John Nance Garner as President in 1933

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would Americans be convinced to join because of rumors of concentration camps in Europe? These were unconfirmed reports until the final month when they could be verified on the ground.

Why would they go to war with Japan over brutality in Asia? That was the case in the 1930s also and the nation did not intervene.



Who defeats Japan in World War II? I can see the Soviets defeating the Germans, by how would a partially motivated America do it if they fight to end Japanese oppression in Asia?

First of all, I never said America intervened. But during the Spanish Civil War, there were volunteers who fought in Spain's international brigade. I'm sure there would be no shortage of people who would volunteer to help out England. So my guess is that there would be generations of young people, enriched by the the war economy, horrified by stories of Nazi brutality, and eager to help out whom they consider to be allies of liberty.

As early as 42, there were already stories of concentration camps reaching American shores.

Japan, meanwhile, overextends its forces, and is gradually overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of Chinese and Soviet soldiers. There was also the fact that Japan had little food production. I recently saw a Crash Course video, that argued that Germany and Japan were motivated into invading countries by hunger as much as nationalism. According to John Green, 1 million Japanese soldiers died of starvation alone. Even if America didn't develop a conscience and stop selling Japan food, they could have easily run out of money and resources to pay for food. And since most Americans would have no sympathy for Japan, especially after the Rape of Nanking, there would be no lend-lease to keep them afloat.
 
Warning
I am writing from an Austrian/Classical Economics perspective. Free market economists like myself would argue that the New Deal did not actually end the depression, rather prolonged it. In short cuz, its late in London, Lee Ohanian of UCLA claims the depression lasted 7 years longer than it would without New Deal. Let's assume John Nance Garner repeals Smoot Hawley tariff and reverses everything Hoover did, then the Depression probably would have ended by 1935 as Hoover did the complete opposite of laissez-faire, such as keeping money wages the same despite the weakening economy. The ramifications of this are enormous. you don't have a whole 'New Deal coalition'. Therefore, no Social Security and therefore none of LBJ's liberal programmes and we'd probably still stay on the gold standard. Whether that's a bad thing is up to you. However, the facts show that before FDR, while many people were impoverished, that was changing due to economic growth. Between 1880 and 1913, real wages for UNSKILLED workers increased 44%. We can assume that the 1930s and beyond would resemble a society like the Gilded Age, except with less poverty, assuming economic growth continued. Social Security taxes 12.4% of people's wages, it has depressed the national savings rate and the programme faces unfunded liabilities of close to $100 trillion. So no SS, Medicare, Medicaid or any welfare state. Could private charity take care of these people? Probably, given that faster wealth creation of the early 1900s continues into 2000s, then there would be much more wealth for people to donate. Government spending as % of GDP would be much lower and the savings rate would be considerably higher, allowing greater capital formation and hence long-run growth. I know I'm going to get some angry replies. I'll do my best to address them.


 
By the way, it's Thomas (not John) Dewey who was one of many GOP candidates in 1940. Probably the candidate wouldn't have been Dewey-he was all of 38 at the time and only a high-profile attorney general-but more likely Robert Taft. Still, Taft was very much an isolationist.

A Garner presidency might make it tough for Willkie but not impossible. Willkie would have to raise a flag about the threat to the US, especially the west coast, posed by Japan, and point out the alliance between Japan and Germany. Conceivably a GOP candidate like Willkie might run on a "preparedness" platform, raising the spectre of foreign nations invading Hawaii, closing in on the US east coast in submarines, etc. OK, it might not play well in, say, the Dakotas, but they didn't (and still don't) count for a lot in the electoral college. On the other hand, that might play on either coast, which might be just enough to put Willkie in the White House.
Wilkie only ran because the federal government was challenging his business interests. Minus that, he isn't running.
 
I am writing from an Austrian/Classical Economics perspective. Free market economists like myself would argue that the New Deal did not actually end the depression, rather prolonged it. In short cuz, its late in London, Lee Ohanian of UCLA claims the depression lasted 7 years longer than it would without New Deal. Let's assume John Nance Garner repeals Smoot Hawley tariff and reverses everything Hoover did, then the Depression probably would have ended by 1935 as Hoover did the complete opposite of laissez-faire, such as keeping money wages the same despite the weakening economy. The ramifications of this are enormous. you don't have a whole 'New Deal coalition'. Therefore, no Social Security and therefore none of LBJ's liberal programmes and we'd probably still stay on the gold standard. Whether that's a bad thing is up to you. However, the facts show that before FDR, while many people were impoverished, that was changing due to economic growth. Between 1880 and 1913, real wages for UNSKILLED workers increased 44%. We can assume that the 1930s and beyond would resemble a society like the Gilded Age, except with less poverty, assuming economic growth continued. Social Security taxes 12.4% of people's wages, it has depressed the national savings rate and the programme faces unfunded liabilities of close to $100 trillion. So no SS, Medicare, Medicaid or any welfare state. Could private charity take care of these people? Probably, given that faster wealth creation of the early 1900s continues into 2000s, then there would be much more wealth for people to donate. Government spending as % of GDP would be much lower and the savings rate would be considerably higher, allowing greater capital formation and hence long-run growth. I know I'm going to get some angry replies. I'll do my best to address them.


For what it's worth, I support what you're saying. Just afraid this is going to get ugly. Can we keep it civil?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top