What doomed the USSR? Was it Reagan spending wildly on guns or was it that the Soviet government was flawed?

Question

So fundamentally flawed that it was doomed to fail at some point.

Answer 1

Just another conservative myth. The USSR actually decreased military spending while Reagan was in office. So Reagan spent our money on Star Wars for no good reason at all.

What doomed the USSR was the price of oil going down to $10 a barrel. They had overspent when oil was $30 a barrel. The price of oil dropped because liberals were demanding conservation.

Answer 2

Both.

The inherent weakness in the soviet union and the fact it decided to concentrate on its war production rather then it's civil needs put he USSR on a very slippery slope to failure.

With almost no infrastructure to support it's economy and civil needs. Nearly all its production set to War time needs and the corrupt and flawed political structure in place it was bound to collapse under its own weight.

Even with the Regan era spending on weapons and modernization it was only a small part of the over all production of the US. The vast majority of the production was civilian in nature and in turn that built the economy. The US could have very easily gone the same route as the Russians. Instead of the AK-47 being the most prolific small arms in the world I cold be the M-16 and we would have probably ended up just like the USSR.

However the overall down fall of the USSR was more than these few things. There are a lot of factors that only political experts could explain, and not being an expert I wont even try to delve in too.

Answer 3

Both, and more. It was a combination of the USSR trying to keep up with US military spending (which was not just Reagan but every President since FDR that should be credited), and a little bit of luck that hard liners Andropov and Chernenko died after only a short time as Prime Minister. That gave way to Gorbachev, who in his own right was a free thinker and could see the demise of the Soviet Union on the horizon. He brokered a deal with Reagan that would lead to the break up of the Soviet Union and the rebirth of Russia. It is unlikely Andropov or Chernenko would have done this.

Answer 4

A combination of both. The communist system was flawed and limping along. When the Soviets tried to match Reagan's increased military spending, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. The Soviet economy would have likely failed anyway but Reagan helped.

Answer 5

Both. Being a major player in the Cold War was expensive - USSR devoted as much as half of it's command economy to that effort, while the USA was running at less than 5%. Reagan upped the ante to stay in the game (not even all that much), and the Soviets folded.

Answer 6

The role of Reagan is completely insignificant.
How could a senile foreigner influence a great state that he couldn't understand at all?

It was the socialist government of Gorbachev that couldn't hold the grip anymore. Without that grip the multinational conglomerate couldn't exist anymore: local elites wanted their piece of the pie.

It's funny how most of the answerers try to explain non-understandable for their lack of experience.

Answer 7

Combination of both, yes the communist system's downfall was inevitable, as are all governments. But the arms race really hastened the downfall. As did the war in Afghanistan, not to mention Reagan's handling of Gorbachav(probably spelled incorrectly). No one factor can be attributed to it.

Answer 8

The basic flaw in Communism doomed them.

Answer 9

Communism is flawed.. and reagan exposed and exploited the flaw. So the answer is: both.

Answer 10

Lack of consumer goods