The "Tear Down this Wall" Speech from President Ronald Reagan is 25 years old this week. In that speech, the president issued a challenge to the Soviet Union, speaking at the Brandenburg Gate. The gate was a strong symbol of the post-war division of Europe, and also was the scene of a speech by John F. Kennedy.
President Reagan said,
"In 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."
President Reagan said in German, "Es gibt nur ein Berlin": there is only one Berlin.
The Autonomen (Black Bloc)
Reagan's speech was accompanied by protests, who were demonstrating against U.S. missile defences installed in Europe. The day before, protests against US foreign policy became violent. In 1982, demonstrations against deployment of US nuclear missiles took place as well. The demonstrations had their own autonomen, (today's "black bloc") a group of about 3,000 anti-capitalists, anarchists and communist squatters who built barricades in the street and had a standoff with police for about 24 hours.
Ronald Reagan was well aware of the protests and addressed them toward the end of his speech.
He said, "I wonder if they had ever asked themselves, that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would be able to do what they are doing again." This statement was rewarded with loud and exhilarated cheers from the crowd of 40,000 people.
President Reagan said, "I invite those who protested then, I invite those who protest today, to mark this fact: because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table."
As noted in one article,
"Reagan worked to bring all aspects of American statecraft to bear on the ultimate goal of defeating the ideology of communism and the menacing state apparatus that subjugated whole nations in its cause. In all of this, Reagan tapped into a noble tradition of U.S. foreign policy and sought to re-establish America's proper role in the world."
The author noted, "In this, Reagan was squarely at odds with the best foreign policy minds to be had in America, but the experts were wrong. Two years later, the wall came down; the Soviet Union dissolved."
"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—Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Watch President Reagan's historic speech here:
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 80
"I'd rather be Governed by the first 2000 People in the Boston Telephone Directory than by the 2000 Faculty of Harvard University..."
Thanks, Mister.
If we are going, to get involved said Jean Kirkpatrick who was at the time the American Ambassador to the UN and who led the group of Reagan officials called ‘Latinista we should support the Argentine Dictator President Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri.
He virtually told her to go and **** herself, we are helping our friends not some jumped up little dictator. Moreover, by doing that, when the UN met to discuss and to vote on the conflict she had to vote on the side of my mates and myself and the Falkland Islanders who wanted to remain British and not become a colony of Argentina.
He was certainly a one off President, a great man who was and still is in some quarters mocked a vilified as a buffoon actor. How I wish the world could spawn a man just like him a man who was not afraid to help a friend in need, not just in my country but in other countries as well as you have demonstrated with this article.
I was moved when I wrote about Chen Guangcheng and while researching, came across Ronald Reagan's views on dissidents, "Ronald Reagan cared so deeply for dissidents that he made "repeated personal contact with his Soviet counterparts to negotiate their release." The article stated that "Ambassador Jack Matlock, Jr., who served in the Reagan administration and as the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, understood the genuine strategic importance Reagan placed on both personal liberty and liberality in the political order." All Americans should stand behind Chen Guangcheng, whose determination is inspiring and indicative of what one person can accomplish."
Your story regarding Kirkpatrick, and the rest of the Fools, reminds me of how Reagan handled Reykjavik. In the words of one that I cannot remember right now, "Reagan and Gorbachev held a 'Staring Contest,' and Gorbachev blinked."
He held, unswerving, to his Principals and beliefs. He was a brilliant Man.
And, Graham...thank you again, for your Service.
I as well thank you for your service to both Crown, and freedom from tyranny.
Even a ‘Yank’ can appreciate loyalty, honor, and duty.
Mr. Reagan was indeed a magnificent man. He had some policies I disagreed with to an extreme, and was far from perfect.
But his dedication to doing what he believed (and many times proved) to be correct is still inspiring.
I am most remorseful, over the mischaracterization of “trickle down” economics.
I remember so well they guffaws and chortles. Claiming it had to be something he dreamed of in his sleep. When the reality is, he presented nothing more than a simplified explanation of the proven Adam Smith laws of economics.
He was a truly great man.
...for me, this is the best Piece I've ever had the pleasure to see...
Although many people see the Reagan years as a time when the Soviet Union and Gorbachev were trying to establish better, more peaceful relations with the United States and Western Europe, the truth is that plenty of tension still existed at that time. While I was stationed in West Berlin, Soviet soldiers gunned down an American allied liaison officer named Arthur Nicholson in East Berlin and held American enlisted men at gunpoint as he bled to death. That was a big incident at the time, but it seems to have been completely forgotten by historians even though the government lodged very strong protests against the action. Nicholson was in uniform at the time and in no way was doing anything that could be construed as hostile.
During the same time frame the Soviets screwed up and shot down a civilian Korean airline. That really did not have anything to do with the Soviet presence in East Germany, but it was just one more incident that could have had repurcussions in Berlin. At least one book has been written about this incident.
Carter also achieved something substantial with the Camp David Accords. Even though trouble between Israel and the Arabs hasn't ceased, not one of those "Accords" has been broken to this day.
You seem to make light of Regan's efforts by focusing on his 'rhetoric'. I would offer if a person can not communicate their ideas/their principles so others can make them their own then they are ineffective as leaders.
I would offer that Jimmy Carter's inablitiy to communcate his ideas/principles in such a way as to draw others, the nation, into taking ownership of them is a singificant reason for his loss of the election and his disappointing lack of accomplishment in office. Reagan with his so called rhetoric created a hope in the future and that people could achieve it while Carter's talk of accepting disappointment wet the tone that there little or no hope and no matter what people did there was a forgone conclusion it would fail.
We Americans are about hope and that with wise effort we can make it happen. If a President doesn't tap into that with their rehtoric then they will fail.
I would like leaders with more than the ability to communicate, but I have yet to find one that could communicate that was an effective leader.
AND, Mikhail Gorbachev is still a communist with his "Green Cross International". W A T E R M E L O N
Overlook the nice "sounding" terms, names and labels... look at the INSIDE.
I never said Gorbachev wasn't a Communist, but there is no denying the changes he made to the Soviet system with glasnost and pedestrian and consequences of those, even if unintentional.
It was the greatness and brilliance of Ronald Reagan that steered him to the inevitable conclusion...he had no "choice" in the matter.
Reagan did preside over a huge increase in the national debt, which was a big disappointment, but how many presidents in the 20th century actually tried to really reduce the national debt? Clinton had two surpluses in his second term, but the national debt still increased a great deal during his presidency. My guess is that not more than one or two, if that number, actually reduced the national debt. Coolidge had several surpluses, but he was a rare exception, I believe.
"Clinton had two surpluses in his second term, but the national debt still increased a great deal during his presidency. "
You are on the right track to question Clintons “Surplus” years.
I am always amazed at the claims about Clinton and his budget achievements.
It is not mathematically possible to have a budget surplus, and still raise the debt.
It was all illegal lies, using accounting tricks that would NEVER hold water anywhere else in the world!
They raided both the SS and Medicare Trust funds, replacing the funds with IOU’s (T-bills basically).
Then counted those funds as “Revenue”.
Revenue in government terms is gross income.
That would like saying, “I earned 50K last year, but I also increased my credit cards by 50, so I actually grossed 100K.
Ummmmm no. Sorry.
Ironically many Americans think Reagan was a patriot, when he was one of the most damaging leaders (to the people of the US) as result of his insane military buildup. Unfortunately people don't comprehend numbers well, and can't see how severely we've been damaged, or kept from realizing our economic potential or "better way of life."
A few comments by Chalmers Johnson:
It was believed that the U.S. could afford both a massive military establishment and a high standard of living, and that it needed both to maintain full employment. But it did not work out that way. By the 1960s, it was becoming apparent that turning over the nation's largest manufacturing enterprises to the Department of Defense and producing goods without any investment or consumption value was starting to crowd out civilian economic activities. The historian Thomas E. Woods, Jr., observes that, during the 1950s and 1960s, between one-third and two-thirds of all American research talent was siphoned off into the military sector. It is, of course, impossible to know what innovations never appeared as a result of this diversion of resources and brainpower into the service of the military, but it was during the 1960s that we first began to notice Japan was outpacing us in the design and quality of a range of consumer goods, including household electronics and automobiles.
"According to the U.S. Department of Defense, during the four decades from 1947 through 1987 it used (in 1982 dollars) $7.62 trillion in capital resources. In 1985, the Department of Commerce estimated the value of the nation's plant and equipment, and infrastructure, at just over $7.29 trillion. In other words, the amount spent over that period could have doubled the American capital stock or modernized and replaced its existing stock."
And more particular to (specifically) Reagan's sending us deeper and deeper into debt to finance a huge military expansion:
"Again and again it has always been the world's leading lending country that has been the premier country in terms of political influence, diplomatic influence, and cultural influence. It's no accident that we took over the role from the British at the same time that we took over… the job of being the world's leading lending country. Today we are no longer the world's leading lending country. In fact we are now the world's biggest debtor country, and we are continuing to wield influence on the basis of military prowess alone."
"Hate" isn't a productive sentiment, or even a rational one. "Recognition" of how we've been harmed is the logical way toward making the future better.
Micky, I love your comment and I agree.
You say, "many wish America harm." Why do you think that is, because they "hate our freedom"? I think not. It's the result of some of the very policies that Johnson brings up. For some insane reason, they don't like us supporting dictators who oppress them, while we have our military bases planted all over their countries.
Consider some role reversal: What if we were subject to an oppressive dictatorship, and say... Iran, or China supported that dictator and had Chinese military bases in Cleveland, San Diego and Atlanta? Would that fly with Americans?
This idea of we're always right because we're the good guys is absurd. And I'm not "sick of having her flaws pounded into my head," because I don't hear that. Mostly what I hear is we are the good and righteous people and the "others" are evil. We can't get out of our own way, or keep from perpetually shooting our self in the foot because we won't acknowledge the things we've done wrong.
Consider our economic state, at present. Given that we have a massive federal debt that many, such as yourself, lament that Obama is increasing drastically on the way over the cliff, how can we, as a country with 6% of world population justify borrowing the funds to pay for a higher "defense" budget than the rest of the 94% of world population countries combined? How many new billion dollar submarines do we need to fight terrorists with no navy? How many fighter jets do we need that are barely better than last years model to fight "terrorists" with no air force? Why do we need to have troops stationed on bases in places like Italy?
You say, "many wish America harm." Why do you think that is, because they "hate our freedom"? Are you familiar with the term "Caliphate"?
This idea of we're always right because we're the good guys is absurd. And I'm not "sick of having her flaws pounded into my head," because I don't hear that. Well, perhaps you haven't listened to Obama's apology tours, Robert. I am well aware of the plight of Native Americans, African-Americans, etc. And we need to remember and work together to right the wrongs of our past by respecting each other today. We need to come together and look forward to a prosperous future. We are all in this together.
Have we done anything good? You talk about how much we spend on defense. How much do we spend on charity?
What have we done good? You tell me?
How about this do you think we ought to apologize for any of the following:
a) replacing Iran's democratically elected leader with our favorite dictator and his secret police?
b) Providing Saddam Hussein with WMD biological weapons?
c) Increasing our funding for Saddam after he gassed his own people?
d) Supported Augusto Pinochet with funding after he killed and "disappeared" thousands of his people?
e) Supported dictators like Pol Pot?
f) Allowed over a hundred thousand Iraqi children to die from water borne disease after we purposely prevented water purification repair equipment to be imported into Iraq?
g) Burned to death over a hundred thousand women and children in Japan (before dropping the big one) in WWII?
Any of those worth an apology? Would we expect an apology had any of these things been done to us?
Better to feel that way though, than to cover it up and say it's ok because we're really righteous and good all of the time.
Do you feel any of those events deserve an apology?
Parenting an entire World of insolent Children is an ugly business, and one that takes far more stomach than a coward can muster. As does PREVENTING the spread of Communism (PinochetvAllende, Pol Pot)and Jihad (Hussein) on a Global Scale. Additionally, it takes an equal amount of Courage to accept that Fact: the Greatest Nation in the World also happens to be that with the Greatest Values. We do the World Justice: A World void of a Great Superpower with our Values plunges into the Darkness wrought by the Despot Nations of Evil. Nothing compares to the Death and Misery that Secularism, Marxism and Communism have wrought on this Planet. This is the Greatest Nation in the HISTORY of the World; and has brought more Life and Freedom, and is responsible for giving MORE LIBERTY to Lovers of Freedom throughout the World than any other.
Your "protectionist" B.S. is surpassed only by immeasurable ignorance. You couldn't grab your own As* with both hands.
We live in the Era of the little man...to wit.
Robert, "Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7%. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73%, while France, with a 0.14% rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany."
When it comes to foreign aid, as I said, per capita, we're somewhere around 15th position.
You're characterizing my position as "hate," doesn't make it so. True, I don't think we're the greatest country on earth or the best people. There isn't a "best" we're all people. You can't deny we've done some bad things, and some of those hurt ourselves as well as others. These are things a superpower is more likely to do, than say... Switzerland. That doesn't make it excusable or eliminate need for apology when appropriate.
And Mark-John. Re: this ominous monolith of Communism. Get a grip on your fear, man.
Seriously Robert, you should be happy that you live in a giving country. You may say you don't hate, but that is certainly how it seems when you ask questions like, "What have we done good? You tell me?" If that isn't hate, I would not want to see what "hate" means for you.
You can't deny we've done some bad things, and some of those hurt ourselves as well as others. I have never denied that, I said above, "My view is that we should learn from the past and work together in the future. America made mistakes, but I am really sick of having her flaws pounded into my head when we have indeed also have done plenty of good in this world." I think our difference is that I believe we should go forward with the knowledge of history and the desire to not repeat the bad, where as you harp on the bad and self-flagellate.
Do you think, in comparison to other countries, that we have done more good or more bad?
And the "hate" thing. Where you get "hate" out of my asking you where we've done good... I was responding to your statement about us doing good, and merely asking for an example that balances out the things that I brought up, that related to the "whether an apology is deserved" question. You brought up the "good" question, yet you can't seem to give an example. Overall charitable contributions (most of which are within our own country) by the country with the largest economy in the world isn't really an example. If it is it's on par with the rest of the patting ourselves on the back because we're so glorious as "The greatest nation on earth."
In comparison to other countries, yes, I think we've done more bad than good. We've been involved in far more military actions since WWII than any other country, most of them began with lies (e.g. Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin, Granada, students in danger, Iraq, incubator babies, etc. And we've replaced leaders, been involved in coups, and supported oppressive dictators all over the world. Switzerland, or Iceland don't do that. As I said, we've been a superpower and superpowers try to shape the world. We've just gone too far with that with bad foresight.
In comparison to other countries, yes, I think we've done more bad than good. Of course you do.
a) They're (we're) more likely to have income to give that goes beyond necessary living expenses, so...
b) Who did they give to? Themselves, for the most part. It's largely domestic charity
And on the "more bad than good issue," it's not all that quantifiable, so it's an abstract question, but yes; it depends on perspective. To many Americans replacing Iran's democratically elected president with a dictator who tyrannized his people with his secret police was a good thing, for Iranians it wasn't so good, and frankly many people around the world viewing that objectively don't see replacing a democratically elected leader with a dictator as a real good thing either.
As I've said, Renee, he is far too immature to comprehend the immense gravity of responsibility in the Macro. Again, playing the House Mother and keeping the Worlds Despots in check is a dirty business; that we've shown that responsibility is embraced by a Thankful World; Millions upon Millions upon Millions of Deaths at the hands of the Tyrant, the Secularist, the Marxist, the Communist teaches him nothing. Do you remember "How To Kill 11 Million People?" Re-read the Chapter on the Trains...
That WE are the Greatest Nation, and the Greatest Givers, means nothing to a fool. That we are the first on the scene of Disaster and Tyranny, Aid in Hand, means nothing to an ingrate. That a fool cannot admit it means nothing (to me). As the Paulistinian protectionist Leftist Blame-America-Firster pantywaist always does, he blames our lead with regard to Charity and to the World on our own Prosperity. A Prosperity that, in the hands of most any other Nation, would surely be used for Evil, WE use for Good...
This is a moment of Truth. I cannot tell you what to believe. I cannot tell you what to think. Your Values and insight and Common-Sense and Sense of Decency will have that pleasure to do FOR You...or no :)
The little mind of the little man...
the Difference between a Great Man...and a little man.
The second reason is that America had no option but to join in after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and with the man power it turned the tide of the war in the East and in the West.
I am not going to say much about Switzerland except to say that that country got rich in a totally different way than America, Switzerland did it by sneakily helping the Nazis to horde all the stolen treasure that they tea leafed from all the murdered Jews and other citizens of Europe. Enough said about that country don't you think?
...and, altruistically, we rebuilt all of Europe, and Asia, upon the backs of the American and British People...