WI: President Henry Wallace

[theReturner]

This sort of stems from the Which OTL Vice-President Would Make The Worst President Thread. nayway, Henry Wallace, FDR's second VP seemed to get alot of mentions, since people think he would have been soft on the Soviets, to say the least.

So, I thought I'd start a thread to ask the question about how things would have turned out if Wallace had ended up as President. Lets say he doesn't get taken off the ticket in 1944 like he did in OTL, and that FDR dies the same as he did in OTL.

How would this effect the end of WWII, and the start of the Cold War?

[Sean Mulligan]

It wouldn't have affected the end of the war in Europe but Wallace might not have dropped the bomb on Japan and he would have continued FDR's policies of maintaining the post war peace via big three unity.

[Eurofed]

The poster child of what Communists defined as "useful idiot", in charge ? Stalinwank. Say hello to Communist Greece, Iran, Korea, Taiwan, Communist or Finlandized France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Turkey...

[The Red]

Originally Posted by Sean Mulligan

It wouldn't have affected the end of the war in Europe but Wallace might not have dropped the bomb on Japan and he would have continued FDR's policies of maintaining the post war peace via big three unity.

He would have still dropped the A Bomb on Japan.

[The Red]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

The poster child of what Communists defined as "useful idiot", in charge ? Stalinwank. Say hello to Communist Greece, Iran, Korea, Taiwan, Communist or Finlandized France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Turkey...

He'll be impeached way before that...

[Lord Roem]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

The poster child of what Communists defined as "useful idiot", in charge ? Stalinwank. Say hello to Communist Greece, Iran, Korea, Taiwan, Communist or Finlandized France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Turkey...

I'm not really a supporter of the notion of Wallace being as soft as he is made out to be, certainly, the man lacked the hawkishness that was such an asset for Truman, but he was still far from supportive of Communism in the way that he is so often portrayed.

After leaving office, he actually moved right politically (I think that he voted for Nixon in 1960). Regardless of how his political outlook would have been as President, the fact is that he would have still been surrounded by the strongly anti-communist politicians that Roosevelt appointed towards the end of his third term.

Of course, even if he isn't as strong as he needs to be, the chances of him getting dumped by the Democrats in 1948 are minor unless he really screws up, so whoever gets the Republican nomination that year has a very good shot at the White House, especially if we see a bigger split with the Southern Democrats (which, looking at how progressive Wallace was on race, is very likely indeed).

Quite possibly, the Republican nominee would still be Dewey, but if the Soviets have had more successes than in OTL (getting all of Korea for example) then I suppose that we could see President Taft or Warren if the Republicans decide to risk a more controversial figure.

[theReturner]

Do you think he would be elected in 1948?

[hcallega]

I did a timeline on this a while back on another sight.

I don't think he would have used the A-Bomb, rather a conventional invasion may have been further up his alley.

As far as the soviets are concerned, i can see him being a lot softer, though to what extent is difficult to say. As far as 1948, I think he would get dropped as neither labor nor the south liked him too much.

[Kalwejt]

Originally Posted by hcallega

I did a timeline on this a while back on another sight.

I don't think he would have used the A-Bomb, rather a conventional invasion may have been further up his alley.

As far as the soviets are concerned, i can see him being a lot softer, though to what extent is difficult to say. As far as 1948, I think he would get dropped as neither labor nor the south liked him too much.

Hey, Hcallega, I see you're here as well

And regarding topic, I always found a different scenario, with Wallace succeeding FDR before he could be dropped from the ticket, interesting as well.

Any thoughts about such a scenario?

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

The poster child of what Communists defined as "useful idiot", in charge ? Stalinwank. Say hello to Communist Greece, Iran, Korea, Taiwan, Communist or Finlandized France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Turkey...

Okay, I give up. Why would Iran become Communist?

[Lord Roem]

Originally Posted by Cyclone

Okay, I give up. Why would Iran become Communist?

The Russians and Soviets had always had their eyes on Persia prior to the Revolution. In OTL they came very close to backing several coups against the Shah. With a weaker US President, they may feel that the lure of a warm water port would be worth the loss of diplomatic capital.

[Sean Mulligan]

Originally Posted by hcallega

I did a timeline on this a while back on another sight.

I don't think he would have used the A-Bomb, rather a conventional invasion may have been further up his alley.

As far as the soviets are concerned, i can see him being a lot softer, though to what extent is difficult to say. As far as 1948, I think he would get dropped as neither labor nor the south liked him too much.

What do you mean Labor didn't like him very much? Labor was unanimous in demanding that Wallace would remain on the ticket in 1944. It was the South and the big city political bosses who didn't like him.

[Sean Mulligan]

Originally Posted by hcallega

I did a timeline on this a while back on another sight.

I don't think he would have used the A-Bomb, rather a conventional invasion may have been further up his alley.

As far as the soviets are concerned, i can see him being a lot softer, though to what extent is difficult to say. As far as 1948, I think he would get dropped as neither labor nor the south liked him too much.

How about a link to the timeline?

[Orville_third]

Wallace did know about the A-Bomb's development, and, while he criticized Truman's actions regarding nukes taken after the end of WWII, he didn't criticize the bombing. (Wallace IOTL did experiment with radioactive fertilizer after the war.)
It should be noted that Wallace would likely have taken a different tack on domestic policy than Truman. He favored a full-employment economy. He also was FAR more in favor of Civil Rights than Truman.
It could have been easy for Wallace to get the VP nod in Chicago in 1944. A few people in different places, and he could have stayed. (Perhaps if Wallace was a more political creature?)
One thing that could help or hurt Wallace depending on who you look at is his strong moral sense. This would provide a lot for his admirers to admire and a lot for his detractors to detract, much like Jimmy Carter.
Finally, don't forget the cultural butterflies resulting from this. A Wallace victory could put Paul Robeson in the spotlight. An anti-Wallace backlash could ruin some of his supporters (Perhaps no Gene Kelley movies?). (I reserve one cultural change to myself- something entirely non-political, but which would alter musical history.)

[AlexanderHamilton]

Originally Posted by Lord Roem

The Russians and Soviets had always had their eyes on Persia prior to the Revolution. In OTL they came very close to backing several coups against the Shah. With a weaker US President, they may feel that the lure of a warm water port would be worth the loss of diplomatic capital.

It has nothing to do with "eyes on Persia". To put it simply, in the end of WWII, the British and American came from the west and after the war left. The Soviets came from the east and stayed. Hence Communist Eastern Europe
etc. By the end of the war, Russia had occupied much of Iran and Turkey, although they had agreed to leave. It took strong words and a big stick for Truman to convince them to keep their word.

[AlexanderHamilton]

He would have used the Bomb against Japan. However, he also would have shared the technology with the Soviets, basically giving them the Bomb.

He would have done nothing to kick to Soviets out of Iran and Turkey, or to prevent the Commies from taking over in Greece.

He also favored a much stronger UN, one that violates national sovereignty. It is unlikely that the US Senate would go along with this, and in the backlash not even joining the UN.

The immediate questions to ask are:

1) What are the outcomes in the 1946 midterms? Would there have been the same GOP victories? (The victories were due to the post-war recession -no change there- but also to doubts in the leadership of the unknown Truman. Wallace may have been more liberal, but he was more well known.)

2) Is Wallace impeached? In the highly charged era of Commie spies in the State Department (real and imagined), could his links to Nicholas Roerich and his soft foreign policy been deemed impeachable offense? With both house and senate in firm control of the Conservative Coalition (the Republicans plus the Southern Democrats) impeachment in possible. With no Vice President, Republican Speaker Joe Martin becomes president.

3) If not, is he nominated in 1948? If he is dumped from the ticket, who is the Dem nominee? How much does the Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond take away from the Dems?

4) In OTL Ike refused to run in 1948 against a sitting president. What if the was no sitting president, would he have won in 1948?

[iddt3]

With Greece at least, Stalin refused to back the Communist revolutionaries in Greece because of the agreement he had with Churchill. Without lots of support the Communists might win on their own, but it wouldn't have been because Wallace was soft on Stalin.