AHC: Elbe Day Leads To New Era In Western/Soviet Ties, Prevents Cold War

With all of the recent threads surrounding Operation Unthinkable or some variant thereof (and yes, I am guilty ), here's one for the opposite: that the day that W. Allied and Soviet troops met on the Elbe leads to a long-lasting sense of international camaraderie between the West and the USSR, perhaps even preventing the Cold War.

Frankly I think this result was far more likely than an Allied-Russian war over the ruins of central/eastern Europe. As a matter of fact, I'm almost surprised that this didn't happen to some degree.

--The general opinion of the Soviet Union in the West was relatively high late in WWII, right afterward, and to some degree for several years afterward. Soviet atrocities were either little known or deliberately concealed so as not to hurt the unity of the war effort.

--The soldiers who met on the Elbe on April 25 often had very moving experiences that lasted the rest of their lives.

--The whole world was weary of war in 1945. A very diverse assemblage of nations had managed to put aside their differences for the previous four to six years to unite against a common foe, so why could they not bask in the afterglow of their victory?

In my proposed TL, Elbe Day leads to a permanent, or at least long-lasting, diplomatic thaw, detente, and relationship between the USSR and the USA/Great Britain. Examples:

--LL or something resembling it is not cut off when the war ends.
--It becomes common for GIs to visit the Soviet Union, perhaps taking Russian wives back home with them. Likewise, tourism to the USA/England by Russians (meaning those few Party members that can afford it), while less common, is also seen.
--Studebaker and other US-built vehicles are imported into the USSR for civilian usage (granted this probably means that only high-ranking Politburo/Stavka members get them, but still).
--Nuclear technology is shared with Stalin.
--In several years (likely after Uncle Joe leaves the mortal coil, perhaps before), we see the beginnings of economic and/or democratic reform in the USSR (or the window-dressing of it). Likewise, the McCarthy period never happens and instead we see significant Communist parties in the West and USA in particular that operate openly and without social stigma, perhaps even getting some success at the polls.

What do you think? Surely this can't be that undoable.


MalcontentRex

Unlikely without a pre-Stalin POD.

For example, the Soviets fought nail and tooth to _not_ have any WAllies moving around in the Soviet Union during WW2. Merchantmen were kept in isolation from dockworkers, pilots flying in aircrafts through Siberia were kept in isolation from the airport crews and the attempts to base US heavy bombers in Soviet bases were simply heaps of fail due to Soviet reluctance.

People on the street may like the Soviet Union (to no small degree due to their own goverments propaganda to whitewash the SU during 1941-43), but "people in the know" had heard about Katryn, Warzaw and still remembered the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact.

The Soviet Union were until Gorbatjov built upon the basic marxist idea that capitalism was just a stage to go through on the way to socialism. Just as the Roman Empire at its height the SU simply couldn't have cordial relations with capitalist (or even non-socialist countries).

The WAllies did do the "afterglow" basking. But after the SU had installed communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe, kept their military at (almost) WW2 level, blockaded West Berlin, been found to penetrate western governments with heaps of spies (after the Venona decrypts), support to the Greek communists in the civil war and refused to parcipiate in the Marshall Plan it became diffucult to continue basking.

The Soviet Union and the WAllies were so different in basic outlook on life, politics, economics, information etc that a peaceful co-existance is almost impossible.

But for the discussion: the biggest bone in the post-war negotiations were the joint administration of Germany, where the SU wanted to impose socialism and one-party government with german communists in the lead while the WAllies (or at least the Americans) wanted a democratic, capitalistic Germany. If Yalta decided the creation of two German states many early controversies would be avoided - but I doubt it would be enough.

Point of Departure

I think your point of departure needs a different Stalin. One who's still Stalin, but who has somehow actually built up something of a relationship of trust and/or respect with Churchill or Truman, from probably before WW2 started.
(If Stalin's too different, maybe Soviet Russia folds when the Germans invade, or halts after pushing the Germans out of Russia and the Baltics to the 1940 borders of Poland.)

Stalin's paranoia and brutality would sabotage anything like this.

The problems were already there by April of 1945. The Poles in the United States understandably did not want their country ruled by the Russians after Katyn but the Russians wanted to keep it as a buffer zone. Short of changing the constitution to deny free speech rights to critics of the Soviet Union, there's no way to prevent problems after the war.

Not with Stalin at helm in Soviet Union. If he, somehow, kicked the bucket in say, late 1945, maybe...

Stalin is killed by that horse he tried to ride before the VE day parade. Whoever wins the resulting power struggle who is more friendly and willing to cooperate with the West.