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

[Middle-aged Europe]

Sometime during the Brezhnev era, so the early to mid 70s are a good guess.

Gorbachev's reforms obviously came to late, so it must be earlier than 1985. You can also tell that your empire is in decline when you start to prop up geriatric leaders like Andropov and Chernenko who kick the bucket shortly after coming to power.

Invading Afghanistan was also a major mistake, so I'd say 1979 is the latest possible "point of no return". But it was probably some years earlier than that. The Soviet economy turned stagnant around 1970-75, so that's the period I would settle with.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

First off, I'm not liberal, just ask any of the real liberals on this forum.  Second, unless one is just going to wastefully throw money at every anything (such as bringing the battleships out of mothballs as Reagan did) it takes time to ramp up new programs and systems and unless one pretends the government has an inexhaustible fisc one needs to cut useless or outdated programs to be able to fund new programs.  The prep work that went on under Carter is one reason why Reagan was able to ramp up defense spending as quickly as he did.

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.

Mayaguez was not in anyway a success, tho Ford certainly spun it as such at the time.  The people that we were trying to rescue weren't anywhere near the ship and were already in the process of being released.  The Khmer Rouge had announced that fact, just before the actual mission began, but we didn't believe them so we still went in, tho I won't fault anyone for that as the KR were not at all trustworthy.  However, the fact that we just barged in without verifying where those we were intending to rescue was just plain awful. If the KR had not already been in the process of releasing them, the crew of the Mayaguez very well might have ended up executed in addition to the Marines we left behind.

It was in response to our poor performance then as well as other incidents that were going on in the world that led to the formation of Delta Force during the Carter administration as part of his rebuilding the military to face the challenges of the post-Vietnam era. It would have been wonderful had Delta Force's first major mission been a success, but only in potboiler novels do special ops missions invariably succeed.

[CatoMinor]

1922

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

When Reagan stepped into the Oval Office.

[sdu754]

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?

First off, I'm not liberal, just ask any of the real liberals on this forum.  Second, unless one is just going to wastefully throw money at every anything (such as bringing the battleships out of mothballs as Reagan did) it takes time to ramp up new programs and systems and unless one pretends the government has an inexhaustible fisc one needs to cut useless or outdated programs to be able to fund new programs.  The prep work that went on under Carter is one reason why Reagan was able to ramp up defense spending as quickly as he did.

Reagan re-instated programs that Carter cut, so those weren't "useless or outdated programs ". But my point still stands, Carter didn't start rearmament.


"unless one is just going to wastefully throw money at every anything" - sounds like the "great Society" not Reagan.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Reagan re-instated programs that Carter cut, so those weren't "useless or outdated programs ".

Please go ahead and name some of these programs that Carter cut and Reagan restored. It would interesting to debate the merits of actual programs rather than vague assertions.  I've already pointed out why I think Carter made the right decision in cutting the B-1A bomber.  The B-1B Reagan authorized was such a different plane in both construction and mission that it would be a misnomer to call its authorization a restoration.  I already mentioned the wasteful recommissioning of the Iowa-class battleships. That only had one tangible benefit: http://youtu.be/BsKbwR7WXN4

[MurrayBannerman]

On a serious note, about 1975.

[sdu754]

Reagan re-instated programs that Carter cut, so those weren't "useless or outdated programs ".

Please go ahead and name some of these programs that Carter cut and Reagan restored. It would interesting to debate the merits of actual programs rather than vague assertions.  I've already pointed out why I think Carter made the right decision in cutting the B-1A bomber.  The B-1B Reagan authorized was such a different plane in both construction and mission that it would be a misnomer to call its authorization a restoration.  I already mentioned the wasteful recommissioning of the Iowa-class battleships. That only had one tangible benefit: http://youtu.be/BsKbwR7WXN4

The B-1B came out of the program Carter cut. Of course the finished product was different then the one that was still under development. The B-52s were growing ever more vulnerable to Soviet technology at the time. I believe he also cut development of the next generation fighter at the time. Carter also limited cruise missile research & development. Carter cut the naval ship building program as well as decommissioning several battleships. Just because you thing re-commissioning those ships was wasteful doesn't mean that it was. To actually believe that Carter started rearmament is ridiculous. You still haven't put forth any proof to support that argument.

[compson III]

1986, when oil prices collapsed.

You could have argued that the Brezhnev regime marked the beginning of the end, but that era was long sustained (and could have done so indefinitely) by high oil prices.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I believe he also cut development of the next generation fighter at the time.

Hardly.  The F-14 and F-15 were at the beginning of their operational careers then and the A-10, F-15C/D, and F-16 entered active service under Carter. The F-18 entered into development during Carter.  Possibly you may be thinking of the FB-111H which was put forth as an alternative to the B-1A which was also rejected by Carter, but that was hardly a next generation fighter.  Besides the only real improvement over the F-14 and F-15 that later fighters have is stealth technology and Carter backed stealth.  As you may recall, it was one reason why he axed the B-1A.  (The other was that it was not particularly better than the B-52.  Indeed, when the B-1B entered service later it wasn't B-52's it replaced but FB-111A's.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where do you get this stuff from?  The Tomahawk program was begun under Carter as was the Pershing II.  Granted, they didn't enter service until halfway thru Reagan's first term, but without the development work done under Carter, they couldn't have done that until Reagan's second term.  Modern military systems have long development cycles.

Carter cut the naval ship building program

Not really.  The most one can fault Carter for is that he continued to support the construction of the CVV medium-sized carriers authorized under Ford instead of additional Nimitz-class CVNs.  But it was Ford who initially cancelled the order for CVN-71 and replaced it with two CVVs at about the same cost. The only real fault with the CVV concept was the failure of XFV-12 V/STOL fighter to perform as expected. If it had worked, then those two CVVs would have been able to operate more fighter aircraft than a single CVN and by being two targets instead of one, they would have been more survivable.  But the failure of the XFV-12 would only become evident because of the development work undertaken during the Carter administration.  By 1980, it was clear that the XFV-12 was a failure and thus the CVV would not be a suitable alternative and Carter agreed to the funding of CVN-71 in his last budget.

But as for other ships, the Spruance-class destroyers came into commission under Carter, as did the first couple of Perry-class frigates with about half of the class being ordered under Carter, tho because of lead times and the fact that the Navy went slow with the first couple to make certain they got the bugs out before going into full production, the Perrys largely didn't go into commission until Reagan was in office.  Similarly, the Ticonderoga was ordered under Carter tho it wasn't until Reagan that they entered into service.  Both Los Angeles and Ohio class subs were being built under Carter, tho for the most part they did not enter service until Reagan was in office.

The Reagan naval buildup was due primarily not to increased construction of new ships but a refusal to decommission old ships and the symbolic decision to recommission the Iowas. (Except for having those phallic 16" guns, an additional Ticonderoga would have been much more capable and cost less over its lifetime than a recommissioned Iowa.)

[sdu754]

Where do you get this stuff from? 

Actually I got those cuts from a book called "Age of Reagan" wrote by far left professor Sean Wilentz. If you know the writer, you know he's pretty extreme. Everyone knows the military was in pretty poor shape when Reagan took office.

We could go back and forth all day long, my liberal friend, but it's obvious you're prescribing to revisionist history where Carter won the cold war. I once read a book that blamed Eisenhower for FDRs Yalta give away & LBJs Viet Nam folly. I guess the new chic thing among liberals is to give Carter credit for the things Reagan did.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Everyone knows the military was in pretty poor shape when Reagan took office.

Often it's the things that everyone knows that are the most wrong.  Tho there is a measure of truth to it.  Reagan did improve the military over what he inherited from Carter, but Carter improved it over what he had inherited from Ford. The military ended up in an awful mess after Vietnam.

[Mordecai]

From the very beginning.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Berlin Wall falling and the re-unification of Germany.

[Oak Hills]

1922, in the sense that if a nation exists, its eventual fall is as inevitable as your death or mine.

[Yeahsayyeah]

1922, in the sense that if a nation exists, its eventual fall is as inevitable as your death or mine.

Sure, as in five billion years the sun will turn into a nova and annihilate all higher live on earth.

I think, many posters in this thread mix up "Soviet Union as a state", "Soviet Union as leader of its own powerbloc" and "Soviet Union as 'communist'", so there is no sure answer to give. I think that Soviet Union as a rump state could have existet until the August coup, but it's politics and economy would be very much likely to be like today's Russia.

[Cory]

1922

Absurd.

[sdu754]

Everyone knows the military was in pretty poor shape when Reagan took office.

Often it's the things that everyone knows that are the most wrong.  Tho there is a measure of truth to it.  Reagan did improve the military over what he inherited from Carter, but Carter improved it over what he had inherited from Ford. The military ended up in an awful mess after Vietnam.

I'm going by what several former military men have said. How did Carter rebuild the military when Ford/Nixon let it fall into disrepair, without increasing spending once you adjust for inflation?

Actually, you don't need to answer that question, my liberal friend, as we could go back & forth forever. We should just agree to disagree.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Rebuilding involves more than just money.  Conservatives tend too often to measure everything in dollars and cents.  Of course, money is nice too.  Carter's single term was a period of readjustment.  Rather than simply downsizing the bloated Vietnam-era defense establishment as Nixon and Ford had done, Carter began to get it prepared to face the new challenges our military would face and to do it without having an endless supply of draftees.  I can't say whether adjusting to the volunteer force was because of Carter, but that adjustment did happen under Carter as it took the generals and admirals some time to realize that the draft, which not only directly drafted people into the services but also encouraged "volunteering" to get a better spot than a draftee would, would not be coming back and adjust their personnel and recruiting policies accordingly.  There were problems as we transitioned to the all volunteer military, but it certainly turned out for the best.  Not that Carter was wholly against using the draft.  After all, it was Carter who ordered the resumption of registration for the draft in the event it was needed in a future war.

[Matty]

The soviet union's fall was inevitable from the beginning. Economic calculation is only possible with a free price system.

[Beet]

Probably around 1990 or 1991. If Gorbachev had sided with the August 1991 "putsch", they might have had a chance.

[Hamster]

The soviet union's fall was inevitable from the beginning. Economic calculation is only possible with a free price system.

How does your second sentence support your first assertion? Were it true that 'economic calculation is only possible with a free price system' then how did the Soviet Union last for seven decades?

[Orser67]

I'd say it wasn't really inevitable until the 1991 coup. But I would also point to 1964, when Brezhnev replaced Kruschev. Kruschev could have been the USSR's Deng Xiaoping (not as a precise analogue, but in general as an economic reformer who inspired future generations) but instead the empire stagnated under Brezhnev's conservative leadership.

[Heimdal]

It was probably obvious from 1945 that the Soviet Union would face significant challenges. Alongside the US, they emerged from World War 2 as a superpower. But it had come at a very steep price. The Russians had fought the bulk of the Wehrmacht, and lost many millions of men and women in the prime of their youth. Of the men born between 1920 and 1923, I think just 2-3 % survived the war.

Initially their planned economy was able to deliver increasing standards of living for most Russians, to the point that most people had their own apartments, stable jobs and access to food. But they were never able to produce enough consumer goods. This was a shortage induced by the Soviet government. The Soviet economy was an economy geared to a fight another war, and the production of television sets, refrigerators and microwave ovens had no place in such a system. The great flaw of the planned economy was that they didn’t have functioning price signals. The lack of a price system meant that the Soviet economy would be riddled with inefficiency and contradictions, which would only grow worse.  So their economic system was probably doomed from the outset.

I think an incredibly important event was the failed war in Afghanistan. The Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe rested on the threat of a Soviet intervention. The military disaster in Afghanistan showed that the Red Army didn’t have the capability to fight and win wars on hostile territory, against a determined enemy. By the late 1980s the Soviet leadership also lacked the will to send the Red Army to enforce the will of the Kremlin. At that point their empire in Central- and Eastern Europe was doomed to crumble.

Gorbachow’s actions in the last half of the 1980s were also important in this respect. He dismantled a lot of the security apparatus that previous Soviet leaders had used to destroy internal dissent. After that point the fall of the USSR was inevitable.

Important events were also the Soviet interventions in Budapest in 1956, and Prague in 1968. In 1945 a lot of people in Western and Eastern Europe believed that communism represented the future. Very few people believed that by the late 1960s. The Soviet intervention in Budapest and Prague had demonstrated that Soviet communism couldn’t be reformed or humanized. By the early 1970s it was dead as a political project.

[Storebought]

During the latter Brezhnev era, when the Soviet state no longer existed independently of the Iron Curtain and Cold War politics.