End of French-Dominated Europe in Sight?

Forbes ^ | December 24, 2003 | Paul Johnson

[americanbychoice]

Sorry Michael, The one Person who had more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union than anyone else, was REAGAN.

[Michael81Dus]

And I´m sorry that I have to refuse your apology. You are wrong. Certainly Reagan was one important player, but not one of the most important. History has decided, and it were not Reagan walking through the Brandenburg Gate or having celebrated the end of the SU in 1991 as a US President...

[Michael81Dus]

Well, he was my nations Chancellor, wasn´t he? It wasn´t that bad at all that the left here got a chance to govern, and he couldn´t do much wrong, because the most important decisions regarding W Europes security were made before his time.

Sure, he had a GDR-spy in his rows. However, that didn´t affect his decisions - only those of the GDR/Soviet leaders, lol. On a scale between +5 /-5 Brandt would get a +0,5, while Schröder would receive a -3,0. At least there´s no nuclear war right now and we´re still in NATO. ;-)

[americanbychoice]

tHE ONLY REASON rEAGAN DIDN'T WALK THROUGH THE bRANDENBURG GATE WAS THAT HE WASN'T PRESIDENT ANYMORE. wHAT HE DID WAS PLACE THE COLLAPSE AND THE uNIFICATION ON aUTOPILOT PRIOR TO HIM LEAVING. nO ONE ELSE CAN TAKE CREDIT FOR THIS, EXCEPT IN A SMALLER WAY gORBATCHEW.

[Michael81Dus]

I disagree. It was not an automanism. It could have went a completely different way, just like violent oppression of the uncontent people - like they did in 1953. Crushed economy does not mean the fall of a system. It is an automatism in democratic societies (just look at Schröders polls), but it is not in oppressive regimes. Look at N Korea!

[desertcry]

You're correct, a strong and a lasting Union can't be forged with hot air, it can only be done with blood and guts.

[Prodigal Son]

Certainly Reagan was one important player, but not one of the most important.

Michael, what's up with this? The Russians themselves admit that Reagan's policies broke them. This is not to say that others were not involved and do not have credit coming to them. But to say that Reagan was not one of the most important players in this respect is just not correct.

[Prodigal Son]

What is that with you Freepers that you think that Reagan managed the end of the Cold War by himself??

Nobody says this. There were many many people and different American Presidents that contributed. We are all aware of this. 'Ich bin ein Berliner' anyone? Do you think this is lost on anybody here? The Berlin airlift was also a key moment.

And I would remind you that you are a Freeper as well. So, it isn't 'you Freepers'. You are one of us. Don't create a dichotomy where one need not exist... It just isn't wise. It is better to discuss matters where we agree. This is what friendship and alliance is all about. Focusing on our differences is a recipe for more disagreement. You are a Freeper too.

[americanbychoice]

You are confusing theory with fact again.

[Neophyte]

History has decided...

Historical determinism, or the idea that history somehow has a natural ("scientific") direction of its own, is an old Marxian fallacy. History doesn't decide anything, people do.

And Reagan was not only one of such people, in the case of the coup de grace dealt to the Soviet system he was DA MAN.

It wasn´t that bad at all that the left here got a chance to govern.

Ever after the WW II the Left were the real elite of West Germany, with a status similar to that of aristocracy of the time of Frederich the Great. Their very specific, German kind of Marxism was regarded as true polar opposite to Nazism.

Etablierte Linke dominates German universities, where it repoducts itself and populates the offices of the country with its disciples whose main political task is to uproot 'reactionary ideas', that is any conservative or right wing ones.

You see, they still believe in Germany that Nazism and fascism were extreme right movements. In reality however they were... er, read my tag-line.

[Michael81Dus]

Sometimes I tend to believe that American Freepers pay not much respect to JFK...

Again Matthew, the three most important people for the end of the Cold War were Gorbatchov, Bush and Kohl. Reagan had no influence on the break-down of the Communist Empire when it crushed.

Today, I believe that it were lots of luck that the end came so soon, and I don´t think that reunification could have happened sooner than it did, so all did a great job. But fact is, that most of the credit goes to the three (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m4PRN/2003_June_18/103579602/p1/article.jhtml).

I understand that most of you have had hard times during his presidency (because of the leftist propaganda against him), but still it ain´t correct to say that Reagan was the main player. He set signs, of course, but he didn´t earn the fruits. The work during the harvest was made by the three.

Have a great day,

Michael

[Michael81Dus]

Historical determinism, or the idea that history somehow has a natural ("scientific") direction of its own, is an old Marxian fallacy. History doesn't decide anything, people do.

Of course, history cannot change the past. But he who controls the history holds the key to the future (Orwell). People learn, don´t they? We learn by judging actions of the past in the present. That´s what we´re doing in this case, too.

We´re judging Reagans policy of the past TODAY. And we must come to the conclusion that many factors were decisive for the end of the Soviet Union. If it were not for Gorbatchov, the Communist Empire could still exist - because of a bloody oppression of its people. Economic collapse doesn´t mean political collapse.

I was a child during Reagans presidency, I´ve only heard from TV and books of his presidency and the criticism he faced by the Left.

By admitting that he was not the main player in the end of the soviet empire, which is a matter-of-course because he wasn´t in office then, you are in no way giving him less credit than he deserves. We can say that the Soviet Union would not have fallen so fast if it were not for Reagan. But we can also say that the Soviet Union still could exist if it were not for Gorbatchov and Bush.

Ever after the WW II the Left were the real elite of West Germany, with a status similar to that of aristocracy of the time of Frederich the Great.

Hardly. Adenauer ruled for 14 years, that was longer than Hitler reigned. Until the 70´s, the Conservative-Liberal people had a structural majority in our society.

Etablierte Linke

They´ve NOW lots of power here, but not back in Adenauers times.

My personal theory regarding extreme left and extreme right is that we can view the political ideas as a circle. Let´s say those who want the most freedom (pure capitalism, no state authority, anarchism) are at 360°. Then those who want most of state control, the totally socialist/communist state are at 180°. I´d say that the Left and extreme Right would be at 200° respectively 160°, and the normal Democrats/Republicans are at ca. 335-350° respectively 10-25°. Well, this is just my idea on how to deal with the terms Left/Right. In the end, both (extreme "right" and extreme "left") want the state to control it all - and the state would be governed by a few dictators.

[Michael81Dus]

I´m blind. Lead me to the light!

[Prodigal Son]

Well, you might want to tell this to the Soviets because they believe Reagan broke them. Also, Bush Sr was not in power that long- think about it. He took power in Jan 89. But the eight years of Reagan before himm were instrumental to bringing down the wall. George Bush never said 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall' and it was not Bush that was meeting with Gorbie on Iceland.

I don't see how you can figure that Reagan had less to do with something than Bush did when Bush hardly had time to do anything at all.

[americanbychoice]

I don't think you are blind, you just have to open your eyes and your mind.
Do you believe the Soviet Union went broke over night?
Why did the Soviet Union go Broke?
Did Germany embrace the fact thet when the Soviet Union aimed nuclear weapons at Germany, Reagan stationed Pershings in Germany?
Who said "Mr. Gorbchachew, tear down that wall"?
What was Germany's contribution, other than protests, towards the fall of the Soviets?
Exactly what did Kohl contribute(not just rhetoric) ?

[nkycincinnatikid]

Reagan is my greatest political hero , going back to 1964 when I immersed myself in the Goldwater campaign. As a high school activist I saw him speak several times and even got to shake his hand at Freedom hall in L'ville in 1967 or 68. But truth to tell Reagan could not put the Pershings in Europe without the consent of the German people. The willingness of a physically small, densely populated nation to accept the role of the cold wars nuclear battlefield was an astonishing accomplishment by that nations political leadership. The protests that you mention were as I recall ,even larger in England at the time, and happened here in the Us as well. And how quickly we forget that it was Kohl who wrote the mind boggling checks on the German treasury to pack up the Russian divisions and finally send them back to old Muscovy.

[Michael81Dus]

We are talking about perceptions, opinions. Not a good thing to have an arguement about. For me, it were the three great men who are responsible for the fast end of European Communism. It could have taken much more time, and again: economy is not decisive for the end of political regimes, it´s important, sure, but not decisive.

[Michael81Dus]

I am not going to discuss you the achievements of Germanyn regarding the end of European Communism, and even the important East German demonstrations for freedom. Do you think that Reagan had the right to do what he wanted with Germany? Heck, if the Left had been in power here, Germany would have become a nuclear-free zone, and the wall would probably still divide the city of Berlin, the nation, the Europen continent, and the planet.

If economy were decisive for the crush of regimes, why is N Korea still communist? Why isn´t Cuba free at all?

[americanbychoice]

You are still up? It should be bedtime?:)
I guess I will answer those questions I posed for you.
The Soviet Union collapsed mainly because of Reagans Military spending . They saw that they could not keep up and the country became poorer and poorer. In the foreseeable future there would have been a revolution.
When the Soviet Union disintegrated was not in '89, but many years prior to that. East German protests came long after that.
I am not saying that Kohl wasn't an enabler toward that noble cause, yes, he was. But his influence on the international stage was rather limited. After the collapse, it was "KOHL TIME".
In this case, military spending, causing an economic collapse was the nemesis of the Soviet Union.
You can't even compare N. Korea and Cuba. They are so isolated that very little is known by the general public. "Knowledge is strength" for an oppressed People.

[americanbychoice]

Your reasoning is that of a Judge sentencing a murderer and then taking credit for the apprehension, trial and conviction himself.
Apprehension would have been done by law enforcement, trial by prosecutors, judgement by a Jury and pronouncement by the Judge.
In my opinion Kohl was like the Judge in this situation.