It's well-known that then future president Franklin D. Roosevelt contracted polio in August of 1921 while vacationing on Campobello Island, New Brunswick, but what if he hadn't (or the infection was only temporary)? Would his not having suffered from polio (or having only temporarily suffered) change history very much?
FDR without polio
- Thread starter MattII
- Start date
If FDR's Polio is either non-existant, or treated quickly, I assume he wouldn't take a break from politics as he did historically. This development could run the risk of setting him up as the compromise Dem candidate in 1924 when it becomes apparent that niver Smith or Mccadoo have enough support for the nomination. I'd imagine that despite a more carrismatic Dem apponent than Davis, the economy is still likely to help Coolidge win the election.
If FDR is the Dem nominee in 1924, that could make it tricky for him if he goes for the nomination 8 years later.
If FDR is the Dem nominee in 1924, that could make it tricky for him if he goes for the nomination 8 years later.
Without polio, FDR does not empathize with the poor Southerners of Warm Springs, and so likely maintains his earlier, more fiscally conservative outlook for longer. Additionally, he's left in the very dangerous situation of being a Democratic politician in the 1920s, the nadir of the party in its entire history. Running for Governor of New York in 1928, with Al Smith's coattails and the Roosevelt name at his back, was basically the only way FDR could have succeeded historically in the 1920s. That happened IOTL, but ITTL he has the unlucky chance of winding up the 1924 nominee. Ouch.
Assuming he is the nominee in 1924, is there no chance of him "pulling a Nixon" so to speak in 1932? Coolidge is still going to win, but if FDR can make the 1924 election look relatively close-and if Smith still loses as big as he did OTL, Roosevelt could argue that at least his defeat was narrower than Cox's or Smith's.
I do agree though that he likely isn't the same president, even if he does end up winning in 1932, though I'd imagine he lives somewhat longer than OTL.
I do agree though that he likely isn't the same president, even if he does end up winning in 1932, though I'd imagine he lives somewhat longer than OTL.
BlondieBC
Banned
IMO, it ends his career. FDR was under a sex/criminal scandal that was "too scandalous to print". He received mercy because back in the day, one did not pile on to the sick, unlike today. And no one expected him to return. He retires as a disgraced secretary of the Navy know only to people such as inhabit this board to write TL when they need an obscure leader they can use as a WW1 or WW2 POD.
Let's be clear, a healthy FDR is likely indicted for what today we would call "conspiracy to commit mass rape". Ordering straight male soldiers to perform oral/anal sex on gay sailors under threat of court martial is beyond the pale. Even if one takes the most favorable FDR position that he issued orders that allowed for such actions, the Admiral at Newport took the most aggressive interpretation of the orders, and FDR merely failed to supervise, it ends the career.
Let's be clear, a healthy FDR is likely indicted for what today we would call "conspiracy to commit mass rape". Ordering straight male soldiers to perform oral/anal sex on gay sailors under threat of court martial is beyond the pale. Even if one takes the most favorable FDR position that he issued orders that allowed for such actions, the Admiral at Newport took the most aggressive interpretation of the orders, and FDR merely failed to supervise, it ends the career.
Rstone4
Banned
I think he runs in the 20s, gets spanked by Coolidge, ends up retiring to his estate and in 33 some other dem, beats hoover. The butterflies here are amazing however, what if we get a fiscal conservative dem rather than a progressive dem? The Hoover policies are repealed and not exploded. The depression ends in 35, dems sweep in 36, still take a hit in 37, but not as bad for no court packing, but by 1940 a republican takes over with slim majorities in the house. War breaks out. But what kind of republcan won? a TR type, or a Cooldige type?
What did the non FDR dem do about the empire of japan's agreesion in China. Did Japan still feel the need to stop the USA? Probably.
Also, remember Eleanor Roosevelt did a lot for social stuff. She reached out to the African Americans who in 36 made a major leap to the Dems. with out her, or the job handouts of the depression, African Americans will still be looking at both parties, republicans as the guys who abandoned them, and dems as the guys who ignore or lynch them. This has major butterflies for the 1960s because It is very very likely that the USA gets involved in WW2 and very likely comes out on top. Meaning There will still be thousands of black soldiers and they come back looking to cash in. the Double V still happens (victory vs fascism and victory vs segregation) Since Truman and Ike both made major strides towards civil rights it is very likley that the post ww2 presidents (Ike may still be there, unless he runs afoul of the president and doesn't become supreme commander) that Civil Rights will still be pushed because of the optics of the cold war and tens of thousands of idealistic post war baby boomers in college reading about how "All men are created equal" and then wondering about why they had to stand in a different line.
Without FDR's new deal, (Assuming we don't have some other new deal) the Unions wouldn't be quite as strong because the Wagner Act was one of the key issues. This would alter political dynamics all across the next century on everything from trade issues, ecological laws, political contributions, and education.
We wouldn't have the 22nd Amendment in the 1950s and probably not until some other president broke the unspoken rule about 2 terms.
Who ever is elected in 1940 has to deal with Stalin in such a way to prevent the cold war from becoming ww3. Perhaps he will be able to contain stalin some way and change the cold war all together. From what i recall FDRs death and Truman being kept in the dark, along with Churchill being fired allowed Stalin to be the big man of the allies and get more of his way.
Of course, in 1940 the USA might elect an isolationist Jeanette Rankin type who might only go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. Japan will be defeated, probably not nuked. Europe Falls to the USSR, and Soviet France is established. Maybe even Soviet Spain. The Cold War is radically different at that point. Hell, the USA might even start falling to internal communist elections and rioting with the upheavals of the 1960s.
What did the non FDR dem do about the empire of japan's agreesion in China. Did Japan still feel the need to stop the USA? Probably.
Also, remember Eleanor Roosevelt did a lot for social stuff. She reached out to the African Americans who in 36 made a major leap to the Dems. with out her, or the job handouts of the depression, African Americans will still be looking at both parties, republicans as the guys who abandoned them, and dems as the guys who ignore or lynch them. This has major butterflies for the 1960s because It is very very likely that the USA gets involved in WW2 and very likely comes out on top. Meaning There will still be thousands of black soldiers and they come back looking to cash in. the Double V still happens (victory vs fascism and victory vs segregation) Since Truman and Ike both made major strides towards civil rights it is very likley that the post ww2 presidents (Ike may still be there, unless he runs afoul of the president and doesn't become supreme commander) that Civil Rights will still be pushed because of the optics of the cold war and tens of thousands of idealistic post war baby boomers in college reading about how "All men are created equal" and then wondering about why they had to stand in a different line.
Without FDR's new deal, (Assuming we don't have some other new deal) the Unions wouldn't be quite as strong because the Wagner Act was one of the key issues. This would alter political dynamics all across the next century on everything from trade issues, ecological laws, political contributions, and education.
We wouldn't have the 22nd Amendment in the 1950s and probably not until some other president broke the unspoken rule about 2 terms.
Who ever is elected in 1940 has to deal with Stalin in such a way to prevent the cold war from becoming ww3. Perhaps he will be able to contain stalin some way and change the cold war all together. From what i recall FDRs death and Truman being kept in the dark, along with Churchill being fired allowed Stalin to be the big man of the allies and get more of his way.
Of course, in 1940 the USA might elect an isolationist Jeanette Rankin type who might only go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. Japan will be defeated, probably not nuked. Europe Falls to the USSR, and Soviet France is established. Maybe even Soviet Spain. The Cold War is radically different at that point. Hell, the USA might even start falling to internal communist elections and rioting with the upheavals of the 1960s.
TFSmith121
Banned
The Newport "Scandal" is a keystone
of gay history in the US, but without getting too far afield, my read of mores of the time among the eastern establishment is that it would not have overtly been used as a political issue, if for nothing else then plenty of Republicans would not have wanted that particular door opened...especially since FDR's involvement was trying to "reduce" the (perceived) problem.
Plenty of scandal to go around, so to speak.
Best,
of gay history in the US, but without getting too far afield, my read of mores of the time among the eastern establishment is that it would not have overtly been used as a political issue, if for nothing else then plenty of Republicans would not have wanted that particular door opened...especially since FDR's involvement was trying to "reduce" the (perceived) problem.
Plenty of scandal to go around, so to speak.
Best,
This is an interesting potential divergence, and one which I could see happening in such a timeline. President Coolidge was solid in '24. He was going to win unless Jesus ran against him. That's why John Davis got picked to begin with. Very few people actually expected we would have a President-Elect Davis once it was all said and done.
In an alternate timeline in which Franklin Roosevelt is picked as the candidate in a compromise, his New Deal ideas won't likely stick well with Americans who have no idea of the upcoming Great Depression. He loses '24. When it rolls around to '32 and things are getting worse, he is damaged goods. He might be picked again, but then again, Democratic leaders may very well pick somebody unstained by a past defeat.
If that happens, and especially if whoever is picked wins and does a decent job of it, Roosevelt can kiss any fond hopes and dreams of living in the White House goodbye.
Last edited:
And not happening to make the choice one day that brought him into contact with the Polio virus is a smaller POD than most, quite intriguing.
Without polio, I think FDR would have lost Eleanor in the 1920's over the affairs with her friends and others, and without Eleanor he's enormously less likable (divorced playboy instead of wheelchair-bound family man), I don't think he'd win Governor of NY, especially after Al Smith's example (Al Smith's genuine compassion and weaving of a social safety net as Governor somehow got credited to his successor FDR who did so little in that job compared to Smith, TR, Dewey, etc.) Being Undersecretary of the Navy during a mostly land war is a pretty thin resume to run on for President even in those days when it was still mostly Governors of Ohio or New York who won. I could see him becoming a senior party operative running campaigns or getting the ambassadorship to China (where his grandfather Delano was a major opium smuggler, making the family fortune) and FDR with Chiang Kai Shek might be a match made in heaven.
I think we'd see other Governors win the Presidential races and without the New Deal the Great Depression ends in 3-4 years like it did in most other advanced economies. That'd change all sorts of things from the strength of American manufacturing, innovation, higher education, research, etc. that shrank so drastically over the 1930's and made the wartime build-up far harder than it would have been (although World War I showed wartime mobilization from a very strong economy was hard to get right too.) It'd actually be fairly hard to have a more inept President in running the country than OTL's FDR so whether it's Al Smith, Alf Landon, John Nance Garner, Coke Stevenson/Texas's Governor, Alben Barkley, Taft, etc., the country would waste far less and flail about far less (separating FDR's actual governance from public relations spin is quite disturbing and surprising.)
The stripping of the U.S. Defense budget to pay for the New Deal from 1932-1940 as Herbert Hoover points out in "Freedom Betrayed" except for the Navy and lack of Great Depression pressures for 12+ years would have to have the U.S. military in somewhat better shape in 1939 (albeit still few in number, poorly trained, obsoletely equipped, but not as badly.)
Social Security probably still happens, the idea and stumping for it came from outside FDR's administration and was done by a small town physician for years before being grudgingly taken on as a campaign tool.
Without polio, I think FDR would have lost Eleanor in the 1920's over the affairs with her friends and others, and without Eleanor he's enormously less likable (divorced playboy instead of wheelchair-bound family man), I don't think he'd win Governor of NY, especially after Al Smith's example (Al Smith's genuine compassion and weaving of a social safety net as Governor somehow got credited to his successor FDR who did so little in that job compared to Smith, TR, Dewey, etc.) Being Undersecretary of the Navy during a mostly land war is a pretty thin resume to run on for President even in those days when it was still mostly Governors of Ohio or New York who won. I could see him becoming a senior party operative running campaigns or getting the ambassadorship to China (where his grandfather Delano was a major opium smuggler, making the family fortune) and FDR with Chiang Kai Shek might be a match made in heaven.
I think we'd see other Governors win the Presidential races and without the New Deal the Great Depression ends in 3-4 years like it did in most other advanced economies. That'd change all sorts of things from the strength of American manufacturing, innovation, higher education, research, etc. that shrank so drastically over the 1930's and made the wartime build-up far harder than it would have been (although World War I showed wartime mobilization from a very strong economy was hard to get right too.) It'd actually be fairly hard to have a more inept President in running the country than OTL's FDR so whether it's Al Smith, Alf Landon, John Nance Garner, Coke Stevenson/Texas's Governor, Alben Barkley, Taft, etc., the country would waste far less and flail about far less (separating FDR's actual governance from public relations spin is quite disturbing and surprising.)
The stripping of the U.S. Defense budget to pay for the New Deal from 1932-1940 as Herbert Hoover points out in "Freedom Betrayed" except for the Navy and lack of Great Depression pressures for 12+ years would have to have the U.S. military in somewhat better shape in 1939 (albeit still few in number, poorly trained, obsoletely equipped, but not as badly.)
Social Security probably still happens, the idea and stumping for it came from outside FDR's administration and was done by a small town physician for years before being grudgingly taken on as a campaign tool.
Military spending in the 1930s was comparable to that of the 1920s - it was even greater as a percentage of GDP.
TFSmith121
Banned
Kennedy again, lists the following for the US:
Kennedy again, lists the following for the US (p296 of the paperback edition of "Rise and Fall", with 1938 dollars in parens):
1930: $699 million (n/a)
1933: 570 (792 in 1938 dollars)
1934: 803 (708)
1935: 806 (933)
1936: 932 (1.119 billion)
1937: 1.032 billion (1.079 billion)
1938: 1.131 (1.131 billion).
Really? Someone using Herbert Hoover as source? That's certainly unimpeachable...Plus, there's been some scholarship on these questions since the 1940s.
Best,
Kennedy again, lists the following for the US (p296 of the paperback edition of "Rise and Fall", with 1938 dollars in parens):
1930: $699 million (n/a)
1933: 570 (792 in 1938 dollars)
1934: 803 (708)
1935: 806 (933)
1936: 932 (1.119 billion)
1937: 1.032 billion (1.079 billion)
1938: 1.131 (1.131 billion).
Really? Someone using Herbert Hoover as source? That's certainly unimpeachable...Plus, there's been some scholarship on these questions since the 1940s.
Best,
Like how it ended Josephus Daniels' career, and prevented FDR from getting on the 1920 ticket, right?
The abuse of gays in the 1910s will not be an issue.Of course, if FDR does get the nod in 1924, Robert La Follette is going to support him. He still won't win (it's the 1920s) but he won't do the worst out of any Democratic nominee in the history of the party.
Now, an FDR nomination if Harding lives could prove to be a nailbiter. But only if he emerges as the unity candidate early on in the Convention. A convention even a quarter as bad as OTL will end his chances.
A fantasy novel. The New Deal built on Al Smith's record as Governor of new York, everything else in that post is ridiculous. Though Eleanor and FDR would not have been a political team, and probably would have separated.
Last edited:
I hadn't actually considered his affairs when writing my initial post. Foolish of me.
TFSmith121
Banned
Um, multiple affairs were pretty much a universal
Um, multiple affairs were pretty much a universal "issue" among EE types in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries; it wasn't enough to do in Cleveland in 1884, so I rather doubt it would have made a difference in 1924 for anyone, GOP or Democrat.
Um, multiple affairs were pretty much a universal "issue" among EE types in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries; it wasn't enough to do in Cleveland in 1884, so I rather doubt it would have made a difference in 1924 for anyone, GOP or Democrat.
Cleveland won the election by just under a thousand votes (which was the difference in New York), and he was famous for his integrity and won points for taking responsibility for what happened. FDR might not be so lucky.
katchen
Banned
Roosevelt's New Deal was actually a compromise with some far more radical ideas around wealth redistribution that were gaining momentum with the People and with Congress by 1932. Ideas like a steeply graduated income tax to share the wealth and break the power of the rich.
What made the New Deal a "deal" was what the rich and the corporations got out of it. It's actually a lot like what the health insurors get out of Obamacare. In return for tolerating labour unions and collective bargaining and higher corporate income taxes, corporations got freedom from antitrust enforcement and the ability to once again, cooperate with one another as unofficial "Big Three" or "Big Four" or "Seven Sisters" cartels with unofficially regulated wages and prices but effectively captive markets and limited competition for market share. That was the REAL New Deal, and it lasted until the 1970s, when the Baby Boom Generation convinced business executives that their children would do in capitalism over environmentalism unless business went back to ideological warfare with the Left. Thus the Powell Memorandum of 1972, the Business Roundtable and the formation of right wing think tanks such as American Enterprise Instittute and Heritage and Cato Foundation.
ITTL, without Roosevelt to bring the two sides together, the game stays zero sum, and in my opinion, business winds up losing, because in 1932, business apparently WAS losing, as inconceivable as the idea of big business EVER losing appears to us today. I don't know who makes it into the White House in 1932 if Roosevelt shoots his wad in 1924. McAdoo maybe. Possibly Fiorello LaGuardia, the Mayor of New York or Eugene Cermak, Mayor of Chicago if there is too much of a power vacuum. But my guess is that whoever it is will rule as much more of a social democrat than even Roosevelt.
BlondieBC
Banned
Like how it ended Josephus Daniels' career, and prevented FDR from getting on the 1920 ticket, right?
Of course, if FDR does get the nod in 1924, Robert La Follette is going to support him. He still won't win (it's the 1920s) but he won't do the worst out of any Democratic nominee in the history of the party.
Now, an FDR nomination if Harding lives could prove to be a nailbiter. But only if he emerges as the unity candidate early on in the Convention. A convention even a quarter as bad as OTL will end his chances.
A fantasy novel. The New Deal built on Al Smith's record as Governor of new York, everything else in that post is ridiculous. Though Eleanor and FDR would not have been a political team, and probably would have separated.
It is not the abuse of gays that is the problem. It is requiring heterosexual males to perform sex acts that is the backbreaker. All this under the threat of court martial, jail, and dishonorable discharge. If the FDR/Admiral had merely offer some sweet heart deal to a gay sailor to do the work, it would be a different story. Back in the day, few would have objected to a honorable discharge to a gay sailor who turned states evidence, but this is not the scandal of OTL. Nor is the scandal hunting down gays. Order straight men to perform sex acts in a provable way ends any politician or any Admiral career, any time in the History of the republic.
And as others pointed out, he was a rich playboy with affairs.
While it is possible FDR rise again to some high office, and just barely not ASB if he becomes President, it is more likely that he simply fades into the background if he does not have polio.