Expecting to be kept on as VP in 1944, and facing FDR's imminent death, Henry Wallace, was sure to be the next US President. He already chose Harry Dexter White as Secretary of State, who was a communist reporting to the NKVD, said the FBI. Then we would have had a communist sympathizer (Wallace) and a real communist (White), negotiating with Stalin at Yalta! At the same time, if King Edward VIII, a strong Nazi sympathizer who met with Hitler, hadn't abdicated, Britain would have had a Nazi King. With that combination what would the West be like? It's a good thing that the Democrats dumped Wallace in 1944 and chose Truman, and that King Edward VIII spent the rest of his life married to the American divorcee Wally Simpson, as a civilian.

__________________
http://home.comcast.net/~petemetzger

Not being British I don't have a complete understanding of the influence of the King upon the society. The King doesn't make policy or declare war though, right? So even if the king were a Nazi sympathizer there would not have been too huge a difference.

The other prospect is much more frightening. If the Secretary of State were an instrument of another government, that would have been extremely disastorous for America. I could see all of Europe in Soviet hands.

__________________
PEOPLE SLEEP PEACEABLY IN THEIR BEDS AT NIGHT ONLY BECAUSE ROUGH MEN STAND READY TO DO VIOLENCE ON THEIR BEHALF. GEORGE ORWELL

Ice,
The monarch is only a titular head of state. He/she opens & closes Parliament, the PM needs to formally ask permission to form a cabinet after an election, and all Parliamentary legislative bills need royal assent before being adopted.
You're right that they don't make policy etc, and the fact Edward VIII was forced to abdicate over Wallis Simpson shows that he can (at least in theory!) be 'got rid of'.
When you consider how pro-Nazi the British middle and upper classes were pre-war, I think the idea of Edward being monarch at the time of the invasion of Poland would at least have made the declaration of war that much more difficult. I think it would still have happened though; when Moseley's Black Shirts marched through the east end of London in the '30s, it was working class mobs which attacked them every time. Any anti-war sentiment tended to come from the upper classes.
Personally I think the abdication crisis might have happened again in September 1939. Edward would have lost an enormous amount of popularity by marrying Simpson, and any pro-Nazi sympathy after Poland would have been the final straw. If he hadn't abdicated in '36, I think he would have been forced to resign then, but I shudder to think what that would have done to Britain's war effort. At the very least, national morale would have collapsed on the very eve of war, perhaps totally.

__________________
Regards,

Gordon
History Vault Bookshop
FortressScotland-http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/Historian/

I didn't have enough space to add something hot: Yalta was a pivotal and delicate game that Stalin played and won. With "what-if" President Henry Wallace there, Stalin would surely have won it all. But even as it was, FDR's team had a definite Stalinist spin, which may explain why FDR did give away so much. In pictures from Yalta, an assistant of FDR is seen leaning over the President giving advice. This sinister presence was none other than Alger Hiss, another real Communist. How much did he influence FDR?

__________________
http://home.comcast.net/~petemetzger

Although I'm the last person to be considered an expert in Constitutional matters, I've always had the impression the Edward VIII would not have been a 'good man for the job', and that this was widely believed at the time.

Churchill, in his total loyalty to Edward VIII at the time, is believed to have exercised rather poor judgement over the abdication.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Martin, or anybody really, I am not familiar with the poor judgement you refer to. What was that?

__________________
PEOPLE SLEEP PEACEABLY IN THEIR BEDS AT NIGHT ONLY BECAUSE ROUGH MEN STAND READY TO DO VIOLENCE ON THEIR BEHALF. GEORGE ORWELL

Sorry, bigiceman, I am getting into territory here which I'm only vaguely familiar with - it's been many years since I read about it.

My own impression is that Churchill 'sided' with Edward until the bitter end through his devotion to the Royal Family. I'll have to go deep into my book collection, though, to find a more balanced argument about this .....

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Martin, thanks but don't go to any extrodinary effort. That is just something I didn't pick up from my history lessons. We got told about Edward's abdication but didn't go into the homeland politics.

__________________
PEOPLE SLEEP PEACEABLY IN THEIR BEDS AT NIGHT ONLY BECAUSE ROUGH MEN STAND READY TO DO VIOLENCE ON THEIR BEHALF. GEORGE ORWELL

Well, I am definately very satisfied with the fact that it was FDR and not somebody else, the one that led the country until almost the end, making enormous physical sacrifices. I mean, who isn't moved by FDR at Yalta, where he could barely keep his head straight and lift his cigarette… still, he persevered and did a fine job as Head of State and C.-in-C. The fact that Stalin dominated the meeting was not because FDR had communist advisors, it was because FDR knew that: 1) Stalin had 400 divisions at the gates of Budapest, Berlin and Prague, after his forces had done must of the work to break Germany's back and after his people endured horrible suffering. Therefore, the Soviet leader was in position to demand almost anything. 2) He knew that after the war, only the USSR and the US would remain as effective worldwide powers and that they would be the direct beneficiaries of the collapse of the British Empire. Also, that in the future they would confront each other, even get involved in a war. So, it was better not to mess up things and give Germany the coup de grâce and make the final effort against Japan.

As to Edward VIII, I agree with Gordon. British morale perhaps would have collapsed under the playboy and pro-nazi King. His less charismatic brother, George VI, nonetheless, had nerve and resolution. He had learned a great deal from his father in WWI: he visited the people, the soldiers and sailors, played very well his own diplomatic rôle and was well aware of his Empire's situation. It was very good for Great Britain to have him instead of his brother.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Fried, you speak very authoritatively in these forums about what FDR thought about future developments after WWII. Are you a student of FDR's administration? I have never heard the things that you have mentioned before, and that is not suprising. Just curious. [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
PEOPLE SLEEP PEACEABLY IN THEIR BEDS AT NIGHT ONLY BECAUSE ROUGH MEN STAND READY TO DO VIOLENCE ON THEIR BEHALF. GEORGE ORWELL

Well, in fact, I haven't studied FDR as much as I'd like to. I mean, I haven't, to date, even read a detailed complete biography, but I am well aware (or, at least, I think I am) of his general achievements and legacy regarding the development of WWII and of the very United States.

Maybe it can be disputed whether FDR had all that in mind or whether it was just a result of non-connected actions and events. Though, if not on purpose, no one can deny how immense was his influence on American and worldwide history.

Here's the pic I was talking about:

http://www.promotion.opb.org/yalta/Downloads/yalta.jpg

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun