Henry Wallace's Reforms?
- Thread starter Valijun
- Start date
-
- Tags
- henry wallace
Wallace wouldn’t be able to implement many social democratic reforms in the US, from the looks of it, especially considering the possibility of a defeat to a GOP candidate in 1948.
However, one sector of government he could have some say in would be foreign policy. The late 1940’s were a crucial period for world history, with the creation of states like Israel, the Partition of India, the beginning of the decolonization process in Africa and Asia, the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War... had Wallace been POTUS then rather than Truman, i could see some historical processes changing from the beginning and gradually affecting the US proper from there.
However, one sector of government he could have some say in would be foreign policy. The late 1940’s were a crucial period for world history, with the creation of states like Israel, the Partition of India, the beginning of the decolonization process in Africa and Asia, the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War... had Wallace been POTUS then rather than Truman, i could see some historical processes changing from the beginning and gradually affecting the US proper from there.
Yeah, because Truman was a famous do-nothing president, right?
Wallace's decisions shape the end of the war and the New World Order, whether people like him or not. It's unlikely he would drop nukes on Japan for any reason whatsoever and I do not see that as a weakness. Wallace would likely agree to Japan's conditional surrender, where their only condition is that the Emperor of Japan maintains his position (which ended up happening anyway IOTL), but the perception of Japan being the only Axis country with a conditional defeat would last throughout history.
With the atomic bomb either being 1) completely unknown and 2) not having been tested in a very public way, I doubt you'd see the international reaction that followed. The Soviets would definitely want this weapon but they wouldn't be as overtly scared into doing it as they were IOTL.
You'd also end up with the overt anti-segregationist as Commander-in-Chief and it'd be a way easier decision for him to desegregate the US military. He'd also pursue policies that would really shift the Democratic Party much more to the left, even with significant opposition from within his own party. IOTL, Hubert Humphrey decried Wallace as a communist, but with Wallace as President and having accomplished some policy goals that Humphrey would agree with.
As far as 1948 goes, Wallace wanted to run with Florida Senator Claude Pepper, who only turned him down because it'd require leaving the Democratic Party. Wallace would definitely pick Pepper as a Democratic President and most likely Democratic Presidential Candidate. I think Wallace has next to no chance if winning the 1948 election, unless he's facing off against General MacArthur, and even then it'd be unlikely. MacArthur was a nonstarter in 1948, winning very few votes outside of Wisconsin's presidential primary, where he came in a close second. MacArthur and Wallace had likely butt-heads plenty over the war with Japan and subsequent occupation. It wouldn't be too hard to imagine an alternate post-war career for MacArthur where he becomes the biggest, most prominent critic of the Wallace Administration and a true leading contender for the 1948 Presidential Election. Just get a few public appearances for Thomas Dewey where he comes across as dead as he would seem on the actual campaign trail and you can give MacArthur a path to be up against Wallace.
Along with Wallace and MacArthur, a segregationist Southern Democrat, whether its Strom Thurmond or somebody else, would likely also run. I don't think MacArthur is necessarily what they want and they already despised Truman, they'd be tripping over themselves to go all out against Henry Wallace.
By modern times in a world where Henry Wallace was president for at least 3 years and, at most, 7 years, he'd still be quite controversial. It'd be tough to figure out an entirely history of political realignments and detailed shifts in the overton window, but Wallace would still be left-of-center for US politics. The difference is, Wallace would be a big figure for the left that left-wing people would have to have some sort of opinion on, whether liking and supporting his legacy or opposing it for one reason or another (whether it's his lack of anti-communism, refusal to condemn Soviet Aggression IOTL, or something else). Overall, he'd be something to grapple with and his image and legacy would last for a very long time.
And even with two Democratic houses in 1945, Wallace is unlikely to get much done since he had an infamously poor relationship with Congress as VP. By 1947 he'd be a lame duck in domestic policy and he'd probably lose to Dewey in 1948.
Truman =/= Wallace
Operation Downfall happens, leading to hundreds of thousands of dead Americans, Soviets, and mostly Japanese combatants and civilians. After Japan is pretty much halved in population, its split in two ala Korea (which is fully occupied by the Soviets). Firebombing probably kills more than both A-Bombs, and nearly all of Japan is rubble. So yes, you're right, its not weakness, its ruthlessness.
Jesus, do you like writing about an apocalypse hitting Japan?
It's shows a lot about currently accepted US foreign policy that the fact that unconditional surrender was seen as more important than half the population of Japan.
Wallace would never pursue unconditional surrender as being so necessary and would never commit to the largest naval invasion ever or using the most powerful weapon created by mankind (up to that point). It's foolish to think either would happen.
You are aware that Japan was willing to surrender by August of 1945, offering a conditional surrender with their only condition being that the Emperor of Japan maintain his position in government?
The United States left the Emperor right where he was, but wanted a surrender with no-conditions to emphasize their victory. Wallace would easily accept these peace terms and end the war without committing these atrocities because he didn't need to.
I've been accused of being a weeb before, being accused of writing torture porn of Japan is entirely new for me.
I've written a Downfall TL in my spare time, believe me, the part about the Soviet invasion and occupation (using how they treated the Germans as a baseline) would make the United States look like angels. I didn't talk about them because its off-topic. Besides, the general consensus was "no conditions" for the Axis by that point. The Japanese Military was also not to be trusted simply because it was run by fanatics.
A conditional surrender would not be accepted if Operation Cherry Blossums at Night happened (which is probably would’ve considering Ishii was behind it and Umezu supported it). Hence why I don’t buy the United States accepting a conditional surrender without the use of nuclear weapons.
Actually, that is somewhat inaccurate. The US was fine with the emperor as a figurehead it was not fine with the emperor retaining his power which is what was offered. The emperor probably had more power than was admitted after the war.
kernals12
Banned
Congress would be just as hostile to Wallace's proposals as they were to Truman's. More importantly, we now have someone who is hopelessly naive about the Communist threat in the White House during the first crucial years of the Cold War. That's bad news for West Berlin and Greece.
Forget Greece, we could consider ourselves lucky if he didn't hand over everything from Paris to Tokyo to the Reds.
Japan cannot be splitted since the discussions here in the forum showed that it would take two years for the soviet union to build it's naval capacity to mount a invasion of Japan. By 1946 Japan would surrender with or without invasion or bombs.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
Why would Henry Wallace not use the A-Bomb on Japan or be any easier on Axis powers in any way? Is this stereotyping that because he was especially "progressive" and "liberal" he would be too "soft" to use it. That idea is not warranted at all. There was the For All Time Timeline from 20 years ago that had a WWII screw up for a Wallace administration but it was a failed (and perhaps early) D-Day that was the screw-up, and the TL was deliberately pushed/contrived to be a dystopia.
I actually don't think Wallace would handle foreign policy that differently from Truman: he never opposed using Atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not even in private, and before Truman fired him Wallace was an articulate anti-communist. (And after 1948, Wallace became a Cold War hawk who supported not only Dwight Eisenhower but even Richard Nixon in 1960). Wallace probably makes many if not most of the same decisions Truman did, but being an inept politician he almost certainly loses to Dewey in 1948.
Although many people assume that Wallace would not have used nuclear weapons against Japan, in fact he never criticized Truman's decision to drop the bomb.
"'I just don't remember how I felt at the time,' Wallace later commented. 'Perhaps these massive events maybe numbed me — I just don't know what it is.' He was 'terrifically interested' in the atomic bomb project, he said, but his primary concern, was 'that the darn thing went off.'
"To his credit, Wallace did not criticize — either then or later, publicly or privately — Truman's decision. Present at the inception of the project, Wallace had helped persuade Roosevelt 'it was something to put money into.' To have second-guessed Truman when the weapon was actually used would have been intellectually dishonest..." John C. Culver and John Hyde, American Dreamer: A Life of Henry A. Wallace, pp. 396-7. https://books.google.com/books?id=rgp2CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA396
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
So not being in the Dark as much as HT was, HW would have known it was sold just as a new type of big bomb. Very big bomb that would destroy a city, just as was currently ongoing in Japan and had been finished a few months earlier in Germany
The Brains didn't know what the Yield would be, guesses were from a kiltoton to 40, to 'ignite the Atmosphere'
But even with a number, no one could visualize what that meant, even after Gadget blew at Alamogordo
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
Who assumes this besides a couple participants in this thread? Two posters here, President Benedict Arnold, and Roosevelt, took that position, with three more posters commenting without voicing a specific objection. Have historians or writers written about Wallace not using the bomb?
"Stone and Kuznick noted that such an outcome would have dramatically changed the American landscape after World War II. Because Wallace never would have dropped the bomb, the U.S. relationship with the Soviet Union would have been maintained and the arms race and the Cold War would never have begun." https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2014/10/16/oliver-stone-discusses-atomic-bomb/ Stone of course is no historian but Kuznick is (I'm not saying he's a good historian..). And given their sales, it is reasonable to assume that many people agree with them.
Anyway, I have seen other people here say it so maybe I should just have said "Many people here assume..."