Is anyone opposed to a timeline with no Vietnam war?
Al Gore is. He said so the other day.
Oh, yes, if Thurmond had been elected, Truman would have never gotten the chance to re-impose the Japanese puppet government on the Korean people. The Nationalists would not have fled North with Kim Il Sung and there would have been NO KOREAN WAR.
Is anyone opposed to a timeline without the Korean War?
Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and a host of other mind-numbed knee-jerk Liberals who failed to stay awake in History 101 really do believe that the wicked Truman regime was the best America could do at the time.
Then, too, how about that order Truman signed in 1947 to come up with a "list of subversives" in the Army? If he had not been elected in 1948, nothing would have come of it. There would have been no Army/McCarthy Hearings, no Tailgunner Joe with yet other "lists" of Commies, pinkos and crypto-fascists!
Through the passage of time Liberals could have backed out of their relationship with the Stalinist conspiracy, and might even have been rehabilitated into honest, God-fearing Americans.
All of that would have been possible without Harry Truman in the picture. You could elect a Wallace, a Thurmond, or, lo and behold, Tom Dewey, in 1948 and the world would have been much better in many respects.