AH Challenge: Milder Cold War, POD 1945-1953

[B_Munro]

Your challenge is to make a less dangerous and fraught Col War with a POD between the surrender of Japan and Stalin's death. There are two major limitations:

1. Stalin does not die or become incapacitated any earlier than OTL.

2. Mao must still succeed in unifying mainland China under his rule by the end of 1949.

(If one POD is insufficient, you may take up to 3, as long as they aren't too improbable).

Blowing up the USSR or the USA will not be taken as an acceptable solution.

Best,
Bruce

 

[MarkA]

1. Truman does not become President.
2. The western allies allow Soviet involvement in the settlement of post-war Italy.
3. A delay in the development of the atomic bomb means Soviet participation in the invasion of Japan.

 

[BCO]

I think the main POD would be a little earlier, FDR lives a few more years.
He could have handled Stalin, made agreements, etc.
Truman condemned their occupation of Eastern Europe without actually reversing it. It was clear they were going to control it, FDR approved of a secret agreement between Churchill and Stalin on how to divide up spheres of influence in Europe.

 

[HurganPL]

He could have handled Stalin, made agreements, etc.

Yes, he would surrender more to Stalin, possibly Italy and France. But would it mean less dangerous Cold War ? I don't think so. Certainly not to French and Italian people who would be subject to Soviet terror as Hungarians, Poles, Czechs were.

 

[MarkA]

Yes, he would surrender more to Stalin, possibly Italy and France. But would it mean less dangerous Cold War ? I don't think so. Certainly not to French and Italian people who would be subject to Soviet terror as Hungarians, Poles, Czechs were.

Rubbish. This assertion has no basis in historical fact at all.

 

[Typo]

I have to agree, that sounds like satire or someone who really have a thing against left-wingers.

 

[BCO]

Yes, he would surrender more to Stalin, possibly Italy and France. But would it mean less dangerous Cold War ? I don't think so. Certainly not to French and Italian people who would be subject to Soviet terror as Hungarians, Poles, Czechs were.

I don't think he would have done either.
He might have more definitively allowed the Soviets to have Eastern Europe.
The Soviets had Eastern Europe for the next 45 years anyway, so I don't think Truman's methods worked.

 

[B_Munro]

It's HurganPL smearing Roosevelt and telling us the Soviets were Really Bad. Perhaps the sun will also rise tomorrow and apples will continue to fall downward to the earth.

There's a thought in there, though: US withdraws into isolationism, even more of Europe falls under Soviet control, and the whole thing falls apart in a series of rebellions in the 50's? Imperial Overstretch and all that.

Bruce

 

[Faeelin]

It's HurganPL smearing Roosevelt and telling us the Soviets were Really Bad. Perhaps the sun will also rise tomorrow and apples will continue to fall downward to the earth.

There's a thought in there, though: US withdraws into isolationism, even more of Europe falls under Soviet control, and the whole thing falls apart in a series of rebellions in the 50's? Imperial Overstretch and all that.

Bruce

It falls apart, but how?

Communist France leads Socialist Europe?

Perversely, a tougher line early on may make Stalin more cautious; less inclined to pressure Turkey, give sanction to the invasion of korea, etc.

 

[Johnrankins]

It's HurganPL smearing Roosevelt and telling us the Soviets were Really Bad. Perhaps the sun will also rise tomorrow and apples will continue to fall downward to the earth.

There's a thought in there, though: US withdraws into isolationism, even more of Europe falls under Soviet control, and the whole thing falls apart in a series of rebellions in the 50's? Imperial Overstretch and all that.

Bruce

I would agree with him that the Soviets were really bad. I have reletives who lived on the wrong side of the Berlin wall and it WAS really bad. That aside I doubt Roosevelt would allow Stalin to take all of Europe either. FDR wasn't a fool.

 

[Kammada]

I would agree with him that the Soviets were really bad. I have reletives who lived on the wrong side of the Berlin wall and it WAS really bad. That aside I doubt Roosevelt would allow Stalin to take all of Europe either. FDR wasn't a fool.

... But he had plenty of fools in his environment. Think about Henry Wallace and his tour to Kolyma!

IMO, a milder cold war means a more cautious Stalin, so I agree with Faeelin.
Perhaps, Truman allows the Soviet delegation to witness the first nuclear tests at Los Alamos? I think, it certainly would help if it was Truman and not Roosevelt to go to Yalta.

As for bolshevization of France: it was Stalin who aborted the whole thing, but both Maurice Thorez (quite naturally) and Georgii Zhukov (a fact less well-known) have stood for it.
And, well, I know it sounds francocentric, but what were Indochina and Algeria as assets in the Cold War. Suppose that France deals with them without bloodshed (either lets them go or enfranchises the whole of their population). Wouldn't it help a bit?

 

[Faeelin]

And, well, I know it sounds francocentric, but what were Indochina and Algeria as assets in the Cold War. Suppose that France deals with them without bloodshed (either lets them go or enfranchises the whole of their population). Wouldn't it help a bit?

I have a hunch that a Communist France would not wanna let reactionaries triumph in either location.

 

[DominusNovus]

I'm kinda surprised that so many think that if the soviets do better, then the Cold War will be better.

Good thing some people don't think so though.

 

[B_Munro]

I'm kinda surprised that so many think that if the soviets do better, then the Cold War will be better.

Good thing some people don't think so though.

Yes, because to think otherwise might lead TO THE TRIUMPH OF COMMUNISM!!!

I said "less dangerous", a "milder" Cold War: this doesn't rule out people here and there having an even worse time of it than OTL.

Johnrankins, I am aware that the Soviet Union was A Bad Thing, as do most people outside some of the dopier corners of the left. People who insist on loudly proclaiming this strike me like someone constantly and loudly claiming the earth is round, apparently under the the impression he's really sticking it to those dammned flat-earth heretics.

Not sure about how much a visit to the Trinity test would affect Stalin's thinking, I mean he had spies inside the actual program, so presumably he was pretty well informed about what it could do. Hmm - not Truman: who can we get as a VP who looks crazy enough to scare Stalin?

(To be more precise: what, exactly, does a tougher line _look_ like? Remember now, our PODs must be _after_ Japan's surrender).

Bruce

 

[DominusNovus]

Yes, because to think otherwise might lead TO THE TRIUMPH OF COMMUNISM!!!

I said "less dangerous", a "milder" Cold War: this doesn't rule out people here and there having an even worse time of it than OTL.

Well, creating greater parity between the two sides isn't going to do it. Other than overwhelming land military superiority, and a brief rocket superiority, the Communists were way behind the west in several regards. If they're better off, I don't see how that makes things more calm.

 

[HurganPL]

and the whole thing falls apart in a series of rebellions in the 50's?

Soviet bloc had such rebellions in 50s. All crushed with ease.

 

[Advernt]

Here is a solution , though it borders on the edge of violating one of the conditions . What if a significantly large , two mile wide asteroid splitted into two , and one smashed into the Atlantic , and the other , in India ? The resulting devestation will prematurely butterfly away the cold war , perhaps for good.

 

[Max Sinister]

Unless the Soviets also controlled western Germany, a Communist coup in France had no chance. The US don't want a Communist country in the midth of western Europe.

 

[B_Munro]

Well, creating greater parity between the two sides isn't going to do it. Other than overwhelming land military superiority, and a brief rocket superiority, the Communists were way behind the west in several regards. If they're better off, I don't see how that makes things more calm.

We're talking perceptions here...OTL, the US often had an exaggerated impression of the Soviets' capacities. OTOH, many people in Europe in the late 30's seriously _underestimated_ Soviet military capacities. Depending on events, a stronger USSR does not necessarily equal a more scared US.

A few thoughts:

Avoiding the Berlin blockade - can we get a neutralized unfied Germany? If not, can we keep people talking rather than have the US and allies present the USSR with a fait accompli in their financial unification of their three zones?

Then there's Korea - what does it take to keep Stalin from giving Kim the green light? (Perhaps during the initial division he decides he needs someone more pliable to run N. Korea, and Kim has an Unfortunate Accident?).

The Soviet bomb - well, that's hard to avoid, and will inevitably scare the crap out of Americans. But perhaps we can delay it a bit if the wrong people are purged for "wrecking" activities. How long did the average American in 1946 (outside the SF community, anyway) think it would be before the USSR had the bomb, too? Perhaps we can make it less of a shock...

Bruce

 

[B_Munro]

Unless the Soviets also controlled western Germany, a Communist coup in France had no chance. The US don't want a Communist country in the midth of western Europe.

The underlying assumption was a US-withdraws-into-isolationism situation, which I admit isn't too high-probability: the US dominated the globe, and with memories of what happened after 1919, there probably was too much of an impulse to do it right this time...

Bruce