What if Zangara had killed Roosevelt in 1933? What the impact?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara
What if Zangara had killed Roosevelt?
- Thread starter n.oikon2014
- Start date
Garrison
Donor
Probably catastrophic, his VP lacked the vision or the drive to do what was needed to restore the US economy and society. The New Deal may or may not have been an economic success but it at least let the people suffering in the Depression know they hadn't been abandoned to their fate.
On the international front equally damaging, the US is likely to be far less interested in supporting the UK and without that support, or the hope of it, making the case for fighting on in 1940 is much harder.
I'll see your Hawthorne Abendsen and raise you a Ken Hite, who (in company with Craig Neumeier and Martin Schiffer) made that the divergence point for Reich-5 in GURPS Alternate Earths, a decision which carried over into Fourth Edition. So yeah, as the next post says
OK, so we have President Garner. Garner, being the archetypal labour-baiting, poker-playing, whisky-drinking evil old man, presides over four years of economic austerity. Unemployment continues to increase, until riots are a regularity, and Hoover looks good by comparison.
At this point, either the main parties nominate an actual progressive in 1936, or you get a third party breakthrough (probably from the Left). US politics remains dysfunctional for years to come.
Fortunately, the rest of the world is in better shape. The UK has come off the Gold Standard, for example.
At this point, either the main parties nominate an actual progressive in 1936, or you get a third party breakthrough (probably from the Left). US politics remains dysfunctional for years to come.
Fortunately, the rest of the world is in better shape. The UK has come off the Gold Standard, for example.
Its a shame to. Certain TL was a great read. Shame Certain Author plagiarized and got banned.
Not banned, just kicked. I think he might do a restart, this time free of plagiarized material, and we dabbled about it, but I don't know what people will think.
As long as he does not plagiarize again I will be happy to re-read it.
The timeline in question is "The Falcon Cannot Hear: The Second American Civil War 1937-1944", by Ephraim Ben Raphael
The thread was locked and EBR kicked for a week after he was found to have lifted an update almost entirely from the book The Glory and the Dream, by William Manchester. Many segments of early updates were also taken from said book.
redlightning
Banned
With Roosevelt dead, America probably would never have entered World War II and the war in the Pacific may not have involved Western powers. America remains isolationist. Communist satellites of the Soviet Union dominate the majority of continental Europe. The Soviets eventually overtake the Germans during the Great Patriotic War anyway. Japan encapsulates coastal China with decades of Soviet backed insurgency fighting against them in a long and drawn out guerrilla war. The same remains true in any former European colony invaded by the Japanese such as Indochina.
The US probably doesn't exist the Great Depression until the early 1950s and is a much more conservative and more White dominated society without World War II. Eventually I think there would have been a major military build up in the West less on scale to the OTL Cold War, but there would have been some level of arms race during the 1950s. The Civil Rights movement would take years more to come and progress much slower without WWII. America has less technological advancement as well. America may not have fought a major war since World War I if Roosevelt is murdered.
Interesting enough, with Europe mostly under communist control, America still becomes the center for art and culture for the West and a global economic powerhouse anyway.
The US probably doesn't exist the Great Depression until the early 1950s and is a much more conservative and more White dominated society without World War II. Eventually I think there would have been a major military build up in the West less on scale to the OTL Cold War, but there would have been some level of arms race during the 1950s. The Civil Rights movement would take years more to come and progress much slower without WWII. America has less technological advancement as well. America may not have fought a major war since World War I if Roosevelt is murdered.
Interesting enough, with Europe mostly under communist control, America still becomes the center for art and culture for the West and a global economic powerhouse anyway.
bguy
Donor
Garner supported increased public works spending (e.g. the Garner-Wagner Act which was vetoed by Hoover in 1932), was a long time proponent of federal deposit insurance (probably the most important economic reform of the entire New Deal), and while skeptical about its feasibility was at least willing to try the National Recovery Administration. I haven't been able to find anything on his views on farm price supports, rural electrification, and securities regulation, but given that he was a rural Southerner and a Wilson progressive, it seems likely he would support all those programs. And as for Social Security, OTL it passed by enormous veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress, so even if Garner opposes it, it will still be enacted. Thus most of the New Deal still happens under President Garner.
The big differences between Garner and FDR for Garner's first term would be:
1) Garner is much more hostile to labor. He will almost certainly veto the Wagner Act (though Congress might override his veto).
2) Garner is a big believer in balanced budgets, so he will hike taxes up to pay for his relief programs.
Garner's tax hikes probably mean that economy won't improve as much under him as it did OTL under Roosevelt in his first term, but it will still look much better than it did under Hoover (and the public will still blame the Republicans for the depression anyway), so Garner should be able to get reelected without too much difficulty.
Thank you - Garner has been pigeon-holed as a stereotype too often on this site. I'm not defending the man, but him as President does not lead to insta-Revolution.
I don't think the Depression will look much different. The Second Depression of 37-38 might even be avoided. I do think you'll see more unrest though. Not civil war, that's crazy talk, but more rioting and militant unionization and militant unionbusting in response and such. Long term, it might mean a more viable socialist movement in the US.
I agree, if I were to guess at it Garner would coast easily to reelection and then decline to break Washington's precedent. Then we get a close race in 40' between his successor and a Republican challenger, the former is probably a favorite to win but not guaranteed.
Arkocento
Donor
I remember that TL, and I'd rather forget who exactly was the whistle blower
Anyway, Im curious as to what this means for US foreign Policy late 30s/early 40s
The more I read about the Great Depression and the New Deal, the more I believe FDR's administration was a really mixed bag of good, bad, indifferent, and awful.
FDR deserves a lot of credit for reviving people's morale and establishing relief. Some components of the New Deal were excellent - like establishing the SEC, FDIC, and CCC. Others were extremely damaging (NRA) or dubious (WPA).
One thing that is often overlooked is that the US economy was recovering in last half of 1932. FDR killed that by not agreeing to assist Hoover in establishing a bank holiday and restoring faith in the banking system after a few Midwestern banks had failings. FDR didn't want to become associated with Hoover, and Hoover was reluctant to take such a step while a lame duck. It was a huge mistake and set the US back incredibly. FDR also made extremely harmful decisions later in torpedoing the London Economic Conference and his idiotic manipulation of the gold price. Many of his policies (particularly the NRA) created a great deal of uncertainty in the business community, and their failure to invest as a result of it caused prolonged unemployment.
There is a reason why other nations quickly recovered from the Great Depression a few years after 1932 while the US continued to be a basket case. FDR has a lot of that blame.
Ironically, Garner might have overseen a much improved economy than FDR did simply because he would probably have not made these kind of mistakes. I think most of the good components of the New Deal would have been passed anyway under Garner, but much less likely that the stupid policies would happen. I don't know if anything like the TVA would happen - if it did, it would be much less ambitious and probably more cooperative with existing private utilities.
FDR deserves a lot of credit for reviving people's morale and establishing relief. Some components of the New Deal were excellent - like establishing the SEC, FDIC, and CCC. Others were extremely damaging (NRA) or dubious (WPA).
One thing that is often overlooked is that the US economy was recovering in last half of 1932. FDR killed that by not agreeing to assist Hoover in establishing a bank holiday and restoring faith in the banking system after a few Midwestern banks had failings. FDR didn't want to become associated with Hoover, and Hoover was reluctant to take such a step while a lame duck. It was a huge mistake and set the US back incredibly. FDR also made extremely harmful decisions later in torpedoing the London Economic Conference and his idiotic manipulation of the gold price. Many of his policies (particularly the NRA) created a great deal of uncertainty in the business community, and their failure to invest as a result of it caused prolonged unemployment.
There is a reason why other nations quickly recovered from the Great Depression a few years after 1932 while the US continued to be a basket case. FDR has a lot of that blame.
Ironically, Garner might have overseen a much improved economy than FDR did simply because he would probably have not made these kind of mistakes. I think most of the good components of the New Deal would have been passed anyway under Garner, but much less likely that the stupid policies would happen. I don't know if anything like the TVA would happen - if it did, it would be much less ambitious and probably more cooperative with existing private utilities.
See "The Man in the High Castle", Phillip K. Dick 1962. Won Hugo in 1963. POD is Roosevelt is assassinated by Zangara. Aircraft carriers are at PH, USA has not been supportive of UK & the America of late 1950's early 1960's has been divided in to 4 puppet countries. USA & CSA "owned" by Nazis, Pacific & Rocky Mountain States subject to/run by Japanese (division along Mississippi). Won't go further and spoil it.
What is his stance on the gold standard? I imagine he would do the same as Roosevelt.