Reagan's Budget With a Reformist USSR and Eastern Bloc

Good day. So this a scenario I've thought about lately.

In this scenario, the USSR's leadership is reformist with market reforms and high commitment to detente (Kosygin faction) by thr early 1970s.

Also, in this case, the monarchy in Afghanistan does not fall, so there is no Soviet War there. Also, let's say the Iranian Revolution still happens, but Khomeini is not able to hijack it, so the democratic opposition is put into power. But the disruption in the oil trade due to the revolution jacks up oil prices, cementing Reagan's win in 1980. Here, Soviet aggression is nonexistent, and the reformists are committed to peace and arms limitations.

●●●So with this, is it right to say that there would be no Reagan buildup (since he believed that it would deter the USSR's aggressiveness), leading to a balanced budget by his second term? Would he still make the "...Tear down this wall!" quote?
 
Last edited:
So with this, is it right to say that there would be no Reagan buildup (since he believed that it would deter the USSR's aggressiveness),

There would be a smaller Reagan buildup, but there would still be something of a buildup.

leading to a balanced budget by his second term?

Nope. He believed in the flawed concept of supply-side economics, which was a field of economic thought that states that lower taxes would have led to more revenue. The reasoning behind it is that people would spend that money, thus making more revenue to tax. As it turned out, that field of economic thought is wrong. It only led to deficits increasing eightfold. The deficit would be lower, but there still would be a rather large deficit.
 
What do you mean, "no soviet aggression"?

Are there thousands of soviet tanks in the center of Europe pointing West?

Are the soviets constantly striving for nuclear superiority?

Did the Soviets wage war by Proxy in Korea AND Vietnam costing tens of thousands of American lives?

Did the Soviet support guerilla and terrorist movements all over the world?


If the answer to all of these is No, then there won't be a Reagan budget, and likely not even a REagan, as his fire was anti-communism.
 
@Corbell Mark IV, like what is stated in the OP, the OTL detente extending to the 1980s, but the same problems in the US in 1979-80 are there.

@fjihr, would monetarism work? What should have been done to ensure a balanced budget?
 
Reagan and his administration (Weinberger, Meese, Kirkpatrick, and Casey in particular) completely rejected detente as a matter of principle. Only way to keep detente alive is have someone else be elected AND no communist aggression in Latin America, Africa, and Afghanistan.

As to the build up, a certain amount was going to happen just because the US had underinvested in defense during the Vietnam years (see M60 to M1 tank) relative to the Soviets and the rapid pace of new technology required higher rates of spending to implement.

The deficit almost certainly helped the economy recover in the early 80s. And lower tax rates stimulated new investment which helped the economy in the 90s and helped structurally tame inflation. So, if there isnt a deficit run in the 80s, we're probably not as well off now.
 

RousseauX

Donor
What do you mean, "no soviet aggression"?

Are there thousands of soviet tanks in the center of Europe pointing West?

Are the soviets constantly striving for nuclear superiority?

Did the Soviets wage war by Proxy in Korea AND Vietnam costing tens of thousands of American lives?

Did the Soviet support guerilla and terrorist movements all over the world?


If the answer to all of these is No, then there won't be a Reagan budget, and likely not even a REagan, as his fire was anti-communism.
Those things were status quo in 1979 and that didn't stop Nixon-Kissinger from pursuing Detente the only new development was the invasion of Afghanistan
 
I read that the buildup wad more of a reaction to the Invasion of Afghanistan and a reaction to a weakening Soviet Union. But if the Invasion of Afghanistan is butterflied away and if the Soviet Union is also rapidly growing economically, and also if reformists take the wheel, is it right to say a detente could still have occured?
 
Well, Reagan was one of the most transformative US Presidents, many historians have said. His ideas continue to the present day, e.g. tax breaks for the rich, hawkish foreign policy, etc.

The fact that he could have won in 1968 as said in some articles and some AH threads is interesting. Also, it's intriguing as well to know a different reaction to an Eastern Bloc that is not only relatively pacifist (I'm not saying they are), but also reformist in economic matters, given Alexei Kosygin's presence both IOTL and some ITTL.
 
Well, Reagan was one of the most transformative US Presidents, many historians have said. His ideas continue to the present day, e.g. tax breaks for the rich, hawkish foreign policy, etc.

The fact that he could have won in 1968 as said in some articles and some AH threads is interesting. Also, it's intriguing as well to know a different reaction to an Eastern Bloc that is not only relatively pacifist (I'm not saying they are), but also reformist in economic matters, given Alexei Kosygin's presence both IOTL and some ITTL.

Brezhnev, Podgorny, Suslov Shelepin and the rest were Stalinist reactionaries. Kosygin was not going to miraculously reform the Soviet system so soon after Khrushchev's ouster. Its a popular storyline on AH but you probably need to get rid of Stalin before 1932 to make this happen.

As to Reagan, Casper Weinberger, Sec of Defense, and William Casey, Director CIA, were neocons in the mold of Rumsfeld and Cheney. They werent going to continue detente any more than Bush Jr. was going to negotiate with North Korea or Iran. These guys HATED detente, basically equating it to Munich. As Nixon, Ford and Carter negotiated, the Soviets expanded their presence in Africa - Ethiopia and Angola for starters, Latin America - Nicaragua. They significantly upgraded their nuclear weapons, navy, and armor. It wasnt just Afghanistan, it was all of it.

In these guys' view, the Soviets were disingenuous in their negotiations by promising all sorts of things while simultaneously aggressively expanding its influence. They hated detente so much they didnt even include Nixon/Ford guys in their administration outside of Haig and he was doomed from the start for a lot of these reasons. Bob Gates wrote in his memoir of William Casey that he didnt come to the CIA to reform it or improve it. He came to the CIA for one purpose - to wage war on the Soviet Union. Weinberger was just as extreme.

You want your scenario and you have to get rid of just about everyone near the seat of power in both countries.
 
But I had seen some TLs where Khrushchev enacts good economic policies, successfully defeating the reactionaries and paving way for Kosygin's rise. For a later POD, let's say Brezhnev gets shot by Viktor Ilyich (?) in 1969, along with Suslov and some other reactionary, putting the hardliner faction in disarray.

But even with this, communist movements around the world are still kicking...

So even with a reformist USSR, Reagan and co. still ramp up the arms race?

What about Star Wars? I think the Soviets would acknowledge it as a hoax. Are there any evidences that say otherwise?

So, as said above, the 1980s deficit helped the economy in the long run, so, will a Democrat at the helm in the 2000s ensure a budget surplus, as the Clintons have maintained?
 
I really wanted to ask this question because I am alarmed about the rising debt-to-GDP ration in the U.S.

Also, the above questions also take into account, let's say the Iran-Iraq War never happens because Khomeini's dead and the democratic opposition take power. And the Gulf War never happens as well due to Iraq not being in dire straits. Also, Afghanistan is still under the monarchy, so no 9/11, and then no belligerent Iraq+Democrats in control durinv the 2000s = no War in Iraq (2003). Are these plausible? The US economy would be better without the above debacles, but by how much?


But if the Democrats have fostered peace and prosperity in the 1990s and 2000s, what would happen when the Recession strikes? How can we even prevent it in the first place?
 
The Iran Iraq war might still happen if democrats take power if Iran looks weak. Of course without an arms embargo once Iran gets its head straight it could curb stomp Iraq.
 
The Iraqis only invaded because Iran turned islamic. Without Khomeini calling for the overthrow of the Ba'ath regime and without the post-Revolution armed forces purge, and since the democrats will almost surely want to cozy up to the US, I don't think Iraq will invade. He also initially favored the Revolution as it overthrew the Shah. Once Khomeini hijacked things, there was nothing you could do.
 
But I had seen some TLs where Khrushchev enacts good economic policies, successfully defeating the reactionaries and paving way for Kosygin's rise. For a later POD, let's say Brezhnev gets shot by Viktor Ilyich (?) in 1969, along with Suslov and some other reactionary, putting the hardliner faction in disarray.

But even with this, communist movements around the world are still kicking...

So even with a reformist USSR, Reagan and co. still ramp up the arms race?

What about Star Wars? I think the Soviets would acknowledge it as a hoax. Are there any evidences that say otherwise?

So, as said above, the 1980s deficit helped the economy in the long run, so, will a Democrat at the helm in the 2000s ensure a budget surplus, as the Clintons have maintained?

TL's are not fact. They are speculative fiction based on a historical starting point with the intent of retaining some level of realism. But just because someone wrote a TL where Khrushchev enacts good policies means that it possible, let alone probable. I can create an ATL where I become a billionaire and it only requires a few, small different choices. But the reasons for not making those choices are complicated and ultimately make the likelihood of such an outcome rather small, to say the least.

Soviets were freaked out about Star Wars, had no way of knowing it was essentially impossible, and would not know it in this ATL either.


I really wanted to ask this question because I am alarmed about the rising debt-to-GDP ration in the U.S.

The debt to gdp ratio is not currently a big issue. The budget deficit has been declining over the last 6 years. As long as GDP grows faster than the deficit we are ok. Unfunded liabilities like medicare and SS are a different issue. But there are solutions here to as long as there is political will.
 
Yes, but were they backed up by facts?

Yes. Good examples of TLs with the greatest plausibility are "Stars and Sickles", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Year of the Three Secretaries", etc.

And there were probable cases of change the USSR's history. You could kill off Brezhnev in 1960 (over the Algerian coast). This would put the hardliners in disarray. And if Khrushchev is successful (though we need some few things to go awry at first, e.g. a worse harvest in 1958) in the economy, missiles (no Cuban Missile Crisis due to an ATL R-16 missile success) and reduction of conventional armed forces, then the hardliners could be marginalized.
 
Yes. Good examples of TLs with the greatest plausibility are "Stars and Sickles", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Year of the Three Secretaries", etc.

And there were probable cases of change the USSR's history. You could kill off Brezhnev in 1960 (over the Algerian coast). This would put the hardliners in disarray. And if Khrushchev is successful (though we need some few things to go awry at first, e.g. a worse harvest in 1958) in the economy, missiles (no Cuban Missile Crisis due to an ATL R-16 missile success) and reduction of conventional armed forces, then the hardliners could be marginalized.

Brezhnev dying doesnt affect Khrushchev's removal other than require a different hardliner take over. And Khrushchev had a rather erratic personality, which not only contributed to his downfall but most likely to his various misjudgments in implementing his reforms. And remember, he barely survived 1957, appealing to the Central Committee rather than the Politburo. No, Khrushchev doesnt stand much of a chance of either lasting longer than he did or being more successful.

I recommend reading "The System" by Georgi Arbatov and "Inside Gorbachev's Kremlin" by Yegor Ligachev. Neither specifically looks at your POD but both provide extensive background on the nature of the Soviet system from an insider's point of view. I am sure there are other equal and perhaps superior sources. But I have found these two to be fairly good.
 
Top