The "great man" theory of history is not very academically popular in this modern era (at least, it wasn't when I was in college and wanted to do a paper focusing on the relationship between Konrad Adenauer and Charles DeGaulle as the engine for Western European integration after the War).
But I think there is a lot to be said for the theory, especially when considering figures like FDR and Churchill. What would history have looked like if neither of these men ended up leading their respective governments? In 1931, Churchill was seriously injured during a visit to NYC when a car struck him. FDR was a target for assassination in 1933.
So what if Churchill and FDR both died? What would have happened?
John Nance Garner would have been President, and by any measure would have been less economically interventionist than FDR. He also would have been far more willing to work in cooperation with the Congress. And he was not much of a communicator with the public. He did favor some measures to relieve the Depression, such as public works programs.
My own sense is that Garner's Presidency would have had some modest success against the Depression, enough to re-elect him in 1936. Who would HE have chosen as VP? I think Alben Barkley would have been a good possibility.
But Garner's re-election would have been narrower than FDR's, and I think the Progressive Party could have been reborn, uniting some of the more liberal Democrats and progressive Republicans. The Socialists and National Unionists would also have picked up more votes.
(This all assumes that Huey Long would have been assassinated as IOTL).
Garner was an isolationist as far as Europe went, but what of Asia? American public opinion seemed pro-Chinese against the Japanese. Would he have shared that? This would make an enormous difference for involvement in a Pacific war. The Japanese did not bomb Pearl Harbor for fun, but because they saw an irreversible clash between their interests and US actions.
I am certain Garner would have respected the two term limit and not run in 1940. So what happens then? Barkley could have run and won as VP and been more activist.
As for Britain, without Churchill I don't think the 1930s would have been that much different. Appeasement would have continued until the Nazis invaded Bohemia and Moravia. Britain would have again gone to war. BUT without Churchill, I think Halifax would have replaced Chamberlain in 1940. After France fell and the BEF escaped from Dunkirk without its equipment, and with far less assistance likely from the US, it is very easy to imagine Britain suing for peace, and Germany would have given them a relatively generous one.
So ... what are your thoughts about all of this?
But I think there is a lot to be said for the theory, especially when considering figures like FDR and Churchill. What would history have looked like if neither of these men ended up leading their respective governments? In 1931, Churchill was seriously injured during a visit to NYC when a car struck him. FDR was a target for assassination in 1933.
So what if Churchill and FDR both died? What would have happened?
John Nance Garner would have been President, and by any measure would have been less economically interventionist than FDR. He also would have been far more willing to work in cooperation with the Congress. And he was not much of a communicator with the public. He did favor some measures to relieve the Depression, such as public works programs.
My own sense is that Garner's Presidency would have had some modest success against the Depression, enough to re-elect him in 1936. Who would HE have chosen as VP? I think Alben Barkley would have been a good possibility.
But Garner's re-election would have been narrower than FDR's, and I think the Progressive Party could have been reborn, uniting some of the more liberal Democrats and progressive Republicans. The Socialists and National Unionists would also have picked up more votes.
(This all assumes that Huey Long would have been assassinated as IOTL).
Garner was an isolationist as far as Europe went, but what of Asia? American public opinion seemed pro-Chinese against the Japanese. Would he have shared that? This would make an enormous difference for involvement in a Pacific war. The Japanese did not bomb Pearl Harbor for fun, but because they saw an irreversible clash between their interests and US actions.
I am certain Garner would have respected the two term limit and not run in 1940. So what happens then? Barkley could have run and won as VP and been more activist.
As for Britain, without Churchill I don't think the 1930s would have been that much different. Appeasement would have continued until the Nazis invaded Bohemia and Moravia. Britain would have again gone to war. BUT without Churchill, I think Halifax would have replaced Chamberlain in 1940. After France fell and the BEF escaped from Dunkirk without its equipment, and with far less assistance likely from the US, it is very easy to imagine Britain suing for peace, and Germany would have given them a relatively generous one.
So ... what are your thoughts about all of this?