Cold War a creation of American foreign policy - Historum

**Bismarck** · May 9th, 2012, 10:21 PM

Michael Burleigh, in his Amazon.com: The Third Reich: A New History (9780809093267): Michael Burleigh: Books

Amazon.com: The Third Reich: A New History (9780809093267): Michael Burleigh: Books

, seems to be saying that the US must bear some responsibility for the rise of a powerful Soviet Union.

Quote:

without Lend-Lease, the Soviet Union's post-invasion economic base would not have been able to concentrate on producing weaponry rather than consumer goods, food and machine tools

He also attributes the operational mobility of the Soviet army in '44 and '45 to the thousands of trucks and engines that Lend-Lease supplied, believing that had they not been so mobile, the Soviets might not even have got as far as Poland before the Allies defeated Germany. No post-war Eastern bloc, no Cold War.

Without the high-octane fuel supplied by the US - perhaps as much as 80% of the total Russian consumption - the Russian Airforce would've have been largely redundant.

Quote:

No attempt was made to use aid as a means of restraining use of the Red Army as an instrument to further otherwise highly unpopular Communist takeover of eastern Europe

I wonder, should America have been more circumspect in its aid to Russia and what would the consequences have been had they done so? Would it really have weakened Russia to such an extent that she would've been unable to project her military power beyond her own borders?

Military strategy in the west also seems to have conformed to Russian interests. The strike into central Germany and the rejection of Monty's thrust to Berlin implicitly acknowledges the primacy of Russian designs on Berlin.

Can we explain why the US was so lenient and so willing to satisfy Russian demands?

**tjadams** · May 9th, 2012, 10:24 PM

I've often heard about how the Soviets greatly downplayed the
US contribution to their war drive.
Wasn't Patton ordered to stop his drive to Berlin so the Soviets
could take it as redemption?

**Bismarck** · May 9th, 2012, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjadams

I've often heard about how the Soviets greatly downplayed the
US contribution to their war drive.

Indeed. According to Burleigh

Quote:

...the former Soviet Union downplayed the contribution of Lend-Lease to the war effort, claiming that it was equal to four percent of Soviet military production [but] a post-ideological generation of Russian scholars have begun to acknowledge its crucial importance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjadams

Wasn't Patton ordered to stop his drive to Berlin so the Soviets could take it as redemption?.

I've heard the same thing about Patton. He was certainly reprimanded on another occasion when he ordered an unauthorised crossing of the Oder River.

**SomeGuy** · May 9th, 2012, 10:53 PM

I've always wondered why the western Allies let the Soviets take Berlin. Did they not want to risk the casualties and did they not see the risk in giving Stalin all that land?

I think the Cold War had as much to do with the Soviet foreign policy as it did the American, both recognized they were the strongest nations in the world, with the other European powers in disarray in addition to China being at civil war, and wanted to take full advantage.

Yes, without the Lend-Lease the Soviets may not have had the ability to win in the East and take half of Europe, but had the Soviets been defeated that would have been a major setback for the Allied war effort. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" as they say.

**dagul** · May 10th, 2012, 03:10 AM

It's the same as what happened in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion when the Americans supplied the mujahedin warriors with SAM, so the Soviets failed to have control of the air, and they were defeated in that war because their infantry can't have air cover and they became easy targets for those warriors. Later, those holy warriors are the soldiers of the late, Bin Laden.

Eumenes · May 10th, 2012, 09:35 PM

What does Mr. Burleigh suggest should have been done? That the United States should have supplied the Soviets just enough to keep them in the war? That the US should have given the Soviets enough trucks and supplies to advance, but not so much that they could advance quickly?

It seems like a very dangerous game to have played.

The truth is that Stalin was holding a lot of the cards coming all the way into 1944 and beyond because the Soviet Union was bearing the brunt of the European war effort. Stalin had to be appeased and the Soviets had to be given something for holding the line and carrying on the fight in Euorpe.

**dagul** · May 10th, 2012, 09:51 PM

^the objective was to destroy the Nazi, no more no less.

**Bismarck** · May 10th, 2012, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eumenes

What does Mr. Burleigh suggest should have been done? That the United States should have supplied the Soviets just enough to keep them in the war? That the US should have given the Soviets enough trucks and supplies to advance, but not so much that they could advance quickly?

It seems like a very dangerous game to have played.

The truth is that Stalin was holding a lot of the cards coming all the way into 1944 and beyond because the Soviet Union was bearing the brunt of the European war effort. Stalin had to be appeased and the Soviets had to be given something for holding the line and carrying on the fight in Euorpe.

I think Burleigh is suggesting they could've extracted more concessions and guarantees from Stalin, if only they'd applied a little pressure. In hindsight, it certainly seems remarkably foolish to have handed over all this hardware without some sort of quid pro quo. Having said that, even Churchill was prone to bouts of utter folly, like when he gifted a highly advanced rolls royce aircraft engine upon which the soviets based their post-war fighter engines. But the point is with the americans this generosity was more systematized and endemic - starting from the attitude at the top. I wonder if there were any voices within the american administration who urged caution?

**dagul** · May 11th, 2012, 12:12 AM

America is an imperialist capitalist and it shall buy just anything, to destroy its enemy. It has the money to finance everything so it gave the Soviets what it takes to be a superpower to destroy the common enemy. Of course it reserved a lot for itself, in fact it's the British who gave the Soviets the technology of building a jet engine. Correct me if I am wrong over this. But right now that's what I know of as far as the technology that the Soviets gained from the Western powers.

.... anyway, that is what it takes to be a victor. To be hit with words.

Historical Delusion · May 11th, 2012, 02:04 AM

The fact was that if the Soviets were to lose WWII, there would be nothing stopping the Germans from holding onto most of Europe.

D-Day largely hinged on the success of the Soviets in the east(and to a lesser extent on the success of the western Allies to the south, in Italy). Take out one of those equations, and D-Day would have been a failure.

We needed the Soviets. The Soviets needed us.

As for that little extra push towards Berlin to stop a Soviet conquest of that region of Germany, that most surely might have ignited WWIII.