1) The Berlin Blockade turns into a shooting war and the US re-mobilizes and eventually finishes off the USSR; or
How would the U.S. "finish off" the USSR assuming that the Berlin Blockade/Airlift escalates into a war, while taking into account that the Red Army's post-1945 presence in Europe was significant.
As other posters have previously mentioned, beating and occupying the USSR would require that U.S./NATO forces seize eastern Europe as well.
A feat which is IMHO impossible more or less.
2) one of the East European revolts (e.g. E Germany 1953 or Hungary 1956) escalates and leads to western intervention and NATO wins.
Even if one of these revolts led to NATO intervention, this scenario would still require that eastern Europe be taken over and/or neutralized as a threat before an actual invasion and occupation of the USSR could go ahead.
the Red Army's presence in eastern Europe alone prevents an invasion of the Soviet Union, and occupation certainly isn't plausible and IMHO such an occupation would be almost impossible to maintain in the long run.
This sort of attempt to bypass plausibility is frowned upon, mostly because it renders discussion impossible.
Agreed. An alternate history, however long or short, should at the very least be consistent and progress logically for a true discussion to take place.
The scenario suggested by the OP seems more like fantasy IMHO then alternate history (then again, one could argue that fantasy and AH can be combined, as they sometimes are)
The Man In The High Castle and
Bring The Jubilee, two wildly unrealistic alternate histories (unrealistic on purpose, that is), stayed consistent and were logical as stories and as alternate histories.
So no, one cannot simply say "assuming that the US conquers and occupies the Soviet Union, then..." as there is no basis IMHO for such an occurrence outside of pure fantasy.
Rant over.
