Answer to readers questions
Yeah but the bloodbath that was the battle of Kyushu drove him to want a more rapid end to the war. Same with Wallace.
In ATL Wallace believed that the bomb wouldn't end the war. He figured that any bombing would have to be followed by an invasion anyway. He wanted to use the bomb as a weapon of last resort. He saw the Battle of Kyushu as simply too much, and refused to allow it to be repeated.
Yeah pretty much the same as OTL
The Wallace Plan allowed aide to any country in need. The USSR did indeed deny the aid, which further depressed and moved Wallace away from being pro-USSR.
So far pretty much the same as OTL. Wallace is an internationalist; he's still working with both nations. He's close to Clement Atlee ideologically and personally as both men see eye-to-eye. The chaos that is the French 4th Republic is still happening on course.
Let's remember NATO didn't exist until Truman's second term.
They weren't close to being wiped out. However a great deal were, and therefore the optimistic figures that 1/2 of the ships would be knocked out never came close.
MacArthur was not a big fan of the atomic bomb. Very conservative he was and he could see that this would a game changer in ways no one could be certain but which he was quite certain he would not enjoy.
Yeah but the bloodbath that was the battle of Kyushu drove him to want a more rapid end to the war. Same with Wallace.
As for Wallace, he extended the war in the Pacific by months resulting in tens of thousands of American casualties(if not more) and literally millions of Japanese dead to avoid use of a weapon which he then used anyway? Presidents have lost a second term for far less...
In ATL Wallace believed that the bomb wouldn't end the war. He figured that any bombing would have to be followed by an invasion anyway. He wanted to use the bomb as a weapon of last resort. He saw the Battle of Kyushu as simply too much, and refused to allow it to be repeated.
Able to cut defense spending? With Taft running the Senate and the GOP running the House try stopping a genuine gutting of defense spending.
Yeah pretty much the same as OTL
Wallace was a foe of the Marshall Plan. He'd have favored aid to any recovering European nation. The question is, how would the USSR see it? Would they deny aid as IOTL? (This could push Wallace away from his pro-USSR stance.)
The Wallace Plan allowed aide to any country in need. The USSR did indeed deny the aid, which further depressed and moved Wallace away from being pro-USSR.
How are the UK and France reacting? Wallace isn't a fan of colonialism. How are his relations with the new Labour government in the UK?
So far pretty much the same as OTL. Wallace is an internationalist; he's still working with both nations. He's close to Clement Atlee ideologically and personally as both men see eye-to-eye. The chaos that is the French 4th Republic is still happening on course.
With Wallace in the White House and Taft on the Hill, there's a good chance NATO will never exist, be stillborn, or be solely European- thus no Warsaw Pact, a more thawed Cold War, and if the third option, an earlier EU.
Let's remember NATO didn't exist until Truman's second term.
I cannot see the Kamikazes being wiped out on the ground.
They weren't close to being wiped out. However a great deal were, and therefore the optimistic figures that 1/2 of the ships would be knocked out never came close.