Here's a What-If for you - What if FDR wasn't President in 1941?

[Dave H]

I've seen a lot of the what-if scenarios floating around lately. Most of them are concerned with tactics like invading here instead of there, or using this aircraft instead of that one. Here's one concerning global politics you may not have considered:

In 1937 FDR's polio suddenly flared up. Although he was given the best treatment available, eventually being confined to an iron lung, he died. He was succeeded by Vice President John Nance "Cactus Jack" Garner. Without FDR opposing it, soon the Ludlow Amendment easily passed through both Houses of Congress. It provided that, except in cases of invasion, "the authority of Congress to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast in a nationwide referendum."

By 1939, the Ludlow Amendment had been ratified by enough states to become part of the US Constitution. President Garner easily won re-election in 1940. John L. Lewis of the UMW characterized him as a "labor-baiting, poker-playing, whiskey-drinking, evil old man" for his opposition to organized labor and his method of "influencing" votes in Congress. Under President Garner there was no Lend-Lease for the UK, which was barely hanging on after Dunkirk. There was no Arsenal of Freedom. Garner, unlike FDR, was no Anglophile, and he turned a cold shoulder to Winston Churchill and yet another war raging in Europe.

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the USA declined to send so much as a single bullet to the Communists. Indeed, the American merchant marine was busily delivering food, fuel, trucks, medical supplies, and other cargo to French, German, and Italian ports. There were no US Navy destroyers escorting convoys through the U-boat infested Atlantic and Mediterranean, as the American flag was a guarantee of safe passage from the German submarines.

Imagine Churchill's reaction to the US freely supplying Hitler and Mussolini. How far would he have gone to stop it? Would he have declared unrestricted warfare against American-flagged merchant ships? Would he have authorized an Oran-style pre-emptive attack against the US Atlantic Fleet to keep it from opposing the RN? Imagine that on Sunday, December 7, 1941 a British aircraft carrier conducted a Taranto-like raid on Hampton Roads, sinking several American battleships.

Congress could no longer simply declare war. The US would have to conduct a national referendum on entering the war. Think of the anti-UK frenzy that election would have stirred up. Think the world would be a different place now?

[junk2drive]

For the Sealion project I wrote the opposite story. FDR loses the election and the US enters the War after the Sealion invasion (July 1940). There were training bases already in the works in Ireland.

More if I can find my bs.

Edit

US election was Nov 1940, still can't find my bs.

[ December 06, 2004, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: junk2drive ]

[Seanachai]

What if I showed up in the biological sink of southern Indiana and beat you to death with a hoe. No, a 'hoe', goddamnit!

Okay, perhaps that wasn't in the proper spirit of the topic.

Well...given the scenario you posit...George W. Bush would have decided on war against France (the weakest link) with the declared intent of 'putting an end to Vichy weapons programs aimed at WMDs', with the stated hope of 'breaking the stranglehold of terrorist regimes and introducing a Democratically Elected nation into Europe.'

Then he would have declined to use US troops to police the ongoing nightmare in the former Soviet Union.

Then he would have charged Britain another late fee on White Papers showing how much more they would have been able to suck up to the US if the US had entered the War before Hitler's victory.

Finally, Instead of bemusedly watching News Reports on Fidel holding on to power, despite anything approaching sanity, we'd be bemusedly watching yet another horrifying 'Three Tenors' special on PBS introduced by 'Il Duce'.

Oh, and 'Adolph' would still be a viable name for boy children in Europe and portions of America, like Ohio and the Southwest...

[junk2drive]

I've been to southern Indiana, French Lick to be exact. Home of Larry Bird and an old resort hotel built on grounds with mineral springs.

Anyway a forum search turned up: thread

November 1940, Wilkie wins the US presidential election after Roosevelt continues to refuse to get involved in another European war.

Calls for more support of the hopeless British in their attempt to drive the Nazis off the Isles have resulted in little more than boatloads of supplies.

Wilkie quickly gets Congress to declare war on the Axis.

wikiepedia election 1940

Wilkie campaigned against the New Deal and the government's lack of military preparedness. During the election, Roosevelt preempted the military issue by expanding military contracts. Wilkie then reversed his approach and accused Roosevelt of warmongering. On election day Roosevelt received 27 million votes to Wilkie's 22 million, and in the Electoral College, Roosevelt defeated Wilkie 449 to 82.

The election was held on November 5, 1940.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

I've been to southern Indiana...

You remain interesting. I imagine, when it comes right down to it, I will beat you to death with a hoe last...

No, 'hoe', goddamn it! What's with you people?

[junk2drive]

From Hyperwar I got this CMH Chronology of US plans for Northern Ireland starting April 1941 showing that the US was planning for war long before Pearl Harbor.

Today is the anniversary of the bombing.

As it says at cmmods, never forget.

[junk2drive]

"Imagine Churchill's reaction to the US freely supplying Hitler and Mussolini. How far would he have gone to stop it?"

I think you will find that the US did just that. Look up JFK's father Joe or Joseph Kennedy. Ford and GM did a lively business.

As the US was primarily a country of British decendents, I think that if Hitler would have successfully invaded England, the US populace would have had a different attitude than pre Pearl.

[David I]

David H,

OK. The Germans win. Better?

David I

[Tero]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

November 1940, Wilkie wins the US presidential election after Roosevelt continues to refuse to get involved in another European war.

Calls for more support of the hopeless British in their attempt to drive the Nazis off the Isles have resulted in little more than boatloads of supplies.

Wilkie quickly gets Congress to declare war on the Axis.

How could he have overcome any quicker the Congress isolationists who were forestalling any and all involvement in European wars if FDR (supposedly) had such great difficulties in coersing the country to war ?

[Wisbech_lad]

You raise an interesting point on neutral cargo ships.

I would assume that Britain did immediately declare blockade of Germany in 1939? And that any incoming cargo ships (e.g. under Portugal flag) were politely but firmly turned away?

How far would USN push it - would they have escorted US cargo ships to Hamburg?

The other "what if" from President Garner would be the "what if USA never embargoes Japan" - presumably they continue with the Army's China focus, and don't strike South East Asia or Pearl Harbour

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

You raise an interesting point on neutral cargo ships.

I would assume that Britain did immediately declare blockade of Germany in 1939? And that any incoming cargo ships (e.g. under Portugal flag) were politely but firmly turned away?

How far would USN push it - would they have escorted US cargo ships to Hamburg?

The other "what if" from President Garner would be the "what if USA never embargoes Japan" - presumably they continue with the Army's China focus, and don't strike South East Asia or Pearl Harbour

Turning away neutral ships from Portugal or Panama is one thing. Turning away neutral ships from a major world power is something else entirely. Since under Roosevelt the USN was quite willing to convoy "neutral" shipping to England, one can only imagine.

I was thinking along exactly the same lines in the Pacific. As long as the US remained isolationist - that is, willing to sell to whoever had the most money - there was no conflict between the US and Japan. Among other consequences, the Pacific Fleet would probably have remained at San Diego, not at Pearl Harbor.

Japan's war in China would likely have remained the military's focus indefinitely. Presumably the goal would have remained to conquer the entire country, which is a massive undertaking. On the other hand, a United Kingdom totally dependent on shipping from the Commonwealth may have prompted Japan to attack Singapore and Hong Kong earlier.

Seanachai, at first your threats of beating me with a hoe ("That's HOE, dummy!" in my best Redd Foxx voice) concerned me. Then I remembered that the average garden gnome isn't strong enough to lift a hoe. Since you, like all <font size=1>penguins</font>, are far from anything so lofty as "average", I stopped worrying.

[junk2drive]

Since what ifs and conspiracy theories go hand in hand;

I wasn't alive in those days. I can only guess public and political sentiment of the times. The pre war planning and spending by the USA leads me to wonder if Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen to change public sentiment.

Tero

I am fairly sure that if the UK was occupied by the Nazis that things would have been different in the USA. The election results in the above link were fairly close. If Wilkie stayed with his pro war platform, with an occupied England, maybe he wins and Congress has to follow his lead.

[MikeyD]

If FDR wasn't president:

...in the U.S. as the European war continues without them:

The U.S. electorate, watching from the sidelines is itself becoming increasingly split. The growing U.S. Nazi party (the country's dirty little secret in the 30s) has won several House seats after close local elections and, emboldened by Hitler's example, have made a name for themselves proposing outrageous anti-Jewish ammendments to every bill that comes before the House. Fist-fights between legislators have erupted in the halls of the Capitol. The Labor movement, seeing its hard-won gains evaporate without FDR's backing, is in the process of radicalizing. Bloody confrontations on the scale of the 1930's veteran's bonus march on Washington D.C. become regular front-page headlines. The public strife strengthen's the American fascists' hand further. Seeing the Soviet Union as Labor's last hope against the combined might of the Fascists and the Corporations, unemployed American workers by the thousands volunteer to fight for the Russian cause. The few men that eventually return will form the hard core of a violent revolutionary worker's underground that will plague America for the next 50 years.

[Tero]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

I am fairly sure that if the UK was occupied by the Nazis that things would have been different in the USA. The election results in the above link were fairly close. If Wilkie stayed with his pro war platform, with an occupied England, maybe he wins and Congress has to follow his lead.

The thing is Hitler may not have opted for a direct occupation but a "honourable" peace.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by MikeyD: Seeing the Soviet Union as Labor's last hope against the combined might of the Fascists and the Corporations, unemployed American workers by the thousands volunteer to fight for the Russian cause.

LOL!

Take a look at Germany after Hitler took power: 90% of the laborers were won within months!

In Italy almost the same, but not that rapidly.

I don't know why you're spreading here bolshevistic propaganda, but it is a ridiculous myth, that the laborers all over the world, were supporting the Bolsheviks.

The jews all over the world and the communists were doing so. But not the average laborer.

And when the average laborer saw, how the laborers were living in the 'laborer's paradise' in the USSR, and they looked at their own either fascistic or nationalsocialistic country, their income and the social system, the decision wasn't really that hard.

BTW: did you know, that civilian german KDF-ships already in 1937 weren't allowed to anchor at British harbors? Guess why.

[ December 09, 2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Wisbech_lad]

Arggghhh@%^&!!

Must... resist... debating... with... forum... neofascist...

Steiner, leaving aside the cruelty of Nazi Germany, there's a reason why there are no fascist or communist states left in Europe. They (command and control systems) Just Don't Work in the long run. Sure, you can get 10-15 years of "amazing" growth due to forced savings and over investment, but it comes to a shuddering stop.

Spain and Portugal were the most "successful" and long lasting experiments in fascism, and both switched to liberal democracy in the 70's. Communism managed to last half a generation longer (end of 80's/ early 90's) but you can only get so much growth out of dictated over investment (e.g. Germany KDF plan, Stalin's collectivisation, Franco's covering S. Spain with concrete hotels), before the inefficiencies of such an approach (and lack of consumption, making people's lives unattractive) bite you on the arse.

There may be a case for authoritarian overinvestment in infrastructure for a while (e.g. Korea/ Singapore/ Japan) but if you don't time the switch to a market economy in time, oops.

Oh, and Hi Mum!

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

(snip)

Oh, and Hi Mum!

Good points all around. Thanks to all who contributed to this exercise in fantasy. Now that "The Jews" have been brought into the discussion, I think it's time to lock it up.

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

What if I showed up in the biological sink of southern Indiana and beat you to death with a hoe. No, a 'hoe', goddamnit!

Okay, perhaps that wasn't in the proper spirit of the topic.

Well...given the scenario you posit...George W. Bush would have decided on war against France (the weakest link) with the declared intent of 'putting an end to Vichy weapons programs aimed at WMDs', with the stated hope of 'breaking the stranglehold of terrorist regimes and introducing a Democratically Elected nation into Europe.'

Then he would have declined to use US troops to police the ongoing nightmare in the former Soviet Union.

Then he would have charged Britain another late fee on White Papers showing how much more they would have been able to suck up to the US if the US had entered the War before Hitler's victory.

Finally, Instead of bemusedly watching News Reports on Fidel holding on to power, despite anything approaching sanity, we'd be bemusedly watching yet another horrifying 'Three Tenors' special on PBS introduced by 'Il Duce'.

Oh, and 'Adolph' would still be a viable name for boy children in Europe and portions of America, like Ohio and the Southwest...

I agree with this statement, except I'd prefer Haile Selassie introducing "Three Mo' Tenors".

[Steiner14]

@Wisbech

You're obviously a very profound conneussoirs of Third Reich's economy, aren't you?

How about facts, instead of fantasizing like MikeyD about the US laborers fighting for glorious Bolshevism?

I'm thrilled to hear now some facts about Germany's (and maybe in comparison the capitalistic states') economical data of that time:

I'm interested in the development of public and private debts, development of the number of unemployed, development of the Germans income, inflation, price level for rents and goods, budget for armament, social welfare, crime stats, development of trade...

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Dave H:

If it is allowed to talk about every people, why not about the jews?

Don't you find it interesting or do they have something to hide?

[Sequoia]

All Right! I get to say "Hi Mom!" for my first time.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

If it is allowed to talk about every people, why not about the jews?

Depends on what you want to say.

Originally posted by Steiner14:

The jews all over the world and the communists were doing so.

Really? What do you mean with that? Would you like to point out some prominent Jews in Finnish Communist Party?

The funny thing is that if we carry on this conversation, at the next turn you will say that the Jews own all the banks and big enterprises. So they are both communists and capitalists. Neat. You'd probably want to call them as cross-bred atheists too, but then it'd be hard to call them as Jews, what a pity.

But don't let logic stop you at this point, you've comen so far without it. I want to see you get yourself banned with your antisemitic ramblings like Schoerner did. I'm tired of Nazi trash and don't want to see any of it in this forum.

[MrPeng]

What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?

[patboy]

What if FDR wasn't President in 1941 ?

I think he couldn't have his name on the avenue at Paris.(near Champs Elysées)

[ December 21, 2004, 03:10 AM: Message edited by: patboy ]

[junk2drive]

As I continue my quest to use the nifty early war mods, here is more of this story. (See my CMBB post)

As previously pondered here, the Japanese do not attack as Wilkie (in 1941) sells them oil to pay for the increasing defense budget.

Development of the M2 and M3 tanks is pushed ahead of the historical schedule by Roosevelt under public pressure for more defense and the occupation of England. By fall 1940 lend lease tanks are arriving in North Ireland and Scotland.

By winter 40-41 the Germans are moving further north slowed only by terrain, weather and pockets of resistance.

to be continued....