Harry S. Truman, the Democrat incumbent, who won. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Truman In his second term (1949-53), he got us into the Korean War and . . . well, that’s the only thing I can think of. Everything else we remember him for (such as integrating the military) dates from his first term.
Thomas E. Dewey, Republican. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dewey He was the governor of New York who famously was declared the winner by the Chicago Daily Tribune. His campaign rhetoric was famously content-free (he was counting on victory based on Truman’s declining popularity, so he didn’t want to blow it by saying anything that might alienate anybody), so it’s hard to say what he was actually running on. But as governor, he did put through the first state law in the U.S. that prohibited racial discrimination in employment. (Earlier, Dewey, as a district attorney, had gone after the gangster Dutch Schultz – who was assassinated by other mobsters largely because of his utterly reckless talk of assassinating Dewey.)
Henry A. Wallace, Progressive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace In FDR’s administration, Wallace had served as secretary of agriculture, and as vice-president, and as secretary of commerce – from which post Truman fired him in 1946. After that he became editor of The New Republic and criticized Truman’s hawkish foreign policy. He ran in 1948 on a platform of an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance. He accepted the support of the Communist Party. (In 1952 Wallace published a book, Why I Was Wrong, in which he said he had been mistaken in underestimating the Soviet threat and now considered himself an anti-Communist.)
Strom Thurmond, Dixiecrat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond Thurmond, the governor of South Carolina, ran as the candidate of a short-lived splinter party, the “Dixiecrat” or “States Rights Democratic Party,” that bolted the Democratic Convention over Truman’s civil rights platform. It was dedicated to the preservation of the South’s Jim Crow laws. So far as I know, that was Thurmond’s whole platform. (It seems the whole country had pretty much forgotten about his candidacy until Trent Lott made the mistake of bringing it up at Thurmond’s 100th birthday party in 2002.)
How would history had gone differently if Dewey had won the election?
Wallace and Thurmond were both third party candidates and therefore had no chance of actually winning the election. Dewey, on the other hand, was overwhelmingly favored to win, primarily because of the three-way split amongst the Democrats. Had Dewey won, I think we still would have gotten into Korea. North Korea’s invasion of the South had to be met with international resistance. The wars of aggression of the 1930s (Japan into China, Germany into much of Europe, Italy into Ethiopia) were still too fresh in people’s minds to ignore another war of aggression so soon after. The UN didn’t want to quickly turn into another League of Nations, and the US had to lead the effort. Plus, how could Dewey allow a communist country to forcefully swallow up its neighbor without responding? His own party would have crucified him.
I know, I know, but let’s just assume for the sake of argument.
But the Korean War was a civil war within Korea. It was not about a Communist country “swallowing up its neighbor.” Not even when China (rather late in the game) got invovled.
Why wait until 1948 to alter history? If you want to imagine Wallace in the White House, just assume Roosevelt didn’t dump him from the ticket in 1944.
The years 1948-1952 probably wouldn’t have gone that much differently; Truman was not that much different from progressive/liberal Republicans of the time between his emphasis on continuing the New Deal (though not particularly expanding it), moving forward on Civil Rights, and opposing Communism. Dewey’s government really wouldn’t have been much of a change, though it might have been more pro-business than Truman’s generally pro-labor stance. Likewise, once the Korean War broke out, I can’t imagine that a Dewey administration wouldn’t have reacted in the same way that the Truman administration did; and I can’t imagine that Dewey would have reacted to MacArthur’s plans and insubordinance any differently than Truman did.
Even McCarthyism would have erupted and played out much the same; McCarthy had no problem attacking the Eisenhower Administration and the Army, so a Dewey Administration wouldn’t have been safe.
So the only thing a Dewey Administration might change is the lineup of who followed him- would Eisenhower have decided to be a Democrat in 1952 to run against a Dewey Administration sinking in the muck of Korea and being lambasted by McCarthy for being soft on Communism? Or would Ike wait until 1956 to run as a Republican either as successor to Dewey or as opponent to President Someoneelse?
Nothing good. Wallace wanted an expansion of the New Deal to levels that a large chunk of Democrats though excessive; I can’t imagine Congress going along with many- if any- of his proposals, but I can see the Republicans making a lot of hay out of how socialist “Roosevelt’s Favorite” wanted the government to become. And given how Wallace’s campaign staff ended up including actual Stalinists, McCarthy, Nixon, and HUAC would have had a field day.
In foreign policy, Wallace would have been an unmitigated disaster. He was an apologist for Stalin and campaign on the idea that if the Soviets were just left alone, everything would end up okay. He would later recant that position, but if the U.S. President from 1948-1952 had been willing to simply let the Soviets do what they wanted, much more of world would have ended up with Communist governments- South Korea at the very least, but also likely Turkey, Greece, and Iran; and maybe even Italy and France.
Also disaster. Most of Thurmond’s policies wouldn’t have been too far out of the Truman-Dewey mold; but what would have been different was the government’s policies towards integration. African-American civil rights and Truman’s efforts to integrate the armed services would likely have been rolled back a great deal. And since Thurmond’s election would have proven that pushing for civil rights would get a reactionary elected, it’s unlikely we’d be debusing and integrating the armed services until the late 80’s or early '90’s.
Um, no. No, it wasn’t a civil war- it was the communist Northern Korean government deciding it was the rightful ruler of all of Korea, and sending the army to occupy the South.
Unless you have a cite for it being a ‘civil war’.
And the big change comes in 1953, when Chief Justice Vinson dies. Vice President Warren in 1948 probably means no Chief Justice Warren in 1953, and without Warren as Chief Justice…
In 1950, North and South Korea were two separate nations. The war started on June 25th, 1950 when North Korea crossed the 38th Parallel and invaded South Korea. That is not my defination of a civil war. China entered the war in late November of 1950. That’s not late in the game at all. North Korea was a communist country that wanted to overthrow Dr. Syngman Rhee, the ruler of South Korea, and unify Korea under a communist government. To me, that is a communist country wanting to “swallow up its neighbor.”
They were two separate zones of occupation in a single country. The change by the Soviets of their half into a separate country was very recent and artificial. It is not accurate to call it a civil war, agreed, but not for the reason you specify - there was no internal, domestic matter that couldn’t be resolved peaceably, it was a proxy war between the Cold War power. The aggression wasn’t by North Korea but by the USSR.
This OP just illustrates how little one needs to deviate from actual history to enter mere La-La Land instead.
No. Even today, the majority of Koreans (at least South Koreans I’ve talked to; no experience with Northerners) think of Korea as one nation. Two governments, yes; but one nation.
The old “marching orders from the Kremlin” view of communism has been pretty much refuted. It’s generally agreed that Kim Il-Sung was the one who pushed for taking control of southern Korea.
How did U.S. action at the time change the course of events in those countries? I’ve never heard of any military intervention. (The CIA did orchestrate a coup to oust Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, restoring the Shah to absolute power; but that wasn’t until 1953, and Mossadegh was no Communist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax)
As part of the Truman Doctrine, the US gave $400 million in aid to Grece and Turkey in 1947 to prevent internal communist takeovers. No US military intervention was required.