Who could have been the most possible to get elected POTUS in the WWII time period that would be the most sympathetic to the Axis? FDR had sympathies to the British and Soviets, and didn't make his disdain for the Axis countries pre-war a secret.
Most likeliest POTUS possible to be the most pro-Axis?
- Thread starter Bullmoose713
- Start date
Take a gander at the Business Plot and find an acceptable industrialist with a craving for power?
BlackDragon98
Banned
Dewey would have stayed neutral, which is probably the best course of action for the Nazis and Fascists.
Once Pearl Harbor happened, the attention of the USA would be drawn to the Pacific and the Nazis would achieve victory in Europe.
Once Pearl Harbor happened, the attention of the USA would be drawn to the Pacific and the Nazis would achieve victory in Europe.
Where's the dictator Ford timeline, because all I can find are dictator MacArthur and Wilson ones
Imo none of the Presidential candidates were pro-Axis -- they were all sympathetic to the Allies, but believed that either the US shouldn't get into the war because of a commitment to isolationism, or that US intervention into the war was unnecessary. America has always been quite Anglophile, and the main opposition to Anglophilia was Francophilia -- while the memories of German aggression in WW1 were still in living memory. Public opinion about Germany was always overwhelmingly negative, but the prevailing attitude was along the lines of "this is bad, but we shouldn't get into it because of x reason."
So you're going to need an outsider, and even then a certain type of outsider (outsiders weren't necessarily pro-Axis -- take Wilkie, for instance) if you want the US to genuinely be pro-Axis. The most you can get is an anti-interventionist, and a simple POD for that is to get FDR whacked sometime before WW2 so that John N. Garner takes office. Garner had orthodox views on foreign policy and was quite conservative, so he's unlikely to intervene or even try to cultivate a relationship w/ the Allies like FDR did IOTL.
So you're going to need an outsider, and even then a certain type of outsider (outsiders weren't necessarily pro-Axis -- take Wilkie, for instance) if you want the US to genuinely be pro-Axis. The most you can get is an anti-interventionist, and a simple POD for that is to get FDR whacked sometime before WW2 so that John N. Garner takes office. Garner had orthodox views on foreign policy and was quite conservative, so he's unlikely to intervene or even try to cultivate a relationship w/ the Allies like FDR did IOTL.
That declined as 1940-1941 passed. One factor was the observation of many US citizens remaining in Europe. The 'negative view' of those hardened to the point they shifted to the activist side. Journalists like Harsch influenced their readers with descriptions of the realtime in occupied Europe.
There was a growing realpolitik attitude among businessmen. The US has traditionally been heavily dependent on exports to Europe. Between the British blockade & German economic policies in the occupied nations US business; manufacturing, rw materials extraction, banking stood to lose enormous amounts of money while the war lasted. Orders of war materials from Britain were not going to make up the difference, and neither was the US mobilization started in the autumn of 1940. It was in the best interest pf the US economy to return to peace in Europe as rapidly as possible, & preferably the conditions of pre 1914 when US exports were rising, and there was no Facist/Socialist dreams of controlled economy and autarkies. The Swinging the war and dictating the terms of the post war world made increasing sense.
At the end of June 1941 the left in the US did a abrupt volte face. They went from a strong isolationist stance to instant Warhawks. In the remaining four months of US peace the Isolationists and Americn First organization were a hollow shell. Membership was dropping off, donations from the wealthy were declining, and former supporters in Congress were no longer returning phone calls.
The isolationists could not halt the naval war with Germany from early 1941, nor the occupation of Greenland and Iceland with US combat force in mid 1941.
Isolationism was a dynamic thing, it rose in popularity for a couple decades, then started falling apart when confronted with the consequences of not opposing nazi Germany and its Facist allies. Neither was it much more than a Euro focused thing. Isolationism was not much in evidence with the Banana wars, nor the decades long establishment of the Asiatic Squadron in China or the 1927 expedition to Shanghai.
Another route is to not have Roosevelt influenced by the early Warhawks. Before 1938 he had dialed down the Banana wars to a effective end. Slowly reduced US intervention in China, and taken action on the long postponed independence of the Philippines. Have isolationists counter the persuasion of the US opponents of the nazi regime & early warhawks in 1938 & Rosevelt may not work with Churchill & the French leaders 1938-1941 to dra the US towards active support. No rewrite of the Neutrality Acts in 1939, no two Ocean Navy Act. No aggressive military mobilization of 940 in the panic after France collapsed. A less aggressive Neutrality Zone in the Atlantic, and most important no embargo acts aimed at destroying Japans economy.
In 1940, he certainly didn't have any sympathies to the Soviets... Why are all the countries the Soviet Union invaded overlooked? | Page 4 | alternatehistory.com
I am not sure Garner would have reached an accommodation with Japan. Garner or any other President, even Lindbergh, would have gone to war if Japan attacked, The question then comes down would Hitler have declared war? Once Germany declared war there is nothing for the US to decide.
The USA was practically at war with Germany by the spring of 1941 because of FDR's hostile moves at sea.
Henry Ford
In industrialist who knows how to build industry, elect Ford to rebuild American industry
He was still somewhat of a folk hero and an anti-semite if he chose to run he might have been able to do it
I wonder, if someone like Garner had been president in 1939 and 40, and had pursued a policy of strict neutrality – no arms sales whatsoever, no cash and carry, no cooperation behind the scenes – would Britain have kept fighting past 1940? IOTL Britain was always confident that the US would support them, that there was a high likelihood that the US would enter the war sooner or later, and that they would just have to hold out until then. But if the US had a president at the time that wasn’t as sympathetic to the British (and to Churchill in particular) as FDR, and they couldn’t buy arms from the US, what effect would that have on the British war effort?