Reagan administration brought down the Berlin Wall....

patiodog wrote:

My knowledge of history may be a little gappy, me being a product of the California public education system and all -- but isn't it pretty well established that the Mongols breached the wall?

i'm sure SOME Mongols breached SOME wall. World is big, history is long. must have happened somewhere.

0 Replies

Hmmmm.

Maybe it was the border fence that Pat Buchanan built with nothing but his bare hands, his axe, and his huge blue ox.

0 Replies

Poor Ronny. Even in death he can't get a break from the left. At least he is given some credit for his actions.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

Quote:

I am absolutely uninterested in vitriolic conservative vs. liberal namecalling and insults and would greatly appreciate a merit based discussion. Thanks.

thomas wrote:

Quote:

Good luck with that!

I'm confident this wasn't an allusion to my earlier post.

dag wrote:

Quote:

Most other political and economic reasons were already stated. Gorbachev and Reagan had an important role to play, but neither would accomplish much without these processes already afoot.

And that must be so. It really was a heady time for an observer like me in my little canadian home town watching the events in Gdansk and seeing someone like Havel rise to the top. Gorbachev was received or perceived quite differently in Canada than in the US, really only because Canada had not been so suffused with anti-communist/anti-Russians propaganda. Most of us, certainly everyone I knew, thought Gorbi a wonderful surprise...thoughtful, educated and sane. Those weren't words that came to mind in our conceptions of Reagan.

You three have an intimate knowledge of events and personalities in europe at that time through experience and study. I can't credibly argue with any of you even if I saw some reason to, and I don't.

But let me point out one further aspect to Reagan's "Tear down that wall". Anti-communism/anti-russians had been boilerplate rightwing rhetoric since the end of ww2. Some politicians rose to prominence merely on the basis of the stridency of their rhetoric about it all. Reagan's popularity on the right had much to do with his stance re communism/russia. He would simply NOT have reached leadership in that party at that time if he had been 'soft' on the matter. Outside of what he might have believed (he likely did beleive it) this position was an electoral necessity. Nimh notes that this Reagan statement was perceived as a cheap stunt in europe. It was in Canada as well. It all looked very much a continuation of an old script, just more strident than earlier iterations.

There are two questions in here. Why did the wall actually fall (and the USSR collapse) and why do so many americans buy into the notion that Reagan caused it. I'll bow to you guys on the first and on the second, if you contest my learned viewpoints, I'll hunt you down like dogs.

0 Replies

One thing I meant to add... the events at the Iceland summit surprised the hell out of me and probably pretty much everyone else. Reagan pivoted in his ideology. For that, a serious tip of the hat to the fellow.

0 Replies

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123063/2093471/2101610/2102137/040610_reagan_gorbachev.jpg

READ ON

0 Replies

thanks dag!

Quote:

Now, that's interesting on two counts. First, that Reagan held such a notion and second that it had to be kept out of the press. Obviously, we didn't know the first because of the second. And the second arose, surely, out of domestic political considerations; ie red meat to the base, and that base being his rightwing voter base and the military/corporate entities who make their living from war or the promotion of a threatening environment.

0 Replies

There is a bit of revisionist history afoot here. Detente and accommodation with the USSR were inventions of the Nixon administration put in place immediately after the fall of South Vietnam, and at a time when America appeared to be in retreat in the world and at which the growing stagnation of Soviet society was not yet generally evident.

Reagan challenged the then pervasive ideas that the West was in decline and that the Soviet Empire was cohesive and strong. He reversed the abrupt decline in Defense spending of the Carter years, openly challenged the moral and political legitimacy of the Soviet system and affirmatively aligned this country with the goals of resistance movements in Poland and other areas.

There is little doubt that the primary reason for the fall of the Soviet Empire was the result of the political and economic contradictions of the inhuman and ill-conceived Soviet system itself. I don't think that even the most strident "Reaganite" would contest that - indeed the major new elements of Reagan's rhetoric and strategy were focused precisely on these contradictions, and the notion that ultimately the USSR could not compete with free societies in either political support or the economic ability to sustain comparable military force.

At the same time it is equally undeniable that from Reagan's Westminster speech in which he branded the "Evil Empire" and asserted the lie of its claim to "scientific historical inevitability", asserting the inevitability instead of the triumph of freedom, to the massive rearmament he launched and the political support he offered for the nations of Eastern Europe, he significantly hastened the fall of that unlamented regime.

It is similarly true that the fall of the Berlin wall was the result of several concurrent factors. These include the cumulative effects of Chancellor Brandt's Ostpolitic, launched a decade earlier, to the growing unrest in Poland and other countries, and, most importantly the loss of confidence of the Soviet regime in its ability to contain resistance movements in Eastern Europe. Many forget the overt preparations for a Soviet invasion of Poland that were a grim backdrop to the Solidarity crisis there. The defiance of the Polish Pope, and the firmness of Reagan's policies on issues ranging from rearmament, to Pershing missiles in Europe, and overt challenges to the basic tenants of Soviet doctrine - including the "tear down this wall..." challenge, were indeed important factors in the collapse of the self confidence of the USSR.

The notion that detente or accommodation somehow contributed to the fall of this awful system is truly absurd. The history of the preceding decades surely confirms this notion.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't think that even the most strident "Reaganite" would contest that

ROFL

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

At the same time it is equally undeniable that from Reagan's Westminster speech in which he branded the "Evil Empire" and asserted the lie of its claim to "scientific historical inevitability", asserting the inevitability instead of the triumph of freedom, to the massive rearmament he launched and the political support he offered for the nations of Eastern Europe, he significantly hastened the fall of that unlamented regime.

Right. But that was the Reagan I, the more remembered Reagan. Reagan II proposed disarmament and was far more cooperative with USSR than most of his predecessors. Reagan II tends to get forgotten in rhetorical accounts. But so it goes often with many if not most things.

As an aside, I remember Pershing missiles very well. People were quite effectively terrified of them (now i don't recall exactly if this was because of or despite of our government's propaganda... could have been despite of it (nothing to fear assurances would have had the opposite effect on people)). I was about 9 or 10 and one of the games we played involved toppling arm chairs while sitting in them, pretending we are on a Pershing missile launched from America on us and counting down towards the explosion of the world... It was fun, but had an element of terrified awe.
(Such games were not so unusual since we spent significant amount of time practicing hiding in cement bunkers, grenade launching, gas masks, assaults, you name it.... It was part of our physical education).

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

As an aside, I remember Pershing missiles very well. People were quite effectively terrified of them

Well, good. The people we scared with them were evil, remember. Just look at your avatar. It has evil burning all over it.

0 Replies

I hope I don't sound like I am hobby-horsing here. It is just that I think there is a profoundly important element in the questions dag has posed - important not merely as a matter of getting history straight but even moreso because this element has such contemporary importance to a full understanding of America and its politics.

I'm going to quote Edward Bernays here. He was the first real genius creating corporate PR, and later, political PR/propaganda ("Propaganda" was the title of a book he wrote describing his trade). He is writing this later in life, reflecting back on one of the operations he considered most successful.

Quote:

"I tried to look at it objectively. Someone has an idea - Light's Golden Jubilee - honoring a fine old man (Edison) who has made significant contributions to American life. You realize that he can be made a myth, so you start myth-building. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say you help the myth to grow. The public, expressing its own unfulfilled aspirations, builds the myth until it becomes an overwhelming, meaningful reality...Whether you accept the Freudian thesis or not, people want a father substitute. That is myth-building. "

That was 1930. Consider how well equipped modern PR folks (who study this stuff) are now. Relevant to politics in modern America? Here's Mary Matalin, Cheney's PR head until recently speaking of a book on Bernays and his techniques..."A must read for the aformentioned and wannabe spinmasters."

0 Replies

That was part of it, blatham. The "beacon on the hill approach"

The other intriguing part was why this particular myth was appearing so frequently in the last 2-3 weeks. Sure, I've heard it now and then ongoingly, but in the last two weeks I heard it at least 3-4 times from different people (mostly on the radio). Is it 9/11? Is it Iraq? Something else?

0 Replies

Dag

I think it is a confluence of things.

First, the republican contest for nomination...everyone of them mentions Reagan (I'll be like him) in every debate or speech (they don't much mention Bush, we'll note). The Reagan myth is the apotheosis of the modern american right. It is why they protect it so seriously and why candidates MUST reach for it.

Second, some of the conceptualization within that myth (I mentioned some earlier...eg the grand success of manly bullying) are part and parcel of how this administration has marketed Bush and the military and the war on Iraq. Over the last two months, and the last three or so weeks more particularly, a concerted PR campaign has been run out of the WH and Pentagon (Gillespie is in charge) to support the "Petraeus Report". The conceptual elements set up here are Reagan/Bush/Churchill/steadfast/bravery/victory/pride/etc versus (fill in the opposities and continue to position them with democrats and congress).

Off the top of my head, that's the way I'd explain it.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

Right. But that was the Reagan I, the more remembered Reagan. Reagan II proposed disarmament and was far more cooperative with USSR than most of his predecessors. Reagan II tends to get forgotten in rhetorical accounts. But so it goes often with many if not most things.

Was there really so much of a difference in the man Reagan, or had the situation vis a vis the USSR changed in a profound way? I believe the evidence suggests there are elements of both in the truth, but that the latter (i.e. change in the USSR) was far more significant in the altered character of the relationship. It wasn't so much Reagan I and II, as it was the USSR I and II.

dagmaraka wrote:

As an aside, I remember Pershing missiles very well. People were quite effectively terrified of them (now i don't recall exactly if this was because of or despite of our government's propaganda... could have been despite of it (nothing to fear assurances would have had the opposite effect on people)). I was about 9 or 10 and one of the games we played involved toppling arm chairs while sitting in them, pretending we are on a Pershing missile launched from America on us and counting down towards the explosion of the world... It was fun, but had an element of terrified awe.
(Such games were not so unusual since we spent significant amount of time practicing hiding in cement bunkers, grenade launching, gas masks, assaults, you name it.... It was part of our physical education).

Perhaps you paid more attention to them than to the Soviet SS-20 mobile ballistic missiles which had been widely deployed in the Western USSR and even in Poland, and targeted against France, Germany, Italy, and the UK. The Pershing program was an after-the-fact response to the deployment of Soviet SS-20s, and it was the subject of a widespread Soviet financed campaign of political resistance throughout Western Europe. The Soviet strategy was to further undermine the will of the Western European nations and, by making them subject to theatre missile attack, reduce the effectiveness of the American/UK nuclear deterrent. The ultimate success of the Pershing program was yet another blow to the Soviet ambition to prolong their hegemony through military force, even in the face of their continuing internal decline. It also contributed to the transformation in Soviet strategy launched by Gorbachev.

The "change" in Reagan's strategy unfolded only after the game had been won.

0 Replies

paid attention... george I was 9 years old. I'm telling you what I remember, there certainly was no ideological agenda on my mind at that age. That's what I lived as a kid. I remember Pershing missiles, while I couldn't name any other nuclear weapons by name. That's just how it was.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

And that must be so. It really was a heady time for an observer like me in my little canadian home town watching the events in Gdansk and seeing someone like Havel rise to the top. Gorbachev was received or perceived quite differently in Canada than in the US, really only because Canada had not been so suffused with anti-communist/anti-Russians propaganda. Most of us, certainly everyone I knew, thought Gorbi a wonderful surprise...thoughtful, educated and sane. Those weren't words that came to mind in our conceptions of Reagan.

Do you believe that Americans saw Gorbachev in a significantly different light from that which you attribute to Canadians? What is your evidence of this?

What do you believe influenced the Soviets to appoint Gorbachov to his office, following the death of Andropov - a former KGB head? Was it Canadian "reasonableness" ? or something else?

0 Replies

nimh wrote :

Quote:

Same goes, on a more general level, for the Hungarians overall - if only those world powers, whoever those may be at the moment, could just... disappear, and leave 'em living in peace.

they were already chafing at the bit under the austro-hungarian monarchy - they have had a long time to try and achieve a bit of indepence here and there without upsetting their masters too much .
i'm sure it wasn't easy .
somehow they seem to have been able to still preserve some of their old customs and a bit of edgy humour .
hbg

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:

And that must be so. It really was a heady time for an observer like me in my little canadian home town watching the events in Gdansk and seeing someone like Havel rise to the top. Gorbachev was received or perceived quite differently in Canada than in the US, really only because Canada had not been so suffused with anti-communist/anti-Russians propaganda. Most of us, certainly everyone I knew, thought Gorbi a wonderful surprise...thoughtful, educated and sane. Those weren't words that came to mind in our conceptions of Reagan.

Do you believe that Americans saw Gorbachev in a significantly different light from that which you attribute to Canadians? What is your evidence of this?

What do you believe influenced the Soviets to appoint Gorbachov to his office, following the death of Andropov - a former KGB head? Was it Canadian "reasonableness" ? or something else?

george

Though Canadian reasonableness throws a long and blessed shadow across the face of the world, I doubt that it reached into Politburo leadership deliberations. That said, the fellow did come over to meet with Pierre Trudeau two years before his election to General Secretary...they became lifelong friends beginning at that visit.

As to your first paragraph, that would be a bit difficult to deliver up evidence for. But consider my vantage point. We always had available to us the news services of two nations, ours and yours. That was probably true for most canadians due to our population's proximity to the border...we got our local stations, CBC, a second private Canadian network, and all the major American networks.

We, my family, watched American news and TV and Canadian news and TV every night. So, for example, I watched events in Selma Alabama at precisely the same time you did. But I'll wager you didn't see the coverage of this event or any/many others from Canadian media.

There were many differences. We never watched the Olympics on an American channel, for example, because they never showed anything other than events where Americans were expected to be victorious. My mother, though deceased more than a decade, still hates America on this basis alone. Any gypsy medium worth her salt can verify this.

But the significant difference in relation to our discussion here was the fervor and vitriol and obsession with communism and Russia. Whatever of that we had in canada was magnitudes less than what you grew up swimming around in. We had no Joe McCarthy because we didn't need one. We didn't have a Phyllis Shafley because we didn't need one. We didn't have a leader using a phrase anything like "Evil Empire" because we didn't need to have a leader who defined his nation as the opposite of that - good and godly.

You'lll suggest that the above rises out of America's internationalist good-doing and freedom-protecting. That's a notion which doesn't have much traction anywhere else than in America...how odd.

Of course we saw Gorbachev in a different light. We didn't have to see him in a bad or evil light. We've never needed enemies or projections of external evil in the way that the American story of itself has done.

And now you've created yourself another one. It was merely a matter of time.

0 Replies

if you have a bit of time on your hands , have a look at one of the documents from the :
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVES

a very interesteing and revealing article about one of gorbachev's chief advisers .

just a short excerpt from the article :

Quote:

Washington D.C. October 26, 2005 - Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, who died in Moscow last week at the age of 81, was probably the best known "architect of perestroika." Soviet ambassador to Canada, then member of the Politburo and Mikhail Gorbachev's closest adviser, he could rightfully be called the "Father of Glasnost."

Alexander Yakovlev rose through the Communist Party ranks to become one of the most vocal critics of the Stalinist past and a passionate advocate of democratization in the second half of the 1980s. He was one of the people history will credit for his role in helping to end the Cold War.

Soon after becoming general secretary in 1985, Gorbachev quickly recognized Yakovlev's potential and promoted him to head the Central Committee's Propaganda Department. In 1986, Yakovlev became secretary of the Central Committee in charge of ideology and in 1987 a full member of the Politburo. His role in promoting freedom of the press, political openness and democratization has been widely noted by observers of the Soviet political process of the late 1980s.

Recently released documents from the Yakovlev Collection of the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF) show the unprecedented scope of issues on which Alexander Yakovlev exerted influence within Soviet decision-making circles under Gorbachev. Although we usually associate Yakovlev with glasnost and democratization, it becomes clear from the record that he was also a key reformer when it came to arms control ("untying" the Soviet "package" position on nuclear arms control negotiations), and the Soviet economy. The documents also show that Yakovlev's position was quite developed and consistent very early on, when the rest of the Soviet reformers, including Gorbachev himself, were not yet willing to look beyond the existing one-party system.

0 Replies

Reagan administration brought down the Berlin Wall....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know