This must take place in some alternate universe, where at very least those in charge of New Deal State would have very different goals.

No kidding.

Just like that, walked in and taken Finland somehow. And then set up a base. All off-screen. No big deal. While everyone would… watch all this sleepily?

I’m supposed to believe that the United State could demonstrably successfully put down Germany but not Finland?

And, of course, anything in Finland is very much in range for USSR.

Anything “in range” of the U.S.S.R. was equally in range of a U.S. nuke.

And every single Soviet intelligence service would somehow fail to notice preparations for such an operation long before the first ship left the port. Do you think this was remotely feasible at the time?

The Soviet Union was still dependent on the United State. What were they going to do?

Including Finland itself, which was quite troublesome for Red Army with the kind of hardware US Army still did not have in 1946 and willingness to take losses.

Don’t make me laugh.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/lend-lease-eastern-front

The United State should not have nuked Japan. Japan should have been contained and a favorable peace treaty negotiated—no nuking, no invasion, full isolation.

[…]

No evisceration of Germany, no Cold War, no Chinese Century.

This must take place in some alternate universe, where at very least those in charge of New Deal State would have very different goals. There are also no hindrances like United States strike wave of 1945–1946, need to solidify grip on the conquered territories and take over British colonies ASAP, need for 10 years of McCarthyism to at least superficially divorce various Progressive sects from their kin controlled by Kremlin, etc etc. Perhaps no von Neumann’s mind games, either.

Since you don’t describe the underlying conditions and path from anywhere to this situation, nothing meaningful can be said of it.
Thus, the rest applies to the known real world conditions of the time.

The United State should have taken Finland, set up a B-29 base there…

This part has that cheerful “easy mode” spirit of Millennium Challenge 2002.

Just like that, walked in and taken Finland somehow. And then set up a base. All off-screen. No big deal. While everyone would… watch all this sleepily?

Including Finland itself, which was quite troublesome for Red Army with the kind of hardware US Army still did not have in 1946 and willingness to take losses.

As well as Soviet Union, which was no stranger to false flag operations and striking good deals with certain future enemies, never mind former ones.

And, of course, anything in Finland is very much in range for USSR.
For one, it takes a single submarine to have a wild “unmapped German minefield” appear at the worst possible place and time.

and dropped its first nukes on Moscow. The Soviet Union cleanly decapitated…

Again, this makes sense only in a sleepy kingdom of easy mode. Where Stalin had 10 years long hibernation in his Kremlin lair anyway (so why even bother?), along with the rest of GKO and Politburo.

And every single Soviet intelligence service would somehow fail to notice preparations for such an operation long before the first ship left the port. Do you think this was remotely feasible at the time?

…the United State should have turned its sights to Mainland China.

They kind of did. This kind of did not end well.

The U.S. Army should have returned to the Trans-Siberian Railroad and deposed Zedong.

You skipped from 1946 to 1949.

Anyhow, that’s a large scale land war in Asia. With Soviet intervention for the other side. The result would be the proxy war season starting much earlier. With greater expenses, before USA absorbed new resources and on the background of huge strikes and thorough infiltration by forces now becoming actively hostile. Sounds kind of suicidal.

…and deposed Zedong. The Communist Chinese Party dealt with, the Chinese government in exile could have returned from Taiwan.

And we are back in an alternate universe without State Department.

Russian top military kahuna Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgy Zhukov “The Butcher” got his nickname for using troops as cannon fodder (1.16 million to over 2 million lost at the Battle of Rzhev meat grinder).

The total number of deaths in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was between 150,000 and 246,000.

I have a question for ya, Jim: are you by any chance in charge of American military loosing miserably to Russia in Ukraine these days?

The United State should not have nuked Japan. Japan should have been contained and a favorable peace treaty negotiated—no nuking, no invasion, full isolation. The United State should have taken Finland, set up a B-29 base there, and dropped its first nukes on Moscow. The Soviet Union cleanly decapitated, the United State should have turned its sights to Mainland China. The U.S. Army should have returned to the Trans-Siberian Railroad and deposed Zedong. The Communist Chinese Party dealt with, the Chinese government in exile could have returned from Taiwan.

No evisceration of Germany, no Cold War, no Chinese Century.

So your argument is…

«So you’re saying…» is #3 on Scott Adams’ list.

Anyhow, in my eyes such a turn simply could not make sense for Roosevelt or other bosses of New Deal state. If you disagree, can you formulate how this could possibly be presented as even remotely a good idea to those in charge? Politically, strategically and even operationally («march to Moscow in a few weeks» itself)?

and armed to the teeth with nukes

It was a long, long time until «armed to the teeth» stage.

a war economy which, by the way, the Soviet Union was dependent on

While having lost access to lots of resources during a war, yes.

was significantly less powerful, or even on equal footing, with the starving, exhausted, German-countryside-mass-raping Slavoid peasant conscript armies of Stalin?

There was anything better at large-scale (in “knife fights” of small forces in a familiar terrain several British vassals could outmatch it, sure) land war? Both in attrition and maneuver.

As to economy… Red Army in Finland was backed by the entirety of Soviet MIC in late 1939. Red Army in Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation left its supply railway and ran 350 km ahead, over desert and mountains, about 1.5 mil troops in 3 coordinated fronts, with armor and everything. Was it exhausted in late 1945? Sure, somewhat. But experience mattered, and not just personally for Vasilevsky or even R&D.

Yes, but then Germany’s onslaught was over. As well as loss of territories, industries and vulnerability of vital areas. And not just secure Caucasus, but access to Romanian oil.

So your argument is that the United State, bristling with by far the most powerful war economy in the world and armed to the teeth with nukes and demonstrably willing to use them—a war economy which, by the way, the Soviet Union was dependent on—the world’s first and only Nuclear Power—was significantly less powerful, or even on equal footing, with the starving, exhausted, German-countryside-mass-raping Slavoid peasant conscript armies of Stalin?

The Second World War makes sense only as a war for the preservation and expansion of Communism in Europe, and, if we are to follow the principle of cui bono, of the Jews.

The strangest part of the Second World War is how the United State’s military could’ve simply marched to Moscow in a few weeks, nearly uncontested

Good one. Marched exactly from where and with what?

Jim says:

The Soviet Union survived Germany’s onslaught only with United State materiel.

Yes, but then Germany’s onslaught was over. As well as loss of territories, industries and vulnerability of vital areas. And not just secure Caucasus, but access to Romanian oil.

Then the United State had nukes and the Soviet Union didn’t. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what should’ve happened next.

The predictable move was for United States bosses to conclude that even though turning back on their “pardner” (Georgian bank robber) may be generally unwise, he is reliably deterred, at least for now. So they mostly concentrate on the final stage of initial plan with minimum of distractions. That is: “PROFIT!”.
Between them and their greatest payoff was a delicate task of properly securing vassals and colonies of The Empire Over Which Sun Does Not Set. Before the Brits recover enough to take them back into the fold. The Brits already had all sorts of tentacles in there, after all. Thus, ASAP.

If their old “pardner” proves less than tractable, and there will be contention, it’s better to deal with him from the position of even greater strength.

Also, plainly turning against the openly proclaimed Communists could have turned very bad within USA. This thing needed a good turning radius.

Consider what happens to ManBearPig today: it’s being phased out… but very carefully.

Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race and we [are] about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist.

«Heh. He sounds like some Brit… Do we really need this dude now?»

T. Beholder, the Party was always draconic about its spies and dead agents, but there was always some initiative. ‘Comrade Haldane is too busy to go on Vacation’ takes its title from Haldane’s refusal to go to Moscow and be killed.

So Stalin had multiple sources giving him how-to on nukes. I’d thought it was one dramatic surprise, like in fiction. But it was military surprise, per General Erfurth. Multiple sources, building up a picture.

Which fits what we knew about Stalin, especially where intelligence is concerned.

Why would he not want maximal redundancy on something as potentially-important as this?

The overseas Communist party always felt the US had a plain duty to give all possible military support to the Soviet Union, forever, including nukes. Center-left coalitions in the US and Britain always pandered to this.

«The Communist party felt»? And you started so well… The Communist party mostly felt what Central Committee was told to feel by Politburo. Which after Stalin’s overhaul of power structures, in turn, heeded the Council of Five (first made official as the State Committee for Defence, but by its nature persistent no matter what).

IMO the best description of their handling of USA is the one from Moldbug:

From day one, the Soviet tactic with their American patrons was like that of an alpha female with her hareem of beta males—constantly flirting but never actually putting out. The “inner gang” was quite conscious of their sovereignty and their need to retain it. They saw quite clearly that if they went down the Monticello in Moscow path, they would just be America’s wife. America has never had any shortage of wives.

The kiss: “Stalin was feeling extremely gay” https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2012/01/kiss-stalin-was-feeling-extremely-gay/

Dominant USA factions (Roosevelt’s revolutionaries) were shown what they wanted to see, thus already considered Soviet Union their client-to-be, and surely the great “convergence” will happen any year now.

On the other side Stalin & Co understood this. They ganged up with USA on the previous hegemon (Brits), whom both regarded as not merely an obstacle, but existential threat. They agreed on the general strategy and rebuilt Germany as their patsy together (Comrade Voroshilov, Comrade Ford et al had their signatures on it, but obviously they were not “rogue actors”). The rest was a nice bonus.

They took apart the Empire-over-which-Sun-does-not-set successfully! Since the Soviet side had much greater snags at the start, at the outcome its share of meat was much smaller than planned, and the balance of power somewhat worse. This made US side even more complacent about their “minor partner”. Which shaped the follow-up stage.