Ken Follett's opinion of the fall of Communism (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I just finished Ken Follett's latest novel, The Edge of Eternity, which is his last in a trilogy about the 20th century. The book closes with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and there is this conversation between two prominent American conservatives:

Tedder held up his glass in a toast. "The end of Communism."

"It's what we've been working toward all these years," said Cam.

Tedder shook his head skeptically. "Everything we did was completely ineffective. Despite all our efforts Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua became Communist countries. Look at other places where we tried to prevent Communism: Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Cambodia, Laos...None of them does us much credit. And now Eastern Europe is abandoning Communism with no help from us."

"All the same we should think of a way to take the credit. Or let the president take it, at least."

"Bush has been in office less than a year, and he's been behind the curve all along," Tim said. "He can't claim to have caused this: if anything, he tried to slow it down."

"Reagan, maybe?" Cam mused.

"Be sensible," said Tedder. "Reagan didn't do this. Gorbachev did it. Him and the price of oil. And the fact that Communism never really worked anyway."

"What about Star Wars?"

"A weapons system that was never going to get beyond the science fiction stage, as everyone knew, including the Soviets."

"Reagan made that speech, though. 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.' Remember?"

"I remember. Are you going to tell people that Communism collapsed because Reagan made a speech? They'll never believe that."

"Sure they will," said Cam.

Agree or disagree?

 

[DocHolliday]

How was the book? Big fan of Follet's work. Liked the Pillars trilogy more than this 20th century trilogy but still good stuff.

 

[timschochet]

How was the book? Big fan of Follet's work. Liked the Pillars trilogy more than this 20th century trilogy but still good stuff.

It's,,,about as good as the other two. Not nearly as good as the Pillars two (that's not a trilogy, only two books.) But still good overall. Does a fine job describing how terrible life was under Communism. Also there is a good subplot about a 60s rock band. Worth reading.

 

[RCon]

Agree or disagree with what?

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Agree or disagree with what?

 

[timschochet]

Agree or disagree with what?

With Follett's premise: that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of Communism, that "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" had nothing to do with the wall coming down, that this speech was enhanced after the fact to make Reagan's legacy greater, and that most of our efforts to win the Cold War after 1948 were disastrous almost complete failures at every turn.

 

[roadkill1292]

Communism was doomed to failure and once the last of the people who voted for him have passed along, historians will not be kind to Mr. Reagan. We have entire generations for whom he reinforced the idea that everything else would be ok if our military was only strong enough not to be effed with. We've certainly seen the fallacy of that over the years.

 

[Soonerman]

One key pillar of Reagan's strategy was convincing the Saudi's to drive the price of oil down. That didn't just happen as the author implies.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

It collapsed mostly from its own weight, but Reagan's unrelenting pressure certainly had an effect, as many former Soviet officials have said.

 

[dutch]

Communism was doomed to failure and once the last of the people who voted for him have passed along, historians will not be kind to Mr. Reagan. We have entire generations for whom he reinforced the idea that everything else would be ok if our military was only strong enough not to be effed with. We've certainly seen the fallacy of that over the years.

Tell that to Darth Cheney. He's been on a rampage the last month or so and he's beating that familiar drum to death.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Pretty sure the brave young men and women of Calumet, Colorado brought down Communism, ###hole.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And now Eastern Europe is abandoning Communism with no help from us."

Gosh, really, no help? No help at all?

Can't think of even a little help? Moral? Financial? Military? Anything? No.

This is a work of fiction, right?

 

[RCon]

Agree or disagree with what?

With Follett's premise: that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of Communism, that "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" had nothing to do with the wall coming down, that this speech was enhanced after the fact to make Reagan's legacy greater, and that most of our efforts to win the Cold War after 1948 were disastrous almost complete failures at every turn.

That sounds like four completely separate statements to me.

1. That Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of Communism. Has Communism actually fallen? Seems to be alive and well, no? I would suggest that Reagan era policies contributed to the dissolution of the "Eastern bloc", and to the reunification of Germany. I can't say to what extent.

2. That the "Tear down this wall" speech had nothing to do with the wall coming down. This should be obvious. The speech had nothing to do with the reunification of Germany.

3. That this speech was enhanced after the fact to make Reagan's legacy greater. I'm not quite sure what this means. "Enhanced" in what way? Digitally enhanced? I would hope so. If you mean that "the media" has exaggerated the effects of the speech, I don't think this is true. I don't think anyone has presented the speech as anything other than what it was; a speech.

4. That most of our efforts to win the Cold War after 1948 were disastrous almost complete failures at every turn. I don't think it's as simple as that.

 

[timschochet]

And now Eastern Europe is abandoning Communism with no help from us."

Gosh, really, no help? No help at all?

Can't think of even a little help? Moral? Financial? Military? Anything? No.

This is a work of fiction, right?

Well I know that George Soros gave Hungary lots of financial support.

 

[rockaction]

That's borderline insanity. I love this guy already. Can't wait to never read any of his books that I'll never read.

I almost just spit my drink out. I'm sure this '60s band had a lot more to do with it than organized Roman Catholicism and a Super Power on the other side of the ocean, armed to the teeth, ready and willing and able in all senses to pounce on weakness.

But yeah, The Velvet Underground, dude.

As much as I agree with the VU having an impact on local protests, it being the sole driver is one of the dumbest narratives to come out the Cold War.

 

[[icon]]

Tim will post no less than 450 times in this thread.

 

[Thunderlips]

Cold War was over once the Marshall Plan came into affect. It never gave Communism a legit chance to encroach into Western Europe. That allowed nothing by Junior Varsity countries to be the battlegrounds for the Communism v. Capitalism.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And now Eastern Europe is abandoning Communism with no help from us."

Gosh, really, no help? No help at all?

Can't think of even a little help? Moral? Financial? Military? Anything? No.

This is a work of fiction, right?

Well I know that George Soros gave Hungary lots of financial support.

Soros emigrated to England in 1947, without the US he doesn't get there because he would have had to get through the free west to get there. And if he did get there England would have just been a neutralized, socialist appendage of the greater Soviet satellite empire. He also ultimately made his money in NYC, so without the US and its military might and economic engine then people like Soros would not have existed as examples in contrast nor would they have been able to emerge from the crushing burden of vice-like USSR state control.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Reagan, Gorbachev, Thatcher, and the Pope all piloted the Cold War to a soft landing. It's debatable if that would have happened had the U.S. not increased its defense spending.

Communism was losing its balance out on a ledge and Reagan (and Tip & Co.) gave it the fatal index finger push by providing an alternative vision to the world (in word and deed) of how much more prosperous a free country could be - thus saying "Hey, you should be like us."

He felt that both the Cold War and Communism were immoral and (particularly in the case of the latter) was one of the few in the world at that time that would simply come out and say it.

To say one man did it all is as preposterous as saying he had little to do with it.

 

[Soonerman]

Reagan, Gorbachev, Thatcher, and the Pope all piloted the Cold War to a soft landing. It's debatable if that would have happened had the U.S. not increased its defense spending.

Communism was losing its balance out on a ledge and Reagan (and Tip & Co.) gave it the fatal index finger push by providing an alternative vision to the world (in word and deed) of how much more prosperous a free country could be - thus saying "Hey, you should be like us."

To say one man did it all is as preposterous as saying he had little to do with it.

I would add Lech Walesa as another key player.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I would add Lech Walesa as another key player.

Definitely

 

[Fennis]

Pretty sure the brave young men and women of Calumet, Colorado brought down Communism, ###hole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_S1F1Zha_k

 

[timschochet]

BTW, I never said I agreed with Follett. I just thought that passage was startling and worth discussion.

My own view is that the entire west's role in the fall of the Soviet Union has been overstated. But I also believe that Reagan, Thatcher, the Pope and Walesa all played minor roles. Gorbachev was the key player. And Yeltsin.

I'm actually more interested in the other part of Follet's argument: whether or not the Cold WR was a success or failure. It seems to me that early on the US did 3 great things: the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, the Truman Doctrine. These 3 might have made ultimate victory inevitable. But then we had 40 years of the crap Follett was referring to, and it's hard to see anything we did during those decades as a positive. We're still paying the price today.

 

[Soonerman]

Ouch. Russia just raised interest rates 6.5% in one day.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

BTW, I never said I agreed with Follett. I just thought that passage was startling and worth discussion.

My own view is that the entire west's role in the fall of the Soviet Union has been overstated. But I also believe that Reagan, Thatcher, the Pope and Walesa all played minor roles. Gorbachev was the key player. And Yeltsin.

I'm actually more interested in the other part of Follet's argument: whether or not the Cold WR was a success or failure. It seems to me that early on the US did 3 great things: the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, the Truman Doctrine. These 3 might have made ultimate victory inevitable. But then we had 40 years of the crap Follett was referring to, and it's hard to see anything we did during those decades as a positive. We're still paying the price today.

Aren't those three things the whole enchilada that Reagan was a part of? Let's play what if the Cold War hadn't happened?.

First of all South Korea and Japan have been shining examples in Asia. What if the USA had not built them up? They may both look a lot like North Korea today. Also subtract their impact from our economy for 60 years.

What if the USA had not invested in and built up Puerto Rico after Cuba turned? PR was the poorest nation in the Carib at the time, why wouldn't they fall next? Now they are the richest by the way.

What if the USA had not left troops in western Europe and Turkey? - They would have fallen under the USSR sway or even been occupied by them.

What if the USA had returned to pre-WW2 military levels? - Let's guess what fun Stalin and his heirs would have had pushing us around.

What if the USA had ceased its nuke program? - See above, pretty much like being held up at your doorstep.

What if the USA had done nothing in Vietnam and after having converted China, all of Korea and maybe Japan too (if we did nothing there), where would the Soviets have gone next? Malaysian peninsula? India? Philippines?

 

[jon_mx]

I just finished Ken Follett's latest novel, The Edge of Eternity, which is his last in a trilogy about the 20th century. The book closes with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and there is this conversation between two prominent American conservatives:

Tedder held up his glass in a toast. "The end of Communism."

"It's what we've been working toward all these years," said Cam.

Tedder shook his head skeptically. "Everything we did was completely ineffective. Despite all our efforts Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua became Communist countries. Look at other places where we tried to prevent Communism: Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Cambodia, Laos...None of them does us much credit. And now Eastern Europe is abandoning Communism with no help from us."

"All the same we should think of a way to take the credit. Or let the president take it, at least."

"Bush has been in office less than a year, and he's been behind the curve all along," Tim said. "He can't claim to have caused this: if anything, he tried to slow it down."

"Reagan, maybe?" Cam mused.

"Be sensible," said Tedder. "Reagan didn't do this. Gorbachev did it. Him and the price of oil. And the fact that Communism never really worked anyway."

"What about Star Wars?"

"A weapons system that was never going to get beyond the science fiction stage, as everyone knew, including the Soviets."

"Reagan made that speech, though. 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.' Remember?"

"I remember. Are you going to tell people that Communism collapsed because Reagan made a speech? They'll never believe that."

"Sure they will," said Cam.

Agree or disagree?

Looks like dialog written by a third grader. Just terrible.

 

[timschochet]

Saints your post makes no sense. Reagan played no part in any of the 3 things I mentioned. The Soviets never went into Vietnam. Not sure what your point is.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints your post makes no sense. Reagan played no part in any of the 3 things I mentioned. The Soviets never went into Vietnam. Not sure what your point is.

They are of a piece, Tim, you can''t have the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, and the Berlin Airlift, or Reagan's speech, without the Cold War. That is the Cold War.

 

[timschochet]

Saints your post makes no sense. Reagan played no part in any of the 3 things I mentioned. The Soviets never went into Vietnam. Not sure what your point is.

They are of a piece, Tim, you can''t have the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, and the Berlin Airlift, or Reagan's speech, without the Cold War. That is the Cold War.

Im suggesting that Truman gets almost all of the credit and that all of the Presidents who came afterward get very little, even combined. In fact they mostly made things worse.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints your post makes no sense. Reagan played no part in any of the 3 things I mentioned. The Soviets never went into Vietnam. Not sure what your point is.

They are of a piece, Tim, you can''t have the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, and the Berlin Airlift, or Reagan's speech, without the Cold War. That is the Cold War.

Im suggesting that Truman gets almost all of the credit and that all of the Presidents who came afterward get very little, even combined. In fact they mostly made things worse.

Tim, it was Truman's doctrine that they were following.

 

[NCCommish]

It was a race to bankruptcy and the Soviets won but we went from being a lender nation to a debtor nation in the process. And we are still paying the price with an outsized military budget that squeezes out social spending so we can build another airplane the military doesn't want.

 

[RCon]

It was a race to bankruptcy and the Soviets won but we went from being a lender nation to a debtor nation in the process. And we are still paying the price with an outsized military budget that squeezes out social spending so we can build another airplane the military doesn't want.

This likely would have happened anyway, as part of the price we're still paying for the 17th Amendment.

 

[NCCommish]

It was a race to bankruptcy and the Soviets won but we went from being a lender nation to a debtor nation in the process. And we are still paying the price with an outsized military budget that squeezes out social spending so we can build another airplane the military doesn't want.

This likely would have happened anyway, as part of the price we're still paying for the 17th Amendment.

Perhaps but the overall budget would likely be smaller and therefore the number of unwanted airframes built would likely be smaller. And with all the griping about the 17th really was it any better when the power brokers got to appoint their own toady than it is now? Or the legislature fought over who should be appointed leaving seats open for years? Let's remember the 17th was a response to a problem not just something that happened because someone had a whim.

 

[jon_mx]

Anonymous 09/29/2014

I rarely take the time to rate a book, but thought I may be able

I rarely take the time to rate a book, but thought I may be able to save some people the time of reading this 1,000 page disappointment. I have read 5 Ken Follett books and he is one of my favorite authors. That being said, this book fell short of the standard I have come to expect. The story line seemed forced and in an attempt to cover too many historical events character development was thrown out the window. Despite all that, about 1/10 of the book seemed dedicated to cheating, affairs, free love, and undercover husbands. Ken Folletts books always have this to some degree, but I had no idea I was sitting down to read a soap opera. I think almost every single character was involved in some sort of sex scandal, making this book predictable, repetitive, and completely ridiculous. Very disappointed. Despite this fluke of a book, I strongly recommend other Ken Follett books.

Very disappointed. Follett's political leanings are very obvious. I was really looking forward to this book after enjoying the first two books. Do not buy this book!

Follet usually deals with history very well, but this book is nothing other than a leftist propaganda treatise. The nuances of history are ignored by making the liberals the good guys and the conservatives

 

[jon_mx]

Anonymous 09/29/2014

I rarely take the time to rate a book, but thought I may be able

I rarely take the time to rate a book, but thought I may be able to save some people the time of reading this 1,000 page disappointment. I have read 5 Ken Follett books and he is one of my favorite authors. That being said, this book fell short of the standard I have come to expect. The story line seemed forced and in an attempt to cover too many historical events character development was thrown out the window. Despite all that, about 1/10 of the book seemed dedicated to cheating, affairs, free love, and undercover husbands. Ken Folletts books always have this to some degree, but I had no idea I was sitting down to read a soap opera. I think almost every single character was involved in some sort of sex scandal, making this book predictable, repetitive, and completely ridiculous. Very disappointed. Despite this fluke of a book, I strongly recommend other Ken Follett books.

Very disappointed. Follett's political leanings are very obvious. I was really looking forward to this book after enjoying the first two books. Do not buy this book!

Follet usually deals with history very well, but this book is nothing other than a leftist propaganda treatise. The nuances of history are ignored by making the liberals the good guys and the conservatives

 

[jon_mx]

Anonymous 09/29/2014

I rarely take the time to rate a book, but thought I may be able

I rarely take the time to rate a book, but thought I may be able to save some people the time of reading this 1,000 page disappointment. I have read 5 Ken Follett books and he is one of my favorite authors. That being said, this book fell short of the standard I have come to expect. The story line seemed forced and in an attempt to cover too many historical events character development was thrown out the window. Despite all that, about 1/10 of the book seemed dedicated to cheating, affairs, free love, and undercover husbands. Ken Folletts books always have this to some degree, but I had no idea I was sitting down to read a soap opera. I think almost every single character was involved in some sort of sex scandal, making this book predictable, repetitive, and completely ridiculous. Very disappointed. Despite this fluke of a book, I strongly recommend other Ken Follett books.

Very disappointed. Follett's political leanings are very obvious. I was really looking forward to this book after enjoying the first two books. Do not buy this book!

Follet usually deals with history very well, but this book is nothing other than a leftist propaganda treatise. The nuances of history are ignored by making the liberals the good guys and the conservatives

 

[jon_mx]

Three Reviews which accurately describe this horse crap:

I rarely take the time to rate a book, but thought I may be able

I rarely take the time to rate a book, but thought I may be able to save some people the time of reading this 1,000 page disappointment. I have read 5 Ken Follett books and he is one of my favorite authors. That being said, this book fell short of the standard I have come to expect. The story line seemed forced and in an attempt to cover too many historical events character development was thrown out the window. Despite all that, about 1/10 of the book seemed dedicated to cheating, affairs, free love, and undercover husbands. Ken Folletts books always have this to some degree, but I had no idea I was sitting down to read a soap opera. I think almost every single character was involved in some sort of sex scandal, making this book predictable, repetitive, and completely ridiculous. Very disappointed. Despite this fluke of a book, I strongly recommend other Ken Follett books.

Very disappointed. Follett's political leanings are very obvious. I was really looking forward to this book after enjoying the first two books. Do not buy this book!

Follet usually deals with history very well, but this book is nothing other than a leftist propaganda treatise. The nuances of history are ignored by making the liberals the good guys and the conservatives

 

[apalmer]

Nice to see that Jon is still following the Limbaugh approach: say it often enough and someone will believe it.

 

[jon_mx]

Nice to see that Jon is still following the Limbaugh approach: say it often enough and someone will believe it.

Anyone who lived in that era knows the impact Reagan had. Reagan's relationship with Gorbachev. Reagan's rejuvenating the morale of the US. Reagan's buildup of America's military strength. Reagan's Berlin speech delivered one of the most powerful lines of the 20th Century when he powerfully asked, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".

This piece of history of two fictitious characters offered by Follett is complete garbage and only represents the hypothetical mumblings of a couple of left-wing idiots might say. In all likelihood those same two clowns would have thought Reagan's speech was that of a war-monger and would have characterized communism as a great form of government if only they had the right leadership. Only in hindsight would they say that the fall of communism was inevitable. In their hearts they dreamed of a big government socialized state would succeed. There is not one shred of evidence provided that supports any of the non-sense those buffoons said. ### you, BTW.

 

[roadkill1292]

Nice to see that Jon is still following the Limbaugh approach: say it often enough and someone will believe it.

Anyone who lived in that era knows the impact Reagan had. Reagan's relationship with Gorbachev. Reagan's rejuvenating the morale of the US. Reagan's buildup of America's military strength. Reagan's Berlin speech delivered one of the most powerful lines of the 20th Century when he powerfully asked, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".

This piece of history of two fictitious characters offered by Follett is complete garbage and only represents the hypothetical mumblings of a couple of left-wing idiots might say. In all likelihood those same two clowns would have thought Reagan's speech was that of a war-monger and would have characterized communism as a great form of government if only they had the right leadership. Only in hindsight would they say that the fall of communism was inevitable. In their hearts they dreamed of a big government socialized state would succeed. There is not one shred of evidence provided that supports any of the non-sense those buffoons said. ### you, BTW.

I lived in that era and knew that a nation of simpletons was being fed a phony bill of goods and lapping it up with gusto. The War on Drugs, the marginalization of minorities and the blatant overspending on the military, all of which fit into the category of "rejuvenating the morale of the US" and which are really last gasps at preserving an ideal of America on the way out, can be laid at that man's feet. And let's not forget his outright hostility towards alternative energies, which will eventually have a greater impact on life on this planet than anything else. His idea that we can just send the troops in and take what we need because "America" was almost criminal in nature. So #### you and all the true believers from an era of going backwards.

 

[RCon]

Nice to see that Jon is still following the Limbaugh approach: say it often enough and someone will believe it.

Anyone who lived in that era knows the impact Reagan had. Reagan's relationship with Gorbachev. Reagan's rejuvenating the morale of the US. Reagan's buildup of America's military strength. Reagan's Berlin speech delivered one of the most powerful lines of the 20th Century when he powerfully asked, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".

This piece of history of two fictitious characters offered by Follett is complete garbage and only represents the hypothetical mumblings of a couple of left-wing idiots might say. In all likelihood those same two clowns would have thought Reagan's speech was that of a war-monger and would have characterized communism as a great form of government if only they had the right leadership. Only in hindsight would they say that the fall of communism was inevitable. In their hearts they dreamed of a big government socialized state would succeed. There is not one shred of evidence provided that supports any of the non-sense those buffoons said. ### you, BTW.

Errmmm... read up. Pretty sure his post was a joke.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nice to see that Jon is still following the Limbaugh approach: say it often enough and someone will believe it.

Anyone who lived in that era knows the impact Reagan had. Reagan's relationship with Gorbachev. Reagan's rejuvenating the morale of the US. Reagan's buildup of America's military strength. Reagan's Berlin speech delivered one of the most powerful lines of the 20th Century when he powerfully asked, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".

This piece of history of two fictitious characters offered by Follett is complete garbage and only represents the hypothetical mumblings of a couple of left-wing idiots might say. In all likelihood those same two clowns would have thought Reagan's speech was that of a war-monger and would have characterized communism as a great form of government if only they had the right leadership. Only in hindsight would they say that the fall of communism was inevitable. In their hearts they dreamed of a big government socialized state would succeed. There is not one shred of evidence provided that supports any of the non-sense those buffoons said. ### you, BTW.

I lived in that era and knew that a nation of simpletons was being fed a phony bill of goods and lapping it up with gusto. The War on Drugs, the marginalization of minorities and the blatant overspending on the military, all of which fit into the category of "rejuvenating the morale of the US" and which are really last gasps at preserving an ideal of America on the way out, can be laid at that man's feet. And let's not forget his outright hostility towards alternative energies, which will eventually have a greater impact on life on this planet than anything else. His idea that we can just send the troops in and take what we need because "America" was almost criminal in nature. So #### you and all the true believers from an era of going backwards.

which are really last gasps at preserving an ideal of America

Gasp! He did what? No, the horror! That terrible man!

on the way out

Well, we wouldn't want to try to stop that process.

 

[jon_mx]

Nice to see that Jon is still following the Limbaugh approach: say it often enough and someone will believe it.

Anyone who lived in that era knows the impact Reagan had. Reagan's relationship with Gorbachev. Reagan's rejuvenating the morale of the US. Reagan's buildup of America's military strength. Reagan's Berlin speech delivered one of the most powerful lines of the 20th Century when he powerfully asked, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".

This piece of history of two fictitious characters offered by Follett is complete garbage and only represents the hypothetical mumblings of a couple of left-wing idiots might say. In all likelihood those same two clowns would have thought Reagan's speech was that of a war-monger and would have characterized communism as a great form of government if only they had the right leadership. Only in hindsight would they say that the fall of communism was inevitable. In their hearts they dreamed of a big government socialized state would succeed. There is not one shred of evidence provided that supports any of the non-sense those buffoons said. ### you, BTW.

Errmmm... read up. Pretty sure his post was a joke.

I missed that. I thought the forum was down and kept getting a black page when I tried to post.

 

[jon_mx]

Nice to see that Jon is still following the Limbaugh approach: say it often enough and someone will believe it.

Anyone who lived in that era knows the impact Reagan had. Reagan's relationship with Gorbachev. Reagan's rejuvenating the morale of the US. Reagan's buildup of America's military strength. Reagan's Berlin speech delivered one of the most powerful lines of the 20th Century when he powerfully asked, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".

This piece of history of two fictitious characters offered by Follett is complete garbage and only represents the hypothetical mumblings of a couple of left-wing idiots might say. In all likelihood those same two clowns would have thought Reagan's speech was that of a war-monger and would have characterized communism as a great form of government if only they had the right leadership. Only in hindsight would they say that the fall of communism was inevitable. In their hearts they dreamed of a big government socialized state would succeed. There is not one shred of evidence provided that supports any of the non-sense those buffoons said. ### you, BTW.

I lived in that era and knew that a nation of simpletons was being fed a phony bill of goods and lapping it up with gusto. The War on Drugs, the marginalization of minorities and the blatant overspending on the military, all of which fit into the category of "rejuvenating the morale of the US" and which are really last gasps at preserving an ideal of America on the way out, can be laid at that man's feet. And let's not forget his outright hostility towards alternative energies, which will eventually have a greater impact on life on this planet than anything else. His idea that we can just send the troops in and take what we need because "America" was almost criminal in nature. So #### you and all the true believers from an era of going backwards.

Your view is the simpleton view and ignorant of what went on based on pure hatred of Reagan. If you really had an open-mind and an ounce of intelligence, you would acknowledge the role that Reagan's dealing with Gorbachev played. Reagan initially blasted the Soviet Union as an evil empire, but when Gorbachev came to power, Reagan embraced him and encouraged the changes he was making. Reagan built a trust with Gorbachev which allowed Gorbachev to make the reforms. Reagan was pretty harshly criticized by people on the left and right (even referred to as Neville Chamberlin by many) for his dealings with Gorbachev, but in the end an honest assessment of how Reagan handled Gorbachev, one could only say, "Well played sir, well played!"

 

[Riversco]

I just finished Ken Follett's latest novel, The Edge of Eternity, which is his last in a trilogy about the 20th century. The book closes with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and there is this conversation between two prominent American conservatives:

Tedder held up his glass in a toast. "The end of Communism."

"It's what we've been working toward all these years," said Cam.

Tedder shook his head skeptically. "Everything we did was completely ineffective. Despite all our efforts Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua became Communist countries. Look at other places where we tried to prevent Communism: Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Cambodia, Laos...None of them does us much credit. And now Eastern Europe is abandoning Communism with no help from us."

"All the same we should think of a way to take the credit. Or let the president take it, at least."

"Bush has been in office less than a year, and he's been behind the curve all along," Tim said. "He can't claim to have caused this: if anything, he tried to slow it down."

"Reagan, maybe?" Cam mused.

"Be sensible," said Tedder. "Reagan didn't do this. Gorbachev did it. Him and the price of oil. And the fact that Communism never really worked anyway."

"What about Star Wars?"

"A weapons system that was never going to get beyond the science fiction stage, as everyone knew, including the Soviets."

"Reagan made that speech, though. 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.' Remember?"

"I remember. Are you going to tell people that Communism collapsed because Reagan made a speech? They'll never believe that."

"Sure they will," said Cam.

Agree or disagree?

Where to begin....

OK, I'll bite. Where in that quoted section does it even say this is Follet's opinion?

And don't come back and tell me you forgot to mention that part. My point is you look like an idiot with that thread title and then a quote that doesn't even support that title.

 

[Riversco]

Agree or disagree with what?

With Follett's premise: that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of Communism, that "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" had nothing to do with the wall coming down, that this speech was enhanced after the fact to make Reagan's legacy greater, and that most of our efforts to win the Cold War after 1948 were disastrous almost complete failures at every turn.

The quote you gave us does not say this is his opinion....

 

[Riversco]

Maybe Tim needs more practice starting threads.

He cannot seem to make his thread titles agree with his posts...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Agree or disagree with what?

With Follett's premise: that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of Communism, that "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" had nothing to do with the wall coming down, that this speech was enhanced after the fact to make Reagan's legacy greater, and that most of our efforts to win the Cold War after 1948 were disastrous almost complete failures at every turn.

The quote you gave us does not say this is his opinion....

I tried to restart the Berlin Wall thread because it's a good topic but that thread was really on point.

I agree, can't really do anything with the Follett snippet, it's fictional to start with and doesn't even say what Tim says it says.

Tim has another thread in which he says "Putin is Right", by the way. It seems to me that issue is a lot more relevant to today's world.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

n the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace.

There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

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! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

That's Reagan himself. You can see he is plainly pointing out all the factors that had led the USSR to the point they were at, defeated in ideology and left behind culturally and economically.

I'm not sure that those who say Reagan is the end all be all of destroying the USSR and worldwide communism (China changed dramatically after Tienanenmen Square too in `89 btw) realize what Reagan himself said, nor do those who wish to denigrate everything that Reagan did. Personally I think this speech was a big deal, his saying what he said and how and where he said it was a wonderful thing and important, but it's not like he was Gabriel at the Walls of Jericho. But does anyone really say that, even Reagan's biggest supporters?

 

[jon_mx]

Agree or disagree with what?

With Follett's premise: that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of Communism, that "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" had nothing to do with the wall coming down, that this speech was enhanced after the fact to make Reagan's legacy greater, and that most of our efforts to win the Cold War after 1948 were disastrous almost complete failures at every turn.

The quote you gave us does not say this is his opinion....

I tried to restart the Berlin Wall thread because it's a good topic but that thread was really on point.

I agree, can't really do anything with the Follett snippet, it's fictional to start with and doesn't even say what Tim says it says.

What I see Follett doing is attempting to make it appear that conservatives purposely spun history in a way they know is not true. It is kind of like creating a strawmen out of a fake alias to prove your point. Tim knows about doing that. I see the Star Wars and military buildup as secondary to the true role that Reagan played, which was through creating a relationship with Gorbachev like no two leaders of opposing superpowers have ever done in history. To deny Reagan credit for that is ridiculous.