Well, it's worth stating that this sentiment of Europe being caught between the Soviets and the Americans is, well, of a piece with the cultural ideology that Heidegger was in at the time. The Nazis saw these as the two major poles of the world, too, and contrasted themselves with both of them (Fascism as sort of a third way between rapacious, "race-mixing" capitalism, as they saw it, and Soviet communism). Heidegger's relationship Nazism is, of course, one of the most contentious aspects of him and his work, but we'll just set that aside for a moment.

One can certainly find instances of people saying that the two major groupings of power would be the Russians and the Americans, in part because the natural resources commanded by these two countries was immense. Here is Alexis de Tocqueville, in the mid-19th century:

"There are now two great nations in the world which, starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans. Both have grown in obscurity, and while the world’s attention was occupied elsewhere, they have suddenly taken their place among the leading nations, making the world take note of their birth and of their greatness almost at the same instant. All other peoples seem to have nearly reached their natural limits and to need nothing but to preserve them; but these two are growing…. The American fights against natural obstacles; the Russian is at grips with men. The former combats the wilderness and barbarism; the latter, civilization with all its arms. America’s conquests are made with the plowshare, Russia’s with the sword. To attain their aims, the former relies on personal interest and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of individuals. The latter in a sense concentrates the whole power of society in one man. One has freedom as the principal means of action; the other has servitude. Their point of departure is different and their paths diverse; nevertheless, each seems called by some secret desire of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world."

Now one can read prescience into that if you want. Typically historians are a little wary about doing that sort of thing, because one never tallies up how many times these same people are wrong in their predictions, or the subtle ways in which these aren't quite right. For example, saying that "freedom" was America's "principal means of action" as opposed to Russia's "servitude" in the 1840s is a bit rich, given how much of the American economy relied on slavery at that point, and the contradiction would soon turn into a terrible spasm of civil war.