Reagan, Gorbachev and the Thaw

Another time, another era

On 8 March 1983 Ronald Reagan told a meeting of evangelical ministers in Florida that the Soviet Union was an evil empire and the focus of evil in the modern world. Two weeks later, on 23 March, he announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, a plan to build lasers and satellites that would destroy Soviet missiles in flight, which the press called Star Wars. That autumn the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner, American missiles arrived in Europe, Moscow walked out of the arms talks, and a NATO exercise called Able Archer was read in the Kremlin as a possible cover for a real attack. Five years later, on 31 May 1988, Reagan stood in Red Square and was asked whether he still thought of the Soviet Union as an evil empire. Another time, another era, he said. He had by then met Mikhail Gorbachev four times, signed a treaty that abolished a whole class of nuclear weapons, and watched the Soviets begin to leave Afghanistan. The exam asks why the Cold War got worse under Reagan, why it got better after Gorbachev came to power in March 1985, what the summits and the INF Treaty achieved, and which man deserves the credit. This module gives you the dated evidence for each, and the three question shapes the period study uses.

Five words the examiners use

Each definition ends with the moment it mattered, because a bare definition earns nothing in an 8-mark answer.

From evil empire to Red Square, in order

Put these six events in the order they happened.

• Reagan calls the Soviet Union an evil empire and announces SDI
• Gorbachev becomes General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party
• Reagan and Gorbachev meet for the first time at Geneva
• The two men nearly agree to abolish all nuclear weapons at Reykjavik and fall out over SDI
• The INF Treaty is signed in Washington
• Reagan visits Moscow and says the evil empire belonged to another era

Why did the Cold War thaw after 1985?

In 1983 the superpowers were closer to war than at any time since Cuba. By 1988 they were destroying missiles together. Which explanation best accounts for the change?

• The Soviet economy could not sustain the race: defence took around a quarter of output, growth had stalled, and Chernobyl in April 1986 showed how far the system had decayed; Gorbachev, in office from March 1985, concluded that reform at home needed peace and Western credit abroad, and offered cuts the West could not refuse; Reagan, who had built up American arms precisely to negotiate from strength, was willing to talk once he found a partner, and the two men came to trust each other across four summits; and the arms race itself, with SDI and the Pershings, had raised the cost of continuing to a level Moscow would not pay.
• The Soviet Union was defeated in a war with the United States.
• Reagan abandoned SDI in 1985 to please Gorbachev.
• The United Nations forced both sides to disarm.

Reagan and Gorbachev: who changed the Cold War?

The importance question may ask about either man. Have both columns ready and notice that the case for Reagan is about pressure and the case for Gorbachev is about choice.

Why 1983 was dangerous

Five statements about the years 1981 to 1984. Tap the TWO that give evidence of how close the superpowers came to conflict in 1983, as opposed to describing the arms build-up or the later thaw.

• On 1 September 1983 a Soviet fighter shot down Korean Air Lines flight 007 over Sakhalin, killing all 269 people on board including an American congressman, and Moscow at first denied it.
• The American defence budget rose from around 170 billion dollars in 1981 to around 230 billion by 1985.
• During the NATO exercise Able Archer in November 1983, which rehearsed a nuclear release, Soviet intelligence reported that the West might be preparing a real first strike, and Soviet nuclear forces in East Germany and Poland were placed on alert.
• In December 1984 Margaret Thatcher met Gorbachev at Chequers and said afterwards that she liked him and that they could do business together.
• In November 1981 Reagan proposed the zero option, under which both sides would remove all intermediate missiles from Europe.

The four summits

Select the THREE statements that are true of the summits between Reagan and Gorbachev.

• At Geneva from 19 to 21 November 1985 nothing was signed, but the two men talked alone by a fire for longer than planned, agreed that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and agreed to meet again.
• At Reykjavik on 11 and 12 October 1986 Gorbachev proposed halving strategic weapons and removing all intermediate missiles from Europe, and the two men briefly discussed abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, before the talks collapsed because Reagan would not confine SDI to the laboratory.
• At Washington on 8 December 1987 they signed the INF Treaty, destroying 2,692 missiles under mutual inspection, and Gorbachev stopped his motorcade to shake hands with crowds on Connecticut Avenue.
• At Moscow in 1988 they signed the START treaty halving strategic weapons.
• Reagan agreed at Reykjavik to abandon SDI.
• Gorbachev agreed at Geneva to take down the Berlin Wall.

Pressure and choice: how to weigh them

The importance question on this bullet asks what Reagan, or Gorbachev, or the INF Treaty meant for the end of the Cold War. The strong answer separates the pressure that made change necessary from the choice that made it happen, and dates both. Pressure came first. By 1985 the Soviet Union had spent a generation matching an economy twice its size; SDI in 1983 promised a new race in a technology it did not have; Afghanistan was costing lives and money; and Chernobyl in April 1986 showed the world what Soviet management had become. None of that was chosen by Moscow. Choice came second. Andropov and Chernenko had faced the same pressure and answered it with the walkout of 1983. Gorbachev answered it with Geneva, Reykjavik and the zero option, because he decided that the money was needed at home and that the West was not going to attack. This meant that Reagan supplied the reason to stop and Gorbachev supplied the decision to stop, and that neither without the other would have produced the INF Treaty in 1987 or the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1988. A judgement that gives pressure to Reagan and choice to Gorbachev, and shows where each is dated, reaches the top level.

In the shoes of the two leaders

Four decisions between 1983 and 1987. Choose what was actually done, and notice what each choice led to.

• November 1983. You are Reagan. The Pershings are due in Germany, two million Europeans have marched against them, and Moscow says it will walk out of the Geneva talks if they arrive. What do you do?
• March 1985. You are Gorbachev, newly in office. Defence is taking a quarter of the economy, the shops are empty, and your generals want to match SDI. What do you decide?
• October 1986, Reykjavik. You are Reagan. Gorbachev has offered to halve strategic weapons and remove every intermediate missile from Europe, on condition that SDI stays in the laboratory for ten years. What do you do?
• Early 1987. You are Gorbachev. Reykjavik failed over SDI. Do you keep linking every agreement to SDI, or not?

From cause to consequence

Because Reagan believed the Soviet Union could be outspent, the American defence budget rose by around a _____ in his first term and SDI was announced in March 1983. Because the Soviets could not match that, and defence already took a quarter of output, the Politburo chose _____ in March 1985. Because the two men met at _____ in November 1985 and talked alone, they came to trust each other. Because Gorbachev separated the intermediate missiles from _____ in 1987, the INF Treaty could be signed in December. And because the treaty destroyed missiles rather than limiting them, it showed both sides that the arms race could be reversed, and the next steps were the withdrawal from _____ and the end of the Cold War.

What the INF Treaty destroyed

Under the INF Treaty the United States destroyed 846 missiles and the Soviet Union destroyed 1,846. How many more missiles did the Soviet Union destroy than the United States?

The 8-mark consequences question

Question 1 might read: Explain two consequences of the INF Treaty of 1987. Each consequence is marked as a consequence plus supporting detail, for 4 marks. Which answer scores all four marks for ONE consequence?

• One consequence was that the arms race went into reverse for the first time. The treaty signed on 8 December 1987 did not limit weapons, as SALT had, but abolished a whole class of them, 2,692 missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometres, and allowed each side to inspect the other, which meant that the mistrust that had blocked verification since 1972 was broken and the START talks that halved strategic weapons in 1991 became possible.
• One consequence was that lots of missiles were destroyed and the two sides got on better.
• One consequence was that Gorbachev needed to cut defence spending to save the Soviet economy.
• Reagan proposed the zero option in 1981, Gorbachev accepted it in 1987, and they signed in Washington in December.

A narrative paragraph, marked

Question 2: Write a narrative account analysing the key events in the improvement of superpower relations in the years 1985 to 1988. You may use: the Geneva summit; the INF Treaty. The improvement began when Gorbachev became Soviet leader on 11 March 1985 and announced a freeze on missile deployments in Europe together with a policy of new thinking, because the Soviet economy could no longer bear defence spending of around a quarter of its output. This led to the first summit at Geneva from 19 to 21 November 1985, where no treaty was signed but the two leaders talked alone for hours and agreed that a nuclear war could never be won. As a result, both sides went to Reykjavik in October 1986 prepared to offer far more, and Gorbachev proposed halving strategic weapons and removing all intermediate missiles from Europe. The turning point came when that summit collapsed over SDI, because Gorbachev then decided in early 1987 to separate the intermediate missiles from SDI and accept the zero option and on-site inspection, which cleared the way for the INF Treaty. What earned the marks: events in sequence with dates; each event linked to the next by because, this led to and as a result, so that the account analyses rather than lists; and the turning point named. One more paragraph, from the Washington summit of December 1987 through the Moscow summit of May 1988 to the UN speech of December, and the answer reaches the top level.

Write the narrative account

Write a narrative account analysing the key events in the improvement of superpower relations in the years 1985 to 1988. You may use the following in your answer: the Geneva summit; the INF Treaty. You must also use information of your own.

• The span: from the arrival of Gorbachev in March 1985 to the Moscow summit and the UN speech of 1988
• Detail that counts: a name, a number or a place
• Events of your own: Reykjavik, Chernobyl, the zero option, the Washington summit or the withdrawal from Afghanistan

The importance question

Question 3 might read: Explain the importance of Gorbachev for the end of the Cold War. Which answer best explains the importance, rather than describing what he did?

• Gorbachev was important because he was the first Soviet leader to decide that the arms race was a burden rather than a necessity: the pressure of SDI and a failing economy had faced Andropov and Chernenko too, and they had answered it with the walkout of 1983, whereas Gorbachev answered it with Geneva, the concessions at Reykjavik and the zero option in 1987. This meant that the INF Treaty, the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the freedom of choice offered to Eastern Europe in 1988 all followed from a change in Moscow rather than in Washington, and the Cold War ended because the Soviet side chose to stop fighting it.
• Gorbachev was important because he introduced glasnost and perestroika, met Reagan four times and signed the INF Treaty.
• Gorbachev was important because he was friendly and Reagan liked him.
• Gorbachev was not important because Reagan had already won the Cold War by 1985.