Revising a view of history

[Segilla]

**If** the resolve of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and their ability to outspend its weaponry resulted in the collapse of the USSR, it might have been considered that it was 'A Good Thing'. (Obviously opinions will differ). However in view of the turn of events with the world appearing to divide increasingly along religious lines, and it now being a less safe place, is there any justification for the view that this is a good example of how history needs the long view before any conclusions should be drawn?

[bernardo]

Conclusions are never conclusions; they are only ever opinions which are constantly being revised. When Mao Tse-Tung was asked what he thought the historical impact of the French Revolution had been, he said that it was too early to tell.

I think that the collapse of the USSR (and its satellite states in Eastern Europe) was a long time coming, and was only incidentally influenced or hastened by Thatcher and Reagan. The USSR's birth rate had been declining, death rate increasing, and health and industry were collapsing gradually for 10 or 20 years. The imminent collapse of the USSR was actually predicted by a number of American economists and sociologists in the 1970s.

I think that (among other things) the balance of power between the USA and USSR helped to keep a lid on dormant nationalist and religious tensions in e.g. Afghanistan, and the world is worse off without the USSR.

[Mabelcat]

What an excellent, well-thought through viewpoint. I totally agree Bernardo. Great to see someone take an intelligent perspective on things

[Segilla]

Thanks bernardo and I fully agree with your concluding remark
As is so often the case, an old saw makes a point succinctly and is difficult to improve on
"Better the devil you know ... .".