The assassination succeeds--no FDR for WW2

[reddie]

Giuseppe Zangara's bullet hits home, and he becomes a name infamous in American history, like Lee Harvey Oswald. But unfortunately Zangara kills a highly capable president-elect just before the greatest crisis of the 20th century.

So diminutive Texan (5'1") John "Cactus Jack" Garner becomes president. Where does history go from there?

 

[Glass Onion]

well there would be no new deal for one thing, Garner on his own probably won't even try banking reform. (whatever the merits of the new deal in my opinion the banking reform was nesscary) or the SEC (which was needed too imo) Also Garner was no FDR. He could not have given the nation any kind of confidence at all. So in my opinion a Garner Presidency means a worse depression at least in the short term.

 

[Tony Jones]

Nothing good would be my guess. See Reich-5 from CURPS Alternate Earths...

 

[Don_Giorgio]

Well no re-election in 1936 for Garner... So u have a less competent President during WWII...
How this butterflies US military in WWII?

 

[Max Sinister]

AGAIN?

OK, I think it would be a bad thing, but I don't expect we'll see a Reich-5 like world.

 

[Brandonazz]

I don't think it would really happen like that. All those timelines where the world ends up broken between 2 or 3 global empires get on my nerves anyway.

 

[Doug M.]

Garner

Garner was a conservative, but there would still be some sort of New Deal -- the Democratic platform proclaimed it, and the public was demanding it.

It would be very different from OTL's, though.


Doug M.

 

[HurganPL]

FDR competent ? Well I guess this an opinion-in others view he was almost a Soviet agent and helped Soviet Union in becoming a world power by reckless Lend Lease supplies and neglence of security matters in addition to bowing down before Soviet demands in Europe.

 

[Susano]

FDR competent ? Well I guess this an opinion-in others view he was almost a Soviet agent and helped Soviet Union in becoming a world power by reckless Lend Lease supplies and neglence of security matters in addition to bowing down before Soviet demands in Europe.

While the latter is true, tthe former is not: The Soviets were the largest land fighting force of the war, and without an Eastern front it would have been very much more dififcult if not impossible to defeat Germany. Lendlease was thus a military necessity.

 

[Max Sinister]

Now that's ridiculous.

One can argue whether he should've stood up more to the Soviets (wasn't the real problem that they hadn't found an agreement until he died?), but at least he recognized Hitler as the danger he was (similar with the Japanese).

 

[HurganPL]

Lendlease was thus a military necessity.

Eastern Front would exist even without Lend Lease.

Russians also argue differently. I actually once trapped a Russian in this argument, because he claimed that without Lendlease Soviet Russia wouldn't be able to occupy Central and Eastern Europe as it advance would be slower.
But the main argument is that they Lendlease starting arriving in masse only when Soviet Russia already achieved the goal of overall stopping German offensive. That is of course debatable.
Anyway Germans and Soviets would blood themselfs dry even without Lend Lease.

 

[Susano]

Russians argue differently. I actually once trapped a Russian in this argument, because he claimed that without Lendlease Soviet Russia wouldn't be able to occupy Central and Eastern Europe as it advance would be slower.
But the main argument is that they Lendlease starting arriving in masse only when Soviet Russia already achieved the goal of overall stopping German offensive. That is of course debatable.
Anyway Germans and Soviets would blood themselfs dry even without Lend Lease.

That is arguable. Sure even without leandlease the USSR woudl have had the largest army of the war, but it would have been unable to use large parts of it because of lacking supplies - supplies that IOTL arrived per lendlease. As somebody on this board (forgot who it was) once said there is no use in having such a large army if you cant move it to the front for a lack of oil.

 

[Adam]

That is arguable. Sure even without leandlease the USSR woudl have had the largest army of the war, but it would have been unable to use large parts of it because of lacking supplies - supplies that IOTL arrived per lendlease. As somebody on this board (forgot who it was) once said there is no use in having such a large army if you cant move it to the front for a lack of oil.

I can see Germany and USSR ITTL fighting to a bloody stalemate; the Soviets because they lack the necessary supplies to push as far as OTL.

 

[reddie]

I can see Germany and USSR ITTL fighting to a bloody stalemate; the Soviets because they lack the necessary supplies to push as far as OTL.

Likely action for this Garnerian (or whoever is president in 1941) America would be to sit back and watch, and then (along with Britain) dominate the two weakened powers.

Of course, Japan is the wild card in all this....what do they do?

 

[von kressenstein]

not sure if i am catching that right.. but say the western front remains a phony war.. or somehow .. germany gets poland to let the germans "protect them" and invade the Soviet Union then the russians are in massive trouble around 1940.. and i doubt the brits or french would do anything about it.. Say germany and russia pull a non agression pact as planned.. at the same time germany makes the same deal with poland.. tells stalin that on Sept 1st. the invasion is on.. gets russia to act first then comes in on the side of poland... by the time they get to moscow its too late for anyone to do anything about it.. then the Germans can turn around and either finish poland or go take out france

 

[xxmagex]

Huey Long in 1936 would be a real possiblity. Garner could not compete Long in populism terms.

 

[Blue Max]

If Garner is the sitting president, wouldn't he be able to resist removal from office? In addition, even if he makes a "Little Deal" instead of a "New Deal", the US Business Cycle is still going to look favorable for him. And modern economists think that the US government's interventions under FDR weren't particularly helpful.

Garner would almost certainly resist removal from the Presidency, and its possible that Long could split the party--then the next US president would be Alf Landon.

Still, If Garner is re-elected, I suspect it would be very close and the Republicans would win in 1940--if they ran Wilkie they'd be surprised when both he and his vice president die in office, leading to an odd succession that would happen right in the election campaign. Wilkie's counterfactual Veep for re-election would probably lead the ticket and might be in so much disarray that the Dems take the election in 1944, which would probably mean Harry Truman.

Much of the critical phases of the war are going to be fought with President Wilkie at the helm, and I suspect that he'd be a competent leader, although the gap in late 1944 where the USA is run by a provisional leader is likely to be a problem--that would be October 1944, and that's a bad time to worry about a succession problem. That said, Wilkie did OTL warmly support FDR's efforts in WW2, so I think other than having a president die in office little changes.

If Garner loses in 1936 to Landon, Landon probably gets re-elected based on the business cycle (he'll be seen as ending the depression) and winds up running the war for the USA. That said, Landon was a very ineffective campaigner who left much of it in the hands of his political party, so his chance of winning is really more based on how badly the Dem's blow it (Long splitting would do that) rather than an effective campaign.

Landon would also do a good job as president--he was an interventionalist and also wanted the USA to recognize Communist China's government, a move that would have undermined the cold war considerably. Landon opposed lend-lease and called to outright gift the UK $5 Billion.

None of these guys are really going to screw up the conduct of the war, although the consequences could be radically different.

 

[pacifichistorian]

Wilkie's counterfactual Veep for re-election would probably lead the ticket and might be in so much disarray that the Dems take the election in 1944, which would probably mean Harry Truman.

It wouldn't be Truman. OTL, he was FDR's compromise. The party preferred James Byrnes, who became FDR's OTL Secretary of State. (Could be Truman becomes Byrnes' VP.) Byrnes as Pres is scary. He was the one who wanted the Bomb used against Japan, & wanted to use it to intimidate the Soviets. He might just have agreed when LeMay suggested using it...

e the USA is run by a provisional leader is likely to be a problem--that would be October 1944, and that's a bad time to worry about a succession problem.

Does this end up with Japan having an actual chance of achieving their OTL aim, a negotiated end to the war?

Landon would also do a good job as president--he was an interventionalist and also wanted the USA to recognize Communist China's government, a move that would have undermined the cold war considerably. Landon opposed lend-lease and called to outright gift the UK $5 Billion.

Do you picture him surplussing off U.S. equipment? As I understand it, the Pres can do it on his own authority, & designate where it goes. He could, for instance, release USN DDs, without the actual Destroyers for Bases deal. There were about 125 old WW1-vintage 4-pipers, Wickes/Clemson & other classes, RN was in desperate need of. A handful of these (10? 20?) could've gone to Canada. RCN escorted over half the Atlantic convoys, mostly the slow ones which were at most risk, without having DDs able to catch up if they made contact with U-boats. Even a handful to RCN would've cut losses in these convoys significantly. Also, he could release the 48 or so antique S-boats (WW1-era subs), which RCN/RN could've used as ASW training targets (which they were extremely short on), or even as operational boats for North Sea or Med, where their short range wouldn't have been an issue. (This would've freed RN T-boats, OTL in Med, for service in the Pacific. See Operation Compass Succeeds thread for potential effects.) Some might have ended up in Free French or Free Polish hands... And he might've released thousands of '03 Springfields & millions of rounds of .30-'06 ammo, & increased production of the M1 Garand to replace them. To replace the DDs & subs, he might also, as early as 1939-40, have boosted construction, which would've left USN in far better shape when Japan attacked...

 

[Typo]

FDR competent ? Well I guess this an opinion-in others view he was almost a Soviet agent and helped Soviet Union in becoming a world power by reckless Lend Lease supplies and neglence of security matters in addition to bowing down before Soviet demands in Europe.

Oh god not this crap again

 

[General Zod]

Oh god not this crap again

You can't escape truth.