Continued Soviet American Alliance of WW2.

For starters, eliminate Truman. Perhaps if US attorney Maurice Milligan or Governor Lloyd Stark don't run against him for Senate. Or, even better, if Morgenthau and others go after Robert E. Hannegan (who helped Truman get elected Senator, and was awarded with the job of DNC Chairman thanks to Truman- and then, after he got Truman the Vice-Presidency, Truman named him Postmaster General!).
Another way would be to have Claude Pepper be a bit faster on his feet and nominate Henry A. Wallace in as VP in 1944.
A third way might be to have Churchill's public opinion go down. Operation Vegetarian might do that, as would finding out about British Security Coordination spying on loyal Americans, from stealing speeches from Henry Wallace to sleeping with Claire Booth Luce.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

You'd need to eliminate Stalin, before the war was over he pretty much decided not to work with the West and reject aid later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War#Background
n wartime, the United States supplied both Britain and the Soviets through its Lend-Lease Program.[19] However, Stalin remained highly suspicious and believed that the British and the Americans had conspired to ensure the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting against Nazi Germany. According to this view, the Western Allies had deliberately delayed opening a second anti-German front in order to step in at the last moment and shape the peace settlement. Thus, Soviet perceptions of the West left a strong undercurrent of tension and hostility between the Allied powers.[20]

The Allies disagreed about how the European map should look, and how borders would be drawn, following the war.[21] Each side held dissimilar ideas regarding the establishment and maintenance of post-war security.[21] The western Allies desired a security system in which democratic governments were established as widely as possible, permitting countries to peacefully resolve differences through international organizations.[22]


Given the Russian historical experiences of frequent invasions[23] and the immense death toll (estimated at 27 million) and the destruction the Soviet Union sustained during World War II,[24] the Soviet Union sought to increase security by dominating the internal affairs of countries that bordered it.[21][25] During the war, Stalin had created special training centers for Communists from different countries so that they could set up secret police forces loyal to Moscow as soon as the Red Army took control. Soviet agents took control of the media, especially radio; they quickly harassed and then banned all independent civic institutions, from youth groups to schools, churches and rival political parties.[26] Stalin also sought continued peace with Britain and the United States, hoping to focus on internal reconstruction and economic growth.[27]


The Western Allies were divided in their vision of the new post-war world. Roosevelt's goals – military victory in both Europe and Asia, the achievement of global American economic supremacy over the British Empire, and the creation of a world peace organization – were more global than Churchill's, which were mainly centered on securing control over the Mediterranean, ensuring the survival of the British Empire, and the independence of Central and Eastern European countries as a buffer between the Soviets and the United Kingdom.[28]


In the American view, Stalin seemed a potential ally in accomplishing their goals, whereas in the British approach Stalin appeared as the greatest threat to the fulfillment of their agenda. With the Soviets already occupying most of Central and Eastern Europe, Stalin was at an advantage and the two western leaders vied for his favors. The differences between Roosevelt and Churchill led to several separate deals with the Soviets. In October 1944, Churchill traveled to Moscow and agreed to divide the Balkans into respective spheres of influence, and at Yalta Roosevelt signed a separate deal with Stalin in regard of Asia and refused to support Churchill on the issues of Poland and the Reparations.[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War#cite_note-Plokhy-28

Further Allied negotiations concerning the post-war balance took place at the Yalta Conference in February 1945, albeit this conference also failed to reach a firm consensus on the framework for a post-war settlement in Europe.[29] In April 1945, President Roosevelt died and was succeeded by Harry S. Truman, who distrusted Stalin and turned for advice to an elite group of foreign policy intellectuals. Both Churchill and Truman opposed, among other things, the Soviets' decision to prop up the Lublin government, the Soviet-controlled rival to the Polish government-in-exile in London, whose relations with the Soviets had been severed.[30]


At the Potsdam Conference, which started in late July after Germany's surrender, serious differences emerged over the future development of Germany and the rest of Central and Eastern Europe.[34] Moreover, the participants' mounting antipathy and bellicose language served to confirm their suspicions about each other's hostile intentions and entrench their positions.[35] At this conference Truman informed Stalin that the United States possessed a powerful new weapon.[36]


Stalin was aware that the Americans were working on the atomic bomb and, given that the Soviets' own rival program was in place, he reacted to the news calmly. The Soviet leader said he was pleased by the news and expressed the hope that the weapon would be used against Japan.[36] One week after the end of the Potsdam Conference, the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Shortly after the attacks, Stalin protested to US officials when Truman offered the Soviets little real influence in occupied Japan.[37]

The Cold War distrust started before WW2 even began and was stoked during the war; by the end Stalin didn't trust the West, the British didn't trust Stalin, and the US vacillated with administrations, but all throughout they couldn't agree on a post-war settlement. After Hitler betrayed him Stalin was unable to trust anyone ever again, certainly not the West that he had such a bad relationship with; at least the Germans and Soviets had history from the 1920s to build off of and under the Nazis had a conceptual similarity in terms of regimes. After the defeat of Germany the Soviets under Stalin were apt to see enemies everywhere and wanted to ensure they didn't have to play by anyone else's rules and when the US started to turn with the new administration Stalin took that as confirmation of his distrust; if Stalin dies of something in 1944-45 then the USSR would likely end up with a different leader that would be more conciliatory with the West, as Stalin was pretty much the ultimate bitter paranoid the Soviets could have produced.

I'm not saying the West didn't have its role to play, but Stalin was a root cause of the problem.
 
Plus, the fact that Stalin was a sociopath didn't exactly help matters. And the Soviets cheated in Eastern Europe.

But if the U.S. and Soviets could remain allies . . .

think how economic development would be different in the third world. Countries from Brazil to Greece to Vietnam to Jordan to Tibet actually get reasonably honest trade deals.
 

Deleted member 1487

Plus, the fact that Stalin was a sociopath didn't exactly help matters. And the Soviets cheated in Eastern Europe.

But if the U.S. and Soviets could remain allies . . .

think how economic development would be different in the third world. Countries from Brazil to Greece to Vietnam to Jordan to Tibet actually get reasonably honest trade deals.
Germany gets extra punished, because there is no need to rehabilitate it like IOTL to fight the Cold War.
 
for example, the two superpowers compete on who can build the most modern oil processing facilities in Nigeria.

They compete on who can admit the most Nigerian students to American and Soviet universities. Maybe the Americans hit upon the idea of also offering scholarships to older students who have life experience and can more quickly move into managerial positions. And maybe the Soviets counter with an innovative plan of their own.

and thus you have a virtuous circle and an upward spiral
 
You'd need a combination of different leadership, in either the U.S. or the USSR (probably easier to shift the leadership of the USSR, maybe a Bonapartist regime under Zhukov, who had a close relationship with Ike), and some kind of existential threat that, if not rivaling the Axis, is a big enough worry that it makes sense to remain friendly. It's a cliche at this point, but China going off the rails (either under the KMT, an ever more crazy PRC regime than OTL, or the cliched "Khmer Rouge meets North Korea" trope) would fit that bill quite nicely.

Without that outside threat, best case scenario for post-WW2 American-Soviet relations is a friendly rivalry.
 
Germany gets extra punished, because there is no need to rehabilitate it like IOTL to fight the Cold War.

I could be wrong, but didn't they eventually stop most of their plans for harsher retribution when they realized that Europe was basically economically dependent on a strong, industrial Germany?
 

Deleted member 1487

I could be wrong, but didn't they eventually stop most of their plans for harsher retribution when they realized that Europe was basically economically dependent on a strong, industrial Germany?
A rehabilitated Germany sure, but one that would pay a strong reparations burden and get less help. Definitely no rearmament ever and stuck paying reparations that would make Versailles look relatively fair.
 
I could be wrong, but didn't they eventually stop most of their plans for harsher retribution when they realized that Europe was basically economically dependent on a strong, industrial Germany?

It depends. If the U.S. and the USSR are on (relatively) good terms, for whatever reason, than the drive to rehabilitate Germany is going to be reduced. They won't go full Morgenthau, and Germany is too central to Europe's economy to let wither, and the Allies definitely won't push for a Treaty of Versailles II: Electric Boogaloo (they had learned their lesson), but Germany definitely won't be allowed to re-arm to the extent they were allowed OTL.
 
... some kind of existential threat that, if not rivaling the Axis, is a big enough worry that it makes sense to remain friendly.

That's it. Forget about the leadership, WWII had just demonstrated that under pressure, leaders will ally. Forget about the endless whining about poor Germany. The point is that the two superpowers won't remain allied unless there is an enemy to fight, or at least to keep in check.

China going off the rails (either under the KMT, an ever more crazy PRC regime than OTL, or the cliched "Khmer Rouge meets North Korea" trope) would fit that bill quite nicely.

Hmmm. OK, let's say they're evil. But can they project evil? To what extent? Significantly beyond their borders? Would both the US-led and the SU-led blocs feel equally threatened? I have my doubts.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Nazi Germany survives as the dominant power in

Is this possible if it how could it happen?


Nazi Germany survives as the dominant power in Central Europe.

1) Departure point is an " early" Pacific war, that begins prior to 1939 (Panay incident and then some, presumably).
2) European war as historical (more or less) until 1940, at which point either a) Churchill does not come to power, and Chamberlain etc come to terms after the fall of France (Peace of Amiens type armistice), or b) there's a stalemate with the British eventually in control of the southern Med littoral, the Germans the north, and the air war defensively.
3) In 1941, Russo-German war begins; Japan surrenders to US after four-year-long conflict.
4) Germans force a 1917-type peace against the Soviets and their successors in 1942. (Stalin deposed, presumably?) and the world is at an uneasy peace.

The Cold War here is the U.S. vs Germany (and the Continent), with a battered UK & Commonwealth and the Russians as the U.S. proxies.

Not the most likely, but at least plausible. Does require multiple deltas, however.

Best,
 
Top