Poles honour 'Cold Warrior' Ronald Reagan

Speaking of the GDR.. the Olympics are rolling around, how I miss those big women, haha.

Regarding rebeliousness - Berlin was the site of the first public demonstrations in the eastern bloc - in 1953, three years before Hungary and Poland. To be sure, they didn't do much organized protesting after that, but several hundred people did lose their lives trying to get out.

As far as Reagan goes - with all his faults, his hard stance finally bankrupted the Soviet Union, which tried to keep up with the US in the arms race but couldn't. We are all a bit better off because of that, including most likely our friend ConstantineK, whether he likes to admit it or not. Granted it was a dangerous game, but in the end it paid off.

Poles generally like Reagan because they saw him standing up for what he saw as being right. That's something politicians were never very good at, and that's why it made him stand out among them.

Ridiculous statement taking in account that armed anti-commie partisans were fighting in Poland from so called "liberation" to the mid fifties or even longer.

Same goes for the Baltics.

To be clear - I was talking about civilian demonstrations. The armed resistance you're talking about was really part of the Second World War.

In Hungary 1956 ?

Your attempts to expose German anti-commie movement sound false to me.
There were hundreds demonstrations like that (Berlin) in Poland but they were by far less spectacular - no Westberlin behind the wall.
My relatives took part in student demo in the late forties.
Just as an example.

PS. The wall in the forties or fifties was rhetoric lol.

I don't see what you mean about my "attempts to expose German anti-commie movement" - I am simply pointing out that the Germans didn't take everything laying down.

And I did mean it about civilian unrest - the Hungarian thing STARTED as civilian discontent, not as the continuation of another war.
I hadn't heard of anything like the Berlin demonstrations in Poland at that time - do you have any sources I could check out?

Today's "war on terror" is a good example of what the Reagan administration was about, seeing as officials running this war on terror are the same cabinet members that served under Reagan (rumsfeld, cheney, powell, etc...) and launched their first War on terror in the 80's, which in fact strenghtened terrorism in South America during that time.

The Reagan administration also supported the apartheid regime in South Africa at a time when even the congress tried to pass legislation to withdraw all support for the regime. Great Guy that Reagan...

Finally, the idea that it was his administration that helped end soviet dominance is laughable, as Wesley Clark said: "It took four decades of patient engagement to bring down the Iron Curtain, and 10 years of deft diplomacy to turn chaotic, post-Soviet states into stable, pro-Western democracies." Reagan himself was no pioneer or hero. I hate this man, to think that they were thinking of repacing Alexander Hamilton's face on the $10 bill with his!! Hamilton - a soldier, lawyer, writer, philosopher and genius who was a main architect of the nascent American republic, and Reagan - a moronic Hollywood president!

Well written masks. Supporting apartheid is unforgivable. When I hear about attacks on white farmers now, which are sporadic only, I am happy as they are getting a taste of their own medicine. Reagan should have paid a visit to SOWETO all those years ago. God Bless Mandela!!

Reagan took great pride in perpetuating the Cold War which, incidentally, is being erroneously coined as World War III, what BS!! I would never want to see a nuclear attack being carried out against the US but at times I wished that the Russians were more forthright and hard-hitting.

His magnum opus was the Iran-Iraq War. He swayed with the breeze on this one. Read up on John Tower, this guy persuaded Reagan to take certain courses of action as Reagan was just too clueless. It just so happens that this guy had brokered a deal with Robert Maxwell and the MOSSAD.

From the very begining both Hungarian army and soviet soldiers took part in the fights - hardly civilian discontent but bloody revolution not even to compare with Berlin rioting.

As for evidence for student demonstrations in Poland I know it from my grandma - for me good enough but perhaps try with Google.

I wouldn't be so hard on Reagan....it's all well and good to think about South Africa but when you yourself are imprisoned in a dictatorship in Europe and this man speaks loudly out against it you can't hardly not like him!

Not to forget the factor that Reagan and Gorbatschow had a great chemistry between them from the beginning that got things rolling.
Imagine if both would had hated and detested each other...sometimes history is dependent on such little things!

It makes a difference where you were and lived in this time!


What do you try to prove Borrka?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_of_1953_in_East_Germany#Legacy

That's because he had to be the dictator. If Merkel suddenly flipped and held others to ransom like a dictator, do u not think Bush would have sth 2 say about it?

If World War III is great chemistry BB, I'd hate to see bad chem.

Wot??? Which WWIII???

Lot's of witnesses speak about the good chemistry between the most unlikely politicians, anti-communist hardliner Reagan and soviet Gorbatschow....

Great made tribute to Ronald Reagan:

The Cold War has been described in this way.

Good chemistry, what was so good about it?

With all respect to rebelling Berlin 1953 I just try to correct the German simplified version of the post ww2 history.

Many times I've heard the story about Germans initiating anti-commie movement in Ostblock 1953 and successfully finishing the job with fall of the Berlin wall.

Oh some riots in Hungary or Czechoslovakia in the meantime...

It's simple not true moreover it's insulting to the memory of the Balic, Ukrainian, Polish etc.etc. partisans killed by NKVD troops.

Something Schröder and Bush hadn't for example...but Schröder and Putin did!
Something the Kacinsky twins DEFINITELY did not have with Berlin etc.

It makes a world of difference if leaders can work with each other or not.
In more darker times it decided even about war or not war...just read about
the building up to WWI, if the belligerent leaders would had more talked with each other instead of feared, mistrusted or hated each other there wouldn't had been a war. There was nothing which couldn't had been talked out of the way with a bit of good will on both sides...

It helps to remember our Presidents are human. Boris Yeltsin made a crack about a reporter's characterization of their summit calling him a "disaster" visit my site

In certain ways, at certain times, u could say they had good chemistry given the political set-up being as it was.

Diplomacy and dialogue was maintained, that much it true. Gorbachev was a thoroughly reasonable man who kept the sharks within his own administration at bay. Perestroika was a landmark concept which he laboured hard at to bring to fruition.

"speak loudly against it"? That makes him a hero? Anyone can do that, it's all a matter of convenience, when it is convenient to do so, and when it is inconvenient to do so. Rhetoric is nothing, the soviets had their own rhetoric for sure.

The downfall of the soviet union was the result of decades of work from American administrations, as well as dogged home-grown resistance in the east, like the solidarity movement in Poland for example (Few government can thrive for long when domestic resistance is overwhelming).

At least not hate-worthy....

Apparently he wasn't during his presidency, he was held low in popular esteem, but over the years the neo-cons in the US have been deifying him, they've organized a massive PR machine to, among other things, make Ronald Reagan into a saint. It's funny how a group of men with a lot of money can simply decide to make someone a great historic figure when in fact he was just a small man spearheading a criminal presidency. Imagine that they wanted to kick a founding father off our currency to make place for him!!! It drives me insane!!


Well I'm just saying that many people are misinformed about his contributions to the cold war, and gloss over his criminal record. A president who indirectly contributes to the suffering of millions across the globe and even at home is hate-worthy.

This is what keeps a goverment in check.


Great point, many feel the President can and should just step in and police the world and this is not ther case.

Well, he gave a good speech and it was hard to hate him, he was kind of like a pseudo grand dad or something. His domestic policy was a little wanting though. Reaganomics and such. Masks is right, he's been a little deified.

Who knows maybe there's some Indian and Chinese Reagans coming. I'm not sure the US will ever play a roll like that again.. geo politically speaking.

what about the current bush administration?

I find this interesting that you seems to be glad that the PM of Germany was in Kremlin's pocket. Cash behind people backs is known to improve chemistry among involved individuals.


He was a double faced person and his official stands did not have much of affect on politics. Vladimir Bukovsky raised this topic in his book "Moskiewski Proces". Perestroika was a myth for sale for naive westerners. In fact opposition was not tolerated, process of militarization was in progress and dirty provocations against western states were still practiced. Do you know that the Soviet Union secretly financed strikes of coal miners in the UK?


Many can speak loudly indeed but just few have common sense and Reagan was among them. He increased political pressure on Soviet regime this deserve some respect. Unlike majority of European leaders whom never had such courage. Reagan also needed to face masses of loudly ignorants in his own country.


You are not only in historic denial but also joining the neocons in mixing historic issue of Reagan's presidency with current politics. Myself, for sure I'm not under influence of any neocon propaganda and still give him deserved respect.


You are wrong. Downfall of the SU was just direct effect of bankruptcy of communist pseudo-economy. Any other issues could just improve the speed of collapse.

Why should I be glad? I was pointing out an obvious fact...stop assuming!

Chemistry can't be bought...either two people have it or not! Sometimes cash helps to smooth things over but never to make people like each other...

I would not use this term seriously in this case. When cash is involved, we don't really know whether they like each other. I used this term sarcastically.

The arms race was expensive for the US.. many things could've gone wrong. It was not a black and white issue.


Reagan / US was in a much better position geopolitically than Bush is now. WE actually had real allies. Reagan had a lot more sway over Europe.. US / Europe were united to a degree against Communism. Of course, Reagan never would have made the blunder of Iraq. George Schultz and others would have prevented this. In fact, Bush was advised repeatedly by Reagan cabinet people and his own father's people not to commit to Iraq.. But as George W said.. "His Father in heaven" .. counseled him to go forth into the fertile crescent.

Hey Wahldo, actually, Reagan Cabinet people like Rumsfeld and Cheney were intent on attacking Iraq from the start. It seems that they never advised the President to not commit to Iraq. The exception might have Been Colin Powell, but that's it, he was a lone ranger, but if you can tell me who an when, I'd appreciate it.


Hey I'm sure that the Reagan administration kept the pressure up, the pressure that had been set decades prior by people like George Kennan. But that he kept the pressure up was not enough to win the cold war. Usually, when a country begins arming itself against another, the other country follows suit, witness today's botched efforts to 'intimidate' Iran and North Korea. Well the Soviet Union reacted in a similar way - that's human nature. As much as the US cranked the heat, the Soviets folowed suit, as they were paranoid that the US might actually launch an attack, possibly, a nuclear attack in the wake of NATO's Able Archer military exercises in 1983. These exercises simply provoked a like reaction.

Anatoly Dobrynin, soviet Ambasaador to the US, said that:

"the impact of Reagan's hard-line policy . . . was exactly the opposite of the one intended by Washington . It strengthened those in the Politburo, the Central Committee, and the security apparatus who had been pressing for a mirror-image of Reagan's own policy."

The change came with Gorbachev, who was apprently of a more peaceful complexion then his predecessors. His peaceful overtures formed the crucial catalyst for the Cold War's conclusion. He came equipped with a philosophy of glasnost ("openness"), perestroika ("restructuring"), demokratizatsiya ("democratization"), and uskoreniye ("acceleration", of economic development). He also took into account the thinking of, in his own words, "the public and the scientific community, of the movements of physicians, scientists, and ecologists, and of various antiwar organizations." By the latter he meant the anti-nuclear movement which had also impressed the Reagan administration.

As one of Gorbachev's close aids, Aleksandr Yakovlev, mentioned, Reagan's military build-up played no role in the Soviet Regime's subsequent behavior. "It played no role. None." And as another aide stated, soviet changes "not only ripened inside the country but originated within it." SO it seems clear that the main spring for action was Gorbachev's accession.


Actually you're kind of right there, Reagan's approval ratings weren't spectacular at the beginning of his presidency, and reached a low of 46% during the Iran-Contra Scandal. But it is true that he lalso hit a 68% approval rating.

Here check some links out:

hnn.us/articles/2732.html
thenation.com/doc/20040628/editors
fair.org/index.php?page=1192


Hey I also think that the Soviet Union was on its way out (hence my refusal to give RR credit,) I believe that was sped its collapse was the advent of Gorbachev and the various movements that existed before him and/or subsequent ones that were inspired by him.

I'm not particularly a big Reagan supporter, but he left office with a 64% approval rating, which is high for most exiting Presidents.
I wouldn't call that low esteem.

I know that Regan initially rejected UN sanctions regarding South Africa out of a belief in free trade and fear of communism, but I do know that the US and Britain eventually applied sanctions to South Africa.

By the late 1980s, however, with the tide of the Cold War turning and no sign of a political resolution in South Africa, Western patience with the apartheid government began to run out. By 1989, a bipartisan Republican/Democratic initiative in the US favoured economic sanctions (realized as the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act), the release of Nelson Mandela and a negotiated settlement involving the ANC. Thatcher too began to take a similar line, but insisted on the suspension of the ANC's armed struggle.

It seems that Reagan also issued sanctions against Poland in response to the suppression of the solidarity movement.
The end of the Cold War helped to bring light into all the dark corners of the world.