By what point was the Soviet Union's fall inevitable?

[DevotedDemocrat]

By what year would you say the USSR's fall became inevitable and unstoppable?

[Cassius]

I'm no expert, but I'd say that the late 1980's is probably the point of no return for the USSR.

[MATTROSE94]

Probably somewhere between 1980 and 1985.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

The Soviet union was doomed on 30 December, 1922.

[sdu754]

I'd say January 20th 1981 at noon. Before that the USSR didn't really have too much to worry about.

[Cory]

Probably sometime in the mid-80's. The idea that there is now way the USSR survives with a POD after 1922 or even 1970 is laughable. Especially if "inevitable and unstoppable" is the standard.

We like to forget that the main reason the USSR was at a disadvantage in the Cold War was because of the devastation inflicted on them in WWII, never mind in comparison to America.

[The Mikado]

1985-86, when the oil glut sent the price of oil through the floor.  The USSR had been using oil exports to paper over their declining industrial sector, once the price of oil hit $6 a barrel their economy lost the last prop that was holding it up.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

In some form it could have survived with a POD as late as 1991, but it would still be in the post-Cold War era and wouldn't include the Baltic states.

[dead0man]

1971

[Franzl]

Surprised no simpleton has yet been by to say "Reagan".

[Antonio the Sixth]

From the 70s at the very latest.

Reagan's rearmament nonsense may have accelerated the process, but it's doubtful this acceleration has been in any way a good thing for the countries in question.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Surprised no simpleton has yet been by to say "Reagan".

I'd say January 20th 1981 at noon. Before that the USSR didn't really have too much to worry about.

On the Atlas, there's always some idiot to crush your optimism.

[Franzl]

Surprised no simpleton has yet been by to say "Reagan".

I'd say January 20th 1981 at noon. Before that the USSR didn't really have too much to worry about.

On the Atlas, there's always some idiot to crush your optimism.

...

Thanks for demonstrating that such optimism is rarely warranted...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

From the 70s at the very latest.

Reagan's rearmament nonsense may have accelerated the process, but it's doubtful this acceleration has been in any way a good thing for the countries in question.

People do forget rearmanent started under Carter.

[sdu754]

From the 70s at the very latest.

Reagan's rearmament nonsense may have accelerated the process, but it's doubtful this acceleration has been in any way a good thing for the countries in question.

People do forget rearmanent started under Carter.

Actually Carter was cutting back on defense spending. it was Reagan's increased pressure that cause the USSR to fail. There are still other communist nations out there (Even if you exclude China for adopting some capitalist principles) Had Reagan not pressured the USSR it would have lasted at least another decade, if not longer. You have to remember Gorbachev was willing to let the satellite countries go to save the USSR. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

From the 70s at the very latest.

Reagan's rearmament nonsense may have accelerated the process, but it's doubtful this acceleration has been in any way a good thing for the countries in question.

People do forget rearmanent started under Carter.

Actually Carter was cutting back on defense spending. it was Reagan's increased pressure that cause the USSR to fail. There are still other communist nations out there (Even if you exclude China for adopting some capitalist principles) Had Reagan not pressured the USSR it would have lasted at least another decade, if not longer. You have to remember Gorbachev was willing to let the satellite countries go to save the USSR. 

I see you don't let facts confuse you.

Carter halted the defense cuts that happened under Nixon and Ford and oversaw a modest increase in defense spending. He likely would have increase it even more if the budget wasn't being whacked by high interest rates.  Probably the most ironic myth of Carter's defense cutting is the B-1 bomber.  He cut it because it was not much more survivable on the nuclear battle field than the B-52 would be and the still secret but under development stealth bomber technology looked to be a far more viable method of bombing the Soviet Union if need be.  But since it was secret, he didn't mention stealth technology as a reason for not building the B-1.  The B-1B that was ultimately built under Reagan was a substantially different (and improved) aircraft from the B-1A that Carter cancelled.  Even then, it only made sense because development times for the B-2 proved longer than hoped for.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

August 1991, when Yeltsin used his popularity after the failed coup to destroy Gorbachev

[Paul Kemp]

[Franknburger]

26 April, 1986. There has been no other event that has so fundamentally eroded SU citizen's belief in their governments' ability to manage the economy and emergency situations than the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster. Official information policy after the disaster contradicted Gorbachev's claim for more openness (glasnost), causing him to lose respect with the urban elite. His prohibitionist policies, meanwhile, destroyed rural support, as most cooperatives were deprived of the possibility to augment revenues (& salaries) by distilling vodka. I have hardly found a former leader being more hated by people, wherever you went, than Gorbachev during the early/ mid 1990s.

[sdu754]

From the 70s at the very latest.

Reagan's rearmament nonsense may have accelerated the process, but it's doubtful this acceleration has been in any way a good thing for the countries in question.

People do forget rearmanent started under Carter.

Actually Carter was cutting back on defense spending. it was Reagan's increased pressure that cause the USSR to fail. There are still other communist nations out there (Even if you exclude China for adopting some capitalist principles) Had Reagan not pressured the USSR it would have lasted at least another decade, if not longer. You have to remember Gorbachev was willing to let the satellite countries go to save the USSR. 

I see you don't let facts confuse you.

Carter halted the defense cuts that happened under Nixon and Ford and oversaw a modest increase in defense spending. He likely would have increase it even more if the budget wasn't being whacked by high interest rates.  Probably the most ironic myth of Carter's defense cutting is the B-1 bomber.  He cut it because it was not much more survivable on the nuclear battle field than the B-52 would be and the still secret but under development stealth bomber technology looked to be a far more viable method of bombing the Soviet Union if need be.  But since it was secret, he didn't mention stealth technology as a reason for not building the B-1.  The B-1B that was ultimately built under Reagan was a substantially different (and improved) aircraft from the B-1A that Carter cancelled.  Even then, it only made sense because development times for the B-2 proved longer than hoped for.

Carter was cutting programs. If you take out the "interest on debt, defense related" & "veterans affairs" most of the rest of those lines are sagging in the late 70s. I wouldn't really call that "rearmament".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Obviously you can't read graphs at all.  If you could, you'd see that the low point was in 1976, even if one counts only direct DoD spending.  Granted, the increase was small, but that's because of the fiscal problems of the government as a whole which Carter faced instead of ignoring like Reagan did.  It's easy to increase spending on any government program if you don't worry about the deficit.

[sdu754]

Obviously you can't read graphs at all.  If you could, you'd see that the low point was in 1976, even if one counts only direct DoD spending.  Granted, the increase was small, but that's because of the fiscal problems of the government as a whole which Carter faced instead of ignoring like Reagan did.  It's easy to increase spending on any government program if you don't worry about the deficit.

Actually I obviously can read graphs (but thanks for the insult, it's always nice to have a fair & unbiased moderator)

On the following link you can choose spending levels for different years:
http://www.davemanuel.com/us-government-spending.php

Defense/military 1976 $334,964,000,000 (inflation adjusted)
Defense/military 1980 $344,299,000,000 (inflation adjusted)

So if you look at defense spending under Carter it increased slightly while adjusted for inflation. This doesn't constitute a "rearmament under Carter". The military was in a pretty sorry shape when Reagan took over. If you need any evidence, just look at the hostage rescue attempt.

Much of the increased cost in servicing the debt was due to Carter having the fed increase interest rates to fight inflation while campaigning for the fed to have a loose monetary policy.

As far as debts under Reagan, increases were due to several things. Inflation, automatic increases on programs that have a snowball affect to them (just about every social program) Increases in the cost of servicing previous debt, the fact that he was forced by congress to accept higher spending than he wanted to.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Obviously you can't read graphs at all.  If you could, you'd see that the low point was in 1976, even if one counts only direct DoD spending.  Granted, the increase was small, but that's because of the fiscal problems of the government as a whole which Carter faced instead of ignoring like Reagan did.  It's easy to increase spending on any government program if you don't worry about the deficit.

Actually I obviously can read graphs (but thanks for the insult, it's always nice to have a fair & unbiased moderator)

On the following link you can choose spending levels for different years:
http://www.davemanuel.com/us-government-spending.php

Defense/military 1976 $334,964,000,000 (inflation adjusted)
Defense/military 1980 $344,299,000,000 (inflation adjusted)

So if you look at defense spending under Carter it increased slightly while adjusted for inflation. This doesn't constitute a "rearmament under Carter". The military was in a pretty sorry shape when Reagan took over. If you need any evidence, just look at the hostage rescue attempt.

While it might not meet your definition of "rearmament" since sagging means going down I fail to see how it could possibly be considered "sagging" which is what you said it did, hence my statement that you were failing to read the graph correctly.  As for the hostage rescue attempt, it was the first major operation of the newly formed Delta Force and at least we didn't leave anyone behind to be executed as we did with three Marines in the Mayaguez incident five years earlier under Ford. While Operation Eagle Claw was a failure, what happened in the Iranian desert was an improvement over what happened at Koh Tang Island.

[sdu754]

Obviously you can't read graphs at all.  If you could, you'd see that the low point was in 1976, even if one counts only direct DoD spending.  Granted, the increase was small, but that's because of the fiscal problems of the government as a whole which Carter faced instead of ignoring like Reagan did.  It's easy to increase spending on any government program if you don't worry about the deficit.

Actually I obviously can read graphs (but thanks for the insult, it's always nice to have a fair & unbiased moderator)

On the following link you can choose spending levels for different years:
http://www.davemanuel.com/us-government-spending.php

Defense/military 1976 $334,964,000,000 (inflation adjusted)
Defense/military 1980 $344,299,000,000 (inflation adjusted)

So if you look at defense spending under Carter it increased slightly while adjusted for inflation. This doesn't constitute a "rearmament under Carter". The military was in a pretty sorry shape when Reagan took over. If you need any evidence, just look at the hostage rescue attempt.

While it might not meet your definition of "rearmament" since sagging means going down I fail to see how it could possibly be considered "sagging" which is what you said it did, hence my statement that you were failing to read the graph correctly.  As for the hostage rescue attempt, it was the first major operation of the newly formed Delta Force and at least we didn't leave anyone behind to be executed as we did with three Marines in the Mayaguez incident five years earlier under Ford. While Operation Eagle Claw was a failure, what happened in the Iranian desert was an improvement over what happened at Koh Tang Island.

From the graph you posted, there is a sag started in the mid 70s, so the sag began before Carter, under Nixon. So I read your graph correctly, I was looking at the area below debt servicing.

You're also missing the bigger point. Another one of your fellow liberals tried to say rearmament started under Carter. I simply pointed out that it didn't and that Carter had cut some programs. Can you really debate that I'm wrong?

I would actually call eagle claw worse, because it failed before it really even got started, at least Mayaguez succeeded in it's mission. Assuming the Mayaguez incident was worse, it still doesn't get Carter off the hook for military unpreparedness, it actually makes it worse, as he should have seen the "failure" as a reason to rebuild the military.

[RosettaStoned]

 1975ish.