1963 JFK Replaces 1943 FDR

[Zyobot]

Having racked up an unprecedented string of presidential victories already, Franklin D. Roosevelt aspired to win a fourth consecutive term in 1944. An election that, at least IOTL, he narrowly won. But in an alternate 1943, Roosevelt has reluctantly given up on that goal, as an ASB compels him to resign and hand the presidency over to a middle-aged, red-headed Catholic who claims to be the POTUS from twenty years into the future. Upon seeing a slew of other nicely-dressed men sent along with him, the rest of Roosevelt's cabinet quickly follows suit.

Plucking President John F. Kennedy and his advisors straight from 1963 and sending them directly to the Oval Office in January 1943, ASB also ensures that the downtimers see the change in management as completely legitimate in order to prevent this scenario from being a wasted effort. With Kennedy being sworn in as the new president and his 1963 cabinet there to continue advising him, what happens next as JFK seeks to change the timeline and ensure a bright future for America going forwards? I'm especially curious as to what Kennedy's odds of reelection in 1944 probably are--both insofar as strengths like his charisma, good looks, and negotiating his way out of potentially world-ending emergencies like the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as (falsely) perceived weaknesses that'd turn off many voters at this time (such as his Catholicism).

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

[oscssw]

A few random thoughts to frame the boundaries ATL for me.

Do JFK and his advisors retain their memory of the original time line?

I personally loath Robert S. McNamara. Judging by his disastrous handling of Vietnam I shudder to think what he would do in WWII as SecWar.

I think JFK played very heavily on his wartime heroism to counter the fact he was a catholic. If we look at WWII propaganda movies we see all kinds of Americans standing together to defeat the Axis. I wonder if Hollywood was depicting the current mood of America or trying to overcome racial, religious and social prejudices. Given that we still had highly segregated military at that time I think it was the latter.

I also wonder what the influence of JFK's old man, especially his hatred for the Brits, would have had on JFK's decisions.

[stevep]

Nov 22, 2020 15:49:12 GMT oscssw said:

A few random thoughts to frame the boundaries ATL for me.

Do JFK and his advisors retain their memory of the original time line?

I personally loath Robert S. McNamara. Judging by his disastrous handling of Vietnam I shudder to think what he would do in WWII as SecWar.

I think JFK played very heavily on his wartime heroism to counter the fact he was a catholic. If we look at WWII propaganda movies we see all kinds of Americans standing together to defeat the Axis. I wonder if Hollywood was depicting the current mood of America or trying to overcome racial, religious and social prejudices. Given that we still had highly segregated military at that time I think it was the latter.

I also wonder what the influence of JFK's old man, especially his hatred for the Brits, would have had on JFK's decisions.

  I would assume that they do retain their memories of their original lives. 

  In terms of JFK's attitude and interaction with Churchill it might depend on how much he sees Britain as a useful ally against Stalin and the Soviets.  He seems to have got on quite well with Macmillan and Churchill could brown-nose with the best of them when he realise it was necessary.  His father would be a problem but then would JFK want to be associated with him and some of his ideas.  [Basically is he in 43 as President JFK or as some new young guy who has magically replaced FDR?  In the latter case his father and family might not recognise him.]  Which also raises the point of what does he do about his younger self and also didn't his older brother die in WWII?  Plus he had his own adventure in August 43 which he might want his younger self to avoid.  [Checking Wiki his older brother died on 12-8-44 in a risky mission he volunteered for which JFK might also seek to prevent.]

  What attitude might he take to Stalin, knowing what he does about how much of a threat the USSR has become by his time?  Possibly less supportive of Soviet annexations in eastern Europe after the war and rooting out Soviet spies earlier.  If he can reduce in some way aid to the Soviets, by 43 its not going to cause their defeat but could mean they suffer heavier losses and make slower progress so more of Europe is liberated and saved from Soviet rule.  Although this might be politically awkward.  There is also the suggestion this might prompt Stalin to seek a separate peace but as long as Hitler is alive I can't see the two agreeing on such an issue.

  Steve

[Zyobot]

Nov 22, 2020 15:49:12 GMT oscssw said:

Do JFK and his advisors retain their memory of the original time line?

Nov 22, 2020 16:30:08 GMT stevep said:

  I would assume that they do retain their memories of their original lives. 

Indeed! I was actually under the impression that JFK and his cabinet retaining their memories up until being whisked out of OTL 1963 was the default assumption. A such, I apologize for any unclear parameters there.

While I acknowledge that bringing McNamara along does present potential drawbacks, I also think it's part of what makes this scenario more interesting. Making this TL a JFK-wank he's does everything precisely right without even the slightest blemishes to his record strikes me as pretty boring, so bringing along a flawed defense secretary who will make serious miscalculations from time to time is part of precluding that. That, and factors like imperfect hindsight and a lack of 1963 America's technological and national-security apparatus apply in any case, so having the Kennedy administration go Mary Sue mode remains off the table, whether we bring in McNamara or not.

[oscssw]

Nov 22, 2020 16:30:08 GMT stevep said:

  I would assume that they do retain their memories of their original lives.

If so, they know the A Bomb works and it is a real war winner.

Maybe one of them knows enough about the Manhattan Project mistakes to materially speed up the availability of the A-Bomb?

They also know the Cuban Missile crisis brought the world to the brink of destruction.

They also know about the cold war and would do their best to avoid it.

This A Bomb knowledge would materially effect the entire WW II strategy.

Knowing the war would be won I'd think JFK and his Cold War cohorts would see Stalin as the main threat.

I doubt it would be difficult to convince Winston to agree.  He had no love for the Soviets in the OTL.

I would think they would do everything in their power to weaken Stalin and the Soviets. I know I would.

The only caveat is that the European war must not be allowed to go on long enough for the Nazis to perfect their super Weapons. Maybe JFK and others of his time traveling friends know key areas that could be targeted against the Nazis that would materially delay their weapons programs?     

 

As for the Pacific we still need bases close enough for the B-29 to bomb the home islands.

Maybe bases is China would be less costly to acquire than the island hopping route.  In any rate there would no reason to take Okinawa and we could spare the fleet the worst of the suicide attacks.

This ATL is so deliciously fantastic I am willing to ignore paradoxes.

Does anyone here think either stalin or Hitler would survive if they tried to make peace?  They both had rivals and they both had created utter fanatics to their cause who would assassinate them at a drop of a surrender/peace treaty hat.

Even in a place like Nazi germany and Soviet Russia you can't turn of that kind of national hatred without suffering dire consequences.

 

  In terms of JFK's attitude and interaction with Churchill it might depend on how much he sees Britain as a useful ally against Stalin and the Soviets.  He seems to have got on quite well with Macmillan and Churchill could brown-nose with the best of them when he realise it was necessary.  His father would be a problem but then would JFK want to be associated with him and some of his ideas.  [Basically is he in 43 as President JFK or as some new young guy who has magically replaced FDR?  In the latter case his father and family might not recognise him.]  Which also raises the point of what does he do about his younger self and also didn't his older brother die in WWII?  Plus he had his own adventure in August 43 which he might want his younger self to avoid.  [Checking Wiki his older brother died on 12-8-44 in a risky mission he volunteered for which JFK might also seek to prevent.]

  What attitude might he take to Stalin, knowing what he does about how much of a threat the USSR has become by his time?  Possibly less supportive of Soviet annexations in eastern Europe after the war and rooting out Soviet spies earlier.  If he can reduce in some way aid to the Soviets, by 43 its not going to cause their defeat but could mean they suffer heavier losses and make slower progress so more of Europe is liberated and saved from Soviet rule.  Although this might be politically awkward.  There is also the suggestion this might prompt Stalin to seek a separate peace but as long as Hitler is alive I can't see the two agreeing on such an issue.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Nov 21, 2020 22:51:54 GMT Zyobot said:

Having racked up an unprecedented string of presidential victories already, Franklin D. Roosevelt aspired to win a fourth consecutive term in 1944. An election that, at least IOTL, he narrowly won. But in an alternate 1943, Roosevelt has reluctantly given up on that goal, as an ASB compels him to resign and hand the presidency over to a middle-aged, red-headed Catholic who claims to be the POTUS from twenty years into the future. Upon seeing a slew of other nicely-dressed men sent along with him, the rest of Roosevelt's cabinet quickly follows suit.

Plucking President John F. Kennedy and his advisors straight from 1963 and sending them directly to the Oval Office in January 1943, ASB also ensures that the downtimers see the change in management as completely legitimate in order to prevent this scenario from being a wasted effort. With Kennedy being sworn in as the new president and his 1963 cabinet there to continue advising him, what happens next as JFK seeks to change the timeline and ensure a bright future for America going forwards? I'm especially curious as to what Kennedy's odds of reelection in 1944 probably are--both insofar as strengths like his charisma, good looks, and negotiating his way out of potentially world-ending emergencies like the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as (falsely) perceived weaknesses that'd turn off many voters at this time (such as his Catholicism).

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

Think the problem is, what happens with the younger JFK.

[Zyobot]

Nov 22, 2020 19:46:11 GMT lordroel said:

Nov 21, 2020 22:51:54 GMT Zyobot said:

Having racked up an unprecedented string of presidential victories already, Franklin D. Roosevelt aspired to win a fourth consecutive term in 1944. An election that, at least IOTL, he narrowly won. But in an alternate 1943, Roosevelt has reluctantly given up on that goal, as an ASB compels him to resign and hand the presidency over to a middle-aged, red-headed Catholic who claims to be the POTUS from twenty years into the future. Upon seeing a slew of other nicely-dressed men sent along with him, the rest of Roosevelt's cabinet quickly follows suit.

Plucking President John F. Kennedy and his advisors straight from 1963 and sending them directly to the Oval Office in January 1943, ASB also ensures that the downtimers see the change in management as completely legitimate in order to prevent this scenario from being a wasted effort. With Kennedy being sworn in as the new president and his 1963 cabinet there to continue advising him, what happens next as JFK seeks to change the timeline and ensure a bright future for America going forwards? I'm especially curious as to what Kennedy's odds of reelection in 1944 probably are--both insofar as strengths like his charisma, good looks, and negotiating his way out of potentially world-ending emergencies like the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as (falsely) perceived weaknesses that'd turn off many voters at this time (such as his Catholicism).

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

Think the problem is, what happens with the younger JFK.

Similar to what stevep predicts, my guess is that Jack the Elder protects Jack the Younger, and perhaps takes him under his wing once the opportunity arises. That being the case, perhaps he'd be better positioned to determine his own destiny than his OTL future counterpart, considering the pressure to succeed that Joe Sr. imposed on his sons (prior to the PoD, at least).

[stevep]

Nov 22, 2020 23:40:27 GMT Zyobot said:

Nov 22, 2020 19:46:11 GMT lordroel said:

Think the problem is, what happens with the younger JFK.

Similar to what stevep predicts, my guess is that Jack the Elder protects Jack the Younger, and perhaps takes him under his wing once the opportunity arises. That being the case, perhaps he'd be better positioned to determine his own destiny than his OTL future counterpart, considering the pressure to succeed that Joe Sr. imposed on his sons (prior to the PoD, at least).

  Well if he arranges that Joe Jn. survives his OTL 44 demise that would also take pressure off his younger counterpart, as well as something I would expect he would want to do anyway.

  Steve

[stevep]

Nov 22, 2020 19:44:37 GMT oscssw said:

If so, they know the A Bomb works and it is a real war winner.
Maybe one of them knows enough about the Manhattan Project mistakes to materially speed up the availability of the A-Bomb?
They also know the Cuban Missile crisis brought the world to the brink of destruction.
They also know about the cold war and would do their best to avoid it.

This A Bomb knowledge would materially effect the entire WW II strategy.
Knowing the war would be won I'd think JFK and his Cold War cohorts would see Stalin as the main threat.
I doubt it would be difficult to convince Winston to agree. He had no love for the Soviets in the OTL.
I would think they would do everything in their power to weaken Stalin and the Soviets. I know I would.

The only caveat is that the European war must not be allowed to go on long enough for the Nazis to perfect their super Weapons. Maybe JFK and others of his time traveling friends know key areas that could be targeted against the Nazis that would materially delay their weapons programs?

As for the Pacific we still need bases close enough for the B-29 to bomb the home islands.
Maybe bases is China would be less costly to acquire than the island hopping route. In any rate there would no reason to take Okinawa and we could spare the fleet the worst of the suicide attacks.

This ATL is so deliciously fantastic I am willing to ignore paradoxes.
Does anyone here think either stalin or Hitler would survive if they tried to make peace? They both had rivals and they both had created utter fanatics to their cause who would assassinate them at a drop of a surrender/peace treaty hat.
Even in a place like Nazi germany and Soviet Russia you can't turn of that kind of national hatred without suffering dire consequences.

  oscssw,

  There would be the problem of imperfect knowledge - or of misreading of events - but I would expect that some of the group would have some ideas about what actually worked during the Manhattan programme and could speed it up a little but probably not a lot from 1943 as things were going at a very rapid rate anyway.  I think it was only in 43 or 44 that the 1st microscopic amounts of Plutonium were being produced.  What they might do is slow it down a little by either interfering and hence causing confusion and resentment or by taking out some scientists known or believed later on to be disloyal.  Klaus Fuchs is an obvious example here as he did spy for the Soviets but also did do a far bit to advance the project.  Also didn't Oppenheimer have some problems in the 1950s' with his loyalty being questioned.  However wouldn't think the date of the 1st tests were developed.

  There are options for hindering the growth of the Soviet empire.  For one you could see more allied activity in the med in 43 with landings in the Balkans.  This could actually be presented as a way of helping the Soviets by liberating Greece and Bulgaria say which would enable supplies to go via the Med and Black Sea.  This would deny them access to at least some more of the Balkans, possibly including sat Serbia and Romania at least. 

  Also a different approach to the German announcement of their discovery of the Katyn massacres could lead to a cooling of relations and a reduction or even ending of L-L to the Soviets.  [Since the Kennedy people at least would know that by this time the Soviets are secure against defeat but this would significant reduce their 43-45 advance and increase their losses].  Also it could be the basis for a reversal of the extensive pro-Soviet propaganda that was engaged in by the western powers to make helping them more palatable.  Albeit that so much has been done already you could see a strong back-lash against this by many left wing people in the west.

  It would depend on what you mean by super weapons?  The V1 and V2 came into existence although the former was fairly controllable by conventional means but getting Britain especially out of V2 range would be very important.  Jets were never really going to be an issue because Germany lacked the key materials and fuel to resolve a lot of their issues, even without the massive handicap of Nazis bureaucracy and infighting.  Similarly the Electra U boats simply doesn't seem to be viable with the resources the Germans had.  I know Britain tried to get such a system working post-war building on German work but eventually decided it was impractical.  Was there anything else you were considering?

  OTL the USAAF did try basing bombers in China with some successes but it prompted a major Japanese offensive in China to occupy the areas such a/c were operating from, which was largely successful I believe.  The problem is that without a reliable way of reinforcing China, as the air bridge that was the only way OTL once Burma fell made such operations very difficult.  Also by 43 there was a lot of momentum built up behind the advance across the Pacific, which was the USN's basic war plan from the 1930's.  By 43 when Kennedy and Co. come in its really too late to make much effective difference I think.  You can possibly avoid some mistakes although how you explain inside knowledge could be awkward but I don't think at this stage you could massively accelerate the western advance in either the Atlantic or Pacific conflict either by better actions or by significantly different approaches.

  I think that both Stalin and Hitler have too powerful a personality cult built up around them for either to be likely to be deposed, although given the number of assassination attempts against Hitler - its bloody amazing he survived to commit suicide - he could die suddenly.  However such an action is extremely unlikely to come from either prominent members of the Nazi Party or higher ranking military figures.  I can't see while both are alive that they would agree to a ceasefire between them as their terms would be so vastly different. [For instance Soviet suggestions in early 43 were for the 1940 borders and after Kursk this apparently changed to the 1914 borders and I can't see Hitler ever agreeing something like that, at least not until his position is far worse].  Its possible that if the west ended all L-L to the Soviets, or very drastically cut it back he might significantly modify his terms but whether that would still be acceptable to Hitler I'm rather doubtful given his obsession with destroying communism and also gaining 'living space' in the east.

  Steve

[oscssw]

Well Steve looks like you are coming down on the side that minor tweeks are possible during WWII but nothing major is possible?

You do leave open the idea of actions that can be taken during WW II that would materially effect the Cold War in the Free world's favor?

So let us build on that, shall we?

Can JFK materially delay the introduction of Soviet nuclear weapons?

I think the answer is yes. Have Klaus Fuchs interned and incarcerated.

[stevep]

Nov 23, 2020 18:13:35 GMT oscssw said:

Well Steve looks like you are coming down on the side that minor tweeks are possible during WWII but nothing major is possible?

You do leave open the idea of actions that can be taken during WW II that would materially effect the Cold War in the Free world's favor?

So let us build on that, shall we?

Can JFK materially delay the introduction of Soviet nuclear weapons?

I think the answer is yes. Have Klaus Fuchs interned and incarcerated.

  oscssw,

  Well since its 43 already, although when in 43 could make a difference there is so much momentum in terms of programmes and projects under way and too little time to change much for the defeat of the Axis powers.  Most equipment used in the war was already in service and its too late to develop much new.  Similarly with things like the commitments of the USN for a drive across the central Pacific - especially since the up-timers know this is how the US got bombers in range of Japan and that operating from China didn't work. 

  If its early 43 you might be able to change other things.  Whether you could cut down the US army drive from N Guinea that ended up in the Philippines - and at what political cost - or divert the US military from a drive into N France ASAP.  For the post war situation things can change as you could start adjusting public opinion to the realisation that Soviet Russia will be a serious threat.  Exposure of communist agents working in many areas of British and US intelligence and programmes could be important here.  Possibly also plans for helping 'save' China from the communist.  [TTL I can't see the US pushing the KMT to agree a cease-fire with the communists in the early period of the renewed civil war and probably more military aid to them].  This might not be enough but could quite possibly make a difference.

  I fully agree that the Soviet achievement of nuclear capacity can be delayed, probably by as much as 5-10 years.  Whether you can change things enough that the Soviets aren't a substantial military threat to western interests after the defeat of Nazi Germany would be more difficult but the size of its threat and how strong a reaction against the turning on an 'ally' that has been lauded to the skies the past couple of years is more up for discussion.

  Steve

[oscssw]

Hm China. That is food for thought.
So we have JFK as president late 1945 and he, knowing WHY Mao recovered from Chiang's brilliant use of airlifted battle-hardened, U.S.-equipped troops to Manchuria, where the Chinese Red Army had made its main base. JFK first relieves relieves Stillwell, then tells Marshall to go pound sand. He then does everything in his power not only NOT to stop him but substantially upgrades supplies and other assistance to ensure the communists are not only defeated but utterly destroyed at Harbin. I think we can trust Chiang, and more so lady Chiang, to ruthlessly hunt down the communist leadership and dispose of them. A world without Mao gives Asia a big chance of peacefully making it's transition from colonies to sovereign states.

So if we also delay Soviet nuclear program by 7 years we avoid the Korean war.

Now if JFK can just keep the Brits from selling their jet engines to Stalin the Soviet air force is dead meat.

As far as turning on our valiant Soviet allies goes. I don't think it would be any trouble in the USA. McCarthy had a very strong anti commie backing here but I'm not so sure about the UK.

Your earlier idea of invading Europe through the south and saving the Balkans from the Soviets might be pushed into central Europe?

[Zyobot]

Nov 23, 2020 21:33:45 GMT oscssw said:

Hm China. That is food for thought.
So we have JFK as president late 1945 and he, knowing WHY Mao recovered from Chiang's brilliant use of airlifted battle-hardened, U.S.-equipped troops to Manchuria, where the Chinese Red Army had made its main base. JFK first relieves relieves Stillwell, then tells Marshall to go pound sand. He then does everything in his power not only NOT to stop him but substantially upgrades supplies and other assistance to ensure the communists are not only defeated but utterly destroyed at Harbin. I think we can trust Chiang, and more so lady Chiang, to ruthlessly hunt down the communist leadership and dispose of them. A world without Mao gives Asia a big chance of peacefully making it's transition from colonies to sovereign states.

So if we also delay Soviet nuclear program by 7 years we avoid the Korean war.

Now if JFK can just keep the Brits from selling their jet engines to Stalin the Soviet air force is dead meat.

As far as turning on our valiant Soviet allies goes. I don't think it would be any trouble in the USA. McCarthy had a very strong anti commie backing here but I'm not so sure about the UK.

Your earlier idea of invading Europe through the south and saving the Balkans from the Soviets might be pushed into central Europe?

While I can’t speak to much of what’s been said here (I should probably start reading some biographies and more WW2 books once I muster the time), how would we ensure that Kennedy remains President into 1945? Because there’s a chance he could lose in 1944, and he’ll have challengers who give it a go that year.

This in mind, I’m wondering how the 1944 election would probably look with an JFK as the incumbent and obvious Democratic nominee? On the one hand, there’s innate personal attributes like his charisma and handsomeness, as well as his track record as both a war hero and resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis in the future that he came from. But on the other, his Catholicism will make it harder to win over less open-minded voters. And, as pointed elsewhere, he and his cabinet will have a know-it-all attitude to them that’ll stick in the craw of various people (such as those in positions of power). That, and he’ll probably also try to push Civil Rights through a couple decades earlier, which will be met with swift backlash from the Solid South (as well as plenty of racist northerners).

[oscssw]

Nov 23, 2020 23:24:14 GMT Zyobot said:

While I can’t speak to much of what’s been said here (I should probably start reading some biographies and more WW2 books once I muster the time), how would we ensure that Kennedy remains President into 1945? Because there’s a chance he could lose in 1944, and he’ll have challengers who give it a go that year.The same way he got back to 1943.   I thought we were asked to project possible alternate time line effects from the stated premise.   "JFK and his cohorts replace FDR in 1943. 

This in mind, I’m wondering how the 1944 election would probably look with an JFK as the incumbent and obvious Democratic nominee?
That is certainly a valid question.  I'd say the democrats would still have a lock on the US government come Nov 1944.  FDR beat Dewey 432 to 99 in the electoral college.  Maybe JFK would not do as well but it is clear to me the democrats still held the loyalty of the American People.
On the one hand, there’s innate personal attributes like his charisma and handsomeness, as well as his track record as both a war hero and resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis in the future that he came from.   I doubt his coming from the future would be widely known.  That sort of thing spooks people.
But on the other, his Catholicism will make it harder to win over less open-minded voters. And, as pointed elsewhere, he and his cabinet will have a know-it-all attitude to them that’ll stick in the craw of various people (such as those in positions of power).  JFK and his cabinet know how to play hard ball.  Anyone messing with them is in for a rude awakening.
That, and he’ll probably also try to push Civil Rights through a couple decades earlier, which will be met with swift backlash from the Solid South (as well as plenty of racist northerners).

Possible later in his second term but I doubt he'd be suicidal enough to push them in an election year.  JFK was not stupid.

[stevep]

Nov 23, 2020 21:33:45 GMT oscssw said:

Hm China. That is food for thought.
So we have JFK as president late 1945 and he, knowing WHY Mao recovered from Chiang's brilliant use of airlifted battle-hardened, U.S.-equipped troops to Manchuria, where the Chinese Red Army had made its main base. JFK first relieves relieves Stillwell, then tells Marshall to go pound sand. He then does everything in his power not only NOT to stop him but substantially upgrades supplies and other assistance to ensure the communists are not only defeated but utterly destroyed at Harbin. I think we can trust Chiang, and more so lady Chiang, to ruthlessly hunt down the communist leadership and dispose of them. A world without Mao gives Asia a big chance of peacefully making it's transition from colonies to sovereign states.

So if we also delay Soviet nuclear program by 7 years we avoid the Korean war.

Now if JFK can just keep the Brits from selling their jet engines to Stalin the Soviet air force is dead meat.

As far as turning on our valiant Soviet allies goes. I don't think it would be any trouble in the USA. McCarthy had a very strong anti commie backing here but I'm not so sure about the UK.

Your earlier idea of invading Europe through the south and saving the Balkans from the Soviets might be pushed into central Europe?

  oscssw,

  Something like that is the basic idea for China although it depends on butterflies.  If the west manages to restrict L-L to Stalin then you might never see their forces invade Manchuria, either because their too weak to do so, because with a weaker USSR the European war lasts long enough to mean there's no time for such an operation or angry at the worsening relations Stalin refuses to aid the western powers against Japan.  [He might even open some trade with them such as supply oil say].  In which case the Red Army isn't in a position to hand over the region to Mao.  The communists might still get there 1st possibly but will probably be weaker although their likely to get substantial military aid from Stalin.  [He would be angry at the west and also fearing encirclement]. 

  If the CCP is crushed then a lot depends on what happens as there would still be the USSR, with an even greater incentive to stir up colonial unrest against the western powers.  Plus there will be reluctance in some cases to give freedom to some colonies - for instance in British east Africa where their dominated by a small white minority who will oppose such a move or with the French who hung onto Vietnam and Algeria especially.  Also Chang was opposed to western influence in China and could well take an anti-colonial stance in relations to Asian colonies.  However agree that without Mao and with Kennedy possibly willing to supply a carrot and stick policy declononisation could be quicker - albeit that might well not make post-colonial rule any better for many in Africa especially.  Furthermore given the corruption and autocracy of the KMT and with the Soviets on a long border there is likely to be continued unrest, for which communists are the obvious 'home' for many/most opponents of Chang's rule.

  If we avoid the Soviet involvement in the war against Japan then its probably a case of what Korean war as its likely to be fully occupied by the US and have a pro-American autocrat there.

  Agreed that the selling of that engine definitely helped the Red Air Force.

  There had been a huge propaganda effort to 'humanise' Stalin's regime and make the efforts of the USSR seem like a desperate struggle against tyrant.  For instance there is an early Gregory Peck film, I think it was Days_of_Glory, which massively romanticised the Soviets, including Peck's role as a commissar.  That actually dates from 1944 so may not be produced although is possibly already being planned or proposed but shows how far the US was going to make Stalin's state look more humane and democratic.  Similar efforts in Britain as well.  Not saying its impossible to freeze out Stalin from a lot of support but there is likely to be a fair amount of opposition.  However managing to identify the Soviets as responsible for the Katyn massacres and a very public exposure of Soviet spies in the west could help an aweful lot in changing the stance of many people in the west.  Many socials in the west are still likely to view the USSR with some favour however.

  I doubt we could get western forces in charge of central Europe - if you mean say Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland.  For one thing its a bloody long way from Greece to the Baltic and the logistics in the Balkan region were limited.  [Which helps in securing the southern regions as its difficult for the Germans to reinforce the area but means pushing into say the Hungarian plain would be difficult, although if you get Turkey to enter the war and Romania to switch sides the Danube is a better logistical route.]  An even bigger issue is that to get to Poland would isolate the eastern front from Germany proper.  I can't see any way, even with Hitler's loathing of all things Slavic and communist, that a large chunk of the German army would be allowed  to be isolated, say on the Dnieper while Germany itself is threatened. 

  The best I can see would be liberating most of the Balkans with Romania and possibly most of Yugoslavia and parts of Hungary ahead of the Red Army.  This would take a lot of resources away from the Soviets.  More likely probably something like the Danube and Slava rivers would be the border between the east and west which would still be very useful. Coupled with a landing still in N France in 44 and an advance from the west.  A lot would depend on the situation but you might see the west getting the Czech/Bohemia region.  Its very difficult to see Poland freed however as I doubt there would be enough will for war with the Soviets although possibly backing Stalin into a corner enough and publicly haranguing him over abuses in Poland and elsewhere might prompt him to risk war.  However a 43 POD gives limited time for more drastic changes in either Europe or the Far East than what I mention.

  Steve