Nazis delay attack on West until after US elections

[katchen]

I am just starting to read the history of the US mobilization for WWII. In 1939, the prevailing opinion in the US was that the New Deal had failed and that FDR was a lame duck. If the Nazis had been able to hold off on starting WWII for a few months (maybe as long as 14 months, FDR would almost certainly have been defeated by an isolationist Republican (not Wilkie--yes, he would have run again apparently--the Dems had no one else to field--and mobilization for WWII might have become impossible.
If not delaying the attack on Poland, at least prolong the "phony war" until after the Democratic National Convention and perhaps, after the US election in November.

 

[MattII]

This is worse than the Germans losing in France, Castle Bromwich is now in full swing, the six-pounder will be near - if not in - service, cavity magnetron radar will be near deployment, etc. Not so sure about what the French, Belgians and Dutch will have, but I'm pretty sure it will be unpleasant for the Germans. if Hitler waits for FDR to become a lame duck he'll be lucky not to end up as one too.

 

[brokenman]

The longer Hitler prolongs the war, the chances of him achieving what he did OTL will be gone. His economy lives upon the resources of the conquered, so waiting will put him, his timetable, and his forces at risk.

 

[The Red]

I am just starting to read the history of the US mobilization for WWII. In 1939, the prevailing opinion in the US was that the New Deal had failed and that FDR was a lame duck. If the Nazis had been able to hold off on starting WWII for a few months (maybe as long as 14 months, FDR would almost certainly have been defeated by an isolationist Republican.

Even before Fall Gelb, Roosevelt's approval rating was consistently in the high sixties or low seventies, the idea that Dewey, Taft or Hoover could have done better than Wilkie if France hadn't collapsed that Summer is highly implausible. Roosevelt is re-elected in November, and in May Hitler tries his luck against a France stronger than the year before, with the Soviets slowly gethering in strength.

 

[Ivir Baggins]

Even before Fall Gelb, Roosevelt's approval rating was consistently in the high sixties or low seventies, the idea that Dewey, Taft or Hoover could have done better than Wilkie if France hadn't collapsed that Summer is highly implausible. Roosevelt is re-elected in November, and in May Hitler tries his luck against a France stronger than the year before, with the Soviets slowly gethering in strength.

The idea is that without Nazis invading France, FDR doesn't run for his third therm.

 

[The Red]

The idea is that without Nazis invading France, FDR doesn't run for his third therm.

That's not what the OP says.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I am just starting to read the history of the US mobilization for WWII. In 1939, the prevailing opinion in the US was that the New Deal had failed and that FDR was a lame duck. If the Nazis had been able to hold off on starting WWII for a few months (maybe as long as 14 months, FDR would almost certainly have been defeated by an isolationist Republican (not Wilkie--yes, he would have run again apparently--the Dems had no one else to field--and mobilization for WWII might have become impossible.
If not delaying the attack on Poland, at least prolong the "phony war" until after the Democratic National Convention and perhaps, after the US election in November.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

Unlikely. Roosevelts low point approval rating was 48% just prior to the war beginning and he had held that or slightly higher for a year.

He was easily popular enough to win the 1940 election provided he ran.

 

[wietze]

and indeed, that is the question. would he run?

And who would be the candidates in case he didn't run?

 

[Intosh]

This is worse than the Germans losing in France, Castle Bromwich is now in full swing, the six-pounder will be near - if not in - service, cavity magnetron radar will be near deployment, etc. Not so sure about what the French, Belgians and Dutch will have, but I'm pretty sure it will be unpleasant for the Germans. if Hitler waits for FDR to become a lame duck he'll be lucky not to end up as one too.

First the Germans will loose in Norway if they invaded Denmark and Norway in April 1940.

Even if they have captured southern Norway, they will have many difficulties to reinforce and resupply their forces by sea.

Then the French will continue to reorganized its armored forces on the Panzerdivision model, and the four divisions cuirassées and the three divisions légères mécaniques of May 1940 will be completely operationnal.

 

[Sanderford]

My late grandmother, who lived during the period in question, once told me that if Germany had not been actively causing trouble in Europe by 1940, FDR would have lost the election.

Having said that, I don't know about this scenario. Germany will definitely have a real issue waiting one more year, and might be put down more quickly, but who is going to be President of the United States? FDR might win a new term, but then again, he might not.

 

[Expat]

My late grandmother, who lived during the period in question, once told me that if Germany had not been actively causing trouble in Europe by 1940, FDR would have lost the election.

Having said that, I don't know about this scenario. Germany will definitely have a real issue waiting one more year, and might be put down more quickly, but who is going to be President of the United States? FDR might win a new term, but then again, he might not.

My grandmother says the same thing. Of course, she never voted for FDR and has a bit of a skewed vision of history, bless her.

FDR certainly has a great chance if he runs. He's a unifying face for the Democrats, whereas the GOP has their isolationist/interventionist schism to deal with (while the Democrats had similar schisms, FDR unified them.) If FDR isn't running, a Republican might have a decent shot.

Who is that Republican?
Not Taft- way too hardline. If it is Taft, the election's probably over, give it to the Dems.
Dewey was the popular candidate IOTL, but if the war hasn't started that means there's still political maneuvering to be done and his lack of foreign policy experience- the reason he lost the nomination IOTL- makes him a non-starter.

That leaves the two compromise candidates: nominal isolationist Arthur Vandenburg and dark horse interventionist Wendell Willkie.

If it's Willkie, the Allies have a blank check until some u-boat incident provides Willkie all the pretext he needs to declare war. Add that to the technological position of the allies discussed above in the thread, plus the added year and more of German economic degeneration, and the Nazis are double-plus screwed.

Vandenburg's presidency in the absence of a war in 1939 would be a really interesting TL, IMHO. He'd do everything he could to placate the Japanese and probably wouldn't enter the war against Germany until it was unavoidable. The Allies would have cash-and-carry access only to US resources for a while, but hopefully their technological edge keeps them fighting. He'd be a fierce anti-Soviet as well. It's highly doubtful he'd let the Soviets get away with having such a large sphere of influence in eastern Europe. Depending on what the Soviets do, whether they declare war on Germany or just try to pick off neutrals in eastern Europe, we could see an expanded conflict with the US, the western Allies, and even Japan (possibly alongside Nationalist China!) against the Soviets just as the war with Germany is dying down.

But all that speculation aside, I think these scenarios are less likely than an FDR third term or another Democrat winning.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Leaving aside the election question. The French Army was just starting a training program for its Series B divisions and ramping up the program for the Series A and Active Divisions. A German attack after october 1940 is going to run into a French army with some five months of improved training. Several of the many weapons programs would have been well along as well. Some 600 aircraft were shipped from the US by late June & over 200 a month were to be delivered by the end of the year. The training scheduled would have replaced well over 700 obsolete aircraft, mostly bombers with these new US models and had the training of those air groups well along. French factory production was starting to cut loose as well. by November somewhere between 800 & 1200 new aircraft would have been combat ready with crews, bring the real front line strength of the French AF in line with the Germans. Improvements in the Belgian, British & Netherlands air forces would have been comparable or larger.

On the ground the Belgian Army had raised four new infantry divisions in early 1940. Those would have bee far enough along to serve as large replacment pools for the front line formations, which like the French were heading into a accelerated training program in the spring of 1940.
I could keep on with this, but the bottom line is Roosevelt & the US military might be irrelevant to military events in Europe during 1941 -42 in this scenario.

 

[Delta Force]

Hitler scoffed at America getting involved at all, especially at a major level, and many Americans and Europeans thought America getting involved in World War I was a fluke. Why would he wait until after an election halfway around the world to attack?

 

[1940LaSalle]

Let's back up a bit. The original premise was the delay of any war or warlike activities until after 5 November 1940. That implies that the events of September 1939 in Poland went as they did IOTL. All well and good: that led to the so-called sitzkrieg / phony war. Thus, as 1940 progresses, the Germans and French/British/Belgians/etc. do nothing but exchange dirty looks across borders.

At this point it's not so simple for FDR to declare for a third term. He did so IOTL with a real war in progress in Europe: France had fallen, Dunkirk was an accomplished fact, and the threat of another general war looked real. In this instance, that's not the case. FDR could try to make a case for a third term based on a threat of general war, but it's going to be a much tougher sell given that nothing is happening/things have been status quo for months.

Now, counterbalance that with the question of "if not Roosevelt, who?" Forget Garner: he's an old-school red-baiter, and his Texas origins won't sell nationally. Farley is too much a machine politician for many tastes but might be a long shot (IIRC, he'd also have baggage in the form of his faith: anti-Catholic prejudice in '40 was less than it was in '28, but it was still there in the heartland and the south). Though there was decided friction between the man and FDR, I'd guess Paul McNutt would probably be the Dems' nominee assuming Roosevelt cannot make a convincing case for a third term. I'd guess he might take Farley as a running mate to pull in the machines and ethnic votes--and as a bone tossed to FDR.

The GOP is also a tough one to decode. Dewey doesn't have the chops: he's only 38 and has no international experience. Taft is too metallic an isolationist, and that won't play with the party establishment in the northeast. Herbert Hoover offered himself as a candidate in the event of a deadlock; that was a non-starter IOTL and probably would be here also, given fresh memories of his one term. And in the event of no real war in western Europe, I have doubts the Willkie supporters could have carried it off. That pretty much leaves Vandenberg, a diffident candidate IOTL. As cold personally as he was, and with as huge an ego as he had, Dewey might be able to be convinced that his best move would be to serve as VP (with the admonishment that in '48 he'd be only 46 years old, and easily able to run in his own right).

With no shooting in the west, a general perception of less-than-effectiveness for the New Deal (given the 1938 recession), and a still-conservative/isolationist bent in the Midwest, I'd suggest Vandenberg would win a close one over McNutt. That said, it would take Pearl Harbor as an all-out surprise to get the US at war with Japan. If Hitler steers clear of unrestricted submarine warfare and leaves US ships alone after Vandenberg takes office, involvement in Europe might be a tougher sell--but at the same time, Hitler's opponents would be better prepared, so that would counter delayed US involvement to some degree.

As the European theater winds down, I could see Vandenberg unleashing Patton to make an eastward dash, unlike OTL, given Vandenberg's suspicion of the Soviets. I doubt he'd have much hesitancy to use Fat Man and Little Boy on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, either. Then, assuming he's still around, Willkie might well be put in charge of postwar reconstruction, and we'd read of the Willkie Plan instead of the Marshall Plan today.

 

[Expat]

Let's back up a bit. The original premise was the delay of any war or warlike activities until after 5 November 1940. That implies that the events of September 1939 in Poland went as they did IOTL. All well and good: that led to the so-called sitzkrieg / phony war. Thus, as 1940 progresses, the Germans and French/British/Belgians/etc. do nothing but exchange dirty looks across borders.

At this point it's not so simple for FDR to declare for a third term. He did so IOTL with a real war in progress in Europe: France had fallen, Dunkirk was an accomplished fact, and the threat of another general war looked real. In this instance, that's not the case. FDR could try to make a case for a third term based on a threat of general war, but it's going to be a much tougher sell given that nothing is happening/things have been status quo for months.

Now, counterbalance that with the question of "if not Roosevelt, who?" Forget Garner: he's an old-school red-baiter, and his Texas origins won't sell nationally. Farley is too much a machine politician for many tastes but might be a long shot (IIRC, he'd also have baggage in the form of his faith: anti-Catholic prejudice in '40 was less than it was in '28, but it was still there in the heartland and the south). Though there was decided friction between the man and FDR, I'd guess Paul McNutt would probably be the Dems' nominee assuming Roosevelt cannot make a convincing case for a third term. I'd guess he might take Farley as a running mate to pull in the machines and ethnic votes--and as a bone tossed to FDR.

The GOP is also a tough one to decode. Dewey doesn't have the chops: he's only 38 and has no international experience. Taft is too metallic an isolationist, and that won't play with the party establishment in the northeast. Herbert Hoover offered himself as a candidate in the event of a deadlock; that was a non-starter IOTL and probably would be here also, given fresh memories of his one term. And in the event of no real war in western Europe, I have doubts the Willkie supporters could have carried it off. That pretty much leaves Vandenberg, a diffident candidate IOTL. As cold personally as he was, and with as huge an ego as he had, Dewey might be able to be convinced that his best move would be to serve as VP (with the admonishment that in '48 he'd be only 46 years old, and easily able to run in his own right).

With no shooting in the west, a general perception of less-than-effectiveness for the New Deal (given the 1938 recession), and a still-conservative/isolationist bent in the Midwest, I'd suggest Vandenberg would win a close one over McNutt. That said, it would take Pearl Harbor as an all-out surprise to get the US at war with Japan. If Hitler steers clear of unrestricted submarine warfare and leaves US ships alone after Vandenberg takes office, involvement in Europe might be a tougher sell--but at the same time, Hitler's opponents would be better prepared, so that would counter delayed US involvement to some degree.

As the European theater winds down, I could see Vandenberg unleashing Patton to make an eastward dash, unlike OTL, given Vandenberg's suspicion of the Soviets. I doubt he'd have much hesitancy to use Fat Man and Little Boy on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, either. Then, assuming he's still around, Willkie might well be put in charge of postwar reconstruction, and we'd read of the Willkie Plan instead of the Marshall Plan today.

Well, as I wrote about an hour ago, I agree pretty much exactly with most of this. Except Vandenburg was a keen appeaser of Japan. He'd likely be opposed to sanctions and re-commit to our old treaties. As long as the Japanese don't make a dash for Allied colonies, he's probably not going to antagonize the Japanese. And with the Allies doing better in Europe, it's less likely the Japanese will go for their colonies, so all-in-all a total war in Asia is unlikely.

Vandenburg would push somehow to contain the Soviets, but I'm not sure how that would take shape.
If you really think he'll never join the war in Europe in the absence of an attack from Japan, then I don't suppose he'll have much say in the matter.
If he somehow joins the war in Europe after the Soviets join in the anti-German pile-on, he'll have limited options.
If he joins the war first and the Soviets join later, he might be able to keep them from annexing much of Eastern Europe.
If he joins the war first or makes anti-Soviet maneuverings *around* the war, and the Soviets don't join in against Germany but try to pick off a few Eastern European countries, that's probably a total war situation, the world vs the Soviet Union. IF Vandenburg gets his way (obviously, the Allies might have something to say about that.)

 

[Blackfox5]

Delaying the attack on the West from May 10 to after November 5 is huge. Not only do you give the Allies another six months to build up their forces, it is another six months for Germany to suffer the blockade and not make up for it by pillaging France.

You also run into the problem Hitler had in autumn of 1939 when he wanted to invade France after Poland, and the weather stopped him. Is attacking the Low Countries and France right before winter begins really the best thing to do? Or does it mean he has to delay the attack once more until spring 1941?

The longer Hitler delays, the worse it is going to get for Germany.

 

[zert]

If Germany did delay its attack by a year and this delays action by Japan, would they still go after Pearl? It would be 1942 by the analog and the carriers in production are finishing completion.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

I am just starting to read the history of the US mobilization for WWII. In 1939, the prevailing opinion in the US was that the New Deal had failed and that FDR was a lame duck.

In whose opinion?

Even though FDR was expected to retire under the "no third term" tradition, and didn't declare his intentions, no serious Democrat candidate dared to run for the nomination.

If the Nazis had been able to hold off on starting WWII for a few months (maybe as long as 14 months, FDR would almost certainly have been defeated by an isolationist Republican (not Wilkie...

Why not Willkie? He was nominated before FDR was renominated. And why would an isolationist defeat FDR? Most of the really fervent isolationists were Republicans anyway,

--yes, he would have run again apparently--the Dems had no one else to field--

The best opinion, AFAICT, is that FDR persuaded himself to run again because he thought he was needed in the war crisis. It was not until the fall of France that the crisis became acute.

If not delaying the attack on Poland, at least prolong the "phony war" until after the Democratic National Convention and perhaps, after the US election in November.

That means big problems for the Germans. They run out of foreign exchange for strategic imports, and Stalin is only going to front them so much. And that's only if the Hitler-Stalin Pact goes down, which means Hitler is attacking Poland right away.

Just delaying Fall Gelb brings other problems. Britain and France are rearming frantically, especially in aviation. Delaying Fall Gelb to July means hundreds of new enemy fighters in service, undercutting the Germans' key advantage. Delaying Fall Gelb to November means at least 1,000 new fighters; Britain and France between them will outbuild Germany.

 

[rob in cal]

In mid August 1939 Italian foreign minister Ciano suggested to Hitler that he delay any attack on Poland until 1941 IIRC. He argued that waiting would have 3 advantages. 1 FDR would be out of office. Ciano was assuming that FDR would not run again in 1940 without a war in Europe. 2. Spain would have more time to rebuild from its civil war and become a stronger ally. 3. Japan would have more time to defeat China and become stronger, perhaps even come to a peace with China (the "Pacific Munich" as such proposals floating around this were called).
Of course Ciano neglected to mention that Britain and France were getting stronger by the day as well, and this argument may have swayed Hitler.
Back to the OP's idea. One factor of interest is if no war at all until November 1940, who wins the British general election of earlier that year? Its likely the Tories do, but probably not under Chamberlain who is diagnosed with cancer that year, and not Churchill with Europe still at peace.
If no war at all, is Daladier still in charge in France, and is does his cabinet still have a Bonnet faction in it which is against fighting Germany? If there is a war, but any invasion of France has been delayed, is there any chance of a pro-seperate peace faction having emerged during the latter half of 1940? IOTL, Prime Minister Reynaud was about to resign the day of the German invasion and one wonders who would have succeeded him, and would such a successor have been in favor of such a peace?

 

[Rich Rostrom]

FDR certainly has a great chance if he runs. He's a unifying face for the Democrats, whereas the GOP has their isolationist/interventionist schism to deal with (while the Democrats had similar schisms, FDR unified them.) If FDR isn't running, a Republican might have a decent shot.

OTOH, any other Democrat doesn't have the third-term issue against him. Robert Heinlein, who was neck deep in politics at the time, wrote later that it was a big deal - more than offsetting incumbency.

Who is that Republican [candidate]?
Not Taft- way too hardline. If it is Taft, the election's probably over, give it to the Dems.

Dewey was the popular candidate IOTL, but if the war hasn't started that means there's still political maneuvering to be done and his lack of foreign policy experience- the reason he lost the nomination IOTL...

That, and his being only 38, and never running for any office outside Manhattan.

That leaves the two compromise candidates: nominal isolationist Arthur Vandenburg and dark horse interventionist Wendell Willkie.

Willkie did not run as an interventionist - only as not-an-isolationist. He had a lot of backing inside the party leadership. It's a fascinating contrast to the present that his campaign was ginned up starting in February 1940 and succeeded by June.

Another point from Heinlein: in his observation, Willkie self-destructed. He was a first-time candidate, and made a lot of rookie mistakes.