"Tear down this wall!"

[southsider2k5]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...=rss-topstories

 

The four most famous words of Ronald Reagan's Presidency almost were never uttered.

 

The TIME 100

 

Twenty years ago, on the morning of June 12, 1987, Reagan arrived in Berlin, on the occasion of the city's 750th birthday. He was scheduled to speak on the western side of the Brandenburg Gate, for years the city's symbolic dividing line. His speechwriters had drafted an address intended as much for Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom Reagan was forging a close relationship, as for the 20,000 people who gathered to hear him speak. In the speech, Reagan would call on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but that language was opposed strongly by Reagan's National Security Council and the State Department, who feared it would be used by hardliners in the Kremlin to discredit Gorbachev. When the President's entourage arrived in Berlin, Reagan's team was still arguing over the final wording. State and NSC submitted yet another draft of the speech. But in the limousine ride to the Wall, Reagan told his deputy chief of staff, Kenneth Duberstein, that he intended to issue the fateful challenge to Gorbachev. "It's the right thing to do," he said.

 

Two decades later, what can we learn from the epochal events that followed — the fall of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany and the collapse of the Soviet Union? "People were afraid of the consequences of what Reagan would say," George Shultz, Reagan's long-serving Secretary of State, told me over lunch in Berlin last week. "But it turns out he was right." We were sitting in an elegant dining room overlooking the city, in a building that sits on the former border between east and west Berlin. "Saying something like, 'Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall' — that could be perceived as provocative. Things were breaking and were in a lot of flux. At the time some people argued, why stick your finger in [Gorbachev's] nose? But knowing Ronald Reagan as I did, I would have said don't bother. He was going to express his feelings."

 

When Reagan climbed the dais, just before 2 p.m., two bulletproof panes of glass stood behind him, to protect against snipers who might target him from the east. Earlier in the day Reagan had looked across the wall into east Berlin from a balcony of the Reichstag. He later said that his forceful tone had been influenced by his learning that East German police had forced people away from the wall to prevent them from hearing his speech over the loudspeakers. As the crowd fell quiet, Reagan began his address with signature folksiness. The main speechwriter, Peter Robinson, wanted Reagan to disarm the audience at the start, so he slipped a German line into the speech's opening. "Like many Presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin." I still have a suitcase in Berlin.

 

At the time, the Soviet news agency TASS called Reagan's visit to the Wall "openly provocative, war-mongering." But listen closely to a recording of it today: the speech sounds as much like an invitation as it does a challenge. "There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace," Reagan says. As he goes on, you hear scattered claps and hollers. "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate!" Reagan says. The crowd starts to erupt. "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate!" At this point, 20,000 Berliners are cheering Reagan on. In his diary, published last month, Reagan wrote, "I addressed tens & tens of thousands of people — stretching as far as I could see. I got a tremendous reception — interrupted 28 times by cheers."

 

For all its drama, the speech received relatively little media coverage. Compared to the younger, more vigorous Gorbachev, Reagan seemed to be a diminished figure on the world stage, a lame-duck President hobbled by the Iran-Contra scandal at home. But in hindsight, the "Tear Down this Wall" speech helps explain how the Cold War ended. Unlike many conservatives, Reagan believed that the U.S.-Soviet arms race was not immutable, and that the rivalry between East and West that had defined the Cold War could be defused through diplomacy and persuasion. In Gorbachev, he found a partner with whom he could do business. And in the people of eastern Europe, including those gathered at the Brandenburg Gate that day in June, he found an audience ready to take history into their hands. On this point, Shultz says, "for anyone who came and looked at the Wall, you couldn't help but say, Tear Down this Wall. That was your instinctive reaction to it. It was just something that shouldn't be there."

 

Toward the end of our lunch, I asked Shultz, now 86, what lessons the world can draw from the Reagan speech at a time when the U.S. and its allies are struggling to contain the new threat of militant Islam. "President Reagan had the idea that change could happen," Shultz says. "That put him at odds with establishment thinking, which had embraced détente and assumed change would not happen. To them, you had two systems that would go on forever; peaceful coexistence was the objective. Reagan assumed change was possible and I thought so too. Your mindset makes a big difference on this. As you look at the world of Islam, you have to ask yourself, is change possible? I think it is, but we have to work on it in all sorts of ways. During the Cold War, for instance, we had major Russian research centers at universities all over the country. That's a first step. But there's nothing like that going on now. The world of Islam varies tremendously. We should try to understand all of these variations and then we want to hone our messages to appeal to different audiences. There are a lot of things we can do if we work at it, but you have to do it in a serious, thoughtful way."

 

Shultz says that he believes that "President Bush is trying to establish a sense of direction, but he's having a hard time doing it, and one reason is the fact we're so bogged down in Iraq." On Iran, I asked whether the Administration should consider negotiating directly with the ruling mullahs in Tehran, as Reagan did with the Soviets. "I think we should figure out a way to communicate," he says. "We've seen the beginning of that in the recent meeting in Baghdad. When you have two ambassadors meet in high-publicity setting it's not likely to produce much. But anyway, it's still meeting."

 

Later that evening, Shultz would deliver a speech of his own at an event hosted by the American Academy in Berlin, marking the 20th anniversary of the Reagan address. As our plates were being cleared, I asked why Tear Down this Wall remains more resonant than any of the thousands of Presidential speeches delivered in the two decades since Reagan went to Berlin. Shultz sipped some green tea. "It's become famous, first of all, because what he called for happened. If you look back to the day after the speech, or the month after, I don't think it was written about that much. But it got big reverberations once the Wall came down and people looked back at Reagan's speech and remembered that it was controversial at the time to say that. That goes back to what I was saying earlier, about the difference between containment, as it was set out originally by George Kennan, and detente, as it had come to be accepted and on which Reagan turned his back."

 

Shultz went on. "I guess the point I'm making here is that ideas matter a lot, the underlying ideas that stand behind policies. When you don't have ideas, your policies are flip-flopping all over the place. When you do have ideas, you have more consistency. And when you have the right ideas — then you can get somewhere." Reagan had the right ideas.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Meh, Roger Waters beat him to it by almost 20 years.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[mreye]

Reagan told his deputy chief of staff, Kenneth Duberstein, that he intended to issue the fateful challenge to Gorbachev. "It's the right thing to do," he said.

 

I wish we had legislators like that nowadays. Or at least a media that gave them some face time.

 

Thanks for posting, Mike. I've got the speech on one of my Reagan biography DVDs. Maybe I'll watch it tonight.

[southsider2k5]

I wish we had legislators like that nowadays. Or at least a media that gave them some face time.

 

Thanks for posting, Mike. I've got the speech on one of my Reagan biography DVDs. Maybe I'll watch it tonight.

 

We have people like that now, just not in higher offices... Now adays they are labeled as "unelectable" and never get too far because they upset people.

[mreye]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7OcVEvG4L9Y

[Gregory Pratt]

George W. Bush does things just because he believes it's "The Right Thing to Do."

Bin Laden does it.

Paris Hilton...doesn't.

 

But the point is, people do "the right thing" very, very often in high office. It's not always the right thing, but they believe so. Not always, but it is more often than you think.

 

I love Reagan's four famous words. I admire Reagan in a lot of ways.

[knightni]

[GoSox05]

First, I can't understand how Reagan gets credit for the fall of the USSR. Its well documented that the USSR was self imploding. Gorbachev had been bringing about changes. The best part is that the USA and Reagan wanted the USSR to fall to so bad and than when it does. They do nothing to help the countries out and are now a large reason why there is fear of missing bombs.

 

Second, Ronald Reagan was a criminal. His dirty war in Central America was one of the worst things a U.S president has ever done. It was dirty, it was murder. His morning in America, christian craziness was something that not even George Bush can compete with.

 

I hope that in time Ronnie will be looked upon like he should. Like a war criminal.

Edited June 22, 2007 by GoSox05

[kapkomet]

First, I can't understand how Reagan gets credit for the fall of the USSR. Its well documented that the USSR was self imploding. Gorbachev had been bringing about changes. The best part is that the USA and Reagan wanted the USSR to fall to so bad and than when it does. They do nothing to help the countries out and are now a large reason why there is fear of missing bombs.

 

Second, Ronald Reagan was a criminal. His dirty war in Central America was one of the worst things a U.S president has ever done. It was dirty, it was murder. His morning in America, christian craziness was something that not even George Bush can compete with.

 

I hope that in time Ronnie will be looked upon like he should. Like a war criminal.

 

That's hysterical. You should be in comedy.

[Balta1701]

Which is the bigger mistake; underestimating the contribution Mr. Reagan did have to the downfall of the Soviet Union, or overestimating it?

[GoSox05]

 

That's hysterical. You should be in comedy.

 

 

 

There's nothing funny about it. Do you call it a joke because you can't deny it or do you not have a clue to what I'm talking about?

 

 

If want to defend Reagan than go ahead, but if you can't than don't leave dumb posts because you aren't educated on the subject.

 

Which is the bigger mistake; underestimating the contribution Mr. Reagan did have to the downfall of the Soviet Union, or overestimating it?

 

 

overestimating it by far. It brings a cult of personality to a person who desrves the complete opposite. People tend to look at America - good, Soviet Union - bad. Its a simple look at a very complex matter.

 

Reagan brought us this fear that the Soviet Union was the evil empire and that we would be nuked any second. Which we find out years later, we're lies. Reagan may have been responsible for the USSR falling in the fact that he out spent them on arms, but by doing so he put the U.S in the poor house too.

 

Americans fear of communism is just insane. People we're so afraid of communists taking over the world, they didnt notice the Anti-communists already did.

[kapkomet]

There's nothing funny about it. Do you call it a joke because you can't deny it or do you not have a clue to what I'm talking about?

If want to defend Reagan than go ahead, but if you can't than don't leave dumb posts because you aren't educated on the subject.

I can't defend anything...

 

. Again.

 

I absolutely have a clue of what you're talking about, and there's a conspiracy theory for everything. On the scheme of things, Iran-Contra (which is what you're alluding to, more or less) didn't ever really totally support the accuasations that were thrown about by the left. I agree that there were some thread of issues, but it certainly doesn't rise to the "criminal" crap you're throwing around - at least that was outright proven.

 

As far as why he gets credit for the collapse of the USSR, learn some history about the economic policies of the time. That's at least a start to the answer.

 

But, as usual, I'm sure anything positive about any evil pissant Republican is all lies anyway... so go on talking about the half truths as you see them.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I just saw your reply. You have to look at things in perspective, about the spending. It wasn't just defense spending... it was a lot of factors.

[GoSox05]

I can't defend anything...

 

. Again.

 

I absolutely have a clue of what you're talking about, and there's a conspiracy theory for everything. On the scheme of things, Iran-Contra (which is what you're alluding to, more or less) didn't ever really totally support the accuasations that were thrown about by the left. I agree that there were some thread of issues, but it certainly doesn't rise to the "criminal" crap you're throwing around - at least that was outright proven.

 

As far as why he gets credit for the collapse of the USSR, learn some history about the economic policies of the time. That's at least a start to the answer.

 

But, as usual, I'm sure anything positive about any evil pissant Republican is all lies anyway... so go on talking about the half truths as you see them.

Edit: I just saw your reply. You have to look at things in perspective, about the spending. It wasn't just defense spending... it was a lot of factors.

 

 

 

This is no conspiracy theory bulls***. Ronald Reagan helped fund a dirty war in Houndras and Nicaragua. They backed a brutal Hondruas goverment that oppresed its people. He helped fund a contra army by selling arms to Iran and drug traficking. The Contras we're terrorists that were US trained. They raped women and childern. They set off bombs in civilans area.

 

There were a number of people including Reagans national security advisor John Poindexter. That we're charged. For Reagan not to know what was going on down there, he would have to be insane.

 

In the end some 30,000 people we're killed.

 

It has nothing to do with repulicans. Jimmy Carter was guilty in a many ways on the same issue.

 

As far as the USSR goes, what economic polices? Arms race?

[kapkomet]

This is no conspiracy theory bulls***. Ronald Reagan helped fund a dirty war in Houndras and Nicaragua. They backed a brutal Hondruas goverment that oppresed its people. He helped fund a contra army by selling arms to Iran and drug traficking. The Contras we're terrorists that were US trained. They raped women and childern. They set off bombs in civilans area.

 

There were a number of people including Reagans national security advisor John Poindexter. That we're charged. For Reagan not to know what was going on down there, he would have to be insane.

 

In the end some 30,000 people we're killed.

 

It has nothing to do with repulicans. Jimmy Carter was guilty in a many ways on the same issue.

 

As far as the USSR goes, what economic polices? Arms race?

The falling of the USSR had a little to do with defense spending, but it also had a lot to do with monetary policy of the time and commodities pricing - trade barriers, etc. There were all sorts of things that went into play.

 

And again, there was little in the way of hard core facts on Iran-Contra - there were some things that I disagree with, but the majority of the claims are unfounded.

[Balta1701]

As far as the USSR goes, what economic polices? Arms race?

An awful lot of Reagan policies helped in the matter. SDI, whether effective or not, played a big part in potentially eliminating the Russian ICBM stockpile's usefulness. Reagan's arms buildup left the Soviets unable to keep pace without destroying their economy. The U.S. support of the Afghan fighters, esp. with the Stinger, bled the Russians just like Vietnam bled the U.S. And turning around and negotiating after all the buildup, without making the mistake of war, gave the Russians a way out that helped crack everything.

 

I wouldn't underestimate at all the effectiveness of 40 years of the containment system outlined by Truman, or the actions of any number of presidents, but I also wouldn't underestimate the job of the Reagan admin. in actually pulling the coup de gras and finishing the job.

[GoSox05]

The falling of the USSR had a little to do with defense spending, but it also had a lot to do with monetary policy of the time and commodities pricing - trade barriers, etc. There were all sorts of things that went into play.

 

And again, there was little in the way of hard core facts on Iran-Contra - there were some things that I disagree with, but the majority of the claims are unfounded.

 

 

I think that "Blood on the Border" is an excellent book on the subject about Central America. It was written by Roxanne Dunbar Ortix who is a leftist for sure, by she does a pretty good job of staying out of the politics and just reporting the facts.

 

 

I'm sure there were trade barriers and other such blockades on the USSR. I just happen to find that most of them hurt the people of the country more than the goverment. For example Cuba and Iraq.

 

An awful lot of Reagan policies helped in the matter. SDI, whether effective or not, played a big part in potentially eliminating the Russian ICBM stockpile's usefulness. Reagan's arms buildup left the Soviets unable to keep pace without destroying their economy. The U.S. support of the Afghan fighters, esp. with the Stinger, bled the Russians just like Vietnam bled the U.S. And turning around and negotiating after all the buildup, without making the mistake of war, gave the Russians a way out that helped crack everything.

 

I wouldn't underestimate at all the effectiveness of 40 years of the containment system outlined by Truman, or the actions of any number of presidents, but I also wouldn't underestimate the job of the Reagan admin. in actually pulling the coup de gras and finishing the job.

 

The whole Afghan was another one of Reagans huge mistakes. The USSR invaded Afganistan to help the goverment against the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen were heavly funded by Ronald Reagan. We all know the famous person that was spawned from the Mujahideen.

Edited June 22, 2007 by GoSox05

[Balta1701]

The whole Afghan was another one of Reagans huge mistakes. The USSR invaded Afganistan to help the goverment against the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen were heavly funded by Ronald Reagan. We all know the famouse person that was spawned from the Mujahideen.

Well, the question of course is...was the original problem that we funded the Afghan fighters, or was the problem that we totally ignored any efforts to rebuild that country in the early and mid 90's which allowed Afghanistan to fall into failed state territory?

[kapkomet]

Well, the question of course is...was the original problem that we funded the Afghan fighters, or was the problem that we totally ignored any efforts to rebuild that country in the early and mid 90's which allowed Afghanistan to fall into failed state territory?

Now THAT was the problem with Afghanistan, IMO.

[Balta1701]

Now THAT was the problem with Afghanistan, IMO.

Seriously, how often do you and I get to agree in a thread?

[kapkomet]

I think that "Blood on the Border" is an excellent book on the subject about Central America. It was written by Roxanne Dunbar Ortix who is a leftist for sure, by she does a pretty good job of staying out of the politics and just reporting the facts.

I'm sure there were trade barriers and other such blockades on the USSR. I just happen to find that most of them hurt the people of the country more than the goverment. For example Cuba and Iraq.

 

*sigh*. Ok... Cuba's people could have a LOT of money, if the government chose to allow capitalistic concepts to run through. Fidel likes his money just fine, thank you. So does Hugo Chavez in Venzuela, but I digress.

 

So, as usual, it's the United States' fault that Cuba, Iraq, and the USSR in the Communist times sucked so bad. Nice.

 

 

Seriously, how often do you and I get to agree in a thread?

Not often.

 

You know, it might surprise you that we have more things in common then you would think. NSS72 knows all my secrets now. Just ask him.

 

I know I throw a lot of hyperbole out there on a lot of topics, but the extremes are almost always somewhere in the middle.

[GoSox05]

*sigh*. Ok... Cuba's people could have a LOT of money, if the government chose to allow capitalistic concepts to run through. Fidel likes his money just fine, thank you. So does Hugo Chavez in Venzuela, but I digress.

 

So, as usual, it's the United States' fault that Cuba, Iraq, and the USSR in the Communist times sucked so bad. Nice.

Not often.

 

You know, it might surprise you that we have more things in common then you would think. NSS72 knows all my secrets now. Just ask him.

 

I know I throw a lot of hyperbole out there on a lot of topics, but the extremes are almost always somewhere in the middle.

 

 

Well I almost always blame America first. We're an Empire its what we do. We f*** with other nations.

 

I like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. I don't apologize for it like most wussy democrats.

Edited June 22, 2007 by GoSox05

[kapkomet]

Well I almost always blame America first. We're an Empire its what we do. We f*** with other nations.

 

I like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. I don't apologize for it like most wussy democrats.

Oh, so back to my other comments in the other thread I just made... you hate life, and now it's America's fault for not giving you a chance, eh?

 

Until you realize that you have the power to change your circumstances, then don't cry about how unfair America is.

[GoSox05]

Oh, so back to my other comments in the other thread I just made... you hate life, and now it's America's fault for not giving you a chance, eh?

 

Until you realize that you have the power to change your circumstances, then don't cry about how unfair America is.

 

 

Don't tell me I hate life. You don't know me. Its not about America giving me a chance. Ive given myself chances. But Some people are never given a chance. Some foriegn countries arent given the chance to suceed because America rams its policies down there throats.

 

I dont cry about whats going on. I dont sit around and armchair QB.

[kapkomet]

Don't tell me I hate life. You don't know me. Its not about America giving me a chance. Ive given myself chances. But Some people are never given a chance. Some foriegn countries arent given the chance to suceed because America rams its policies down there throats.

 

I dont cry about whats going on. I dont sit around and armchair QB.

But you have, repeatedly, with your posts today.

 

I need to go rip off people and earn my wages, I guess. Bye!

[mr_genius]

Its well documented that the USSR was self imploding.

 

Impossible, communism is perfect. Just imagine the amazing documentaries Michael Moore could do on the perfect communal paradise that was the Soviet Union!

 

I wouldn't underestimate at all the effectiveness of 40 years of the containment system outlined by Truman, or the actions of any number of presidents