Realistic Roosevelt's Death Scenario?

So, FDR dies of polio, and the man of the high castle happens, what would be the most realistic scenario?


Also, what would happen if he survived to 1946?
 
So, FDR dies of polio, and the man of the high castle happens, what would be the most realistic scenario?

Thomas E. Dewey

Opinion. Not much would be changed as to the actual US pragmatic policies between 1944-46 concerning the war, assuming Dewey knocks off Roosevelt in 1940.

Alf Landon

Opinion. This is a huge butterfly if FDR is out in 36. Based on Landon's subsequent history, one might see a much harsher and earlier civil rights crisis in the American south and a much less prepared America for WW II. Landon was a Kansas liberal who was comfortable with Lincolnisms (Rooseveltisms) but rather inept as an administrator.

Herbert Hoover

Opinion. Another huge butterfly will occur if Hoover survives the 1932 elections. For one thing, the Republican version of the New Deal will have to be attempted due to necessity. Hoover had already laid the groundwork for many of the projects and programs that FDR simply took over and pushed far more aggressively. Hoover was a believer in volunteerism and community self help but as his European WWI relief efforts showed, if NGOs and self help organizations failed, Hoover would cut corners and use "illegal and immoral" practices to get a necessary job done. If there was a man who could wind up as a "strong man" , he is the most likely candidate. As a side effect, the American military will definitely be in much better shape mid 30's in the run up to WW II. It was the Hoover administration that started many of the American lines of naval and aerial development that was the foundation of the US WW II war machine.

Also, what would happen if he (Roosevelt) survived to 1946?

WW III.
 

Cook

Banned
Roosevelt was not one who accepted betrayal gracefully. And Stalin consistently misjudged him.

Really, you think the guy that promised at Yalta that all American forces would have departed Europe within two years, and gave Stalin everything he wanted in return for a Soviet commitment to enter the war in the Pacific was going to start a new war? Why exactly? Aside from the fact that a war weary United States wanted nothing more than to relax and enjoy its new found wealth.
 
Really, you think the guy that promised at Yalta that all American forces would have departed Europe within two years, and gave Stalin everything he wanted in return for a Soviet commitment to enter the war in the Pacific was going to start a new war? Why exactly? Aside from the fact that a war weary United States wanted nothing more than to relax and enjoy its new found wealth.

Venona.
 
Last edited:
Why would that escalate to full WWIII? We might get a early cold war but what actually makes them start fighting? USSR will know that it cant win the war and US would not want to fight or at least be the one to start it without first building up its nuclear force that would require more tie than FDR has in office?
 
Why would that escalate to full WWIII? We might get a early cold war but what actually makes them start fighting? USSR will know that it cant win the war and US would not want to fight or at least be the one to start it without first building up its nuclear force that would require more tie than FDR has in office?

Poland and the atomic bomb espionage. Truman was a nice guy. Roosevelt is not.
 
Poland and the atomic bomb espionage. Truman was a nice guy. Roosevelt is not.
I simply don't see what makes even a not nice guy be willing to send hundreds of thousands of US troops to die? Why would Roosevelt go for war, he would not think it could be a short easy war. Would he not settle for building defences and alliances as well as gaining a few concessions and tighter containment?

Roosevelt might well build up more defences and be more confrontational and demanding but would it really spark off? I'm not sure US would want to start the war rather than push the Soviets into starting it but I don't think Stalin is so stupid that he would immediately after WWII be willing to reenact the Imperial Japanese and unlike them he doesn't have the trade weaknesses or China incident to force the issue. He will simply play the cold war game and would simply have to give way on some peripheral issues like they did over Cuba in later on OTL, waiting out the next election. The US bomb advantage is too small that early on to match the perceived ground threat of Rad Army tanks roiling west over Europe at least in short term.
 
I simply don't see what makes even a not nice guy be willing to send hundreds of thousands of US troops to die? Why would Roosevelt go for war, he would not think it could be a short easy war. Would he not settle for building defences and alliances as well as gaining a few concessions and tighter containment?

Roosevelt might well build up more defences and be more confrontational and demanding but would it really spark off? I'm not sure US would want to start the war rather than push the Soviets into starting it but I don't think Stalin is so stupid that he would immediately after WWII be willing to reenact the Imperial Japanese and unlike them he doesn't have the trade weaknesses or China incident to force the issue. He will simply play the cold war game and would simply have to give way on some peripheral issues like they did over Cuba in later on OTL, waiting out the next election. The US bomb advantage is too small that early on to match the perceived ground threat of Rad Army tanks roiling west over Europe at least in short term.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2010/8/11/891631/-

Basically it would be a no-choice scenario. Stalin made promises on Poland he was not going to keep. The atomic espionage shows where Stalin's and Russia's trustworthiness was.

And this is Roosevelt; not the popular myth.

The thing is, we must judge Roosevelt by his proven actions, not by what we think he would do according to what we believe of him. This man led an intensely isolationist nation into a Europe first war. Now remember, it was the Japanese who attacked.

The man would act decisively where Truman would not; and we know Truman was an actor of some significance, himself.
 
Basically it would be a no-choice scenario. Stalin made promises on Poland he was not going to keep. The atomic espionage shows where Stalin's and Russia's trustworthiness was.
I simply don't get why its a binary war no war choice, as long as Stalin (and others ie all of Europe etc) wants to avoid a war they can offer up compromises and give way just sufficiently to prevent Roosevelt getting the momentum for an open war, why would it not just fissile into an earlier slightly hotter cold war?

I don't get what part you are thinking about specifically about FDR wanting to get as war?
 
Top