A different FaT scenario..

In OTL, John N. Garner chose not to be FDR's running mate partially because he disagreed with his attempts to pack the Supreme Court (as well as his decision to run for a 3rd term). But suppose he had decided to remain VP, and this inadvertently lead to him becoming President in December, 20th 1941? What might the World be like today?
 
Last edited:
Well it deinitely wouldn't be as messed up as it was in FaT...

IIRC Garner wasn't as Eurocentrically minded as FDR was. This would mean a definitive "Japan First" strategy being put in place. It would also lead to less Lend Lease for the other allies especially the Soviets as the Americans put their all into avenging Pearl Harbor.

By this point in time, the Phillippines are a lost cause but due to increased American Presure I'm positive that more American troops, ships, and planes would get involved in the Dutch East Indies. This might prolong the campaign but not for more than 2 weeks to a month.

After the Japanese complete their conquest of the NEI, they're going to be hard pressed to advance anywhere else. Garner would see Australia as a major base to strike back at Japan a base endagered by a Japanese held PNG. I could definitely see the Americans flowing full force into PNG and stopping the Japanese cold right there.

After PNG and the Solomons etc. the war would have continued somewhat like OTL except way ahead of schedule. The Phillippines may or may not be completely liberated but keep in mind that the Invasion of Formosa isn't out of the question with America's full attention. Anyhow the Allies are going to reach Japan ahead of schedule, that's for sure. Perhaps they move into Korea and Manchuria in an attempt to totally cut the home islands off and make them more vulnerable to a blockade and bombing offensive.

The European theater would be interesting. Both the Soviets and Britain would be for the most part cut off from American aid (IMO the soviets totally so). This is serious for the British but much worse for the Soviets. I'm pretty sure that the Soviets wouldn't advance as far as they did in OTL. They might just barely reach their 1939 borders.

Operation Torch would be delayed and wouldn't happen until 1943 sometime. I could definitely see the Americans adopting a more British strategy with landings in Italy, Greece, and Southern France. The Americans would definitely be in more of a supporting role in Europe IMO much like the British in the Pacific in OTL.

Also keep in mind that Garner wouldn't have any qualms about using the Atomic bomb on Europe. Roosevelt IIRC did have some hesitations. I could easily see a nuke being dropped on Berlin and perhaps some other German cities.

Just some thoughts....
 
Britian would probably have gotten quite a bit of aid, not as much as OTL, but our older material, and i'm sure we would have sent several divisons to Europe, wouldn't be the focus and Europe would have lasted a lot longer, but Hitler was much more of a threat than the Japanese were
 
From what I know about Garner, he was an isolationist and lacked the visin that FDR had. If he'd made it in to the Oval Office in 1941, I suspect that he'd kept the Eurpoean war at an arms length. This was a man that once said, 'I hope Britian never repays her war debt to us, that way she can't borrow more money.' This was refering to Britain's WW1 debts to the US. A man with this narrow thinking might not have even shown any real interest in getting involved in the Eurpoean War. And without US aid and support, I suspect that eventually the British Government would have been force in to some sort of agreement with Germany. The British would be able to keep the Germans at bay and prevent an invasion, but the Churchill administration would have been hard pressed to have taken the fight to the continent and would have had to find a diplomatic solution, most likely in the form of a non agression pack with German. For the Italians, they could continued their conquest of Africa, with the British having to pull all of their resorces back to the home islands and counter any possible German agression. With Italy in firm control of Africa, Mussolini would have maintained his popularity and remained in power. For the Soviets, this could have meant doom. Without America aid, and if the British did sign a non agression pack, then the Germans could have concentrated almost all of the armed forces on the elimation of the Soviets. The Germans would have only token forces in the occupied countires and no troops in north Africa, so the bulk of the German forces could have and would have been concentrated on the Soviet Union. The end result would have been a very long and very costly war. The German, I think would have taken most of the eastern portions of the Soviet Union, with the western half, remaining a bitterly fought after territory for years. I suspect that Stalin would have been overthrown by his own forces after he showed a lack of military understanding and threw away so much of his forces in useless battles. I believe that the Germans would have started and supported an underground rebellion that could have seized power in the west and then worked out a diplomatic end to the conflict, with german keeping the eastern portions of the Soviet Union, while the new puppet Soviet government organizes in to something totally new. Without a post-war Soviet Union, the spread of communism would not have occured in the way that it did, so we could have avoided the cold war, however, with Germany in control of Europe, a new and different Cold war could and would have developed. Without American and British cooperation, the Atomic bomb would never have been built, at least not by the American and not when it was. The Manhatten project was a large, very expensive project that required some out of the box thinking. That kind of thinking was exactly what FDR excelled at, however, Garner never showed that he was capable of thinking in such a manner. I suspect that he would have dismissed the idea of an atomic bomb, especially when confronted with the cost and lenght of time to research and built one. The Bomb would have been built eventually, but I think that its more likely that it could have been a post war German or America that ended up with the bomb, maybe somewhere in the mid 1950s. The war in the Pacific would have been all together different. The US would have put all of its resources in to fighting the Japanese back to the home islands, but once there, I think that Garner's approach would have been to simply bombed and starved Japan in to submission. It's hard to know how long that would have taken, but one can assume that eventually a civil uprising would have occured. The Japanese would have done all to prevent a diplomatic solution and the civilians would have been the ones to suffer. They would have risen up against the military leadership and then sued for peace... maybe in 1947 or 1948. This would make up a post war world with America in control of the pacific, Italy in control of portions of south eastern Eurpoe and north Africa, and Germany in control of Eurpore an the once Soviet Union. Without FDR and Truman, I doubt that the United Nations would ever have come in to existance. The US would have been in good shape after the war, but would now be forced to live coexist in a world with the Nazi instead of the communist.but that my thoughts.... I'd be interested in hearing others.
 
talonbear01

If what your saying about Garner is accurate it could be a grim situation in Europe. The only thing would be that with Hitler at the helm I'm not so sure Germany would have won a decisive victory rather than mutual exhaustion by both sides. Britain might see Churchill forced to resign in such circumstances and a negotiated peace.

In the Pacific would the US have been willing to wait out Japan. Given how much hostility to Japan and the gung-ho attitude of parts of the US I think there would have been overwhelming pressure for an invasion. This would be a bloodbath for Japan but also see very heavy losses for the US under the scenario you suggest. [With a more rapid US advance the Japanese population and war machines would not have been worn down so much and the invasion might well occur before the B29's are available]. Furthermore, with Stalin on the defensive against Hitler, it would have been US forces occupying Korea and helping Chaing in China. In the short term a big boost for the US but possibly a hell of a problem later on.

If Garner was such an isolationist might there have been two western bomb projects. A US one and a British /allied one? That would delay matters more but given the pressure I think one or both would develop it before the end of the 40's. Not much later for the allies, especially if say Britain is forced into a negotiated settlement in say 42 or early 43.

Steve
 
talonbear01

If what your saying about Garner is accurate it could be a grim situation in Europe. The only thing would be that with Hitler at the helm I'm not so sure Germany would have won a decisive victory rather than mutual exhaustion by both sides. Britain might see Churchill forced to resign in such circumstances and a negotiated peace.

In the Pacific would the US have been willing to wait out Japan. Given how much hostility to Japan and the gung-ho attitude of parts of the US I think there would have been overwhelming pressure for an invasion. This would be a bloodbath for Japan but also see very heavy losses for the US under the scenario you suggest. [With a more rapid US advance the Japanese population and war machines would not have been worn down so much and the invasion might well occur before the B29's are available]. Furthermore, with Stalin on the defensive against Hitler, it would have been US forces occupying Korea and helping Chaing in China. In the short term a big boost for the US but possibly a hell of a problem later on.

If Garner was such an isolationist might there have been two western bomb projects. A US one and a British /allied one? That would delay matters more but given the pressure I think one or both would develop it before the end of the 40's. Not much later for the allies, especially if say Britain is forced into a negotiated settlement in say 42 or early 43.

Steve

Hmmm.... well as far as Korea, if the US navy takes control of the situation, they could have isolated the Japanese armies in China and Korea from the home islands. The US could have driven straight at Japan, blockaded the islands, and kept the Japanese Armies from returning home and being used in a defense role. But given the popularity of FDR and his charm and ability to sway the American people, he was able to keep the war effort up. Garner on the other hand was far from charming or charismatic. He was an awful public speaker, and I don't think he could have kept up the war furier in the same way that FDR was able too, especially when the news and pictures of the casualities began showing up in the papers. Many American might have decided that after retaking our possesions and sinking much of the Japanese navy would be enough payback, and may have decided that a costly invasion just wasn't worth the effort.
 
It's worth noting that this was a two-way street. It's not just that Garner declined to run for V.P. again in 1940. FDR didn't want him. If Garner had tried to run again, FDR and the Democratic Party would have rejected him.
It was quite common in those days for presidents to change vice presidents. Garner was one of the rare two-termers before 1950. Wilson had Thomas Marshall, but before that, you had to go all the way back to Jackson's V.P. Martin Van Buren to find a two-termer.
Not to spoil the speculation, but I don't see how Garner is still V.P. in 1945, whether he wanted to be or not.
 
It's worth noting that this was a two-way street. It's not just that Garner declined to run for V.P. again in 1940. FDR didn't want him. If Garner had tried to run again, FDR and the Democratic Party would have rejected him.
It was quite common in those days for presidents to change vice presidents. Garner was one of the rare two-termers before 1950. Wilson had Thomas Marshall, but before that, you had to go all the way back to Jackson's V.P. Martin Van Buren to find a two-termer.

He was actually Secretary of State in the first term, with Calhoun as VP (after he'd also been VP under J.Q. Adams) - so you'd have to go back to Tompkins under Monroe!

McKinley probably would have dumped Hobart if he hadn't died just to get T.R. out of the way, as you say that was common back then.
 
Top