This is a linkpost for http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of-worlds/
The podcast, part of Carlin's excellent Hardcore History series, is called "The Destroyer of Worlds". The podcast has convinced me that Truman was a horrible president. After the United States had a monopoly of atomic weapons our two sane courses of action would have been to either maintain this monopoly by threatening to go to war if another nation developed atomic weapons, or to have made an all out push for peace with the Soviet Union to avoid a future arms race. Instead, Truman used the monopoly to engage in short-term bullying of the Soviets, while doing nothing to hinder their development of atomic weapons thus guaranteeing that they would eventually have thousands of atomic weapons aimed at us. I bet in most branches of the multiverse arising out of 1953, millions of Americans die in nuclear war by 2017.
threatening to go to war if another nation developed atomic weapons
That doesn't sound sane to me at all.
So in the late 40s you're going to tell Stalin that he can't develop nuclear weapons because you don't want him to be powerful. Stalin says: Fuck you.
Your move.
If I have the location of the Soviet atomic weapons development facilities I bomb them with conventional weapons and I destroy the Soviet Air Force and Navy with my Air Force. If I don't have these locations I start flying American planes over the Soviet Union to look for them, and when I find them I bomb them. I tell the American people that Stalin has a plan to develop atomic weapons and then use them against us. I get Curtis LeMay, Patton, and MacArthur to say that the long-term survival of the United States requires that we eliminate Soviet atomic weapons development and that anyone who opposes such preemptive action is a communist. I let Stalin know that if he launches an invasion of Western Europe my top priority will be to drop an atomic weapon on him.
Your move, Stalin.
I bomb them with conventional weapons
You try. Don't forget that Russia is really really big, all you have is prop bombers with no in-air refueling (and no good airbases nearby) and Russia has competent and well-practiced AA. Can your bombers even reach the middle of Kazakhstan?
I destroy the Soviet Air Force
No, you don't. From which airbases? Russia has LOTS of airplanes and is capable of producing lots more quickly.
and Navy
That, sure. No one cares (did Russia even have a Navy at that time?)
I start flying American planes over the Soviet Union to look for them
They all get shot down. It's 1940s, you don't have a U-2 or anything like that.
I let Stalin know that if he launches an invasion of Western Europe my top priority will be to drop an atomic weapon on him.
Stalin replies that you have just declared war on him, of course it's your top priority. He accelerates the development of atomic weapons. Clearly it's necessary for his own safety (and in the meantime he moves to a country house. Somewhere in Siberia? Central Asia? an underground shelter in the Urals? all of the above? maybe? you don't know).
Stalin invades Western Europe and invites you to nuke Paris.
Back to you :-)
OK, accepting your assumption that I can't bomb Russian atomic weapons development facilities, my first step is to build air bases in Finland, West Germany, China, and Japan so that I have the ability to strike anyplace in the Soviet Union. If this still isn't enough, I prioritize developing long-range bombers.
If Stalin invades Western Europe I use my Air Force to destroy his logistical support and follow Patton's advice of reactivating as much of the German army as possible under American command. I use atomic weapons against Soviet targets if this would significantly harm Soviet logistics and industrial capacity. I think, given my air superiority, that I am able to hold off the Soviets and put a massive strain on their industrial capacity.
my first step is to build air bases in Finland, West Germany, China, and Japan
You forgot about the invasion part :-) It will be hard for you to build airbases in the the Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic (or in the German Soviet Socialist Republic). Japan you have, but China might be a bit difficult -- they have a civil war going on and someone by the name of Mao seems to be winning.
I prioritize developing long-range bombers
Sure, that's what Truman did as well. You get B-52s in early-to-mid 50s, but that's too late. The Russian have nukes by that time.
If Stalin invades Western Europe I use my Air Force to destroy his logistical support and follow Patton's advice of reactivating as much of the German army as possible under American command.
You're being a bit too optimistic, I think. You assume the natural superiority of the US Air Force, but it didn't exist in the 1940s. Russia produced about 40,000 aircraft in the single year of 1944 and their planes don't need to cross the Atlantic. And why would the Germans fight for you?
I think, given my air superiority, that I am able to hold off the Soviets and put a massive strain on their industrial capacity.
I have my doubts, but not that it matters. So you hold off the Soviets in Western Europe. Stalemate.
But the clock is ticking. If you do not conquer Russia (see "land war in Asia") by 1949, you lose. Can you?
If he started the war, you in another branch of the universe will complain that he is the bad president because he started the war, which surely will have many nasty consequences.
So no matter what he did, you will complain. So he is not bad president.
Generally speaking many our questions could exist only because some past event existed. Such conditioning makes these questions meaningless.
Biased, not meaningless. But I think correcting for this bias cuts in my argument's favor because otherwise one could claim that the fact that we are still here is strong evidence that Truman followed a wise policy
I bet in most branches of the multiverse arising out of 1953, millions of Americans die in nuclear war by 2017.
Oh, come on! This fairy tale about parallel worlds and WWIII in most of them is pretty lame.
I've heard good things about Dan Carlin's podcasts about history but I've never been sure which to listen to first. Is this a good choice, or does it assume you've heard some of his other ones, or perhaps are other podcasts better to listen to first?
None of the series assume you've listened to previous ones. As long as you start at the beginning of, say, the Wrath of the Khans sequence, you won't be lost.
The one about World War I might be a good place to start? They're all good, though.
While I don't think that Carlin "dissolved into a huge pile of angst" the podcast did property communicate the angst that any sane human should feel over our species' history of atomic weapons.
Would you care to be more specific? E.g., how can I (if I should) distinguish what you describe from "History as read by someone who finds it very sad when hundreds of thousands of people die violently"? Does this "huge pile of angst" lead him to actual errors?
(I haven't listened to any of his podcasts.)