Stalin & the Bomb

Since there are a number of threads proposing no A-bomb, or no use, it occurs to me to ask this here.

I've seen it said the use of the Bomb persuaded Stalin not to go nuts in Europe, because it persuaded him the U.S. would use it on Sov civilians.

Is this right? Would "no Bomb" or "no use" have led to WW3? Worse, to a nuclear WW3?:eek::eek:
 

Cook

Banned
No probably not. Stalin was never a gambler and didn’t like taking risks; deliberately going to war against the western powers when it could have been safely avoided just isn’t in his character.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it would have led directly to WW3, although it might lead to it indirectly. This is not my area of knowledge, but my understanding is that Stalin didn't want a third world war, at least not right then. Soviet society was exhausted and his ideology said the West would collapse by itself eventually anyway. Furthermore, the US will keep more conventional forces in Europe if we don't have the bomb in our hip pocket, as it were.

A particularly important question is, why isn't the bomb used? Is it just not ready in time? That's the most likely possibility in my view. Do the Allies decide not to pursue it for some reason? Does the US somehow decide to exercise restraint (extremely unlikely, in my view)? Each of these will have different implications for the post-war world.
 
Stalin was far ahead in nuclear research anyway.

Soviet did after all test its first bomb in 1949.

Nothing held Stalin back in occupying Bornholm in the Baltic until 1946, nor instigating the Berlin blockade.

That said, Stalin was not interested in a war in 1940's, I think.

US/UK must have been reasonable aware of Soviet nuclear advances, which would tell them that any war (nuclear or otherwise) would be a bad idea as Soviet would not be too far behind. Also the fact that, after all, nuclear devices were not in the mega ton range at that stage.

Ivan
 
Stalin was far ahead in nuclear research anyway.

Soviet did after all test its first bomb in 1949.

Nothing held Stalin back in occupying Bornholm in the Baltic until 1946, nor instigating the Berlin blockade.

That said, Stalin was not interested in a war in 1940's, I think.

US/UK must have been reasonable aware of Soviet nuclear advances, which would tell them that any war (nuclear or otherwise) would be a bad idea as Soviet would not be too far behind. Also the fact that, after all, nuclear devices were not in the mega ton range at that stage.

Ivan

Soviets still lagged behind until ~70s when it came to numbers and delivery vehicles. So while Soviets had the bomb US had more of them, better methods to deliver them and better defences for mainland.

And cases you mention were tansion raising but not acts of war by themselves. It was a game of how far you can go without forcing other side to go to war.
 
That's the point: Stalin did push the envelope, but he did not overstep any treshold.

US delivery systems were not particular advanced either. Basing it on delivery from a B-29 against serious air defence is not an idea, really.

So, it was more the fact that the bomb is reality than all the other bits and pieces, I thik.

Ivan
 
Without the threat of nukes, tensions at several points might have escalated, rather than get defused. BBerlin, Hungary, Prague Spring. Would the West have been tempted to intervene in czechoslovakia? How would the korean war have gone? Would the us have gutted its military after wwii if there were no abomb?
 
Without the threat of nukes, tensions at several points might have escalated, rather than get defused. BBerlin, Hungary, Prague Spring. Would the West have been tempted to intervene in czechoslovakia? How would the korean war have gone? Would the us have gutted its military after wwii if there were no abomb?

That's why I think why the US doesn't use the bomb is so important. If we hadn't had the bomb in our hip pocket, so to speak, I don't think we'd have gone so far in demobilizing.
 
Top