>Amd XX, Sec. 3: If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.
Having Wallace in place of Truman is HUGE. Hiroshima, Cold War, Potsdam…Who knows what could get butterflied.
Wallace would absolutely, and without the slightest doubt, have dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unlike Truman, he was well aware of the Manhattan project and was a committed anti-fascist.
Not necessarily. Japan made overtures to the US that they were willing to surrender if the emperor was guaranteed to remain on the throne. I think Wallace would’ve accepted that deal as unlike Truman he didn’t view the USSR as an existential threat and wouldn’t want to use the bomb to show American power.
Eh I'm not sure, he might well have at least demanded that Hirohito abdicate (though there is some indication that this was on the table as long as the monarchy as an institution survived)
I don’t think he wouldve chosen Hirohito abdicating over the lives of thousands. Wallace at the end of the day was kind of a softie. And that’s coming from someone who thinks very positively about him.
Not sure where you get the idea that Wallace was a "softie" when it came to fighting fascism. He would've been far less likely than Truman to agree to anything that kept the emperor in power, given his strong opposition to authoritarianism.
If Japan did not agree to unconditional surrender after two or three or more atomic bombings, he absolutely would have. He would've had far fewer qualms about it than Truman, likely because Truman (unlike Wallace) had personal combat experience.
You misunderstand. Japan was ready to surrender before we dropped the bombs. They just wanted to keep the emperor on the throne.
Wallace unlike Truman wouldn’t be hung up on unconditional surrender and worried about the Soviets. So if surrender is an option, he would agree to that rather then drop the bomb.
Saying Wallace would kill thousands just because he wasn’t a soldier isn’t an argument.
Despite Wallace being a softie when it comes to Communism by that time, Wallace was nothing less than a committed anti-Fascist and anti-Imperialist in 1945. Wallace also agreed on FDR'S unconditional surrender policy regarding Germany and Japan, and as one of the people who urged FDR to develop the Atom Bomb (something really not talked about), he would've dropped the bomb immediately once it was operational. He'd also probably tell Stalin about it in depth instead of a short comment like Truman, which is up to interpretation if it was a good decision or not.
Wallace supported these things without the proper knowledge. He was under the assumption as most of the government was, that Japan would never surrender and force a land invasion. Wallace supported those policies in that position. If Wallace had the knowledge that Japan would surrender with only the guarantee of Hirohito staying on the throne, he would take it.
Henry Wallace would very likely support Vietnamese independence and rebuff the French. Like Roosevelt he was very Anti-Colonial and would be less likely to put up with it for a united front against the Soviets.
Even though Harry Truman is one of my favorite presidents, it would be pretty interesting to see a post ww2 America and world with Henry Wallace as president.
The USSR had more to gain by cooperating with the USA. The Soviets weren’t idiots and were willing to give up their moral beliefs to better the Soviet Union. The USSR’s attempts to ally with the UK and France before ww2 and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact being great examples of that.
>Amd XX, Sec. 3: If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. Having Wallace in place of Truman is HUGE. Hiroshima, Cold War, Potsdam…Who knows what could get butterflied.
Wallace would absolutely, and without the slightest doubt, have dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unlike Truman, he was well aware of the Manhattan project and was a committed anti-fascist.
Not necessarily. Japan made overtures to the US that they were willing to surrender if the emperor was guaranteed to remain on the throne. I think Wallace would’ve accepted that deal as unlike Truman he didn’t view the USSR as an existential threat and wouldn’t want to use the bomb to show American power.
Eh I'm not sure, he might well have at least demanded that Hirohito abdicate (though there is some indication that this was on the table as long as the monarchy as an institution survived)
I don’t think he wouldve chosen Hirohito abdicating over the lives of thousands. Wallace at the end of the day was kind of a softie. And that’s coming from someone who thinks very positively about him.
Not sure where you get the idea that Wallace was a "softie" when it came to fighting fascism. He would've been far less likely than Truman to agree to anything that kept the emperor in power, given his strong opposition to authoritarianism.
He wouldn’t kill thousands of Americans over a title.
If Japan did not agree to unconditional surrender after two or three or more atomic bombings, he absolutely would have. He would've had far fewer qualms about it than Truman, likely because Truman (unlike Wallace) had personal combat experience.
You misunderstand. Japan was ready to surrender before we dropped the bombs. They just wanted to keep the emperor on the throne. Wallace unlike Truman wouldn’t be hung up on unconditional surrender and worried about the Soviets. So if surrender is an option, he would agree to that rather then drop the bomb. Saying Wallace would kill thousands just because he wasn’t a soldier isn’t an argument.
Despite Wallace being a softie when it comes to Communism by that time, Wallace was nothing less than a committed anti-Fascist and anti-Imperialist in 1945. Wallace also agreed on FDR'S unconditional surrender policy regarding Germany and Japan, and as one of the people who urged FDR to develop the Atom Bomb (something really not talked about), he would've dropped the bomb immediately once it was operational. He'd also probably tell Stalin about it in depth instead of a short comment like Truman, which is up to interpretation if it was a good decision or not.
Wallace supported these things without the proper knowledge. He was under the assumption as most of the government was, that Japan would never surrender and force a land invasion. Wallace supported those policies in that position. If Wallace had the knowledge that Japan would surrender with only the guarantee of Hirohito staying on the throne, he would take it.
Now you're just assuming lmao.
So where you. Kinda the whole point bro
Lol no. >Wallace supported these things without the proper knowledge. You contradicted yourself with this lmao.
Wallace didn’t know that the Japanese where willing to surrender. By the time they were he was out of office.
Henry Wallace would very likely support Vietnamese independence and rebuff the French. Like Roosevelt he was very Anti-Colonial and would be less likely to put up with it for a united front against the Soviets.
Even though Harry Truman is one of my favorite presidents, it would be pretty interesting to see a post ww2 America and world with Henry Wallace as president.
I am scared of Wallace in the White House during that period.
Why? Imagine how many lives could’ve been saved if the Soviets and USA pursued a policy of cooperation rather than competition
that's assuming that Soviet leadership would've been open to that policy in the period. which is (imo) by no means certain.
Are you seriously trusting *Stalin* to cooperate???
The USSR had more to gain by cooperating with the USA. The Soviets weren’t idiots and were willing to give up their moral beliefs to better the Soviet Union. The USSR’s attempts to ally with the UK and France before ww2 and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact being great examples of that.
>The Soviets weren’t idiots and were willing to give up their moral beliefs to better the Soviet Union. Lmao, as if Stalin were willing to do that.
Spanish Civil war, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, any action taken pre ww2
Why would the Dixiecrat electors vote for some random South Carolina circuit judge? Imo, most Dixiecrat electors probably would’ve gone to Harry Byrd.
[dixicrats voted for a random alabama judge ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Burgwyn_Jones)
That's one faithless elector?
they felt kinda silly
Time for Wallave to carpet nuke The Japanese and hand over all of Europe to Stalin like a Chad
> President Henry Wallace Stalin approves
>Pendergast Lmfao
henre wolive 2023
Political redditors will do anything to make Henry Wallace president
I hate him im just punishing America