On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 02:57:33 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

You report them as facts, so it is up to you to support your thesis.

What thesis. All I describe is what happened, in a positivistical way:
"what we all have seen happening".

The thesis "Reagan was the planner/key-player who set this in motion"
is a thesis. The self centered claiming of this "victory" as a
glorious result of Reagan policy and speeching is even an annoying
thesis with which the us actually loses appreciation, trust and
respect over here. It adds to the concept the us see themselves as the
centre of the universe.

Acknowleding Gorbatsjov was the key, the centre, is no more than
practicing sheer logic. What Reagan did was not vital, it may have
helped but was not the key cause of the ongoing development.

What I make of it is that the american means getting maximum political
gain of the Glasnost and Perestrojka that was the policy of
Gorbatsjow. Of course the economical power of the us has been a factor
that made russian leaders see that they would never keep up.

In the us analysis I see overexposure of the Reagan factor and
underestimating of the ongoing process of decline, production
problems, liberation-movements in the satellite states, etc.

A lot of americans here forget about these real causes and focus on
Reagans speech and really think America has stopped/won the cold war.
Maybe in order to say something good about a nitwit president from a
republican viewpoint but maybe it is even worse: a simplistic way of
looking at things, a monocausal explanation of historical processes
with an overexposure of the role of the us military and with an naieve
feeling the us can do this again wherever in the world.
I really feel this is a important factor in the lessening
understanding between the us and europe.

Regards, Len.