Would have the USSR collapsed without Ronald Reagan being elected President?.

The Right-Wing like to say that the USSR collapsed and fell apart because of the policies of Ronald Reagan, specifically his Military Build up, where I believe he raised the Defence Budget to 7% of GDP, very high for Peace Time.

How much credit can Reagan and his Military Build Up be given for collapsing the USSR?.
 
It highlighted the economic and technological disparities that existed between the two countries. To that end, it forced the leadership the acknowledge their country's shortcomings and adopt the reforms that ultimately doomed the country. However, those disparities existed anyway - the great stagnation started in the mid 70's and the revolution in computing power that started in the 60s and early 70s had already pushed the west well beyond the Soviets technologically. So, it would have likely collapsed anyway - Reagan gave it a nice push.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The USSR was a slowly dying husk. Short of A US President unilaterally pumping billions into the Soviet Union while simultaneously slashing our military to pre WWI levels, the USSR was doomed no matter who was in office. Reagan and his policies basically just drove that point home to them
 
Reagan had only few affect. Soviet Union had long time been stagnatised and economically and poltically on deep crisis. Whole system just waited its end. Even without Reagan USSR hardly would has survived even to 2000. At least not exactly same what it was on 1970's. On early 1980's USSR was practically sick man of Europe. Collapse was just question of time.
 
The Right-Wing like to say that the USSR collapsed and fell apart because of the policies of Ronald Reagan, specifically his Military Build up, where I believe he raised the Defence Budget to 7% of GDP, very high for Peace Time.

How much credit can Reagan and his Military Build Up be given for collapsing the USSR?.

I'm going to use the words of Kody, from the alternate history hub

The USSR was someone in the ground having a seizure, Reagan came and crushed it's neck
 
Last edited:
Sounds like it would have fallen apart anyway, much like a crappy house; Reagan merely rained on it and accelerated the demise. Put a moderate in there and we're still talking an early 90s or mid-90s collapse.
 
The Right-Wing like to say that the USSR collapsed and fell apart because of the policies of Ronald Reagan, specifically his Military Build up, where I believe he raised the Defence Budget to 7% of GDP, very high for Peace Time.

How much credit can Reagan and his Military Build Up be given for collapsing the USSR?.

As others noted, the USSR was already in fairly bad shape. However, Reagan forced the issue and pushed them to the edge. With a moderate POTUS, their collapse might have taken 5-10 more years; with a soft-on-defense liberal, 10-15 more years.

If we can generally agree that Reagan accelerated the USSR's demise, the question becomes one of how smoothly/roughly the collapse might have gone if delayed and the effect on other world events of the USSR still being around a decade or so more.
 
Reagan had nothing to do with the Soviet collapse nor did he accelerate rate one day. The Soviet collapse was due to internal problems Internal Soviet politics propped the regime up as the long transition from Brezhnev Gorbachev allowed the old system to stand up for a few more years. Any effort at reform would lead t the collapse as no one in the country wanted to keep the regime
 
Last edited:
The Right-Wing like to say that the USSR collapsed and fell apart because of the policies of Ronald Reagan, specifically his Military Build up, where I believe he raised the Defence Budget to 7% of GDP, very high for Peace Time.

But without the raising of the defence budget, the Soviet economic problems might look less serious. This in turn would slow down any reform attempts, which would finally lead to the collapse of the USSR. So without Reagan, the Soviet Union might ironically fall even faster.
 
As others noted, the USSR was already in fairly bad shape. However, Reagan forced the issue and pushed them to the edge. With a moderate POTUS, their collapse might have taken 5-10 more years; with a soft-on-defense liberal, 10-15 more years.

If we can generally agree that Reagan accelerated the USSR's demise, the question becomes one of how smoothly/roughly the collapse might have gone if delayed and the effect on other world events of the USSR still being around a decade or so more.

Yes, but the fall of the soviet union still wasn't something certain, the Union still could have survived (alltough it was not likely) as Reagan took power it became almost impossible to do it
 
I would say that the political climate in the United States that elected Reagan helped crush the USSR. Reagan didn't create the conservative upwelling in the US, nor did he invent the military-industrial complex. I doubt a Democratic President wouldn't fund Mujahideen in Afghanistan or cut the military budget. The political climate would make it untenable and Congress would probably just pass a bill that increased the military budget.
 

wikipipes

Banned
The Soviet Union was a test case of how not to run a communist dictatorship, in contrast to China. The leadership was awfully corrupt and ego-driven, Gorbachev mentioned that he himself did not receive the news of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 because of bureaucracy. While the oil boom in the 1970's had an momentary effect on the Soviet economy The oil market later tanked in the late 1980's bringing many structural economic issues to the surface, many of which were virtually out of control of the Politburo. Many Russians saw the skeleton beneath the skin, as food riots and chronic consumer good shortages would have inevitably brought the wounded behemoth to its bended knees. There was already speculation within the CIA about the future of the U.S.S.R., with reports in the 1970's indicating the exact issues that arose in the late 1980's.
 
The Right-Wing like to say that the USSR collapsed and fell apart because of the policies of Ronald Reagan, specifically his Military Build up, where I believe he raised the Defence Budget to 7% of GDP, very high for Peace Time.

How much credit can Reagan and his Military Build Up be given for collapsing the USSR?.

More than likely, but it probably would have taken 5-10 more years and it would not have seemed like a "victory" for the West in the same way.
 
The outright collapse we saw OTL was quite contingent, so in so far as "Reagan being elected" was part of the very broad chain of events leading to the specific outcome we saw then one can answer "yes, Reagan contributed to the collapse of the USSR". Beyond something so broad as to be meaningless like that however the answer is a clear no. The end of the Cold War as we understood it was extremely likely by the late 70's, but an actual collapse of the USSR was not. It only occurred due to the specific decisions taken by a variety of actors within the Union including but not limited to Gorbachev, with the obvious alternative outcome of a renegotiated 'USSR' which retained most of the republics in some loose form continuing to be likely right up until 1990. No Glasnost or Perestroika or any of the less well advertised reforms would have very likely meant a very different outcome for the USSR than OTL, with better or worse outcomes being equally possible IMO. Reagan did exactly nothing to influence the actual outcome.
 
More than likely, but it probably would have taken 5-10 more years and it would not have seemed like a "victory" for the West in the same way.

I have never come across anyone who thinks it was a Victory. Everyone was relieved we got through a frightening period without getting nuked back to the stone Age and looked forward to a happier time but Victory nope
 
The Right-Wing like to say that the USSR collapsed and fell apart because of the policies of Ronald Reagan, specifically his Military Build up, where I believe he raised the Defence Budget to 7% of GDP, very high for Peace Time.

How much credit can Reagan and his Military Build Up be given for collapsing the USSR?.

Ironically I think the good personal relationship between Reagan and Gorbatjov had more influence on the dissolution of the USSR than Reagans military build up. It gave Gorbatjov more manuvering space - and in the end it was Gorbatjovs internal reforms that crushed the USSR.

But as already mentioned USSR was on the way out far before Reagan was elected. China was able to transform, but that was due to a) the Cultural Revolution that crushed the central administration that in USSR blocked reforms and b) far less military expanditure.
 
So, no Reagan elected. Presumably that means Carter somehow pulls it off in 1980, or someone like GHWB wins the primary in 1980. Either way, Afghanistan is still a mess, which is probably the biggest drain on the Soviet military.

The oil market still crashes, and the Soviet economy is still wiped out.

Soviet Communism is still a massively inefficient economic system, which can't adapt to circumstances.

Eastern Europe is still full of people who are not happy about being occupied, meaning the Soviets still have to decide whether they want to continue spending significant amounts of money on that occupation or pull a Gorbachev and leave them to fend for themselves.

Reagan had nothing to do with any of these. The fall of the Soviet Union still plays out on more or less the same timeline (although, as noted, the details may differ).
 
The USSR had a terminal societal disease. Absent some sort of collapse in the west or the west propping up the USSR the end was going to happen. Timing and details would vary. Reagan reduced the "lifeline" from the west to the Soviet economy at the same time the US military buildup put additional strains on the USSR to match it. The tech gap, however, was due to the US/western economies encouraging the developments. A more hard line leader other than Gorbachev might have cracked down militarily against the WP countries as they drifted away, likewise the breakaway SSRs. So IMHO Reagan and Gorbachev were responsible for the when and how the USSR went down. Absent either of these the end may be substantially later and uglier, maybe later and less fracturing but for sure later.
 

Archibald

Banned
The fact is that the Soviet Union did ruinous military programs in the 70's, years before Reagan.
Short list (from the top of my head)
- An-124 Condor
- Tu-160 Blackjack
- Energiya - Buran
- Alfa-class submarines
- Typhoon-class submarines
- Kirov nuclear cruiser,

Respectively the largest aircraft, the largest supersonic aircraft, the largest rocket, the fastest attack sub, the largest submarine, and the largest surface combatant (since WWII and battleships).

All of them the bigger and best in their category, but also extremely, hugely expensive to build. The Alfa class is by itself mind-boggling: a titanium hull with an advanced reactor inside (and which doesn't work well)
Each of these one, taken separately, is a financial burden for any country bar the USAs. Yet The Soviet Union tackled them all at the same time.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I disagree with you on the Blackjack, Typhoon and Kirov being ruinous programs. The others most definitely were. Though even the Alfa-class could be argued that they were there result of a NATO misinformation campaign. The Soviets honestly didn't know just how far behind they were in acoustic quieting and truly believed that a fast interceptor was needed to stop NATO boomers from getting into launch position. Again, being misled on what actual ranges were for SLBMs.

The fact is that the Soviet Union did ruinous military programs in the 70's, years before Reagan.
Short list (from the top of my head)
- An-124 Condor
- Tu-160 Blackjack
- Energiya - Buran
- Alfa-class submarines
- Typhoon-class submarines
- Kirov nuclear cruiser,

Respectively the largest aircraft, the largest supersonic aircraft, the largest rocket, the fastest attack sub, the largest submarine, and the largest surface combatant (since WWII and battleships).

All of them the bigger and best in their category, but also extremely, hugely expensive to build. The Alfa class is by itself mind-boggling: a titanium hull with an advanced reactor inside (and which doesn't work well)
Each of these one, taken separately, is a financial burden for any country bar the USAs. Yet The Soviet Union tackled them all at the same time.
 
Top