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

[Freiwillige]

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!

[CaptainHaplo]

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.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

IBut I have yet to see one single acknowledgment of the real reason the wall fell....Ronald Reagan.

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.

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

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!

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.

[mookiemookie]

Oh god, gag me





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

[Stealth Hunter]

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.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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.

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.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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.

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

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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 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.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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

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

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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.

They only climbed on the wall after it was clear to them the Soviets under Gorbachov would not mind so much.

The real heroes of the Berlin Wall were the Polish shipyard workers of Solidarity, They did all the heavy lifting 10 years earlier.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

They only climbed on the wall after it was clear to them the Soviets under Gorbachov would not mind so much.

Wrong in that the protests and mass escapes already had began several weeks earlier - when it was not clear at all to anybody that the Soviets would not start shooting and would not tell the VoPo and Volksarmee to shoot as well. Just days earlier people crossing the border in Hungary still felt to still run for their lives. Their are some very dramatic videos and the despair to be seen in the faces, and the tension, was real.

The real heroes of the Berlin Wall were the Polish shipyard workers of Solidarity, They did all the heavy lifting 10 years earlier.

Yes, they were not the first, but the first to be successful. The first were those rebellions that had been put down by Soviet tanks.

[SteamWake]

Typical responses right down the line...

You cannot deny the fact that Regan was instrumental in the bringing down of the wall.

Post all of your thoughts and cartoons to the contrary. History is histor no matter how much you wish to revise it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Typical responses right down the line...

You cannot deny the fact that Regan was instrumental in the bringing down of the wall.

Post all of your thoughts and cartoons to the contrary. History is histor no matter how much you wish to revise it.

To which you, of course, are immune.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Typical responses right down the line...

You cannot deny the fact that Regan was instrumental in the bringing down of the wall.

Post all of your thoughts and cartoons to the contrary. History is histor no matter how much you wish to revise it.

No Reagan was not instrumental in bringing down the wall.
This is just happy wishing on your part. History tells another story.
Stealth Hunter is absolutely correct in his analysis. A country as big as the Soviet Union, rife with contradictions DOESN'T just collapse overnight.
The socio-economical, political and military problems what would ultimately lead to the implosion of the U.S.S.R spanned decades, and as I said any historian worth his salt would have forseen the collapse of the Soviet System years, even decades before it came to pass.
Reagan was not needed for that, thinking otherwise is a distortion of historical facts and indulging in self-importance.

[Aramike]

the link you provided (the Wikipedia one doesn't really cover the issue) only claims that Reagan had some influence in it. Some. So the argument here is did Reagan have some influence in the collapse or none at all. Am I right here?

Actually, the argument you were proposing was that the Soviets did NOT try to follow suit with Reagan's defense spending. Which was wrong.

And that spending directly led to many of the policies which ultimately collapsed the USSR.

Regarding SDI, my point still stands.