Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25626-20151023184552/@comment-25626-20151025163140

Re: Red Army coup. Would  the marshals necessarily want to keep the war going? Obviously, they don't want to lose, but at some point wouldn't even Zhukov, et al have to realize that they are wasting lives? Especially as the Soviet stockpile dwindles, and the U.S. starts really hammering Soviet troops (as the cover copy seems to suggest).

Re: Stalin's death. Letting nature take its course is problematic since within the story, Truman has no idea that Stalin is scheduled to die on March 5, 1953 after having a stroke on March 2, and that HT has held to that date, even when he made Stalin an American (although he did away with the March 2 stroke in that case). So, the US will be taking steps. Now, based on the FDR precedent in WW, HT could kill Stalin off early. HT has often made use of the anti-climaxes of OTL, so I wouldn't be surprised if the US plan is just getting ready when Stalin clutches his chest, then falls down dead while in mid-tantrum in his bunker in Kuybyshev.

Re: London. I'm really basing that on what an obvious pain in the ass getting the bombs to Bordeaux and Paris were. Fallout could just as easily begin with the information that Paris, London and Rome were all hit (Gribkov made a reference to those three as possible targets). The cover copy of F does describe a "ravaged Great Britain" (although there are "large swaths of America in ruins," so who knows what metric the writer was going by). But you are correct, London is going to become a more direct target, especially as the Red Army is able to push further into Germany and get into better bomber range. For the time being though, I suspect London's probably "safe" compared with other cities in Europe. It also occurs to me, going back to the election question, that trying to have an election during a war when your polling placed could be terror bombed by even conventional ordinance is a fast way to get people killed.