The Footprint of Mussolini - TL

Reader mode

Sorairo

marathag said:
OTL during Wallace's trip to China in 1944, he pretty much rebuffed any pressure that he even would meet with the Chinese Communists, and his report to FDR that China would be best under the Nationalists and not the Communists, even and HW put it that Chiang was a 'short time investment'. Even he could see his problems in leading China.

He was able to successfully rebut charges that he was one of causes of 'losing China' bu pointing out his recommendations from the report he sent to FDR

HW and the China Lobby were closer in view than many realize
Click to expand...

Stalin at the time was also pro-Chiang. Wallace naively assumes much the same state of affairs will always exist.
 
Last edited:
Dolan

Dolan

Banned
Well, here we come to a Fascist "EU" bloc, made of Imperialist and Fascists because Wallace single handedly self sabotage American and also Democratic Influence to the ground...
 
akoslows

akoslows

Sorairo said:
Finally, Wallace called Stalin into a private room for ‘frank discussion’. It was here that perhaps the most infamous of Wallace’s decisions came about. It was here that Wallace bribed Stalin’s participation for the war in Japan by not only offering him more Asian territory, but also securing more European territory than he might otherwise have got. Firstly, it was offered that even if not one Russian foot landed in Japan, Hokkaido would be put under Soviet administration. After that, China and Korea would be considered in the Soviet zone of influence – though Stalin had still not decided to 100% back Mao yet, a decision he would come to regret. As far as Wallace was concerned, the Soviets could do what they wanted in China or Korea as long as they kicked the Japanese out. In Europe, America agreed to forsake their Berlin occupation zone and give it to the Soviets (which was thankfully on the side and would not have resulted in two West Berlins). Furthermore, the Americans agreed to strike a compromise with the Europeans on the Occupation Zone question, with an East Germany running along the Elbe and stopping at Schleswig-Holstein (as the British would never leave Hamburg). Even more remarkable, Wallace agreed a unilateral withdrawal of American troops from Iran and Czechia, leaving the British alone to administer the territories outside the Russians. Only a skeleton force would likewise be in Germany. He offered an extension of Lend-Lease while it would shortly be shut down for Britain. He offered complete independence of Soviet action in Poland and Slovakia to choose the government it wanted, with the full right to unilaterally declare independence from Czechoslovakia whenever it pleased. Wallace even went as far as to tell Stalin about the Manhattan Project and about its destructive capability. Some have accused Wallace of outright encouraging the Soviets to build their own but this is unsupported. Stalin was thunderstruck at the number of concessions he gained but did his best to play the reluctant. However, he agreed to launch an invasion of Manchuria in three months.
Click to expand...
Oh my god...
Wallace, you’re a fucking idiot.
 

Sorairo

LordofWhy said:
Security Council Brazil? Are they credible at this time?
Click to expand...

They needed someone to break the tie. Brazil was a major Allied power by population alone, not to mention their war contribution. They’re hardly going to be a hyperpower anytime soon but they are relatively neutral and respctable enough to get in.
 

Bookmark1995

Banned
Wallace demonstrates that idealism is not necessarily better then realpolitik. Realpolitik people can be jerks, but they are jerks who understand harsh realities. Idealism can be good, but it can lead a person down horrific delusions. The idealistic Wallace just snubbed Mussolini for Stalin, and has also given money to Stalin so he can damn more people to life behind the Iron Curtain.

Churchill and Mussolini maybe jerks, but they have every right to be annoyed at Wallace's slobbering to Stalin.

I can see several political consequences from this.

1) ITTL, détente is going to be even more politically toxic, because Wallace's compromising with Stalin will have horrific geopolitical consequences. Any person who suggests peaceful coexistence will risk "pulling a Wallace", as the saying may go.

2) Western allies walking hand in hand with Mussolini and other European fascists.

3) Future Americans Presidents being forced to spend even more money winning over allies, because Wallace has truly fucked America's image.
 
Alpha-King98760

Alpha-King98760

I wonder if fascism will have an explosion of support at home in the USA? Also I think George Wallace of Alabama should legally change his surname.

Also:

WAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLCCCCCCCEEEEEEEE!!!!

 
Last edited:

President Earl Warren

I honestly dont think Wallace can get the renomination after this, only the Progessives and even their he'll basically be facing a drain, and the rest of the coaliton is going to turn on him for self preservations sake.
 
Kingfish Chris

Kingfish Chris

Since Wallace is unpopular where it may result in the possibility of Fascists in America. I can foresee the formation of new Fascist Parties in America being led by people such as:
  1. Ezra Pound
  2. George E. Deatherage
  3. Charles Lindebergh
  4. Charles Coughlin
  5. Lawrence Dennis
  6. William Dudley Pelley
  7. Francis Parker Yockey
 
Alpha-King98760

Alpha-King98760

AZNMAGICMAN said:
Since Wallace is unpopular where it may result in the possibility of Fascists in America. I can foresee the formation of Fascist Parties in America being led by people such as:
  1. Ezra Pound
  2. George E. Deatherage
  3. Charles Lindebergh
  4. Charles Coughlin
  5. Lawrence Dennis
  6. William Dudley Pelley
  7. Francis Parker Yockey
Click to expand...
Quickly cast your votes! My vote goes to Ezra Pound. :p
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top