Best-case scenario without FDR

iddt3

Donor
Well, if some of the more Anti-American Britons are to be believed, the British Empire would still rule to this day as the pre-eminent world power.:rolleyes: Since, as everyone knows, Britain didn't LOSE their Empire, FDR destroyed it!:mad:

The Empire's fading away had nothing to do with the cost of WWI (FDR as Assistant Secretary of the Navy kept us out of the war for three years single-handedly in his life long quest to destroy Britannia:p:p). Not with trying to maintain an Empire that was no longer economical (because FDR, even as a private citizen and while dealing with a "mild" case of polio, was using all his political contacts in New York City to sabotage British trade agreements). Not because Britain was suffering the costs of the Depression (that FDR deliberately failed to fix as the Depression would continue to weaken Perfidious Albion:mad:). Not because of the costs Britain would pay in WWII because Roosevelt-who came to power the same year Hitler did-(suspicious, suspicious) refused to remove Hitler. Not because Britain elected three prime ministers in a row (MacDonald, Baldwin, Chamberlain) who refused to allow FDR a role in European political affairs because they knew that such a villain could not be trusted. Not like they could trust a Good European like Hitler!:rolleyes:

*end rant*

OK, before I get reported for trolling/flaming/baiting/square-dancing in a roundhouse,:eek: let me just say: these are not my words. Just PM Devolved. Or check out his ongoing "Happy and Glorious" TL. He'll tell you what's REALLY true about Franklin Roosevelt. Just be prepared afterwards to thoroughly flush out your brains with 50% bleach. Clorox, not that bargain shit.:D

Of course, FDR didn't exercise the secret provision of the Treaty of Versailles that said that at any time the President of the United States could depose the sitting government of Germany. They even made every German alive swear binding oaths to that effect. Quite appalling that FDR didn't utilize that to depose the Nazis and instead used them as his instrument to destroy the British Empire and perpetuate communism. So really, any TL without FDR is inherently better, because any other US president would have deposed Hitler in 1933.
 

iddt3

Donor
But seriously, best case scenario is that the progressives in the GOP and the Dem party pull together during the depression for some sort of National Progressive Union government, and puts both squarely in control of their own parties for the future, in OTL the democrats dominated for 40 years but it breed complacency and some stagnation, here you have to different versions of progressivism competing with each other and marginalizing the less savory bits of our national discourse. Or that might be impossible, would be an interesting political landscape though.
 
I can't believe I'm saying this, but the FDR defenders are right: the New Deal was a needed correction. America had moved too far to the right, and FDR's programs, though I have to admit I'd have opposed them if I'd lived at that time, right alongside the other Republicans, were what saved the country from an all-out class war/revolution. People were absolutely fed up, and FDR, patrician though he was, was the only one who understood that our country was about to explode. He didn't destroy capitalism, he saved it.
And for the record, I still don't applaud most of the things he did. For one thing, he eroded states' rights, and made the Federal government far too powerful, a step that had terrible consequences, reaching even to the present day. I believe it wasn't really the New Deal itself, but our armament and mobilization for World War II, that really saved the economy. But what mattered is that FDR showed that he cared about the working people. People could see that he was working hard, trying to solve the nation's economic crisis. And this took the wind out of the sails of radicals who claimed that capitalism had utterly failed, and that only an armed uprising and the removal of a corrupt leadership could bring fairness and justice to struggling Americans.
I don't know who could have taken FDR's place at that time. It would have been a worse time for our country, if he hadn't been around, and it was pretty bad already.
 
But seriously, best case scenario is that the progressives in the GOP and the Dem party pull together during the depression for some sort of National Progressive Union government, and puts both squarely in control of their own parties for the future, in OTL the democrats dominated for 40 years but it breed complacency and some stagnation, here you have to different versions of progressivism competing with each other and marginalizing the less savory bits of our national discourse. Or that might be impossible, would be an interesting political landscape though.

That's a good scenario, but for the primeval nature of the rightwing of the GOP, along with the anti-reform nature of even some GOP moderates. The Dixiecrats were too desperate in their poverty, and HAD to accept deals with the rest of the party (provided no one messed with "civil rights"). The Republicans had been in power pretty much uninterrupted nationally from 1860 until the Depression hit. That's three generations of power, with only Cleveland and Wilson in the mix.

Hoover's attitude of "Prosperity is just around the corner" wasn't just a slogan. The GOP really seems to have believed it. They saw the White House as their right, and FDR and his overwhelmingly Democratic Congress were a mere aberration. Since they had the $$$ to ride the Depression out, they could afford a "let them eat cake" mindset. No wonder the CPUSA's all time popularity numbers were in 1935.
 
Jacobus

I should say that the war orders from Europe were already pulling us out of the Great Depression by late 1939. YES, the numbers were horrible by any other standard, but by the standards of the Depression, they were the best times seen since just after the Crash of '29. I also agree FDR made big mistakes. As long as there is a USA, our enemies will gleefully point to what we did to the Nisei. A terrible price the country paid, and is paying, just so the Democrats could carry all those Western House seats in 1942. Like as if the Republicans in the House would block the War Effort!?
 
I can't believe I'm saying this, but the FDR defenders are right: the New Deal was a needed correction. America had moved too far to the right, and FDR's programs, though I have to admit I'd have opposed them if I'd lived at that time, right alongside the other Republicans, were what saved the country from an all-out class war/revolution. People were absolutely fed up, and FDR, patrician though he was, was the only one who understood that our country was about to explode. He didn't destroy capitalism, he saved it.
And for the record, I still don't applaud most of the things he did. For one thing, he eroded states' rights, and made the Federal government far too powerful, a step that had terrible consequences, reaching even to the present day. I believe it wasn't really the New Deal itself, but our armament and mobilization for World War II, that really saved the economy. But what mattered is that FDR showed that he cared about the working people. People could see that he was working hard, trying to solve the nation's economic crisis. And this took the wind out of the sails of radicals who claimed that capitalism had utterly failed, and that only an armed uprising and the removal of a corrupt leadership could bring fairness and justice to struggling Americans.
I don't know who could have taken FDR's place at that time. It would have been a worse time for our country, if he hadn't been around, and it was pretty bad already.
It's good to see some people can see past petty partisan politics.

The only quibble is that WWII was the ultimate New Deal Big Government Spending Program. Basically the New Deal didn't quite go far enough in stimulating the economy.
 
It's good to see some people can see past petty partisan politics.

The only quibble is that WWII was the ultimate New Deal Big Government Spending Program. Basically the New Deal didn't quite go far enough in stimulating the economy.

Even "Professional Republican" Sean Hannity today proudly declares: "If FDR, Harry Truman, or JFK were alive today, THEY'D BE REPUBLICANS!"

Don't know what those three great men would think of the Tea Party. But I know what the Tea Party thinks of them, and it isn't good. Except for Truman's nuking Japan. I'm just SURE they love that.:rolleyes:
 
What about Al Smith

1) He was the #2 contender in 1932
2) While he opposed the more radical parts of the new deal he did support progressive legislation
3) He was one of the earliest american politicians to speak out against hitler.

Perhaps Al smith takes some of the more moderate ideas from the new deal(like the FDIC and the civilian conservation corps), combines them with tariff reductions and looser money policy than hoover.

In 1932 the worsening economy would allow voters to overlook Smith catholicism and prohibition having run its course would also remove the other issue blocking smith.
 
Just about any POTUS (bar Robert Taft) would have seen an actual, impending Nazi hegemony over Europe as time to terminate Germany with extreme prejudice. A question might be how this President would handle the difficulties of having to fight on the same side as the Soviets (who the Nazis by virtue of being Nazis will at some point invade so Hitler can fap to wiping out all the Russians and Jews and Gypsies), and the UK (which will never accept Hitler as overlord of Europe while Hitler will never seriously want to crush the UK or the British Empire).

Now, as far as the Great Depression, I remain skeptical that one man in the White House was all that was stopping a full-scale fascist or communist takeover, but US politics certainly would be more polarized in all the wrong ways in a much more dangerous fashion. There is a huge difference between that and a US version of Stalin or Mussolini.
 
What about Al Smith?

I can do you one better -- while OTL he was an intense critic of the New Deal, I can't help but wonder how much of that stemmed from his personal animosity to FDR and/or the bitter experience of 1928? He was close to Robert Wagner, and it was he who introduced and sheparded through Congress what was arguably the second biggest part of the New Deal, the National Labor Relations Act. For that matter, Smith was also familiar with Frances Perkins from his work in Albany, so it's possible he'd at least hear arguments for Social Security.

So let's say -- Theodore Roosevelt Jr beats Al Smith's gubernatorial re-election camapaign in 1924; Smith then either runs for Senate in 26 or (preferably) returns to the Governor's mansion in 1928. He then seeks and receives the Democratic nomination for President in 1932, and runs as a New Dealer (calling it something else).

Any thoughts?
 
I can do you one better -- while OTL he was an intense critic of the New Deal, I can't help but wonder how much of that stemmed from his personal animosity to FDR and/or the bitter experience of 1928? He was close to Robert Wagner, and it was he who introduced and sheparded through Congress what was arguably the second biggest part of the New Deal, the National Labor Relations Act. For that matter, Smith was also familiar with Frances Perkins from his work in Albany, so it's possible he'd at least hear arguments for Social Security.

So let's say -- Theodore Roosevelt Jr beats Al Smith's gubernatorial re-election camapaign in 1924; Smith then either runs for Senate in 26 or (preferably) returns to the Governor's mansion in 1928. He then seeks and receives the Democratic nomination for President in 1932, and runs as a New Dealer (calling it something else).

Any thoughts?

Best scenario I've seen.

Consider this. Assuming Al Smith leaves the White House in 1940? Does this mean a fellow Catholic has a better chance to succeed him? Like Joe Kennedy, Sr?:eek: If he doesn't cozy up to Chamberlain, that is...:rolleyes:
 

Shooter

Banned
If FDR was not the worst, Who was?

How would that be good news?

I can't remember which tl it came from but there is one on the board where FDR looses the New York Gubernatorial election and thus isn't a contender in '32. Smoot-Hawley isn't passed due to other factors and the US only enters a deep recession rather than a depression. With no permanent New Deal America doesn't look likely to end up with open-ended entitlements and all the others ills Roosevelt brought in. I just don't understand the FDR love, he was a poor President, though far from the worst.

It is hard for a student of history and economics not to think that FDR was not far and away the worst POTUS ever!
He and his Crony policies caused the World Wide Depression! That in turn caused WW-II because it brought Hitler to power and sustained Stalin and Communism, which would have been gone WO him! (FDR that is!)
 
Consider this. Assuming Al Smith leaves the White House in 1940? Does this mean a fellow Catholic has a better chance to succeed him? Like Joe Kennedy, Sr?:eek: If he doesn't cozy up to Chamberlain, that is...:rolleyes:

Could be a Republican too -- possibly TommDewey if he's elected NY Gov in 1938. I wonder, though, how would a fresh President handle an escalating WWII, potentially inuding an incident like Pearl Harbor?
 
It is hard for a student of history and economics not to think that FDR was not far and away the worst POTUS ever!
He and his Crony policies caused the World Wide Depression! That in turn caused WW-II because it brought Hitler to power and sustained Stalin and Communism, which would have been gone WO him! (FDR that is!)

Hello Shooter! Goodbye Shooter!

I'm no expert but this kind of behavior right out of the box usually denotes a sock puppet, does it not? Anyone have any ideas on the real ID on this guy?:confused:
 
It is hard for a student of history and economics not to think that FDR was not far and away the worst POTUS ever!
He and his Crony policies caused the World Wide Depression! That in turn caused WW-II because it brought Hitler to power and sustained Stalin and Communism, which would have been gone WO him! (FDR that is!)

20th Century American (and World!) History 101: Black Thursday Stock Market Crash, October 1929. POTUS Herbert Hoover in charge. FDR inaugurated, January 1933. 39 months of Republicanism to respond to the disaster before the Greatest American President of the 20th Century (3rd overall after Lincoln and Washington) could even reach the tiller of state.

I hate when the kids take over Dad's computer.:p
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It is hard for a student of history and economics not to think that FDR was not far and away the worst POTUS ever!
He and his Crony policies caused the World Wide Depression! That in turn caused WW-II because it brought Hitler to power and sustained Stalin and Communism, which would have been gone WO him! (FDR that is!)

Didn't you get tossed for this sort of bizarre conspiracy stuff like 7 days and 11 seconds ago?

Cease and desist with this crap.


Strike 2.

Kicked for ANOTHER week.
 
The year of Crucial Events to counter the non-presidency of FDR is 1925, I dare say.

In 1925:

Hitler gets hit by a truck.

Stalin killed by man (or woman) with axe.

Emperor Hirohito has a vivid dream about being locked in the body of King George III during the American Revolution and wakes up in a cold sweat demanding at the top his royal lungs that a constitutional monarchy be formed at once. (No, wait, they already had a "Parliament"/Diet. Dang...)
 
2) While he opposed the more radical parts of the new deal he did support progressive legislation
3) He was one of the earliest american politicians to speak out against hitler.

One thing people often forget is that FDR didn't campaign on remaking the USA. The New Deal was largely a reaction to the panic that he had to deal with as soon as he stepped into office.
 
One thing people often forget is that FDR didn't campaign on remaking the USA. The New Deal was largely a reaction to the panic that he had to deal with as soon as he stepped into office.

Like the last operating bank in the US closing its doors the day before FDR was inaugurated. Keeping the banks open was the only thing Hoover took a pro-active role in.
 
Top