Jericho, Berlin, Belfast, and other great walls in history

Why don't you just come out and say it. Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski, along with the Pope and Lech Walesa brought down the Evil Empire. Ronnie just slept through it.

Fascinating stories about the fall of the Berlin Wall. Who would have thought that Gorbechev would come along in history and declare in a U.N. speech that he pledged to give up the Soviet's dedication to class struggle and instead focus on universal human needs?

Fortunately for all of us, he had the insight and courage to do this. He also had to, as he faced the reality of the bankruptcy of the Soviet Empire. People no longer cared about ideology -- if they ever did -- and instead insisted on any change that would put food on their plates.

I remember as a child in the '50s being terrified of the Russians. In 1991 I went to Romania to work in an orphanage and was shocked to see how poor and backward the country was and realize that the Soviet's superiority was a big fraud. It was a Wizard of Oz moment pulling back the curtain to see who the scary guy really was.

Having seen the very formidable Berlin Wall in 1966 and the impossibility then of it ever coming down, I now know that if a barrier like that can come down, anything is possible. We can stop war, we can be proper stewards of the planet, we can end human suffering, we can protect other species. We can wake up, we can do the right thing.

Jane Iddings, Blogger, humansideofconflict.com, growupnow.info, barackobamarealmaturity.com

WOW another America had nothing to do with it story it was all the work of others. America BAD everyone else GOOD. Stuff it

I was an intelligence analyst during the Berlin-wall days (1961-1970) and over the years came to believe that the Soviets were depicted as hugely more of a threat than they were. We would have overhead photography, for example, of military exercises and would be astounded at how many tanks and APC's and logistical vehicles broke down and would remain just sitting and rusting for weeks afterwards. Over a period of time you cane to realize that the people in the Soviet army were farm boys who were technologically in over their heads with anything more sophisticated than a horse. Submarines caught fire. Soviet ships were identified by analysis of their numerous dents. Aircraft were never sent out with full fuel loads for fear of defections. Crops were left to rot in the fields because there were no combines. Steel was shuffled from rolling mills back to be re-melted because it was of so poor quality it was unusable. And you started to realize that the whole system was just a corrupt mess that was more coverup and smoke and mirrors than actual functioning government.

One of the reasons that I left intelligence was that this was becoming the predominant view among younger intelligence analysts and there was a general feeling that there would soon be a purge of the intelligence community to support the view that the Soviets were a huge technologically and economically advanced threat. Sure enough, when Carter came along, the intelligence was purged of the "rusty tank" analysts. And there was another larger purge under Reagan to support the "600-ship navy."

I think a log of this sort of think kept us from seeing a lot of handwriting on a lot of walls.

Jane Iddings, thanks for a terrific post! In response to the article, I don't think the importance of the role Gorbachev and Nemeth and others can be overemphasized as the authors would suggest. But I think it is typical to minimize the credit given to Reagan, Thatcher, the west, and the Vatican. These players did not bring down the Berlin Wall. But they did create the environment that led Gorbachev to his conclusions that continued struggle was pointless.

America was showing a resolve to match and beat the Soviets in every measure of military preparedness. They had shown no such resolve under Carter and Ford. At a time when western elites were thinking socialism "was the way to go" Reagan and Thatcher bucked this trend by privatizing much and letting our economies take off. We could spend 6% of our GDP on the military and best them even when spending 25% of their GDP.

If the pope and western leaders had taken a more appeasing, accommodating viewpoint or shown any indicating they believed in the principles of socialism, Gorbachev and the leaders of Eastern Europe may well have made different decisions. For this reason, I believe they deserve credit as well.

I disagree that Reagan had nothing to do with it, in fact I feel that his arms buld up was the final nail in the coffin of Soviet Union. They were always trying to out build the West militarily since the end of the Second World War. What if they didn't need to make new tanks, planes and ships, do you think their economy would have fallen apart? I don't think so. Where does Jimmy Carter fit into all of this? He really didn't do anything for the military until his last year as president. At that point I think it was clear to him that the armed forces had suffered enough and he was ready to spend some money on them.

Except for the fact that the USSR never increased military spending to match Reagan's buildup. In reality, Reagan's harsh rhetoric made it more difficult for Gorbachev to deal with the U.S. because it stiffened the Soviet hardliners' resolve.

I believe that in the effort to give some one individual credit the historians have forgotten the role of the internet and western television. I remember how popular western clothing became in the USSR. You could make a fortune with a trunkload of Levis jeans. The military spending was a bad idea, sure, but the desire for freedom could no longer be suppressed by propoganda and isolation. The world became so much smaller in the 80's due to instant communication. There was no way to stop it and the Gorbachev knew it. We're lucky that he was wise enough to withhold the usual crackdowns and let freedom happen. Reagan had about as much influence on the situation as Arnold Swartzenegger.

Urbnsurfr and Bobcat4424, I enjoyed both of your posts. I think most admiral and generals are going to inflate or give an enemy more credit than they deserve because they don't want their leaders to make bad decisions based on theavailable inteligence. The Russians did make some robust weapons in the Cold War era, the T-55 tank, the AK-47/AKM rifile, the Victor class submarines, and the MIG 21 fighter just to name a few. Look at the first Gulf war, the US and our allies were taking on the 3rd largest army on the planet and the Joint Chiefs planned on taking huge losses the first day of the war. They wanted the president to be aware of what was about to happen. I guess the moral of the story is you do not want to underestimate your enemies.

What a bunch of liberal nonsense. The poster who felt Jimmy Carter had anything to do with the fall of the USSR is trying to change history. Of course, Reagan didn't cause the fall of the USSR alone but he had a hand in it. His increased military spending helped push the USSR into bankruptcy and money sent from the US to the Vatican through the CIA helped. The USSR was doomed to fail because socialism and communism will never work. Where true freedom doesn't exist there can never be success.

This article is an insulting commentary masquerading as serious history. Again we hear the liberal re-hash that Reagan's Berlin speech was meaningless compared to JFK's or Obama's. And of course you have to throw in the mandatory disdain of the Catholic Church's role as "dubious". Tell that to the murdered Polish and other Eastern European priests over the decades of the Cold War. In reciting Gorbachev's "humbleness" you neglect to mention the tanks he sent into Vilnius and the murder of peaceful protesters. Despite this, I agree that Gorbachev's response overall was positive and allowed a peaceful revolution. But you say he was desperate with what he inherited but you never say what caused the desperation. It was the economic power and freedom of the West led by the United States. Then Ronald Reagan went on the offensive against communist expansion and sought to find a defense to nuclear missiles. Gorbachev himself credits Reagan in his memoirs. Newsweek has become nothing but a one-sided Keith Olberman-like magazine.

While I was a student at Texas A&M University, the site of the George H. W. Bush presidential library, the Chancellor of the then recently reunified Germany presented the former president with a portion of the Berlin Wall. It was to be placed in the library upon completion. In the presentation, the Chancellor hailed the role the United States played in the destruction of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany. Seems like a better source of information than this article.

Great article, it should be taught in all our public schools. High time to set history right instead of continuing to get it wrong for conservative politics. I'm surprised it's taken so long, Reagan being responsible for the fall of the wall was always too crazy to comprehend.

Spiveyjt,,, Keep in mind that Texas A&M can't even build bonfires without killing people