Projection of power: Soviet Union and the United States

Greetings, I am trying to figure out exactly about how most of the foreign policy and military-related decisions of both Soviet Union and the United States and also their principal doctrine on global scale, for most of the Cold War period. In other words, since the end of World War 2 both countries are trying to spread their influence across the globe, and they have very interesting different approaches. Please no blame and flame, let’s keep this thread civil with academic and intellectual discussion.

Firstly, I would like to draw comparisons of both countries, note that these are my thoughts and feel free to correct them:

United States of America:
- US ability to use direct military action against any nations (in other words, US is able to deploy troops) anywhere in the world (some examples: Dominica, Vietnam, Granada, Lebanon, Libya, Panama) except against NATO
- No military intervention against NATO members when there’s big issues in NATO members (Greek-Turkish conflict over Cyprus, Cod War between Iceland and UK, Portugal Carnation revolution led by leftist officers)
- Strong Washington-supported and CIA-backed coups (Guatemala, Iran, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua)
- Have military bases anywhere in the world, some are located in countries surrounding the USSR, this is especially true since late 1970s-later

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:
- USSR use military action mostly against Warsaw Pact (East German riots 1950s, Hungarian uprising 1956, Czechoslovakian 1967) or nearby neighboring countries (Afghanistan, border skirmish with China)
- No direct military intervention anywhere other than what mentioned above (only advisers and sending crews) – only its ally Cuba actually send thousands of troops to Africa during 1970s to 1980s
- Often only half-hearted support leftist powers in many countries, some pro-Moscow countries received little and insignificant help when under threat. Also almost never support leftist coup or rise to power in many countries, even Cuba (Castro rise to power by his discontented countrymen support at the time, no USSR involvement, not significant if there’s any)
- No military bases outside of USSR and Warsaw Pact (with the exception of bases only in two friendly powers: Cuba and Vietnam)

And then list possible reasons for the differences:

Military:
- Near the end of World War 2, USA already has several hundreds, if not thousands, battleships warships in Pacific Ocean alone (including several aircraft carriers), when added with others located on Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean, and anywhere else you will have the biggest navy in the world. Far more than Japanese Navy during its peak. While the USSR has small and very limited naval capability, none compared to the strength of US Navy at the time
- USSR theatres of war during WW2 most of the time are in ground, fighting directly on land against German or Japan in Korea. No island-hopping or amphibious operations like Western Allies
- Especially since late 1960s until end of the Cold War, USSR relied more and more in nuclear weapons (eventually USSR has more nuclear than USA) and believe can take out USA with just that, there’s no need for military bases far away from home outside neighboring countries, or even military intervention outside Europe and outside neighboring countries

Geography:
- Access to major oceans like Atlantic and Pacific Ocean are limited. Much of its naval strength is located on the Baltic Sea and Black Sea where many USSR naval ports are located. Soviet Navy has to pass “NATO domain” (Denmark and Turkey) to get out and reach the big oceans, therefore no free access, kept under constant watchful eye of NATO, and can’t just send big ships or troops to “intervene” without passing them
- Only in its Pacific fleet the Soviet Navy has free and direct access to Pacific Ocean, but then there are nearby military bases and watchful eyes of US, Japan, and South Korea, still limited, compared to USA
- Even without distant and foreign bases. US Navy still has more direct and free access to major oceans, and therefore easier to reach many countries in the world
- USA shared its borders only with two countries Canada and Mexico, which are friendly, therefore no direct ground threat. USSR has very width borders with numerous hostile and pro-US countries, and therefore has more to worry about homeland security and direct ground assault

i dunno if this counts as millitary intervention, but during Korea it was North Korea, Soviet Union, Republic of China.

America, and UN.

USSR sent troops to Korea i believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by God's Grace

i dunno if this counts as millitary intervention, but during Korea it was North Korea, Soviet Union, Republic of China.

---

That will be news to Chiang Kai Shek and the anti-communist KMT (Republic of China is Taiwan). The People's Republic is Communist China.

Quote:

---

USSR sent troops to Korea i believe.

---

As far as I know, the USSR sent some fighter pilots, but no ground troops (hardly needed with Chinese involvement). Of course, there may have been a few "advisers", but there was no Soviet commitment of large-scale ground formations.

USSR's main objective after WW2 was to prevent yet another invasion coming from Europe. That why it kept a large army, constructed a large submarine force for blocking sea lanes to Europe, as well as maintaining an iron grip over Eastern Europe. IMO anything out of Europe was basically done to keep USA occupied more than for some lofty goal of world domination.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilesGregarius

As far as I know, the USSR sent some fighter pilots, but no ground troops (hardly needed with Chinese involvement). Of course, there may have been a few "advisers", but there was no Soviet commitment of large-scale ground formations.

---

Likewise for Castro's uprising. My granddad was one of the fighter pilots sent to support the Castrist forces in the island.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilesGregarius

As far as I know, the USSR sent some fighter pilots, but no ground troops (hardly needed with Chinese involvement). Of course, there may have been a few "advisers", but there was no Soviet commitment of large-scale ground formations.

---

USSR did send fighter pilots to fly many North Korea fighter jets, there are even often skirmishes between Soviet-pilotted jets vs American-pilotted. USSR also sent many advisers into Korea, some are known to have helped the North Korean authority to interrogate American POW captured during the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

USSR's main objective after WW2 was to prevent yet another invasion coming from Europe. That why it kept a large army, constructed a large submarine force for blocking sea lanes to Europe, as well as maintaining an iron grip over Eastern Europe. IMO anything out of Europe was basically done to keep USA occupied more than for some lofty goal of world domination.

---

But then there's also threat coming from Pacific...they are also tried to spread their ideology and establish friendly governments, but this last one often half-hearted and lack real support...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

Likewise for Castro's uprising. My granddad was one of the fighter pilots sent to support the Castrist forces in the island.

---

SwordMaster, I never know that Castro revolution also involving "air force". AFAIK it was some sort of guerrilla battle between Castro and Batista's army...that's it, before Castro eventually gaining wider support and then overwhelm Havana with so many troops and supporters and force Batista to flee. Never heard "rebel air force" involved...maybe you can explain about this more?

Quote:

---

SwordMaster, I never know that Castro revolution also involving "air force". AFAIK it was some sort of guerrilla battle between Castro and Batista's army...that's it, before Castro eventually gaining wider support and then overwhelm Havana with so many troops and supporters and force Batista to flee. Never heard "rebel air force" involved...maybe you can explain about this more?

---

Sorry, this was after the war. I thought this was meant as what happened during the cold war, not just the actual rebellion.

My granddad and his squadron landed in Cuba in 1960 as part of one of the agreements between Cuba and the USSR that were aimed at reducing the US influence in the island and followed the reduction of Cuban exports to the US and nationalisation of US-owned lands in Cuba.

The tensions were escalating, so an agreement for an increased military support was reached with the USSR including material, supplies, pilots, planes, and political advisors, many of which, like my granddad, were veterans of the Spanish Civil war or WWII.

Thanks for enlightening me, I guess the USSR were quick and very responsive on this case.

But also, I'd also like to add that when it comes to military deployment somewhere else outside Europe and its neighbors, USSR tend to be more reactive to the situation (wait and act until invited by foreign countries, like in this case Cuba) while the USA is more proactive (act first before someone else and see what will happen)

i believe the u.s.s.r's surface fleet option was limited even in the pacific as vladivostok, their main naval base there, cannot act as a full port year round, as the water freezes there for a significant portion of the year.

i think a huge reason for the weaker power projection of the u.s.s.r as opposed to the u.s. was simply economics. the u.s. was just a lot wealthier than the u.s.s.r so if your analysis is correct that the u.s.s.r was reactive and supported friendly gov't half-heartedly, i think a lot of that had to do that they had a lot less money to spend on their 'vassals' than the u.s. did, not because they didn't want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

i believe the u.s.s.r's surface fleet option was limited even in the pacific as vladivostok, their main naval base there, cannot act as a full port year round, as the water freezes there for a significant portion of the year.

i think a huge reason for the weaker power projection of the u.s.s.r as opposed to the u.s. was simply economics. the u.s. was just a lot wealthier than the u.s.s.r so if your analysis is correct that the u.s.s.r was reactive and supported friendly gov't half-heartedly, i think a lot of that had to do that they had a lot less money to spend on their 'vassals' than the u.s. did, not because they didn't want to.

---

But the difference was that while USA was democratic and capitalistic USSR was a communist oligarchy...
USA people had ALOT to lose while the Soviets not so much....as was proved by their reckless massive losses in WWII...
Thus I believe that USA had a greater probability to capitulate than USSR...

The U.S. was also more economic in their actions.
For example...

After WW2 the U.S. sent billions (modern day inflation) to Europe to help them recover. Not just Germany, (West Germany), but Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Britain, Luxembourg, and many other countries.

The U.S. policy was more along the lines of soft-power, but there are examples of heavy-handed actions (Guatemala under Eisenhower). Sometimes the movement by the U.S. helped our political ideology spread (Europe), other times we inserted foot-into-mouth (Iran).

The Soviet Union worked more on securing a Comintern dominated by Moscow. Yugoslavia under Tito was one Communist nation that split from Moscow, China being the other. Otherwise, the Soviets controlled Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany through force and intimidation rather than allowing democracies to spring up.

Good example is Poland, where the President was really helpless with the Soviet controlled government offices. The Soviet Union also broke the Romanian land-reforms under the Nazis, and made sure that all opposing views were eliminated. This strict control wasn't that helpful.

Also, the Soviets could use Murmansk and Arkhangelsk for naval bases, but those were like Vladivostok, they couldn't be used during winter months because the ports were frozen over.

One thing that I might like to add with what you said about "half hearted support" from the Soviet is that they made export models of most of their equipment (tanks, etc) which were not equipped with the most modern technology, tanks exported to Iraq for an example, lacked night vision and more advanced sighting mechanisms.

Thousands of battleships in the Pacific alone? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

But the difference was that while USA was democratic and capitalistic USSR was a communist oligarchy...
USA people had ALOT to lose while the Soviets not so much....as was proved by their reckless massive losses in WWII...
Thus I believe that USA had a greater probability to capitulate than USSR...

---

Yes I believe u.s.s.r. would've launched something desparate if time called for desparate situations and not lose so fast, I think if the U.S. had alot to lose, the only option was to not lose at all:laugh4:! if theres something big on the line everyones gonna try there best to win even in the face of defeat.

I agree with some comments above. Economy was another important factor. USA has completely recovered from the economical depression by the end of World War 2 and turned into one of the mightiest economy power in the world due to its production capability during and after WW2. USSR on the other hand, despite having largest army at the time, its economy was practically in ruin, and took several years to recover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Thousands of battleships in the Pacific alone? :inquisitive:

---

I meant warships. :grin2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tran

I agree with some comments above. Economy was another important factor. USA has completely recovered from the economical depression by the end of World War 2 and turned into one of the mightiest economy power in the world due to its production capability during and after WW2. USSR on the other hand, despite having largest army at the time, its economy was practically in ruin, and took several years to recover.


I meant warships. :grin2:

---

Yes, economy is the key.

That's what I thought you meant. It just provided an excellent mental image. :2thumbsup:

Tran,

I'm not sure I understand the thrust of your thread. Are you asking a question or pushing a thesis? If you are simply asking questions, this is a book you may be interested in: The Fifty Year War: Conflict and Strategy during the Cold War It is a good work. It covers the strategic/tactical shifts on both sides over the coarse of the struggle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Good example is Poland, where the President was really helpless with the Soviet controlled government offices. The Soviet Union also broke the Romanian land-reforms under the Nazis, and made sure that all opposing views were eliminated. This strict control wasn't that helpful.

---

Correction: the 'president' (not elected so doesn't count as a legitimate one) WAS a Soviet agent - worked for NKVD as long as late 1930s and lived in the Soviet Union at that time. Since he survived the Stalin's purge virtually erazing Polish communist movement except those few remaining in Poland's prisons at that time OR in direct service of NKVD just like Mr.Bierut.

All scums without any support in Poland and brought in suitcases by the Red Army and sustained in power afterwards by same 'friends'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tran

I agree with some comments above. Economy was another important factor. USA has completely recovered from the economical depression by the end of World War 2 and turned into one of the mightiest economy power in the world due to its production capability during and after WW2. USSR on the other hand, despite having largest army at the time, its economy was practically in ruin, and took several years to recover.


I meant warships. :grin2:

---

Economy only works in a free democratic capitalistic society where you need the cash to sustain and pay the factories to provide you with the essentials for the war...
In a totalitarian regime you dont need any money just resources and factories...everyone is working for the common cause money isnt the motive...
Thats the main weakness of USA people they live too good to give that all up for a dangerous war that will ruin them more than it will benefit them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Economy only works in a free democratic capitalistic society where you need the cash to sustain and pay the factories to provide you with the essentials for the war...
In a totalitarian regime you dont need any money just resources and factories...everyone is working for the common cause money isnt the motive...
Thats the main weakness of USA people they live too good to give that all up for a dangerous war that will ruin them more than it will benefit them...

---

At the time the U.S. made great sacrifices in WW2 so that generation and their children would've made sacrifices too (since patriotism was much bigger then than now IMO). The U.S. can go a prolonged war if the stakes are high, if it isnt, hippies will magicaly appear....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

At the time the U.S. made great sacrifices in WW2 so that generation and their children would've made sacrifices too (since patriotism was much bigger then than now IMO). The U.S. can go a prolonged war if the stakes are high, if it isnt, hippies will magicaly appear....

---

Fighting a war without bombings on your soil...Thousands of miles away with no civilian casualties of your own doesnt qualify as that great of sacrifice...
Would they tolerate their way of life being ruined and deprivation running rampant? I seriously doubt that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Fighting a war without bombings on your soil...Thousands of miles away with no civilian casualties of your own doesnt qualify as that great of sacrifice...
Would they tolerate their way of life being ruined and deprivation running rampant? I seriously doubt that...

---

yes if the stakes are....whatever.....

Great economic sacrifices, the poor become the poorer, and a soldiers deaths qualifies as an affront to any nation and thus take action to even the score.

Well I don't think there is a forseeable threat that would have much of a chance of attacking American soil in any big way, unless you believe Mexico is a serious threat to the security of the USA in the way the Nazis were to the USSR in WWII, or you count a nuclear war in which case we're all dead anyway so who tries to hold on the longest is irrelevant because we're all going down anyway, even the Swiss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Well I don't think there is a forseeable threat that would have much of a chance of attacking American soil in any big way, unless you believe Mexico is a serious threat to the security of the USA in the way the Nazis were to the USSR in WWII, or you count a nuclear war in which case we're all dead anyway so who tries to hold on the longest is irrelevant because we're all going down anyway, even the Swiss.

---

What about the north and the Bering Strait?
Anway in the case of a huge disruption of the wealthfare and way of life of the Americans I doubt they could sustain it...
Also we shouldnt forget Cuba and otehr leftist Latin American states...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

That's what I thought you meant. It just provided an excellent mental image. :2thumbsup:

---

lol...not sure how that will really be applied :laugh4: Thanks for reminding though :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Tran,

I'm not sure I understand the thrust of your thread. Are you asking a question or pushing a thesis? If you are simply asking questions, this is a book you may be interested in: The Fifty Year War: Conflict and Strategy during the Cold War It is a good work. It covers the strategic/tactical shifts on both sides over the coarse of the struggle.

---

Thanks Pindar, I might take a look at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

What about the north and the Bering Strait?

---

Talking about North Sea and Bering Strait (and military), I read in some sources that while USA emphasize the use of aircrafts (fly above the sky), the USSR heavily emphasize the use of submarines (deep beneath the oceans) and with most of their ports frozen during winter, submarines seemed to be the most effective and logical choice. As they can travel the Arctic Ocean beneath the nearly-permanent ice.

And with all these talks about invasion of USA, I highly recommend the movie Red Dawn which depict the war on American soil. Or you might also want to read Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising. Very interesting ~:thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

What about the north and the Bering Strait?
Anway in the case of a huge disruption of the wealthfare and way of life of the Americans I doubt they could sustain it...
Also we shouldnt forget Cuba and otehr leftist Latin American states...

---

Sure they can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

What about the north and the Bering Strait?
Anway in the case of a huge disruption of the wealthfare and way of life of the Americans I doubt they could sustain it...
Also we shouldnt forget Cuba and otehr leftist Latin American states...

---

If the Ruskies attempt to attack us through Canada they'll be slogging through dense tundra and forests taking casualties the whole way for essentially worthless gains, and drag Europe into it along the way. It would probably take them several months to get anywhere near a part of Canada that is actually valuable, and by then we'd probably have organized quite a resistance. That and a nuclear war would spark before they reached the continental United States....And if China tried it they'd spark a nuclear war and be immobilized and starved by air superiority and naval superiority.

Oh and as to the Latin American states they are not a viable military threat at the moment. The US navy would sink their navies, and the greatest gain they might manage is taking the Panama Canal and Guantanamo Bay. Oh and any other small islands or tiny bases we happen to have in the region.

In the forseeable future the only major threat to the US is our own idiotic military adventures abroad (which really only do major damage on an economic level) and the economic rise of China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

If the Ruskies attempt to attack us through Canada they'll be slogging through dense tundra and forests taking casualties the whole way for essentially worthless gains, and drag Europe into it along the way. It would probably take them several months to get anywhere near a part of Canada that is actually valuable, and by then we'd probably have organized quite a resistance. That and a nuclear war would spark before they reached the continental United States....And if China tried it they'd spark a nuclear war and be immobilized and starved by air superiority and naval superiority.

Oh and as to the Latin American states they are not a viable military threat at the moment. The US navy would sink their navies, and the greatest gain they might manage is taking the Panama Canal and Guantanamo Bay. Oh and any other small islands or tiny bases we happen to have in the region.

In the forseeable future the only major threat to the US is our own idiotic military adventures abroad (which really only do major damage on an economic level) and the economic rise of China.

---

You are assuming, wrongly I believe, that russian and chinese generals are idiots. I don't think it is the case.

The only viable avenue of attack for the Soviets would've been through the heimat into Western (and Southern) Europe. And they knew it. From there, it's a waiting game: with a greatly expanded collection of non-freezing ports, good old Ivan could've started building a real blue water navy for a change. Only then could he have threatened the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilesGregarius

That will be news to Chiang Kai Shek and the anti-communist KMT (Republic of China is Taiwan). The People's Republic is Communist China.



As far as I know, the USSR sent some fighter pilots, but no ground troops (hardly needed with Chinese involvement). Of course, there may have been a few "advisers", but there was no Soviet commitment of large-scale ground formations.

---

Correct. Some (and not even many) Soviet airmen were involved, but the most support from USSR came in the supplies. They supplied all the Migs etc. They had no desire to fight the US I would assume. Why not let the US get harmed while they sit back and watch. Same thing with Vietnam and Afghanistan in the other direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Correct. Some (and not even many) Soviet airmen were involved, but the most support from USSR came in the supplies. They supplied all the Migs etc. They had no desire to fight the US I would assume. Why not let the US get harmed while they sit back and watch. Same thing with Vietnam and Afghanistan in the other direction.

---

Afghanistan? you mean now?

Maybe if they still hate us... but everywhere else they helped the opposing side.

So what are we talking about here? Past or Present?

Quote:

---

Afghanistan? you mean now?

---

He means the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the one that lasted 10 years and really just spelled out as a clone of Vietnam. Its the reason why Afghanistan was such a dump when the Americans came.

Wasn't Afghanistan already become war-torn country ever since the 1978 coup by Marxist rulers Taraki and Hafizullah Amin until now? And does anyone know the "official reason" for the USSR intervention in Afghanistan? Was it really because they were invited by Amin, or something else?

I have read somewhere that one of the reasons and factors for both the invasion of Czechoslovakia (in 1968) and Afghanistan was because there's some people in the respective governments (not officially) urged them to come?