How would John Nance Garner have handled WWII?

Deleted member 1487

Based on a previous thread I did about this the answer was that he'd be even more anti-Japanese early on and would probably take a similar set of actions as FDR did in 1939-40 with Germany. The real question is who would replace him and what would they do from 1941 on? Almost everyone, even the Republicans, wanted to aid Britain. Only Taft was for strict neutrality with a large US military buildup. Everyone else wanted to either do a version of LL or just grant the British billions of dollars. I don't think anyone on the political spectrum was for intervention in Europe, at least officially, before 1941. In Asia as I said Garner would likely push for some more aggressive actions against Japan, probably at the expense of the domestic agenda. Of course military build up to confront Japan would help the economy somewhat, so that may end up replacing some of the post-1937 public works programs.
 

Martynn

Banned
Garner was an isolationist - and he opposed deficit spending and preffered a balanced federal budget - so the budget of the army and navy would have been much smaller than OTL - the great depression much more severe. Meaning by 1940 the US navy and army as well as industrial capacity would have been perhaps half the OTL level. So no CC and no LL - at least in the 1939-1941 period - meaning that Britain is out of the war by 1941 and the and Soviets by 1942/43. Edit: Sorry is misred the date of Roosevelts death - if Roosevelt dies in 1939/40 then pretty much what wiking said.
 
Top