No Cold War!.

Stalin dies and is replaced by either Zhukov or Beria.

In the case of Zhukov, he would be like Peitan and just sick of slaughter, so there would be less brinkmanship

In the case of Beria, he knows how badly the economy is screwed and spends his time trying to fix it.
 
Truman made a serious effort to have atomic weapons outlawed in 1946, and control of atomic energy passed to an international agency under the UN. The effort foundered - the USSR demanded that the weapons be outlawed and eliminated before any agreement on inspections and control was reached, while the US insisted on a phased elimination as inspections came into place. But those few months of negotiations were the closest the world has ever come to nuclear disarmament since Trinity.

It seems like some kind of compromise should have been possible - perhaps the US could be permitted to keep a stock of unmachined plutonium during the phase-in period, for example, under the guard of an international commission. The reason this wasn't reached was because, fundamentally, the USSR did not trust the US, and the US did not trust the USSR.

How could we avoid this distrust? I'm not really sure. Eliminating Stalin in favor of Beria is probably the simplest way, although that also has huge implications for Soviet domestic politics, probably leading to de facto decommunization in the 50s. Actually, replacing Stalin with pretty much anybody else would be a good start. It might also be possible to do something with American politics to smooth the path, but I'm not sure what.

If this did occur, that doesn't mean the US and the USSR are friends. They probably don't much like each other, and they're still going to be competing for influence and control around the globe. And it's regrettably plausible that the system might break down after it had been put in place. But, without the shadow of Armageddon hanging over everyone's heads, there's at least a chance for a world where the superpowers are rivals but not enemies.
 
I think Poland is the key. It was politically important in the US and symbolically crucial for Britain. After the events of 1939/41 in Soviet occupied POland there would be bound to be deep suspicion in any legitimately elected Polish government

However if some deal were done that allowed Poland to avoid what happened in OTL and leave the Soviet Union feeling not terrified I think the rest of Eastern Europe would have not worried the west so much.

Remember too that in most of eastern europe the previosu regimss had been anti democratic and pro Nazi.

My guess is assuming a death (or personality transplant) of Stalin and the USSR giving aid and credit to the Warsaw uprsing might have swung it
 
Guys, the problem with getting rid of nuclear weapons in some way is that this assumes the USSR and NATO won't have a conventional war. This would've been far bloodier than the Cold War, with the USSR probably gaining a victory from a successful use of Deep Operations against the Allies.

More importantly, without nuclear weapons(assuming if the POD is before WW2 instead of a successful treaty) then the US would've had to do Operation Downfall, which would've worn it out massively. This itself would possibly give peace until the 1950s, where the USSR would perhaps seize NATO, and much of Asia in conventional warfare, assuming nuclear weapons still haven't been successfully developed.
 
Guys, the problem with getting rid of nuclear weapons in some way is that this assumes the USSR and NATO won't have a conventional war. This would've been far bloodier than the Cold War, with the USSR probably gaining a victory from a successful use of Deep Operations against the Allies.

If we do it by treaty, then that implies a fundamentally different relationship in the early post-war period. It works both ways: you need better relations to get the treaty in the first place, and having the treaty will tend to improve relations because the two sides don't have the Bomb hanging over their heads. Among other things, it will make the USSR feel a lot more secure in its position in the 50s, without the threat of an SAC first strike. It doesn't have to lead to a peaceful world, but it could.
 
Okay, assuming there's a treaty, however I find the treaty succeeding... ASB. The US wouldn't want it to because it would mean giving up a huge military advantage, and the same goes for the USSR. Also, the former doesn't have as much conventional force as the latter does, further making the former not want the treaty.(On land, sea is a different matter that I'm not going to get into.)

More importantly, it would require the US to tone down its Anti-Communism, so the Soviet Union stops being threatened by it. Same goes for NATO countries for that matter. Stalin had a role too, but we must not forget the Soviet Union had the role of international pariah in the past, and would return to that, hence, making them feel rather insecure.

The point is that if there are no nukes because of a lack of science, WW3 later. If there are no nukes because of a treaty, that's virtually ASB.
 
Keeping Henry Wallace in the Vice-Presidency would be very helpful. The man was very pro-Soviet, and while that would be very bad in a post-war world with Stalin in charge of the USSR, if Beria or Zhukov is in control you might have a genuine chance at much greater postwar cooperation.

The problem with Beria taking over is that everyone hated him. Not sure how you get around that.
 
Why would anyone want to get rid of the Cold War?

We have now had the longest period w/o a war between major powers in recorded history. Get rid of Nukes? Worship Nukes, politicians and generals being aware that if they started a war with their major enemy it would mean they would probably die too kept those of us that turned 18 in the last 70 years from having to fight another WWI or WWII.

Getting rid of the Cold War probably means another WWII in the mid 1960's at the latest. Another in the 1980's and another around now. That was the rate of major power wars prior to the Cold War. Treaties are worth the paper and ink they are written on. That is maybe $10 1980USD. The longest that I can think of that a treaty lasted was 47 years from the end of the Nepolonic wars to the Franco Prussian war oh wait, there was the Crimean War in the middle so no, right around 20 years. Also China and Japan fought two wars in the 19th century, the US had a fight with the British at the start, a Civil war in the middle and a fight with the Spanish at the end. Without the Cold War and the pressure to keep from fighting major wars that Nuclear weapons posed it is very likely this pattern would have continued and the world would be worse off than we are now.

Tom.
 
Okay, assuming there's a treaty, however I find the treaty succeeding... ASB. The US wouldn't want it to because it would mean giving up a huge military advantage, and the same goes for the USSR. Also, the former doesn't have as much conventional force as the latter does, further making the former not want the treaty.(On land, sea is a different matter that I'm not going to get into.)

You know, that's what I thought too. But, after reading The New World and a few other books on the time period, I was shocked at how serious Truman seems to have been about the proposals. They really meant it. Bear in mind this was before Iran and China and Berlin and Korea, when people thought the UN would actually work, and the wartime relationship hadn't yet soured.

More importantly, it would require the US to tone down its Anti-Communism, so the Soviet Union stops being threatened by it. Same goes for NATO countries for that matter. Stalin had a role too, but we must not forget the Soviet Union had the role of international pariah in the past, and would return to that, hence, making them feel rather insecure.

I think it could be done. Not easily. It would definitely require different leadership in the Soviet Union - preferably Beria - and it might require different leadership in the US. And it could easily fall apart after a few years. But I think it could be done.

Keep the early crises from happening, so that anticommunism doesn't get so bad again in the US. Keep the US from holding atomic weapons over the Soviets' heads in the late 40s and 50s, so that the SU doesn't feel the need to bluff with ICBMs. It could work.
 
Last edited:
This is a no-go. The Soviets were a rational, livable-with totalitarian dictatorship but they were still a totalitarian dictatorship with the ultimate ambition of achieving global revolution. It was the Soviets who were entitled to the lion's share of the victor's spoils in terms of simple battlefield war, the democratic Allies having returned to Europe only in the fall of 1943 and having mattered in Europe only in the summer of 1944.

The alliance of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin worked only because the Nazis were transparently willing to slaughter carload lots to perpetuate their rule, and had no degree of trustworthiness whatsoever. If the Hitler factor is removed the Soviets and democracies being hostile to one another is a given, as it was even during WWII the Allies were never sweetness and light even when we're talking the USA and the UK (see: Vinegar Joe and Slim, Admiral King's idiocy in the Atlantic, the bitter infighting over whether or not there would or would not be an Overlord, the amazing Anglophobia in some of the US high command), let alone either the UK and USSR or USA and USSR.

Allied victory = Cold War in one variety or another. The gulf between the Big 3 on the Allies was too big to survive the war, ironically this would be just as much so in any case where Germany, Italy, and Japan win as the Big 3 Axis weren't going to perpetuate amity postwar either.
 
I think Poland is the key. It was politically important in the US and symbolically crucial for Britain. After the events of 1939/41 in Soviet occupied POland there would be bound to be deep suspicion in any legitimately elected Polish government

However if some deal were done that allowed Poland to avoid what happened in OTL and leave the Soviet Union feeling not terrified I think the rest of Eastern Europe would have not worried the west so much.

Remember too that in most of eastern europe the previosu regimss had been anti democratic and pro Nazi.

My guess is assuming a death (or personality transplant) of Stalin and the USSR giving aid and credit to the Warsaw uprsing might have swung it

That would involve the Home Army muting for a time that it was just as anti-Soviet as it was anti-Nazi and then rising up and expecting the Soviets to stick their dicks in the meat grinder of an urban battle where the Polish insurgents would be shooting at them just as much as the Nazis were. The Poles faced some horrible dilemmas in the postwar era the moment the Germans invaded the USSR, as any Soviet victory is going to be bad for Polish independence, and any Nazi victory means no more Poles, period.
 
Stalin dies and is replaced by either Zhukov or Beria.

In the case of Zhukov, he would be like Peitan and just sick of slaughter, so there would be less brinkmanship

In the case of Beria, he knows how badly the economy is screwed and spends his time trying to fix it.



Thets assume that Stalin dies in May 1945 and Beria becomes the new leader of the USSR, what would happen?.
 
Top