Henry Wallace's Reforms?

"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..."

"And given their sales, it is reasonable to assume that many people agree with them"

Actually it's Stone's name that pushes Kuznick's theories but neither is widely supported in historic circles. And there's a reason for that, if their characterization of Wallace as an "active opponent of the bomb" isn't enough of a hint here. Put simply it was pretty clear that despite what had already been done to Japan the military was in no mood to bargin in good faith and historically the attempted 'imprisionment' of the Emperor showed this to be true.

There's an semi-common assumption that Wallace was a closet Communist and "weak" liberal semi-pacifist which isn't what his history or writtings show. Likely he WOULD have used the bombs as most people at the time, (imporatnt to keep context) felt that unlike Germany, Japan was not going to surrender the home island to occupation and nothing less was acceptable to the allies. Further he was aware of Soviet aims in Europe and Asia and despite some understanding of the circumstances, (the USSR wanted 'buffer' room to avoid yet another invasion by supposed-allies or real enimes which given the history behind it was actually understandable if not being acceptable in reality) was worried about post-war Soviet intentions as anyone else.

As noted Wallace was at least familar with and somewhat understood the nature of what was expecte of Atomic weapons whereas Truman had neither the inclination nor interest other than 'big-boom'. (And was rather proud of the fact mind you) Wallace had at least a passing knowledge of both the implications and usage of atomic weapons to a larger degree than Truman and more specifically, (a point I'll get to in a moment) understood that it was not a "cheap" way to assure US post-war dominance. It was, while not "simply", another weapon of war albeit much more powerful than anything humans had previously had it was not in and of itself a "war-winning" wonder weapon which is the opposite of what Truman believed.

We know now that it was the Russian attack and fear of an allied supported invasion of the home islands that forced the Japanese surrender. That the bombs were simply a further bit of evidence that any further resistance was doomed and would only make Japans post-war fater worse with no possible return. Despite this the military STILL tried to avoid surrender. Wallace was no more a fan of an actual invasion of the home islands than FDR was and for the same reasons really. So it's very unlikely he would NOT have used the bombs and more had it become neccessary. Similarly Wallace agreed with FDR on limiting Soviet post-war influance in Europe and Asia, (and here again Stone/Kuznick's hypothisis doesn't match the reality of the situation) and also agreed that enforcement of the post-war divisions would be required.

Now the question around that is how would that have differed from Truman's immediate and drastic drawdowns and efforts to expedite American withdrawel both militarily and otherwise from Europe and Asia in the immedate post-war. Truman's post-war budget and defense policy was driven by his belief that the Atomic bomb coupled with USAF long range bombers made most if not all the then 'current' military obsolete and therefore his post-war defense budget spending and policy pretty much demanded an immediate and full withdrawal of US military forces from just about everywhere as soon as possible and demobilization of forces. This despite the allied agreements for the bulk of the occupation forces being US in nature. My read is while Wallace would not be popular for NOT immediatly drawing down the military as Truman did a more gradual draw down and less dependence on the "atomic" option would have had a pretty profound effect on Soviet policy and not in the "no-Cold-War" sort of way.

Randy
 
"And given their sales, it is reasonable to assume that many people agree with them"

Actually it's Stone's name that pushes Kuznick's theories but neither is widely supported in historic circles.

When I said "many people" I wasn't referring to historians...
 
When I said "many people" I wasn't referring to historians...

I'm suspecting that might be... Historian-ist? :)

"Many people" today believe the Earth is flat, (and that is something I can say truthfully greatly pains me to no end) which means almost nothing. Almost only because unfortunately "popular" myths have a habit of becoming "actual" history if we're not careful. As the article note people who viewed the film were convinced to question the accepted narrative but the troubling aspect was some of those people didn't just question the narrative but fully accepted the NEW narrative without question which is exactly opposite of what you want. Especially when the "new" narrative is fundamentally flawed.

Stone and Kuznick developed a narrative that isn't supported by the known facts but is based on interpretation of selected facts and opinions to arrive at the outcome they desired. That their interpretation is popular with "many people" should only be relevant to the fact that the real history of Wallace and the situation at hand probably needs to be popularized and more wide spread to counter such pop-culture analysis. But it likely won't. As I noted there are clear and fundamental flaws in their supposition with relevant data that should have been clearly available to them, that it wasn't is on them.

Wallace wasn't "opposed" to the bombs and he wasn't sympathetic to the USSR or Communism, (this is a common attempt today as well as back then to link "progressive/liberal" politics to Communism as an attack) but he was very much a "Democrat" (and that's the major complaint that he was in fact TOO progressive/democrat at a time when such wasn't conducive to holding the New Deal coalition together in the face of Republican ascendance) concerned with workers rights and wealth inequality. He was dropped in favor of a more 'centrist' Democrat in the form of Harry Truman for near-term political reasons, not because they were afraid he was a neo-Communist who would sell the US to the Russians the second FDR dropped dead though that's been the main narrative against him. IMHO I'm pretty sure that a post-FDR Wallace administration would have been preferable to the Truman one we got OTL.

Randy
 
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.
Quite frankly none of the allied powers cared about Japanese civilian casualties. Hell, if the Morgenthau plan had been implemented (the main opposition to this being the risk of a soviet-aligned and industrialized East Germany) millions of Germans would have starved. They were less civilized times.
 
Quite frankly none of the allied powers cared about Japanese civilian casualties. Hell, if the Morgenthau plan had been implemented (the main opposition to this being the risk of a soviet-aligned and industrialized East Germany) millions of Germans would have starved. They were less civilized times.

As a 22 year old person whose grandfather was 14 in 1945, I cannot imagine that civilian casualties were not a concern of normal people. When the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reports did not describe these places as cities or population centers, but military installations or industrial centers.

They knew that people cared and they were more than willing to lie about their atrocities when they had to.
 
As a 22 year old person whose grandfather was 14 in 1945, I cannot imagine that civilian casualties were not a concern of normal people. When the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reports did not describe these places as cities or population centers, but military installations or industrial centers.

They knew that people cared and they were more than willing to lie about their atrocities when they had to.

That wasn't a lie actually they WERE industrial centers and military installations as well as transport hubs AND population centers. The public knowledge of what the Japanese had done to captured areas and prisoners, including civilians, was well known and it was not until almost a decade post war that the first doubts about the US conduct versus that of the Japanese began to come out. Keep in mind that it was not until the Cold War begin to be a thing that the narrative began to change from "they (German and Japanese) DESERVED it" to "maybe we can forgive them a bit" and it's only NOW that most of the actual WWII survivors have died off that there is a swell of sympathy for the enemy.

Make no bones about it at the time the feeling was almost universally it was war to the knife, them or us and it was not going to be us, and that this would NOT happen again as twice in one lifetime was far more than enough. We put American's in concentration camps and denied them their rights AS American's and would have done the same to German American's if there had been a politically acceptable way to do so without batting an eye. The American public accepted this with no question because it came down to "them" or "us" (for a certain value of "us" of course) and "atrocities" be damned because only the winner gets to decide what an atrocity is.

It was not that it was a "less civilized" time because I'd assume everyone here is adult enough to know it is and still remains something that humans will do to other humans in the name of survival. It was a means to an end and despite it being cliche and overused the ends do justify the means when you get right down the dirty core of war. It is a mean, dirty, ugly business which no one should every enjoy and no one should every enter without full understanding of what and why you are fighting but it remains something that humans will do until the point we are no longer human. (Even as we sometimes become less than human while engaged in it)

To this day while Germany has acknowledged and made amends for its part in WWII Japan never has and if they can possibly do so they never will. If this doesn't make you a bit angry it should. Was it reason to drop atomic bombs on a city? Not the right question as the bombs were just tools of war. One plane and one bomb for one city instead of thousands of planes and incendiaries but still a weapon of war used in that context.


Randy
 
As a 22 year old person whose grandfather was 14 in 1945, I cannot imagine that civilian casualties were not a concern of normal people. When the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reports did not describe these places as cities or population centers, but military installations or industrial centers.

They knew that people cared and they were more than willing to lie about their atrocities when they had to.

From talking with those from the Lost, Greatest and Silent Generations, thought the Japanese had deserved everything they got, from actions over China thru to the Philippines, and Pearl Harbor. Recall reading from someone who survived Japanese interment, were disappointed the US only had a chance to use two Atom Bombs on them
 
Top