WW2- Atomic Bomb - Could the US have forced the Soviet Union out of Eastern Europe ?

For as far as I know, only the US had the atomic bomb at that time. Therefore, would it be fair to say that, the US could have forced the Soviets out of Eastern Europe and by not doing so they condemned Eastern Europe to decades of unnecessary suffering.
Timothy L: I am sorry you think my grasp of history is awful. I on the other hand might well think that your grasp of history and politics is extremely naive and simplistic. But hey were all entitled to our opoinions aren't we.

Yes, but they declined.

Your grasp of history is awful. Furthermore, negotiating on the basis of dropping a nuke on them is a very bad approach.
At the end of WW2 the USSR and the West were allies in that they had combined forces to defeat Nazi Germany. Both sides had suffered and indeed the USSR had lost more people due to WW2 than any other nation. It was not surprising that the occupying powers would seek to impose their own ideologies on the invaded territories and that was what happened. To put a bomb on Moscow would just have meant that the Red Army would have invaded Western Europe.
Put it this way, Afghanistan doesn't have nuclear weapons, are you going to put a nuke onto Kabul because they are not doing things your way ?

Yes, But the US was concentrating on defeating Japan and the USSR was a ally after all and they had signed the UN Conventions and were a functioning democracy. At that is what the liberal press was telling everyone.

In the period 1945-49, only the United States and Great Britain had the atomic bomb: the USSR purloined the secrets and materials via its network of spies, but did not have a functional A-bomb until 1949.

Unfortunately, Roosevelt was very naive about the Soviets and Truman, who succeeded him, very indecisive. Neither president had the will or the vision to prepare to eliminate communism in 1945, so eastern Europe and much of east Asia were condemned to suffering by default. Truman belatedly adopted a policy of 'containing' communism, a short-sighted and self-defeating approach that led to stalemate in Korea and humiliation over Vietnam.

The more effective policy of president Reagan, counterattacking communism when it tried to spread, and preparing to win, not just survive, a war if it occurred, was instrumental in undermining communist morale and cracking the Soviet economy. Ultimately, the USSR was taken apart from within in 1991 by Boris Yeltsin.

Materially, the Western Allies could have forced the Soviets out of Eastern Europe in 1945, but unless they destroyed the Stalin regime this would simply have shifted the Cold War eastward. Psychologically, the Allies had spent years deluding themselves that the Soviets were friends, and, apart from a few like George Patton, found it impossible to make the necessary mental adjustments to deal with Stalin in 1945.

Timothy, it is your own grasp of history that is awful. To start with at the beginning of the war, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were allies (Ribentropp - Molotov Pact ), and nothing explains the reason why the Soviet criminals of war were never tried or why Eastern Europe was left behind the Iron Curtain for 50 years.
You said that the power introduced their ideologies in the lands they occupied - that's true but the way in which Europe was divided into two was injust. The most destroyed part of Europe was left without any help, as the Marshall Plan wasn't introduced east of Berlin.
I don't think that using the atomic bomb was a good solution but letting Stalin set the conditions in Yalta or Potsdam is something to be ashamed for.

The only Allied power to have the bomb in the 1940's was indeed the USA - the decision to drop it (taken by Harry Truman) had much to do with demonstrating to Stalin who had the upper hand. However the deals which were done at Yalta and the Potsdam Conference determined who had 'spheres of influence' over Europe and Germany. How this would finally pan out only emerged during the later decades.

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg betrayed the West in 1949 by passing the secrets of the Atomic Bombs to the Soviets. The advantage your question suggests was therefore very short-lived. The power of nuclear weapons lies in the fact that they are a deterrent - no-one would seriously use them unless they wished to bring about Armageddon.

The Cold War was fought out in Asia, however, with the Korean war and then the Vietnam War (again both conventional wars) - there was quite enough bloodshed without the need for more fighting in Europe.

The Soviets could have shot down the bombers before they arrived.
But your proposal would have been a breach of the Agreement at Yalta and would have caused the deaths of millions of Europeans and Russians

Secrets & fear kept the Americans out, they were never quite sure how many German scientists the Russians had captured along with some of Germany's secret weaponry Ideas at the end of WWII, so, it remained a Mexican stand-of till the abandonment of the communist regime.
It was only when communism was at their own doorstep (The Cuban crisis) that they felt a real urgent need to act against the Russian threat, and JFK. told then to bugger off.

Theoretically it was possible. Practically it was not. Firstly, how many bombs the US had by 1949? Secondly, could they be deployed near the borders of the Soviet Union without it would've known about that? Thirdly, What were contemporary American allies in Europe by 1945-49 - pile of ruins, yeah? Fourthly, what army (not navy) the US had by 1949 in comparison with the Soviet 10 million and tens of thousand of tanks and warplanes? Guys, of course in case of atomic bombardment the Soviet Union would've suffered a lot but in a week we would've been drinking ecologically clean ale in the English pubs. Truman was a crazy guy but not to that extent! Cheers!

Don't forget that communists and their supporters played the first fiddle in the European resistance movement and post-war politics - France, Italy, Greece let alone Albania and Yugoslavia which were liberated by themselves without the Soviet help :)! The bombardment would've united ALL left forces in Europe. The Soviet occupational forces besides Eastern Europe were in Austria. The strike would've been a death warrant for Europe we know now. The Soviet Politburo, understandably, were not happy with that perspective either. Actually, the Soviet leadership and the military had worked that possibility through, that is why, for example, Stalin decided to push the Chinese to fight in Korea (1950-53) limiting the Soviet help by a few air wings (based and operated from China) and a few hundreds of advisors. The Soviet representative to the UN, ambassador Yakov Malik, following Stalin's order didn't turn up when the Security Council voted for the international intervention in Korea. It helped to keep Americans (and the Chinese, Mao started to show the signs of independence) busy. It was the last Stalin's lucky (double) strike :).