1944 Elections With An Alernate WWII

I would like some advice on who the Democrats would nominate for President in 1944 if President Roosevelt decided not to run for a fourth term. Would they stick with Wallace? Would Harry Truman be a strong enough candidate to defeat Dewey in ’44? Would any Democrat other than Roosevelt be able to defeat Dewey? For that matter, under the circumstances, would Dewey even be the Republican candidate?

Here is a very brief rundown of the world situation, which could influence the choices for a candidate:

- After the fall of France and a complete disaster at Dunkirk, Germany and Great Britain sign a peace treaty in late 1940. Great Britain saves face by maintaining her Empire, while Germany gets a free hand in mainland Europe.

- Germany and the Soviet Union duke it out in 1941 and 1942. Moscow falls, and Germany keeps some territory, but not such a large amount that it would be too difficult to control. The Soviet Union collapses into a civil war, resulting in multiple nations being formed by 1949.

- Mussolini still controls Italy, but is seen by the world as always playing second fiddle to Hitler. With German military assistance, Italy managed to hold down Albania and Greece. It still holds territory in Africa.

- Franco still controls Spain. Talks of a German-Spanish-Italian “new Axis” alliance are being held.

- The United States and Great Britain still go to war with Japan in 1941. By November 1944, the war is still going on but to this point is has been very successful for the Allies, therefore making Roosevelt more relaxed with the idea of handing the Presidency over. Germany was never formally allied with Japan.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Certainly not Truman, who was a relatively minor figure with connections to corrupt political machines.

You'd want someone tough enough to stand up to Germany. In my Nazi victory TL, I have Richard Russell as the Democratic nominee.
 

Typo

Banned
There's no way the democrats would ever nominate Wallace, who was far far too left
 
You'd want someone tough enough to stand up to Germany. In my Nazi victory TL, I have Richard Russell as the Democratic nominee.

I looked him up, and it does seem like a good choice. I read about a letter he sent to Truman the day after the U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, calling for the U.S. to be tough on Japan and get rid of the Emperor.

There's no way the democrats would ever nominate Wallace, who was far far too left

I thought that too. But in my timeline, with the Soviet Union no longer the Soviet Union, Wallace may not look as bad as he did in our TL.
 
In this time line, Japan faces 100% of the American war effort, and not the split resources required by OTL's Germany-First strategy. The UK, Dominions and Empire aren't busy with Germany-Italy either, and the Australians particularly are probably going to be available quickly for operations in the Malay barrier. The Pacific War ought then to look very, very different by 1944. Possibly just about over, with only the main islands of Japan, Korea, and the Kwantung army decaying under an airtight blockade and much heavier bombing than OTL's.

If so, then the candidate put forward by the Democrats is probably going to be the one making the final call on the invasion of Japan, ever-tighter blockade-bombing, or accepting a negotiated, conditional surrender. Is there anyone Roosevelt would anoint and crown at this point? He's probably got the power to block anyone he finds unacceptable...
 
IMO the two reasons that Truman was offered the VP position on the ticket was to keep him from prying into expenditures on the Manhattan Project through his senate subcommitee. The other was as a Southerner he ballanced the ticket.
 
I find it unlikely that the war with Japan would last until November 1944 with both the US and Britain fighting a one front war in the Pacific only.

The Allies fought the Pacific War with one hand tied behind their backs. With both hands, Japan would surely be defeated quicker.
 
I find it unlikely that the war with Japan would last until November 1944 with both the US and Britain fighting a one front war in the Pacific only.

The Allies fought the Pacific War with one hand tied behind their backs. With both hands, Japan would surely be defeated quicker.

I agree...I just haven't worked out the details yet. Either way, the war is going well or is already over, so Roosevelt decides he has had enough and is ready to retire.
 

recidivist

In an outline I scribbled a few years ago, I had FDR agreeing not to stand in 1944 due to deteriorating health. The contest was between Wallace/Truman and Stassen/Bricker, with Wallace winning. Added to that was Churchill winning the 1945 General Election with a certain Oswald Mosley splitting the Labour Party (Atlee had been killed in a V1 raid late 1944 and Herbert Morrison pipped Mosley as his successor) prior to that General Election.

My idea was a 'no a-bomb on Japan' but a 'tougher line on the Soviet Union in the late 1940s' scenario. I never progressed the outline.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
A side note, if Japan is pushed back quicker, US would be at a point where Japan is back at their home islands before US has the bomb, this could mean a very bloody war when US an UK troops in this case have to invade th Home Islands. Another factor is that if the bomb wasn't used, no one would really completely know it's full power. Both the US and Germany (I guess they'd have had time to develop it in this TL) would have no problems using it if they'd go to war. There would perhaps not be a US- Nazi Cold War since the bomb has not been used, no government would really fully understand it's destructive powers.
 

recidivist

Another factor is that if the bomb wasn't used, no one would really completely know it's full power.
I'm sure that the test explosions would give a very accurate indication of the power of the bombs.

My idea (far from original) was that the Japanese would agree to witness the exploding of such a bomb on an uninhabited Pacific island, it would scare the **** out of them and Hirohito would broadcast the surrender order on the urging of his politicians, just as in OTL.
 
The thing is, would Japan even consider war in '41 with the Commonwealth and the US? I mean the main reason they thought they could do it was because the British were fighting the Germans on the other side of the world.

More likely in a scenario where the western front ends in 1940, you would see a Japanese attack on the Soviet Union.
 

Thande

Donor
More likely in a scenario where the western front ends in 1940, you would see a Japanese attack on the Soviet Union.
Why? Given how Nomohan turned out, why would the Japanese attack again a year later? Especially since by that point they were most interested in acquiring resources to fuel their war in China, and the Russian Far East isn't exactly swimming in oil and rubber.
 
- By November 1944, the war is still going on but to this point is has been very successful for the Allies...Germany was never formally allied with Japan.
I have real doubts it would take the U.S. (with some Brit, Oz, NZ, & Canadian aid, to be sure) til 11/44 to defeat Japan. And the treaty with Germany, IMO, would still happen. Moreover, with German success against SU, I have a strong suspicion Japan would attack a faltering SU in Siberia, rather than the Pacific Fleet, in any event.
 
I have real doubts it would take the U.S. (with some Brit, Oz, NZ, & Canadian aid, to be sure) til 11/44 to defeat Japan. And the treaty with Germany, IMO, would still happen. Moreover, with German success against SU, I have a strong suspicion Japan would attack a faltering SU in Siberia, rather than the Pacific Fleet, in any event.

pacifichistorian

Not so sure. Presuming something like the OTL start to the Pacific war the USN gets hit hard while Britain will be able to spare far more land and air units but a lot and more of the navy will be pinned in Europe and the Med to watch the fascists. Malaya will very likely not fall but the allies have a long way to go to Japan and the fact they will be advancing earlier while the Japanese are stronger then fighting could get a good bit bloodier. I would expect the Japanese to be on the ropes by late 44 but the allies might just be preparing for a very bloody invasion of the home islands by that time. Don't forget that unless the US has been able to advance programmes very rapidly there would have been no B-29 and less time for the mining and sub campaigns.

It might be that with no or less early successes and being remorselessly driven back plus including probably the destruction of their position in China that Japan will come to terms. Alternatively however they might decide to fight to the end in which case it would probably be very messy.

Steve
 
I have to disagree. With no U.S. commitments in Europe, Japan has even less chance than OTL. Presuming no need to shore up Oz (which I'd credit to her own troops & Britain's), I'd expect the U.S. Sub Force to be entirely based in Pearl. By 11/44, this force would easily have Japan's merchant fleet next to destroyed & the Japanese economy at a virtual standstill by 11/44 (1/45 OTL), presuming no changes. Allow me to butterfly in the Mark 14/Mark 6 problems being solved (in about the 6wk it should have taken, instead of the 20mo:eek::eek: it did OTL), due to the boats all being at Pearl, & not under Christie (one of the designers of the Mk6), sooner still, say 8/44. Allow me to butterfly in Nimitz (or English) raising the priority on tankers & DDs, it's even sooner, as the subs shut off the flow of oil, cripple aircrew training, & turn IJN fleet units into floating batteries & barracks. Allow me to butterfly in Nimitz adopting mining against IJN harbors, with maybe a little aggressive DF & traffic analysis (which Hypo was capable of) & some selective shooting of IJN minesweepers, it's over by, oh, 3/44. (I won't ask for the "maru code" not to be blown, that's to ASB even for me.:p It'd bring the end to about 12/43, without adding mining or DF...)

BTW, when the U.S. landed at Saipan, the Japanese gov't fell. If the new Pres offered Japan terms then...?
 
Last edited:
If I understand correctly, in this timeline, the British made peace with Germany in late 1940. That could make FDR's victory in 1940 problematic as the polls I have seen from that time showed that where FDR solidly beat Willike was in the category as commander in chief. For a variety of reasons the American public was tired of the Democrats and New Deal in the late 1930s. It was expected that a Republican would win the White House in 1940. World War Two changed all that.

That said, potential candidates for the 1944-

William Douglas is a viable candidate, he came close to being the VP in our timeline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas
Paul McNutt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_V._McNutt
Jimmy Brynes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_F._Byrnes (he is hurt by being from the South and having been a Catholic at one point in his life)
Sherman Minton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Minton
Alben Barkley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alben_W._Barkley
Harry Truman of couse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman (Although I am not sure how a strong a candidate he would have been in this situation)
Cordell Hull http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordell_Hull (Although is health might have been a problem, he resigned from the Secretary of State position in November 1944 on health grounds)
Richard Russell- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell,_Jr. He is hurt by being form the South and being linked to racial policies of the South.
Henry Wallace- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace (disliked by the Professional politicans in the Democratic party as being.. well I think I'll use the term flaky)

That's just a quick list
Here's the link to the wiki page on the 1944 election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_presidential_election
 
Top