Would you have attacked the Soviet Union?

[Faeelin]

I'm mildly curious about the answer to this. Imagine you were Truman in 1946, only with the power to do as you pleased. Now, you consider Stalin a threat. You also know that you have an atomic monopoly, but that he will get the bomb at some point in the future.  You could probably destroy the USSR, but it would require the death of millions of Soviet citizens. However, not doing so risks Stalin gaining the bomb, and who knows what he would do? Would you risk your family and children, on the hope that two nations so strongly opposed could maintain peace, especially after having witnessed WW2? Or would you strike first?

[Josquius]

The war itself is a minor concern. The major thing that I'm unsure about here is how you could even swing things to give you a CB that works internationally and at home.
I don't know about the US but the UK was more than done with fighting by this time.

[citizen k]

I would send Patton and his reconstituted Wehrmacht divisions to kick down the door to Russia. No detour to Kiev, just a straight shot to Moscow this time. 

[Eddie Teach]

I might have done more to keep the Soviets out of eastern Europe but certainly wouldn't have started off with an offensive war against the USSR.

[Queequeg]

I would send Patton and his reconstituted Wehrmacht divisions to kick down the door to Russia. No detour to Kiev, just a straight shot to Moscow this time. 

Cause that worked so well for Napoleon, right?

I don't think I would.  I couldn't fabricate a war, be it with a false flag operation or anything.  The American, European and Soviet publics were ready for peace and prosperity, and I think Truman probably knew that that was to the West's advantage.

[Ancient Demon]

If I could get away with it politically, yes. However this isn't a luxury that Truman had. He wasn't a dictator, he couldn't have started a war against the USSR on a whim. Almost everyone was already tired of war.

[derspiess]

I would send Patton and his reconstituted Wehrmacht divisions to kick down the door to Russia. No detour to Kiev, just a straight shot to Moscow this time. 

Ditto.

[derspiess]

Cause that worked so well for Napoleon, right?

Napoleon didn't have air supremacy, endless numbers of Sherman tanks, and The Bomb.

[Faeelin]

If I could get away with it politically, yes. However this isn't a luxury that Truman had. He wasn't a dictator, he couldn't have started a war against the USSR on a whim. Almost everyone was already tired of war.

You'd kill millions of innocent people because of the danger that Stalin might use the bomb one day?

[The Brain]

I'm mildly curious about the answer to this. Imagine you were Truman in 1946, only with the power to do as you pleased. Now, you consider Stalin a threat. You also know that you have an atomic monopoly, but that he will get the bomb at some point in the future.  You could probably destroy the USSR, but it would require the death of millions of Soviet citizens. However, not doing so risks Stalin gaining the bomb, and who knows what he would do? Would you risk your family and children, on the hope that two nations so strongly opposed could maintain peace, especially after having witnessed WW2? Or would you strike first?

Somehow I feel that risking my family and striking first is the same thing in this case. Funny that.

Of course I wouldn't launch a huge very risky and extremely difficult war in 1946 if I can avoid it.

[Razgovory]

No.  The US didn't have alot of atomic bombs and the ability to drop them on the Soviet Union without fear of being shot down by the Red Airforce didn't exist.  It would be really annoying if the Soviets shot down a bomb carrier found the bomb, fixed it up and then nuked London.  I'm not sure the US could even win at this point.  Rearming the Germans probably would create more problems then in solves.

[Kleves]

1946? No. I wouldn't sacrifice millions of Americans because the Soviets might, someday, get the bomb. The Soviets have upwards of 12 million people under arms, and I don't fancy sending Shermans up against tens of thousands of superior Soviet tanks. Not to mention that the rest of the world, even if not outright hostile, would not have been able to contribute.

Now, in 1962 I might be singing a different tune.

[Valmy]

Cause that worked so well for Napoleon, right?

Well forming a phalanx worked for Alexander the Great so maybe that is how the US Army should be fighting in Afghanistan....because that is about as relevent as comparing the importance of Moscow, the communications and transportation center of the Soviet Union, to Moscow, the isolated former capital of Tsarist Russia.

[Ed Anger]

I would have enslaved occupied "liberated" western Europe and made them toil in toy factories.

[The Brain]

I would have enslaved occupied "liberated" western Europe and made them toil in toy factories.

How would you fit them into the factories?