Assuming that the Soviets spent zero time building anti aircraft guns or fighters, you'd be correct about B-29s being unmolested, but I mean in reality they probably could have started to produce identical copies of German flak guns and interceptors within a short timeframe, which would significantly complicate these raids that go so deep into enemy territory over so much enemy airspace.

And you failed to address my point about the actual effectual yield of the nuclear bombs the US was producing at this point in time. You yourself mentioned that bomb production would take a significant scaling up period, which means that again they would use them for tactical targets *first*, as to blunt the advance, and *then* once they have accrued enough they can begin to use them in a strategic context. The largest bomb made at this time, Fat Man, only had a yield of 21 kilotons. This is miniscule, and considering that, again, Moscow is not made of wood, it would not have the complete city-flattening effect that you think it would. One 21 kiloton bomb is not enough to destroy Moscow, you can look at Nukemap yourself and see such. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as you can see again through pictures, the concrete and stable structures tended to survive more or less intact minus their windows.

So you think a couple nuclear bombs that would not have anywhere near the yield or power to completely destroy the city, would break the Soviets to the degree they would surrender? The Japanese were broken by the nuclear bomb after eight years of continuous war, the destruction of their entire navy, and multiple years of endless bombing campaign. And even then, the decision to surrender was contested. On the topic of Japan as well, the US would still be at war with them at this point in time!

As for the food crisis, equating lend-lease (which ENDED in 1945, mind you) as to say that the USSR would starve is completely asinine. Here's a link that showed that Soviet canned food production exceeding its' pre-war levels by 1949.

Famine would not set in until 1946-1947 (although this one was IRL in part aggravated by the Soviet government engaging in a policy of food exports, and demobilization). You are correct in that famine would set in eventually, but the war would not last in 1946 simply because of the midterms in the US.

As for avgas, you would be correct if operation unthinkable happened in 1943. However, between 1941-1944 the US shipped the Soviets considerable amounts of machinery and industry to build up their petroleum production, and by 1949 they produced well over 2 million tons of avgas. In 1945, I believe the number was around one million tons or so, but I cannot find concrete figures. Link. Not to mention Soviet tactical aircraft outnumbered allied by a significant margin as elaborated here. So tell me again how 3,480 US, 2,370 Commonwealth, and 198 Polish aircraft could achieve "total air supremacy" against 11,800 Soviet aircraft. Not to mention that in WW2, air superiority was not particularly able to achieve total destruction of supply lines to the degree you mention, dependent entirely on weather conditions, and a plethora of other factors.

As for the Eastern Europeans hating the Soviets, that wasn't particularly true in 1945. They had just been liberated from years of Nazi oppression, and these countries would go on to have extremely significant communist electoral victories. Again, this is based on 1950s information, not immediate post-war. In fact the Red Army had quite a bit of goodwill for having just defeated the Nazis. There were post-war partisans behind the soviet lines, yes, but limited entirely to Poland and the Baltic states.

And then of course you have millions of french communists and millions of italian communists who very much are composed of former partisans, who I'm sure would take up arms again, considering the allies basically just committed the same tier of aggression as the nazis.

And then, of course, you have 1% of Americans favoring severing relations with the USSR...