Robert A. Taft elected as President in November 1940

rainsfall

Banned
Suppose that in 1928, Roosevelt loses the NY gubernational election and Hoover is blown up by Argentinian anarchists, so the GOP replaces President Coolidge with a Curtis-Watson ticket, indirectly resulting in the Wall Street Crash/Great Depression occurring a full year earlier in 1928.

Curtis is even worse than Hoover, so the Depression is even more devastating. In 1932, the Democrats nominate a Ritchie-Murray ticket, and win in a landslide. Zangara later assassinates Ritchie, and after a period of mass panic and anti-Leftist "Red Scare" at having had TWO President-Elects assassinated by anarchists in a row. The conservative Murray is predictably even worse than Curtis, with there being no New Deal. However, the 1933-1937 global economic recovery is sufficient to get him re-elected.

On the other hand, the complete absence of a New Deal leads to the 1937-1938 Recession resulting in a Second Great Depression, even worse than the first. Murray's openly racist imperialism a la Wilson leads to the revival of the 2nd KKK under the two Depressions.

Of course, all of this means that Murray, nor any other Democrat has a chance of winning in 1940. The RNC nominates Taft, and he is elected in a landslide come November.
 

rainsfall

Banned
By the time that Taft takes office in March 1941, the unemployment rate will likely be around 50 % thanks to Curtis and Murray, so the GOP is definitely in for a bumpy first 100 days…
 
By the time that Taft takes office in March 1941, the unemployment rate will likely be around 50 % thanks to Curtis and Murray, so the GOP is definitely in for a bumpy first 100 days…
Not sure it would be that Bad but certainly a very weak domestic economy. What would be the geopolitical position? Hitler comes to power the same time or a bit earlier?

Would Murray amend the Neutrality Act or would Britain and France be unable to use US weapons to rearm? I could see them being even more reluctant to confront Nazi Germany. Possibly no guarantee for Poland.

Is the US full blown Isolationist? How about trade links with Latin America or China?

Lots of external butterflies that would impact on Taft. Unless the US went for autarchy?
 

rainsfall

Banned
Not sure it would be that Bad but certainly a very weak domestic economy. What would be the geopolitical position? Hitler comes to power the same time or a bit earlier?
Hitler elected President in 1932?
Would Murray amend the Neutrality Act or would Britain and France be unable to use US weapons to rearm? I could see them being even more reluctant to confront Nazi Germany. Possibly no guarantee for Poland.
With both Murray’s far softer foreign policy position as well as being in the midst of a Second, even worse Great Depression, I can certainly see there being no guarantee to Poland.
Is the US full blown Isolationist? How about trade links with Latin America or China?
Chiang may may be killed during the 1936 Xian incident here, discrediting Mao’s Communists as well as leading to a pro-Japanese, anti-Communist KMT government under Wang Jingwei. Can’t see the Pacific War breaking out here.
Lots of external butterflies that would impact on Taft. Unless the US went for autarchy?
Protectionist tariffs would only make things worse…
 
I think a persons political leanings determine how they view alt depression without FDR. There have been numerous studies on what was done, as FDR did not defeat the depression with the New Deal though it did lessen it. It wasn't until war spending that the unemployment finally dropped below 10% in late 1941.

Two schools of thought usually revolve around the following two courses of action;
1. Do nothing except lower tariffs and taxes, with mild deficits and you get clear recovery by 1936.
2. You have to go all in on spending, a la WW2 deficits, and that will also get you recovery going by 1936.

FDR's problem is he tried to have his cake and eat it too. He got his New Deal programs going but still pushed for a balanced budget due to more fiscal conservatives in congress. So Just assuming a small government guy, non interference guy like Curtis is President by no means leads automatically to a worse depression. There is just a likely chance of the opposite, a recovery starting.
 

rainsfall

Banned
I think a persons political leanings determine how they view alt depression without FDR. There have been numerous studies on what was done, as FDR did not defeat the depression with the New Deal though it did lessen it. It wasn't until war spending that the unemployment finally dropped below 10% in late 1941.
Agreed. The role of the New Deal in defeating the Depression compared with WWII has been greatly exaggerated.
Two schools of thought usually revolve around the following two courses of action;
1. Do nothing except lower tariffs and taxes, with mild deficits and you get clear recovery by 1936.
2. You have to go all in on spending, a la WW2 deficits, and that will also get you recovery going by 1936.
Either could be correct, really.
FDR's problem is he tried to have his cake and eat it too. He got his New Deal programs going but still pushed for a balanced budget due to more fiscal conservatives in congress. So Just assuming a small government guy, non interference guy like Curtis is President by no means leads automatically to a worse depression. There is just a likely chance of the opposite, a recovery starting.
Agreed. Curtis could be either remembered as the greatest or the worst President that America ever had.
 
Calvin Coolidge is still president until March 1929. The Wall Street crash was due in part to congressional action in 1929. Timeline doesn't change.
 

rainsfall

Banned
Calvin Coolidge is still president until March 1929. The Wall Street crash was due in part to congressional action in 1929. Timeline doesn't change.
If the congressional legislation was passed in 1928 under Coolidge instead of in 1929 under Hoover, it is perfectly possible for the Wall Street Crash to happen one year earlier.
 
If the congressional legislation was passed in 1928 under Coolidge instead of in 1929 under Hoover, it is perfectly possible for the Wall Street Crash to happen one year earlier.
You are now adding conditions. Coolidge isn't changing. Same president, same congress. The Wall Street Crash didn't cause the Great Depression. Hoover's response to the crash caused the Depression.
 
You are now adding conditions. Coolidge isn't changing. Same president, same congress. The Wall Street Crash didn't cause the Great Depression. Hoover's response to the crash caused the Depression.
The Wall Street Crash bankrupted many investors and caused large losses for brokers and banks. The downturn in demand that followed and corporate closures led to the failure of banks. Adding to the downturn which then led to more bank failures. With the Fed unable to prevent them.

Monetary policy failings rather than Hoover's inadequate fiscal policy respons
 

marathag

Banned
Hoover's response to the crash caused the Depression
And FDR ran against the 'socialism' that Hoover did attempt during the Presidential Campaign.
The Federal Reserve actions caused the Depression, not the Crash, but Hoover's actions were not enough to reverse the economic spiral.

The Fed was making things worse after 1930 in cutting the money supply to banks on the edge of failure, when they should have been showering the banks with $$$ to nip Bank Runs.
 

rainsfall

Banned
You are now adding conditions. Coolidge isn't changing. Same president, same congress. The Wall Street Crash didn't cause the Great Depression. Hoover's response to the crash caused the Depression.
How about a different President/Congress? Lowden or Watson, for the one...
 

rainsfall

Banned
The Wall Street Crash bankrupted many investors and caused large losses for brokers and banks. The downturn in demand that followed and corporate closures led to the failure of banks. Adding to the downturn which then led to more bank failures. With the Fed unable to prevent them.

Monetary policy failings rather than Hoover's inadequate fiscal policy respons
And FDR ran against the 'socialism' that Hoover did attempt during the Presidential Campaign.
The Federal Reserve actions caused the Depression, not the Crash, but Hoover's actions were not enough to reverse the economic spiral.

The Fed was making things worse after 1930 in cutting the money supply to banks on the edge of failure, when they should have been showering the banks with $$$ to nip Bank Runs.
Lowden was by all accounts a little bit more moderate than Hoover-Curtis.

The main question is whether having a slightly more moderate Republican in the Oval Office in 1929-1930 would have been enough...
 

marathag

Banned
Lowden was by all accounts a little bit more moderate than Hoover-Curtis.

The main question is whether having a slightly more moderate Republican in the Oval Office in 1929-1930 would have been enough...
If you have Andrew Mellon at Treasury get hit by a Bus in 1928, there is no Great Depression, just the 'Panic of 1929'
It's near forgotten now, but Mellon was about to be impeached by Congress over his (lack of) action on the worsening economy.
His goal was liquidation of failing businesses and banks.
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. ... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people" was not the right man for the job in 1930
 

rainsfall

Banned
If you have Andrew Mellon at Treasury get hit by a Bus in 1928, there is no Great Depression, just the 'Panic of 1929'
It's near forgotten now, but Mellon was about to be impeached by Congress over his (lack of) action on the worsening economy.
His goal was liquidation of failing businesses and banks.
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. ... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people" was not the right man for the job in 1930
I seriously doubt it. By 1928, Mellon's damage on the Treasury had already been done...
 
If you have Andrew Mellon at Treasury get hit by a Bus in 1928, there is no Great Depression, just the 'Panic of 1929'
It's near forgotten now, but Mellon was about to be impeached by Congress over his (lack of) action on the worsening economy.
His goal was liquidation of failing businesses and banks.
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. ... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people" was not the right man for the job in 1930
You have it backwards.
People forget that Hoover was a Progressive. He was considered for the Democratic nomination in 1920.
You are correct on the Mellon quote, but Hoover ignored it and did the opposite. His active lobbying of business to maintain employment and prices after the crash turned a wall st/banking problem into a general economic problem. Smoot Hawley and the 1932 tax hike along with the Fed tightening turned the downturn into the Great Depression.
 

marathag

Banned
His active lobbying of business to maintain employment and prices after the crash turned a wall st/banking problem into a general economic problem.
It wasn't the Stock Market Crash that mad things terrible, the Banking collapse is what turned a Panic into a Depression.
Hoover isn't without blame, He picked both Mellon, and his replacement, Mills, who both believed in letting the weak burn
 
Agreed. The role of the New Deal in defeating the Depression compared with WWII has been greatly exaggerated.
It has been, but in recent years I've seen another exaggeration take it's place, excessively downplaying the role of the New Deal in mitigating the depression.
On the other hand, the complete absence of a New Deal leads to the 1937-1938 Recession resulting in a Second Great Depression, even worse than the first.
Why would this be considered a second depression rather than a worsening of the first?
The RNC nominates Taft
What's going on in the world? If France has fallen I can't see the RNC nominating Taft. On the other hand there are a lot of butterflies that could affect what WW2 would look like in 1940.
 

rainsfall

Banned
It wasn't the Stock Market Crash that mad things terrible, the Banking collapse is what turned a Panic into a Depression.
Hoover isn't without blame, He picked both Mellon, and his replacement, Mills, who both believed in letting the weak burn
I highly doubt that a Democratic President could have prevented the Depression, for the one...
It has been, but in recent years I've seen another exaggeration take it's place, excessively downplaying the role of the New Deal in mitigating the depression.
A Conservative Democrat e.g. Smith, Baker, Ritchie, Byrd would probably have dealt with the Depression better than Roosevelt-Garner.
Why would this be considered a second depression rather than a worsening of the first?
Here, the Roosevelt Recession would be called the Murray Depression...
What's going on in the world? If France has fallen I can't see the RNC nominating Taft. On the other hand there are a lot of butterflies that could affect what WW2 would look like in 1940.
Willkie was in many respects an anti-Roosevelt candidate: the RNC would not have nominated him had FDR not stood in 1940.

Dewey was damaged by the 1940 Fall of France due to his perceived inexperience in foreign affairs, hence the RNC joke that he was "the first American casualty of the war".

This leaves us with either Vandenburg or Taft, either of whom has a path to the nomination.
 
Dewey was damaged by the 1940 Fall of France due to his perceived inexperience in foreign affairs, hence the RNC joke that he was "the first American casualty of the war".

This leaves us with either Vandenburg or Taft, either of whom has a path to the nomination.
The fall of France would damage Taft a lot more than it would damage Dewey. An isolationist is not going to be popular in that environment.
 
Top