Kissinger on Reagan



I don’t know about you, but I find Kissinger’s analysis of Reagan hysterical.  His historical anecdotes having no “basis in facts, as facts are generally understood”, “the shallowest of academic backgrounds”, yet a man who developed a foreign policy of “extraordinary consistency and relevence”.  Yet he was bored with the details.  (Maybe he was just bored by Kissinger)

Frankly there were many, and I think still are many, that believe Ronnie was a puppet controlled by his advisors like Alexander Haig, yet letter recently published in “Morning in America” reveal a leader very much in control of his decisions and ideas.

So why does the Cold War end according to Kissinger?  What was Reagan’s role?  What about Gorbachev, and backing up a bit how do explain this electoral map of 1984?


3 Responses to “Kissinger on Reagan”

  1. Nawar Nemeh says:

    What I find most interesting about Reagan is his ability to constantly win the hearts and minds of those who, in some respects, should be opposing him. This could apply to both Gorbachev and the liberal American electorate. As the maps clearly show, Reagan was one of the few presidents who got California and Texas, two states with extremely different electoral needs, to vote him, as well as getting the Russians to accept American ideological superiority. Reference can be made to the speech Gorbachev made saying that coexistence is “not a respite but a goal of international diplomacy”

  2. Adam Wright says:

    This doesn’t pertain to Reagan very much, but I was just thinking about the chapter and this is what I concluded:
    It would be interesting to look at the whole Soviet system from the beginning, the revolution, to the end, the collapse, through the eyes of a communist. If you were to ask the public whether or not they thought the Soviet Union was simply good or bad, I would bet the majority would say bad. Therefore, the collapse of the Soviet Union was a good thing. But, as Zhou Enlai said, is it too soon to tell?
    The Soviet Union was only alive for some 70 years, and we are still quick to point out many of their flaws. However, if we look at the United States some 70 years after their birth, we can find many of the same things we saw present in the Soviet Union. The US was expanding their bloc into the West and Mexico, killing off thousands (or much more) Indians and Mexicans, committing awful human rights violations against an innumerable human slave force, and was on the verge of a Civil War, in which brothers would be killing brothers.
    Now I don’t mean to sound like a leftist, communist, but maybe the Soviet Union would have changed. The Soviet Union collapsed because its economy could not handle the immense technological pressure the United States was forcing upon it. Was the Soviet Union really a threat, or was containment an invention of politicians to thwart any country that was becoming just as strong as the United States?

  3. Alec Kwiatkowski says:

    Not only is this chapter a ‘slight departure’ from that of Ambrose, but I find it full of interesting quotes.

    The Regan quote, as relayed by Kissinger “…invading army from the Orient, 200-million strong, is destroyed by a plague. Regan believes that the ‘”plague”‘ was a prophecy of nuclear war, where ‘”the eyes are burned from the head and the hair falls from the body and so forth”‘

    With his strong opinion against nuclear weapons, but the implementation of MX missiles, did Regan truly oppose the weapons, or simply give the facade for the duration of the Cold War?

Leave a Reply