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

[Fearless Leader]

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.

Warren could very well balance MacArthur on the GOP ticket, however becoming President in his own right would be difficult. Joe Junior is definitely not in a place to run in 1952 like OTL and would most likely wait until 1960 to do so winning a first term in office.

I could also see internal communism becoming somewhat of a big deal in TTL's 1950's what with the end of a 24 year Democratic stranglehold on the WH. Alger Hiss and all that may come out later with substantially less effect but still, a general sense of paranoia.

As for civil rights I could definitely see MacArthur passing some legislation to encourage African Americans to vote in the South. How effective that would be...well that's another thing. Perhaps de-segregation comes to a more gradual end (unfortunately it's still going to be marred with considerable ammounts of violence but nowhere near OTL). It could also lead to the fracture of the New Deal Coalition with Southern Conservatives forming their own party...

It would also be interesting to see how MacArthur deals with Stalin's death and whoever replaces him. Beria came pretty close in OTL, perhaps he's a bit luckier in TTL? Other potential successors? Perhaps Zhukov and the army get tipped off?

Here's a tentative list of Presidents for a Potential TL

List of United States Presidents in "The Third Term..."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1932-44)
-Cordell Hull (1944-1952)
-Douglas MacArthur (1952-1960)
-Joesph Kennedy Junior (1960-????)

 

[David bar Elias]

Warren could very well balance MacArthur on the GOP ticket, however becoming President in his own right would be difficult. Joe Junior is definitely not in a place to run in 1952 like OTL and would most likely wait until 1960 to do so winning a first term in office.

I could also see internal communism becoming somewhat of a big deal in TTL's 1950's what with the end of a 24 year Democratic stranglehold on the WH. Alger Hiss and all that may come out later with substantially less effect but still, a general sense of paranoia.

As for civil rights I could definitely see MacArthur passing some legislation to encourage African Americans to vote in the South. How effective that would be...well that's another thing. Perhaps de-segregation comes to a more gradual end (unfortunately it's still going to be marred with considerable ammounts of violence but nowhere near OTL). It could also lead to the fracture of the New Deal Coalition with Southern Conservatives forming their own party...

It would also be interesting to see how MacArthur deals with Stalin's death and whoever replaces him. Beria came pretty close in OTL, perhaps he's a bit luckier in TTL? Other potential successors? Perhaps Zhukov and the army get tipped off?

Here's a tentative list of Presidents for a Potential TL

List of United States Presidents in "The Third Term..."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1932-44)
-Cordell Hull (1944-1952)
-Douglas MacArthur (1952-1960)
-Joesph Kennedy Junior (1960-????)

Zhukov would be interesting, although it is very hard to imagine the USSR without its long line of Stalinist rulers. Not my best area of expertise.

I wonder how he would handle the likely split with Mao's China?

I agree...the civil rights movement of TTL won't be nearly as violent as IOTL, though African Americans will have to deal with a lot of terror from white supremacists. Perhaps someone like Reverend King [ooc: pushed to the sidelines in FaT] could have a larger voice ITTL?

Joe Kennedy could make his national debut in '60, but what about the other candidates? How about Lyndon Johnson? I've read his biography, and it seems that he had very liberal personal views about the government's responsibilities for minorities and the poor. With a more liberal political climate ITTL, he could win the Democratic nomination instead of Kennedy.

 

[Elcolo]

A lot of the changes resulting from less brutality and bungling in WWII would result in a world unrecognizable to the unfortunate one we ended up with. Removing a big-business pandering New Dealer like JPK would do away with the hastily constructed 50-state nuclear power plant system that collapsed in the late '70s. No rolling blackouts in the '80s, no Pwits rising against the non-radioactive, heck, no famines in the midwest would save thousands in the US, alone.

Similarly, if some kind of enlarged Amsterdam Pact is formed, psychopathic leaders like Chikatilo would certainly not be encouraged to rise through the ranks of the Soviet Communist Party and more rational leaders would be inclined to avoid confrontation. The unnecessary nuclear exchanges of the '70s with China and the Jerusalem pact could be avoided entirely, or minimized to conventional conflicts at the very least. If Mecca, Jerusalem, Cairo and Medina were not glowing today, perhaps the Abrahamic faiths would still have sizeable followings and would not be discredited as they are today.

And of course, if Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the gulf states aren't nuked, oil might not cost ten dollars a gallon nowadays, even with Venezuelan oil-cartels controlling the market.

However, I'm not sure if such an ideal world is even sustainable. the Peoples Republic of China was unstable from the get-go and Mao would certainly be overthrown at some point. While it may not have splintered into a dozen microstates after its nuclear decimation as it did in OTL, the Maoist bloodbath would have continued, and the numbers of Chinese would keep growing. Can we really imagine a world, that can sustain six to eight BILLION people? The famines in India, China and east Asia in general meant that at the very least we didn't have to deal with this Malthusian catastrophe.

 

[Fearless Leader]

Zhukov would be interesting, although it is very hard to imagine the USSR without its long line of Stalinist rulers. Not my best area of expertise.

I wonder how he would handle the likely split with Mao's China?

I agree...the civil rights movement of TTL won't be nearly as violent as IOTL, though African Americans will have to deal with a lot of terror from white supremacists. Perhaps someone like Reverend King [ooc: pushed to the sidelines in FaT] could have a larger voice ITTL?

Joe Kennedy could make his national debut in '60, but what about the other candidates? How about Lyndon Johnson? I've read his biography, and it seems that he had very liberal personal views about the government's responsibilities for minorities and the poor. With a more liberal political climate ITTL, he could win the Democratic nomination instead of Kennedy.

Perhaps Johnson becomes JPK's VP or the other way around? Joe Senior was pretty driven to get one of his boys into the White house so I don't think JPK can be completely taken out of the picture.

As for Zhukov and the split with China, I doubt that the Sino-Soviet Split could be handled peacfully. Perhaps less violently than it was in OTL but conflict between the USSR and the PRC was probably a foregone conclusion.

A lot of the changes resulting from less brutality and bungling in WWII would result in a world unrecognizable to the unfortunate one we ended up with. Removing a big-business pandering New Dealer like JPK would do away with the hastily constructed 50-state nuclear power plant system that collapsed in the late '70s. No rolling blackouts in the '80s, no Pwits rising against the non-radioactive, heck, no famines in the midwest would save thousands in the US, alone.

Similarly, if some kind of enlarged Amsterdam Pact is formed, psychopathic leaders like Chikatilo would certainly not be encouraged to rise through the ranks of the Soviet Communist Party and more rational leaders would be inclined to avoid confrontation. The unnecessary nuclear exchanges of the '70s with China and the Jerusalem pact could be avoided entirely, or minimized to conventional conflicts at the very least. If Mecca, Jerusalem, Cairo and Medina were not glowing today, perhaps the Abrahamic faiths would still have sizeable followings and would not be discredited as they are today.

And of course, if Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the gulf states aren't nuked, oil might not cost ten dollars a gallon nowadays, even with Venezuelan oil-cartels controlling the market.

However, I'm not sure if such an ideal world is even sustainable. the Peoples Republic of China was unstable from the get-go and Mao would certainly be overthrown at some point. While it may not have splintered into a dozen microstates after its nuclear decimation as it did in OTL, the Maoist bloodbath would have continued, and the numbers of Chinese would keep growing. Can we really imagine a world, that can sustain six to eight BILLION people? The famines in India, China and east Asia in general meant that at the very least we didn't have to deal with this Malthusian catastrophe.

Remember that in this "Ideal world", oil is going to be considerably cheaper thereby decreasing costs for shipping. Furthermore without the rampant use of nuclear weapons and fewer nuclear powerplant disasters the environment is going to be in way better shape greatly increasing food production. I'm not saying that there won't be famine (surely Africa, Asia, and India will have large ones) but the rest of the world should be fine.

Another thought....

With President Hull throwing his weight around in terms of foreign policy it's unlikely that the military downsizing that occurred under President Taft would occur. The US will most likely remain the world's foremost military power and along with that would come an extensive Space Program. Imagine fleets of antipodal bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles! Perhaps the Military gets to set up it's orbital base and moon base in TTL...

Perhaps this increased militarization of space leads to a sense of "Mutually Assured Destruction" and leads to everyone being a bit more cautious with their use of Nuclear weapons in order to forestall Armageddon. Though some would call this concept utopian, I'm not convinced. Sure using nukes becomes taboo, but then again the world is only one press of a button away from total annihilation...

 

[David bar Elias]

Perhaps Johnson becomes JPK's VP or the other way around? Joe Senior was pretty driven to get one of his boys into the White house so I don't think JPK can be completely taken out of the picture.

As for Zhukov and the split with China, I doubt that the Sino-Soviet Split could be handled peacfully. Perhaps less violently than it was in OTL but conflict between the USSR and the PRC was probably a foregone conclusion.

Point taken; I suppose the only way to keep JPK out of politics would be for something bad to happen to him during WWII, or some kind of personal scandal to scuttle his plans.

Well, the USSR and the PRC might have a very tense standoff, but ITTL, that would be confounded (for the Russians) with a standoff with the West. The Soviet Union may splinter even earlier than IOTL, though hopefully with fewer nukes involved.

Remember that in this "Ideal world", oil is going to be considerably cheaper thereby decreasing costs for shipping. Furthermore without the rampant use of nuclear weapons and fewer nuclear powerplant disasters the environment is going to be in way better shape greatly increasing food production. I'm not saying that there won't be famine (surely Africa, Asia, and India will have large ones) but the rest of the world should be fine.

International trade will stay stronger; what was Hull's position on tariffs? We could see the Western bloc nations reduce (or even eliminate, in the long term), their trade barriers with each other.

With fewer cities going up in radioactive smoke, international trade won't be nearly as reduced as IOTL.

Another thought....

With President Hull throwing his weight around in terms of foreign policy it's unlikely that the military downsizing that occurred under President Taft would occur. The US will most likely remain the world's foremost military power and along with that would come an extensive Space Program. Imagine fleets of antipodal bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles! Perhaps the Military gets to set up it's orbital base and moon base in TTL...

Perhaps this increased militarization of space leads to a sense of "Mutually Assured Destruction" and leads to everyone being a bit more cautious with their use of Nuclear weapons in order to forestall Armageddon. Though some would call this concept utopian, I'm not convinced. Sure using nukes becomes taboo, but then again the world is only one press of a button away from total annihilation...

Now that would be a sight to see in any TL!

MAD...that's a very interesting idea; it makes the possibility of war more remote, but at the same time ensures that any war waged could be the world's last.

 

[David bar Elias]

A lot of the changes resulting from less brutality and bungling in WWII would result in a world unrecognizable to the unfortunate one we ended up with. Removing a big-business pandering New Dealer like JPK would do away with the hastily constructed 50-state nuclear power plant system that collapsed in the late '70s. No rolling blackouts in the '80s, no Pwits rising against the non-radioactive, heck, no famines in the midwest would save thousands in the US, alone.

We could see the fifty-state plant system be built later, when technology is improved (perhaps in reaction to an alternative energy crisis in the Mideast?

Not to mention the interstate power plant system only really collapsed thanks to Goldwater selling them off to the states. The issue can certainly be handled better than IOTL, that's for sure.

Similarly, if some kind of enlarged Amsterdam Pact is formed, psychopathic leaders like Chikatilo would certainly not be encouraged to rise through the ranks of the Soviet Communist Party and more rational leaders would be inclined to avoid confrontation. The unnecessary nuclear exchanges of the '70s with China and the Jerusalem pact could be avoided entirely, or minimized to conventional conflicts at the very least. If Mecca, Jerusalem, Cairo and Medina were not glowing today, perhaps the Abrahamic faiths would still have sizeable followings and would not be discredited as they are today.

(ooc: The final FaT segment indicated that Jerusalem at least had been rebuilt as the capital of Meir Kahane's Israel).

The Jerusalem Pact itself could be butterflied away with a successful Israel, at least. But any pan-Middle Eastern conflict could attract a united Western bloc too ITTL.

And of course, if Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the gulf states aren't nuked, oil might not cost ten dollars a gallon nowadays, even with Venezuelan oil-cartels controlling the market.

Don't be too sure; all that could mean is that a larger version of the Venezuelan/Nigerian stranglehold on the market could exist.

However, I'm not sure if such an ideal world is even sustainable. the Peoples Republic of China was unstable from the get-go and Mao would certainly be overthrown at some point. While it may not have splintered into a dozen microstates after its nuclear decimation as it did in OTL, the Maoist bloodbath would have continued, and the numbers of Chinese would keep growing. Can we really imagine a world, that can sustain six to eight BILLION people? The famines in India, China and east Asia in general meant that at the very least we didn't have to deal with this Malthusian catastrophe.

I agree that what we've thought up is far better than OTL (which is not hard to do with any kind of WI, go figure).

Perhaps a more stable world can lead to more advanced agricultural technology, but that's kind of stretching it.

 

[Fearless Leader]

In his (unfortunately) relatively unknown article published as a critique to the Taft Administration In Favour of the League of Nations Hull argued for the Americans to take a two-fold approach to dealing with communism outside of the League of Nations. The LoN in Hull's view was to be used to diffuse direct confrontations, outside of the League, all efforts were to be taken to "contain" Communism. These efforts were to be twofold in Hull's mind, one being the military/geo-political and the other being economical.

...Furthermore, we must seek to undermine the foundation of the Communist Revolution; economic hardship. To do this will require great sacrifice on the behalf of the American people, however in the end it should prove well worth the while. For if we are willing I have no doubts that our nation, the last best hope for the world, will be able to rebuild the flagging democracies of the west to form an insoluble pact against Communist aggression...To that end all possible steps must be taken to ensure that no more states fall prey to the fallacy of Marxism. The economies of Western Europe, battered by war, must be rebuilt by whatever means neccessary...Tariffs must be lowered or removed all together...massive ammounts of capital must be invested...should the Europeans prove unable to feed themselves food from America's ample granaries must be provided to prevent those empty stomachs from turning to Marxism...We must convince the people of Europe that there is another option lest we doom ourselves to isolation on this continent....

However Hull's paper was dismissed by supporters of the Taft Administration as well as most of the Democratic Party. America was sick of war by then and Hull's superb paper fell by the wayside. In TTL I have high hopes for him to drastically alter the post-war geo-political scene...

 

[David bar Elias]

In his (unfortunately) relatively unknown article published as a critique to the Taft Administration In Favour of the League of Nations Hull argued for the Americans to take a two-fold approach to dealing with communism outside of the League of Nations. The LoN in Hull's view was to be used to diffuse direct confrontations, outside of the League, all efforts were to be taken to "contain" Communism. These efforts were to be twofold in Hull's mind, one being the military/geo-political and the other being economical.

However Hull's paper was dismissed by supporters of the Taft Administration as well as most of the Democratic Party. America was sick of war by then and Hull's superb paper fell by the wayside. In TTL I have high hopes for him to drastically alter the post-war geo-political scene...

Indeed, indeed...if only, if only.

Speaking of diplomacy, how do Roosevelt and Hull handle South America? The Good Neighbor Policy taken to new heights? Without Wallace's ham-handed diplomacy, we could see a number of South American countries tied closely with the USA by the end of World War II; might a few even declare war on the right circumstances?

And who are the biggest players down there? Does Chalbaud still come to power? There might be an earlier US-Venezuelan alliance as a result of America's internationalist streak.

 

[Elcolo]

Indeed, indeed...if only, if only.

Speaking of diplomacy, how do Roosevelt and Hull handle South America? The Good Neighbor Policy taken to new heights? Without Wallace's ham-handed diplomacy, we could see a number of South American countries tied closely with the USA by the end of World War II; might a few even declare war on the right circumstances?

And who are the biggest players down there? Does Chalbaud still come to power? There might be an earlier US-Venezuelan alliance as a result of America's internationalist streak.

As for who comes to power, its really up for grabs. Chaulbaud could easily have disappeared in this purge or that, while Guevara and his crew could be butterflied away by one revolution or another...I believe he traveled the region as some kind of "freedom fighter" before he seized power in Argentina.

 

[David bar Elias]

As for who comes to power, its really up for grabs. Chaulbaud could easily have disappeared in this purge or that, while Guevara and his crew could be butterflied away by one revolution or another...I believe he traveled the region as some kind of "freedom fighter" before he seized power in Argentina.

South America could be a quieter place to be TTL.

But with America's focus on Europe, it's possible that we ignored South America, allowing another version of Guevara to come to power (does anyone know of any would-be revolutionaries who could fill the void if Guevara is butterflied out of the picture?)