Operation Barbarossa

[J842P]

Thanks for this thread! I'm learning much.

IMO the Russians got just what they bargained for. Stalin rejected aligning with the Allies. In a sense he may have enabled Hitler, would Hitler have started the war if he knew Russia would fight with the Allies?

IIUC, Stalin wanted to join the Anglo-French alliance after Czechoslovakia was attacked, and Roosevelt was pushing for that also. France and Britain refused because allying with Russia would have led to Stalin's de facto annexation of countries like Hungary and Romania. Those countries feared Stalin more than they feared Hitler.

Heh, I doubt what those countries felt mattered to the French and British. Rather, I think the British, mostly, thought that Hitler might be useful as a bulwark against the Soviets. Well, the Soviets rescued Europe in the end.

 

[bilby]

Hitler had indeed meant to start earlier. But Mussolini attacked Greece and could not finish the job. Germany had to intervene. Hitler did not want a war going on in behind his invasion in Greece. Defeating the Greeks took two months Hitler had not counted on losing.

I wonder what would have happened if Hitler had delayed the invasion for 12 months and in the meantime attacked the British in African? He might have driven them out. Then at the end of 1941 the USA enters the war and Hitler should have worked out that he cannot fight both powers.

Given his completely unforced error in declaring war on the USA as soon as he heard about the Pearl Harbor attack, it seems unlikely that he would have worked that out.

If he had had the wit to try to keep the US neutral with respect to Germany, then he might have had a chance of defeating Stalin. Though even that is doubtful. Without US materiel, the USSR would have taken longer to beat Germany, but would likely have done so nevertheless.

A strategically savvy Hitler would have responded to Pearl Harbor by screaming "Yellow peril!" and throwing his Japanese ally under the bus. But he wasn't, so he didn't. Of course, at that point Japan, like Germany, had won almost every fight they had been involved in, and admiration for the appearance of strength was a far more Hitlerian trait than assessing the real strategic situation. As evidenced by his refusal to allow strategic withdrawals of his encircled armies, once the tide turned on the Eastern Front.

 

[bilby]

The big problem for the Germans throughout the war was logistics. They were almost completely reliant on horse drawn supply, with very little and very slow adoption of motor transport. This wasn't due to stupidity or nostalgia for the past; It was an inevitable consequence of their desperate fuel shortage. Saving fuel for front-line equipment such as planes and tanks by having horses power the transportation of materiel between the railheads (coal, for trains, they had plenty of) and the front lines was a smart move in 1940, but as the front moved away from the railways, and the railways themselves became increasingly targeted by bombing and sabotage, it became increasingly difficult to get that fuel (or anything else) to where it was needed.

I read an interview some time ago with a junior Wehrmacht officer who had been stationed in Normandy on D-Day. He was sent to assess the strength of the forces that had landed on one of the invasion beaches, and said that he realised that Germany couldn't win, when he saw that the invaders hadn't brought any horses with them. A similarly sized German force in June 1944 would have required a vast number of horses as a matter of course.

The first synthetic gasoline and lubricating oils to be produced on a large scale were developed by Germany during the war. Made from coal, they were of higher quality than the mineral oil derived equivalents that they replaced, but they were hugely expensive and difficult to produce in really large volumes. Although German synfuel production at the start of 1944 is estimated to have reached 124,000 bbl/day, much of that was earmarked for the Luftwaffe, who were attempting with limited success to prevent allied bombing of those oil production facilities, and of the railways and distribution systems that were needed to get that fuel to the distant Eastern Front.

Modern sports cars still use synthetic oil lubricants today. But the Nazi's needed trucks, not sports cars. And trucks don't need super high purity oils or fuels, they just need super large quantities.

 

[crazyfingers]

Hitler had indeed meant to start earlier. But Mussolini attacked Greece and could not finish the job. Germany had to intervene. Hitler did not want a war going on in behind his invasion in Greece. Defeating the Greeks took two months Hitler had not counted on losing.

I wonder what would have happened if Hitler had delayed the invasion for 12 months and in the meantime attacked the British in African? He might have driven them out. Then at the end of 1941 the USA enters the war and Hitler should have worked out that he cannot fight both powers.

Given his completely unforced error in declaring war on the USA as soon as he heard about the Pearl Harbor attack, it seems unlikely that he would have worked that out.

If he had had the wit to try to keep the US neutral with respect to Germany, then he might have had a chance of defeating Stalin. Though even that is doubtful. Without US materiel, the USSR would have taken longer to beat Germany, but would likely have done so nevertheless.

A strategically savvy Hitler would have responded to Pearl Harbor by screaming "Yellow peril!" and throwing his Japanese ally under the bus. But he wasn't, so he didn't. Of course, at that point Japan, like Germany, had won almost every fight they had been involved in, and admiration for the appearance of strength was a far more Hitlerian trait than assessing the real strategic situation. As evidenced by his refusal to allow strategic withdrawals of his encircled armies, once the tide turned on the Eastern Front.

Agreed. The US was very isolationist prior to Pearl Harbor. If Hitler had just done nothing, it's entirely possible that the American popular sentiment would have been "Japan is our war now. Let Europe deal with Hitler" Declaring war on the US was one of Hitler's biggest blunders. From an alt-history point of view, how much of Europe would Stalin have occupied and never freed if the US had not become involved? The continent?

 

[skepticalbip]

Given his completely unforced error in declaring war on the USA as soon as he heard about the Pearl Harbor attack, it seems unlikely that he would have worked that out.

If he had had the wit to try to keep the US neutral with respect to Germany, then he might have had a chance of defeating Stalin. Though even that is doubtful. Without US materiel, the USSR would have taken longer to beat Germany, but would likely have done so nevertheless.

A strategically savvy Hitler would have responded to Pearl Harbor by screaming "Yellow peril!" and throwing his Japanese ally under the bus. But he wasn't, so he didn't. Of course, at that point Japan, like Germany, had won almost every fight they had been involved in, and admiration for the appearance of strength was a far more Hitlerian trait than assessing the real strategic situation. As evidenced by his refusal to allow strategic withdrawals of his encircled armies, once the tide turned on the Eastern Front.

Agreed. The US was very isolationist prior to Pearl Harbor. If Hitler had just done nothing, it's entirely possible that the American popular sentiment would have been "Japan is our war now. Let Europe deal with Hitler" Declaring war on the US was one of Hitler's biggest blunders. From an alt-history point of view, how much of Europe would Stalin have occupied and never freed if the US had not become involved? The continent?

From my reading, Roosevelt wanted to enter the war to help defeat Hitler well before Pearl Harbor but public sentiment was overwhelmingly isolationist... likely from memories of WWI. So Roosevelt's actions were limited to massive shipments of war supplies, arms, and food to both Russia and England (I understand that the Russians loved the spam, don't know what the Brits thought of it). Again from my reading, Roosevelt and Churchill had discussed the role the U.S. would assume if/when they entered the war and the plan was first to save Europe and only try to hold off Japan's expansion. Once the war in Europe was over then full effort would be focused on defeating Japan.

 

[bilby]

Given his completely unforced error in declaring war on the USA as soon as he heard about the Pearl Harbor attack, it seems unlikely that he would have worked that out.

If he had had the wit to try to keep the US neutral with respect to Germany, then he might have had a chance of defeating Stalin. Though even that is doubtful. Without US materiel, the USSR would have taken longer to beat Germany, but would likely have done so nevertheless.

A strategically savvy Hitler would have responded to Pearl Harbor by screaming "Yellow peril!" and throwing his Japanese ally under the bus. But he wasn't, so he didn't. Of course, at that point Japan, like Germany, had won almost every fight they had been involved in, and admiration for the appearance of strength was a far more Hitlerian trait than assessing the real strategic situation. As evidenced by his refusal to allow strategic withdrawals of his encircled armies, once the tide turned on the Eastern Front.

Agreed. The US was very isolationist prior to Pearl Harbor. If Hitler had just done nothing, it's entirely possible that the American popular sentiment would have been "Japan is our war now. Let Europe deal with Hitler" Declaring war on the US was one of Hitler's biggest blunders. From an alt-history point of view, how much of Europe would Stalin have occupied and never freed if the US had not become involved? The continent?

From my reading, Roosevelt wanted to enter the war to help defeat Hitler well before Pearl Harbor but public sentiment was overwhelmingly isolationist... likely from memories of WWI. So Roosevelt's actions were limited to massive shipments of war supplies, arms, and food to both Russia and England (I understand that the Russians loved the spam, don't know what the Brits thought of it). Again from my reading, Roosevelt and Churchill had discussed the role the U.S. would assume if/when they entered the war and the plan was first to save Europe and only try to hold off Japan's expansion. Once the war in Europe was over then full effort would be focused on defeating Japan.

Sure. But FDR might have struggled to get Congressional agreement to war with Germany, despite their near unanimity in supporting such a declaration against Japan (with only a single dissenting vote).

Hitler rendered the question moot with his own declaration of war, but had he instead remained neutral, while saying things in support of the US declaration; Or worse, had he declared war on Japan in support of the USA, FDR's plans and hopes, and his agreement with Churchill on the 'Germany First' policy, could have been rendered futile.

German relations with neutral America were strained by the anti-German sentiments of the President, but many in Congress had pro-German views, industrial and financial interests in Germany, and the backing of strongly isolationist voters. Pearl Harbor wasn't an attack by Germany, regardless of what we learned watching Animal House, and Hitler had no need to make things so easy for FDR and his supporters in their campaign against isolationism.

 

[J842P]

From my reading, Roosevelt wanted to enter the war to help defeat Hitler well before Pearl Harbor but public sentiment was overwhelmingly isolationist... likely from memories of WWI. So Roosevelt's actions were limited to massive shipments of war supplies, arms, and food to both Russia and England (I understand that the Russians loved the spam, don't know what the Brits thought of it). Again from my reading, Roosevelt and Churchill had discussed the role the U.S. would assume if/when they entered the war and the plan was first to save Europe and only try to hold off Japan's expansion. Once the war in Europe was over then full effort would be focused on defeating Japan.

Sure. But FDR might have struggled to get Congressional agreement to war with Germany, despite their near unanimity in supporting such a declaration against Japan (with only a single dissenting vote).

Hitler rendered the question moot with his own declaration of war, but had he instead remained neutral, while saying things in support of the US declaration; Or worse, had he declared war on Japan in support of the USA, FDR's plans and hopes, and his agreement with Churchill on the 'Germany First' policy, could have been rendered futile.

German relations with neutral America were strained by the anti-German sentiments of the President, but many in Congress had pro-German views, industrial and financial interests in Germany, and the backing of strongly isolationist voters. Pearl Harbor wasn't an attack by Germany, regardless of what we learned watching Animal House, and Hitler had no need to make things so easy for FDR and his supporters in their campaign against isolationism.

Possibly. I think, based on my gut, than unless Hitler had declared war on Japan, FDR would have been able to convince congress and the American people to declare war on Germany. But the Germans made it easy for him.

 

[steve_bank]

IMO the Russians got just what they bargained for. Stalin rejected aligning with the Allies. In a sense he may have enabled Hitler, would Hitler have started the war if he knew Russia would fight with the Allies?

You have it exactly backwards. Stalin begged for years for an alliance with the Western powers against Hitler. Indeed, by the time Germany invaded Czechoslovakia Stalin was on the cusp of a tripartite pact with Britain and France. It fell apart because in effect it would have formalized the Baltic States being part of the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, and also dicey was allowing a Soviet military presence in Romania and Poland.

No doubt, the Soviets knew Germany would want to invade the Soviet Union. Hitler spoke about it plainly, and railed against Jewish Bolshevism, as well as denouncing the Slavic peoples as "Untermenschen", and wrote plainly about how the Slavic lands were the rightful bounty of the Aryan people.

I think Stalin honestly thought the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact would have bought him more time, but I doubt anyone in the USSR thought the Germans were never going to attack. Everyone knew it was a matter of time, and the Soviets used that time to try to prepare for the invasion. Of course, clearly, not enough. People also forget that the USSR was wary of the Japanese and the possibility of their own two-front war.

Ok. I may have it wrong, however he did make a pact for land with Hitler. He was empire building.

Part of the Cold War American rhetoric on the left like Stone's documentary paints Stalin as a victim of the west. He was forced to occupy eastern Europe. Truman made him do it.

Anyone agree with that? Stalin is just misunderstood? He was no better than Hitler. His atrocities were known.

Sounds a bit revisionist. I can not imagine Stalin a hardcore communist begging western capitalist systems, anymore than China today.

 

[Bomb#20]

...Hitler rendered the question moot with his own declaration of war, but had he instead remained neutral, while saying things in support of the US declaration; Or worse, had he declared war on Japan in support of the USA, FDR's plans and hopes, and his agreement with Churchill on the 'Germany First' policy, could have been rendered futile. ...

Possibly. I think, based on my gut, than unless Hitler had declared war on Japan, FDR would have been able to convince congress and the American people to declare war on Germany. But the Germans made it easy for him.

Right. The thing to keep in mind is that the U.S. was already doing full-scale materiel support for the Allies. No matter how much alternate-history Hitler might have wanted to play nice with America to keep us out of the war, he had a U-boat fleet and he needed to use it to stop the endless flow of ships to Britain. That was always bound to lead to war sooner or later.

 

[crazyfingers]

...Hitler rendered the question moot with his own declaration of war, but had he instead remained neutral, while saying things in support of the US declaration; Or worse, had he declared war on Japan in support of the USA, FDR's plans and hopes, and his agreement with Churchill on the 'Germany First' policy, could have been rendered futile. ...

Possibly. I think, based on my gut, than unless Hitler had declared war on Japan, FDR would have been able to convince congress and the American people to declare war on Germany. But the Germans made it easy for him.

Right. The thing to keep in mind is that the U.S. was already doing full-scale materiel support for the Allies. No matter how much alternate-history Hitler might have wanted to play nice with America to keep us out of the war, he had a U-boat fleet and he needed to use it to stop the endless flow of ships to Britain. That was always bound to lead to war sooner or later.

Yup. In my opinion the US war against Germany was an absolutely necessary war. The sooner in the better. Longer to get in the more of Eastern Europe Stalin would have taken and never let go of when all was said and done - absence an insane attempt to to war with the USSR.

 

[bilby]

Right. The thing to keep in mind is that the U.S. was already doing full-scale materiel support for the Allies. No matter how much alternate-history Hitler might have wanted to play nice with America to keep us out of the war, he had a U-boat fleet and he needed to use it to stop the endless flow of ships to Britain. That was always bound to lead to war sooner or later.

Yup. In my opinion the US war against Germany was an absolutely necessary war. The sooner in the better. Longer to get in the more of Eastern Europe Stalin would have taken and never let go of when all was said and done - absence an insane attempt to to war with the USSR.

If a majority of the US Congress had been of your opinion, then the US would have declared war on Germany long before Pearl Harbor (and indeed, the attack on Pearl would have likely been impossible for Japan to bring off, if the US had been on a war footing at the time).

The same reasons for not declaring war against Germany in September 1939, when the UK and France did (Or in May 1940, when the Germans invaded France and the Low Countries; Or in June 1940 when the Germans completed their conquest of the Western European mainland; Or at any time between September 1940 and May 1941 when the Germans were bombing British cities) still prevailed in December 1941, right up until Hitler rendered the question moot by his declaration against the USA.

Pearl Harbor didn't significantly change the situation in the Atlantic or European theatres as far as the USA was concerned, and there were plenty of good arguments for Americans avoiding a two front (or two ocean) war by maintaining neutrality towards the Germans.

Nobody prior to the Battle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-3 was seriously considering the possibility of a Soviet re-invasion and re-annexation of Eastern Europe, after their having been pushed out of Poland by the Germans. The question up to that point was whether the USSR could survive, not whether she could defeat Hitler's forces so comprehensively as to push them back outside the borders of the pre-war Soviet Union.

Again, if Soviet dominance over Eastern European territories was a concern for Congress, they could and should have declared war on the USSR and/or Germany in 1939, when those nations invaded Poland. Of course, at that time they were happy enough with Hitler keeping Stalin in check. The concern about a post-war Soviet dominated bloc in Eastern Europe that you are raising would have been anachronistic in 1942 or earlier, and couldn't have been a factor in the decisions of US Congressmen, unless they had a time machine or a psychic ability to predict the Cold War. It doubtless played a part in strategic and diplomatic considerations as the Soviets rallied in 1943-4, but by then the question of US neutrality with respect to Germany was long since resolved.

 

[crazyfingers]

Right. The thing to keep in mind is that the U.S. was already doing full-scale materiel support for the Allies. No matter how much alternate-history Hitler might have wanted to play nice with America to keep us out of the war, he had a U-boat fleet and he needed to use it to stop the endless flow of ships to Britain. That was always bound to lead to war sooner or later.

Yup. In my opinion the US war against Germany was an absolutely necessary war. The sooner in the better. Longer to get in the more of Eastern Europe Stalin would have taken and never let go of when all was said and done - absence an insane attempt to to war with the USSR.

If a majority of the US Congress had been of your opinion, then the US would have declared war on Germany long before Pearl Harbor (and indeed, the attack on Pearl would have likely been impossible for Japan to bring off, if the US had been on a war footing at the time).

The same reasons for not declaring war against Germany in September 1939, when the UK and France did (Or in May 1940, when the Germans invaded France and the Low Countries; Or in June 1940 when the Germans completed their conquest of the Western European mainland; Or at any time between September 1940 and May 1941 when the Germans were bombing British cities) still prevailed in December 1941, right up until Hitler rendered the question moot by his declaration against the USA.

Pearl Harbor didn't significantly change the situation in the Atlantic or European theatres as far as the USA was concerned, and there were plenty of good arguments for Americans avoiding a two front (or two ocean) war by maintaining neutrality towards the Germans.

Nobody prior to the Battle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-3 was seriously considering the possibility of a Soviet re-invasion and re-annexation of Eastern Europe, after their having been pushed out of Poland by the Germans. The question up to that point was whether the USSR could survive, not whether she could defeat Hitler's forces so comprehensively as to push them back outside the borders of the pre-war Soviet Union.

Again, if Soviet dominance over Eastern European territories was a concern for Congress, they could and should have declared war on the USSR and/or Germany in 1939, when those nations invaded Poland. Of course, at that time they were happy enough with Hitler keeping Stalin in check. The concern about a post-war Soviet dominated bloc in Eastern Europe that you are raising would have been anachronistic in 1942 or earlier, and couldn't have been a factor in the decisions of US Congressmen, unless they had a time machine or a psychic ability to predict the Cold War. It doubtless played a part in strategic and diplomatic considerations as the Soviets rallied in 1943-4, but by then the question of US neutrality with respect to Germany was long since resolved.

I don't know if you are arguing against my point or just adding color. I'm talking in hindsight.

I think you'd agree that the world would have been a far uglier place had the US somehow stayed out.

 

[bilby]

If a majority of the US Congress had been of your opinion, then the US would have declared war on Germany long before Pearl Harbor (and indeed, the attack on Pearl would have likely been impossible for Japan to bring off, if the US had been on a war footing at the time).

The same reasons for not declaring war against Germany in September 1939, when the UK and France did (Or in May 1940, when the Germans invaded France and the Low Countries; Or in June 1940 when the Germans completed their conquest of the Western European mainland; Or at any time between September 1940 and May 1941 when the Germans were bombing British cities) still prevailed in December 1941, right up until Hitler rendered the question moot by his declaration against the USA.

Pearl Harbor didn't significantly change the situation in the Atlantic or European theatres as far as the USA was concerned, and there were plenty of good arguments for Americans avoiding a two front (or two ocean) war by maintaining neutrality towards the Germans.

Nobody prior to the Battle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-3 was seriously considering the possibility of a Soviet re-invasion and re-annexation of Eastern Europe, after their having been pushed out of Poland by the Germans. The question up to that point was whether the USSR could survive, not whether she could defeat Hitler's forces so comprehensively as to push them back outside the borders of the pre-war Soviet Union.

Again, if Soviet dominance over Eastern European territories was a concern for Congress, they could and should have declared war on the USSR and/or Germany in 1939, when those nations invaded Poland. Of course, at that time they were happy enough with Hitler keeping Stalin in check. The concern about a post-war Soviet dominated bloc in Eastern Europe that you are raising would have been anachronistic in 1942 or earlier, and couldn't have been a factor in the decisions of US Congressmen, unless they had a time machine or a psychic ability to predict the Cold War. It doubtless played a part in strategic and diplomatic considerations as the Soviets rallied in 1943-4, but by then the question of US neutrality with respect to Germany was long since resolved.

I don't know if you are arguing against my point or just adding color. I'm talking in hindsight.

I think you'd agree that the world would have been a far uglier place had the US somehow stayed out.

Probably. But that's not any part of the reason that they didn't stay out.

The most charitable interpretation of the American failure to declare war on Hitler, before he declared war on America, is that the American isolationists thought that the French and British (and their colonies and allies) could and should resolve the Hitler issue without American military involvement. Which was a pretty good point in 1939.

Though it's highly questionable that they could still have held that opinion after June 1940.

If not wanting Western Europe to come under the sway of a totalitarian dictator was the justification for US military intervention in Europe at the end of 1941, then it's rather strange that they didn't act at least a year and a half earlier.

US intervention undoubtedly had very beneficial results for those parts of Europe that did not become members of the Warsaw Pact; But it's pretty obvious that that benefit was an unintended consequence of Hitler declaring war on the USA, rather than the result of any intentional good deeds by the Americans.

"You can depend on Americans to do the right thing, when they have exhausted every other possibility" - anon. (frequently misattributed to Churchill)

 

[crazyfingers]

If a majority of the US Congress had been of your opinion, then the US would have declared war on Germany long before Pearl Harbor (and indeed, the attack on Pearl would have likely been impossible for Japan to bring off, if the US had been on a war footing at the time).

The same reasons for not declaring war against Germany in September 1939, when the UK and France did (Or in May 1940, when the Germans invaded France and the Low Countries; Or in June 1940 when the Germans completed their conquest of the Western European mainland; Or at any time between September 1940 and May 1941 when the Germans were bombing British cities) still prevailed in December 1941, right up until Hitler rendered the question moot by his declaration against the USA.

Pearl Harbor didn't significantly change the situation in the Atlantic or European theatres as far as the USA was concerned, and there were plenty of good arguments for Americans avoiding a two front (or two ocean) war by maintaining neutrality towards the Germans.

Nobody prior to the Battle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-3 was seriously considering the possibility of a Soviet re-invasion and re-annexation of Eastern Europe, after their having been pushed out of Poland by the Germans. The question up to that point was whether the USSR could survive, not whether she could defeat Hitler's forces so comprehensively as to push them back outside the borders of the pre-war Soviet Union.

Again, if Soviet dominance over Eastern European territories was a concern for Congress, they could and should have declared war on the USSR and/or Germany in 1939, when those nations invaded Poland. Of course, at that time they were happy enough with Hitler keeping Stalin in check. The concern about a post-war Soviet dominated bloc in Eastern Europe that you are raising would have been anachronistic in 1942 or earlier, and couldn't have been a factor in the decisions of US Congressmen, unless they had a time machine or a psychic ability to predict the Cold War. It doubtless played a part in strategic and diplomatic considerations as the Soviets rallied in 1943-4, but by then the question of US neutrality with respect to Germany was long since resolved.

I don't know if you are arguing against my point or just adding color. I'm talking in hindsight.

I think you'd agree that the world would have been a far uglier place had the US somehow stayed out.

Probably. But that's not any part of the reason that they didn't stay out.

The most charitable interpretation of the American failure to declare war on Hitler, before he declared war on America, is that the American isolationists thought that the French and British (and their colonies and allies) could and should resolve the Hitler issue without American military involvement. Which was a pretty good point in 1939.

Though it's highly questionable that they could still have held that opinion after June 1940.

If not wanting Western Europe to come under the sway of a totalitarian dictator was the justification for US military intervention in Europe at the end of 1941, then it's rather strange that they didn't act at least a year and a half earlier.

US intervention undoubtedly had very beneficial results for those parts of Europe that did not become members of the Warsaw Pact; But it's pretty obvious that that benefit was an unintended consequence of Hitler declaring war on the USA, rather than the result of any intentional good deeds by the Americans.

"You can depend on Americans to do the right thing, when they have exhausted every other possibility" - anon. (frequently misattributed to Churchill)

Of course. I agree with all of that. As I said at the outset that US popular opinion was to stay out. The US was basically dragged in when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and when Hitler declared war on the US. I think that its very likely that the US would have stayed out of Europe way longer had Hitler not declared war on the US when Japan attacked Pearl.

 

[Bomb#20]

The concern about a post-war Soviet dominated bloc in Eastern Europe that you are raising would have been anachronistic in 1942 or earlier, and couldn't have been a factor in the decisions of US Congressmen, unless they had a time machine or a psychic ability to predict the Cold War.

It wouldn't have taken a time machine or psychic ability, though it doubtless would have taken more insight than most Congressmen could have mustered.

"There are, at the present time, two great nations in the world which seem to tend towards the same end, although they started from different points: I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed; and whilst the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenly assumed a most prominent place amongst the nations; and the world learned their existence and their greatness at almost the same time.

All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural limits, and only to be charged with the maintenance of their power; but these are still in the act of growth. All the others are stopped, or continue to advance with extreme difficulty; these are proceeding with ease and with celerity along a path to which the human eye can assign no term. The American struggles against the natural obstacles which oppose him; the adversaries of the Russian are men; the former combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all its weapons and its arts: the conquests of the one are therefore gained by the ploughshare; those of the other by the sword. The Anglo-American relies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends, and gives free scope to the unguided exertions and common-sense of the citizens; the Russian centres all the authority of society in a single arm: the principal instrument of the former is freedom; of the latter servitude. Their starting-point is different, and their courses are not the same; yet each of them seems to be marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of half the globe."

- Alexis De Tocqueville, 1835​