He did threaten the Soviets with nuclear war in 1946 if they didn't honor their agreements to leave Iran. He picked and chose his battles with Stalin given that US policy was still cooperation with the Soviets to make the peace after WW2 durable. Full break with the Soviets didn't come until later. Plus don't forget Truman started immediately eliminating communists from the government, starting with firing Morgenthau (who had a bunch of communist agents in his department) in June 1945, which eliminated the highest level spy the Soviets had in the US government.
Maybe, maybe not. Truman, once he got his bearings since he was unprepared for the presidency by the dying FDR, did start immediately diverging from FDR's subservience to Stalin, which alarmed the Soviets and probably helped lead to the breakdown in relations so quickly after the war.
Not sure how accurate that is relative to American sources, since it was our aircraft. I think you're confusing the B-35 for the B-2 or Horten flying wing. The German wing bomber project was stealthy in the way the Mosquito was due to the wooden construction.
That often failed due as a tactic. If it were so simple the Soviets wouldn't have taken nearly so many losses in 1944-45. After all during Bagration the Soviets took days to fight their way through the German defenses and probably would have stalled out if there had been any significant reserves left in AG-Center.
That's the issue, exploitation units could only be inserted once the line was broken open. If there were sufficient reserves that generally failed. See the fighting at Rzhev and in Belarus in 1943-April 1944. So infantry having a direct fire AT/explosive rocket weapon would make it much harder to breakthrough and allow for limited penetrations to be dealt with.
Interestingly I've also come across reports about the extensive use of Panzerfausts against enemy infantry, especially on the Eastern Front. One report even said 84% of infantry casualties inflicted by frontline infantry units (company level and below) by one army in 1944 was through Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks. The Panzerfausts of the time had 1.5kg of explosives, more than twice the explosive content of the American 'pineapple' grenades (about 600g), which were noted for being especially dangerous due to the lethal radius of the blast. So Panzerfausts were equivalent to direct fire mortars and against massed Soviet infantry on the defensive the PzF was a quite effective and lethal weapon. Much like how modern insurgents use RPGs as 'pocket artillery' the PzF was used as an all purpose explosive weapon, not much different from how the US and UK used their bazookas and PIATs, just more effective. After all by 1945 the US airborne was issuing captured Panzerfausts as standard gear once they had captured enough of them. Seems like the Soviets did too for the engineer assault units.
Apparently due to the heavy decline in quality of Soviet infantry in 1944-45 infantry-armor coordination would still frequently breakdown. See the Seelowe Heights for an example of when a weak defensive force was able to hold off the crushingly superior Soviet force for a while and still inflict a surprising amount of losses with Panzerfausts. It is claimed that they were running out of ammo too, so had that not happened the Soviets could have suffered quite a bit worse.
1.Truman stand for Iran,but not Poland.In 1946.Which mean,that he would support soviets in 1945 - especially,if that cost him only burning few german cities with A bombs.
2.Infrantry could use PZF against soviet infrantry,only if they are still alive.After 2h of soviet bombarment of trenches and bunkers which was known to soviet artillery observes,no many would survive.Not mention,that in that scenario at least part of PzF would be destroyed or even explode.
And yes,their infrantry become worst - but it means more soviet losses,not stopping them for longer.
Only effect would be in 1942 and 1943,when Lend-Lease still was relatively small,and soviets failed to coordinate their units.
Which mean -1944 soviets woud be on Don river and Caucassus,not Dniepr.Maybe Charkow,but that is best scenario for them.
Which mean,that 1.9.45 ,when USA burn Berlin with A bombs,soviets would fight between Dniepr and Vistula.Hungary and Bulgary would remain free,maybe part of Poland,Czech and Romania,too.