Republican-Run WW2: Your Thoughts

Just something I've been interested in. Assuming a Roosevelt death before 1940 or him deciding to not run for a third (and fourth) term and a successor completely collapsing, how does World War Two look different under a Willkie, a Vandenberg, or a Dewey?

Abroad, does conservative Republican isolationism keep America out of conflict with Germany and Japan for longer, or do Republican business interests get America in the fight sooner? Does a Republican America gouge its allies as much as it did in OTL, or more, or less? Does the Soviet Union get any lend-lease aid?

At home, what changes in terms of how the war is fought? How does this effect post-war America, especially economically?
 
Well, Republican isolationism might mean a bit of a tougher time for the brits... but that'll go away after Pearl Harbor (since the Japanese are almost certainly going to go through with it irregardless of who's in charge in the States).
 
Would a President Dewey lead to more progressive racial policies in the military? The Republicans, after all, were not constrained by the South as much as the Dems were.
 
Since Wendell Wilkie was the Republican candidate in 1940, there wouldn't be much difference. He was a former Democrat who broke with Roosevelt over the unprecedented third term. He was elected despite coming in fourth in the primaries because he was in favor of rearmament before May and June of 1940. That is, before the German armies conquered Western Europe and the British were deciding on whether to hand over their navy to Germany in return for promises of gentle treatment.
The Republican delegates revolted and forced Wilkie on the Republican party leaders. He was very blunt that he was for rearmament and to hell with the isolationists.
 
Might Wilkie have been stronger on Civil Rights issues at home ( not expecting to get votes from the states that had been difficult from 1861-5)
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The problem is that there is no way to determine who the leadership would actually be. The individuals who ran for President, if the Republicans were a majority, would almost certainly NOT be those who ran IOTL.

The isolationism of the Republicans was, as much as anything, a political stand related to making the Democrats look like the "war" Party. If you look at how they reacted after the fall of France, you will see that stance evaporate (and it had, in the real world, been eroding for a couple of years).

Overall, there are so many variables that the answer could be anywhere.
 
Dewey, like Roosevelt knew the United States would get drawn into the war evetually, but both spoke against envolement publicly.
Wilkie supported lead-lease etc, Dewey might have had problems with the likes of Vandenberg or Fish but if Pearl Harbour happended as per OTL, (I don't think it mattered who was in the WhiteHouse), then the War happens much as our world. If Dewey dies as per OTL, he would just month before being up for re-election.
 
I suspect not a lot.

FDR's administration was peppered with Republicans, (Knox , Forrestal, H. Stimson at Cabinet level).

And there were prominent Internationists (to use the 30s/40s term)in the Republican party. Actually despite the image painted in the media and by many "greatest generation" historians over the last 50 years; Isolationism wasn't all Republican, and Internationism wasn't all Democrat.

The real break between FDR and Republican leadship pre-Pearl Harbor was over "how much" support for Britain and provoking (I refer poking the bear...) of Nazi Germany (which many history have simplified into ISOLATISM vs. FDR). There was little if any disagreement over Japan/Pacific policies.

So once Pearl Harbor happens, only difference between a Wilkie, Dewey, or Vandenberg would have been personnal style/leadership.

Break, I agee with with Jackson and FAEELIN, a Republican President especially the ones above could have been strong on civil right, since losing the South would mean nothing to them.

Second Break, the major diffence would have come at the end in dealing with the Soviets, FDR felt that he could "handle" Stalin (and maybe if he had lived to 48 he would have) I doubt any other probable US POS, Democrat or Republican would have believed himself capible of that.
 
Since Wendell Wilkie was the Republican candidate in 1940, there wouldn't be much difference. He was a former Democrat who broke with Roosevelt over the unprecedented third term. He was elected despite coming in fourth in the primaries because he was in favor of rearmament before May and June of 1940. That is, before the German armies conquered Western Europe and the British were deciding on whether to hand over their navy to Germany in return for promises of gentle treatment.
The Republican delegates revolted and forced Wilkie on the Republican party leaders. He was very blunt that he was for rearmament and to hell with the isolationists.

That's pretty much the conclusion of the recent work "Five Days in Philadelphia", which summarizes the '40 GOP convention and the Willkie movement.

On the other hand, had Taft been nominated, things would get dicey. I could see a possiblity (granted this assumes some rationality on the part of Nazi Germany) of Germany adopting something of a hands-off policy on US ships in the Atlantic provided they didn't get too cozy with Great Britain: the theory would be non-provocation of an isolationist government.

Japan is a bit of a tougher call. Conceivably, a Taft administration might not adopt measures as stringent in economic terms as did FDR's administration, which might not lead to rapid deterioration of diplomacy. Sooner or later, though, a day of reckoning would be likely since the US and Japan were more or less on a collision course in the Pacific since about 1897. I'm guessing Pearl Harbor or its equivalent might be staved off for another 12 to 18 months before the firebrands in Japan would carry the day.

What's not clear to me is how Taft might have affected the nascent Manhattan Project. Conceivably, he might have listened to Einstein and rationalized nuclear weapons as the ultimate defense in Fortress America ("mess with us and we'll use this on you"), in which case the outcome in Japan is similar but delayed. Europe, I'm guessing, without US involvment, would involve the ultimate defeat of Germany (probably guerilla movements would have sprouted up in the Balkans and eastern Europe as the war stalemated otherwise) but would have taken until about 1947 or 1948.

Absent nuclear weapons (e.g., Taft cancels the Manhattan Project outright) and now the outcome in Japan becomes a lot more bloody and protracted.
 
Dewey, like Roosevelt knew the United States would get drawn into the war evetually, but both spoke against envolement publicly.
Wilkie supported lead-lease etc, Dewey might have had problems with the likes of Vandenberg or Fish but if Pearl Harbour happended as per OTL, (I don't think it mattered who was in the WhiteHouse), then the War happens much as our world. If Dewey dies as per OTL, he would just month before being up for re-election.

Picky comment, but it was Willkie who died in 1944. Dewey, as you likely recall, was the GOP nominee in both 1944 and 1948.
 
Regardless of who the particular Republicans in charge of the presidency (recognizing that both Wilkie and Dewey were atypically internationalist, and assuming the lead up to the Pacific war was similar), the US would declare war on Japan on Dec 8, 1941, and the war would expand when Hitler declares war on the US (I doubt Hitler would be particularly attuned to the relatively minor differences between Republicans and Democrats). However, the US would enter the war far less prepared. It is very unlikely penny-pinching and isolationist Republicans would have begun any major military build up equivalent to FDR, who was itching to get into the fight. Also, the US would not have been as active and overt in supporting Britain thru early lend-lease - and a Republican-led US might never have entered into a alliance with the USSR (although they would probably offer some support to them as a co-belligerent). The combined effect of this might be to put the wallies and USSR in a somewhat less favorable position in 1942-44 in Europe. Also, Republicans would be less willing to develop the concept of the wartime anti-axis alliance as the nucleus of a future "united Nations" While, an Anglo-American alliance might well have become as close as it did in OTL, the US would be much more likely to support and/or argue for a separate Anglo-American peace with Germany somewhat short of full unconditional surrender - or accept piecemeal surrenders of German forces and move as far into Germany as possible. Presuming Soviet advances are equivalent to OTL, there is a much greater potential for an outbreak of conflict. Also, I suspect a Republican administration would be less generous with post war aid, and seek to retrench and demilitarize more quickly than the Truman administration. There would be no United Nations in the form we know it, if at all.
 

General Zod

Banned
Regardless of who the particular Republicans in charge of the presidency (recognizing that both Wilkie and Dewey were atypically internationalist, and assuming the lead up to the Pacific war was similar), the US would declare war on Japan on Dec 8, 1941, and the war would expand when Hitler declares war on the US (I doubt Hitler would be particularly attuned to the relatively minor differences between Republicans and Democrats). However, the US would enter the war far less prepared. It is very unlikely penny-pinching and isolationist Republicans would have begun any major military build up equivalent to FDR, who was itching to get into the fight. Also, the US would not have been as active and overt in supporting Britain thru early lend-lease - and a Republican-led US might never have entered into a alliance with the USSR (although they would probably offer some support to them as a co-belligerent). The combined effect of this might be to put the wallies and USSR in a somewhat less favorable position in 1942-44 in Europe. Also, Republicans would be less willing to develop the concept of the wartime anti-axis alliance as the nucleus of a future "united Nations" While, an Anglo-American alliance might well have become as close as it did in OTL, the US would be much more likely to support and/or argue for a separate Anglo-American peace with Germany somewhat short of full unconditional surrender - or accept piecemeal surrenders of German forces and move as far into Germany as possible. Presuming Soviet advances are equivalent to OTL, there is a much greater potential for an outbreak of conflict. Also, I suspect a Republican administration would be less generous with post war aid, and seek to retrench and demilitarize more quickly than the Truman administration. There would be no United Nations in the form we know it, if at all.


I strongly concur. Also, it's rather more likely that a Willkie or Dewey Administration would have been quite happy with the Japan First strategy. Doing away with Nazi Germany first and foremost was pretty much Roosevelt's personal crusade. Most of the country was more focused on avenging Pearl Harbor first and foremost.
 
Top