Would Wilkie have embargoed Japan?
I'm assuming that Lend Lease would never happen, or only a token form....
I'm assuming that Lend Lease would never happen, or only a token form....
What would a 1940 Wendell Wilkie Presidency look like?
- Thread starter SAVORYapple
- Start date
Interesting question, App.
I'm don't know much about Wilkie, but I'd say no. Isolationism was a popular idea in the US at that time. With a president who doesn't push for engagement with the rest of the world, it will probably succeed.
If anything, President Wilkie will be happy to help the US economy along by selling scrap metal and oil to Japan--as well as to anyone else who can pay.
Of course, that only solves Japan's problems for so long. Their hard currency reserves were massively dwindling, so soon they will run out of oil anyhow. They have a couple of options after that. First, they can withdraw from China (and allow the economy to resume producing consumer goods) before their economy implodes. It's probably the smart choice, but it's not too likely.
The next choice is to do what they did historically--seize the resources by force. Obviously, this is the riskiest choice. Still, it has the appeal of a permanent solution--if Japan can seize those oil fields, it won't have to be in the same position ever again. Probably a bit more likely than the previous option, sadly.
The least likely, but in my view most interesting option, would be to trade Japan's military power for the resources the nation needs. For example, they could offer to use their navy to help the British in the Med, maybe even throw in a few divisions for use in North Africa. In return, the UK (and maybe the Dutch) would agree to supply oil to Japan at a steep discount. Other details might include a Japanese promise not to attack European colonial possessions in Asia, in return for an end to UK support to China, and maybe recognition of Manchukuo.
Not too likely, but I'd love to see the timeline.
He does come across as much more opportunistic than anything, but I have very limited knowledge about US policy and presidential elections.
The Roosevelt hurdle was obviously the 3rd term for Roosevelt. If that could hav been got awya with, he would have been president (!).
Now, it seems he preached "no interference" when that was popular and swung around when something else became popular.
Lend-Lease? maybe not, not remember, lend-lease was NOT a one-way street. We have been there, so it is not necessary to go over that again.
If he could have worked something out with Japan, it might have delayed PH with a couple of years? How would Hitler have fared at that time. It might have kept US out?
Ivan
The Roosevelt hurdle was obviously the 3rd term for Roosevelt. If that could hav been got awya with, he would have been president (!).
Now, it seems he preached "no interference" when that was popular and swung around when something else became popular.
Lend-Lease? maybe not, not remember, lend-lease was NOT a one-way street. We have been there, so it is not necessary to go over that again.
If he could have worked something out with Japan, it might have delayed PH with a couple of years? How would Hitler have fared at that time. It might have kept US out?
Ivan
He'll have a Republican House, Dem Senate and zero horsetrading skills. OTL's 1940-1 isn't a situation where you want a political noob as POTUS.
Rogue, that sort of sums it up!
Looking at the nembers it wasn't that much of a close-run thing, though.
Wiki: His opponent Franklin D. Roosevelt won the 1940 election with 55% of the popular vote and 85% of the electoral vote
Wiki again:
Willkie received 22.3 million votes (more than any previous Republican candidate), but was outpolled by Roosevelt with 27.3 million. Roosevelt won the electoral vote to 449 to 82. Willkie carried ten states: Maine, Vermont, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado. However, Willkie did draw 5.8 million votes more than Alf Landon in 1936, and ran strong in the rural Midwest, taking 57% of the farm vote. Roosevelt, meanwhile, carried every city in the nation with a population of more than 400,000, except for Cincinnati.
I was under the impression that the US electoral system favours rural votes but that does not add up to Roosevelt's 85% unless it was a hectic landslide.
Can someone help out?
Ivan
Looking at the nembers it wasn't that much of a close-run thing, though.
Wiki: His opponent Franklin D. Roosevelt won the 1940 election with 55% of the popular vote and 85% of the electoral vote
Wiki again:
Willkie received 22.3 million votes (more than any previous Republican candidate), but was outpolled by Roosevelt with 27.3 million. Roosevelt won the electoral vote to 449 to 82. Willkie carried ten states: Maine, Vermont, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado. However, Willkie did draw 5.8 million votes more than Alf Landon in 1936, and ran strong in the rural Midwest, taking 57% of the farm vote. Roosevelt, meanwhile, carried every city in the nation with a population of more than 400,000, except for Cincinnati.
I was under the impression that the US electoral system favours rural votes but that does not add up to Roosevelt's 85% unless it was a hectic landslide.
Can someone help out?
Ivan
55% is a huge lead, no matter how you slice it. Also, the Northeastern states had more Electoral votes than than they do now, and the Democrats dominated the South.
As I recall Wilkie was not an Isolationist, ad the China lobby had influence in the Republican party. The exact timing might be different, but Japan was already moving towards war anyway.
To be honest, Willkie would likely govern much as FDR did, but without his experience and political skills.
Willkie was not an isolationist. He was an internationalist, and he became the GOP nominee because after the Fall of France, even the GOP voters wanted someone who would help the Allies short of war and they rejected Taft's isolationist foreign policy.
Both Willkie and FDR catered to the domestic opinion which was still against US entry in the war. Documentaries like to show Willkie attacking FDR's policies (The World at War, in one of its few categorical errors called Wilkie an "out and out isolationist" which is completely false), but both candidates said the same thing which was "help the Allies short of war." The only difference between them was that FDR said, "I'm not going to send our boys off to fight into a foreign war," and Willkie said, "You can't trust FDR not to do that," and FDR would say, "No, you can really trust me."
If Willkie had won though, he'd probably do more or less what FDR did. Would he do Lend Lease? Tough question. FDR only did it once it became apparent that Britain couldn't continue to pay. Willkie will be faced with the same situation. Willkie, like FDR, will still want to help the Allies, and he will be faced with the challenge of how to do so. We know FDR's solution. It's impossible to say if Willkie would have come up with a near-identical solution, a workable alternative solution, a failed alternative solution, or couldn't do anything at all. However, the US has a history of ex-Presidents giving new Presidents advice. It's possible FDR would see the problem and give Willkie on what he would do if he was still President. So ultimately I think something would happen.
It's important to note that in reality, Willkie was an outspoken defender of Lend Lease, and that FDR used him as an informal ambassador at large throughout WWII (very much unlike FDR's handling of Herbert Hoover).
So much of the year of 1941 depends on choices that FDR made, and the Axis reaction against that, that we don't know how those critical choices will be made. Would a Lend Lease style program be extended to the Soviet Union? Perhaps, but if so, not to the extent that it was under FDR. Willkie and the GOP might bargain a lot better to get Soviet concessions. Would he put in an oil embargo against Japan? Probably something, although not a complete embargo. Would he move the fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor (which was done in opposition to most of the Navy)? Probably not. Would he make as wise picks as FDR as to the top brass of the Navy and Army? Probably not, but the best would likely still rise to the top.
Willkie was not an isolationist. He was an internationalist, and he became the GOP nominee because after the Fall of France, even the GOP voters wanted someone who would help the Allies short of war and they rejected Taft's isolationist foreign policy.
Both Willkie and FDR catered to the domestic opinion which was still against US entry in the war. Documentaries like to show Willkie attacking FDR's policies (The World at War, in one of its few categorical errors called Wilkie an "out and out isolationist" which is completely false), but both candidates said the same thing which was "help the Allies short of war." The only difference between them was that FDR said, "I'm not going to send our boys off to fight into a foreign war," and Willkie said, "You can't trust FDR not to do that," and FDR would say, "No, you can really trust me."
If Willkie had won though, he'd probably do more or less what FDR did. Would he do Lend Lease? Tough question. FDR only did it once it became apparent that Britain couldn't continue to pay. Willkie will be faced with the same situation. Willkie, like FDR, will still want to help the Allies, and he will be faced with the challenge of how to do so. We know FDR's solution. It's impossible to say if Willkie would have come up with a near-identical solution, a workable alternative solution, a failed alternative solution, or couldn't do anything at all. However, the US has a history of ex-Presidents giving new Presidents advice. It's possible FDR would see the problem and give Willkie on what he would do if he was still President. So ultimately I think something would happen.
It's important to note that in reality, Willkie was an outspoken defender of Lend Lease, and that FDR used him as an informal ambassador at large throughout WWII (very much unlike FDR's handling of Herbert Hoover).
So much of the year of 1941 depends on choices that FDR made, and the Axis reaction against that, that we don't know how those critical choices will be made. Would a Lend Lease style program be extended to the Soviet Union? Perhaps, but if so, not to the extent that it was under FDR. Willkie and the GOP might bargain a lot better to get Soviet concessions. Would he put in an oil embargo against Japan? Probably something, although not a complete embargo. Would he move the fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor (which was done in opposition to most of the Navy)? Probably not. Would he make as wise picks as FDR as to the top brass of the Navy and Army? Probably not, but the best would likely still rise to the top.
Blackfox: that sounds rather pessimistic! In essence, he would have had to do some of things that FDR did, but in all likelihood not particular well? Oh Dear!
Legion: yes, 85% is massive, but that should be a consequence of the electoral system? not sure on this here.
The 55% to FDR is also a lot, but on the other hand 22 million voting Wilkie is still a lot as well
What pay-backs would Wilkie have been into if he had been elected? especially pertaining to the farmlands? Were the majority of the German emmigrants not in the farmlands? would that have been his constituency then?
As far as I kow, the farmlands were pretty hard hit and were still not back on their feet by 1938/39/40. Would that have meant priority insoar as developments and not into war stuff?
Ivan
Legion: yes, 85% is massive, but that should be a consequence of the electoral system? not sure on this here.
The 55% to FDR is also a lot, but on the other hand 22 million voting Wilkie is still a lot as well
What pay-backs would Wilkie have been into if he had been elected? especially pertaining to the farmlands? Were the majority of the German emmigrants not in the farmlands? would that have been his constituency then?
As far as I kow, the farmlands were pretty hard hit and were still not back on their feet by 1938/39/40. Would that have meant priority insoar as developments and not into war stuff?
Ivan
I suspect that Wilkie would be an adequate President,
Other odd thing. In OTL his VP and he both died before the 1944 election. Under the then law his Secretary of State would take office.
Would such an event speed up an analogue of the 25th amendment?
Other odd thing. In OTL his VP and he both died before the 1944 election. Under the then law his Secretary of State would take office.
Would such an event speed up an analogue of the 25th amendment?
Clearly Wilkie would have divorced his wife and taken Madame Chiang Kai-Shek (who, with OSS assistance, deposed Chiang in a coup and packed him off to Tibet to live as a monk) as his official consort. Then of course he'd embargo Japan, the US and Nationalist China would work together to dominate the world, and together the King of the West and the Queen of the East would lead us into the Sino-American Century!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Wilkie#Alleged_relations_with_Soong_May-ling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Wilkie#Alleged_relations_with_Soong_May-ling
I think Plumber hit the nail on the head here. It's not that WW would force the US into Isolationism, although I think he would be less Interventionist than FDR. The problem is that any president without FDR's drive and charisma will have a hard time gearing the US up to fight. Remember, FDR's peacetime draft only passed by one vote...