Churchill tells the Soviets where to go

iddt3

Donor
All this can be fixed if the OP simply revises the first section to remove the part about Churchill giving the information to FDR's political enemies. Not only is it TOTALLY out of character for him, it displays a fundamental lack of knowledge and appreciation for the American political system and erases any hope Churchill has for retaining American support for the war. It is a completely dunderheaded move, and I'm still trying to figure out the OP's motivation and rationale for it.
The OP wants zero Lend Lease for the USSR, and as far as I can tell thinks the only way to do it is to blackmail Roosevelt into it.
 
Of course, the fact that the British know so much might reveal some of the influence about British Security Coordination's networks in the USA. If that gets revealed...expect President Taft to win in a landslide. Churchill will be left on his own. Europe will be a wasteland for decades. Ho Chi Minh is close to the USA, or as close as a nation gets with no entangling alliances. Gore Vidal is eventually in Congress as a Republican. Henry Wallace return to Iowa to breed plants and edit Wallace's Farmer. Roald Dahl's books don't sell well in the USA. NATO is the abbreviation for the National Organization of Theatre Owners.
 
Of course, the fact that the British know so much might reveal some of the influence about British Security Coordination's networks in the USA. If that gets revealed...expect President Taft to win in a landslide. Churchill will be left on his own. Europe will be a wasteland for decades. Ho Chi Minh is close to the USA, or as close as a nation gets with no entangling alliances. Gore Vidal is eventually in Congress as a Republican. Henry Wallace return to Iowa to breed plants and edit Wallace's Farmer. Roald Dahl's books don't sell well in the USA. NATO is the abbreviation for the National Organization of Theatre Owners.

FINALLY! An actual prediciton of the long term consequences of no western aid to the USSR in a thread supposedly devoted to the question.

Some of us are sick and tired of the endless shouting past each other that passes for comments on this thread.
 
FINALLY! An actual prediciton of the long term consequences of no western aid to the USSR in a thread supposedly devoted to the question.

Some of us are sick and tired of the endless shouting past each other that passes for comments on this thread.

Except for all the predictions that state most the same things and point out that Churchill's policies of backstabbing and attempting to destroy FDR are about as suicidal as the leader of any major nation could hope for. :rolleyes:
 
1) Which is going to come to a screeching halt now that the UK has decided to react to that by attempting to collapse FDR's Administration. I can't emphasize enough that showing FDR's Administration was riddled with Soviet agents discredits FDR and his entire foreign policy trend, including alliance with the UK, which the proto-McCarthyists will say was a Soviet plot to involve the USA in Europe to prevent a Soviet takeover of China. Don't underestimate the probability of an Ersatz-Conman Joe showing up to claim something like this.

But nobody knows that outside a very tight circle of the political elite in D.C. The truth of the extent of Soviet penetration of the administration and Congress will be among the most tightly held secrets in Washington. The rest of the Eastern elite and the middle class will retain and strengthen their Anglophilia as they see Britain increasingly threatened by the Nazis. FDR cannot ignore the growing American demand to help Britain, in particular after he has spent the previous two+ years building the foundation for that support with his Fireside Chats, U.S. naval involvement in the U-Boat war, and various public material and morale support he has already given Britain. To turn away from Britain now, to reverse completely his previous support, will absolutely guarantee his party's defeat as Nazi appeasers in the next election, especially if he continues to ignore Britain after Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war.
2) Sure, the USA will go to war with Japan. The UK will collapse under its financial overstretch before the USA's in bombing range of the Japanese Home Islands.

4) Why does Hitler do that [declare war], especially since the USA's turning away from Europe and onto Asia? What reason does he have since the USA will not, I repeat, not be involved in saving the hide of an ungrateful wretch like Churchill here. The Democrats lose interest when Churchill starts sabotaging them, the GOP never wanted to fight Hitler in the first place.
Again Hitler doesn't know any of that! There is no reason for him NOT to declare war.
 
The OP wants zero Lend Lease for the USSR, and as far as I can tell thinks the only way to do it is to blackmail Roosevelt into it.

That's the OP's mistake. Churchill would never attempt anything like that in so clumsy a manner. For all that he was bulldog stubborn, he was not bulldozer stupid. FDR admired Stalin, but exposure of the extent of Soviet penetration of his White House and Congress would sour that goodwill very quickly. It doesn't need to be done in such a way that it guarantees FDR's hatred of Britain as well.
 
That's the OP's mistake. Churchill would never attempt anything like that in so clumsy a manner. For all that he was bulldog stubborn, he was not bulldozer stupid. FDR admired Stalin, but exposure of the extent of Soviet penetration of his White House and Congress would sour that goodwill very quickly. It doesn't need to be done in such a way that it guarantees FDR's hatred of Britain as well.

That makes sense, they want to get the information to Roosevelt in such a way that he will be grateful not resentful. Let FDR create the impression he's been playing a long game and only rounding these spies up because they are no longer useful; which would of course leave the Soviets wondering how useful the intel they have gotten is.
 
1) Again, the OP explicitly notes that Churchill releases this to FDR's opposition, to provide insurance or something via blackmail. Except that what *this* does is torpedo any initiative whatsoever on the part of the British to appeal to the USA. The GOP will say any attempt to get the USA to enter WWII is a Soviet plot, the British likewise have screwed themselves by a very unwise interference in US domestic politics via the worst possible means. Saying the OP *should* change this is irrelevant when the OP sees nothing there to change in the first place.

4) Given the way things unfold in the OP, Hitler would have to be a Mike Judge character not to notice.
 
1) Again, the OP explicitly notes that Churchill releases this to FDR's opposition, to provide insurance or something via blackmail. Except that what *this* does is torpedo any initiative whatsoever on the part of the British to appeal to the USA. The GOP will say any attempt to get the USA to enter WWII is a Soviet plot, the British likewise have screwed themselves by a very unwise interference in US domestic politics via the worst possible means. Saying the OP *should* change this is irrelevant when the OP sees nothing there to change in the first place.

I understand, and OTL is full of people doing dumb implausible things but those mistakes usually are usually in line with their character, perceptions, desires, and motivations. This seems so counter to everything we know about Churchill that the onus is on the OP to offer up a plausible POD for it.
 
1) Again, the OP explicitly notes that Churchill releases this to FDR's opposition, to provide insurance or something via blackmail. Except that what *this* does is torpedo any initiative whatsoever on the part of the British to appeal to the USA. The GOP will say any attempt to get the USA to enter WWII is a Soviet plot, the British likewise have screwed themselves by a very unwise interference in US domestic politics via the worst possible means. Saying the OP *should* change this is irrelevant when the OP sees nothing there to change in the first place.
4) Given the way things unfold in the OP, Hitler would have to be a Mike Judge character not to notice.
The GOP will have no choice but to sanction U.S. involvement after Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war. The big question would be how FDR deals with what he sees as abject betrayal by both of his presumed major allies. And with all of this action unfolding in the latter half of 1941, indeed in perhaps as little as a month or two (the OP doesn't give a timeframe for the release of the British information except that it's after the July 1941 release of the FBI's info to the Brits) there really isn't time for any sort of FDR reversal to make a substantial impact on Hitler's policy decisions. Again, he doesn't know the background, so he would need some sort of decisive evidence of a massive shift in U.S. policy before deciding against the declaration of war. It's not like FDR is suddenly going to call a press conference and declare all aid programs to Britain ended and all U.S. naval forces in the Atlantic withdrawn to port. That would require an extensive explanation that FDR does not want to give.

Oddly, I note that the OP has not come back to comment on this discussion or defend his TL in some time.
 
The GOP will have no choice but to sanction U.S. involvement after Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war. The big question would be how FDR deals with what he sees as abject betrayal by both of his presumed major allies. And with all of this action unfolding in the latter half of 1941, indeed in perhaps as little as a month or two (the OP doesn't give a timeframe for the release of the British information except that it's after the July 1941 release of the FBI's info to the Brits) there really isn't time for any sort of FDR reversal to make a substantial impact on Hitler's policy decisions. It's not like FDR is suddenly going to call a press conference and declare all aid programs to Britain ended and all U.S. naval forces in the Atlantic withdrawn to port. That would require an extensive explanation that FDR does not want to give.

Oddly, I note that the OP has not come back to comment on this discussion or defend his TL in some time.

Noticed that too, eh? I suppose he could be busy IRL, but that's a more optimistic view than what the reality probably is. I think in this case there wouldn't really be an alliance so much as three separate Great Powers fighting completely incompatible wars.
 
Noticed that too, eh? I suppose he could be busy IRL, but that's a more optimistic view than what the reality probably is. I think in this case there wouldn't really be an alliance so much as three separate Great Powers fighting completely incompatible wars.
Agreed, and wouldn't that lead to some colossal disasters.

I'm trying to be charitable about the absence of the OP, but his continued silence indicates he has abandoned this TL.

ETA: I note that the OP has been active on other threads, even started another TL, since this discussion began.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, and wouldn't that lead to some colossal disasters.

I'm trying to be charitable about the absence of the OP, but his continued silence indicates he has abandoned this TL.

ETA: I note that the OP has been active on other threads, even started another TL, since this discussion began.

For all the belligerents, yes. None of them wind up better off from this war. It's a humanity-screw, which you have to admit requires some talent to do.
 
Top