So, FDR dies of polio, and the man of the high castle happens, what would be the most realistic scenario?
Also, what would happen if he survived to 1946?
Also, what would happen if he survived to 1946?
So, FDR dies of polio, and the man of the high castle happens, what would be the most realistic scenario?
Also, what would happen if he (Roosevelt) survived to 1946?
Why tho?
Roosevelt was not one who accepted betrayal gracefully. And Stalin consistently misjudged him.
Really, you think the guy that promised at Yalta that all American forces would have departed Europe within two years, and gave Stalin everything he wanted in return for a Soviet commitment to enter the war in the Pacific was going to start a new war? Why exactly? Aside from the fact that a war weary United States wanted nothing more than to relax and enjoy its new found wealth.
Why would that escalate to full WWIII? We might get a early cold war but what actually makes them start fighting? USSR will know that it cant win the war and US would not want to fight or at least be the one to start it without first building up its nuclear force that would require more tie than FDR has in office?Venona.
Why would that escalate to full WWIII? We might get a early cold war but what actually makes them start fighting? USSR will know that it cant win the war and US would not want to fight or at least be the one to start it without first building up its nuclear force that would require more tie than FDR has in office?
I simply don't see what makes even a not nice guy be willing to send hundreds of thousands of US troops to die? Why would Roosevelt go for war, he would not think it could be a short easy war. Would he not settle for building defences and alliances as well as gaining a few concessions and tighter containment?Poland and the atomic bomb espionage. Truman was a nice guy. Roosevelt is not.
I simply don't see what makes even a not nice guy be willing to send hundreds of thousands of US troops to die? Why would Roosevelt go for war, he would not think it could be a short easy war. Would he not settle for building defences and alliances as well as gaining a few concessions and tighter containment?
Roosevelt might well build up more defences and be more confrontational and demanding but would it really spark off? I'm not sure US would want to start the war rather than push the Soviets into starting it but I don't think Stalin is so stupid that he would immediately after WWII be willing to reenact the Imperial Japanese and unlike them he doesn't have the trade weaknesses or China incident to force the issue. He will simply play the cold war game and would simply have to give way on some peripheral issues like they did over Cuba in later on OTL, waiting out the next election. The US bomb advantage is too small that early on to match the perceived ground threat of Rad Army tanks roiling west over Europe at least in short term.
I simply don't get why its a binary war no war choice, as long as Stalin (and others ie all of Europe etc) wants to avoid a war they can offer up compromises and give way just sufficiently to prevent Roosevelt getting the momentum for an open war, why would it not just fissile into an earlier slightly hotter cold war?Basically it would be a no-choice scenario. Stalin made promises on Poland he was not going to keep. The atomic espionage shows where Stalin's and Russia's trustworthiness was.
I don't get what part you are thinking about specifically about FDR wanting to get as war?