His health was already beginning to decline by 1940.
Without the trial of war, I can picture him retiring, and living until around 1948-1949.
The Sudeten War: History of the World after an Alternate 1938
- Thread starter Onkel Willie
- Start date
His health was already beginning to decline by 1940.
Without the trial of war, I can picture him retiring, and living until around 1948-1949.
There is now the threat is from the Soviet Union and communist insurgency worldwide instead of Germany being the problem.
Last edited:
FDR never seen Soviets being serious threat. Him had quiet soft view about them. Remember who helped to arm them and allowed to take Poland.
I think part of the concern was that if leaving Europe to take care of itself had seen Germany go from military impotence in 1933 to destroying what was then seen as the premier military power on the continent in 1940, it would have been an existential threat if the US had continued to be hands-off for another 7 years... And considering how much business US citizens and companies were doing in Europe by this point, while the Nazi empire wasn't an existential threat yet, it was a clear and present threat to American prosperity. (Plus, how was the US going to get its loans from WW1 and the interwar period repaid if Germany was powerful enough to ignore them and France and Britain were broken to the German yoke?)
So all in all, I can see why FDR reacted to the Nazi victories as an existential threat - he may have been wrong, but he may have been right (it depends on how fast one assumes that the Nazis will destroy their own economy after they've won). And I do very much doubt he would seek a 3rd term with Europe apparently able to deal with its own business without the stern parental oversight of the Americans.
fasquardon
As far as I know, the only reason that he ran for a third term is because he thought no one would handle the war better than him, a decision which was backed by the party elites
Speaking of that: Henry Wallace. He won't be VP this time around--John Nance Garner was. Wallace will be a lot less prominent as a consequence, but Garner IOTL retired from politics as a consequence of his break with FDR.
So, does Garner seek the 1940 nomination instead?
Well Garner did seek the nomination in OTL's 1940 Democratic Primaries, so it's not out of the question.
Anybody's better than Wallace right now. Even if he doesn't outright give nukes to the Soviets, he's way too blind to them to make effective foreign policy.
I should probably mention this as well, IOTL Wallace wasn't even in contention for the President's seat, which is impressive given that, including FDR, there were 15 Democratic candidates for the Presidency.
I should also note that there is a possibility that a Republican could win in '40. Just so long as it isn't Wendell Wilkie, the President of Southern Company (even though it wasn't called that at the time) at a time when the population distrusted big business.
Is there even a Manhattan Project ITTL? The Einstein-Szilard letter wasn't written IOTL until August, 1939. With Germany backed down, it might not be written at all--or the US might just not see the need to expend funds on it.
So someone else might build the bomb first. My personal favorite candidate in a No WWII scenario is France, given their strength in atomic science and their need for a backup source of electricity farther away from the German border. But other countries are also contenders.
Stretch
Donor
@Onkel Willie what about the Nazi edits to the old German law against homosexuality? Before the Great Depression, the topic of homosexuality being decriminalized was being seriously discussed. When the Nazi's rose to power, they edited the old law to make it vaguer on what constituted a homosexual criminal act and harshened the sentences. IOTL, it was the only Nazi made law to be left in place after WW2, as it had technically existed before the Nazi's edited it.
Weren’t some of Germany modern animal laws also originated from the Nazis or did the Germans already have it?
Garner runs, and has a decent shot at the nomination, but I also expect the GOP field to be different. Mr. Willkie likelier than not goes down in history s much more obscure a figure while the 1940 GOP presidential nominee here has a much better chance at winning. Who will it be? There are many possibilities, including dark horses.
It's why I said a GOP presidential candidate has a better chance in 1940 TTL than OTL. Of the OTL candidates, the two poorest choices were Willkie and Hoover (yes, Hoover actually attempt to seek the GOP nomination again 1940, and yes it went about as well as you'd think it did.)
I'd actually say the best candidates outside of the Southern Company CEO was Robert Taft (Senator from Ohio) and Thomas Dewey (Manhattan DA at the time and the future Governor of New York).
The best non-FDR candidates for the Dems was VP Garner and if not him, James Farley (the U.S. Postmaster General).
Farley is not plausible in my opinion, except as a sacrificial lamb. Another Catholic so soon after Al Smith?
On one hand fair point, on the other...why not? I kinda feel like we were going to end up with a Catholic President eventually. Despite the fact it took from Al Smith's nomination to when it happened IOTL, roughly 32 years.
What is Farley's actual base of support? I don't think his was a household name, nor was he an elected office holder. At that point, Al Smith might as well try again.
I think that it's gonna be Garner vs Willkie, with Willkie winning by a narrow margin
OR we can also have Dewey as the Republican candidate four years before, considering how close he was from the nomination in 1940 (IOTL he only lost because of his isolationist views)