Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25626-20151023184552/@comment-21519-20151024225523

If HT does have someone in Stalin's inner circle turn on him at the CIA's urging, I agree that Beria is the one to use. Other power players would promptly reject him, and chaos would ensue. This can only benefit the US.

The other alternative I could see is a military coup. That would have to come from within; they would not be working with the US. In fact, if Beria's the mole and his assassination leads to a power vacuum, I'd look for the marshals to fill it and keep the war effort going.

Another option is to let nature take its course. He's got less than two years to live going by OTL, and those were two years of living like a prince. Smoking like a chimney and drinking like a fish, sure, but having all his needs and comforts met even so. Rushing off to some half-assed backup capital can't be healthy at his age.

I remember someone in MwIH talk shit about how useless the Catholic Center Party had been. He hadn't seemed to put much faith in the CDU, either. I don't recall whether he objected to CCP policy or simply felt it had done too little to oppose the Nazis after '33. Looking at the other options available at the time makes the former notion laughable. If the latter, again, Adenauer chose to do time in a concentration camp rather than go to work for Hitler or just get out of the way.

The sheer scope of achievement that the welfare state represented makes it hard to imagine how Atlee could not have been Britain's most accomplished peacetime PM. He also helped to keep peacetime from turning into wartime: The first two British colonies to achieve independence did so by bathing in rivers of blood. The third was born peacefully (alas, it would not remain peaceful for long) because, when Aung San came to London, Atlee negotiated in good faith rather than pulling some patronizing Great White Hunter bullshit. This provided other restless colonies with a model to follow, and allowed the UK to build its Commonwealth rather than being obligated to fight to hold onto what it was bound to lose.

That being said, Churchill's the man the current crisis calls for. Deep down almost everyone has got to know it. As few as nine Labour MPs can make that happen. It has to come from Labour, though; a bitter partisan power struggle would be catastrophic now.

By the way, I recall you mentioning the other day that you thought the Red Air Force would have even more trouble hitting London than they did hitting Paris. Even if so, I'm more and more convinced it has to be their top priority, even if they must absorb ghastly losses doing so. The UK is America's single most important ally; hit their capital and great metropolis, and every single pro-US government in the world will know that America cannot defend its allies or guarantee their safety. That would almost certainly have Gaullist France suing for peace if they aren't already, among so many others. I'd say it's the critical step to a strategy of diplomatic isolation. (And it would screw NATO's logistics to the wall too, even if it doesn't spook France into bailing.) Turtle Fan (talk) 22:55, October 24, 2015 (UTC)