Soviet monument to make way for Reagan

[rcecale]

Soviet monument to make way for Reagan

Opponents of Poland's former communist regime reportedly want to pay a posthumous homage to US President Ronald Reagan by erecting his statue in the place of a Soviet-era monument.

In an open letter to the mayor of the southwestern city of Katowice, the former anti-regime activists said that the staunchly anti-communist Reagan had been a "symbol of liberty," the Polish news agency PAP reported.

As a result, they said, he deserved to become the centrepiece of the city's Freedom Square, replacing a monument to the Soviet troops who drove out the occupying Nazis in 1945.

They also said that they wanted the site to be rebaptised "Ronald Reagan Freedom Square."

City hall spokesman Waldemar Bojarun said that Katowice's councillors would consider the issue.

Bojarun said that he had "enormous respect" for Reagan.

However, he said, the proposal could cost an estimated 500,000 zlotys (128,000 euros, 168,000 dollars) and the city had "other pressing needs."

There are already separate plans to erect a statue in memory of Reagan in the centre of the Polish capital, Warsaw, which would be paid-for from private funds.

Reagan, who dubbed the Soviet Union an "evil empire," is widely credited by Poles with having driven communism to the wall.

The conservative Republican made fighting communism the cornerstone of his 1980-1988 presidency, and backed Poland's Solidarity trade union after it went underground when the regime declared martial law in 1981.

Reagan died in June 2004 at the age of 93.

Source.



Randy

[rrpjr]

Randy: new bio on Reagan by Paul Kengor, on his lifelong anti-communism. Yet Reagan was never a fanatic. His argument during the Hollywood years was always to let communists speak, that is, he honored his own system's ability to sort out the good from the bad. The problem was, they wouldn't permit him to speak. Great moment when he stood them down at a Hollywood party, fiercely but cheerfully in his own great style, while they gnashed their teeth and attacked him. It was a decisive moment. What one most gets out of the story was just how much Reagan thought about this issue, how he envisioned victory, how determined he was to achieve it, and how he never lost his good nature during decades of withering and vicious attacks.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by rrpjr
Great moment when he stood them down at a Hollywood party, fiercely but cheerfully in his own great style, while they gnashed their teeth and attacked him. It was a decisive moment.

One of my favorite quotes of all times is from Thomas Jefferson. He said, "Nothing gives one person more advantage over another than to remain always cool and unruffled in all circumstances."

Ronald Reagan seemed to have that skill down to an art.

Randy

[Nostril Cheese]

Originally posted by rcecale
One of my favorite quotes of all times is from Thomas Jefferson. He said, "Nothing gives one person more advantage over another than to remain always cool and unruffled in all circumstances."

Ronald Reagan seemed to have that skill down to an art.

Randy

either that or he was just senile..

I have a certian respect for the man, however I dont exactly subscribe to the notion that he ended communism or the cold war.

President Reagan was the greatest president of our time.

[Victor]

So let me get this right:

Communist Poles erect a monument to themselves for "driving out" anti communists in WW2 - with the help of (soon to become anti communist) allies.

Some 62 years later, someone decides the communists who "drove out" the Germans in '45 are no longer worth celebrating and, instead erect a monument to a man who stood against the system the previous monument honoured as the liberators?

Pour me another one..............

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The best thing about Reagan is he wasn't Carter.

Not particularly a Reagan fan here. . . I remember the 80s well. I thought he was a decent president at times and a complete idiot at times. I guess that makes him. . . well. . . human. He personalized the office by making it "human" and he came off as someone you could relate to - or at least he was good at faking it. Either way, it was hard not to like the guy as a person, although his politics had an awful lot to be desired a lot of times.

FWIW I used to work up in Santa Monica (no more, thank God), but when I did a couple years back it was pretty interesting and surreal to have his funeral procession start literally two blocks away from my office. I drove in to work that morning and they had all kinds of hubbub around this funeral home nearby - later that morning I heard that it was the location of the former president's services. We all later went downstairs to see the funeral procession as it headed to the airport to transport his casket to Washington before it was placed in state in the Capitol rotunda. Pretty surreal. I've got some photos somewhere.

Even if I didn't always like his politics, I respected the guy - but it's also a bit too far to say he unilaterally ended communism or the cold war. He helped to facilitate it maybe to a degree, but both were doomed to failure anyway. Interesting man, interesting president. Hope he finally found peace.

That thing about the statue is interesting. . . You'd think they could just dedicate a new park or something. Politics aside, both the defeat of the Nazis (regardless of whether it was by Soviets or U.S. troops) AND the collapse of the communist government would be important items in their history to memorialize somehow. It just doesn't seem right for the popular politics du jour to scrub away other historically significant memorials because the politics associated with them have fallen out of favor. Almost like how I wish (and hope) a few Hussein statues were left standing in Baghdad - not because I like the guy, but because I think it's important for the Iraqi people to not forget that part of their history. . .

[Victor]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
*SNIP* It just doesn't seem right for the popular politics du jour to scrub away other historically significant memorials because the politics associated with them have fallen out of favor. Almost like how I wish (and hope) a few Hussein statues were left standing in Baghdad - not because I like the guy, but because I think it's important for the Iraqi people to not forget that part of their history. . .

Agree, but following that logic we would need to erect some more significant monuments to Adolf Hitler & The 3rd Reich in Germany than the thinly disguised swastikas on the HB Haus ceiling.......

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Agreed - in order to be most effective, history must include the things we consider distasteful. Maybe it doesn't have to be in the form of a monument, but I'd be awfully concerned about such events being written out of history for politicaly-correct convenience. You know the old line about those forgetting history being condemned to repeat it, right?

[Victor]

100% with you there - taboos just make things more enticing. Replacing the Soviet-era monument in Poland is a major snub to the poor folk who suffered under German invasion and fought tooth and nail for thier land. Regardless if they did that under what is now an unfavourable flag.

What's even funnier to me is the growing momentum of Neo "Nazi" groups in Poland and Russia. Bizarre - what did I just say about taboos?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
President Reagan was the greatest president of our time.

If that's true, then we're in the most pathetic phase of American history ever. The only good thing about Reagan was that he was significantly better than Bush I and II, but spent more than Clinton. Both Reagan and Clinton signed gun control laws, and both illegally meddled in foreign countries, and were responsible for the deaths of thousands.

Originally posted by fastpat
If that's true, then we're in the most pathetic phase of American history ever. The only good thing about Reagan was that he was significantly better than Bush I and II, but spent more than Clinton. Both Reagan and Clinton signed gun control laws, and both illegally meddled in foreign countries, and were responsible for the deaths of thousands.

Just more Patsterbation. None of your arguements have any validity because you hate everyone and everything. History will show that Mr Reagan was one of the best leaders of all time.

[Rick Lee]

If any of you guys are Tom Clancy buffs, "Red Rabbit" is a pretty cool one that deals a lot with how Reagan and Pope JPII helped Polish dissidents.

[speeder]

The leader that Reagan had most in common with was Clinton, though Reagan wasn't nearly as bright. (A political debate between them would be like a sprinkler against a fire hose). He had charisma, though, and knew how to rally his party and win elections. Slaughter opponents is more like it.

I remember vividly how artfully he gave the Republicans a little glamour while in power, which is something they are not used to experiencing. Safe to say that none of them alive now have seen it before or since. You may downplay this analysis, but its effect is huge on party loyalists who vote, you can see it here (and elsewhere) where people canonize the guy; he was a mediocre actor who found the role of a lifetime and sunk his teeth into it like a stage door Betty. He won an Oscar from his sheeple, and a "give me a fking break" from everyone else. He was an empty suit. Chauncy Gardner.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by speeder
The leader that Reagan had most in common with was Clinton, though Reagan wasn't nearly as bright. (A political debate between them would be like a sprinkler against a fire hose). He had charisma, though, and knew how to rally his party and win elections. Slaughter opponents is more like it.

I remember vividly how artfully he gave the Republicans a little glamour while in power, which is something they are not used to experiencing. Safe to say that none of them alive now have seen it before or since. You may downplay this analysis, but its effect is huge on party loyalists who vote, you can see it here (and elsewhere) where people canonize the guy; he was a mediocre actor who found the role of a lifetime and sunk his teeth into it like a stage door Betty. He won an Oscar from his sheeple, and a "give me a fking break" from everyone else. He was an empty suit. Chauncy Gardner.

Mark can't read this right now, he's in the bathroom with his copy of "Where's the Rest of Me."

[speeder]

Stop it....

[rrpjr]

This thread nicely captures the point. Reagan was "an empty suit," a Chauncy Gardner, a man who couldn't think in complete sentences, a quipping actor: the ridicule and contumely was the only response at the time both to the man's cheerful, iron determination both to challenge liberalism and define the evil of communism. What incensed so many about Reagan then, and apparently now, is that he didn't care what the smart set thought of him -- at the same time he didn't hold it against them. This combination of indifference and magnanimty drove them nuts.

In fact, if anyone bothered to look (as Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy have, and admitted) Reagan was a gifted and thoughtful writer (unlike Clinton, he wrote most of his speeches as governor), and a kind of plebian intellectual very much in a honored American tradition.

Two episodes illustrative of his character were the moment he seized the floor at the SAG melee at Olivia de Havilland's house in Hollywood and took on John Howard Lawson and the communists in an extemporaneous 20 minute invocation to fairness and free speech. Reagan had no intention of shutting down debate; it was they who wanted to shut him down. His spirit won the day, won over many in the crowd, and was the beginning of the end for the movement.

The second was at the Iceland summit. Reagan was offered every blandishment under the sun to disarm. Both the Soviets and the American and international media ran with the story of Reagan's consent, even showering him fools' flattery. Reagan saw through the seduction and rejected the plan. A weaker man, a Clinton, would certainly have found comfort and cover in the adoration of the world press. Reagan stood alone and made the call. This, too, was the beginning of the end for the Soviets. And, again, if anyone cares to read, the old Soviets themselves have confirmed this.

I would call Reagan the anti-Clinton -- unbending to opinion in the face of principle, large-hearted, personally humble, and basically uninterested in power except as a means to a good end. But I don't think any definition by negativity is appropriate for the man.

[Seahawk]

Many of my Marine friends have been Presidential helo pilots and aircrewmen on Marine One. They either flew Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton whille assigned to HMX-1.

The Reagan stories are amazing, both in their appreciation for his kindness and humor as well as their appraisal of Reagan as President.

The simple, pedestrian view of Reagan as a a dolt expressed here reflect more on the posters intellect than Reagan's

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by speeder
The leader that Reagan had most in common with was Clinton, though Reagan wasn't nearly as bright. (A political debate between them would be like a sprinkler against a fire hose). He had charisma, though, and knew how to rally his party and win elections. Slaughter opponents is more like it.

Very interesting. Shortly after Reagan's passing, I saw Dick Cheney and David Gergen speak at the Nat. Press Club. The theme of Gergen's speech was a comparison between Reagan and Clinton. I don't think too many in the audience were buying it and I was kinda scratching my head that someone as astute as Gergen would make such a comparison. BTW, most of the attendees were press, so it was no GOP rally.

Ever see the old SNL sketch of Phil Hartman playing Reagan where he pretended to be a total dolt for the cameras, tourists, visiting girl scouts, etc. and then was a total hands-on, multi-tasking tyrant when he was alone with staff? It was pretty funny. He was ordering everyone around, speaking German on the phone to Swiss bankers, etc. Sometimes you gotta wonder if Michale Deaver really intended for folks to see Reagan as a lightweight.

[speeder]

I base my assessment of him on well-documented stories of his inability to interact with people w/o a script. Apparently it was the damnest thing, he could not even greet a foreign dignatary w/o prepared remarks. This and the first-hand reports from other world leaders who spent time with him. Yep, he was at best an intellectual feather-weight, and at worst a prima facia imbecile. I'd just go with "empty suit".

I was in college and just could not believe my eyes that someone so insubstantial could be elected POTUS. It was shocking; but then a failure like Carter's presidency coupled with a headline-grabbing international crisis and a weak economy can make people just say, "WTF, let's put this guy in as QB...."

Iran-contra also exposed him to be either completely incompetent or an amoral, lying POS. He was not strong, not great in any way, just a figure-head that made people feel good about some illusion they had of America and the cold war. It's nice that he chatted with his pilots, but kind of disappointing that military members seem to rate world leaders on their small-talk or baby-kissing ability. It's always nice to meet friendly folks, but personally that would be the bottom of my list of qualifications for the most powerful person in the world. YMMV.