AHC:Prevent the cold war from starting

ivanotter

I think Soviet fears were real. And if so, had to be taken serious.

It is correct that Soviet were invaded by US/UK/Japan and that Churchill spoke about 'strangling the communist illness in the cradle'. Stalin did remember this.

The fear was also that a separate peace could have been concluded between the US/UK and Nazi-Germany. That was what Stalin also feared.

On top of, Stalin new perfectly well what Operation Unthinkable entailed: Another invasion of USSR. This time by US/Uk assisted by some 20 divisions of former German soldiers (who all longed for Barbarossa v2.0 (SS troops liberating Poland and Ukraine and Belarus would be welcome of course).

Then comes NATO which was beefed up with the re-creation of the German army. Stalin's fearswere not without reason after all.

USSR were negotiating with US about a massive loan. That was shot down. USSR had to repair itself after its Western areas were totally devastated by nazi-troops.

Stalin pushed the USSR borders as far West as possible to provide a buffer zone in case of another invasion. No deviation in the Eastern countries were tolerated.

So based on all of this: how to prevent the cold war?

It is not just a matter of replacing Stalin I think. Even Beria was also a bit cautious about US/UK intentions.

It is not a matter of Churchill being less 'imperialistic'.

It might go along way if Soviet fears were taken serious and being addressed on that basis.

A controversial 'solution' might have been to create a unified Germany, totally disarmed. That would mean no NATO but there would be a 'buffer' that Stalin might have accepted.
 

Cudymcar

Yes, President Wallace 1945-1956 would do. With Claude Pepper as his VP. Actually, Wallace was ready to give even more than Stalin needed. Now that USSR has US loans Stalin doesn't need Stalinist clone states in Eastern Europe, finlandization will be fine (for Central Europe also).
 

snerfuplz

Emperor Norton I said:
The problem with the Soviets is guessing at the Soviets when or even unsure if there are ulterior motives. It is something of a perversion of the Marxist-Leninist idea of looking at who stands to benefit, and the secret intents of hidden hands. It becomes a hall of mirrors.

Such is the case with German neutralization. Was Stalin really willing to neutralize Germany? Or was he looking to officially neutralize Germany but use subterfuge to influence and mold an officially neutral Germany. Or was the whole thing just a political stuffed animal: offering to neutralize Germany but knowing the West Germans would turn it down and the US and West would not support it, and then being able to call out the West as agitators and play the role of victim of Western persecution against world peace and the happiness of the Germans?

Was Beria really pro-Western, pro-reapprochment? Or was that just a game? And who was it a game against: the West, the Russian people, the Russian political powers, Eastern Europe, or multiple of them? Or was it a slander made against him?

The problem is one you still see: if it was a game, it was one to give enough meat to people arguing the Soviets were trying to make peace, were the victims of Western aggression, and that the US etc al were the true aggressors and the most guilty party. And once someone allows themselves to enter that idea, that can become a force of gravity that catches and pulls them deeper and deeper into Soviet apologia and the concepts that need to be held to support it.

Mind you, I'm not saying that about the idea or discussion that the West was flawed. But it is about the idea that both the West was flawed and the Soviets were only flawed insofar as pushed by the West or that there was no difference between West and East in conduct. It is a logic of whataboutism, original sin, gaslighting and excuses. It's not a rational camp that is looking only for the truth in its complexity above the back and forth. It may think it is doing that, but it is not. It's an us versus them conception that sees the world in terms of power structures and power moves and chooses a team.
Click to expand...
They are still releasing Soviet records. I wonder if they shed light on any of these questions
 

ivanotter

Somehow, the fear of Germany seems to have been the most important one to USSR.

That Unthinkable was 'flirting' with arming some 200,000 German POWs for combat (Barbarossa v 2.0) would have sent shivers down the spine of Stalin.

NATO was another one. Arming Germany (again) created more tension. Of course NATO would not have been possible without Germany.

Who was it who said: The objective of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down"?

Did USSR ever trust East Germany? In hindsight: NO

On the other hand: would it have been possible to keep Germany 'down' forever? probably not either.

Creative thinking is needed to avoid cold war!
 

ivanotter

I think it is possible to understand why USSR was rather paranoid about being attacked - again!

However, why was US so scared of communism? and why the animosity? FDR was much more of a 'chummy' with uncle Joe than he was with Churchill.
 

snerfuplz

ivanotter said:
I think it is possible to understand why USSR was rather paranoid about being attacked - again!

However, why was US so scared of communism? and why the animosity? FDR was much more of a 'chummy' with uncle Joe than he was with Churchill.
Click to expand...
One can argue that the United States inherited English notions of property that are antithetical to communism. I’d say it comes down to those who wanted to keep their wealth and property and the power it came with it. This also meant using violence to maintain that power. And, a darker reason, is that many Americans wanted to keep whites at the top of the racial hierarchy. Communism preached the equality of all and many never wanted Black Americans and other races to be equal to whites
 

dw93

I think any scenario involves FDR living through his 4th term or Wallace staying on as VP and ascending to the Presidency instead of Truman.
 

jsb

ivanotter said:
However, why was US so scared of communism?
Click to expand...
I mean why not be scared of it, not to say other 20th century groups were nice (or even better in some notable famous extreme cases), but communism did not exactly avoid stacking bodies in large numbers at several opportunities? You could also add that over MR pact and Finland, USSR had shown it was questionably willing to start things?
 
Last edited:

Ambusher11

I don't think you can really prevent the Cold War, especially not with a 1948 POD (since 1947 is generally considered a starting point for the Cold War). Even in the interwar years, relations between the Soviets and the British and Americans were generally not good, with the British actually breaking relations with the Soviets from 1927 until 1929, and the Americans not recognizing the Soviets until 1933 (and after the recognition, the Americans considered breaking relations with the Soviets in 1935).
 
DrakonFin

DrakonFin

snerfuplz said:
They are still releasing Soviet records. I wonder if they shed light on any of these questions
Click to expand...
As long as the current regime is in power, the Russian government is not going to allow honest and transparent research and discussion into the country's Soviet-era history. If they release Soviet records, they will do it very selectively. In the recent decade, when the Russian authorities have released WWII documents, for example, it has been calculated to put other countries into bad light, rather than to have a critical look at the Soviet leadership's own actions.

It is most likely that Moscow keeps suppressing such material that is at odds their own official, skewed narratives about Russian history until the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if they are actively destroying certain authentic historical records, too, for this same purpose.
 
Last edited:

Wendell

Pangur said:
A issues need to be looked at. Russia in its various in carnations had been invaded three times since 1914 twice by Germany and once by the UK and the US. They had grounds for fear. To deal with it have it made clear that the US military are not staying in Europe after the defeat of Germany. Stop interfering in European elections, if they want to vote for communists let them
Click to expand...
This implies that interference in postwar European elections was wholly one-sided.
 

brooklyn99

Banned
ivanotter said:
I think it is possible to understand why USSR was rather paranoid about being attacked - again!

However, why was US so scared of communism? and why the animosity? FDR was much more of a 'chummy' with uncle Joe than he was with Churchill.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious question?




Might as well ask what reason the US had to fear Fascism.
snerfuplz said:
One can argue that the United States inherited English notions of property that are antithetical to communism. I’d say it comes down to those who wanted to keep their wealth and property and the power it came with it. This also meant using violence to maintain that power. And, a darker reason, is that many Americans wanted to keep whites at the top of the racial hierarchy. Communism preached the equality of all and many never wanted Black Americans and other races to be equal to whites
Click to expand...
LOL, I guess that would be Pravda's take on it.

To elaborate on the American concepts of property. How the horrible Collectivization process occurred in the USSR certainly didn't leave a desirable taste. Rural American life was characterized with the ideals of individual farm ownership through yeomanry and homesteading, concepts which in the Soviet context would be seen as Kulak and well... considering what Stalin did to the Kulaks.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

Cudymcar said:
Stalin dies in 1953 and the new leadership is less murderous... Oh wait... It's OTL.
Click to expand...
Khrushchev was at once a great possiblity for peace maker and reformer, and yet also too hard headed and foolish for his own good. For as much as he floundered, misconceived or provoked, its amazing he did as much as he did. And for as much as he did achieve, its a shame the ways he floundered, misconceived and provoked.

That U2 cast a long shadow. Had the U2 Incident not occurred, the world would by no means have been a paradise. But the events of the very early 1960s could have been far different. But that is a earlier thaw discussion rather than a world without a Cold War.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top