31 Comments

1. Pajamas Media » The Berlin Wall Didn’t Just “Fall”:

[...] Read the entire post here. [...]

Nov 9, 2009 - 7:46 am 2. Pedosito:

Don’t mention Reagan , Thatcher or John Paul 11. because bambi’s people will go beserk. It does not fit into the narrative.

Nov 9, 2009 - 8:37 am 3. Berlin Wall Fall: 20 Years Later:

[...] don’t have much in the way of unique insights to offer beyond pointing to Stephen Green’s observation that, “The Berlin Wall didn’t just fall down. It was torn down. It was [...]

Nov 9, 2009 - 10:44 am 4. Bob Miller:

More about this date in history:
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/kristallnacht/frame.htm

There’s a reason why Germany had to be cut in half.

Nov 9, 2009 - 12:23 pm 5. Steve Ducharme:

If “we” spent one tenth the the energy remembering communism for what it truly was as we do on Vietnam for instance, than posts like this would not be necessay. I know they’re not perfect but thank goodness for Fox news and the internet, or communism would be remembered as a merely small quirk of history instead of the most muderous ideology in the history of mankind.

Nov 9, 2009 - 12:32 pm 6. patrick:

Actually, it is right. One of the definitions of “fall” is “to succumb to an attack”.

Nov 9, 2009 - 12:39 pm 7. Marc Malon:

Of course it just fell. Sh1t just happens, y’know. It’s like Keynesian economics. Certain things are inexplicable, because they don’t fit the narrative, so they are dismissed as just happening.

It’s like the recent blogpost I saw linked today at townhall.com. It claimed that it is egocentric of us to think we caused the fall of the USSR. No, our opposition had nothing to do with it. It just fell.

The world is an inexplicable place to idiots.

Nov 9, 2009 - 1:13 pm 8. Doug King:

How many Nobel Prizes were awarded for the peaceful destruction of the Berlin Wall and the nonviolent liberation of Eastern Europe from Soviet domination?

Nov 9, 2009 - 1:50 pm 9. jon:

“The most murderous ideology in the history of mankind” isn’t communism, though that’s definitely a dominant strain. Totalitarianism, the notion that an individual is nothing but a tool of the state or something to be crushed, isn’t something that was invented by Marx and Engels. Those guys proposed taking the crushing boot and putting it on a different foot. Totalitarianism is something as old as kings and warlords and tribal chiefs and probably even the best hunter among the first family group of almost-humans. The oppression of the individual has been a constant throughout history, it’s just that the modern world has more people to enslave, more weapons to kill, and more historians to count the bodies. There are a lot of examples of some guy sitting atop a pile of skulls somewhere in history saying to himself, “History will remember me.”

As for the Berlin Wall, Reagan was one of many players in that mix. Gorbachev and Thatcher, Western banks, oil discoveries in the North Sea, profligate spending on the part of the US and Japan, and other things like Dallas (yes, the television program) contributed to make the Soviet Union lose control over their satellites (and itself.) And once the satellites figured this out and the orders to shoot to kill weren’t being given, it was almost anticlimactic how mundane it was at the beginning. Vacationing East Germans in Hungary getting to take a side trip to Austria was how it started. The fall of the Wall in Berlin and Reagan saying “Tear down this wall” was where the cameras were, but the most important players in the fall itself may have been some Hungarians with wire cutters not doing their job.

Good for those guys as much as Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt. Good for all the British and even the French Prime Ministers, West German leaders who dealt with their own nation’s history while trying not to be the start of another war, and all the other NATO countries. Good for all the military guys, their families, and their taxpaying public who paid through the nose to buy things that never got used (and that was a good “waste” of money.) Good for the Taiwanese, the Japanese, Hong Kong bankers, Saudi princes, and Israel. Especially Israel, who showed the Russians that their best wasn’t nearly as good as our second-hand stuff (not that the Israelis didn’t do stuff on their own, but for proxy wars the Israelis are the best allies to make your enemies think twice about effing with you.) And good for the Eastern Europeans and Russians, who are proving themselves capable of not going directly back to communist rule even though it had some advantages. I’m glad the world is a better place without that enemy, even as it shows itself under new masks.

Nov 9, 2009 - 2:02 pm 10. Steve Ducharme:

Jon, In your first paragraph you make a good point and while your word is better than mine it’s not the best. Totalitarianism is a better word than communism but in truth collectivism is a better word than both of them.

As for the fall of the wall… (Dallas? seriously?)
Well yes there were obviously a LOT of subplots behind the whole “drama”. There are decades of resistance by the west that are admirable and noteworthy. But when it came to actually winning, there is no way it would have happenned when it did without the triangulation of Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope. No freaking way in hell. If you want to elevate the support cast to top billing go ahead and give it a whirl but I think you’re pissing up a rope on this one.

It never would have happenned when i did until Reagan dismissed the notion of continuing containment and stalemate. In response to a question as to his foreign police vis-avis communism he scribbled the words “we win, they lose”. Unitil that moment actually winning was never truly on the table.

Nov 9, 2009 - 3:22 pm 11. misanthropicus:

Ich bin ein (optional) Berliner!

If anyone still needs a proof that what make dba Obama tick is nothing but a wretched mixture of (three of many others traits):

a) deep, instinctive and active antipathy for America, its legitimate interests, its history and honor,
b) a pathologically hypertrophied sense of self-importance which makes him to avoid any public event where he is not the object of mass adoration,
c) and of a collection of parochial instincts which preclude him to discern the true significance, rhythms & paassions of the world, thus forbidding him to neutralize (a) and (b) and take (occassionally) a correct decision…

… then Obama’s skillful absence at the Berlin Wall celebration (act that touchingly complements his equally astute Olympic flight to Danemark) should confirm any suspicion that Obama’s presence in the White House is a sinister joke -

Bellow, a couple of (early & merciful) pieces about Obama’s superb manifestations of gross inanity in foreign affairs matters:

* “Barack Obama’s shameful absence from Berlin”/Nile Gardiner/ Daily Telegraph –
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100016197/barack-obama%E2%80%99s-
* “Berlin and the Case of the Missing President”/ Pejman Yousefzadeh/New Ledger
http://newledger.com/2009/11/berlin-and-the-case-of-the-missing-president/
————-
PS. Obama’s Danemark Olympic flight – that curious enterprise reminded me Rudolf Hess’ keen reading of the British minds in 1940, before parachuting in Scotland to arrange things with Churchill -
PPS. Looking forward for the Obamatons’ explanation that Obama was to busy to travel to Berlin because his camp David vacation was overdue –

Rudolph Hess

antipathyu

Nov 9, 2009 - 4:07 pm 12. David W. Lincoln:

Daniel Hannan has this retrospective: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100016114/reflections-on-the-revolutions-in-europe/

I am fully confident that the final word is this: those who do not want to learn from the past, tend not to learn from the past.

Nov 9, 2009 - 6:15 pm 13. Barefoot Doctor:

Meanwhile, they are now giving all the credit to Gorby.

Nov 9, 2009 - 7:34 pm 14. misanthropicus:

Update to #11:

Obama hated the idea of being upstaged in Berlin so he didn’t travel there.
Yet, in his video, he didn’t resist to inject himself in that affair, and this in the strangest way possible:

“Few would have foreseen – that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. [...]

1) As to the meaning of the “forseen… a united Germany would be lead by a woman from Brandenburg”, this fails me -
2) Ignoring Ronald Reagan – well, since Obama at least didn’t credit Gorbachev regarding this, I’m kind of alright -
3) Then – connecting his Africanness with Prussia… now, hey, it’s Barry, he illustrated before with his comments on the Austrian launguage his understanding of that continent -
And as far as America – Barry, thanks for at least allowing America to appear in the same shot with you -

Nov 9, 2009 - 7:59 pm 15. Alan K. Henderson:

connecting his Africanness with Prussia

The Prussians were exceptionally authoritarian compared to the other German states – I’d be careful drawing such parallels.

Considering the role that mass protests and media exposes on government corruption played in East Germany’s downfall, Obama’s absence seems a bit justified.

(After the Berlin Wall fell, the Commie state press reported many cases of top officials using public funds for lavish private purposes.)

Shameless plug for my eighth Henderson Prize for the Advancement of Liberty, which focuses on this event.

http://hpal.blogspot.com/2009_11_01_archive.html#5543755897873971598

Nov 10, 2009 - 1:11 am 16. McGehee:

The Prussians were exceptionally authoritarian compared to the other German states – I’d be careful drawing such parallels.

Well, yeah — but O doesn’t see authoritarianism as a bug.

Nov 10, 2009 - 6:48 am 17. jon:

As for Dallas, yes. Seriously, the glitz and glamor of that show was broadcast into dingy apartments all over Eastern Europe through television from Finland, West Germany, and other places and led to a lot of dissatisfaction with communism. Dallas was a great psychological weapon, thanks to international syndication. (As a side note, when I honeymooned in Paris in 1994, Dallas was on French television.)

http://reason.com/archives/2002/01/01/bert-and-the-infidels

Nov 10, 2009 - 7:35 am 18. misanthropicus:

RE # 17/jon: [...] As for Dallas, yes. [...]

It sure was, so were the jeans and much more Americana. However, I’ll take exception from the liberals’ claim that they (i.e. entertainment, rock’roll etc), had a capital role in tumbling the Warsaw Pact).
Leaving aside the fact the Eastern European rock ‘n roll was and is heavily nationalistic, if not fascist-tinged (and it is good quality music), much of the pop-culture American tinsel went away, allowing for the correct perception of America as a realm of dilligence and ingenuity – warts and nose hair y compris.

Nov 10, 2009 - 10:24 am 19. Steve Ducharme:

Oh OK I didn’t see how you were using that TV show as an example of western cultural influence behind the iron curtain.

I thought that maybe Larry Hagmen was a spy or something…

and yes…

I’m kidding.

Nov 10, 2009 - 10:46 am 20. Tweets that mention Vodkapundit » Getting it Right -- Topsy.com:

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Roger Simon, Dean Siracusa and Right, Kerry Wood. Kerry Wood said: The Berlin Wall Didn’t Just ‘Fall’ #tcot http://bit.ly/3yF0zS [...]

Nov 10, 2009 - 2:03 pm 21. uberVU - social comments:

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by notleftwing: {vodkapundit} Getting it Right http://tinyurl.com/ybbyc4c…

Nov 10, 2009 - 2:06 pm 22. deguello:

What a quixotic waste! Reagan should have just traded them for russian oil!

Nov 10, 2009 - 5:03 pm 23. jon:

I don’t know how much media and consumerism had to do with the fall of the Eastern Bloc, but when I see North Korea and how little things have changed in the past forty years I do see that such things certainly can make a difference. It’s all cumulative, of course: was it Reagan or JR Ewing? The most correct answer is “Yes.” The percentages are definitely in Reagan’s favor, but giving him all the credit is like saying John F. Kennedy got us to the Moon. He would certainly appear in any documentaries on the subject, but it certainly wasn’t a solo flight.

Nov 10, 2009 - 8:12 pm 24. Steve Ducharme:

Sorry Jon but while a lot of political shifts are products of shifting tides this wasn’t one of them.

What Kennedy did was to take advantage of a political climate to set the nation on a particular course of action. While his leadership was obviously nothing to be sneezed at, he obviously didn’t “engineer” the moon landing.

While Reagan did delegate there is no denying that he was in fact the chief engineer of the fall of communism. He was not a figure head setting goals. He was the chief architect of what turned out to me a masterful plan. Were circumstances favorable. Sure they were. but blue jeans an Dallas alone would not have slowed communism for another 20 to 30 years at best

Nov 10, 2009 - 10:04 pm 25. jon:

I doubt Reagan was the chief engineer. For decades, the United States (and allies, though I’m using the American Jingo “we” to mostly mean us, accurately,) and the Soviet Union (et cetera) were in a race for technology, energy, sea supremacy, and money. For decades, we fought them in every little podunk nation and region of the globe through subsidies, foreign aid, and occasional fighting. For decades, we challenged them while trying not to have a hot war. There were setbacks and truces in Cuba and Vietnam. But there were victories in more places and more places that mattered: Turkey and Greece, Iran (until 1979,) most of Central and South America, and elsewhere. The Wall was the beginning of the Soviet Union’s defeat, a pre-emptive defensive stance when we didn’t have to have done much to go on the offensive other than be ourselves. The Soviets lost the culture war from the get-go, lost the “have a better life” argument, and it just took a long time and a lot of shooting of their own side’s people before it all collapsed upon itself.

Reagan had a lot to do with it, but history is inconvenient when people try to make heroes of people who pretty much had the luck of a cumulative effort pushing their greatness along. Still, Reagan had a lot to do with it and is a hero. Reagan himself knew this, which is why he had the grace to not say “In your face!”

The lesson of our victory is one of economic might and a willingness to help those who we could help, which is the same way we won World War Two, fought China to a draw in Korea, fought so long in Vietnam, and funded the efforts of complete kiesterholes in places like Chile, Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, sometimes our victories created more problems than our losses. But mostly because when we won, we won for the long term. As with all campaigns, there were setbacks and mistakes, moments when we wondered if we could win, moments of victory spoiled by the realization that the whole thing would still take years, and suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, victory. And then the realization that winning requires as much diplomacy and tact and tactics as did the conflict itself. The Old Soviet Union is gone now, but the new Russia isn’t our friend. Germany is free and unified, Poland is emerging as a power in Europe, and Russia still sits upon a lot of natural resources that we were once glad they didn’t exploit and Europe will both regret and enjoy in the future. The world is in a better place, thanks to Reagan, et al.

Nov 11, 2009 - 5:36 am 26. The Mad Parson » The Currency Of Freedom:

[...] Dumpty somehow and finally got his revenge. No, women and men impassioned by the fire of liberty tore it down. And in doing so, they fanned those very [...]

Nov 11, 2009 - 9:19 am 27. Alan K. Henderson:

I have a question: what prodded Gorby to dump the Brezhnev Doctrine, the policy that the Soviets would militarily intervene in any Warsaw Pact nation that strays too far from Communism?

(The Doctrine was formally announced after it was applied to Czechoslovakia in 1968.)

Nov 11, 2009 - 5:34 pm 28. jon:

I think the thing that prodded him was the realization that he didn’t give a crap about East Germany when he had bigger troubles in West Moscow.

Nov 11, 2009 - 5:38 pm 29. Steve Ducharme:

Jon I’m sorry but I find your latest response to be a gibberish filled conglomeration of confused and incorrect facts. You CLEARLY were not really paying attention during the mid 80’s. You clearly don’t recall Reagan one upping the Soviets dollar for dollar for dollar on military spending until the weight of that spending finally broke them.

You clearly don’t remember Gorbachev looking the fool in Reykjavik, abandoning the Soviet doctrine due to the brutal economic strain of trying to keep up ,militarily. Ypu clearly don’t remember Star Wars? It wasn’t scientifically feasible at that time and Reagan knew it but he also knew that merely pursuing it would force the already cash strapped Soviets to follow. You don’t remember the role of Thatcher? Havel? John Paul? Things that wnt on in Granada, Afghanistan? Poland? His military build up. The 600 ship navy? Intermediate Range missiles all over Europe? modernized Bombers? etc.. etc..

I’m not going to continue the tit-for tat on this and frankly I feel like I’m either being suckered by a troll or spending energy educating someone who really doesn’t want to know.

Lets Agree to disagree. Tomato / tamato whatever…

But if you’re really serious about this then I leave you with this my last comment / food for thought on the subject.

If by some bizarro universe twist of fate, Jimmy Carter had defeated Ronald Reagan, do you honestly believe that communism in eastern Europe would have ended (or even weakened) under his watch? If your answer is yes, if you can even fathom a possible scenario whereas the Berlin wall comes down during (or soon after) a Carter presidency then our conversation has no further point. You go ahead and enjoy the view of whatever color sky you have in your world.

See you in another post I’m sure.

Nov 11, 2009 - 9:07 pm 30. jon:

Communism fell in Eastern Europe under Bush’s watch, not Reagan’s. Star Wars and incredibly-enhanced military spending was Reagan’s legacy, but the reason the Soviets couldn’t keep up was because of a cumulative effort of decades of a Cold War that we were winning even without military victories: our people were prosperous, theirs weren’t, our people were happy, theirs weren’t, and our people had hope for the future, theirs didn’t. Dallas, Reagan not wearing an enormous fur hat in Reykjavik, blue jeans, the draft (which we didn’t have, but they needed desperately,) plenty, fun, cheap oil, smiles, and so forth broke a will among the already broken. The Cold War didn’t last just eight years, nor was it won in that few.

In a similar vein, Eisenhower didn’t win World War Two. It wouldn’t have been won without what he did, but to give him all the credit would be to ignore the efforts of millions. Plus, someone else could have done what he did. Bradley could have done what Eisenhower did, and (I really am going to say this because I believe it) Carter could have been there at the fall of the Berlin Wall. Though it would probably have been Walter Mondale, who would have dressed much more like Gorby, but topped with a Minnesota Vikings tuke. Jack Kemp would’ve been so pissed.

Nov 12, 2009 - 5:33 am 31. jon:

And now for something not completely different: http://www.thelocal.de/society/20091105-23041.html

Nov 13, 2009 - 5:12 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.