The assassination succeeds--no FDR for WW2

FDR competent ? Well I guess this an opinion-in others view he was almost a Soviet agent and helped Soviet Union in becoming a world power by reckless Lend Lease supplies and neglence of security matters in addition to bowing down before Soviet demands in Europe.

Well, FDR did like his buddy good ole' Uncle Joe.:rolleyes:
 
It's entirely possible that the Republicans could turn back to the Tafts with the FDR out of the picture. Robert Taft as President would be... interesting to say the least. Entirely possible we wouldn't have gotten involved in WW2 at all. He probably wouldn't cut off the oil to Japan so no Pearl Harbor.

As for Huey Long, assuming he didn't get shot in 1935, didn't have any intention of running in 1936. His plan was to have a lackey run under his Share Our Wealth platform, split the Democratic Party ensuring a Republican win, then run in 1940 as the Democratic nominee and trounce the incumbent.
 
As for FDR and good ole Uncle Joe... well, in hindsight yeah... him running in 1944 was a bad idea. I don't think FDR just handed everything away, but by the time the war was winding down say 43 onwards, FDR did shall we say... lack the vitality to keep Stalin in check.
 
FDR getting shot means no New Deal (or at least a minimal New Deal) in the 1930s, which current scholarship suggests would likely have led to an early end to the Great Depression. FDR's policies did a lot to worsen in the Depression, according to the analysis of people like Amity Shlaes.

Cactus Jack might well get reelected in 36 due to a shortened depression. Garner doesn't run for a 4th term, so Wilkie takes it in 1940 and WWII proceeds as in OTL, with the change of the unfortunate death in office of Wilkie and his VP, if he chooses the same running mate.

Long term, a lot of New Deal legislation like Social Security doesn't get passed, which means a smaller government and likely a more prosperous US.
 
FDR getting shot means no New Deal (or at least a minimal New Deal) in the 1930s, which current scholarship suggests would likely have led to an early end to the Great Depression. FDR's policies did a lot to worsen in the Depression, according to the analysis of people like Amity Shlaes.

Cactus Jack might well get reelected in 36 due to a shortened depression. Garner doesn't run for a 4th term, so Wilkie takes it in 1940 and WWII proceeds as in OTL, with the change of the unfortunate death in office of Wilkie and his VP, if he chooses the same running mate.

Long term, a lot of New Deal legislation like Social Security doesn't get passed, which means a smaller government and likely a more prosperous US.

Looks about right.

So then the US Presidency goes:
Garner (1933-1941)
Willkie (1941-1944) [Dies during re-election campaign]
Wilkie's Secy of State (1944-5)
Brynes (1945-??

Given Brynes' election in 1944 over what has to be a totally disorganized Republican Party, does this mean some kind of WW3 breaking out when Stalin attempts to blockade Berlin and US forces decide to send a motorcade and dare the Red Army to fire on them?
 
why does everybody get on FDR's case about the lend lease to the Russians? If you are gonna defeat Nazi Germany in the 40's it's gonna cost a lot of lives, millions in fact, FDR has a choice he can sacrifice American lives, or he can sacrifice Russian lives, he chose Russian lives and so helped supply the Red Army, in the long run things might have been worse, but in his shoes it's hard to disagree with how FDR acted. Besides with fewer or no satellite states in eastern Europe, Stalin might just have kicked off WWIII a few years later to get them, and then how bad a situation are we in?
 
why does everybody get on FDR's case about the lend lease to the Russians? If you are gonna defeat Nazi Germany in the 40's it's gonna cost a lot of lives, millions in fact, FDR has a choice he can sacrifice American lives, or he can sacrifice Russian lives, he chose Russian lives and so helped supply the Red Army, in the long run things might have been worse, but in his shoes it's hard to disagree with how FDR acted. Besides with fewer or no satellite states in eastern Europe, Stalin might just have kicked off WWIII a few years later to get them, and then how bad a situation are we in?

Soviet Union Attacking a NUCLEAR UNITED STATES? The United States hits the Soviet Union for 50 Million, Game Over.

More to the point, the end of World War Two was really a bitter ending--a war fought to liberate Poland and Czechloslovkia that achieved neither.

I would argue that Stalin was given more of Europe than he should have been allowed. If you consider, as I do, that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany will not agree to a peace deal at all between them, no matter what, the logical direction is that the ideal outcome of WW2 is that the United States needs to ensure that it alone wins. The ideal endgame for WW2 is something like Germany loses, the Soviet Union loses and Japan loses.

So, by giving the Soviets less aid the United States can get more of Europe. Would the Germans kill more Americans? Maybe--but their military situation was hopeless after D-Day OTL, and would probably be little better even in this scenario. Germany has no answers to an American nuclear weapon, either, so its hard to say that the USA will fare that badly for the lack of help of the Soviet Union.

And if the Soviets want to play tough, they can enjoy the taste of Sunny D, courtesy of the US Air Force.
 
If Garner is the sitting president, wouldn't he be able to resist removal from office? In addition, even if he makes a "Little Deal" instead of a "New Deal", the US Business Cycle is still going to look favorable for him. And modern economists think that the US government's interventions under FDR weren't particularly helpful.

It has to be noted that most modern economists are very very opposed to any government intervention along with mostly being republicans who are merely trying to throw mud on a Great President. They will also tell you it was Reagan who solved the inflation crisis. As FDR said he was saving Capitalism from the capitalists. There comes a time in the economy when government must step in in order to prevent it from collapsing upon itself. FDR's policies while some were pretty pointless were more then what they did for the economy though. He gave people hope. He made people believe that things were going to be okay and that America would get through it and come out stronger. He implemented the FDIC and the SEC. It was the first time people's deposits in the bank were secured, if the bank somehow failed people didn't have to worry about losing their money. So now the banks could lend money again and jump-start the economy. Also for those that say he caused a recession in 1937 the reason was like all presidents he was obsessed with balancing the budget and when the money for social security started coming in he decided to do just that. Unfortunately it pulled so much money out of the economy that it plunged the country back into recession.
Without both FDR's economic policy and his optimism the Country has neither the morale, the economic base, nor the military power to participate in WW2 and Hitler's regime isn't stopped as quickly as it was
 

Typo

Banned
More to the point, the end of World War Two was really a bitter ending--a war fought to liberate Poland and Czechloslovkia that achieved neither.
No, it wasn't, it was a war to halt German expansionism

I would argue that Stalin was given more of Europe than he should have been allowed.
To be honest I think the only country which could have been denied to the Soviets was probably Czechslovokia

So, by giving the Soviets less aid the United States can get more of Europe.
In hindsight, yes
The ideal endgame for WW2 is something like Germany loses, the Soviet Union loses and Japan loses.
Definitely

You can't escape truth. :rolleyes:
lol are you now gonna rant on about how it was wrong to defeat the nazis
 
Last edited:
Soviet Union Attacking a NUCLEAR UNITED STATES? The United States hits the Soviet Union for 50 Million, Game Over.

More to the point, the end of World War Two was really a bitter ending--a war fought to liberate Poland and Czechloslovkia that achieved neither.

I would argue that Stalin was given more of Europe than he should have been allowed. If you consider, as I do, that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany will not agree to a peace deal at all between them, no matter what, the logical direction is that the ideal outcome of WW2 is that the United States needs to ensure that it alone wins. The ideal endgame for WW2 is something like Germany loses, the Soviet Union loses and Japan loses.

So, by giving the Soviets less aid the United States can get more of Europe. Would the Germans kill more Americans? Maybe--but their military situation was hopeless after D-Day OTL, and would probably be little better even in this scenario. Germany has no answers to an American nuclear weapon, either, so its hard to say that the USA will fare that badly for the lack of help of the Soviet Union.

And if the Soviets want to play tough, they can enjoy the taste of Sunny D, courtesy of the US Air Force.

Two problems.
One Germany was defeated much more easy because they were forced to fight a two front war. So instead of having all their troops placed to fight The U.S. and Britain. They were forced to divide them and send some to protect the Russian Front. So while it's conceivable that the U.S. and Britain could've beat Germany Italy and Japan by themselves it's done far easier with the Soviets on their side.
2nd problem the U.S. after developing the A-bomb had 4 total they tested one in Nevada, the second and third they dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the fourth they had no clue it would work. So the threat of the A-bomb while somewhat real wasn't a very big threat that the U.S. had especially if their bluff was called.
Also Germany put a lot of resources into developing their own A-bomb they just never got to it before they were defeated so without Russia's help they could have very easily developed it before the U.S. got theirs.
Also as for the Soviets getting too much of Europe, they were their, they had their troops in Eastern Europe and had spilled the blood to take it and weren't afraid to spill more to keep it.
 
Two problems.
One Germany was defeated much more easy because they were forced to fight a two front war. So instead of having all their troops placed to fight The U.S. and Britain. They were forced to divide them and send some to protect the Russian Front. So while it's conceivable that the U.S. and Britain could've beat Germany Italy and Japan by themselves it's done far easier with the Soviets on their side.
2nd problem the U.S. after developing the A-bomb had 4 total they tested one in Nevada, the second and third they dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the fourth they had no clue it would work. So the threat of the A-bomb while somewhat real wasn't a very big threat that the U.S. had especially if their bluff was called.
Also Germany put a lot of resources into developing their own A-bomb they just never got to it before they were defeated so without Russia's help they could have very easily developed it before the U.S. got theirs.
Also as for the Soviets getting too much of Europe, they were their, they had their troops in Eastern Europe and had spilled the blood to take it and weren't afraid to spill more to keep it.

The Soviets are never going to pull out of the war. There will still be an Eastern Front--it'll just be deep in Soviet Territory. We can use Zod's work on the Soviet Union coming apart at the seams by 1946 to back this up.

Italy is already out of the war--their dedication to Fascism was minimal (9% voted for Mussolini in his best election) and given a way out they'll fire the Fascists and sue for peace if beaten.

As for Germany, D-Day is still going to work and the Wehrmacht still has a two front war going at once. The Allies are likely to gain Czechloslovkia and Croatia--as well as a Unified Korea. China is going to be a hard call to make, but even if Chiang is failing the United States can probably do something with Manchuko.

Soviets had the bomb in 1949, due to Espionage. German A-Bomb project isn't going to happen first or before 1960--you can ask CalBear about that.

I think its doable, and the USA would definitely do better for the difference.
 
The Soviets are never going to pull out of the war. There will still be an Eastern Front--it'll just be deep in Soviet Territory. We can use Zod's work on the Soviet Union coming apart at the seams by 1946 to back this up.

Italy is already out of the war--their dedication to Fascism was minimal (9% voted for Mussolini in his best election) and given a way out they'll fire the Fascists and sue for peace if beaten.

As for Germany, D-Day is still going to work and the Wehrmacht still has a two front war going at once. The Allies are likely to gain Czechloslovkia and Croatia--as well as a Unified Korea. China is going to be a hard call to make, but even if Chiang is failing the United States can probably do something with Manchuko.

Soviets had the bomb in 1949, due to Espionage. German A-Bomb project isn't going to happen first or before 1960--you can ask CalBear about that.

I think its doable, and the USA would definitely do better for the difference.
when you put it that way i agree it's very doable. But here's the thing in war and in life the enemy of your enemy is your friend. So Russia was a friend of the U.S. Was having Russia as an ally neccessary not completely but it was better to have them be our ally and have the fighting pretty much stop(at least on the western front) when we got to Berlin then to continue having to fight a two front war.
 
FDR is way over rated by people. It was his fault that we were in the deppression as long as we were. Did you notice that most of Europe was out by 1936, but the U.S. wasn't. But the NewDeal made him look like a hero to the Democrats.

If the democratic party were a religion, FDR would be a cannonized saint, along with JFK, and soon to be Jimmy Carter.
 
FDR is way over rated by people. It was his fault that we were in the deppression as long as we were. Did you notice that most of Europe was out by 1936, but the U.S. wasn't. But the NewDeal made him look like a hero to the Democrats.

If the democratic party were a religion, FDR would be a cannonized saint, along with JFK, and soon to be Jimmy Carter.

that has nothing to do with the fact that Most of the countries in Europe are very small and nowhere near the size of the U.S. in terms of population or landmass. That couldn't have anything to do with it could it?
Or the fact that due to Hitler being very aggressive in Germany, many nations started to build up their armaments and put a lot more of their workforce to work and started increasing their military. With more jobs available they had more money in their economy's which meant that they were able to spend there way out of a depression sooner.
Also FDR was almost out of the depression in 1937 but he along with congress and every other president ever were obsessed with balancing the budget so when they had the money to do so they did just that.
 
Last edited:
when you put it that way i agree it's very doable. But here's the thing in war and in life the enemy of your enemy is your friend. So Russia was a friend of the U.S. Was having Russia as an ally neccessary not completely but it was better to have them be our ally and have the fighting pretty much stop(at least on the western front) when we got to Berlin then to continue having to fight a two front war.

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend, he is the enemy of your enemy, no more, no less. The USSR was not a friend to the west, not in 1938, not in 1944, not in 1950, and not in 1991. Under the rule of Stalin, the USSR was an evil even greater than Nazi Germany. Too bad so many were blind to that truth. It really is a shame that they both couldn't have lost the war.
 
why does everybody get on FDR's case about the lend lease to the Russians? If you are gonna defeat Nazi Germany in the 40's it's gonna cost a lot of lives, millions in fact, FDR has a choice he can sacrifice American lives, or he can sacrifice Russian lives, he chose Russian lives and so helped supply the Red Army, in the long run things might have been worse, but in his shoes it's hard to disagree with how FDR acted. Besides with fewer or no satellite states in eastern Europe, Stalin might just have kicked off WWIII a few years later to get them, and then how bad a situation are we in?

Personally I agree.

If there wasn't the Churchill/FDR relationship - then in 1940 it's more likely that Britain wouldn't have got the assistance that was needed. Would lend-lease have occurred - that is debatable. Even with Britain still in the 'fight' in '41, it might have had to seek terms - being incapable of continuing the war - without FDR's support.
FDR's flaw later was his naivety with Stalin, and his anti-colonial stance with Churchill.
Eisenhower, decided not to go for Berlin and Prague not FDR.
 
Top