Wendell Wilkie's War

[wkwillis]

POD is Roosevelt dead of a stroke and Garner taking over, followed by a split of the Liberal Democratss from the Southern Democrats, followed by a Reform Republican victory in November 1940 leading to Wilkie being president in January of 1941.
We go to war when the Liberal Democrats combine with the Reform Republicans against the Southern Democrats and Regular Republicans.
The Communists would still be supporting the Regular Republicans, as in OTL.
In 1941 the US had very little munitions capability. They would have rapidly started tooling up for war as in OTL, but wouldn't have accomplished much more than we did, because after May of 1940 we were already going full guns when the Germans looked like taking over the British fleet to go along with the other European fleets.
So from a military point of view there wouldn't have been any change for America or Japan, but from a political point of view the Russians and German would have had a very different war, or lack of one, to be precise.
We still would have developed the nuclear weapons and electronics and mass munitions that gave us victory, but the war in Europe would have been much less bloody.
1. No German invasion of Russia and it's massive destruction of Russian life and industry.
2. No bomber campaign (to take the pressure off Russia) and it's medium destruction of German life and industry.
3. An increased German air campaign against Britain, and an increased German sub campaign against Britain.
4. An increased Mediterranean war as Germany tried to nail down a supply of oil not in fighter range of Russia.
5. A boring life for the huge armies on the border of Russia to fortify and secure that border.
6. An essentially naval and air war with desert and jungle fighting episodes between the Allies and the Axis.
7. A Russian bomb in 1945 with their untouched industrial base and intelligence networks in Europe and America.
8. Simultaneous nuclear attacks on Tokyo by the Allies and Berlin by the Russians.
9. Occupation of Europe by the Russians and the third world by the Allies.

[luakel]

Why wouldn't Germany invade Russia?

You would think that Wilkie would be much more receptive to a "Japan First" strategy...

[DocOrlando]

No German invasion of Russia and it's massive destruction of Russian life and industry.

Explain to me how Willkie's election changes Hitler's mindset one iota w/r/t Barbarossa. Furthermore, with no German invasion of the USSR, what's Stalin's motivation to turn against his erstwhile ally? You may recall that Stalin was happily carving out portions of Central Europe with as much glee as Hitler.

We go to war when the Liberal Democrats combine with the Reform Republicans against the Southern Democrats and Regular Republicans.

Er...are you saying Congress, at Willkie's behest, declares war against Germany in Spring '41, rather than waiting for the Japanese attack? Seems to me that would a) not be a brilliant idea in the minds of most isolationist Americans and b) that Japan would reconsider stirring things up in the Pacific against an America that was already on a war footing.

A Russian bomb in 1945 with their untouched industrial base and intelligence networks in Europe and America.

Russia's failure to get atomics wasn't a result of diminished industrial capacity, and I don't see how the Manhattan Project is going to be dramatically more lax in security.

Occupation of Europe by the Russians and the third world by the Allies.

Sorry, just gotta laugh at that. Again, with nothing to draw in Russia, they're not going to suddenly push through Germany and claim the continent. There's nothing for them to fight for, whereas the nations of Western Europe were more concerned with keeping Communism at bay than just about anything — thus their justification for giving Hitler such a long leash in the '30s.

[Wendell]

So, what happens when President Wilkie bites the dust in October 1944 without a sitting VP, or are you proposing an alternative to McNary?

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Wendell

So, what happens when President Wilkie bites the dust in October 1944 without a sitting VP, or are you proposing an alternative to McNary?

bump. I want to know

[wkwillis]

Originally Posted by DocOrlando

No German invasion of Russia and it's massive destruction of Russian life and industry.

Explain to me how Willkie's election changes Hitler's mindset one iota w/r/t Barbarossa. Furthermore, with no German invasion of the USSR, what's Stalin's motivation to turn against his erstwhile ally? You may recall that Stalin was happily carving out portions of Central Europe with as much glee as Hitler.

We go to war when the Liberal Democrats combine with the Reform Republicans against the Southern Democrats and Regular Republicans.

Er...are you saying Congress, at Willkie's behest, declares war against Germany in Spring '41, rather than waiting for the Japanese attack? Seems to me that would a) not be a brilliant idea in the minds of most isolationist Americans and b) that Japan would reconsider stirring things up in the Pacific against an America that was already on a war footing.

A Russian bomb in 1945 with their untouched industrial base and intelligence networks in Europe and America.

Russia's failure to get atomics wasn't a result of diminished industrial capacity, and I don't see how the Manhattan Project is going to be dramatically more lax in security.

Occupation of Europe by the Russians and the third world by the Allies.

Sorry, just gotta laugh at that. Again, with nothing to draw in Russia, they're not going to suddenly push through Germany and claim the continent. There's nothing for them to fight for, whereas the nations of Western Europe were more concerned with keeping Communism at bay than just about anything — thus their justification for giving Hitler such a long leash in the '30s.

"Russia's failure to get atomics wasn't a result of diminished....Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Hurk Hurk Hurk Hic Hic Hic, damnit, you've given me hiccups!

[Grey Wolf]

Russia's failure to get atomics wasn't a result of diminished industrial capacity, and I don't see how the Manhattan Project is going to be dramatically more lax in security.

What I think is meant by this is that Russia's failure to get atomics was WORSE THAN simply having their industrial capacity routed by the Germans. It was far more endemic than that, and simply removing Barbarossa and letting the Soviets get on with things isn't going to be enough to give the USSR the bomb.

Grey Wolf

[DocOrlando]

Precisely so, GW. There were far larger issues at stake than the state of Soviet industry. Believe me, if Stalin thought that the only thing keeping the USSR from having an atomic bomb was a lack of industry, you can be sure that would be rectified in a matter of seconds, at whatever cost.

[DocOrlando]

In 1941 the US had very little munitions capability. They would have rapidly started tooling up for war as in OTL, but wouldn't have accomplished much more than we did, because after May of 1940 we were already going full guns when the Germans looked like taking over the British fleet to go along with the other European fleets.

I'm also curious about this, esp. with no date given for FDR's death. US industry was already going great guns (pun intended) in '39. And while it wasn't wartime-level production, it was certainly headed that way, and that's just under FDR. Given an interventionist, hawkish president like Willkie, it would have been one of the highest priorities. I can give some credence to a less-prepared US if FDR dies relatively early in his second term, as the isolationist Garner wouldn't have given a bucket of warm piss about foreign policy.