The Wall Street Crash of 1932

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
What if the Great Depression began three years later than the OTU?

The Wall Street Crash of 1932, also known as the Great Crash or the Stock Market Crash of 1932, was the most devastating stock market crash in the history of the United States, taking into consideration the full extent and duration of its fallout.

The initial crash occurred on Monday, October 24, 1932, but the catastrophic downturn of Friday, October 28 and Monday, October 31 precipitated widespread alarm and the onset of an unprecedented and long-lasting economic depression for the United States and the world. This stock market collapse continued for a month.

The October 1932 crash came during a period of declining real estate values in the United States (which peaked in 1928) near the beginning of a chain of events that led to the Great Depression, a period of economic decline in the industrialized nations. The Stock Market Crash also brought about a quick reversal in the prospects of the Hoover Administration, with Franklin Delano Roosevelt declaring that is was all the fault of the Hoover Administration in allowing this to happen.
 

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
Hoover still would lose the election.
Indeed. I said as much. I'm basically making this situation more like 2008.
The "roaring Twenties" continue until 1932 and then the market crash comes in 1932 instead of 1929. FDR still gets elected President, what do you suppose would be happening in Germany? The "Roaring Twenties" continue until 1932 there too, and it takes a while for the Stock Market Crash to develop into a full blown Recession.

Also FDR gets the worst of the Depression, much like Obama is now, after a few years of this, people will say how much better things were under Hoover. Timing is everything!
 
This would postpone Nazi rise to power. Since USSR was isolated from the effects of the Crash, then it leaves Soviets in stronger position before Nazis attempt to invade them.
With Soviets stronger against Nazi Germany you would have a lot of butterflies that difficult to judge. It could either turn to Soviet takeover of most of Europe sooner or perhaps to Poland joining Germany seeing it's neutral balance is not possible with much stronger SU gathering its army.
 
How would this effect Japan? There would probably be no Mukden incident in 1931 if the Japanese Democracy isn't getting hit that early. Also, it may be providential that Hindenburg steps down before the Nazis go big in Germany--there could be a coherent leadership in place, instead of Papen or Schiliecter in place.

The implications of shifting the Depression Three Years later could be huge; we might see things ranging from Japan and Germany struggling to keep their Democratic governments and succeed, or France going down, or all kinds of things.

The implications for the world at large are huge; while some kind of second world war is probably inevitable, the players are going to be very different...
 

wormyguy

Banned
what do you suppose would be happening in Germany? The "Roaring Twenties" continue until 1932 there too, and it takes a while for the Stock Market Crash to develop into a full blown Recession.
The 20s weren't all that "roaring" in Germany, or in Europe as a whole, for that matter.
 

Onyx

Banned
WHat about Poland?

Is it me or does everybody thinks that between the USSR and Germany was just big gap?
 
The 20s weren't all that "roaring" in Germany, or in Europe as a whole, for that matter.

That's the issue. The depression in Europe happened much earlier. The US was sort of a "hold-out." We thought we were immune to the perils of Europe, but 1929 proved that thought wrong. To delay the crash, there will be differences, but only in America.
 
WHat about Poland?

Is it me or does everybody thinks that between the USSR and Germany was just big gap?

Well, Poland lost its democratic government in the 1920s; it would still be run by a military junta--I struggle with Polish names, but after Pilsudski (Sp?) dies there's still going to be a run of Polish Military Men running the country. I'm not sure that anything fundamentally changes after Pilsudski dies-- Edward Rdyz-Smigly and Ignancy Moscicki are still going to form a powersharing arrangement. Now Rdyz-Smigly died of a heart attack in 1941, so we could see further shuffling in the government circles, but I think the nation will be run by its armed forces.

Will Poland consider a war against Lithuania given the weakness of Germany and the Soviet Union's introversion? This is quite possible. But it would take a major twist, like a Red Germany, to get Poland to attack.

In the long run, however, Poland is screwed if Germany and the Soviets cut any kind of deal. Poland may actually do worse by continuing its little wars against its neighbors and eroding sympathy for its situation when Germany decides to settle the score for Danzig.
 

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
This would postpone Nazi rise to power. Since USSR was isolated from the effects of the Crash, then it leaves Soviets in stronger position before Nazis attempt to invade them.
With Soviets stronger against Nazi Germany you would have a lot of butterflies that difficult to judge. It could either turn to Soviet takeover of most of Europe sooner or perhaps to Poland joining Germany seeing it's neutral balance is not possible with much stronger SU gathering its army.
When is the next opportunity for Hitler to rise to power? 1936?
Ok in 1936, Germany is not ready to invade anybody, it would have to start its military build up in 1937, it annexes Austria in 1940, Czechoslovakia in 1941, and it invades Poland in 1942. A stronger USSR might cause Germany to give more serious consideration towards an invasion of Great Britian or Operation Sae Lion in 1943. An interesting question is what's happening in America.

FDR inherits the Great Depression from Hoover, but during the Hoover Administration, he gets the Wall Street Crash right before Election Day, he sounds optimistic, he says "the fundamentals of the economy are sound and the Crash will work itself out." Hoover keeps his hands off of the economy for the remainder of his term, he loses the election and he doesn't see any reason to do anything about the Crash, the voters have made their decision and they decided to give him the boot, while he maintains that the Crash was not his fault, so he figures its going to be FDR's problem now, he doesn't raise taxes and he doesn't lower them, Let FDR make these difficult decisions and let him be criticised if things go wrong, he's thinking.

FDR tries a number of things, he wins in a landslide, he does the New Deal, but the Economy gets worse and worse, Republicans in the Congress and Senate say he's making the Economy worse, and all it was going to be was a brief recession until FDR made it worse.

In 1936 Alf M Landon of Kansas and Frank Knox of Illinois are elected President and Vice President of the United States respectively in 1937 Alf M Landon takes the Oath of office.

Landon respected and admired Roosevelt and accepted much of the New Deal but objected that it was hostile to business and involved too much waste and inefficiency. Late in the campaign, Landon accused Roosevelt of corruption – that is, of acquiring so much power that he was subverting the Constitution. Landon said:
"The President spoke truly when he boasted... 'We have built up new instruments of public power.' He spoke truly when he said these instruments could provide 'shackles for the liberties of the people... and... enslavement for the public.' These powers were granted with the understanding that they were only temporary. But after the powers had been obtained, and after the emergency was clearly over, we were told that another emergency would be created if the power was given up. In other words, the concentration of power in the hands of the President was not a question of temporary emergency. It was a question of permanent national policy. In my opinion the emergency of 1933 was a mere excuse.... National economic planning—the term used by this Administration to describe its policy—violates the basic ideals of the American system.... The price of economic planning is the loss of economic freedom. And economic freedom and personal liberty go hand in hand."[4]
 
When is the next opportunity for Hitler to rise to power? 1936?
Ok in 1936, Germany is not ready to invade anybody, it would have to start its military build up in 1937, it annexes Austria in 1940, Czechoslovakia in 1941, and it invades Poland in 1942. A stronger USSR might cause Germany to give more serious consideration towards an invasion of Great Britian or Operation Sae Lion in 1943.

That´s a classical turtledove.
The Nazis had pretty much this one chance to win - in 1933 they already had less support than in 1932, due to the fact that economy slightly improved (or at least the downward trend was visibly stopped). Any time shift would destroy the combination of factors that supported their rise to pwer. In the late 1920s the situation in Germany improved so much that the general resistance to the idea of democracy started dwindling. A few more years of steadily improved economic situation would put far more people on the side of democratic parties and far less on the extremist sides (NSDAP and KPD). The instable government with constant petty infighting might have collapsed until then and replaced by some kind of semi-authoritarian strongman (like Brüning tried to be), which would make sure that the only way Nazis would get to the power would be through a civil war.
 

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
That´s a classical turtledove.
The Nazis had pretty much this one chance to win - in 1933 they already had less support than in 1932, due to the fact that economy slightly improved (or at least the downward trend was visibly stopped). Any time shift would destroy the combination of factors that supported their rise to pwer. In the late 1920s the situation in Germany improved so much that the general resistance to the idea of democracy started dwindling. A few more years of steadily improved economic situation would put far more people on the side of democratic parties and far less on the extremist sides (NSDAP and KPD). The instable government with constant petty infighting might have collapsed until then and replaced by some kind of semi-authoritarian strongman (like Brüning tried to be), which would make sure that the only way Nazis would get to the power would be through a civil war.
Ok, so we still have a Great Depression 3 years late, and the Nazis don't rise to power. The Wall Street Crash comes as a shock which overturns Hoover's reelection prospects, as with a fair economy, not many people have much to complain about the Hoover Administration, after three terms of Republican Administrations, people are ready for something different, the Wall Street Crash propels FDR into Office, however because of the Great Depression, the Economy worsens. FDR passes some of his New Deal programs, and it might have had some mitigating effect, but in spite of that unemployment goes up, FDR starts running huge deficits, and raising taxes, after about 3 and a half years of this, the people start to wonder if perhaps FDR is doing something wrong, maybe unemployment recovers somewhat, but when Alf M Landon asks, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" the answer is a resounding no, never mind that the Hoover years ended badly, the majority of them were marked by the continuing economic expansion of the twenties, and it was easier to get a job back then than it was late in FDR's term of office.

The result is that FDR is not reelected and Alf M Landon becomes the next President, mostly as a referendum on FDR and the poor economy of his Administration. I think President Landon would try to cut the Budget and reduce the Deficit, as this is what he criticised FDR on. Probably the Economy would continue to recover, former government workers would find jobs in the private sector.

I think the new German Government would at a minimum annex the Rhineland, the French probably would not protest too much. Stalin would be plotting Revolution in Spain, and the Spanish Civil War would still occur, the Germans would support Franco, and this war would probably occur a few years later than in the original history.
 

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
An interesting subplot is how does the world of the 1940s turn out without Hitler at the helm of Germany, instead we have a more cautious rightwing leader who is distrustful of the Communists and of Stalin in particular. Germany acts as a counter balance to Stalin's Soviet Union. The United States is still an isolationist power. There are some scientists in Germany, the United States and Great Britian that are still figuring out the atom, and slowly they are drawing plans to liberate energy through the splitting of particularly heavy atoms, somebody in the war departments of various nations consider the possibility of the Atomic Bomb. A low budget Manhattan Project is worked out, it is a very secret project of course, and Landon doesn't trust the Soviets, he considers it a good thing to have just in case.

The 1940s sees the advent of television, the Germans introduce Jet fighters late in the 1940s and Von Braun launches a few sounding rockets, his new A3s and A4s. Probably in the early 1950s, a German astronaut enter's space, and atomic bomb is tested and Stalin dies. Premier Molotov takes over the leadership of the Soviet Union, he launches a Russian rocket into space with Cosmonauts. the American government for its part doesn't want to be left behind, so Air Force astronauts shortly orbit the Earth in 1957. The USA doesn't see itself in competition with the Soviets, while the Germans do their best to counter the Soviet threat.

What do you think happens next?
 
I don't think Landon would win election. Sorry if that's the point of this thread, but the Republicans have been in office since 1920 and FDR is going to be able to blame them for the situation. I recognize that FDR would preside over the economy hitting bottom, but that's a far different matter than being able to point at the Republicans and tie them to economic policies that created the depression in the first place.

The entire arguement seems to be that FDR hasn't gotten the American people out of the depression. Frankly, I think his ideas would start to have had some success--and really, would FDR do what Hoover did? Would he allow banks to go out of business and create a chain reaction to wipe each other out? Would he try to force a gold standard which would cause economic hardship?

FDR is going to be able to mitigate the decline in the first place. The Dust Bowl will have started and be thrown against Hoover, as will Hoover's reluctance to do anything about it.

So, FDR wins in 1936. It isn't a blowout, the margins are narrower, but Landon is a very poor campaigner who rarely travels against the first president to use the radio effectively. And, of course, FDR would have to campaign harder, but he could.

Historically this was a blowout; with a later depression, FDR is going to have a thinner margin of victory.

My question stands: Who goes autocratic and who stays democratic with this shift in timing? Japan is probably going to fall into Millitarism, Romania, France, Belgium, Germany and Spain are all vulnerable.

That said, FDR will probably not run for re-election in 1940. The world isn't in a state of world war at this point, so here's where a strong Republician Candidate might have a shot.
 

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
I don't think Landon would win election. Sorry if that's the point of this thread, but the Republicans have been in office since 1920 and FDR is going to be able to blame them for the situation. I recognize that FDR would preside over the economy hitting bottom, but that's a far different matter than being able to point at the Republicans and tie them to economic policies that created the depression in the first place.
How would FDR prove that the Republicans caused the Great Depression, what is he going to say to the down on his luck guy who says he'd had a job in 1932, and since the crash, he was laid off, and hasn't found a decent job since. He would point out that jobs were alot easier to find during the Hoover Administration than it is now with unemployment hovering close to 20%, now he never owned any stock, so he lost no money during the crash, but jobs sure got a whole lot harder to find when FDR took office.

FDR could say it was all Hoover's falt.

The unemployed man could say, how do I know your policies didn't make it worse?

FDR did raise taxes on the rich, and some rich man could helpfully point out he was going to hire some more people until the government took a greater percentage of his income in taxes.

The entire arguement seems to be that FDR hasn't gotten the American people out of the depression. Frankly, I think his ideas would start to have had some success--and really, would FDR do what Hoover did? Would he allow banks to go out of business and create a chain reaction to wipe each other out? Would he try to force a gold standard which would cause economic hardship?
How in 1932 are the American People supposed to know that the Stock Market Crash was going to turn into the Great Depression, for all they know, if they reelected Hoover, the economy would have gotten better all by itself?

FDR can say all he wants that the economy would have been a whole lot worse without his programs, but how do the people know? All they know is that most of their lives are worse than before he got elected and Hoover was only President for about 3 months after the crash, Unemployment might have been rising during those three months, but then it kept on rising after FDR took office, and then stabilized at around 20%, sometimes going down, but never quite reaching the level it had when Hoover was in office.

There are economic forces at work that the President has no control over, a lot of the blame Hoover got in 1929 OTU was just a matter of poor timing.
FDR is going to be able to mitigate the decline in the first place. The Dust Bowl will have started and be thrown against Hoover, as will Hoover's reluctance to do anything about it.
If Hoover were alive, he'd probably sarcastically appologize for not having a "weather machine" that he could control the weather with. Blaming the President of the United States for bad weather is just plain ridiculous, what next, is he supposed to appologize because your toilet won't flush?
So, FDR wins in 1936. It isn't a blowout, the margins are narrower, but Landon is a very poor campaigner who rarely travels against the first president to use the radio effectively. And, of course, FDR would have to campaign harder, but he could.
He doesn't need to be an excellent campaigner, as most of the people will be voting against FDR for the lousy economy, and Landon simply is the "other guy" that they would end up voting for.
Historically this was a blowout; with a later depression, FDR is going to have a thinner margin of victory.
He would get reelected for doing what? Running high deficits, raising taxes, and waisting taxpayer's money. The standard set by Hoover is the one they are going to measure FDR by, in OTU, Hoover had 3 years of Depression under his belt, and compared to that, FDR was at least trying, but in a world where Hoover didn't have those 3 years of Depression, people are going to expect better from FDR, perhaps better than anyone can deliver, but the people don't know that, all they know is that their lives are worse than they were under Hoover.
My question stands: Who goes autocratic and who stays democratic with this shift in timing? Japan is probably going to fall into Millitarism, Romania, France, Belgium, Germany and Spain are all vulnerable.

That said, FDR will probably not run for re-election in 1940. The world isn't in a state of world war at this point, so here's where a strong Republician Candidate might have a shot.
I just think its a matter of timing, Hoover had nothing to do with causing the Great Depression, he was just unlucky enough to be President at the time, and he did not view it as his responsiblity to interfere with the market to bring about a solution.
 
Top