Nato WAS western europe + USA.
Members were linked by a reciprocity protection. Wich meaned that if US were attacked, we were to rescue them.

Do you reduce the options as : being part of the Nato or threwing stones ??
FYI, we are a nuclear country.

Yet, the sovietic forces were highly overestimated.
By who ? Same as today, thoses who benefits conflicts.

"who would have protected Western Europe from the Soviets?"

There are two sides to that. The US served as a guarantee that the Soviets would not try to move West (though there were few indications that they had any such plans. Even the Eastern Bloc and the invasion of Afghanistan was more about keeping a buffer between Russia and the West. )

But US presence in Europe also bolstered the US economy and guaranteed that NATO countries would go along with such things as the US overthrowing democratic foreign governments in favor of US friendly right wing dictators.

The only instance of the mutual defense clause coming into action was when European Nato countries joined the US in Afghanistan.

So technically, the US were the first and only countries to ever actually need Nato support for their own defense. Not  just hypothetically need it or benefitting from the possibility of it.

Another way of looking at it is that since most Nato countries didn't have nuclear weapons to speak of, and the big threat during the Cold War was that of nuclear war,  the US endangered European countries as much as it protected them. Or more.

Who would want to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike at Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Madrid, Bonn or Rome? Except for the fact that they were in nations allied to the US.

It's a lot more complicated than the US being the hero all the time.

••

I refuse to apologize or even feel sorry for the actions of my ancestors. I had absolutely no "vote" there.

(And, for that matter, being an immigrant myself, none of the bad things that happened in this Nation's history are connected to myself or my ancestors.   Do I wish those things hadn't happened? You bet! Do I feel guilty or responsible in any way? No.)

Bill, thank you for the respect you show us, and the trust showed.

You know, taking western europe country was something, but it's mostly small countries, or not very used to war, or artificially made (such as Yugoslavie),. But figthing against the brits, deutch, french, italians, spanish and so on would have been something else.

Now, you may not believe that, but then you should remember this : rigth after WW II, the sovietics were not i a very good shape.
They had war on their ground, + economicals changes, + most of the weapons they used against the Germans were US.

Wich mean, time to make their own weapons, it'd take a lot of efforts.
That's why taking "small" countries is something, taking tea in London is something else.

Don't worry, Bill.

I think they would not have, but you know what ? Since this (happilly) war did not happens, we will never know.

Anyway, this does not mean we're not thankfull for all the american help.

That's why we're friends.
; )

"Without US support, by 1950, there would have been a devastating invasion by the Soviets into Western Europe."

Probably not. The Russians (who were the driving force behind the Soviet Union) were very specific about where their interests were. The had an eye on Finland, for instance, but no interest in Northern Norway (which they liberated from the Germans and then, uncharacteristically, left, even though it was rumored that the US and Great Britain had no real objections to them keeping it).

Russia had interests in their neighbors that became a part of the SSSR, and in the Eastern Bloc that was a buffer zone, firewall or "Iron Curtain" that kept the West away from the SSSR as much as it kept the SSSR away from the West.

Aside from a brief period post-revolution, before Stalin got full control, Russia (and by extension the SSSR) has always been isolationist, not expansionist. Even the Eastern Bloc is just an extension of their old "Scorched Earth" tactic, making sure to wear out the enemy before he gets close by throwing a lot of Eastern Europeans at him.

If anything, the fear of the expansionist policies of the US may have prompted the SSSR to be present in places they would not otherwise have bothered with during the Cold War.

And the idea that the Post WWII russian military had an urge to go even farther? At most, they might have taken Western Germany as well, to give them the same "payback" they visited on Eastern Germany for 20-30 million dead Russians. But going further would have completely demoralized the Russian Armies.

The need to paint the US as some superheroic savior that single-handedly saved the world from tyranny has created an image of the old SSSR that is consistent with what the US "story" needs it to be, but contrary to the history of the nation, and what post Cold-War revelations have confirmed.

The fact is that the SSSR had no interest in further war, no interest in Western Europe, and a huge part of the credit for saving Europe from the Nazis goes to the armies of the SSSR.

The US provided more money and equipment, but the SSSR threw lots more soldiers into the fight. I'm not going to argue over who did most, but if the contribution of either one had been absent, a victory over the Nazis would have been far less likely, certainly without a significantly more drawn-out war.

And if the US had left, it is possible that the SSSR would have had a much greater role in European politics, perhaps even as part of a Nato-like alliance. Certainly after the death of Stalin. Without resorting to military invasions.

Post war politics are a complex puzzle, and it often seems like Americans take a simplistic view of "without us, tyranny." while presuming that the US would still be thriving in the same way regardless. 

This story is at odds with how Jon Bogdanove is presenting Supermanin the issue he and Louise Simonson are doing or DC's Retroactive:

From CBR Interview:

“I think one of the things that distinguishes the work Louise and I do together is that, for us, Clark is the man and Superman is the job… Clark Kent is a true ‘melting pot’ immigrant: he may be of Kryptonian heritage, but he is an American first and foremost,” said Bogdanove.

I refuse to apologize or even feel sorry for the actions of my ancestors. I had absolutely no "vote" there.

*********************

I totally agree. I didn't do it and I'm not saying I'm sorry for it.