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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

and yes…

I’m kidding.

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.

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

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.

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

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 -

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.