A successful Long Jump?

I think that there is a chance that the Cold War would be prevented or at least made much less threatening.

I think that the tory defeat in 1945 is more severe without Churchill.
 
Does President Wallace run in 1944? I imagine he would, and he'd probably win. That's quite a big butterfly for the West.
 
Soviet Military?

I agree with the Churchill gone his party will loose more MPs.

Pres Wallace? --shudder--

It is possible that the Red Army might trump the Molotov/ Beria / et al fight for the Comm. Party.

Zhukov especially would have a pivotal role in who runs "Russia" whether it remained Soviet or not.
 
Who would take over in the Soviet Union is probably the most interesting.

Not really. 99.9% chance it’s Molotov acting as front-man with the Politburo operating under a more collectivised leadership. The knives will only come out after the war…

How many Germans are left alive after the Allies are through is the more interesting question. The Morgenthau Plan is going to look lenient ITTL. We also wont have later issues of German re-unification since Germany will be a basket case/collection of mini-states.:eek:


There would be a power struggle. Lets hope to god Beria doesn't win. Rather have Molotov or Malenkov.

Why, because he many or many not have been a serial rapist? Malenkov and Molotov were just as blood-soaked as Beria and total unreconstructed Stalinists to boot.

Beria at least hinted at economic reforms & some minor liberalization. He also wasn’t all that committed to Marxism when you come right down to it, so whatever caution he displays on reforms would’ve been practical (I.E staying in power) not out of conviction.
 
Last edited:
Why, because he many or many not have been a serial rapist? Malenkov and Molotov were just as blood-soaked as Beria and total unreconstructed Stalinists to boot.

Beria at least hinted at economic reforms & some minor liberalization. He also wasn’t all that committed to Marxism when you come right down to it, so whatever caution he displays on reforms would’ve been practical (I.E staying in power) not out of conviction.

Beria was insane. Almost as much as Stalin. Molotov was smarter and more stable. So where Malenkov and Zhukov. Beria would most likely trigger WWIII.

and yes, he would abuse many, many more women.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
President Wallace wins in 1944. Massive butterflies from there. Since the democrats have been in office so long, I see a Republican in 1948. Massive butterflies. FDR is viewed by the majority of the USA as the greatest president ever, and a HUGE monument is built in D.C. In the first few months of 1944, Wallace will be new in office, and will not change any already decided military plans, but by late 1944, he is likely to make different decisions. This is a great POD for the creative mind.

Hard for me to say about UK, but different person in charge, so many butterflies.

I can see a power struggle in the USSR. This struggle would be short and bloody at the top lasting no more than a few weeks. There may also be a new purge of the "fascist" in the USSR.

If the three leaders die, then agreement at the Tehran conference will never be reached. Once the new leaders are in place, they will need to negotiate the post war settlement.
 
This could mean less of a Cold War. Stalin would be replaced by someone who would purge less, Churchill would likely be replaced by someone who would not have as much ambivalence towards Russia, and Henry Wallace would be in favor of working with Russia.

Once Wallace is out of office, he'd likely be viewed as an elder statesman for the Democrats. Perhaps between Wallace and Dewey (or perhaps even Taft), segregation might end sooner? (Of course, the Dixiecrats may bolt both parties as a result...)
And one wonders how Wallace being viewed better will affect his views on agriculture...and America's views on that as well. (He may even return to editing Wallace's Farmer.)
 
Evan,
I am not capable of posting a direct link, perhaps some member could advise me how to do it, but if you access my threads which you can get it from my name it's on the second page - can a successful operation long jump turn WW2? Thank you for your interest!
 
Beria was insane. Almost as much as Stalin. Molotov was smarter and more stable. So where Malenkov and Zhukov. Beria would most likely trigger WWIII.

and yes, he would abuse many, many more women.

Let's leave the rapist things aside, we don't know for sure if they were true and we probably never will, most of the sources one way or the other on the matter had a reason to either defend or besmirch Beria.

Instead I would like to hear how Beria, the reform-minded pragmatist who wanted rapprochement with the West, is going to start another world war.
 

Geon

Donor
Long Jump

Assuming Germany pulled off a successful Long Jump we have a different political situation going into 1944.

The U.S.A. -- Henry Wallace becomes president for the duration of FDR's third term. He takes a more concillatory tone toward the Soviets at the end of the war. It's even possible that the Soviets get to keep Austria and most of Germany as their prize. Wallace also becomes a one term president. The Democratic party chooses someone who is more left of center or conservative then Wallace. The Republicans field Dewey. Who the Democrats choose to run instead of Wallace in 1944 and whether that someone would be able to beat Dewey I leave to further speculation on this thread.

Great Britain -- Churchill's death is a major morale blow to the British, but Churchill goes down in history as a martyr for his nation and is considered a hero on the equal with Nelson and other famous British heroes. Not being familiar with British politics I am reluctant to speculate on who might take Churchill's place.

The Soviet Union -- Stalin's death causes something close to civil war to break out in the Kremlin. A provisional council takes over temporary power after Stalin's death but for the next year or two coups, countercoups, and "mysterious" deaths plague the council as members jockey one another for power. Again, even though Beria has a very powerful hand here it is uncertain he would be the ultimate winner. The Cold War may be better or worse depending on who is the ultimate winner here. Again others on this thread may know more about this then I do.

Finally, one military note, in the wake of a crime this heinous I see some changes in the war. First, Bomber Harris, is given a blank check to do what he wants in Germany. It will be open season on every German city from this point on and Dresden will be only one of the German cities to get the "Harris treatment." Secondly, it is likely that Allied intelligence would develop and implement to kill the Nazi hierarchy, especially Hitler in retaliation. There may even be a partnership developed between Allied intelligence and the Valkyrie plotters, but no guarantees given afterward to what happens to Germany. Finally, any Nazi leader that falls into Allies hands is likely to suffer a "mysterious" accident after they are captured. The Allies might be of a mind that "hanging is too good for those $%%! after a crime like this and simply have them shot once they are captured.

Geon
 
Instead I would like to hear how Beria, the reform-minded pragmatist who wanted rapprochement with the West, is going to start another world war.

I base that purely on the man's personality and former functions. Afer WWII he was made leader of the soviet nuclear program, with succes. becoming leader in 1943 he wold have certainly given great interest in the power of the Atomic bomb. The role of the Atomic bomb would have been different anyhow as changes in the United States cabinet would surely change the use of the nuclear weapons during WWII. After the war the use of nuclear weapons might be better encouraged.

Like i said, Beria was a madmen and would be even more parnoid as Stalin would be about being assassinated. Probably putting double the number of people in Gulags, execute more and more people. He would become Megalomanic(sp?) which would i think come from his paranoia and possession of nuclear power. Untill, eventually turning against outside world. Starting in Europe. I think a nuclear war could start rooting from both those factors.
 
President Wallace wins in 1944.

I think that is very debateable. Wallace was a very odd duck. He was extremely popular with the progressive wing of the Democrats, but the old Democratic machines and conservative Democrats didn't want him at all. It's possible Wallace doesn't even get the Democratic nomination.

If Wallace is the nominee, I think Dewey has a very good chance at beating him. He'll probably pick up a lot more states in the Midwest and East Coast. Even though Dewey will not win anything in the South, Wallace's share of the popular vote is going to go down. Some are going to vote for Dewey or choose not to vote at all. This means Wallace won't see any of the 70-90% southern victories that FDR received. Without that padding, his share of the popular vote goes down.

If Dewey picks up the 9 states he lost under 5% and New York (his own home state) he gets the electoral votes needed. I think that is very doable although by no means certain.
 
I think that is very debateable. Wallace was a very odd duck. He was extremely popular with the progressive wing of the Democrats, but the old Democratic machines and conservative Democrats didn't want him at all. It's possible Wallace doesn't even get the Democratic nomination.

If Wallace is the nominee, I think Dewey has a very good chance at beating him. He'll probably pick up a lot more states in the Midwest and East Coast. Even though Dewey will not win anything in the South, Wallace's share of the popular vote is going to go down. Some are going to vote for Dewey or choose not to vote at all. This means Wallace won't see any of the 70-90% southern victories that FDR received. Without that padding, his share of the popular vote goes down.

If Dewey picks up the 9 states he lost under 5% and New York (his own home state) he gets the electoral votes needed. I think that is very doable although by no means certain.

Unfortunately, unless Wallace does something very wrong, there is a good chance he is going to get renominated for the Presidency. There was a large amount of support for him to remain Vice President despite what was acting against him, and as the sitting President, it stands to reason he would have more control over the process and thus enough support to win the nomination. Will it be easy? Doubtful. If his detractors manage to find themselves a candidate they will push and push and damage Wallace by giving the appearance of a disunited Party. Southerners are also going to be angered by his vocal support of Civil Rights, and likely will pull their "State's Rights" Stunt four years early, in Alliance with the Texas Regulars.

Now, the General Election is a different matter. I am not going to give a prediction since I would say it would be something similar to 1948 with a much stronger performance by State's Rights Party in the South, along with a respectable showing by the Texas Regulars, with it generally being a tossup thus. Wallace has the advantage being the incumbent, but it may not be enough.​
 
The Soviet Union -- Stalin's death causes something close to civil war to break out in the Kremlin. A provisional council takes over temporary power after Stalin's death but for the next year or two coups, countercoups, and "mysterious" deaths plague the council as members jockey one another for power.

I also disgree here. There is probably some rule by committee, but in the midst of war the Red Army is not going to tolerate anything like a civil war. Anyone who tries to assassinate some over guy or try a coup is going to be shot by Zhukov and the rest of STAVKA. If things really get out of control, the military is likely to seize power entirely. And who can stop them at this point? There will be more than enough members of the Party who will be willing to collaborate with them.

I think most likely no paramount leader is able to seize power. The top guys are still in charge, but basically let the military determine most of the war. After the war, Beria is removed from power.

In any case, after the war - possibly even during it - the full litany of Stalin's screw ups and mistakes of 1939-1942 get listed out. That probably means Molotov gets tossed out too.

There might not be a Cold War at all. The new Soviet leaders will likely want to keep on the good sides of the US to keep up aid after the war. I'm sure the Soviets will have some policies that cause the US trouble, but overall I suspect there will be lots of cooperation.
 
Top