AHQ: President Wallace 1945-49

Say this happens, and Wallace simply takes Truman's place. What changes do we see? Does the Marshall Plan still happen? Do they Soviets extend forth their own version? Do the Americans and the USSR cooperate more on rebuilding Europe? What happens in Korea?
 
Say this happens, and Wallace simply takes Truman's place.
Having Henry A. Wallace kept as as vice president, just requires President Roosevelt to stick to his guns, as Wallace was still his preferred choice and was still populare with the majority of voters and party members. It was only the the conservative party members who made up the national committee, who wanted to keep wallace off the ticket .

What changes do we see?
Wallace mentioned having Harry Dexter White, as his Secretary of Treasury and Alger Hiss in his cabinet, both candidates would later be investigated by the CIA in what was known as Venona project

Does the Marshall Plan still happen?
I doubt Wallace would pick George Marshall as his Secretary of State, however, I can imagine, that Wallace would support economic assistance to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II and work with the Soviet Union to avoid the iron curtain from falling.
 
I wonder if we could see a neutral Korea under a Wallace administration: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/ACFB73.pdf

Soviet policy in Korea, of all places, underlined the
fact that Stalin’s statements about the possibility of cooperation were not merely empty rhetoric.
Like Germany, Korea had been divided into occupation zones following the surrender of Japan.
Northern Korea had been occupied by the Russians, while the Americans had control over the
South. As in Germany, the two sides could not agree on the process of reunification. Earlier
attempts to form an interim Korean government had foundered on the inability of the Americans
and Soviets to agree on which Korean groups to consult on this question. In February 1947, the
Soviet side broke this deadlock by agreeing to U.S. proposals to speed the work of the joint commission on forming an interim government.
The commission actually began to work in May 1947, and the American delegates found that the Soviet delegates were workmanlike, although
still bargaining hard on the question of whom to consult. In fact, documents from the Russian archives show that the Soviet delegates had instructions to agree to form an interim government if they could gain sufficient representation for “leftist” South Korean groups.
 
As I wrote here a few months ago:

***

For Wallace to remain on the ticket is unlikely, given FDR's knowledge of the "Guru Letters", the opposition of not only southerners but northern big city bosses to Wallace, etc. But let's say he does remain, FDR wins, and then dies on schedule. What then?

As I have said before, I am not sure whether it is fair to judge what Wallace would have done as president with the positions he took in OTL in his 1948 campaign. By then, he was almost entirely dependent on the Communist Party, the left wing of the CIO, etc. for support (practically all mainstream liberals having come out against his candidacy); moreover, he had been embittered by first having been dumped from the Democratic ticket in 1944 and then being fired as Secretary of Commerce in 1946. This bitterness led him to gradually see himself as the only defender of "peace" and his opponents as "warmongers." If you look at the Madison Square Garden speech of September 1946 which got him fired, it was considerably more balanced than his position of two years later. He basically was arguing for a spheres-of-influence arrangement with the USSR. At one point, he said "We may not like what Russia does in eastern Europe. Her type of land reform, industrial expropriation, and suppression of basic liberties offends the great majority of the people of the United States." When the (predominantly left-wing) audience started hissing, he said "Yes, I’m talking about people outside of New York City when I talk about that, and I think I know about people outside of New York City. Any Gallup poll will reveal it – we might as well face the facts." He added that "The Russians have no more business in stirring up native communists to political activity in western Europe, Latin America, and the United States than we have interfering in the politics of eastern Europe and Russia."
http://www.jahrbuch2002.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Weltmacht/Way_to_Peace/way_to_peace.html

One thing that has led to misunderstandings of the speech is that Wallace (because his radio time was running out, he said--but perhaps because he didn't like the boos he was getting from the leftists in the audience) decided to leave out some of the most anti-Soviet statements he had prepared, notably a reference to "native communists faithfully following every twist and turn in the Moscow party line" and that "the Russians should stop teaching that their form of communism must, by force if necessary, ultimately triumph over democratic capitalism..." https://web.archive.org/web/20170504230423/http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw28.htm

Yet even with the omissions, Wallace's speech was at first severely criticized in the *Daily Worker*: "He advanced views...which covered up American imperialism's aggressive role." (Quoted in David Shannon, *The Decline of American Communism,* p. 119.) It was only after Truman fired Wallace that the Communists found the speech praiseworthy...
 
As I wrote here a few months ago:

***

For Wallace to remain on the ticket is unlikely, given FDR's knowledge of the "Guru Letters", the opposition of not only southerners but northern big city bosses to Wallace, etc. But let's say he does remain, FDR wins, and then dies on schedule. What then?

As I have said before, I am not sure whether it is fair to judge what Wallace would have done as president with the positions he took in OTL in his 1948 campaign. By then, he was almost entirely dependent on the Communist Party, the left wing of the CIO, etc. for support (practically all mainstream liberals having come out against his candidacy); moreover, he had been embittered by first having been dumped from the Democratic ticket in 1944 and then being fired as Secretary of Commerce in 1946. This bitterness led him to gradually see himself as the only defender of "peace" and his opponents as "warmongers." If you look at the Madison Square Garden speech of September 1946 which got him fired, it was considerably more balanced than his position of two years later. He basically was arguing for a spheres-of-influence arrangement with the USSR. At one point, he said "We may not like what Russia does in eastern Europe. Her type of land reform, industrial expropriation, and suppression of basic liberties offends the great majority of the people of the United States." When the (predominantly left-wing) audience started hissing, he said "Yes, I’m talking about people outside of New York City when I talk about that, and I think I know about people outside of New York City. Any Gallup poll will reveal it – we might as well face the facts." He added that "The Russians have no more business in stirring up native communists to political activity in western Europe, Latin America, and the United States than we have interfering in the politics of eastern Europe and Russia."
http://www.jahrbuch2002.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Weltmacht/Way_to_Peace/way_to_peace.html

One thing that has led to misunderstandings of the speech is that Wallace (because his radio time was running out, he said--but perhaps because he didn't like the boos he was getting from the leftists in the audience) decided to leave out some of the most anti-Soviet statements he had prepared, notably a reference to "native communists faithfully following every twist and turn in the Moscow party line" and that "the Russians should stop teaching that their form of communism must, by force if necessary, ultimately triumph over democratic capitalism..." https://web.archive.org/web/20170504230423/http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw28.htm

Yet even with the omissions, Wallace's speech was at first severely criticized in the *Daily Worker*: "He advanced views...which covered up American imperialism's aggressive role." (Quoted in David Shannon, *The Decline of American Communism,* p. 119.) It was only after Truman fired Wallace that the Communists found the speech praiseworthy...
This was very eye opening

Theres a chance he just governs as a typically liberal, albeit a bit to the left, then?
 
This was very eye opening

Theres a chance he just governs as a typically liberal, albeit a bit to the left, then?

Or may swing rightward. He was originally a businessman and member of the Republican party. Remaining VP & the a shot at the presidency might cause him to effectively become a centrist. Or at least as near the center as Truman.
 
Top