Very controversial. German control of Eastern Europe.

Still don't see how this was possible, as I said, Germany itself was divvied up among the Allies.

Germany wasn't even in a position to hold on to Germany after the war, which is why we divided it up between the Allies... How exactly would they have controlled Eastern Europe? Not to mention that we weren't in a position to push the Soviets back, not unless we wanted another big war right on the back of WW2.

By Eastern Europe, I believe he meant areas that were part of Germany before the first war, and at the very least the areas stripped from Germany by the USSR, Poland and Lithuania.

Yes but it was always planned to reunify Germany after the allies took control of their sectors. We only know through history that it didnt work out very well untill recent times. At the time of the splitting the soviets got on quite well with the other allies I believe and no one forseen the berlin wall and all the other stuff that came with it.

Still, US policy makers hadn't yet built up that image of red terror and the communist anti-christ. They were still more concerned with preventing a future German resurgence. After all, the US and western powers completely failed to win hearts and minds in the first two or so years of occupying Germany after WWII (facing regular terrorist attacks, etc).

Remember, though, that Marshall Plan aid was also offered to the Eastern Bloc. As this book A New Deal for the World shows, it was not a given that the Soviets would opt out of the Bretton Woods arrangement. Unfortunately, I find that current neo conservative politics are trying to undo most of what FDR tried to set up domestically and internationally. It's a shame, really, because that damn chain smoking New Yorker was on to something.

It probably would have been a good idea had Eisenhower raced and beat Zhukov to Berlin. It, undoubtedly, would have ended the war perhaps a week or two early and spared many lives in both the immediate fighting and the aftermath. I don't think the Soviets could have or would have done anything about it. Just like the Yanks didn't give them any sphere of influence in Japan, they likely would have got none in Germany had they not stopped and let the Russians capture Berlin.

Hmm. How, exactly, are the neoconservatives "trying to undo most of what FDR tried to set up"? FDR's internationalism was about free trade and avoiding the repetition of the depresion by reducing protectionism - which seems consonant with the current World Bank/WTO's attempts to open up developing economies to foreign trade and promoting international free trade.

Historically mistaken. Stalin had been guaranteed Berlin by the Allies, and the division of Germany had been agreed upon at Yalta in February - three months before Berlin fell.

And I find it ludicrous to say "I don't think the Soviets could have or would have done anything about it." Because in the first instance, the US had yet to detonate an atomic weapon (though Stalin knew of its existence probably before Truman) on enemy soil, and because consequently the Red Army possessed a much more valuable weapon than a couple of (by today's standard timid) nukes - an unlimited capacity of men. It had overwhelmed the most efficient forces in Europe (the Wehrmacht) for 18 months after Stalingrad without significant progress by the US and the UK (except Italy - meh) on the European continent, and it could very well have taken on the Western Allied armies, such was its density. And in the second instance, US nukes could only target cities without hurting US/UK troops - and the presumption that Stalin was yield to any public pressure whatsoever must be dispelled by any serious observer of the crises of 1941 and 1942, during which Stalin remained firmly in control - when the numbers of Soviet civilians dead at Wehrmacht hands massively exceeded the number Truman could possibly kill with nukes.

Stalin was immune to public pressure, and - after conquering half of the continent and the fascist invaders - the Red Army was on a pretty high note in 1945. It is unthinkable to suggest that by capturing Berlin, the Allies could have "pared many lives in both the immediate fighting and the aftermath" - rather, the death casualty would massively increase, until the US president - very sensitive of public opinion - was forced to withdraw US troops from a purposeless war of attrition which they could never win. US mentality was pro-Soviet during the war, as in the extract I quoted above, and to suggest that they could, much like in 1984, suddenly declare that they were fighting a new enemy for no reason whatsoever, save for empire-building, is oblivious to the true nature of US politics, and the hatred of entangling foreign wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq &c)

Now FDR's methods may have been rather laissez faire, however, it's not methodology that I'm interested in, it's FDR's underlying philosophy. That is that nations should be free and independent, based on a sort of modified Wilsonian notion of self-determination. International bodies were to be respected and peace guaranteed through his ideal 'Four Policemen.' Admittedly, the idea of Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek as moral paragons strikes me as a bit absurd, but nevermind that. Essentially, FDR was championing multilateralism as a force for peace with an emphasis on the deconstruction of the European Empires.

It seems to me (and I am a mere casual observer of contemporary politics) that what the Bush Administration is trying to do is promote unilateralism with an emphasis on the construction of states, previously unstable, now loyal to the United States of America through its "exporting" of democracy.

I find your first point rather amusing. To suggest that Stalin would have been outraged at the Allies violation of the Yalta Agreement implies that you feel that Stalin took Yalta seriously in the first place. Let us recall the Stalin "gave" us democratic elections in Poland as soon as possible. Let us recall that despite both the USSR and the US agreeing to stay completely out of the civil conflict in China that both violated that rather egregiously. For details see Mao's China and the War by Chen Jian (pgs, 28-38). Despite the USSR and the US aid to the CCP and the GMD respectively, no hot conflict arose out of that and, instead, broke out on the Korean peninsula for reasons that had everything to do with Kim il Sung and nothing to do with Stalin (who merely green lighted the plan or Truman).

In any case, most of Yalta was violated by Truman after the fact anyway. The partition of Germany denied, after a time, the labour and industry that Stalin was given at Yalta and yet there was no hot conflict over Germany. Stalin was simply not prepared to fight over Germany. He wasn't prepared to fight over Berlin in 1948 during the Blockade and I don't think he would have been prepared to fight over Berlin in 1945 when the United States had more boots on the ground.

You cannot say the atomic bomb was what made all the difference because, as you have already mentioned, it would not have made a significant difference. I believe that in a conflict between the US-USSR beginning before 1949, resulting from the seizure of Berlin, nukes would have made quite a big difference; especially since America would have possessed a monopoly for at least two years. Let us not forget that the first Soviet reactor was built using uranium confiscated from the Nazi nuclear program--uranium they would not have had if the Americans had seized Berlin and the rest of eastern Germany.

Quite frankly, though, my first point still stands: Stalin didn't risk a war in 1948 and he wouldn't have risked one in 1945. And here's why: he would have lost.

This brings [the Russian] total down to 24 million men. I cannot find exact numbers on the US' army, but the number that is coming to my head is 12 million. Roughly half...

Indeed, the Red Army had decimated the Wehrmacht while the Western Allies made little progress. But, indeed, this is because they did not want appalling losses--not because the public couldn't handle it--indeed, support for the Second World War never dipped below 70%--but because it was senseless when you can let the Russians kill the Wehrmacht for you. But remember, the Wehrmact made one of the classic blunders: Never fight a land war in Asia! The United States wouldn't be fighting a land war in Asia. They would have no need to seize Moscow; they would be fighting for the defense of Western Europe which means that it is the Russians who are massively overextended and under-supplied.

Considering all the damage the Wehrmacht had done to the Soviet economy, the landscape, and the populace, the Red Army might not have done very well against a well-fed, well-equipped, and well-supplied force of Yanks. While Stalin may have been a dictator and above reproach, so was the Tsar. Regardless of how powerful you may be politically, once your armies start dying, you are screwed.

Let us, then, make some crude calculations. To inflict 6.3 million KIAs on the Red Army, the Wehrmacht lost almost half (3.6) in deaths. If you throw in an atomic bomb or two, the United States can kill that many people.

This is getting very long and I need to eat, so in conclusion: A war between the US and the USSR would have been ridiculously bloody and, it is likely that the US would win.

Having said that, Stalin knew it would have been ridiculously bloody and, thus, would not have gone to war in 1945 over Berlin. He did not go to war in 1948 over Berlin for the same reason, even though he was closer to an atomic bomb then than in 1945. With an untouched American homeland versus a decimated, ruined Soviet economy, I think Stalin knew which side of the bread was buttered and, thus, tried to get as much as he could at Yalta and after without triggering a war.

You'll find that when the United States and the Allies push Stalin (over Turkey and Greece, for example) he backs off. I think he, similarly, would have backed off had the Yanks seized Berlin.