(10-29-2016 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  like any subject on history that gets spun out of context by people looking for a political takeaway, you see people attach themselves to a couple of single pieces of evidence while ignoring the overall evidence. with those pieces being all they ever come across and give it the most coverage. case and point using Reykavik and its impact on the end of the USSR in a google search gets you mostly partisan sources focus on it and mainstream sources don't really give that a lot of weight in regards to it triggering the fall of the USSR. plus your take on iceland ignores the timeline. gorbechev was already laying the reformist groundwork before that meeting, the USSR was already dealing with the afghanstan war, and by even going to iceland (a core nato member) for talks already showed a willingness to allow the US more favorable terms.

Well I guess that's what I get for relying on Gorbachev's viewpoint.

And the lack of non-partisan sources regarding Reykjavik may be a testament to the liberals wanting to deny Reagan any credit.

And meeting in Iceland doesn't show anything as the meetings floated around throughout the Cold War. Using that to support your point is baseless.

(10-29-2016 03:12 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  like any subject on history that gets spun out of context by people looking for a political takeaway, you see people attach themselves to a couple of single pieces of evidence while ignoring the overall evidence. with those pieces being all they ever come across and give it the most coverage. case and point using Reykavik and its impact on the end of the USSR in a google search gets you mostly partisan sources focus on it and mainstream sources don't really give that a lot of weight in regards to it triggering the fall of the USSR. plus your take on iceland ignores the timeline. gorbechev was already laying the reformist groundwork before that meeting, the USSR was already dealing with the afghanstan war, and by even going to iceland (a core nato member) for talks already showed a willingness to allow the US more favorable terms.

Well I guess that's what I get for relying on Gorbachev's viewpoint.

And the lack of non-partisan sources regarding Reykjavik may be a testament to the liberals wanting to deny Reagan any credit.

And meeting in Iceland doesn't show anything as the meetings floated around throughout the Cold War. Using that to support your point is baseless.

Another millennial who thinks he knows it all shot down.

(10-29-2016 03:12 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  like any subject on history that gets spun out of context by people looking for a political takeaway, you see people attach themselves to a couple of single pieces of evidence while ignoring the overall evidence. with those pieces being all they ever come across and give it the most coverage. case and point using Reykavik and its impact on the end of the USSR in a google search gets you mostly partisan sources focus on it and mainstream sources don't really give that a lot of weight in regards to it triggering the fall of the USSR. plus your take on iceland ignores the timeline. gorbechev was already laying the reformist groundwork before that meeting, the USSR was already dealing with the afghanstan war, and by even going to iceland (a core nato member) for talks already showed a willingness to allow the US more favorable terms.

Well I guess that's what I get for relying on Gorbachev's viewpoint.

And the lack of non-partisan sources regarding Reykjavik may be a testament to the liberals wanting to deny Reagan any credit.

And meeting in Iceland doesn't show anything as the meetings floated around throughout the Cold War. Using that to support your point is baseless.

you are not relying Gorbachevs point. you are relying one alleged quote while ignoring everything else he has ever said. the fact it gets so little reference on a basic google search makes me call fabrics on its impact let alone whether it was said or not and what precisely the wording was. he has been very vocal in propping up himself as the person who ended the cold war. so that alone should kill your point.

(10-29-2016 03:17 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 03:12 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  like any subject on history that gets spun out of context by people looking for a political takeaway, you see people attach themselves to a couple of single pieces of evidence while ignoring the overall evidence. with those pieces being all they ever come across and give it the most coverage. case and point using Reykavik and its impact on the end of the USSR in a google search gets you mostly partisan sources focus on it and mainstream sources don't really give that a lot of weight in regards to it triggering the fall of the USSR. plus your take on iceland ignores the timeline. gorbechev was already laying the reformist groundwork before that meeting, the USSR was already dealing with the afghanstan war, and by even going to iceland (a core nato member) for talks already showed a willingness to allow the US more favorable terms.

Well I guess that's what I get for relying on Gorbachev's viewpoint.

And the lack of non-partisan sources regarding Reykjavik may be a testament to the liberals wanting to deny Reagan any credit.

And meeting in Iceland doesn't show anything as the meetings floated around throughout the Cold War. Using that to support your point is baseless.

Another millennial who thinks he knows it all shot down.

another con who takes one unsourced comment as the end all be all and thinks that proves everything. for f***ks sake you guys don't have any shame whatsoever.

(10-29-2016 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 03:12 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  like any subject on history that gets spun out of context by people looking for a political takeaway, you see people attach themselves to a couple of single pieces of evidence while ignoring the overall evidence. with those pieces being all they ever come across and give it the most coverage. case and point using Reykavik and its impact on the end of the USSR in a google search gets you mostly partisan sources focus on it and mainstream sources don't really give that a lot of weight in regards to it triggering the fall of the USSR. plus your take on iceland ignores the timeline. gorbechev was already laying the reformist groundwork before that meeting, the USSR was already dealing with the afghanstan war, and by even going to iceland (a core nato member) for talks already showed a willingness to allow the US more favorable terms.

Well I guess that's what I get for relying on Gorbachev's viewpoint.

And the lack of non-partisan sources regarding Reykjavik may be a testament to the liberals wanting to deny Reagan any credit.

And meeting in Iceland doesn't show anything as the meetings floated around throughout the Cold War. Using that to support your point is baseless.

you are not relying Gorbachevs point. you are relying one alleged quote while ignoring everything else he has ever said. the fact it gets so little reference on a basic google search makes me call fabrics on its impact let alone whether it was said or not and what precisely the wording was. he has been very vocal in propping up himself as the person who ended the cold war. so that alone should kill your point.

Well if it isn't on the internet, it mustn't be true.

Read it yourself.

Link

(10-29-2016 03:22 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 03:12 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  like any subject on history that gets spun out of context by people looking for a political takeaway, you see people attach themselves to a couple of single pieces of evidence while ignoring the overall evidence. with those pieces being all they ever come across and give it the most coverage. case and point using Reykavik and its impact on the end of the USSR in a google search gets you mostly partisan sources focus on it and mainstream sources don't really give that a lot of weight in regards to it triggering the fall of the USSR. plus your take on iceland ignores the timeline. gorbechev was already laying the reformist groundwork before that meeting, the USSR was already dealing with the afghanstan war, and by even going to iceland (a core nato member) for talks already showed a willingness to allow the US more favorable terms.

Well I guess that's what I get for relying on Gorbachev's viewpoint.

And the lack of non-partisan sources regarding Reykjavik may be a testament to the liberals wanting to deny Reagan any credit.

And meeting in Iceland doesn't show anything as the meetings floated around throughout the Cold War. Using that to support your point is baseless.

you are not relying Gorbachevs point. you are relying one alleged quote while ignoring everything else he has ever said. the fact it gets so little reference on a basic google search makes me call fabrics on its impact let alone whether it was said or not and what precisely the wording was. he has been very vocal in propping up himself as the person who ended the cold war. so that alone should kill your point.

Well if it isn't on the internet, it mustn't be true.

Read it yourself.

Link

holy **** you are useless. I'm asking for specific documentation. as if show me the quote itself or a reference to it. you can't even give that. so far the best I have found on the topic:

Anatoly Chernyaev, Gorbachev’s foreign-policy adviser, wrote in a memoir that, at Reykjavik, Gorbachev “became convinced it would ‘work out’ between him and Reagan.… After Reykjavik, he never again spoke about Reagan in his inner circle as he had before.… Never again did I hear statements such as, ‘The U.S. administration is political scum that is liable to do anything.’”

here's the full passage. it doesn't c/p well.

Quote:Reagan, Secretary of State George Shultz, and the rest of the American team grew increasingly excited. By the second day, the two sides were trying to iron out the details. Reagan and Gorbachev began talking about going even further, toward eliminating all ballistic missiles or possibly all nuclear weapons. “It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons,” Reagan said. “We can do that,” replied Gorbachev. Yet it finally became clear that all of Gorbachev’s proposals, from beginning to end, came with a condition: that the United States accept severe limits on the development of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, confining all research to laboratories. It was a condition Reagan was unwilling to accept. At the end of the second day, after coming tantalizingly close to the most far-reaching arms-control agreements in the history of the Cold War, Reagan and Gorbachev walked out of the Reykjavik summit with no deal at all.

Reagan left the meeting both angry and upset. “I’d just never seen Ronald Reagan that way before, had never seen him with such a look,” said Kuhn. “He wasn’t certain that he had done the right thing by saying that we had to have S.D.I. in return, instead of giving it up in return for eliminating all nuclear missiles.”

At the time, Reykjavik was widely perceived as a failure. In retrospect, it was a turning point. Each side had seen how far the other was willing to go. Declassified documents show that, soon after Reykjavik, Reagan attempted to galvanize the U.S. government to begin thinking about what the abolition of ballistic missiles would mean and how it could be accomplished. Reykjavik also seemed to alter the relationship between Reagan and Gorbachev. In the immediate aftermath, Gorbachev claimed to be irked. As described in official minutes, he told the politburo two days after the summit had ended that Reagan had “exhibited extreme primitivism, a caveman outlook, and intellectual impotence.” Yet such remarks seemed to be tailored for the consumption of Communist Party hard-liners. Whatever annoyance he felt soon passed, and Gorbachev began to see Reagan in a different light. Anatoly Chernyaev, Gorbachev’s foreign-policy adviser, wrote in a memoir that, at Reykjavik, Gorbachev “became convinced it would ‘work out’ between him and Reagan.… After Reykjavik, he never again spoke about Reagan in his inner circle as he had before.… Never again did I hear statements such as, ‘The U.S. administration is political scum that is liable to do anything.’”

playing around with google trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about, this was literally the top result:

But Adelman then resurrects the unpersuasive argument that SDI led the Soviet Union to collapse. “SDI became the straw that broke the Communist camel’s back,” he claims. This is an old chestnut that gives Reagan too much credit. The threat of SDI and superior American technology certainly worried the Kremlin. But the Soviet Union collapsed because of profound internal weaknesses — fault lines that were systemic and that Gorbachev widened in his valiant efforts at reform. That narrative does not console those who want to put Reagan on an ever-higher pedestal, but it is closer to the truth.

playing around with google every time "gorbechev walked away thinking" analysis come up in a source they always focus on him having a better personal perception of reagan than anything else.

the fact that this supposed quote isn't showing up proves at the very least it isn't something greatly valued. cons love propping up reagan so how come I haven't seen it on a conservative blog or something?