FaT DBWI: FDR doesn't die on 12/20/41

[David bar Elias]

I know that this POD has been done to death, but many of the scenarios resulting from it end in unrealistic utopia-wanks.

My challenge is to create a realistic scenario; what do you think would have really happened if FDR had managed to live a few more years after his abrupt OTL departure?

Granted, the world won't be the bleak, hapless disaster heap that it is today, but what would the world actually look like?

Thoughts?

 

[David bar Elias]

Bump!

C'mon, I know this is a very popular POD, but there must be some thoughts about how the world would be changed had FDR lived past '41. After all, you can do an awful lot with this particular divergence.

Any takers at all?

 

[Cavendish]

It's well known that FDR was a bigger fan of the UK than his successor; Henry Wallace. Perhaps more emphasis on the Western Front during the war? Less troops committed to the Pacific Theatre and more to Europe? More aid to the Soviets?

Um, who long are you proposing that FDR lives btw? I mean he was a very sick man, it's not like he would last too many more years? Maybe until victory against Japan?

Would he see the nuclear bombs dropped on Hamburg, for example?


Anyway, here's a couple of ideas, but my US political history is a little rough, so bear with me.

-FDR doesn't die after Pearl Harbour.

-Sends more aid to the UK, and troops to Africa.

-Largely neglects the Pacific, Midway falls to the Japanese

-Increased US aid to North Africa forces the Axis out by early 1943 (March-April).

-US invades Southern France in late 1943/early 1944, bypassing Italy, and
instead just bombing the country into submission as they did Germany in OTL

-Main invasion is launched into Northern France later that year instead of Norway, say June/July 1944. Allied forces make massive gains.

-Meanwhile the USSR is benifiting from increased US aid, Karkov offensive is a failure, and the Soviets are able to make some ground.

-By the start of 1945 the allies have reached the Rhine, whilst the Russians are steadily advancing in Belorussia.

-In late 1945 the war is over, and the allies capture Berlin. The USSR annexes Poland, Danzig and Konisgburg. The allies establish a democratic German government.

-Meanwhile in the Pacific the war has ground to a halt, with midway taken back by the US, and massive sea battles determining who is dominant. Japan is starting to suffer as US industrial output is a major advantage. Islands occupied by Japan are blockaded.

-In mid 1946 the US invades Kyushu, very bloody fighting occurs. FDR refuses to use the atomic bomb, and following the invasion and defeat of Japanese land forces on Honshu, the Japanese surrender.

-In late 1946 FDR creates the successor to the League of Nations- the Alliance of Nations. It's main aim is to encourage prosperity in all parts of the world.
-Beyond this who knows?

I presume that Roosevelt would step down at the 1948 election; he would have gotten the US through the war, and would want to retire as well.

Maybe the USSR becomes a democracy after time? A Western dominated Germany may be a powerful ally and a major world power again? Britain might be even stronger, with a more friendly USA and Germany, it may become the second superpower after the USA?

Would Israel be created in this timeline?
Would it be as close as it was to the British Empire as it was in OTL?

So many variables.


(OOC: that was a horribly disjointed post...sorry! oh... and you wanted it less utopian... ops.... )

 

[David bar Elias]

It's well known that FDR was a bigger fan of the UK than his successor; Henry Wallace. Perhaps more emphasis on the Western Front during the war? Less troops committed to the Pacific Theatre and more to Europe? More aid to the Soviets?

It's certainly up for debate; though he'll have a very good working relationship with Churchill, so many of the blunders made by Wallace that

Um, who long are you proposing that FDR lives btw? I mean he was a very sick man, it's not like he would last too many more years? Maybe until victory against Japan?

I was thinking around four years; long enough to be reelected in the '44 elections.

Would he see the nuclear bombs dropped on Hamburg, for example?

Depending on how the war in Europe goes, Hamburg might be spared its OTL fate.

Anyway, here's a couple of ideas, but my US political history is a little rough, so bear with me.

-FDR doesn't die after Pearl Harbour.

-Sends more aid to the UK, and troops to Africa.

-Largely neglects the Pacific, Midway falls to the Japanese.

-Increased US aid to North Africa forces the Axis out by early 1943 (March-April).

-US invades Southern France in late 1943/early 1944, bypassing Italy, and
instead just bombing the country into submission as they did Germany in OTL

-Main invasion is launched into Northern France later that year instead of Norway, say June/July 1944. Allied forces make massive gains.

-Meanwhile the USSR is benifiting from increased US aid, Karkov offensive is a failure, and the Soviets are able to make some ground.

-By the start of 1945 the allies have reached the Rhine, whilst the Russians are steadily advancing in Belorussia.

-In late 1945 the war is over, and the allies capture Berlin. The USSR annexes Poland, Danzig and Konisgburg. The allies establish a democratic German government.

-Meanwhile in the Pacific the war has ground to a halt, with midway taken back by the US, and massive sea battles determining who is dominant. Japan is starting to suffer as US industrial output is a major advantage. Islands occupied by Japan are blockaded.

-In mid 1946 the US invades Kyushu, very bloody fighting occurs. FDR refuses to use the atomic bomb, and following the invasion and defeat of Japanese land forces on Honshu, the Japanese surrender.

-In late 1946 FDR creates the successor to the League of Nations- the Alliance of Nations. It's main aim is to encourage prosperity in all parts of the world.

-Beyond this who knows?

A very interesting scenario. Though I personally think, with a better relationship with Churchill, Roosevelt might go along with the idea to go for the "soft underbelly" of Europe--Italy or the Balkans. Your scenario for France and Japan sounds very plausible.

I presume that Roosevelt would step down at the 1948 election; he would have gotten the US through the war, and would want to retire as well.

If he's still alive, what with the strain of leading the USA for those extra four years or so.

Maybe the USSR becomes a democracy after time? A Western dominated Germany may be a powerful ally and a major world power again? Britain might be even stronger, with a more friendly USA and Germany, it may become the second superpower after the USA?

I think that might be pushing it; it's all too easy for the USA and the USSR to find something to get into a confrontation over; the final status of Germany, perhaps?

Would Israel be created in this timeline?
Would it be as close as it was to the British Empire as it was in OTL?

It's no certainty, but it has a much better chance of success, especially if Roosevelt's Alliance of Nations acts cohesively to ensure a fair settlement to the Palestinian crisis.

So many variables.

Agreed; though we can agree that if Roosevelt's AoN is a success, nuclear proliferation won't occur nearly on the scale of OTL...not to mention a successful Israel means that there won't be waves of desperate Jewish refugees flooding into the USA...which causes many butterflies by itself.

(OOC: that was a horribly disjointed post...sorry! oh... and you wanted it less utopian... ops.... )

ooc: not to worry; considering this DWI takes place in FaT, it's easy for any alternative to sound more utopian than what takes place in that TL.

 

[Cavendish]

It's certainly up for debate; though he'll have a very good working relationship with Churchill, so many of the blunders made by Wallace.

To be honest I think that the Brits did get shafted in the early days of the war. Not that they helped make the war-time relationship work either, Churchill seemed quite sour to Wallace. If Roosevelt was still alive I think that you could of seen many more meetings and a more coherent plan on the post-war world.

I was thinking around four years; long enough to be reelected in the '44 elections.

So he'll die in 1945?
I assume that Wallace would become president at this point, though he would not be able to influence the war so much.

Depending on how the war in Europe goes, Hamburg might be spared its OTL fate.

Yeah, well if the Allies are actually fighting in Germany then they wouldn't bother nuking it. The butterflies from not using nukes would be interesting also- would nuclear weapons be more taboo if they had never been used before?

A very interesting scenario. Though I personally think, with a better relationship with Churchill, Roosevelt might go along with the idea to go for the "soft underbelly" of Europe--Italy or the Balkans. Your scenario for France and Japan sounds very plausible.

That would be interesting. Invading the Balkans would prevent the USSR from invading that region, and limit their spread in Europe. No Soviet Balkans would mean that Italy would not be jointly occupied. If that didn't happen then the Italian War in 1950-52 is almost certainly butterflied away...

If he's still alive, what with the strain of leading the USA for those extra four years or so.

True, but these things are hard to tell, I mean he could of lived until he was 100! (unlikely with his paralysis, but possible!)

I think that might be pushing it; it's all too easy for the USA and the USSR to find something to get into a confrontation over; the final status of Germany, perhaps?

True, what do you think would happen to Germany ITTL then, As opposed to OTL?

It's no certainty, but it has a much better chance of success, especially if Roosevelt's Alliance of Nations acts cohesively to ensure a fair settlement to the Palestinian crisis.

Yes, with international pressure, I could see the Arabs accepting Israel as an independent state. I also doubt that the USSR would be so supportive of Arab Socialism if there was an international body policing the world. The bloody wars of the middle-east might be avoided mostly.

Agreed; though we can agree that if Roosevelt's AoN is a success, nuclear proliferation won't occur nearly on the scale of OTL...not to mention a successful Israel means that there won't be waves of desperate Jewish refugees flooding into the USA...which causes many butterflies by itself.

I don't know if nuclear proliferation can be stopped. Remember they tried to limit the size of navies and ships following the first world war, in an even more chaotic world, how can a weapon as deadly as a nuclear bomb be banned?

 

[David bar Elias]

To be honest I think that the Brits did get shafted in the early days of the war. Not that they helped make the war-time relationship work either, Churchill seemed quite sour to Wallace. If Roosevelt was still alive I think that you could of seen many more meetings and a more coherent plan on the post-war world.

Agreed.

So he'll die in 1945?
I assume that Wallace would become president at this point, though he would not be able to influence the war so much.

Well, with the foundation established by Roosevelt, it would be harder for him to screw up as badly; there's always the outside chance that FDR picks a new Vice President before '44.

Yeah, well if the Allies are actually fighting in Germany then they wouldn't bother nuking it. The butterflies from not using nukes would be interesting also- would nuclear weapons be more taboo if they had never been used before?

They're such terrible weapons to begin with; it's not too much of a stretch to see the Great Powers more reluctant to use them in a world where the USA doesn't retreat into isolationism. Especially if the USA threatens retaliation over the wanton use of nukes. [/QUOTE]

That would be interesting. Invading the Balkans would prevent the USSR from invading that region, and limit their spread in Europe. No Soviet Balkans would mean that Italy would not be jointly occupied. If that didn't happen then the Italian War in 1950-52 is almost certainly butterflied away...

The Balkans would certainly be far better off than IOTL; Tito would be an interesting figure in this world...if he defies the USSR, he might be able to escape an invasion by Moscow, considering the USA could tell the Russians to back off. Might the Med. countries form a closer union together?

True, but these things are hard to tell, I mean he could of lived until he was 100! (unlikely with his paralysis, but possible!)

True, true...a world where Roosevelt who lives to be 100 would make for a cool ATL by itself.

True, what do you think would happen to Germany ITTL then, As opposed to OTL?

It would probably be divided between the Americans, British, and Soviets (maybe a small French zone too). We could see Germany divided between two states eventually...beyond that, they probably become the main setting for any conflict that arises between the Soviets and the West.

Yes, with international pressure, I could see the Arabs accepting Israel as an independent state. I also doubt that the USSR would be so supportive of Arab Socialism if there was an international body policing the world. The bloody wars of the middle-east might be avoided mostly.

I don't know if the Arabs will accept Israel...but the Jewish state would be in a much stronger position to defend itself, at least.

I don't know if nuclear proliferation can be stopped. Remember they tried to limit the size of navies and ships following the first world war, in an even more chaotic world, how can a weapon as deadly as a nuclear bomb be banned?

If the superpowers (the USA and USSR) both stand against proliferation (not wanting to give up their respective monopoly of the bomb), it could be done; don't forget, the Soviets proposed creating an international organization to regulate the spread of nukes, which President Taft rejected.

All in all, it would be a great world to explore...

 

[Fearless Leader]

Well, with the foundation established by Roosevelt, it would be harder for him to screw up as badly; there's always the outside chance that FDR picks a new Vice President before '44.

If he lives that long, I doubt Roosevelt would run for a FOURTH term in 1944 ongoing war or not. This is FDR we're talking about here. Any illusions of him living to 1948 are implausible IMO. Providing he lives that long, FDR will most likely step down come 1944 and hand the presidency to someone else to continue the war. Though he did like Wallace personally, I have my doubts that the Democratic party would allow Wallace to run in his own right. Perhaps another moderate?

 

[David bar Elias]

If he lives that long, I doubt Roosevelt would run for a FOURTH term in 1944 ongoing war or not. This is FDR we're talking about here. Any illusions of him living to 1948 are implausible IMO. Providing he lives that long, FDR will most likely step down come 1944 and hand the presidency to someone else to continue the war. Though he did like Wallace personally, I have my doubts that the Democratic party would allow Wallace to run in his own right. Perhaps another moderate?

Who would the Party pick in Roosevelt's place? Keep in mind Wallace would likely launch a third party bid for the WH as IOTL.

 

[Fearless Leader]

Who would the Party pick in Roosevelt's place? Keep in mind Wallace would likely launch a third party bid for the WH as IOTL.

I think it all depends on the actions of Roosevelt's Third Term...

I doubt it would be as rosy a utopia as many New Deal enthusiasts would claim. I have my doubts that FDR would have even ventured down the path Wallace did nevermind do so successfully. Honestly, I think FDR's going to stay as far away from any version of Wallace's 2nd New Deal as possible.

I think it is fair to say however, that under Roosevelt the bipartisan nature of his cabinet would continue. Stimson, Knox, Hull, and Forrestal will all probably stay onboard and continue to aid in the prosecution of the war. Connected to this, without Wallace's shake up of the Navy James Doolittle's planned raid on Tokyo and Yokohama in April of 1942 probably goes ahead as planned. If they're successfull (let's assume they are) The Japanese will be forced to pull back large numbers of fighters for homeland defense and American morale will achieve a huge boost.

Of course, if the Enterprise and the Hornet head off to Tokyo, that means that the Yorktown and Lexington are stuck on their own facing off against the Japanese in and around Port Moresby. Without the arrival of the Enterprise and Hornet, the Shokaku and Zuikaku probably escape and live to see another day.

As for the remarks that FDR would focus solely on Europe had he lived, I have my doubts. I doubt that his cabinet, congress, or the nation would allow him to ignore the "threat" of Japan. Though FDR will certainly put a more public emphasis on the war in Europe, the powers that be will ensure that the Pacific Front is well taken care of.

With FDR in charge and without a second New Deal or the issues of civil rights, the 1942 mid-term elections are a cakewalk for the Democrats who see their New Deal Coalition persist into 1944.

Another thing to take into account is that with FDR in charge, Anglo-American relations will be exponentially better. Had he lived I have no doubt that Churchill would have been able to talk FDR out of a 1943 invasion of Northern France. Now I remember reading that around late 1942 the British were planning for a full on invasion of Vichy French Africa... Operation GYMNAST or something like that. Perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt use this as a chance to introduce Americans into the European Theater of Operations...

Combine an American supported GYMNAST, with an earlier defection of Admiral Darlan and you've got a major headache for the Germans. I'd say that with most of North Africa in their hands Rommel is pushed out of Africa by mid 1943 at the latest. Then having already committed so many forces to the Mediterranean FDR and the Americans would be more likely to support an invasion of the Balkans or perhaps (more likely IMO) Italy seeing as it has slightly better terrain.

Now I doubt any of this will affect the Eastern Front all that much. Hitler's not going to bother defending North Africa when he's got much bigger fish to fry in the Soviet Union. All he'll do is shore up defenses in Italy and the Balkans and get Rommel out of Africa ASAP to save face...

Another thing to take into account are the effects of more Anglo-American lend lease and Anglo American cooperation in regards to the Atomic Bomb. More lend lease probably leads to lower British casualties and more offensive power in the Pacific (Burma offensive?) and in Africa. Cooperation on the A-Bomb might lead to earlier development (only slightly)

Come 1944 you've got a WWII that's looking a lot better for the Western Allies. It's fair to say that Wallace bungled it big time, so without him the Allies are going to do better no matter what. How much better is anyone's guess. I think the above scenario is somewhat realistic if not a bit ambiguous.

Anyway fast forwarding to 1944 you have the Allies in firm control of Africa and probably half-way up the Italian Peninsula. Northern France probably gets invaded after the Allies bog down in Italy but this time the Allies are ready. Perhaps they'll have learned by then that landing directly around a major port isn't such a good idea. At any rate, distracted by events in Russia and in Italy the Allies should be able to carve out a relatively big slice of Northern France for themselves. Perhaps Patton can restrain himself from slapping that soldier and stay in charge long enough to impact the conflict somehow... Meanwhile in the Pacific the Americans are Island hopping away probably focusing on the Philippines given MacArthur's insistence on returning...

All in all things look good for the Democratic Party. However FDR's health is failing and he can't consceinciously run for a 4th term. He announces his intent to resign in late 1943 leaving the DNC to pick his successor. Though he'll initially favour Wallace I think the bulk of the DNC will force him to pick another candidate, honestly I think FDR will eventually side with Cordell Hull as his successor. With things going so well and with him being a relative nobody, Wallace might not run for the Progressives afterall giving Hull a free ride on FDR's coattails into the White House...

 

[David bar Elias]

I think it all depends on the actions of Roosevelt's Third Term...

I doubt it would be as rosy a utopia as many New Deal enthusiasts would claim. I have my doubts that FDR would have even ventured down the path Wallace did nevermind do so successfully. Honestly, I think FDR's going to stay as far away from any version of Wallace's 2nd New Deal as possible.

I think it is fair to say however, that under Roosevelt the bipartisan nature of his cabinet would continue. Stimson, Knox, Hull, and Forrestal will all probably stay onboard and continue to aid in the prosecution of the war. Connected to this, without Wallace's shake up of the Navy James Doolittle's planned raid on Tokyo and Yokohama in April of 1942 probably goes ahead as planned. If they're successfull (let's assume they are) The Japanese will be forced to pull back large numbers of fighters for homeland defense and American morale will achieve a huge boost.

Of course, if the Enterprise and the Hornet head off to Tokyo, that means that the Yorktown and Lexington are stuck on their own facing off against the Japanese in and around Port Moresby. Without the arrival of the Enterprise and Hornet, the Shokaku and Zuikaku probably escape and live to see another day.

As for the remarks that FDR would focus solely on Europe had he lived, I have my doubts. I doubt that his cabinet, congress, or the nation would allow him to ignore the "threat" of Japan. Though FDR will certainly put a more public emphasis on the war in Europe, the powers that be will ensure that the Pacific Front is well taken care of.

With FDR in charge and without a second New Deal or the issues of civil rights, the 1942 mid-term elections are a cakewalk for the Democrats who see their New Deal Coalition persist into 1944.

Another thing to take into account is that with FDR in charge, Anglo-American relations will be exponentially better. Had he lived I have no doubt that Churchill would have been able to talk FDR out of a 1943 invasion of Northern France. Now I remember reading that around late 1942 the British were planning for a full on invasion of Vichy French Africa... Operation GYMNAST or something like that. Perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt use this as a chance to introduce Americans into the European Theater of Operations...

Combine an American supported GYMNAST, with an earlier defection of Admiral Darlan and you've got a major headache for the Germans. I'd say that with most of North Africa in their hands Rommel is pushed out of Africa by mid 1943 at the latest. Then having already committed so many forces to the Mediterranean FDR and the Americans would be more likely to support an invasion of the Balkans or perhaps (more likely IMO) Italy seeing as it has slightly better terrain.

Now I doubt any of this will affect the Eastern Front all that much. Hitler's not going to bother defending North Africa when he's got much bigger fish to fry in the Soviet Union. All he'll do is shore up defenses in Italy and the Balkans and get Rommel out of Africa ASAP to save face...

Another thing to take into account are the effects of more Anglo-American lend lease and Anglo American cooperation in regards to the Atomic Bomb. More lend lease probably leads to lower British casualties and more offensive power in the Pacific (Burma offensive?) and in Africa. Cooperation on the A-Bomb might lead to earlier development (only slightly)

Come 1944 you've got a WWII that's looking a lot better for the Western Allies. It's fair to say that Wallace bungled it big time, so without him the Allies are going to do better no matter what. How much better is anyone's guess. I think the above scenario is somewhat realistic if not a bit ambiguous.

Anyway fast forwarding to 1944 you have the Allies in firm control of Africa and probably half-way up the Italian Peninsula. Northern France probably gets invaded after the Allies bog down in Italy but this time the Allies are ready. Perhaps they'll have learned by then that landing directly around a major port isn't such a good idea. At any rate, distracted by events in Russia and in Italy the Allies should be able to carve out a relatively big slice of Northern France for themselves. Perhaps Patton can restrain himself from slapping that soldier and stay in charge long enough to impact the conflict somehow... Meanwhile in the Pacific the Americans are Island hopping away probably focusing on the Philippines given MacArthur's insistence on returning...

All in all things look good for the Democratic Party. However FDR's health is failing and he can't consceinciously run for a 4th term. He announces his intent to resign in late 1943 leaving the DNC to pick his successor. Though he'll initially favour Wallace I think the bulk of the DNC will force him to pick another candidate, honestly I think FDR will eventually side with Cordell Hull as his successor. With things going so well and with him being a relative nobody, Wallace might not run for the Progressives afterall giving Hull a free ride on FDR's coattails into the White House...

Very interesting...I wouldn't mind seeing more.

And speaking of Patton, even if he does slap a poor soldier ITTL, I doubt that FDR would insist on his dismissal...perhaps a public apology, and then it's back the front.

Hmm, how do you think Hull would deal with the new postwar climate? He's no Robert Taft, after all. With the Western Allies in control of more of Europe ITTL, and relations with Britain remaining strong, who knows where we'd go from here.

I suppose the GOP will nominate Dewey for '48. After Roosevelt and Hull, he probably has an excellent chance of taking back the WH. But without liberalism being discredited by Wallace, he'll probably govern from a far more moderate angle than IOTL.

 

[Fearless Leader]

Very interesting...I wouldn't mind seeing more.

And speaking of Patton, even if he does slap a poor soldier ITTL, I doubt that FDR would insist on his dismissal...perhaps a public apology, and then it's back the front.

Hmm, how do you think Hull would deal with the new postwar climate? He's no Robert Taft, after all. With the Western Allies in control of more of Europe ITTL, and relations with Britain remaining strong, who knows where we'd go from here.

I suppose the GOP will nominate Dewey for '48. After Roosevelt and Hull, he probably has an excellent chance of taking back the WH. But without liberalism being discredited by Wallace, he'll probably govern from a far more moderate angle than IOTL.

I am looking for a new TL to work on...perhaps...

As for Hull, He was always an advocate of international co-operation and a staunch internationalist. Before his death in 1950 (That spat with Wallace really did do a number on him, expect him to be healthier in TTL) he wrote a pretty decent article on reviving and reforming the League of Nations. Though the prevailing attitude of the time prevented this article from being widespread I think it's pretty good. Perhaps Hull pursues this policy in TTL using a reformed League of Nations as a means to deal with the Soviet Union?

Dewey will definitely win in TTL's 1944 RNC seeing as it was close enough in OTL nevermind what it will be in TTL's vastly altered political landscape.

 

[David bar Elias]

I am looking for a new TL to work on...perhaps...

As for Hull, He was always an advocate of international co-operation and a staunch internationalist. Before his death in 1950 (That spat with Wallace really did do a number on him, expect him to be healthier in TTL) he wrote a pretty decent article on reviving and reforming the League of Nations. Though the prevailing attitude of the time prevented this article from being widespread I think it's pretty good. Perhaps Hull pursues this policy in TTL using a reformed League of Nations as a means to deal with the Soviet Union?

Dewey will definitely win in TTL's 1944 RNC seeing as it was close enough in OTL nevermind what it will be in TTL's vastly altered political landscape.

Hmm, it's already suggested by another poster above that an "Alliance of Nations" could have been formed.

Might Hull have led in the creation of a supersized version of OTL's Amsterdam Pact? Interesting possibilities...an new LoN to deal with the Soviets diplomatically, and a military alliance with the Western European democracies (France's ruinous fascist rulers can be butterflied away) to contain the Soviets militarily.

 

[Fearless Leader]

Hmm, it's already suggested by another poster above that an "Alliance of Nations" could have been formed.

Might Hull have led in the creation of a supersized version of OTL's Amsterdam Pact? Interesting possibilities...an new LoN to deal with the Soviets diplomatically, and a military alliance with the Western European democracies (France's ruinous fascist rulers can be butterflied away) to contain the Soviets militarily.

I could definitely see Hull forming a kind of super "Amsterdam Pact" in the aftermath of World War II analogous to the Western Allies. He might even push memberships on other nations (Turkey For Example, or Greece...) to Block the Soviets in the Eastern Mediterranean.

As for Butterflying away France's ruinous Fascist leaders, I think this is a bit utopian. However that's not to say I don't think foreign diplomatic pressure couldn't have limited their catostrophic handling of the situation...

 

[David bar Elias]

I could definitely see Hull forming a kind of super "Amsterdam Pact" in the aftermath of World War II analogous to the Western Allies. He might even push memberships on other nations (Turkey For Example, or Greece...) to Block the Soviets in the Eastern Mediterranean.

As for Butterflying away France's ruinous Fascist leaders, I think this is a bit utopian. However that's not to say I don't think foreign diplomatic pressure couldn't have limited their catostrophic handling of the situation...

Well, the USA will want to present a united front against the Soviets, and having France go to pieces won't serve that interest.

And if America provides reconstruction funds to keep Western Europe afloat during the dark days after the war is over, politics in that part of the world should be on a more stable foundation, at least.

 

[Fearless Leader]

Well, the USA will want to present a united front against the Soviets, and having France go to pieces won't serve that interest.

And if America provides reconstruction funds to keep Western Europe afloat during the dark days after the war is over, politics in that part of the world should be on a more stable foundation, at least.

An outspoken advocate of the internationalists, I don't think it's too much of a stretch that Hull would support US aid to friendly non-communist European powers. "The Hull Plan" may just give Western Europe what it needs to survive the Cold War...

 

[David bar Elias]

An outspoken advocate of the internationalists, I don't think it's too much of a stretch that Hull would support US aid to friendly non-communist European powers. "The Hull Plan" may just give Western Europe what it needs to survive the Cold War...

Yes, although the USA might get pulled into a lot of conflicts overseas as the European powers try to hold onto their colonies...Americans in Algeria, anyone?

Although it's possible that the United States may also press its European friends to withdraw from their territories...but that might be too much of a stretch.

 

[Fearless Leader]

Yes, although the USA might get pulled into a lot of conflicts overseas as the European powers try to hold onto their colonies...Americans in Algeria, anyone?

Although it's possible that the United States may also press its European friends to withdraw from their territories...but that might be too much of a stretch.

It might not be as far fetched and utopian as it may seem...Some of Roosevelt's letters indicate he was definitely not in favour of the European Empires...Cordell Hull (Potential President from 1944 onwards) even less so. Perhaps Hull's new League of Nations serves as a medium for peacefull decolonization?

Speaking of the potential of a President Hull, I'd say that being so foreign policy oriented, he manages to successfully contain the Soviets. I could easily see him winning the election of 1948 so long as he keeps the issue of civil rights on the down low and focuses on foreign policy with some moderate reforms...

The question is...who do the GOP run in 1952?

Bear with me on this one but I say the GOP run Douglas MacArthur.

Before you go off ranting and raving hear me out. MacArthur in TTL would have been responsible for much of the US's victory in the Pacific (Seeing as without the debacle in Normandy, FDR will probably go with MacArthur's invasion of the Philippines or a compromise instead of Formosa) And for the securing of much of east asia...

Perhaps an altered George Patton?

 

[David bar Elias]

It might not be as far fetched and utopian as it may seem...Some of Roosevelt's letters indicate he was definitely not in favour of the European Empires...Cordell Hull (Potential President from 1944 onwards) even less so. Perhaps Hull's new League of Nations serves as a medium for peacefull decolonization?

Speaking of the potential of a President Hull, I'd say that being so foreign policy oriented, he manages to successfully contain the Soviets. I could easily see him winning the election of 1948 so long as he keeps the issue of civil rights on the down low and focuses on foreign policy with some moderate reforms...

The question is...who do the GOP run in 1952?

Bear with me on this one but I say the GOP run Douglas MacArthur.

Before you go off ranting and raving hear me out. MacArthur in TTL would have been responsible for much of the US's victory in the Pacific (Seeing as without the debacle in Normandy, FDR will probably go with MacArthur's invasion of the Philippines or a compromise instead of Formosa) And for the securing of much of east asia...

Perhaps an altered George Patton?

Looks like we have some intriguing possibilities as we enter the '50s.

Alright, so we have a World War II that's ended c.1945 or so. FDR retires (in failing health) in '44, and the Democrats nominate Hull, who overseas the creation of a new postwar LoN (let's call it the Alliance of Nations for now).

During the war, the Western allies manage successful offensives that take them into Germany and Austria, though the Soviets take Berlin. Italy, Greece, and Turkey are also in the Western camp.

So we have the AoN acting as a supersized version of OTL's Collective Security Organization, and Hull also founds a supersized Amsterdam Pact-type organization (let's call it the Allied Security Organization).

Now, it's 1952, and the GOP takes back the WH with Doug MacArthur.

I see Civil Rights starting to develop as the huge domestic issue during this decade. How goes President MacArthur handle things?

I guess it partially hinges on whether or not Israel was a success ITTL. If it was, we've at least removed the radicals and street brawlers from Palestine who had to flee to America IOTL, so relations between America's blacks and Jews won't be so poisonous.

 

[Fearless Leader]

Looks like we have some intriguing possibilities as we enter the '50s.

Alright, so we have a World War II that's ended c.1945 or so. FDR retires (in failing health) in '44, and the Democrats nominate Hull, who overseas the creation of a new postwar LoN (let's call it the Alliance of Nations for now).

During the war, the Western allies manage successful offensives that take them into Germany and Austria, though the Soviets take Berlin. Italy, Greece, and Turkey are also in the Western camp.

So we have the AoN acting as a supersized version of OTL's Collective Security Organization, and Hull also founds a supersized Amsterdam Pact-type organization (let's call it the Allied Security Organization).

Now, it's 1952, and the GOP takes back the WH with Doug MacArthur.

I see Civil Rights starting to develop as the huge domestic issue during this decade. How goes President MacArthur handle things?

I guess it partially hinges on whether or not Israel was a success ITTL. If it was, we've at least removed the radicals and street brawlers from Palestine who had to flee to America IOTL, so relations between America's blacks and Jews won't be so poisonous.

With America literally throwing it's weight around the rest of the world. I doubt they could get away with allowing the issue of Palestine being settled as it was in OTL. They'd probably intervene diplomatically (perhaps through the Alliance of Nations) and see to a Partition of Palestine between the Arabs and the Jews...

As for Civil Rights...that's anyone's guess but MacArthur will be hard pressed to make things worse...

 

[David bar Elias]

With America literally throwing it's weight around the rest of the world. I doubt they could get away with allowing the issue of Palestine being settled as it was in OTL. They'd probably intervene diplomatically (perhaps through the Alliance of Nations) and see to a Partition of Palestine between the Arabs and the Jews...

As for Civil Rights...that's anyone's guess but MacArthur will be hard pressed to make things worse...

Well, if he does sign any civil rights bills during his term (and he seems to be the sort of Commander-in-Chief who wants to see his laws enforced; he won't tolerate Southern governors who defy any Federal laws), you could see African Americans voting generally Republican, while Jewish Americans generally stay Democratic.

Might Earl Warren work as Doug's running mate? He seems to be an OTL political figure who never gets much attention in alternate history.