50,000 troops were withdrawn from Eastern Europe
in an effort to make peace with that end of the world as well. If that was not enough, the
number of Soviet tanks in Hungary, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia were reduced by
50 percent49. These actions showed that Gorbachev was a man that was yearning for
48
Perestroika and Glasnost." Seventeen Moments. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1985perestroika&Year=1985>.
49
At Site of 'Iron Curtain' Speech, Gorbachev Buries the Cold War - Biography - NYTimes.com." The New
York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/07/world/at-site-of-iron-curtain-speech-gorbachev-buries-the-coldwar.html>.
19
peace. Though he contended that, “by including the 'nuclear component' in world politics,
and on this basis unleashing a monstrous arms race -- and here the initiator was the
United States, the West -- 'defence sufficiency was exceeded’ as the lawyers say,”50
Gorbachev remained unwilling to continue in an arms race. His speeches called for
severe cuts in military defence spending and the profuse reduction of tanks and other
military weaponry in outside countries. He knows that the USSR has several enemies and
is willing to come to terms with these countries to ensure the maximum safety for his
people.
Peace is a word that can be associated with Mr. Gorbachev. He met with President
Reagan on four separate occasions with the intention of signing a treaty and reducing the
armaments in both countries to ensure a rapid end to the war. From the first meeting in
Geneva in November of 1985, Gorbachev came to the table with hopes of peace with the
United States. He opts to get Reagan to reaffirm commitment to the SALT II treaty (a
strategic defence agreement to set limits on the use of nuclear armaments). Reagan denies
this request. The next year the two political figureheads meet in Reykjavik, Iceland to
once again discuss the eradication of nuclear weaponry from both countries. Talks lasted
for a week and it seemed to the watching world that negotiations would be fruitful. The
two men came very close to signing a treaty on nuclear proliferation but the accord
sizzled after Reagan remained unwilling to give up his SDI dream. Lastly, something that
had “universal significance for mankind”51 (according to Mr. Gorbachev) happened. On
December 8th, 1987, the INF Treaty was signed. Though Ronald Reagan is generally seen
as the hero of the INF Treaty, in examining the circumstances of these three meetings, it
50
Ibid
American President: Ronald Wilson Reagan: A Life in Brief." Miller Center of Public Affairs. Web. 13
Dec. 2009. <http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/reagan/essays/biography/1>.
51
20
is clear that President Gorbachev had the intention of making peace with President
Reagan from the beginning in 1985. It takes two to tango and without Gorbachev’s
aspiration for harmony, the treaty would never have been signed. He persevered through
failed peace talks until the US leader was ready to realize that the obliteration of the
majority of nuclear weapons in both countries was the best and most effective way to end
the Cold War. Gorbachev was willing to give up his country’s nuclear armaments a long
time before Reagan was. Different from Ronald Reagan, Gorbachev had no desire to win
the war. His performance in his summit meetings with the US president show that he
was, in fact, one of the larger figureheads in ending the war without the world being
blown up. This shows that not only did Gorbachev manage to stabilize relations with the
US but managed to rectify the poor situations in his own country as well.
The USSR had been a communist party since the time of the Bolsheviks and had
been put under the leadership of such famous Communists as Vladimir Lenin and Joseph
Stalin. All this changed when Gorbachev came to power. Credit for the introduction of
democracy to this nation goes to none other than this man. Though he was a member of
the Communist party himself, through his policies, such as perestroika, he was willing to
introduce capitalism and democracy to the country. As much as an accomplishment as
that was, history dictates that it was actually Boris Yeltsin who was the first democratic
leader of the USSR52. While that may be true, it was Gorbachev who introduced this
foreign idea to the country. Treaties made during the Cold War era were only made
possible by Gorbachev’s open mind and his willingness to learn from past mistakes made
52
Boris Yeltsin (president of Russia) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica
Online Encyclopedia. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/652816/BorisYeltsin>.
21
by his predecessors. Once again, it is apparent that this man’s actions ended the Cold
War.
Most important of all in Mikhail Gorbachev’s role in the end of the Cold War was
that he was aware that his country could not fight another war. Praise is given to Reagan
for taking down the Soviet empire, but what is unbeknownst to the general population is
that Mikhail Gorbachev was more than knowledgeable on the situation at hand in the
USSR. Their economy was short of a depression, their military was frazzled and spread
out all over the globe, and the people were unwilling to enter into another war after
World War II. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 was inevitable – it was not a result of
the decisions made by President Reagan. Mikhail Gorbachev had no choice but to end the
Cold War. In fact, the US leader did not leave his country much better off after his
presidency. His military spending eventually wracked up and he left his successor George
H. W. Bush with a load of debt. The difference between the economic situations in both
countries was that the US was in a better position to recover from an economic downturn
because they had a capitalist market. The knowledge that the Soviet Union was in trouble
and Gorbachev’s attempts to help his country did not stop it from falling apart in 1991 at
the end of his term as President. The shift from the Soviet Union to Russia occurred
during the reign of Yeltsin but it would never have happened had it not been for
Gorbachev. He knew that the country was headed for separation, which can be seen by
his rationale in creating glasnost and perestroika. Through all this, Mikhail Gorbachev
remains level headed and his desire for peace remains the same. Gorbachev did not want
to fight a war where Reagan did. Looking back, it can be seen that he knows what is good
for his country and he acts upon that knowledge. He revolutionized the country and gave
22
them the beginnings of democracy53. Ronald Reagan cannot say that he gave his country
as much. His legacy was a troubled economy and a failed dream of SDI. Though Reagan
was one of the most well liked presidents in American history, it can be seen that ending
the Cold War was not one of his highest and greatest achievements when the success
goes to the Soviet leader Gorbachev instead.
The Cold War was a period defined by mistrust and fear. At no other time in
history has the world been so close to being obliterated by nuclear concessions. This
forty-year battle between the United States and the Soviet Union began at the end of the
Second World War and went through several leaders until it ended in the 1990s. The end
of the Cold War was overseen by two powerful men of the time, Ronald Reagan and
Mikhail Gorbachev. That said, only one of those men is given the credit for ending the
Cold War altogether. That man is Ronald Reagan. However, did Ronald Reagan really
end the Cold War? Some historians would answer that he did. He pushed the Soviets to
the limit of their abilities and got them to surrender. He realized that a détente strategy
was tiptoeing around the problem that was most imminently faced by his country and
changed the policy in order to affect change. He created the SDI – a project that would
revolutionize defensive tactics for his country.54 This project was a labour of love for the
president who never got to see the venture executed. He instituted a hard line policy in
dealing with the rapid growth of nuclear proliferation. Reagan was a nuclear abolitionist
who believed in the complete obliteration of nuclear weapons both in the US and the
USSR. It was his dream to see a world where he could sign a treaty with Mikhail
53
Bonnell, Victoria E., Ann Cooper, and Gregory Freidin, eds. Russia at the Barricades: Eyewitness
Accounts of the August 1991 Coup. USA: ME Sharp, 1994. Print. (page 85)
54
Ronald Reagan |." The White House. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan>.
23
Gorbachev and end the war and that dream came true. Looking back at the late Ronald
Reagan’s presidency, there is absolutely a case to be made that his greatest
accomplishment was ending the Cold War55. Nevertheless, an even stronger argument
can be made for the opposition.
Various Cold War historians who have taken an extensive look at the battle and
how it came to an end declare that it was not Ronald Reagan who actually ended the war.
His Strategic Defence Initiative was nothing but a fanciful dream that was impractical in
its applications. It would not have protected the American citizens as Reagan advertised.
In actuality, it would put the lives of the people in jeopardy, as it was a sign of war and
taken as such by the Soviet Union. Reagan was preparing for a war; there is no other
reason to be considering the defence of a country. Furthermore, Reagan’s policies on
nuclear concessions were largely hypocritical. He claimed to be anti-war and yet his
defence spending cost the country to be enveloped in gross debt. By putting such a large
focus on nuclear armaments and other weapons of war, he escalated the arms race
between the US and the USSR. His personal feelings towards the Soviet Union hindered
his judgement and did not allow him to end the war as quickly as possible. His greedy
desire to stop communism was more important to him. In the end, it was not Reagan who
defeated the Soviet Union at all. They were already at a disadvantage and their collapse
was inevitable regardless of any actions or inactions from Ronald Reagan. Finally,
Ronald Reagan was not responsible for ending the Cold War because he did not
contribute as much as Mikhail Gorbachev. The Soviet Union was in turmoil since the end
55
American Experience | The Presidents | Ronald Reagan |. PBS. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/40_reagan/reagan_foreign.html>.
24
of World War II and the leader knew that they could not afford to get into another war56.
He continuously pushed for peace and the eradication of all nuclear weapons from both
countries. His policies altered the way his country ran while the policies Reagan
introduced left his country with nothing changed and nothing gained. Mikhail Gorbachev
was the true hero of the Cold War.
From this era of trials and tribulations for two of the world’s greatest
superpowers, one can learn that an eye for an eye will only leave both parties blind. The
Cold War ended because one person was willing to stand up and say that they would not
walk into a dark abyss that would leave the world with no stars to look up to.
Emphasizing defence tactics and political strategies is not the way to end a war, but
Ronald Reagan did not realize this. Where this president went wrong was in his approach
to peace. He wanted to beat the Soviets and tear down their communist ways. Mikhail
Gorbachev wanted to compromise on shared interests and pave a way for his country to
live without further conflict57. In a situation where so much is at stake, not only for the
two parties involved, but also for the global community as a whole, care must be taken to
ensure that the most effective solution is found. Ronald Reagan did not do this and
therefore was futile as the man who supposedly ended the war.
To conclude, the Cold War was a relatively recent example of what heated
tensions between two nations can amount to. The same situation could occur at any
moment in time. There could be another Cold War tomorrow if the people who are in
56
At Site of 'Iron Curtain' Speech, Gorbachev Buries the Cold War - Biography - NYTimes.com." The New
York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/07/world/at-site-of-iron-curtain-speech-gorbachev-buries-the-coldwar.html>.
57
BBC ON THIS DAY | 8 | 1987: Superpowers to reverse arms race." BBC NEWS | News Front Page.
Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/8/newsid_3283000/3283817.stm>.
25
charge, our nation’s leaders, do not consider peace first. It is crucial that the world learns
from the mistakes made during the Cold War and that they are never repeated. To ensure
that the fear experienced during the Cold War will never be relived, countries need to
compromise and work together. Leaders need to work with the citizens of their countries
and come up with a solution that benefits the country as a whole. When people work
together, common goals can be achieved. Mikhail Gorbachev said it best when he said:
“The end of the Cold War is our common victory.”
26
Works Cited
American Experience | The Presidents | Ronald Reagan |. PBS. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/40_reagan/reagan_foreign.html>.
American President: Ronald Wilson Reagan: A Life in Brief." Miller Center of Public
Affairs. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
<http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/reagan/essays/biography/1>.
At Site of 'Iron Curtain' Speech, Gorbachev Buries the Cold War - Biography NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web.
16 Dec. 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/07/world/at-site-of-iron-curtainspeech-gorbachev-buries-the-cold-war.html>.
BBC - History - World Wars: The Soviet Union's Last Stand." BBC - Homepage. Web.
13 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/soviet_stand_01.shtml>.
BBC ON THIS DAY | 8 | 1987: Superpowers to reverse arms race." BBC NEWS | News
Front Page. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/8/newsid_3283000/3283817.
stm>.
Bonnell, Victoria E., Ann Cooper, and Gregory Freidin, eds. Russia at the Barricades:
Eyewitness Accounts of the August 1991 Coup. USA: ME Sharp, 1994. Print.
Boris Yeltsin (president of Russia) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/652816/Boris-Yeltsin>.
Brinkmanship and Detente. Cold War Thaws. Class Zone Learning. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
Brinkmanship - Everything on Brinkmanship (information, latest news, articles,...)."
Spiritus-Temporis.com - Historical Events, Latest News, News Archives. Web. 13 Dec.
2009. <http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/brinkmanship/>.
Brown, Archie. The Gorbachev Factor. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. Print.
Cold War." Ibiblio.org - people. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/coldwar.html>.
Concessions to Stay on Table, Gorbachev Says - Blames Reagan for Failure of Talks but
Still Offers Hope of Future Nuclear Arms Agreement - Los Angeles Times." Featured
Articles From The Los Angeles Times. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
<http://articles.latimes.com/1986-10-13/news/mn-3018_1_nuclear-arms>.
27
Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=topics.event_summ
ary&event_id=537775>.
English, Robert D. Russia and the Idea of the West: Gorbachev, Intellectuals and the End
of the Cold War. USA: Columbia UP, 2000. Print.
Glasnost and perestroika - History of glasnost and perestroika | Encyclopedia.com:
Dictionary of World History." Encyclopedia - Online Dictionary | Encyclopedia.com:
Get facts, articles, pictures, video. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O48-glasnostandperestroika.html>.
Kaplan, Fred Ron and Mikhail's Excellent Adventure: How Reagan Won the Cold War.
Slate Magazine, 9 June 2004. Web. 23 Sep. 2009 <http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/>.
Khasbulatov, Ruslan. The Struggle for Russia : Power and Change in the Democratic
Revolution. New York: Routledge, 1993. Print.
Kotkin, Stephen. Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000. USA: Oxford
UP, 2003. Print.
Mann, James. The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War.
USA: Viking, 2009. Print.
McFaul, Michael A. Russia's Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev
to Putin. USA: Cornell UP, 2001. Print.
Mikhail Gorbachev's Glasnost and its affect on Russia." HistoryOrb.com - Articles,
Birthdays & Today in History. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.historyorb.com/russia/glasnost.shtml>.
Miller, Laura. "Did Reagan win the Cold War? | Salon Books. 25 Jan. 2006. Web. 23
Sept. 2009. <http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/01/25/gaddis/>.
Perestroika and Glasnost." Seventeen Moments. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1985perestroika&Ye
ar=1985>.
Perestroika Defined (1987)." The History Guide -- Main. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.historyguide.org/Europe/perestroika.html>.
Reagan and Cold War." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News &
Multimedia. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15beschloss.html>.
28
Reagan and the Russians. The Atlantic Monthly 273.2 (1994): 35-37. Print.
Reagan and the Cold War by Patrick J. Garrity." Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at
Ashland University. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v10n6/garrity.html>.
Reagan's Cold War Legacy - CBS Evening News - CBS News." Breaking News
Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/10/eveningnews/main622398.shtml>.
Reagan guided huge buildup in arms race -- baltimoresun.com." Baltimore Sun breaking
news, sports, weather and traffic in Baltimore - baltimoresun.com. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.pentagon08jun08,0,1171608.story?page=2>.
Reagan's Star Wars | Cold War: A Brief History | History of the Atomic Age |
atomicarchive.com. Atomicarchive.com: Exploring the History, Science, and
Consequences of the Atomic Bomb. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page20.shtml>.
Ronald Reagan |." The White House. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan>.
Ronald Reagan Speech 'Tear Down this Wall'" The History Place. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/reagan-tear-down.htm>.
Ronald W. Reagan. Encyclopedia of World Biography. Thomson Gale. 2004.
Encyclopedia.com. 23 Sep. 2009 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) (United States defense system) -- Britannica Online
Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/568214/Strategic-Defense-Initiative>.
The Cold War: Mikhail Gorbachev | Newsflavor." Newsflavor | News In Any Flavor:
Daily News, Latest News, Local News, Breaking News, US News, World News. Web. 16
Dec. 2009. <http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/the-cold-war-mikhailgorbachev/>.
WashingtonPost.com: Superpower Summits Archive." Washingtonpost.com - nation,
world, technology and Washington area news and headlines. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/summit/archive/oct86.htm>.
Winkler, Allan M. Cold War a history in documents. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Print.
29
Honours Thesis Course IDP 4U1
Student Name: Savoula Stylianou
Honours Thesis: Final Paper Evaluation
Criteria
Level 1 (50-59)
Level 2 (60-69)
Level 3 (70-79)
Level 4 (80-100)
Mks
Introduction /
Thesis
-weak introduction of
topic, thesis &
subtopics
-thesis is weak and
lacks an arguable
position
-limited information
on topic with lack of
research, details or
historically accurate
evidence
-proficient
introduction that
states topic, thesis,
and all subtopics in
proper order
- thesis is a clear and
arguable statement of
position
-paper is well
researched in detail
with accurate &
critical evidence from
a variety of sources
Support of
Ideas /
Analysis
-limited connections
made between
evidence, subtopics,
counterarguments &
thesis / topic
-lack of analysis
Organization /
Development
of Ideas
-paper lacks clear and
logical development
of ideas with weak
transition b/w ideas
and paragraphs
-some connections
made between
evidence,
subtopics,
counterarguments
& thesis / topic
showing analysis
-somewhat clear
and logical
development of
subtopics with
adequate
transitions b/w
paragraphs
-consistent
connections made
between evidence,
subtopics,
counterarguments &
thesis / topic showing
good analysis
-clear and logical
subtopic order that
supports thesis with
good transitions b/w
paragraphs
-exceptional introduction
that grabs interest of reader
and states topic, thesis, and
all subtopics in proper order
- thesis is exceptionally
clear, arguable, well
developed, and a definitive
statement
-paper is exceptionally
researched, extremely
detailed and historically
accurate with critical
evidence from a wide variety
of sources
-exceptionally critical,
relevant and consistent
connections made between
evidence, subtopics, counterarguments & thesis / topic
showing excellent analysis
/10
Quality of
Information /
Evidence
-adequate
introduction that
states topic , thesis
and some of the
subtopics
- thesis is
somewhat clear
and arguable
-some aspects of
paper is researched
with some accurate
evidence from
limited sources
-exceptionally clear, logical,
mature, and thorough
development of subtopics
that support thesis with
excellent transition b/w
paragraphs
/10
Conclusion
-lack of summary of
topic, thesis &
subtopics with weak
concluding ideas
-good summary of
topic, thesis and all
subtopics with clear
concluding ideas
- inconsistent
grammar, spelling
and paragraphing
throughout paper
-inconsistent use of
footnotes with
limited details and
improper format
-lack of proper
format and limited
details with many
sources missing or
incomplete
-excellent summary of topic
(with no new information),
thesis & all subtopics in
proper order with concluding
ideas that leave an impact on
reader
-paper is very concise, clear,
with consistently proper
grammar, spelling and
paragraphing
-proper detailed format
always used consistently &
correctly to validate evidence
in paper
-proper, detailed MLA
format always used in
alphabetical order with all
sources shown and a wide
variety of sources
/10
Language
Conventions
-adequate
summary of topic,
thesis and some
subtopics with
some final
concluding ideas
-paper has some
errors in grammar,
spelling and
paragraphing
- sometimes
inconsistent use of
footnotes with
limited details
-some errors in
MLA format with
most sources
shown and a
variety of sources
Footnotes
Bibliography
-paper is clear, with
mostly proper
grammar, spelling
and paragraphing
-consistent & correct
format inserted to
validate evidence
-mostly proper MLA
format used in
alphabetical order
with all sources
shown and a variety
of sources
/20
/20
/15
/10
/5
Total
/100
30