25th Anniversary: When the Berlin Wall Fell

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

25th Anniversary: When the Berlin Wall Fell

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday November 9, 2014 @04:01PM from the bad-old-days dept.

Lasrick writes Today is the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This retrospective describes how quickly the Wall was erected, and how Berliners were completely caught off guard by its construction: "Berlin's citizens woke up one morning in August 1961 to find coils of barbed wire running down the middle of their streets; the first inkling some people had that anything was amiss was when their subway train didn't stop at certain stations. Later, the first strands of wire were replaced with a cement wall, along with watchtowers, a wide 'death strip,' and an electrified fence."

151 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Darmok by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 16:02 · Score: 5, Funny

Shaka, when the walls fell.
1. Re:Darmok by TWX · 2014-11-09 16:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Thank you for doing your part to turn what is general news that I can get coverage for on every single television station (even the music video station!) and finding a way to make it nerd-appropriate.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:Darmok by Bovius · 2014-11-09 16:08 · Score: 2
  
  I cannot tell you how pleased I am that this is the first post here. Thank you, kind sir or ma'am, whoever you are.
3. Re:Darmok by gavron · 2014-11-09 16:20 · Score: 2
  
  Darmok and Gilad.
  At Tanagra.
4. Re:Darmok by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 16:48 · Score: 0
  
  "Temarc! The river Temarc in winter!"
5. Re:Darmok by AHuxley · 2014-11-09 16:49 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Nerd-appropriate would be just how many Western brands and firms sent their production lines to the East.
  Cash that then supported the East German gov for years.
  Nerd-appropriate would be just how quickly Western political leaders had their East German files found and then removed.
  Nerd-appropriate would be where some top East German security experts later found work in the USA.
  The ability of the West to track most of the East German and Russian gov and mil movements.
  The fall of the wall still has many good tech stories but all the press likes is the escapes and television news.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
6. Re:Darmok by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 16:53 · Score: 0
  
  There's a "Darmok" post about every other day. They just don't usually get upvoted.
7. Re:Darmok by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zXiClnK8oE
8. Re:Darmok by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 18:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Nerd-appropriate would be...
  You swanned past the Reichstag to the Berlin Wall
  In chiffon - Christian Dior
  Gazing at the debris through electrified barbed wire
  So grey - what an awful bore
  You thought the border guards parading looked so picturesque
  And their goose-stepping was so surreal
  Did you have any conception of the blood between the stone
  Did you notice that their guns were real?
9. Re:Darmok by kevingolding2001 · 2014-11-09 21:52 · Score: 2
  
  You swanned past the Reichstag to the Berlin Wall
  In chiffon - Christian Dior
  Gazing at the debris through electrified barbed wire
  So grey - what an awful bore
  Burma-Shave
10. Re:Darmok by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Putin, his arms wide
11. Re:Darmok by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  Hillary, her dick hard!
12. Re:Darmok by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  ... how fast the documents east germanie's secret agency stasi (they were top of their time) had on NSA spying disappeared after the reunion.
13. Re:Darmok by istartedi · 2014-11-10 04:36 · Score: 2
  
  Reagan, speaking at the gate.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
14. Re:Darmok by crunchygranola · 2014-11-10 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  "Your O.S. Trip" - RedGum/Michael Atkinson (1981)
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Concrete, not "cement". by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 16:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Concrete is made of sand, gravel, cement, and water.
1. Re:Concrete, not "cement". by TWX · 2014-11-09 16:06 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Oh come on, it's not like it's written in stone!
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:Concrete, not "cement". by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you very much but your answer is not concrete enought as we still dont know what the cement is made of...
3. Re:Concrete, not "cement". by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, the concrete has cement in it (along with sand and / or gravel). The cement binds the pieces of sand / gravel together and for nerds the following equation applies:
  concrete=cement+((gravel || sand) || (gravel && sand));
  There ya go.
Not a dup by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 16:07 · Score: 0

Because the earlier story was about the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall *and* Google moving part of the wall to the Mountain View public library.
Less is more Ommmm...
Berlin by Greyfox · 2014-11-09 16:08 · Score: 1

When the walls fell

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:Berlin by Nyder · 2014-11-09 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  When the walls fell
  No More Words.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
2. Re:Berlin by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  When the walls fell No More Words.
  Dancing in Berlin.
  But now I'm wondering if "Der Kommissar" was about coke or about samizdat / underground rock-and-roll parties.
The Wall Fell! YIPPPPEEEEE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 16:25 · Score: 1

The Berlin Wall fell! I real reason to say YIPPEEEE!!!!
Reminder of who not to credit by damn_registrars · 2014-11-09 16:37 · Score: 5, Informative

From Reagan to Hasselhoff: 5 people who didnâ(TM)t bring down the Berlin Wall

In particular, even though the official American narrative is that Ronald Reagan personally tore it down with his death-ray eyes, the article has a more balanced view on the matter:

But one also shouldn't ignore that Reagan gave his speech on 12 June 1987, a good 29 months before the actual fall of the wall. And there is little evidence that it had much impact on the dynamics of the dissident movement in East Germany, or on Soviet politics at the time.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by phantomfive · 2014-11-09 16:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's hard to imagine a single speech would cause the Soviet system to crumble, and Reagan had problems as a president, but he stood up for freedom, pointing out that keeping another country in a cage is evil.
  
  Image if we had a president in office right now who stood up for freedom who said, "NSA, close down illegal surveillance." Someone who recognized that sometimes, the end doesn't justify the means. We have too many politicians and not enough leaders.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by damn_registrars · 2014-11-09 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard to imagine a single speech would cause the Soviet system to crumble, and Reagan had problems as a president, but he stood up for freedom, pointing out that keeping another country in a cage is evil.
  There are others who made speeches as well, and none of them are as celebrated as Reagan. The important bit here though is likely that almost 3 years passed between his "famous" speech (which was seen by roughly 10% of the number of people who saw Kennedy's speech in Berlin) and the wall coming down.
  
  Image if we had a president in office right now who stood up for freedom who said, "NSA, close down illegal surveillance."
  That is political suicide to do that. It doesn't matter if the president thinks that is the right thing to do or not; if they end it they would be bashed as "soft on terror" (or worse) and the next time there is an attack - here or abroad - it would be squarely blamed on them. There is no winning hand on that matter.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
3. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Vinegar+Joe · 2014-11-09 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  The Guardian? The British version of Pravda? Too bad the Guardian's editorial staff can't share a shallow mass grave with some of the many victims of the Soviet Union.
  
  --
  "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
4. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Teancum · 2014-11-09 17:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What Ronald Reagan arguably did wasn't the speech, but his massive expansion of the U.S. military including the thousand ship navy and expanding the other branches as much too. It was something that Russia had to match and basically went bankrupt trying to do so (and America nearly did as well). It is hard to say that Reagan had no impact upon the events surrounding the fall of the wall, although another significant event that had a major role was the disarmament talks that happened in Iceland a little bit later... and Reagan just walking out in the middle of those talks.
  Nobody is saying it was the speech that caused the wall to go down, but it was due to the fact that East Germany didn't fear the Soviet Union was going to crush any independent expression on the part of its leaders that caused the wall to go down. I doubt that would have happened under an extended presidency of Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale.
5. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by phantomfive · 2014-11-09 17:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So, the summary didn't mention Reagan at all. The article didn't mention Reagan either. In fact, you were the one who brought up Reagan.
  Sounds like you have some kind of weird anti-Reagan kneejerk that pops up from time to time. It's ok, relax and chill.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
6. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 17:52 · Score: 0
  
  Curiously no one in germany talks about those people when it comes to the wall falling.
  Thatcher and Reagan did their political part in their time, but the other three are outright ridiculous candidates. If you seriously consider them having something to do with it something is really broken in how you understand (world) politics. They added a good amount of "feel", though.
7. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by timeOday · 2014-11-09 17:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Reagan vilifying the Soviet Union is totally irrelevant to Obama and the NSA. People everywhere love smack talk about faraway enemies, it always plays well. A better Reagan analogy would be the Iran-Contra scandal.
  Now as to Obama, he did order Gitmo shut down. What happened? Congress rebelled, even Democrats, spinning up fear of Magneto-like supervillians too dastardly to contain in American prisons. Congress passed a law making it illegal to bring Gitmo prisoners to the US even for medical treatment, so now we spend millions flying medical equipment down there to rot.
  I suppose a more forceful President might be able to prevail on the Congress more often, Teddy Roosevelt-style, and do something about the NSA, if they had some reason to do so, which they don't. It's hardly ever a voting issue. J. Edgar Hoover's FBI was used by both Democratic and Republican administrations to trample the Constitution for decades and voters never cared, because they were so scared of Communism they supported the purge. Now the roles are filled by a new cast of characters, but little has changed.
8. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by timeOday · 2014-11-09 18:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Nations don't fall because of (un) diplomatic gestures. They fall because they are conquered, or go bankrupt. The Soviet Union fell because of its bad economy. However, the USSR did not increase military spending in response to the US buildup. There was never any reason to think they did, other that it was a nice story.
  The USSR's 9-year Afghanistan misadventure, on the other hand, was extremely costly (look at the above graph from '79 to '89). US support for the Mujahideen surely increased that pain. But the American president who started backing them was, in fact, Jimmy Carter.
9. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by tranquilidad · 2014-11-09 18:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's not about a single speech and its timing.
  Reagan's speech was part of a much larger program to pressure the Soviets. Reagan believed, fundamentally, that communism was evil and spent a lot of energy fighting it.
  Now, you may rightly argue that Reagan didn't personally tear down the wall. You may reasonably argue that Reagan wasn't the only influence in getting the wall torn down.
  Reducing Reagan's and Thatcher's programs against communism and all that represented it down to a single speech is unfair. Your concentration on the timing of the speech in relation to when the wall came down certainly seems to discount any other actions the US and other countries took.
  Your concern that there were other speeches that aren't as well publicized as Reagan's is fine. How about highlighting a single line or a few lines from those speeches that brought as much focus as Reagan's imperative to Mr. Gorbachev? In fact, most people are probably unaware of what Reagan said in that speech other than his rallying cry and creating such a slogan is often a powerful mover.
10. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by fustakrakich · 2014-11-09 18:44 · Score: 0
  
  I think it's funny all of you like to credit all your highfalutin ideology for conquering the beast, but the most likely scenario is that the World Bank/IMF finally showed them enough money to go take a powder... I think we're all grown up enough now to quit believing in Santa Claus
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
11. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 18:49 · Score: 0
  
  ... bring Gitmo prisoners to the US ...
  
  All Obama promised to do was shut-down an oppressive prison. The assumption being the military would not follow and a different prison would be less oppressive. Congress obstructed his plans: I'm amazed no-one demanded construction of a prison-for-profit to contain those prisoners.
12. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by phantomfive · 2014-11-09 18:50 · Score: 2
  
  but the most likely scenario is that the World Bank/IMF finally showed them enough money to go take a powder..
  Uh, you consider that the most likely scenario?
  
  I think it's funny all of you like to credit all your highfalutin ideology for conquering the beast
  I know someone who was at the protests when the Soviet system fell. He didn't protest because he didn't enjoy the comforts of communism; he did enjoy them . He protested because he wanted freedom.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
13. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by fustakrakich · 2014-11-09 19:18 · Score: 2
  
  Uh, you consider that the most likely scenario?
  I certainly do. The Russian banks needed cash, real bad. The decision was a simple one to make. Business is business. How many other governments have done the same thing? Lots... The system didn't 'fall' by any means, where is Gorbachev? Resting comfortably for sure, the system changed, and everybody in the boardroom got paid. In fact nothing really changed upstairs, a minor rearrangement of the furniture, that's all.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
14. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by phantomfive · 2014-11-09 19:25 · Score: 2
  
  Money can explain everything, but it's not always the right explanation. :)
  
  You have a hypothesis there, but I'd love to actually see supporting evidence.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
15. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by FlyHelicopters · 2014-11-09 19:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I hate to tell you... but you're missing the obvious, as is that blog that you linked to...
  The Soviet Union didn't increase spending because they COULDN'T. They simply didn't have the money.
  They were faced with a United States that was pulling way ahead, between Star Wars (which wasn't real) and the Stealth Fighter and Stealth Bomber (which were), and many other new weapons... The Soviet Union simply couldn't compete...
  So they gave up, knowing they couldn't keep up.
  The spending worked just the way it was supposed to. If the Soviet Union could have spent it, they would have and the cold war would still be here.
16. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-11-09 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  Curiously no one in germany talks about those people when it comes to the wall falling.
  I lived in Germany as a kid (army brat), and frankly I wouldn't expect them to give any credit to any outsiders - deserved or not. Back in the 1970s it seemed pretty obvious many/most Germans highly resented the presence of American and British forces in Berlin as well as all the American bases around the country, back when the wall still stood. I suspect that resentment would overshadow most everything else.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
17. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by fustakrakich · 2014-11-09 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  One thing people learned from Nixon(for the most part, there's still a lot of dummies out there), 'Burn the tapes'... The world is a shark tank. Our facade of civility that we display at the library and in your finer restaurants just does not exist at their level. They are true sociopaths, by choice. Just follow the natural flow of power and mass. It can only lead to one conclusion. The process and motivation is truly universal across all things.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
18. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by phantomfive · 2014-11-09 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  Well, then any hypothesis can be supported. You might as well just say you don't know, it would be more accurate.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
19. Re: Reminder of who not to credit by phantomfive · 2014-11-09 20:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And he got it: the freedom to be unemployed, the freedom to be poor, the freedom to be left alone to fend for himself in the social darwinist jungle that is capitalism. I hope he enjoys that.
  Freedom always comes with a cost: it is scary at first, but once you get used to it, you'll never go back. It'd be like going back to CVS once you get used to Git.
  
  My friend has the freedom to choose where he lives, what career he wants, freedom of speech, and he loves it.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
20. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 20:24 · Score: 0
  
  You should also add Poland.
  USSR siphoned resource from Central European vassals and Poland was by far the largest one.
  Around 1980 Polish economy totally collapsed by at least 30% - this is larger dent in Eastern Block economy than the Afghan war.
  Kremlin got scarred something like that will happen elsewhere - and hence the Perestroika and final collapse.
21. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Sique · 2014-11-09 20:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Spoken as an East German: The Berlin Wall Speech was a gesture towards the own people in the U.S., nothing more, nothing less. It worked. The majority of the U.S. still believes this speech had a big impact on the East. We, the East Germans knew that the Berlin Wall was evil, we didn't need Ronald Reagan to point this out to us. We already had 200 shot dead who were trying to get over the Wall. We had thousands of people in prison who were caught planning to cross the Wall. We had singer-songwriter singing about the Wall, and how it cut us off most of the world. When those singer-songwrites sung about not being able to travel to Paris, we cheered, and we were looking up to them for having the braveness to do so. When Ronald Reagan did this, we were annoyed about the big posture and grandstanding and the arrogance of the most powerful man of the world, and we felt like he stole our symbol from us.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
22. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by mirix · 2014-11-09 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  25 years later and there are still American bases in Germany. So there can't be that much resentment - not enough to force change anyway.
  You'd think resentment would be much higher now, when there isn't even an illusion of requirement of american 'protection'.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
23. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by DerekLyons · 2014-11-09 21:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Now as to Obama, he did order Gitmo shut down. What happened? Congress rebelled, even Democrats, spinning up fear of Magneto-like supervillians too dastardly to contain in American prisons. Congress passed a law making it illegal to bring Gitmo prisoners and not only did Obama fail to veto it, he signed it into law.
  
  There, fixed that for you.
  
  Seriously, I'm getting just a little fucking tired of the "Obama wanted to fix it, but the evil Congress blocked him" meme. Congress can pass laws - but they only become law either with the active cooperation of the President or only via an explicit override. President Obama has only vetoed two things to date - one utterly meaningless bill on notarizations, and one all but meaningless continuing budget resolution.
  
  I suppose a more forceful President might be able to prevail on the Congress more often, Teddy Roosevelt-style
  A more capable President would at least try.
24. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by jabuzz · 2014-11-09 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  The is probably because the Germans having lost WWII have no choice in the matter and various treaties provide for American and British bases in Germany so long as we choose to maintain them.
  I know the British Forces Germany have been slowly drawing down since the end of the cold ware and have plans to be gone my 2019 However in light of the maniac that is Putin that is looking increasingly unwise.
25. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by dunkelfalke · 2014-11-09 22:27 · Score: 2
  
  Not only that, Chernobyl has also helped to bancrupt the USSR. The cleanup cost enormous, more than a yearly military budget.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
26. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  Obama wanted to preserve Gitmo, just not in Cuba, but on american soil (Illinois, specifically, look up "Gitmo North").
  THAT was what Congress was unwilling to support. Indefinite imprisonment without charges.
27. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Tom · 2014-11-09 23:14 · Score: 2
  
  In particular, even though the official American narrative is that Ronald Reagan personally tore it down with his death-ray eyes
  Interestingly, here in Germany the narrative is pretty much that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall whatsoever. The politician we consider to have had the most influence on events is Gorbatschov. Who, meanwhile, my russian friends think was weak and didn't have much influence...
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
28. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 23:27 · Score: 0
  
  Russians consider any leader who isn`t from the Catherine The Great/Ivan The Terrible mould as weak.
  Untermenshen is probably going a bit too far, but sometimes I think there's something not quite right about them.
29. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by swb · 2014-11-09 23:54 · Score: 2
  
  I'm curious how a command economy with what amounts to a captive labor force runs out money.
  I don't dispute that the Soviet economy as a whole was ineffective, but lack of money for defense spending seems kind of hard to comprehend.
  I can see labor efficiency getting worse, hard currency reserves being depleted, but when you can direct labor and physical capital for anything you want, how do you run out of money?
  FWIW, I've mostly believed the Soviet Economy Collapse in Competition With The US meme, mainly because it seems to fit and no other explanation has really been offered.
30. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by damn_registrars · 2014-11-09 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  The Guardian? The British version of Pravda?
  
  Did you actually read the article? If there is something in the article that you find objectionable based on what it actually says - rather than just what you feel about the newspaper that published it - please share that. Sharing silliness such as
  
  Too bad the Guardian's editorial staff can't share a shallow mass grave with some of the many victims of the Soviet Union.
  Does not further the conversation.
  
  The article actually cites specific statements, actions, and dates. Are there some in there that you disagree with, or some important ones that you feel they missed?
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
31. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Alomex · 2014-11-10 00:03 · Score: 2
  
  The politburo was informed in 1979 in a super secret session that the economy could no longer support the arms race and the USSR was broke. Nothing much seems to have come out of it, except that one young Comrade Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev was in attendance. Some believe that this was the moment he started planning the changes needed for the USSR to survive.
  As to Reagan his true contribution was his willingness to negotiate with the USSR. Thatcher had to point out to Reagan that Gorbachev was a willing negotiating partner. After a hesitating start Reagan got the message and bought full in on the negotiations. This was his contribution, not increase in spending, not the speech in the Berlin Wall, not his deficit increasing tax cuts.
32. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  > The Guardian? The British version of Pravda?
  Keith Alexander? Is that you?
33. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Livius · 2014-11-10 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard to imagine a single speech would cause the Soviet system to crumble
  It depends on what exactly you mean by "the Soviet system", but the speech where Gorbachev convinced the CPSU to hold competitive elections might qualify.
34. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by damn_registrars · 2014-11-10 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  Reagan's speech was part of a much larger program to pressure the Soviets.
  I don't dispute that. I fully accept that the entire cold war was about trying to bring down the USSR any way possible.
  
  Reagan believed, fundamentally, that communism was evil and spent a lot of energy fighting it.
  If it was truly about communism then by the time Reagan was in office - and indeed well before then - they wouldn't have wanted to put any energy into defeating the USSR as there was no communism left there. Certainly Reagan had some officials under him who knew that, even if he did not. It took very little time after the revolution for the state to morph from an attempt at communism to a top-heavy bureaucracy that was interested only in its own survival.
  
  Reducing Reagan's and Thatcher's programs against communism and all that represented it down to a single speech is unfair. Your concentration on the timing of the speech in relation to when the wall came down certainly seems to discount any other actions the US and other countries took.
  My point is that the USSR was already well into its death spiral before Reagan came to office. He just had a better PR team than any US president that came before him. Hell the wall didn't even come down while he was in office, it came down while Bush Sr. was president yet the credit goes to Reagan for one speech that most of the rest of the world - and importantly most of the effected world - paid almost no attention to.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
35. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Sique · 2014-11-10 00:39 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  If anyone in the U.S. is really interested in what helped to tear down the Wall, look at Helsinki and at the Helsinki Final Act. All the discussions and dissents in the former Communist bloc were based on the Helsinki Final Act, and on the signatures the East European countries put under the agreement on free speech and free travel. This is, what fueled the hope and the struggle. Not a propaganda show by the U.S. president who was in the same moment talking bad about the very documents that were so dear and important to us.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
36. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by jittles · 2014-11-10 01:31 · Score: 2
  
  I'm curious how a command economy with what amounts to a captive labor force runs out money.
  I don't dispute that the Soviet economy as a whole was ineffective, but lack of money for defense spending seems kind of hard to comprehend.
  I can see labor efficiency getting worse, hard currency reserves being depleted, but when you can direct labor and physical capital for anything you want, how do you run out of money?
  FWIW, I've mostly believed the Soviet Economy Collapse in Competition With The US meme, mainly because it seems to fit and no other explanation has really been offered.
  Their command economy was not efficient enough to produce all of the supplies they needed. They often had to buy Western grain to feed people. The leaders of the country wanted Western luxuries but, due to their restricted economy, had very limited hard money that was useful outside of the USSR. Hell, even the US relied on the USSR for some things. To build the SR-71, the CIA used shell companies throughout the world to buy titanium from the Soviets.
37. Re: Reminder of who not to credit by Culture20 · 2014-11-10 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  And both CVS and git are preferable to a shared directory which everyone edits with no file locking.
38. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Skater · 2014-11-10 03:03 · Score: 2
  
  Don't believe everything you read on the internet. I've lived in the US my entire life, and I've read a lot about the rise and fall of the Berlin Wall, but the GP post was the very first time I'd heard this supposed strong connection between Reagan's speech and the wall falling. His speech may have been a significant event - everyone remembers "Tear down this wall!" - but I've never heard the theory that that's what caused the opening. I've also never heard that the Hoff had anything to do with it, either, other than singing atop it after the gates opened. I didn't bother to check the article for the other three people.
39. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by mackil · 2014-11-10 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent point. I often wondered to what extent the first Guld war played in stopping the Soviets from the "military" solution, once things began crumbling. When they saw some of their best hardware defeated so handily by the Coalition forces, did that keep them from launching a military strike to preserve the Soviet state? Interesting to think about.
40. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by avgjoe62 · 2014-11-10 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  We have too many politicians and not enough leaders
  There's an old Bloom County strip that always sticks in my mind when I think about politics:
  Milo and Otis are sitting in the meadow and one of them says, "What the world needs now are more statesman."
  To which the other replies, "Churchill once said that a statesman is nothing more than a politician that's been dead for twenty years."
  And the other responds, "Like I said, what the world needs now are more statesman."
  
  --
  How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
41. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Spoken as an East German: The Berlin Wall Speech was a gesture towards the own people in the U.S., nothing more, nothing less. It worked. The majority of the U.S. still believes this speech had a big impact on the East. We, the East Germans knew that the Berlin Wall was evil, we didn't need Ronald Reagan to point this out to us. We already had 200 shot dead who were trying to get over the Wall. We had thousands of people in prison who were caught planning to cross the Wall. We had singer-songwriter singing about the Wall, and how it cut us off most of the world. When those singer-songwrites sung about not being able to travel to Paris, we cheered, and we were looking up to them for having the braveness to do so. When Ronald Reagan did this, we were annoyed about the big posture and grandstanding and the arrogance of the most powerful man of the world, and we felt like he stole our symbol from us.
  
  Spoken as a Westerner: please accept my apologies on behalf of my former self. 25 years is a lot of hindsight. You guys, on your side of the Wall, did the hard work of earning your freedom. Long may you keep it.
42. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Your concern that there were other speeches that aren't as well publicized as Reagan's is fine. How about highlighting a single line or a few lines from those speeches that brought as much focus as Reagan's imperative to Mr. Gorbachev? In fact, most people are probably unaware of what Reagan said in that speech other than his rallying cry and creating such a slogan is often a powerful mover.
  And thank you for the absurdity of your statements. The USSR, specifically Gorbachev, was most responsible for the dismantling of their own wall. The policies of Gorbachev and the reaction to the various uprisings and protests weren't of the brutal crackdowns of the past but an accepting conversion for which (not surprisingly) a lot of Russians see as an example of Gorbachev's weakness and how the great power of Russia (which was seemingly most important to them than the suffering of millions) was lost. It's little wonder that Putin, today, has such commanding power. By the same token, it's why Reagan made his speech--to make the American people feel power by having their leader act powerful.
  In the end, the meek, the wise, and the peace seeking who do right are vilified and those who seek nuclear armageddon first and rationalize it as a step for peace are hero worshiped. That is the evil that encourages yet more such abuse. That is why arguing about Reagan's beliefs* are disgusting at best when claiming they resulted in a net good. Well, by the same logic Hitler was a key part of the modern world today, so we should all crowd around and celebrate him as well.
  *Honestly, the list of things Reagan as President of the SAG, Governor of California, and then President of the US believed and supported are pretty disgusting. That "The Day After" finally made Reagan '[change] his mind on the prevailing policy on a "nuclear war"' at yet still support MAD or argue for Star Wars defense... But, yea, this is all a huge digression.
43. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  I hate to tell you... but you're missing the obvious, as is that blog that you linked to...
  The Soviet Union didn't increase spending because they COULDN'T. They simply didn't have the money.
  Doesn't the point still stand though?
  There is an idea going around Reagan helped bring down the USSR by bankrupting them: by the US spending more the Soviets were forced to spend more. But the data says that the Soviets did not spend more. The weblog does not say why, and it doesn't need to make its point: that more US military spending did not lead to more USSR military spending.
  It goes on to state another hypothesis for the USSR's fall, but for the purposes of this sub-thread that is irrelevant.
44. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by tehcyder · 2014-11-10 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  The Guardian? The British version of Pravda? Too bad the Guardian's editorial staff can't share a shallow mass grave with some of the many victims of the Soviet Union.
  The Guardian is on the extremely moderate UK left: at the last general election it came out in favour of voting for the LibDems (who are now in coalition with the Tories, and have reneged on essentially all their manifesto pledges).
  To consider it as extreme left wing, you would need to be some sort of neo Nazi, in which case you can fuck off and die in a box of shit.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
45. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by fustakrakich · 2014-11-10 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, well, we really don't know about anything, do we? But some things are pretty obvious, like the color of the sky, and the physical state of water... Even the tiniest glace at animal psychology provides a pretty good clue on the human condition. The gangsters are an evolutionary step. I see nothing abnormal, 'corrupt' or 'conspiratorial' or even anything specifically human about it. It is just the natural process at work. I do not see the big deal. Strip the emotional and sentimental baggage about people from your observations. This business is utterly and completely amoral (not immoral), simply working on the universal principle of might makes right, with lots of fancy philosophy to justify it all. Monkeys writing Shakespeare... I have stated nothing implausible, or even improbable. I try to remind people that it is most important to always treat authority in an adversarial manner. People cannot be trusted not to abuse it. They are violent gangsters. This has been scientifically proven in and out of the lab many times over. I assume you are familiar with Stanford, Milgram, Pavlov, Skinner and the others. And why are you finding 'the establishment' any more believable than me? Why do you prefer to believe their lies? Is the malice(more like indifference) of their normalcy really so difficult to comprehend? Or is that nobody likes to admit they've been had? As much as I would love to provide official documentation, I find it has no chance against the ideology of the reader, so I gave up making the effort. It's not like it can't be googled if you're really interested anyway. Personally I just don't care anymore. I'm going to say what I see regardless, and people can take it as they like, makes no difference.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
46. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Sique · 2014-11-10 04:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You as a Westerner are surely taught: Yes, only the freedom you earn for yourself is true freedom. You might earn it by overthrowing your oppressors or you may earn it by fending off the attempts to take your freedom. And we have seen again and again: Freedom that was brought from somewhere else didn't stay very long. Despite the claims of many ideologues, you can't export freedom. Yes, you can lead by example. Yes, you can overthrow an oppressor. But for a group of people to stay free they have to be able to earn their freedom themselves.
  Yes, the U.S. helped very much to make 1989 happen, but not by giving speeches on the safe side of the Wall. They made 1989 possible by being much more successful in economics, building the much better cars, the better computers, creating the better clothing and the better movies and music. They helped by bankrupting the Soviet Union which was awash in oil money in the 1970ies and early 1980ies, by forcing the oil price down and getting the Soviet Union to waste their money in an arms race.
  But at the same time, the U.S. made things worse by supporting every dictator who was crying "I'm against communism" loud enough. It made things worse by toppling democratically elected governments if they weren't anti-communist enough. It was easy for the communist propaganda to point at South America or Southeast Asia and say: If you are supporting the U.S., you are supporting Imperialism and suppressing people.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
47. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by RavenLrD20k · 2014-11-10 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  If the USSR production facilities couldn't keep up with the demand to feed its workforce and generate more efficient equipment... how could their economy seriously keep up with us revving up our military industrial complex to new heights?
48. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by dfenstrate · 2014-11-10 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious how a command economy with what amounts to a captive labor force runs out money.
  Hayek wrote a book about this question- The use of knowledge in society. A quote:
  
  The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.
  To put it another way, no communist politburo can centrally manage the knowledge necessary to make a modern economy work. There's simply too much to know. In a market economy, the participants know how to play their role, and how to get what they need to give their customers what they want. They need to know nothing more than that. Millions of such people quietly playing their own role delivers success. In a command economy, the politburo pretends to be able to manage all the knowledge and decision making required throughout the economy- and this is an impossible task.
  
  --
  Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
49. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  If it was truly about communism then by the time Reagan was in office - and indeed well before then - they wouldn't have wanted to put any energy into defeating the USSR as there was no communism left there
  Nobody said Reagan was opposed to true Scotsmen.
50. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by phantomfive · 2014-11-10 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  yes, yes, nothing can be proven, maybe we are just a brain in a bottle.
  
  Still, between two hypothesis, I prefer the one that is supported by evidence. In this case, I know people who wanted freedom, so that's my evidence.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
51. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  "In particular, even though the official American narrative is that Ronald Reagan personally tore it down with his death-ray eyes"
  They're always confusing Patrick Duffy for Ronald Reagan.
52. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by fustakrakich · 2014-11-10 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I admit, wage slavery is more comfortable than chattel slavery. I know people who want freedom also. And they know that 'revolution' is temporary at best. They seek a more profound solution than merely putting in a more friendly gangster that will give you an extra bar of soap and toilet paper with 63% fewer splinters every week.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
53. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by operagost · 2014-11-10 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Wow-- isn't that a mega straw man, pointing out that a speech didn't bring down a wall. Who the hell says that his SPEECH (written by Peter Robinson) caused the wall to be brought down? It's often suggested it was his policies. Debate that.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
54. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by operagost · 2014-11-10 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  I think the problem is that Obama is ignorant of the 19th/20th century slang usage of "bully" as TR used in the phrase "bully pulpit", and thinks that he has to actually act like a bully. He claims that he can get things done without Congress because he has a "phone and a pen," launches personal attacks against legislators and his critics, and uses the genetic fallacy in his arguments regularly.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
55. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by operagost · 2014-11-10 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'm afraid your countrymen are ignorant. Who was the leader of a superpower who opened a dialogue with Gorbachev? Helmut Kohl?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
56. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by operagost · 2014-11-10 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious how a command economy with what amounts to a captive labor force runs out money.
  
  Because people aren't machines, and by having a philosophy that precludes rewarding them for personal performance (and an inability to whip them into submission without incurring the wrath of the global community) you guarantee low productivity.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
57. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by damn_registrars · 2014-11-10 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Who the hell says that his SPEECH (written by Peter Robinson) caused the wall to be brought down? It's often suggested it was his policies. Debate that.
  Tell me, what policies did Reagan partake in - beyond driving our own country into insane debt by massively increasing the military budget - that had any effect on the USSR? People credit Reagan for bringing about the end of the Berlin Wall and ultimately the USSR even though he did very little in reality; particularly when one considers that t was already in a death spiral before he took office.
  
  I'd be happy to debate this. I would love to know what was special about Reagan that brought this about that would not have happened had the White House been occupied by Walter Mondale or a Ficus Tree.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
58. Re: Reminder of who not to credit by Yunzil · 2014-11-10 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Reagan was a lot like git. A lot of people sing his praises, but when you actually look closely at him, he sucked.
59. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by DerekLyons · 2014-11-10 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  He claims that he can get things done without Congress because he has a "phone and a pen," launches personal attacks against legislators and his critics, and uses the genetic fallacy in his arguments regularly.
  That more reflects his background - street level activist and local politics, where that's how things are done. That's not really appropriate at the national level, where he had very little experience before becoming President. The result is that he views Congress as damage to be routed around (not that he's entirely wrong about that, and I say that as a conservative who's greatly dismayed at the sway the nutjob fringe holds on the Right) and tries to handle that in much the same manner he did back then... which doesn't really work as personal influence and the Party Machine hold much less sway at the national level.
60. Re: Reminder of who not to credit by phantomfive · 2014-11-10 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah? Which system do you prefer over git?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
61. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, we were all taught it! Sadly, I question how many of us - particularly those who made policy during the current generational conflict in the Middle East - actually learned it.
62. Re: Reminder of who not to credit by Yunzil · 2014-11-10 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  MercuriaI is better than git. SVN is better than git. Honestly I would even take CVS over git any day.
63. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by crunchygranola · 2014-11-10 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  ...
  That more reflects his background - street level activist and local politics, where that's how things are done. That's not really appropriate at the national level, where he had very little experience before becoming President. The result is that he views Congress as damage to be routed around (not that he's entirely wrong about that, and I say that as a conservative who's greatly dismayed at the sway the nutjob fringe holds on the Right) and tries to handle that in much the same manner he did back then... which doesn't really work as personal influence and the Party Machine hold much less sway at the national level.
  As you say, the nutjob fringe does hold sway over the Right. On an objective basis, there has not been a Congress this obstructionist for more than eight decades. Although the Republicans seem fine with grid-locking government, regardless of the cost the nation, as long as Obama sits in office -- he understandably knows someone needs to actually govern.
  Conservative political psycho-babble fantasies about what 'community activists' think need to be set aside. The fact is he is President and needs to deal with issues facing the nation, even if Congressional Republicans do not.
  If Obama is actually, in any way, violating the principles of governance in the U.S. you can be sure that a lawsuit would be in the courts, passed up the chain to the Supreme Court, where the right-wing majority there would slap him down.
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
64. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by crunchygranola · 2014-11-10 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  The Guardian? The British version of Pravda? Too bad the Guardian's editorial staff can't share a shallow mass grave with some of the many victims of the Soviet Union.
  The Guardian is on the extremely moderate UK left: at the last general election it came out in favour of voting for the LibDems (who are now in coalition with the Tories, and have reneged on essentially all their manifesto pledges).
  To consider it as extreme left wing, you would need to be some sort of neo Nazi...
  No, you simply need to be a mainstream U.S Republican today. Conservative policies of the recent past are now denounced as "Marxist" without dissent in current day Republican-land.
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
65. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by crunchygranola · 2014-11-10 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious how a command economy with what amounts to a captive labor force runs out money.
  I don't dispute that the Soviet economy as a whole was ineffective, but lack of money for defense spending seems kind of hard to comprehend.
  ...
  Your instincts about the defense spending in the USSR are dead-on. They never ran out of money for defense. They ran short on supplies for everything else, and the civilian economy suffered terribly for it, but defense was always flush with resources.
  The USSR had, by the end of the 1960s, a fully militarized economy - the military was first in line for everything, taking so much that by the mid-1970s it stalled economic growth (this before Reagan, or even Carter, was in office). The notion that the Reagan military build-up caused the USSR to fall is not supported by studies of what actually happened, such as Ellman and Kontorvich's "The Disintegration of the Soviet Economic System".
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
66. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  But some things are pretty obvious, like the color of the sky, and the physical state of water...
  funny you bring that up because the color of the sky is directly related to the water, and also its really not that obvious
67. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by crunchygranola · 2014-11-10 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, Chernobyl has also helped to bancrupt the USSR. The cleanup cost enormous, more than a yearly military budget.
  Citation please.
  This seems an absurd assertion. The Chernobyl clean-up employed about 250,000 people for two years, mostly with low tech equipment, while the Soviet military had about 5 million men under arms, a lot of it very costly high tech gear.
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
68. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Tom · 2014-11-10 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it certainly wasn't Reagan, who famously called the Soviet Union "evil empire" and was one of the last western leaders to acknowledge that Gorbatschov was indeed changing things. Reagan had a dialogue with Gorbachov, but opened? You got any evidence for that claim?
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
69. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  or an American
70. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by DerekLyons · 2014-11-10 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  Were sober when you read my message? Or at least have an IQ above freezing?
  Because your reply indicates that you have no fucking clue what I'm talking about. I'm not even sure how you have sufficient connection with reality to even know who the President is.
71. Re: Reminder of who not to credit by phantomfive · 2014-11-10 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  MercuriaI is better than git.
  
  Oh yeah? They're almost the same.
  
  Honestly I would even take CVS over git any day.
  lol now I know you're trolling.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
72. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by phantomfive · 2014-11-10 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  Wage slavery? lol, is that what you call it when you need to work to eat?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
73. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by fustakrakich · 2014-11-10 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, If you withhold food from somebody because he doesn't work, you are making him into a slave, especially these days of intentionally created shortages to prop up prices as everything becomes mechanized. At least in chattel slavery you had a roof also.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
74. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by phantomfive · 2014-11-10 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  lol "withholding food"; no one is withholding food from you. That's the natural state ever since the world began. the weird thing is if someone gives it to you.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
75. Re:Reminder of who not to credit by r5r5 · 2014-11-14 20:52 · Score: 1
  
  Why is such an insightful comment modded 'Flamebait'!?
  "However, the civil rights portion of the [Helsinki] agreement provided the basis for the work of the Moscow Helsinki Group, an independent non-governmental organization created to monitor compliance to the Helsinki Accords (which evolved into several regional committees, eventually forming the International Helsinki Federation and Human Rights Watch)."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
  Latvian "Helsinki-86 was the first openly anti-Communist organization, and the first openly organized opposition to the Soviet regime in the Soviet Union"
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Of all the links you had to use by Jiro · 2014-11-09 16:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

... you linked to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. This is a left-wing organization (most of whose members are not atomic scientists), which opposed anything the US did that was hostile towards the Soviet Union--you know, the country that was responsible for the Berlin Wall to begin with.
This is equivalent to having a post about Bill Gates about how bad monopolies are. Sure, monopolies are bad, but it's a little odd.
1. Re:Of all the links you had to use by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 17:09 · Score: 0
  
  Because god-forbid people be allowed to change their minds. Or organizations be composed of people with different opinions.
2. Re:Of all the links you had to use by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-11-09 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  There's no reason to make up lies about a group whose truths don't mesh with your worldview.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
3. Re:Of all the links you had to use by Crashmarik · 2014-11-09 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  True enough but OP had a pretty accurate description of the bulletin.
In Fact by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 17:13 · Score: 0

In fact, this being a FAS link makes it more plausible that Reagan, Thatcher, et al, did contribute to the wall coming down.
The New Wall by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 17:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Will be built by Putin across Ukraine.
1. Re:The New Wall by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-11-09 19:38 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Will be built by Putin across Ukraine.
  With his bare hands, while riding on a bear.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2. Re:The New Wall by mirix · 2014-11-09 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  To keep all the Ukrainians out, away from the jobs and higher wages?
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
3. Re:The New Wall by dunkelfalke · 2014-11-09 22:34 · Score: 2
  
  You surely jest, since it is the Ukrainian prime minister who wants to build a wall.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
4. Re:The New Wall by jittles · 2014-11-10 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  With his bare hands, while riding on a bear.
  But what the world really wants to know is: Will he be wearing a shirt?
5. Re:The New Wall by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  Of course not! What kind of foolish question is that?
6. Re:The New Wall by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 03:04 · Score: 0
  
  With his bare hands, while riding on a bear.
  But what the world really wants to know is: Will he be wearing a shirt?
  In Soviet Russia, the shirt wears you.
We Are Not Amused by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 17:40 · Score: 0

Your Lord and Masters
Google
Re:Berlin vs. Nena by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 18:06 · Score: 0

99 Luftballons is far more apt. Telling, even.
Teufelsberg listening post by GrahamCox · 2014-11-09 18:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

One of the installations made obsolete by the fall of the Berlin Wall was the NSA's listening post on the Teufelsberg (itself an artificial hill built from the millions of tons of rubble cleared after WW2, burying a Nazi training camp and the highest point in the city). This should be on the list of any self-respecting nerd's list of places to visit in Berlin. It's really eerie now, largely abandoned though sort of occupied by some sort of artists' commune. You can get into the radomes which housed the antennae, and the acoustics in there are incredible - a whisper will travel around the room and a sharp clap goes around and around. Rumour has it that the flooded basement rooms, which are currently inaccessible, house some strange and dark secrets. The whole place will give you the shivers (and a great view over the city). I visited last year just after the Snowden revelations, and the overwhelming sentiment was the hope that one day the rest of the NSA will go to ruin in the same way.
1. Re:Teufelsberg listening post by TWX · 2014-11-09 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  Rumour has it that the flooded basement rooms, which are currently inaccessible, house some strange and dark secrets.
  If you mean obsolete computer and radio equipment, filing cabinets, metal desks and chairs, some safes that were left open when their contents were removed, and a break room and possibly a billet for some staff, all of it corroded to the point that it can't be removed intact, then you're probably right.
  
  I've been into a Titan II missile silo, there's a museum outside of Tucson, Arizona that houses a demilled missile, demilled fueling equipment, and the full control center with its original furniture and crew barracks. Everything not directly related to launching the missile still works, and even the equipment works in a sort of drill mode. Pretty neat stuff. It didn't hurt that when all of the Titan II sites were stood down, they brought all of the good stuff to this particular silo site so that it could be set up on static display.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:Teufelsberg listening post by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-11-09 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  Rumour has it that the flooded basement rooms, which are currently inaccessible, house some strange and dark secrets.
  Fortunately Gandalf killed that Balrog - so it's all good.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
3. Re:Teufelsberg listening post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 00:03 · Score: 0
  
  Rumour has it that the flooded basement rooms, which are currently inaccessible, house some strange and dark secrets.
  The NSA post is a cover story; it's actually an SCP site.
It took 28 years to come down... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 18:31 · Score: 0

How long will it be until the Great Firewall is taken out?
1. Re:It took 28 years to come down... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  How long will it be until the Great Firewall is taken out?
  
  Which one? The beta test site known as the Great Firewall of China, or the production version known as the Great Firewall in Utah? :)
Give credit where credit is due by fustakrakich · 2014-11-09 18:32 · Score: 1

Ted Turner and Satellite TV (certainly not satellite defense) brought down the wall. Starting in Poland of all places(you remember Lech)... No, actually the Goodwill Games in '86 brought enough bootleg satellite dishes into Russia to bring in a good glimpse of western media. The propaganda game was suddenly over for the old politburo. Took three years, but they grabbed their money and ran, guess where?
Or what, maybe it was the western banks dangling all that money in front of them that did it... That sounds the most plausible...

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 18:39 · Score: 0

I'd like to suggest a new tagline.
"News."
Re:US is how far from living under the Stasi? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 18:57 · Score: 1

US is how far from living under the Stasi?
You don't have a fucking clue! Goddamn! How insulting to the people that suffered can this be? Fuck off, you fucking wiener!!
Nothing speaks more clearly to the failure of... by Karmashock · 2014-11-09 19:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

... Communism then the need to build a wall to keep its own "lucky" citizens from fleeing their joke of a society to the west.
If communism were better, it would have been we that had to build a wall to keep our people from defecting.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Re:US is how far from living under the Stasi? by mirix · 2014-11-09 20:36 · Score: 0

Yeah, certainly the way to stop the decline is to say "oh, it was/is way worse somewhere else", put your head in the sand and do nothing.

--
Sent from my PDP-11
Meanwhile in Finland by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 21:05 · Score: 1

President Niinistö sees a heightened risk for a new kind of cold war.
Re:Nothing speaks more clearly to the failure of.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-09 23:04 · Score: 1

An East German accusing others of being uninformed? Oh, the irony!
Some thoughts... by Evtim · 2014-11-09 23:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

10th Nov 1989 was surreal experience for me. I had prepared a birthday party for my friends but did not tell them [was supposed to be a nice surprise]. So in the evening I browsed the district and picked them up from the usual places where we congregated. While going to my place we all noticed that the streets have grown very silent....it was a rainy, coldish evening but still....where was everyone?
Once we entered my place the mystery was reveled - my father emerged from the living room with some tears in his eyes and ordered everyone in front of the TV. The wall was down....they were just announcing it on the central news...
Well that was a nice birthday party I can tell you:))
A quarter of a century later, having lived and work in the West for more than a decade now I can say a few things:
1. Those "communists" back home were not communists at all. They were just a bunch of power hungry criminals who hid behind a label....nobody ever implemented the basics of the Marxists ideology...no-one. "The means of production belong to the people producing the wealth" - I never saw this happening.
2. The few idealists that sincerely worked to implement the communist ideals were shunned away by careerist and criminals - many of them ended up in Gulags. Btw, this is not unique behavior for communists - do you think that [for example] if Christ walked today in the Vatican and asked them why are they breaking fundamental ideas of Christianity, like for instance being filthy rich, he will be met with open arms? I think we will crucify him again...
3. The version of the communist ideology that was presented to me in school was something that I subscribed for with both hands. Forget for a moment that no-one was actually trying to bring this future around - what they told us was very close to the Start Trek future. All basic necessities of life will be for free and accessible to all members of said society + a few extras brought up by civilization. The list went --> basic necessities are air, water, food, shelter, warmth [energy] and clothing. The extras were child-care, education and medicine.
4. Once the system collapsed and the new way started coming in, the greatest disappointment in my life began to occur. Namely - in short order I realized that the western system that we all thought "had figure it all out" turned out to be wasteful, inhuman construct that only pretends to work for humanity. Just like the "communists" then...I realize that the free market system does not serve humans and it is in fact the most wasteful system ever created. I realize that the western countries are using very well developed science to control and manipulate the citizenry. And we all know that it works...I realized that people here are no better human beings than us back home. In fact those of us that managed to remain humanists in poor, corrupted, police state - we are REAL humanists. In the west many people appear humanists only because the times are [relatively] good. But when the hard times come the veneer of civilization is quickly gone. Just look at the rise of extremism in Europe - one financial crisis [created by your inhuman market system, western people] and suddenly all kinds of nasty societal developments occur - xenophobia, intolerance, ultra-greed...
5. The whole communism-capitalism thing is pure 1984 stuff [we are always at war with Eastasia]. Do you see what happens today - a new cold war is coming. Or a hot one even...I wonder why that is? Is it because the people in the east really hate westerners [and vice-verse]? Are we, the common folk the reasons for this? Because according to politicians - yes, we want war. After all the politicians do our bidding, is that not so? Or could it be that on both sides we have criminals who are filling their pockets while hiding behind [or highjacking] ideological labels? Could it be that the problems of humanity have nothing to do with political labels? I think so....
In conclusion - let's celebrate the fall of East European criminal regim
1. Re:Some thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Those "communists" back home were not communists at all. They were just a bunch of power hungry criminals who hid behind a label....nobody ever implemented the basics of the Marxists ideology...no-one. "The means of production belong to the people producing the wealth" - I never saw this happening.
  And you never will. Ever. People are greedy. It's like gravity; hold up a rock and you'll expect it to fall. Show someone a way to increase their own comfort and they'll likely take it. Bully for you being altruistic, but you're the exception not the rule. When things fall, you can complain that they fall or you can make use of it. Capitalism is like a water wheel, providing energy (economic activity) from the fact that things fall (people look after their own interests).
  True communist societies have been tried by people with strong altruistic tendencies, usually due to religious convictions. Even they fail because some people turned into sponges. Given that Marxist communism calls for elimination of religion, you'll only get a few altruistic folk, and more sociopaths than usual. That is a recipe for disaster for an economic system that requires extremely high percentages of altruistic people.
2. Re:Some thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  "- communism never failed since no-one tried it"
  oh yes it failed, every time; you have a problem understanding this, though. You can't figure out that the very basics of the Marxist ideology lead to chaos every time. The fathers of this system understood this perfectly, that is why they were prepared to kill off a portion of the population, terorize whoever was left and generally make your life very difficult since when you are busy all day to get a piece of bread you are not going to have any time left for thinkinh about overturning the regime; they knew that nobody on this earth will agree with their principles if not coerced, and boy did they coerce ...
  "- capitalism in its current form is deadly for humanity"
  you can tell very quickly you can't escape your marxist ideology, even when you are denying it; you still have this need for the collective. Now you are calling it humanity, nevertheless it is the old amorph collection that you are ready to do everything to preserve it. Look at what you are saying: "the market system does not serve humans" - humans do not need to be served by anybody: it is you, as an individual that needs to move your ass and do something, not wait for the state or the market or anybody "to serve you". Just try to do the best for you and your family and everything will turn just fine.
3. Re:Some thoughts... by k6mfw · 2014-11-10 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent post, you also illustrated wars are decided by a few politicos and not common folk. What is your analysis of the 2003 movie "Goodbye Lenin!"?
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
4. Re:Some thoughts... by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-11-10 03:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Marxist communism fails wherever it is tried (and saw to the murders of over 100 million innocent people) because it's fundamentally broken. It lacks any of the value indicators that are essential to any economic system.
  Marx believed firmly in the labor theory of value, and as such all economic power derived from human labor, not from mechanical power and as such almost completely ignores the value of intellectual work, the guy who figures out the right way to apply labor to raw materials is fantastically more effective than the one who does it the wrong way.
  Communism is also terrible at effectively allocating resources since it lacks the price signals that bundle cost and relative value and communicate them in a way that enables efficient allocation of resources to maximize what people collectively perceive as good, which is why communist economies always fail, and will always fail, even in the presence of automated systems that produce and distribute all of the essentials of life to everyone equally.
  "All basic necessities of life will be for free and accessible to all members of said society + a few extras brought up by civilization. The list went --> basic necessities are air, water, food, shelter, warmth [energy] and clothing. The extras were child-care, education and medicine."
  And yet that's very much what exists in the social welfare systems of most western countries today, with a few exceptions. They focus, quite rightly, on trying to get people back to work, but for the most part nobody starves by the roadside. Simultaneously they harness the desire for self improvement and reward it, creating an incentive for advancement.
  As to the rest to be honest it just looks like a lengthy paranoid misanthropic screed.
5. Re:Some thoughts... by tehcyder · 2014-11-10 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  People are greedy. It's like gravity; hold up a rock and you'll expect it to fall.
  I disagree. Most people I know aren't that interested in money, or there'd be a lot more people with a couple of businesses, working eighteen hours a day and raking in the money.
  What people are is lazy, and that is the start of all good ideas.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
6. Re:Some thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  >I realize that the free market system does not serve humans
  As someone who has lived in the west for his entire life, I can tell you my experience is much like yours. They claim in school how the free market is great. Then you realize it is being run by the corrupt and power hungry.
  The west doesn't have a free market. It has crony capitalism. There are those trying to fix that, but success has been limited thanks to those people funding "socialists" that are nothing more than windbags trying to destroy freedom movements to get pretty much everyone out of power (thus keeping both the corrupt and the honest out, since the corrupt just end up in ANY system you put together).
  Such is the new way to rule, I suppose.
7. Re:Some thoughts... by tehcyder · 2014-11-10 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  you can tell very quickly you can't escape your marxist ideology, even when you are denying it; you still have this need for the collective. Now you are calling it humanity
  If it's marxist to believe in something other than people as purely selfish economic worker drone units, then I'm a Marxist.
  You are putting a slightly different spin on the mad right wing calamity that was Margaret Thatcher saying "there is no such thing as society".
  Individuals are close to powerless in an individualistic society, unless they are one of the lucky ones at the top of the heap.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
8. Re:Some thoughts... by tehcyder · 2014-11-10 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  "All basic necessities of life will be for free and accessible to all members of said society + a few extras brought up by civilization. The list went --> basic necessities are air, water, food, shelter, warmth [energy] and clothing. The extras were child-care, education and medicine."
  And yet that's very much what exists in the social welfare systems of most western countries today, with a few exceptions.
  Yes, luckily we live in a society that isn't organised purely on laissez faire lines, but has incorporated some elements of socialism. It's why life is better today for 99% of people (in Europe at least) than it was a hundred years ago.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
9. Re:Some thoughts... by k6mfw · 2014-11-10 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  uh, capitalism is where man exploits man. With communism, it's the other way around.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
Re:US is how far from living under the Stasi? by stooo · 2014-11-10 00:00 · Score: 1

>> US is how far from living under the Stasi?
The US surveillance system is much worse than the stasi, it has much more power because it controls nearly all data flowing...
http://apps.opendatacity.de/st...

--
aaaaaaa
Freedom? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 00:33 · Score: 0

Freedom from the Russian barbarians? Tell that to the people of of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea, and Easter Ukraine. The treat is alive and well. It has been festering since WWII and will ultimately have to be dealt with militarily.
Re:Nothing speaks more clearly to the failure of.. by Karmashock · 2014-11-10 01:05 · Score: 1

So by your argument just because your side of the line had lots of people in it, it must have been a good society?
So... Egypt has more people then east germany... is that a well run society?
Do I need to reference north korea or other places with as many people but which we all understand to be jokes?
Point blank... your society was so shitty that they had to build walls around it to keep people leaving.
How many societies do you know of that are such garbage that they need to stop people leaving with walls and soldiers?
Seriously... think of an example.
We have north korea... and possibly Cuba?
I'm sorry you feel nostaligic for a failed society. I am not saying you personally are a joke or that your friends are jokes. I am not saying that the relationships you had were jokes. I am not saying your life is a joke.
I am rather saying that the soviet union was a joke. I am saying communism is a joke. I am saying east germany was at best a victim of the joke that was the soviet union.
The society you had... was a shadow of what you could have known had the soviets not stolen your freedoms from you.
And you sit here defending people that controlled your ability to speak? You defend people that gave you no political rights?
Fine... If that is the society you want to live in... if you want people to tell you what to say and when to say it. If you want to be told to shut up when you contradict the party line and then threatened with violence.
So be it.
As your first taste of that life you miss so much.
Shut up. I will tell you what to believe. Obey.
Or do you want to assert your right to freedom of speech now? A right you didn't have under the soviets.
I didn't say you were a joke. But right now you have two options.
1. Concede the point to me and admit I am right.
2. Render yourself ridiculous and a joke in fact.
Take your time with that little choice.
It is heads I win and tails you lose. Which is after all my favorite game. :-D

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Goodbye Lenin! by k6mfw · 2014-11-10 02:51 · Score: 1

A movie made about fall of Berlin Wall where the mom awakened from a coma but doctor tells son his mom must not get too excited. However, while she was in a coma the wall came down so he has make it convincing things are still the same (their resident was on the east side). He gets help from friends including one who wires up a TV set to a VCR and they create various programs from East Germany. There's a few things he has to mitigate like explaining the big Coca Cola billboard that appears in her window view. An interesting film that also illustrates some German culture of the time. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt03...

--
mfwright@batnet.com
"Real Communists" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 03:54 · Score: 1

"Those "communists" back home were not communists at all. They were just a bunch of power hungry criminals who hid behind a label."
In other words: They were like every real-wrold communist ever, as opposed to the idealized versions that live only in the heads of Western Marxists...
1. Re:"Real Communists" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  The programmed trolls are out in full force today, it seems.
Re:Reminder of who not to credit - by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 04:51 · Score: 0

Do the North Koreans share the same revulsion at their many people shot or electrocuted trying to cross into South Korea? Of what relevance were your personal feelings as long as the Soviet Union was ready to execute you for dissenting? Until the Soviet Union realized that there was an American President who would resist that control, violent control was a valid means of controlling your population.
Some to credit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-10 08:54 · Score: 0

Some credit goes to different people. For softening up the Soviet infrastructure: Gust Avrocados and Senator Charles Wilson and the $1 billion/year the appropriated to back the Afghans in 'Operation Cyclone'. Pakistani President Zia ul-Haq gets credit along with the then leaders of Syria and Israel. Saudi Arabia gets credit for putting up dollar for dollar (matching each US dollar spent). The Afghan Council of the North, also known as the Northern Alliance gets credit for being the 'Boots on the ground'. Raytheon gets credit for building stinger missiles. Michael G. Vickers (Mike Vickers) is the strategist tapped to organize operations. Further afield, the Catholic Church and John Paul II has information flowing from chaplains and priests. The killing of Father Jerzy (Jerzy Popieuszko) in Poland and the Gdansk shipyard strike led by Lech Wasa left people there seriously wanting change. Mikhail Gorbachev was a sane, practical leader. All of those people get credit. Ronald Ray-Gun? He used a pen to approve money. He made a speech. There are likely others I've missed, but mostly that's it. Oh, and before we all pat ourselves on the back, as Charlie Wilson said "We did wonderful things. We changed the world. Then we fucked up the end game." President Bhutto of Pakistan said of US continued arming insurgents "You are creating a Frankenstein". And indeed, Osama Bin Laden wasn't born a terrorist, he was created. And 25 years later, we have Soviet Putin wanting to make a comeback. Russia had about 2 years of democracy before going back to the totalitarian dictatorship. Russia loves their dictators.