1940s Western leaders if no WWII

Eurofed

Banned
While reading the "Explosion heard around the world" TL by Shaby, a question came to me: if WWII as we know it never occurs or is nipped in the bud in 1939-40, which Western leaders we may expect to take over in the 1940s ?

Let's assume that WWII between the Axis powers and the Entente does not occur, or it quickly ends in a compromise peace during the Phony War, due a PoD between the Munich Agreement and the end of 1939 that results in Hitler assassinated or overthrown by coup. Either a Goering-Heer alliance or a Heer junta takes over, and purges the SS radicals or the Nazi leadership entirely.

The new German leadership does not invade post-Munich Czechoslovakia, or restores the independence of Czechia as part of the peace agreement, and CZ(S) stays an independent client state of Germany. The Polish crisis is settled with a German-Polish war, or an independent Poland is restored as part of the peace agreement, that establishes the 1807 or 1914 border, entrenched by a population exchange of minorities. Germany tones down its rearmament to stabilize its economic situation. A gradual detente between Germany and the Entente powers ensues.

Now, what can we hypothesize about the 1940s Western leaders ITTL ?

In America, FDR does not have the excuse of a war in Europe to defy the two-terms precedent established by Washington. The issue is debatable, but IMO the precedent was compelling enough that he would not dare break it in a peacetime situation. The lingering impopularity of the Republican Party was still enough to make a Democratic victory the most likely outcome, even with a different candidate. Truman was of course still too much unknown, and Henry Wallace too much radical left-wing, to win the Democratic nomination.

IMO the mantle would fall on James Farley. He had a good power base in the party as a moderate New Deal man, and FDR half-promised support to him, before deciding to run for a third term himself. Of course, a Republican victory cannot be ruled out, but it would require the Democrats to screw up something seriously. Peacetime situation in all likelihood butterflies away dark horse Willkie, and the contest in the GOP would be between Dewey and Taft. Perhaps we can expect a Dewey nomination as in OTL 1944.

In Britain, TTL conditions endorse the foreign policy platform of Chamberlain, he is never discredited, but hailed as the man that ensured "peace in our time". In all likelihood, he easily manages to stay the leader of the Conservative party and PM until he dies or steps down. A general election is due in 1940, and I do expect the Conservatives to win it. Nonetheless, Neville Chamberlain is fated to die by cancer in late 1940, so a successor would be necessary. ITTL a Churchill Premiership is of course impossible (unless Stalin or Tojo cause a different kind of general war), he would stay a marginalized backbencher. Eden, although much less in the fringe, would still be hamstrung by his previous resignation from Foreign Minister. So perhaps Lord Halifax.

It is more difficult to tell how long Daladier's government in France would have lasted without a general war, but the Popular Front coalition was collapsing anyway by late 1938, due to internal dissensions related to the SCW, bitter opposition of the right-wing, and the persistent effects of the Great Depression. A general election was due in 1941, and it is anyone's guess how it would have turned out.

In Canada, I do expect Mackenzie King to stay in power without a fuss, I am not aware of any issue that would make him lose the 1940 federal election if there is no war.
 
Last edited:
Willkie will crush any Democrat not named FDR in 1940. Remember that the GOP had just come off resounding successes in the '38 midterms, so they and the Dixiecrats together control the Congressional agenda. Neither Catholics nor Southerners can be nominated for POTUS in 1940, that much is for certain.

UK: No idea who leads the Tories into the October 1940 election. Presumably Chamberlain retires from politics once he realizes his cancer is in its final stages. Maybe the Tories dissolve the NG and govern as a regular majority government.

Canada: King stays as long as he wants.
 
I don't know much of the scenario, but can Wilkie still get the nomination under this scenario? What about Bob Taft?
 
Willkie will crush any Democrat not named FDR in 1940.

Willkie will not be the nominee. Although he is remembered today as being an isolationist because he ran against FDR in 1940, Willkie was not. He was the leading anti-isolationist among Republicans (even if not an interventionist) which is why he won the nomination after France fell in 1940. Taft's isolationist stance just seemed stupid.

Either Taft or Dewey will win the GOP nomination. Dewey probably has a little bit more glamor than Taft, but Taft's isolationism won't be a handicap to him now.
 
Either Taft or Dewey will win the GOP nomination. Dewey probably has a little bit more glamor than Taft, but Taft's isolationism won't be a handicap to him now.

I doubt Dewey will, because all he is is the Manhattan District Attorney at this time.
 
The Democratic nominee in 1940 will either be John Nance Garner or James Farley. The Republican nominee will be Taft. The man was powerful in the Senate and Dewey was just a district attourney despite his fame. In a direct matchup, I think that Garner would win.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I doubt Dewey will, because all he is is the Manhattan District Attorney at this time.

Yet he had risen to national fame as the "Gangbuster" prosecutor who had sent numerous infamous mafia figures to prison, and IOTL he got more delegates at the Republican Convention than anyone else.
 
Yet he had risen to national fame as the "Gangbuster" prosecutor who had sent numerous infamous mafia figures to prison, and IOTL he got more delegates at the Republican Convention than anyone else.

Many delegates were still convention-controlled at this time, though, and I severely doubt they would just hand the nomination to Dewey. I could see a backroom deal, though, giving Dewey the VP slot with the assumption he'll be the GOP nominee in '48, assuming Taft gets two terms, or '44, assuming Taft loses.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The Democratic nominee in 1940 will either be John Nance Garner or James Farley. The Republican nominee will be Taft. The man was powerful in the Senate and Dewey was just a district attourney despite his fame. In a direct matchup, I think that Garner would win.

Garner had turned against FDR and would seek nomination as the Democratic opposition to the New Deal, while Farley would seek it as the torchbearer of the New Deal.
 
In Britain, TTL conditions endorse the foreign policy platform of Chamberlain, he is never discredited, but hailed as the man that ensured "peace in our time". In all likelihood, he easily manages to stay the leader of the Conservative party and PM until he dies or steps down. A general election is due in 1940, and I do expect the Conservatives to win it. Nonetheless, Neville Chamberlain is fated to die by cancer in late 1940, so a successor would be necessary. ITTL a Churchill Premiership is of course impossible (unless Stalin or Tojo cause a different kind of general war), he would stay a marginalized backbencher. Eden, although much less in the fringe, would still be hamstrung by his previous resignation from Foreign Minister. So perhaps Lord Halifax.

It wouldn't be a peer. So that excludes not only the Holy Fox, but Lord Maugham (Somerset Maugham's brother), the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Stanhope, the First Lord of the Admiralty.

It would be a Tory, which excludes Lord Runciman, the Lord President of the Council (Liberal, and a peer), Sir John Anderson, the Lord Privy Seal (nonparty), Sir John Simon, Chancellor of the Exchequer (Liberal), Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, Minister of Agricultural (National Farmers Union, no less), and Leslie Hore-Belisha, Secretary of State for War (National Liberal, and Jewish, too), and a few others.

Who does this leave? Sir Samuel Hoare, the Home Secretary, Sir Kingsley Wood, the Minister for Air, and Sir Thomas Inskip, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs seem to be in the lead.

Hoare had been Foreign Minister as well as Home Secretary. Wood had been Chamberlain's Parliamentary Secretary when Chamberlain was Minister of Health, and had been Minister of Health himself later. Inskip was mainly a lawyer.

So, if Chamberlain picks it's more likely Wood, otherwise Hoare is ahead.
 
The Democratic nominee in 1940 will either be John Nance Garner or James Farley. The Republican nominee will be Taft. The man was powerful in the Senate and Dewey was just a district attourney despite his fame. In a direct matchup, I think that Garner would win.


John Nance Garner was 72 at the time, older then Reagan was when he was elected.
 
John Nance Garner has no shot in hell of being nominated for President. The New Deal coalition formed in '32-'36 and had full control of the party by 1940. He's anti-labor, conservative, and generally not the sort of person a party controlled by labor leaders and machine bosses from the North would ever nominate for President.

The most likely Democratic nominee in 1940? FDR. War or no war, FDR would likely have run for a third term simply because the Democrats didn't have anyone to run in his stead. And even if he refused to contest the nomination, he'd have been drafted (as he pretended to be IOTL). Given that, I think Roosevelt wins the nomination and beats the ever-loving shit out of Dewey or Taft in November. Wendell Willkie would be a nobody without the war.
 
Doesn't mean to hijack the thread, but why only USA, UK, Canada, Germany, and France? Surely what will happen to Italy, USSR, China, and Japan, not to mention Eastern European nations and Europe's Asian and African colonies should be...interesting.
 
The most likely Democratic nominee in 1940? FDR. War or no war, FDR would likely have run for a third term simply because the Democrats didn't have anyone to run in his stead. And even if he refused to contest the nomination, he'd have been drafted (as he pretended to be IOTL). Given that, I think Roosevelt wins the nomination and beats the ever-loving shit out of Dewey or Taft in November. Wendell Willkie would be a nobody without the war.

Well, if Taft was the Republican nominee, than I think FDR might reluctantly accept another term if only to protect the still-fragile New Deal programs from a strong conservative like Taft who would love nothing more than to see them gone...
 
Doesn't mean to hijack the thread, but why only USA, UK, Canada, Germany, and France? Surely what will happen to Italy, USSR, China, and Japan, not to mention Eastern European nations and Europe's Asian and African colonies should be...interesting.

Because the leaderships of this nations will not change.
Mussolini will rule Italy till is death or incapacitation if there is no WWII, he probably try some limited shenigan after a while, maybe in direction of Yugoslavia if he can get away with it and without is buddy Adolf he will try to concentrate is diplomatic effort on Spain (at least to get back some money) to get some sort of alliance of basin right. By the 50's he will get the not so simple work to search a successor, after he spent the last 30 years in neutering every possible opposition/strong personality, with all probability a comitee of Ciano, Balbo and some other plus some king representative.
In the URSS Uncle Joe will remain in power and gradually transform the nation in an giant version of OTL North Korea, without the stress of war he will probably live longer, after his death? Depende who survives by then.
 

Eurofed

Banned
John Nance Garner has no shot in hell of being nominated for President. The New Deal coalition formed in '32-'36 and had full control of the party by 1940. He's anti-labor, conservative, and generally not the sort of person a party controlled by labor leaders and machine bosses from the North would ever nominate for President.

The most likely Democratic nominee in 1940? FDR. War or no war, FDR would likely have run for a third term simply because the Democrats didn't have anyone to run in his stead. And even if he refused to contest the nomination, he'd have been drafted (as he pretended to be IOTL). Given that, I think Roosevelt wins the nomination and beats the ever-loving shit out of Dewey or Taft in November. Wendell Willkie would be a nobody without the war.

Agreed about Gardner. After '38, a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats controlled the Congress, but as it concerned Presidential elections, conservative Democrats heeded party loyalty (unless New Dealers would start messing with racial segregation) and the New Deal coalition controlled the party. Garner may make a bid for the nomination, but in all likelihood he would not get it.

However, it might be my political bias against the man speaking (IMO FDR had exhausted all his historical usefulness in 1940 and was a liability; any other internationalist US leader with less rosy eyeglasses about Communism would have done a much better job of waging WWII), but I really can't see any reason why FDR ought to be so indispensable to the Democratic party if the 1940 election is run in a peacetime atmosphere. The New Deal coalition was fully entrenched well beyond the presence of FDR at the helm by then, and a fresh Democratic candidate would not have the strong liabilities of having defied Washington's two-terms precedent and of FDR's poor health.

There are other good presidential candiates the Dems may field in 1940: James Farley is one, and IMO his religion would not be any real liability: Catholics were a strong component of the New Deal coalition, and the Democratic party had already picked a catholic candidate in 1928, even before it formed, without religion being a serious issue. There are other pissible good choices, such as Cordell Hull, another Dem luminary that FDR gave thought to back as candidate for a while like Farley, before deciding to run himself.

As it concerns the election outcome itself, IMO 1940 is too early for the GOP to shed the burden of mismanaging the Great Depression if the Dems do not screw up something bad. So I'd most likely expect Farley to defeat Taft in 1940, Dewey to win in 1948 at the latest, and 1944 might go either way.
 
Top