So where was Reagan in all this, playing hop scotch?
 

I've notice countless articles about the Fall of the Berlin Wall and there are even several posts about the Wall coming down way back in 89', But I have yet to see one single acknowledgment of the real reason the wall fell....Ronald Reagan.

If it were not for his brilliant economic war against "The Evil Empire" that forced the Soviets to bankrupt themselves that wall may have still been there to this very day!

Thank you Ronald for your part in making it possible for the wall to fall.

You sir, Rock!:rock:

Renoldus Magnus - they broke the mold with him. May his soul rest in the hand of the creator, knowing that he faced down evil in his time, and that evil crumbled within when it could not defeat him.

This country, and the world, was blessed by people like him, and Ms. Thatcher. She shares in the work that was done as well, though without Reagan there is no doubt Ms. Thatcher's legacy would be quite different.

The Wall fell because the people of Germany (West AND East) had finally had enough of the Soviets. They were the ones who broke it down with hammers, chisels, pickaxes and their own hands; not Reagan. And they risked their lives in doing so, because it was unclear even then if the Russians would let them proceed or not. They could have been shot for what they did.

LOL. He had no such "brilliant economic war" against them. The Soviet Union collapsed over a few decades (similar to the death of the Roman Empire; it took time), since the 1960s really. For one, the military was not what it once was; the war in Afghanistan had taken a hefty toll on them. Poor economic management was also to blame. Elaborating, the mills and industrial plants that churned out millions of weapons, tools, equipment, etc., from the 1940s to the 1960s were gradually breaking down in quality. With time, they became old and problematic. The government's central planning could no longer properly provide for everyone and shortages were common for most households. The standard of living was incredibly low compared to other surrounding countries, and this only made the people even more rebellious towards their overlords (though the amount of corruption in the bureaucracy certainly didn't help).

Their military still had some power, skill, and control, but everything else was just useless. And as a result, the people grew fed up with it. It was inevitable that any small push in any direction would make the whole thing collaspe onto itself. A country as large and complex as the Soviet Union does not fall simply because of the actions of one man in one short time. It takes many combined problems over the course of ages to truly produce anything bad for a government that great. Much like our economy now: it was so large and complex that it took the combined efforts of numerous things to reduce it to what it is now.

He gave a speech about the wall and Soviet Union, he put on his tough-guy acting skills (he did get something useful out of Hollywood afterall), and people bought it without bothering to investigate any further the reasons for the fall of Communism in Europe- let alone the death of the Soviets. Reagan was an actor. A good, convincing actor. But an actor nevertheless, not a president. He could convince people that he was a president, but his flattering words and moving speeches did not solve anything. They never do. All they do is waste time, no matter who the person is that's doing the talking. They can inspire and provoke emotion, but they do not get anything done. The taking of action gets s*** done, precisely what he lacked and precisely what the people of Germany and Russia had.

Oh god, gag me

http://img.moronail.net/img/8/5/1085.jpg

http://thisishistorictimes.com/wp-co...l_20090314.gif

You want fun with Reaganomics, ask me about the Laffer Curve. :roll:

Well really, he wasn't a damaging president. Reagan, I mean. He was just the kind that didn't take very much (if any) action when a situation arose. And most of the actions he did take were ineffective in the end. They just sort of... faded away into the annals of history, no consequences or effects felt. He was charismatic, there's no denying that; and it was through his charisma that he was capable of exceptional acts of persuasion. To put it bluntly, he became famous and well-known because of said charisma and persuasion feats, but in reality his time in office yielded dull and meh results.

I lol'd at the Evil Dead Obama cartoon, BTW.

yeah, but he did fix the banking crisis and he did give us nationalized health care, and he solved the our budget problems with the stimulus package.

good thing you clarified - because you just described 90% of the president's we have had over the last 60 years

I can tell you one thing. If we had a President Like Jimmy Carter during this time, the wall never would have fallen. Jimmy Carter was nothing more than Brezhnev's lapdog. Offering every concession he could manage to embolden Soviet positioning at the expense of American geo-politics. Carter and Democrats like him presented no pressure to the Kremlin in any way at all. The Soviets never had any reason to pursue "glasnost" policy or "perestroika" with Carter in the Oval Office.

When Reagan was inaugurated, he began a program designed to apply vast amounts of pressure on the Soviet military machine, and their positioning in global geo-politics. It was a vast series of moves. Most of us remember the effects in pursuing military programs en masse that the Soviets had little answer to. All were very aggressive. Some of these things heavily pursued and pushed for from Reagan's administration were the B-2 program and stealth technology in general, the Seawolf SSN program, the Peacekeeper missile program, more cruise missile capabilities, hit to kill technology directives against ICBM's, etc. Reagan made a nuclear war a complete losing proposition for the Soviets and had assured them that we would intend to build an infrastructure capable of nullifying much of their offensive capabilities. And to add insult to injury, we would share the technology with them. Not only did Reagan do these things, yet he was also extremely critical of Soviet oppression as a whole. He never let up one minute. Some of the biggest help for the Soviets in our own government came from the Tip O'Niel Democrats in Congress.

Simply put, the Soviets were unable to respond to any of the things pursued aggressively by the Reagan Administration. Nor could they respond to the heavily criticized Soviet restrictive society which Reagan criticized in the same room with Gorby over an American style steak dinner. The Soviets had also been kicked in the nutz hard in Afghanistan, which many people in the Reagan government at the time will still probably neither confirm or deny any involvement.

Trying to remove Reagan's role is merely a ludicrous and total distortion of history. I know people wish history isn't what it truly is sometimes. But it is nevertheless what it is. Guarandamnteed if Carter, then Mondale would have been at the helm, there would never have been any pressure at all for the Soviets to allow for their collapse. Without the military and geo-political pressure....no glasnost, no perestroika, and no reason to fear WW3 against a weak-kneed, concession offering President like Carter, if there were problems, dissent, or chaos at the Berlin Wall. The Germans had nothing to do with this also. The Soviets themselves could have used 1/10th of it's air and armor in the region to deal with them.

Reagan did what he did, and got what he wanted by his actions. Without him in his role...it would have never happened. Nor would there be reason for it to happen without Reagan's role.

Thank you :up:

Without Reagan's leadership, the Russians would still own East Germany.

Indeed.

It makes me wonder why people of certain political ideologies will do whatever they can to minimize the accomplishments of those on the other side...

I mean, one REALLY has to spin and avoid reality to not see the impact that Reagan had on the former USSR.

Oh yea, it was Reagan who one evening appeared at the wall with a sledge hammer and started hammering away. By next morning he'd demolished most of it and all those germanians gathered around to gaze at Ronnie hammering away at the wall and Ronnies muscles glistening in the sun and all the germanians yelled "Yeee, Ronnie!". :haha:

He built up the U.S. military to its greatest size since WWII knowing full well that Russia would try and follow suite. We with the west could more than afford the expenditure knowing that Russia could not. In the end his 8 year boost and aggressive policy's towards the C.C.C.P. bankrupt them into collapse and left the U.S. the only superpower in the world.

It only took 20 years of mismanagement to put us where we are today. I love politicians:damn:

Actually the Soviets didn't try to follow suit and didn't follow up with SDI which is often touted as the "thing that brought the USSR down". Any other suggestions?

Oh, the west could afford it? How? Does money grow in trees in the west? The money that is put into the military in the west is not put into some other place, for example road maintenance or building oil drilling equipment. The USSR came to an end because people like Gorbachov and Honecker decided that it had come to an end. That's about it.

That's why Gorbachov is very popular in Germany and George Bush sr. (or jr.) isn't.

And the US hasn't been a superpower in the world since the 50's.

LOL!!! Rather, LMAO!!!

REALLY? The Soviets did NOT follow suit?

It seems that it is a well documented fact that, under Reagan, the US increased military spending to 7% of GDP. In response, the Soviets increased military spending to ... wait for it ... 27% of their GDP.

Even the most conservative estimates of Soviet spending in response to Reagan's build up run to around 17% of their GDP.

http://wais.stanford.edu/History/his...randreagan.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...on_of_the_USSR


Yeah, you're about as wrong as you can be on that point, pal. To the point of humor.

Oh, and as an aside, I've never met anyone who thought that SDI had anything to do with bringing down the USSR, and I'm wondering where you gleaned that line of reasoning from.That entire comment is a joke on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.

Yes, the west could afford it. The western nations are still enjoying prosperity. The USSR isn't around. That's point one.

Point two is that the USSR collapsed because of Gorbechev's failed perestroika, which he felt was necessary in large part due to the economic ruin military spending had imposed upon the USSR. Ol' Gorbie didn't DECIDE to see the end of the USSR - he tried to reform the USSR, and that reform had UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES which led to its end.

Point three is something called "glasnost". That meant that he had decided upon a policy of enhanced government transparency. Ultimately, that meant the people began to realize how bad off they really were. Oh, and that impoverishment was largely due to incredible amounts of GDP being allocated to military spending.

Again, I wonder why it is that people of opposing political ideologies seem to ALWAYS reduce themselves to bending, twisting, and outright ignoring the facts whenever it pertains to the opposition being responsible for something good and impactful...

The Reagan Doctrin

Kenneth S. Deffeyes argued in "Beyond Oil" that the Reagan Administration encouraged Saudi Arabia to lower the price of oil to the point where the Soviets could not make a profit from selling their oil, so that the USSR's hard currency reserves became depleted.

America's vast military build up caused Russian defense expenditures the escalate from 15 to 17% in the early eighties to above 30% towards the end.

Reagan also had other ideas to hurt the Soviet economy like reducing Europe's dependence on Russian natural Gas.

The Communists were running out of time but they could have staved off total defeat and re inflated their economic situation had it not been for Reagan's Doctrine.