WI Henry Wallace was not dropped from the Dem ticket in 1944, but retained? What would happen after his ascent to the presideny after FDR's death?
Wallace retained
- Thread starter emperorharry86
- Start date
I believe there have been one or two timelines considering this possibility. One of them is ridiculous, also including the Emperor Bokassa as ruler of FRANCE(well maybe...) and tricking the French into cannibalism(will not touch that one, nope, nope...). Another was better and involved what could only have been a stronger USSR and a more virulent Cold War. On the positive side, if accurate, there would be no doubt to any except unabashed Communists that the Soviets were unilaterally responsible for the Cold War. So there would be one good side effect! 
Hmm, Japan was partitioned like Germany, West Berlin lost(I believe), US atomic secrets given to the Soviets, Harry Truman erased from prominence, and segregation ended partially and in a way all but guaranteed to undermine civil rights for years to come. The very thought of the man who desegregated the military and such being shown as either a fool like Chamberlain or a totalitarian sympathizer chills the blood.
Oh yeah, and it ends with the election of 1948. The GOP sweeps all except the Deep South where several states go for Strom Thurmond. Under Wallace the Democrats carry no states and come in third in the popular vote, with the New York Times speculating as to the survival of the party.
Interesting list of young Democrats who WOULD have been important had their careers not been ruined by the Wallace affiliation.
Ignoring the race issue, the most disastrous effect would have been the replacement of Truman with Wallace in political affairs. At this time the GOP was in many ways more moderate, and in particular, the Black voters commitment to the Democratic party was fundamentally a commitment to FDR. Without Truman to unite the center, and with Wallace to divide it, it's not hard to imagine a Democratic party shattering into a right wing and a left wing, with the GOP holding the center and many of the more practical and/or opportunistic people going to the winning side. First 1948, where the GOP gets well above 50% and the other two get about half the remainder, followed by several elections where the GOP gets 60-70% of the vote on the grounds that only die-hards will vote for a ticket that simply can't win. And if the GOP then sponsors the civil rights legislation, we might well have a period from 1948 to 1980 or later where there is only one party capable of winning the national election. Then the GOP split between the moralists and the libertarians and...
Hmm, Japan was partitioned like Germany, West Berlin lost(I believe), US atomic secrets given to the Soviets, Harry Truman erased from prominence, and segregation ended partially and in a way all but guaranteed to undermine civil rights for years to come. The very thought of the man who desegregated the military and such being shown as either a fool like Chamberlain or a totalitarian sympathizer chills the blood.
Oh yeah, and it ends with the election of 1948. The GOP sweeps all except the Deep South where several states go for Strom Thurmond. Under Wallace the Democrats carry no states and come in third in the popular vote, with the New York Times speculating as to the survival of the party.
Interesting list of young Democrats who WOULD have been important had their careers not been ruined by the Wallace affiliation.
Ignoring the race issue, the most disastrous effect would have been the replacement of Truman with Wallace in political affairs. At this time the GOP was in many ways more moderate, and in particular, the Black voters commitment to the Democratic party was fundamentally a commitment to FDR. Without Truman to unite the center, and with Wallace to divide it, it's not hard to imagine a Democratic party shattering into a right wing and a left wing, with the GOP holding the center and many of the more practical and/or opportunistic people going to the winning side. First 1948, where the GOP gets well above 50% and the other two get about half the remainder, followed by several elections where the GOP gets 60-70% of the vote on the grounds that only die-hards will vote for a ticket that simply can't win. And if the GOP then sponsors the civil rights legislation, we might well have a period from 1948 to 1980 or later where there is only one party capable of winning the national election. Then the GOP split between the moralists and the libertarians and...
Wallace wins 1944?
Well, let's look at the record in 1944.
1. The liberals were right about appeasement not working to stop Hitler from starting a war.
2. The liberals were right about deficit finance wiping out the depression and putting people back to work, whether it was building interstates or tanks. Eisenhower as the Republican president was particularly emphatic that we weren't going back on a gold standard, and to hell with the Taft republicans.
3. The liberals were right about the incompetence and conservatism of the prewar armed forces command. A lot of voters had personal experience with prewar officers. Most officers in the war were former civilians, as were almost all soldiers.
4. The liberals were right about black people being able to serve in the armed forces and fight just as well as white people. There were black combat units and they did fight. So did the Japanese, the Chinese, the Hispanics, and the Phillipinos in the US armed forces.
5. The liberals were right about antisemitism being a bad idea in that the Jews were socialy important as scientists. Technically, this wasn't obvious until after Hiroshima. Lots of American soldiers weren't really happy with what the Germans did to the Jews. And the Poles, Italians, French, Belgians, Dutch, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Rumanians, etc.
6. The liberals were right about building up a strong defence to avert attacks by other countries. That was known since 1940. Most of the armed forces leadership had gone over to the liberal's plans for armed forces expansion after June of 1940, even if it diluted the 'right' people in the officer force.
7. The liberals were right about financing scientific research as making the country stronger, those I'm not sure if people believed that at the time, or that it was just government propaganda about American science being superior to German science in terms of the development of advanced weapons.
8. The liberals were right about profiteering by businessmen during war. That was how Truman became vice president, by holding the hearings on it and going after the usual malefactors of great wealth. The honest businessmen who saw the corner cutting and false invoicing types were especially upset about it.
9. The liberals were right about the colonial empires not being loyally served by the colonial natives. The natives had no loyalty to the colonizing nation and ofter went over to the Japanese. The Phillipines mostly stayed loyal and people remarked on the difference.
So during the 1944 election, who's going to win? Wendell Wilkie or Henry Wallace?
Well, let's look at the record in 1944.
1. The liberals were right about appeasement not working to stop Hitler from starting a war.
2. The liberals were right about deficit finance wiping out the depression and putting people back to work, whether it was building interstates or tanks. Eisenhower as the Republican president was particularly emphatic that we weren't going back on a gold standard, and to hell with the Taft republicans.
3. The liberals were right about the incompetence and conservatism of the prewar armed forces command. A lot of voters had personal experience with prewar officers. Most officers in the war were former civilians, as were almost all soldiers.
4. The liberals were right about black people being able to serve in the armed forces and fight just as well as white people. There were black combat units and they did fight. So did the Japanese, the Chinese, the Hispanics, and the Phillipinos in the US armed forces.
5. The liberals were right about antisemitism being a bad idea in that the Jews were socialy important as scientists. Technically, this wasn't obvious until after Hiroshima. Lots of American soldiers weren't really happy with what the Germans did to the Jews. And the Poles, Italians, French, Belgians, Dutch, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Rumanians, etc.
6. The liberals were right about building up a strong defence to avert attacks by other countries. That was known since 1940. Most of the armed forces leadership had gone over to the liberal's plans for armed forces expansion after June of 1940, even if it diluted the 'right' people in the officer force.
7. The liberals were right about financing scientific research as making the country stronger, those I'm not sure if people believed that at the time, or that it was just government propaganda about American science being superior to German science in terms of the development of advanced weapons.
8. The liberals were right about profiteering by businessmen during war. That was how Truman became vice president, by holding the hearings on it and going after the usual malefactors of great wealth. The honest businessmen who saw the corner cutting and false invoicing types were especially upset about it.
9. The liberals were right about the colonial empires not being loyally served by the colonial natives. The natives had no loyalty to the colonizing nation and ofter went over to the Japanese. The Phillipines mostly stayed loyal and people remarked on the difference.
So during the 1944 election, who's going to win? Wendell Wilkie or Henry Wallace?
Grimm,
Fortunately, that TL ends with the Soviets offering to send soldiers to keep Wallace in power and Wallace finally realizes the error of his pro-Soviet ways. Better late than never.
WK,
If the US hadn't listened to "the liberals" (at least the Woodrow Wilson variety--LaFollette thought differently) in 1917 and entered WWI, there would have been no need for WWII.
Oh and by the way, Charles Lindbergh, one of the isolationists, wanted the US to have a strong military to defend the Western Hemisphere (a very, very big air force to flay anything crossing the ocean). He was just skeptical of the possibilities of waging a D-Day type landing in Europe.
Fortunately, that TL ends with the Soviets offering to send soldiers to keep Wallace in power and Wallace finally realizes the error of his pro-Soviet ways. Better late than never.
WK,
If the US hadn't listened to "the liberals" (at least the Woodrow Wilson variety--LaFollette thought differently) in 1917 and entered WWI, there would have been no need for WWII.
Oh and by the way, Charles Lindbergh, one of the isolationists, wanted the US to have a strong military to defend the Western Hemisphere (a very, very big air force to flay anything crossing the ocean). He was just skeptical of the possibilities of waging a D-Day type landing in Europe.
wkwill, I think the topic is where Wallace succeeds to the presidency on FDR's death, not winning the election. Wallace would have lost that election quite badly, a major reason FDR sought a fourth term(FDR knew only too well that his time was becoming short).
WWII was what ended the Depression, the New Deal's primary importance was establishing the safety net for people in need.
Most officers of any importance were pre-war officers, and any appraisal of the overall performence of our officer corps in WWII suggests that anyone seeing them as excessively conservative, let alone incompetent...just be glad such people never got hold office here, we might have lost the war.
The 'liberals' of Wallace's order were Hitler's allies until Operation Barbarossa began, and actively undermined the Western Allies, perhaps decisively in the case of France, the way they crippled French arms production for several key months.
A few token units given the dregs of supply and equipment? Not very impressive support for black or Nisei units, ESPECIALLY considering the ability of black soldiers was first proven over 80 years earlier.
Meanwhile by keeping Wallace on we just erased Truman, and there is no one to rally the center of the Democratic party through the late 1940s and on. Not hard to imagine history books commenting on the Democrats collapse from power under FDR to long-term impotence for decades after.
WWII was what ended the Depression, the New Deal's primary importance was establishing the safety net for people in need.
Most officers of any importance were pre-war officers, and any appraisal of the overall performence of our officer corps in WWII suggests that anyone seeing them as excessively conservative, let alone incompetent...just be glad such people never got hold office here, we might have lost the war.
The 'liberals' of Wallace's order were Hitler's allies until Operation Barbarossa began, and actively undermined the Western Allies, perhaps decisively in the case of France, the way they crippled French arms production for several key months.
A few token units given the dregs of supply and equipment? Not very impressive support for black or Nisei units, ESPECIALLY considering the ability of black soldiers was first proven over 80 years earlier.
Meanwhile by keeping Wallace on we just erased Truman, and there is no one to rally the center of the Democratic party through the late 1940s and on. Not hard to imagine history books commenting on the Democrats collapse from power under FDR to long-term impotence for decades after.
Minor quibbles
Since Wallace succeeded FDR in '45, he'd run in the 1948 election against Tom Dewey (who, incidentally, was the Republican candidate in '44, not Willkie, who died in 1944).
wkwillis said:
Since Wallace succeeded FDR in '45, he'd run in the 1948 election against Tom Dewey (who, incidentally, was the Republican candidate in '44, not Willkie, who died in 1944).
Straha
Banned
Given how the old politics (pre 68-72) worked it would have been almost
impossible to change the name on the ballot or the electoral slate for the Democratic Party in most states. Wallace would have stumped the country
claiming they were his by right and the Democratic bosses would have pledged their public support as they chose. My guess is that Dewey wins in the chaos but the only possibility I will not swallow is Wallace getting another
term.
So by the end of January Wallace is out and by the middle of October the political establishment, pundits and the permanent government have written him off.
No peace conference to end WW2. We keep what we seized (and we do get east of the Elbe but do not ever seriously threaten to take Berlin) and the
Russians do the same. No German surrender - they just all retreat into the
US / UK zones - war end takes till end of May as Germans evacuate as many as they can from last stringholds in East Prussia and Courland. Bohemia stays
in the Allied camp after Patton's advance allowed to continue. No zones in
Berlin and Vienna. Russia gets all of Korea, China to the Yangtse, Sinkiang, 1/2 of Persia, north Norway, northern Greece(red partisans plus a quick move by Red Army and Red Bulgars), northern Afghanistan (they didn't directly hold it but there is no way to stop them). Lend Lease continued until we have gotten out as many of our POW's (the Red Army overran 100K+ allied POW's, mostly shot down air crew), Poles and others who Stalin might permit to flee including German civilians and VolksDeutsche. First major crisis of the postwar has US sending troops and planes to Turkey when Stalin demands concessions in the Caucasus and bases on the Straits. Finland forced into the Sov Block - massive exodus of Finns to North America through Sweden. Sweden joins American Block. We deport millions of Italian, French, Benelux Reds and expartisans to the Red Block. Only willing returnees sent back East. A new free Poland made in the Rhineland, Saar and Ruhr. Marshall Plan is just civilian extension of Lend Lease and starts in 1945. So does NATO, flowing directly out of SHAEF. No war crimes trials - each victor just shoots and worst and imprisons the rest.
Russians take Hokkaido and north Honshu in immediate aftermath of atomic bombings. French in Vietnam and Dutch in Indonesia given a free hand.
First battle of the Cold War is two week long series of fights around and over Trieste - ends with AngloAmericans using Axis help to drive Tito's Reds away from the Italian and Austrian borderlands. Second concurrent set of battles to determine final lines in Greece. Neither allowed to escalate into a general war. Incidents along the line of contact in Germany, Czechia and Austria - think Korea post 1953.
US demobilization only partial. German and Japanese new armies both formed in 1945.
impossible to change the name on the ballot or the electoral slate for the Democratic Party in most states. Wallace would have stumped the country
claiming they were his by right and the Democratic bosses would have pledged their public support as they chose. My guess is that Dewey wins in the chaos but the only possibility I will not swallow is Wallace getting another
term.
So by the end of January Wallace is out and by the middle of October the political establishment, pundits and the permanent government have written him off.
No peace conference to end WW2. We keep what we seized (and we do get east of the Elbe but do not ever seriously threaten to take Berlin) and the
Russians do the same. No German surrender - they just all retreat into the
US / UK zones - war end takes till end of May as Germans evacuate as many as they can from last stringholds in East Prussia and Courland. Bohemia stays
in the Allied camp after Patton's advance allowed to continue. No zones in
Berlin and Vienna. Russia gets all of Korea, China to the Yangtse, Sinkiang, 1/2 of Persia, north Norway, northern Greece(red partisans plus a quick move by Red Army and Red Bulgars), northern Afghanistan (they didn't directly hold it but there is no way to stop them). Lend Lease continued until we have gotten out as many of our POW's (the Red Army overran 100K+ allied POW's, mostly shot down air crew), Poles and others who Stalin might permit to flee including German civilians and VolksDeutsche. First major crisis of the postwar has US sending troops and planes to Turkey when Stalin demands concessions in the Caucasus and bases on the Straits. Finland forced into the Sov Block - massive exodus of Finns to North America through Sweden. Sweden joins American Block. We deport millions of Italian, French, Benelux Reds and expartisans to the Red Block. Only willing returnees sent back East. A new free Poland made in the Rhineland, Saar and Ruhr. Marshall Plan is just civilian extension of Lend Lease and starts in 1945. So does NATO, flowing directly out of SHAEF. No war crimes trials - each victor just shoots and worst and imprisons the rest.
Russians take Hokkaido and north Honshu in immediate aftermath of atomic bombings. French in Vietnam and Dutch in Indonesia given a free hand.
First battle of the Cold War is two week long series of fights around and over Trieste - ends with AngloAmericans using Axis help to drive Tito's Reds away from the Italian and Austrian borderlands. Second concurrent set of battles to determine final lines in Greece. Neither allowed to escalate into a general war. Incidents along the line of contact in Germany, Czechia and Austria - think Korea post 1953.
US demobilization only partial. German and Japanese new armies both formed in 1945.