WI: WW2 over by 1944

[phx1138]

Who will the Democrats pick to run against the republican nominee, Thomas Dewey of New York? Will it be Vice President Henry Wallace, Senator Harry Truman, or someone else? I am sure Roosevelt will want to have a say in who will succeed him.

My money would be on Wallace on the face of it, but IIRC, he & FDR disagreed over the New Deal, which is part of why FDR replaced him in '44. Truman's too much a lightweight OTL IMO. Could Byrnes get the nod? He was up for VP.

Also, with the war over in 1944, and the pressures being relieved by the end of the war, does Roosevelt now continue to live, let us say, until 1946 or beyond?

Perhaps a bit longer, but he was pretty sick.

Also, With the war over in 1944, CAN WE SAY that Japan was never the victim of an atomic bomb? If so, all those innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were spared!

Certainly. The Bomb wouldn't be near enough completion to be used.

That does raise disturbing possibilities, tho: if the U.S. hasn't demonstrated a willingness to use it, does this encourage Stalin to be a cowboy in Europe in the '50s, & spark off a nuclear war?

 

[mello man 59]

Thank you for your thoughts, PHX1138.
Seeing that in real time, (1945) , the whole world witnessed how devastating an atomic bomb was ... I could see someone using it eventually in the future once ... and to show the world that NO ONE wins in an atomic war.
If not August 1945 ... TODAY we could be learning the lessons of October 1962!

 

[phx1138]

we could be learning the lessons of October 1962!

I don't think there's any chance it would take until 1962.

Most people don't remember how tense things were over Berlin. There was a lot of shoving. When the Wall went up, it actually cooled things off... (I know, that sounds contrary.) So, as early as 1950? 1953? After Stalin dies, IMO, the chances go down a lot. (Of course, if his inclination to do something stupid leads to his being overthrown...)