The American Relief Administration program prevented the early collapse of Communist Russia between 1921-23. Why was this done? Was it just for humanitarian reasons?

by aaHBN

Well before his Presidency, putting his superb organizational skills to work, Herbert Hoover’s American Relief Administration embarked on the largest humanitarian operation in history that spanned a million square miles of Russia.

This largely forgotten act of benevolence by the US potentially saved the lives of 10 million Russians and very likely prevented the collapse of the Soviet regime.

The Russians accepted the aid but were embarrassed by it and downplayed it, later even labeling the Americans (some 200 at any given time) that were involved with this effort as spies. After all, America was the largest capitalist and had several years earlier sent troops to fight the Russian Bolsheviks.

What I am attempting to understand is the policy motivations behind this colossal relief effort. Was it founded in anything more concrete that our sense of morality and humanitarian reasons?

Koldovstoretz

Siegel in Loans and Legitimacy: The Evolution of Soviet-American Relations, 1919-1933 gives it some more context. There definitely was a moral dimension - Herbert Hoover was a Quaker after all, and the ARA would look unacceptably hypocritical for denying aid to the USSR when it had issued a broad international appeal for aid. But there were also political concerns. The Bolsheviks had begun implementing the New Economic Policy reforms in March 1921, which promised a retreat to some capitalist relations which many Americans hoped would be permanent. The ARA’s efforts were thus seen as a chance to encourage these positive developments, undermine communism by showing the bounty capitalism had to offer, and build up goodwill towards America which could be converted to future trade and business partnerships. There was definitely a “gain” which the U.S. had in mind, though it was very abstract and flexible. While communism was seen as an existential threat by some in U.S. policy circles, others saw is as an unstable fad which would quickly pass. Therefore, to them normal business relations and positive diplomacy to encourage political change was the best option for U.S. interest.