What if Henry A. Wallace stayed as FDR's vice president?

In OTL, Wallace was the 33rd vice president, but Roosevelt replaced him with Truman later on. What if Wallace had stayed president. Assume FDR dies like he did in OTL.
 
He'd be quite disastrous, refusing to compromise and a bunch of other things.

He may delay the recession, as he may refuse to remove the postwar controls which caused a shock that resulted in that recession. However, a recession would occur in his presidency, at the latest in mid-1948.

In any case, Dewey/Taft/Stassen/random Republican would win the presidency in 1948.
 
Wallace most likely won't bomb Japan and will do Operation Downfall. Japan is probably likely too be partioned like Germany, so we might see a Red Japan. Wallace will likely loose in 1948 to Dewey or Taft.
 
Good or bad, he loses in 1948. Truman barely stayed in office that year and there's no way a fire-breathing radical like Wallace wins re-election during the conservative turn of the late '40s.
 
I'm not sure if Wallace would use the A-bomb on Japan. FDR would have without a doubt, but I can see arguments either way on Wallace. There would be a discord in the Democratic party as Wallace would no doubt take actions that would enrage certain Southern Democrats. I'm not sure he would able to connect with the working class democrats the way FDR/Truman did.

1946, if anything might wind up worse for the Democrats, if that is possible. 1948, well there's not going to be a surprise that year and the Republicans will take the White House. Probably Dewey, but possibly Taft, Bricker, Warren of Stassen depending on how the convention goes.
 
Wallace probably would nuke Japan. He would probably reach the same conclusions as Truman in regards to it, and most of his advisors would support it. He was never some sort of pacifist at all. Most effects will come post-war, when he has to deal with the USSR.
 

Wallet

Banned
He was too soft on the Soviets. He actually believed their propaganda.

He basically gives Stalin everything he wants. More of Europe and Asia is Red.

It'll be too late to realize what he did, and he gets beaten in a landslide by Dewrey
 
FWIW, Wallace *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:
He was too soft on the Soviets. He actually believed their propaganda.

He basically gives Stalin everything he wants. More of Europe and Asia is Red.

It'll be too late to realize what he did, and he gets beaten in a landslide by Dewrey

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..." 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...
 
Last edited:
Top