from a Quora = What If Henry Wallace had been kept as FDR's VP?

Brent Cooper
Trial and appellate counsel for Cooper & Scully (1993–present)Sun

What would America be like today if Henry Wallace had been chosen to
serve a second term as FDR's vice president instead of Truman?

Barkley, Wallace and Truman

The Roosevelt-Wallace ticket won the 1940 election,, and Wallace
continued to play an important role in the Roosevelt administration
before and during WWII.

At the 1944 Democratic National Convention, the conservative wing of the
Democratic Party defeated Henry Wallace's bid for renomination, placing
Truman on the Democratic ticket in his stead. The Roosevelt-Truman
ticket won the 1944 election, and in early 1945 Roosevelt appointed
Wallace as Secretary of Commerce as a consolation prize.

But what if Henry Wallace had been VP in 1944. Was the conservative wing
right? FDR died in April 1945 and Truman succeeded him as president.
Wallace did continue to serve as secretary of commerce until September
1946. Truman fired Wallace for giving an address in Madison Square
Garden attacking the Truman administration for excessive anti-Communist
zeal.

Wallace dismissed Truman's alarming statements about meeting the
communist threat as part of a “deliberately created crisis,”

At this time Truman fired him for delivering a speech urging
conciliatory policies toward the Soviets. Wallace and his supporters
then established the nationwide Progressive Party and launched a
third-party campaign for president.

The Progressive platform called for conciliatory policies toward the
Soviets and other left-wing policies. Accusations of Communist influence
followed, and Wallace's association with controversial Theosophist
figure Nicholas Roerich undermined his campaign; he received just 2.4%
of the popular vote.

Henry Wallace would have been a disaster. Potsdam would have been a
disaster. He would have been more sympathetic to the communists than FDR.

Wallace would have more receptive to Stalin’s expansion plans. He would
have opposed the Marshall Plan because of the impact on the Soviets.
Stalin would have taken much more of Europe. The Cold War would have
lasted much longer.

Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis has written that “there is Soviet
documentation that Wallace was regularly reporting to the Kremlin in
1945 and 1946 while he was in the Truman administration.”Later, when
Truman was considering a secret effort to approach the Soviets, his
effort was “blown wide open by Wallace when he was running for president
on the Progressive Party ticket” in 1948.

In 1952, Wallace wrote an article, “Why I Was Wrong,” in which he
declared that his earlier stance in defense of Soviet policies had been
mistaken. Too little too late. It was a good thing he was not the VP in
1944.

7.6K viewsView 83 upvotesView 2 shares
2 comments

Armando Garza
· 2h ago
More proof that FDR is an overrated president

John Fitzgerald
· 13h ago
Thank you: that was very illuminating. I’m always delighted to learn
more about our recent history. Well done!

On 2/9/2022 8:39 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 13:47:18 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>from a Quora = What If Henry Wallace had been kept as FDR's VP?
>>
>> Brent Cooper
>> Trial and appellate counsel for Cooper & Scully (1993–present)Sun
>>
>> What would America be like today if Henry Wallace had been chosen to
>> serve a second term as FDR's vice president instead of Truman?
>>
-------
>> Henry Wallace would have been a disaster. Potsdam would have been a
>> disaster. He would have been more sympathetic to the communists than FDR.
>>
>> Wallace would have more receptive to Stalin’s expansion plans. He would
>> have opposed the Marshall Plan because of the impact on the Soviets.
>> Stalin would have taken much more of Europe. The Cold War would have
>> lasted much longer.
>>
-------
>>
>> In 1952, Wallace wrote an article, “Why I Was Wrong,” in which he
>> declared that his earlier stance in defense of Soviet policies had been
>> mistaken. Too little too late. It was a good thing he was not the VP in
>> 1944.------
>>
>
> I'm quite disappointed in this discussion since a scenario with
> Wallace becoming president on the death of FDR is probably THE most
> famous "long scenario" in the alt.history.what-if /
> soc.history.what-if. Admittedly in For All Time FDR dies two weeks
> after Pearl Harbor but it's essentially the same scenario and in my
> opinion FAR better written than the Quora version. (And much more
> dystopian if you ask me...)
>
> https://www.alternatehistory.com/foralltime/
>

Ahhh, hopefully, you are not really meaning that
nobody should try to throw out for discussion,
any idea, because somewhere in the past somebody
in your opinion has done it better?

Think we all should just go with the flow and
let the newsgroups die?

And, by the way, that cited work seems like a quite
interesting alternative fiction novel, but really gets
off into speculations entirely unrelated to Wallace.

On 2/11/22 12:05 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 19:13:28 -0800, a425couple
> <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> https://www.alternatehistory.com/foralltime/
>>>
>>
>> Ahhh, hopefully, you are not really meaning that
>> nobody should try to throw out for discussion,
>> any idea, because somewhere in the past somebody
>> in your opinion has done it better?
>>
>> Think we all should just go with the flow and
>> let the newsgroups die?
>>
>> And, by the way, that cited work seems like a quite
>> interesting alternative fiction novel, but really gets
>> off into speculations entirely unrelated to Wallace.
>
> Unfortunately that is so often the case.
>
> I've checked out various Quora historical threads and I regularly see
> them discussing things that were old hat here back when my connection
> was 1200 baud...
>
> No doubt Wallace is a most interesting character but equally he's not
> particularly interesting in terms of WI's unless you have FDR die
> first and during 1940-44 - one thing I have NEVER seen is that FDR
> either retires in 1944 (which to my mind doesn't work if WW2 is still
> going in November 1944 unless Valkyrie succeeds spectacularly...

20 July is way too late; the Democrat convention was already
underway.

Maybe if one of the earlier attempts succeeded
> ... or is permanently
> incapacitated by then - which in my view still makes the Democratic
> party powers that be pick somebody else for president.

If FDR has a health crisis _before_ the convention (but not
too long before), Wallace could have had the nomination.

However, would he win? The Republicans have the "Dear Guru" letters,
and unlike 1940, the Democrats have no counter-threat.

> My question is if FDR survived even a year longer would Wallace have
> survived politically? Because I do think that FDR was well on his way
> to outdo anything Wallace ever advocated before he died. Particularly
> in rebuilding the postwar Soviet Union on the American taxpayer's
> nickel via "lend lease" or whatever it's called in this scenario. If
> he does I cannot see the American economic recovery of 1945-47 being
> nearly as robust as in OTL. Nor western Europe since I don't see the
> US being able to be nearly as generous to them as they were in OTL if
> 1944-45 and high lend lease to the Soviets is happening in late
> 1945-46 or beyond.

ISTM that in this scenario aid (call it the Wallace Plan) would
be extended to the USSR (and eastern Europe), but not at the expense
of western Europe.

> Please understand I'm talking strictly internationally - and not at
> all covering the domestic scene at all.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.