"One thing that irritates me about Berlin Wall memorials is the way Reagan's 1987 speech at the Brandenburg Gate tends to be treated like prophecy, or at least like strong leadership in an uncertain world."

Excuse me if I am being ignorant on the Reagan era (I was a young lad at the time of the speech) but I dont see the 2 as being exclusive. Yeah of course it wasnt prophecy. There is no crystal ball in the White House (something we tend to forget) but that doesnt mean it wasnt a sign of clear and strong leadership in the sense of the US President making clear a policy to the East, the West and the rest. Theater and stage perhaps, I mean the guy was an actor too, but surely it was a signal at the time to all actors and factors involved. If you want to prove it wasnt then tell me why the Soviets didnt believe it or take it seriously or whether it didnt encourage those in the East to take a stand etc, but some scandals and some perhaps Realpolitik of completely different geopolitical examples doesnt prove the speech was ignored, worthless or meaningless (even if I agree it didnt count as "prophecy")

As for mad man David, he might have had a few great albums under his belt and a crazy hair cut but he didnt have a nuclear arsenal, a huge economic influence and wasnt the leader of 1 of 2 superpowers involved in the biggest conflict of the 2nd half of last century.

I dont see your point other than that you are annoyed at the prophecy angle but I am open to expand my very limited knowledge on his speech and its meaning at the time....

... give us your knowledge RFM!
 

Good to hear from you, Andy. The point is simple: Reagan wasn't the hero of the Cold War's end. Gorbachev was! Reagan helped, of course, but go read Marc's link. Or, hell, I'll quote from his source, a book called Ghost Wars:

"All evidence that Soviet power might be weakening seemed to be systematically discounted in Washington and at [CIA headquarters in] Langley even as the data mounted in plain view. The CIA’s Soviet analysts continued to write reports suggesting that Moscow was a monolithic power advancing from strength to strength, and during Casey’s reign there seemed little penalty for tacking too far to the ideological right ... Besides, in the CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence, especially in the Soviet/East Europe Division, all the analysts’ working lives, all their programs, budgets, and plans for the future were premised on the existence of a powerful and enduring communist enemy in Moscow. The Reagan administration was bound by a belief in Soviet power and skepticism about Gorbachev’s reforms."

Now conservative ideologues keep the fire of that skepticism alive, in the face of historical fact.

My grand point is even better: If Reagan really knew the Soviet empire was collapsing -- that all it needed was a good arms race to bring down the Iron Curtain -- why'd we build up Osama bin Laden as a freedom fighter? Or why'd he let Ollie North subvert American democracy (which is what I'm defending here) by doing so much secret business with the Contras? Not one Reagan idolator has been able to answer that for me without twisting a little in the breeze.

For more, go see my post about Reagan's death.
 

Have been thinking about this a bit and reading the articles. Was sort of hoping that others might chip in a few cents here and there. In general you havent managed to get me that convinced.

A big problem with discussing Reagan is unlike most Presidents he didnt bhave that after President President bit (JFK being another obvious example). Dems hate Bush Sen and Reps hate Clinton (esp his wife) but they both still call them President and applaud when they go off to places like Asia after the Big Wave (no I cant spell Tsun...). The exception to the rule may be Jimmy Carter, known lovingly as Dhimmi Carter by some, but there could be a quite sound political reason for many just wishing hed disappear.

So Reagan didnt get that chance to be the Statesman, the President out of office, the sort of Royal Family of the USA. I remember Nancy being ill and then him disappearing somewhat before realising he was in trouble. The same happened to my Gran and it really makes you non media material. Meanwhile of course the Reagan era was being assessed and the scandals being discussed. My knowledge is limited here but I guess he wasnt really in the position to defend himself like others have been, nor to take on that persona i mentioned before.

Its not so surprising then if he has been given a lot of credit after his death, especially at the current times. To claim that:

The speech "was just good theater. It wasn't historic."

is perhaps as equally OTT the other way?

To be fair I find the speech important because whether your ideals on international politics are neo-realism, neo-liberalism or constructivist then the speech was the right thing to do because it forced (empowered if you will) Gorby to make the correct moves and certainly encouraged the occupied people of Eastern Europe to make a stand.

Is it not possible that the questions open after his presidency (Afghanistan / How much he knew of the USSRs economic woes, the degree to which "Star Wars" was serious or a arms race to bankruptcy etc) lie more in his illness at the end. Perhaps he would have sorted this out or explained if the chance had been his to do so?

Like I say I am not in the know on this, just notice a lot of open questions and a high emotional discussion on other weblogs where Reagan is concerned.... I doubt the internet / comments on blogs can really do this theme justice though BUT I am sure we will end up meeting in person sooner or later and over a beer or two I will remind you to fill the gaps in for me :-) Interesting stuff indeed.
 

Well, now you're just being stubborn. I wasn't being over the top, but only matter-of-fact. By 1987, Reagan was almost out of office. Perestroika was well under way. Perestroika brought down the Wall. Three simple facts, which mean: The Berlin Wall speech in '87 did *not* force (or even empower) Gorbachev to push his reforms. It was just a happy late-inning sentiment, like the Bowie show.

You might say Reagan's nuclear arsenal and stubborn pose in the early 80s helped Gorbachev get Perestroika rolling. True! But without Gorbachev, no Perestroika.

Speaking of beer, why don't you drop by the Altes Europa Cafe this Wednesday, 7:30pm or so, and we'll hoist a couple. I'm having a Stammtisch (I think).