General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf I have to see "Tear Down This Wall" one more time
I'm going to tear down a wall.
Wounded Bear
(58,667 posts)louis-t
(23,295 posts)It didn't happen until at least a year after that speech. The people of East Germany tore down the wall. Gorby held back on stopping East Germans from protesting and he let the will of the people prevail.
unblock
(52,253 posts)their whole view of the wall thing showed, decades ago, many of the cultish problems that are now obvious.
ever since the end of wwii, republicans were united with democrats in the view that capitalism was inherently better than communism and that the soviet union would fall under its own weight because communism was simply an inferior system.
then, when the wall fell, the most obvious marker of the series of events that led to the fall of the soviet union, all of a sudden they switched to reagan-worship. it was his speech demanding the wall be torn down that finally did them in. who know all it took was just the right speech? as if eisenhower could have shut them down years earlier with a dramatic demand. oh, but obama only good at speeches and how could he be a good president.
what happened to all the rhetoric about capitalism being better? all in one moment they completely lost interest in giving capitalism any credit for being a better system. nope. it was all reagan's speech and i suppose, had he not said that, communism would have lasted another 100 years.
and of course, the media played along *and still* plays along, even on this same dumb talking point decades later.
unlike donnie, reagan was pretty aware and politically astute (well, until he wasn't). he saw, as many other people who were remotely paying attention, that the soviet union was spread too thin, had trouble at home, and was losing its grip on its satellite states, particularly east germany and poland. reagan knew, as many knew, that the wall was going to come down one way or another. he made a speech that would let him take credit from something that was going to happen anyway, without him, for many reasons having nothing to do with him.
classic rooster taking credit for the rising of the sun.
nuxvomica
(12,429 posts)Including the much-criticized grain embargo. None other than Richard Nixon stated in an interview that the USSR economy was fatally destroyed by 1980 but didn't elaborate on why. I think it was Afghanistan, mostly, but also Carter, and Reagan not-so-much.
The centralized/totalitarian Soviet "command economy" didn't work too well to benefit the people and would have very likely failed without either Raygun or Gorby.
I believe a big factor in its collapse was the increasing spread of information in the 70s and 80s. It was difficult or impossible for Soviet citizens to travel to the West so they didn't really know what life was like there. Then they started to learn from radio (RFE), television, magazines, newspapers, and travelers to the USSR smuggling in Levis and "stuff" that people in the West had all kinds of consumer goods, freedom to travel, etc., that they didn't have. Why not us? The first republics to exit were those in eastern Europe that found out first what they were missing out on.
An autocrat like Stalin or Putin might have been able to stem the tide of Soviet collapse for a while but it was inevitable--with or without Raygun and Gorby.
unblock
(52,253 posts)Young people more interested in blue jeans and rock 'n' roll than communist ideology. Captains of industry liking the idea of keeping all that profit. Domestic issues in Russia becoming more important than holding on to problematic satellite states. Afghanistan. Strained budget. Infighting. Incompetence. They couldn't plan and deliver the way china could. And they couldn't find a way to do capitalism halfway, as china does.
With Gorbachev, it's an interesting question, what would have happened had he not tried to "reform" the ussr. Had he taken a hard line, yes, I think it would have collapsed anyway, but it would have been much uglier.
With Reagan, no. It's not an interesting question. at all. He was a spectator.
HAB911
(8,904 posts)spanone
(135,844 posts)Kaleva
(36,309 posts)One of the reasons the 95% of adults who don't watch cable news is because they don't like it.
UTUSN
(70,708 posts)The clips plus panderers of *both* parties calling him "great." Woe is us who lived under him.
Boomerproud
(7,955 posts)The younger folks don't know the real story and how we're still living with the consequences of his regime. Makes me angry and the MSM is forever On Bended Knee.