Berlin Wall and Ronald Reagan Video
- Thread starter wordcreatorushtwf
- Start date
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Like this?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
christiefan915
Catalyst
Funny you should mention this.
The Fall of the Berlin Wall - After twenty years, isn't it time to dispel the myth of Reagan?
As the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall fast approaches, I find myself suffering a mild internal conflict. I welcome the opportunity to revisit the Nov. 9, 1989 occasion, particularly because viewing the images and newsreels of that day - the mass of humanity gleefully celebrating, chipping away at the Cold War barrier - inspire in me the same optimism I felt as an American teenager watching it on television.
Twenty years later, I'm also feeling some apprehension as the world prepares to mark the occasion. As I still reside within the U.S., I'm presently dreading the fact that as America celebrates, it will do so with a spoonful of Reagan mythology.
Too often, Americans mistakenly trace a direct line of causation between President Ronald Reagan's leadership and the Berlin Wall's breach. If you count yourself among those whom subscribe to this historical revisionism, don't feel bad. As Gerard DeGroot, professor of history at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, illustrates within his Oct. 30 Washington Post book review, even historians are capable of the same error.
DeGroot succinctly describes the source of the confusion:
People are, however, messy. They clutter up the precise narratives imposed upon the past. Now, 20 years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, historians are competing to offer an explanation for the demise of communism. For some, it's easier to think of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria as a bloc, manipulated and exploited by the Soviet Union and ultimately freed by the United States. That conception delights neoconservatives eager to extract parables to illuminate the present.
He reminded me of Goldilocks in his comparative review of three new books on the collapse of communism. One treatment gives Reagan too much credit, another none at all, but the third - Professor Constantine Pleshakov's "There is Freedom Without Bread!" - gets it just right. (Emphasis Added)
His explanation of the 1989 collapse respects the complexity of Eastern Europe, yet his account is both clear and beautifully lyrical. His greatest strength lies in not being burdened by doctrine; he finds worth in communists and in Reagan. Of all the books that mark this anniversary, his is one that must be read.
According to DeGroot, Pleshakov's treatment effectively avoids the mistakes of other historians by accurately describing the Eastern bloc. His analysis rightly takes into account the vast differences between states formerly dominated by the Soviet Union.
In a separate DeGroot review, posted Sept. 27 at DenverPost.com, he praises the myth busting of Michael Meyer, author of "The Year that Changed the World - The Untold Story of the Fall of the Berlin Wall." Again the myth of Reagan's impact is dispelled along with the persistent American notion that "…dictatorial regimes crumble when confronted by righteous indignation."
The real story, Meyer says... is more complicated — and interesting. Reagan still plays a role, but as diplomat, not Rambo. His contribution came in accommodation; his willingness to talk to Gorbachev gave the Soviet leader the confidence to break molds.
Gorbachev, furthermore, did not tear down the wall; he merely suggested that change would be tolerated. The events themselves were played out by a cast of thousands in Budapest, Berlin, Prague, Warsaw and Bucharest. There was no script; this was an improvisational drama conceived by Camus, with help from Kafka and Moliere.
The Soviet Union came to the realization that its empire was no longer affordable. Like other imperial powers, it cut and ran, leaving colonial subjects to sort things out for themselves. Chaos naturally resulted.
DeGroot's review of Meyer's book gets to the crux of my own frustration. My apprehension in regards to Berlin Wall anniversary doesn't stem so much from those who cling to a skewed view of history; one in which Reagan brazenly challenged, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," followed by the wall magically obeying the American president's command.
Rather, what I find disheartening is what Americans have selectively eliminated from their collective memory; that is, diplomatic engagement was Reagan's contribution to the Berlin Wall's demise. His was a significant role, but it shouldn't be propped up as a primary cause.
Further, I don't think it's a stretch to see this historical misconception visited upon the present when conservative pundits declare President Obama's and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emphasis on engagement in foreign policy as a sign of weakness. They, as so many Westerners do, ignore Reagan's real success by parroting an invented one.
It is my hope, as the world honors the twentieth anniversary of the fall, that Westerners remember the importance of diplomacy in international relations. I'd like them to view the anticipated ubiquitous 1989 newsreel replays of the joyous occasion - of which, you'll find one embedded below - and resist the inclination to pat themselves on the back for their nations' contributions to the Berlin Wall's collapse.
Instead, they should offer congratulations to millions of participants whose celebration, twenty years ago this Nov. 9, provided us with the uplifting spectacle of people emerging from oppression, welcoming and embracing their previously stifled potential. They should, however, consider that once the iron curtain was lifted, opening the Eastern bloc nations to the West, that lacking the forced collectivism of the Soviet Union was no guarantee of success.
http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/the-fall-of-the-berlin-wall-and-the-myth-of-reagan/
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Wow a liberal dissing Reagan.
"diplomatic engagement was Reagan's contribution to the Berlin Wall's demise"
Let me just translate the term "diplomatic engagement" for anyone on the right who might be reading this. This is what is generally referred to by conservatives today as "singing Kum-ba-yah with those who seek to destroy us..."
Let me just translate the term "diplomatic engagement" for anyone on the right who might be reading this. This is what is generally referred to by conservatives today as "singing Kum-ba-yah with those who seek to destroy us..."
christiefan915
Catalyst
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The truth seems to be too hard to handle in your neck of the woods.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
"His was a significant role, but it shouldn't be propped up as a primary cause."
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
How ironic.
It wasn't a primary cause. Anyone who knows even the slightest bit of Soviet history at this point knows that the implosion began in the '70's.
The fall of the wall was inevitable before Reagan even took office. Was he a catalyst for a shorter timeframe? You'll have an easier time arguing that...
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Whenever a Democrat ran the White House the USSR got stronger. Reagan comes along and decides to win the Cold War, implements a strategy to do so and then follows through. These are facts, and undeniable.
I believe in religious freedom, so if you want to believe in the mythology of Reagan as opposed to the reality, I won't infringe on your right to believe whatever you have to in your worship...
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Mikhail Gorbachev is much more responsible for the fall of his nation than Ronald Reagan is. He tried to introduce freedom while not significantly reforming the totalitarian state, and it was destined to fail. If the USSR had gone the route of China and crushed protesters, it would still be here today.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
The author is a Progressive activist. It figures. HAHAHAHAHAHA
It is quite shocking, true, I mean why would a liberal want everybody to think Reagan was unimportant or something, right? And by trying to minimize the importance of Reagan's diplomatic and administrative role in bringing about that conclusion.
Even the most dismissive gives him some credit, but it's always some left-handed nod towards some responsibility. Reagan believed that the Cold War could be won, worked towards it relentlessly and had a major contribution towards it, they just want everybody to be dismissive of his role as they are.
They like to pretend that people who liked Reagan and think he was one of the better leaders the nation had believe that Reagan did it by himself. Nobody suggests that, that's just a liberal myth based on their own stereotype of how they want to view any conservative. Another way they do this is by pretending Reagan had it out for homosexuals.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That is a pretty accurate quote. There were far too many moving components to proclaim any one of them the primary reason.
1) The Polish Solidarity movement
2) The East German Police/people
3) The Pope
4) Thatcher
5) Gorbachev
6) Reagan
The above are in no particular order, but would the wall have come down without any of the above components? As that article states, Reagan most certainly played a significant role... but others played equally vital roles in bringing down the USSR as we knew it.
Reagan is one of my favorite Presidents (behind Ike). I think he was one of the best leaders this nation had during the last century. But to give him too much credit is a dishonor not only to the other players, but also to Reagan.
Topspin
Verified User
that's prob the right order by exponetially falling effect going down to 6 near nothing.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The above is nonsense. Crushing protesters would not have stopped the fall. Russia is different than China in that its economy is tied largely to the price of oil/nat gas. The US kept oil prices artificially low for decades. This coupled with an increase to defense spending put significant pressure on the Soviet economy. China's economy is too diverse for us to do anything like that to them.
That said, Gorbachev did indeed play a significant role in the fall of the Soviet Union. He had a desire to change, but needed Western leaders to come to the table in a way that would allow the Soviets to save some face while implementing the inevitable changes. Reagan saw this and, along with Thatcher, provided Gorbachev the window. As mentioned above, many other components were also at work that were bringing about the fall.