US better off if FDR lived longer?

Would the US have been better off overall with more years of FDR?

  • Yes

    Votes: 45 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 37 41.1%
  • Nope..the UK still wins - Rule, Brittania...

    Votes: 8 8.9%

  • Total voters
    90
Yes of course, that the way to go... You want the US to have bad relation with it's two more important ally ? It's that kind of aptitude that provoked the NATO issue in France (And the treatment of Free France who was prefered an Vichyiste General by the US)

Let's be realistic. They weren't "important allies" any more. In 1945 the only two powers of relevance were the US and the USSR. The European powers were no longer capable of independent action. Events a decade later, in the Suez Crisis, proved this. All this scenario does is recognize the real situation.

The European democracies needed US support against the USSR anyway. The real battle for hearts and minds is in the Third World and honestly the US in the 1940s did have a decent level of anticolonial credibility.
 
Let's be realistic. They weren't "important allies" any more. In 1945 the only two powers of relevance were the US and the USSR. The European powers were no longer capable of independent action. Events a decade later, in the Suez Crisis, proved this. All this scenario does is recognize the real situation.

The European democracies needed US support against the USSR anyway. The real battle for hearts and minds is in the Third World and honestly the US in the 1940s did have a decent level of anticolonial credibility.

I as someone who studied the Sino-Soviet Split you're giving the British and French, or any other nation that is not the U.S or USSR far too little credit period, they ARE independent actors every last one of them. The USSR and U.S are not going to walk over everyone for the sake of how the world ought to be, it's going to be done by consensus. Roosevelt would at least pressure the French and British to set up of a timetable quickly, whether or not the French are going to go for or still be stubborn, I don't know.

As for this oh, FDR/ the U.S should have backed Ho Chi Minh and Sukarno and they wouldn't have gone Communist are myths that need to be doused in oil, set on fire and then shot, and die the deaths they deserve. Ho Chi Minh was a Communist who like Mao saw Communism as a tool of national liberation but were still Communist at heart I don't if the same is necessarily used with Sukarno.
 
I as someone who studied the Sino-Soviet Split you're giving the British and French, or any other nation that is not the U.S or USSR far too little credit period, they ARE independent actors every last one of them. The USSR and U.S are not going to walk over everyone for the sake of how the world ought to be, it's going to be done by consensus. Roosevelt would at least pressure the French and British to set up of a timetable quickly, whether or not the French are going to go for or still be stubborn, I don't know.

These are fair points- I admit to using hyperbole, but you'll grant that the European powers as of 1945, didn't have near the ability to operate and project power, or- probably more importantly- the image of superiority that they did in 1935.

As for this oh, FDR/ the U.S should have backed Ho Chi Minh and Sukarno and they wouldn't have gone Communist are myths that need to be doused in oil, set on fire and then shot, and die the deaths they deserve. Ho Chi Minh was a Communist who like Mao saw Communism as a tool of national liberation but were still Communist at heart I don't if the same is necessarily used with Sukarno.

I never said they wouldn't have gone Communist. I'm saying that the US under FDR might well have been more willing to work with Communist or Socialist governments instead of going fully them-vs-us. Insteasd of "ALL REDS BEING EVIL", maybe something more along the lines of "These are OUR Red, who do whatever the hell they want in their own countries but aren't a threat to international order, unlike the Soviets who are simply Russian Imperialists by another name."

Thus you'd be more likely to get a non-aligned Communist Vietnam willing to play well with the US. Sukarno, without seeing himself as being isolated and oppressed by all the Western powers, might well be willing to see the US as a counterbalance to the British and Dutch in the Indonesian War for Independence, rather than as IOTL, seeing them do nothing and as a result leaning further and further towards the USSR after Independence. In this scenario, you get a still socialist but more Nehruvian Sukarno. Nehru himself would be more willing to warm to a US with anti-Imperialist credentials.

This also allows the US to more effectively counterbalance the USSR in the Third World by disassociating itself from the Colonial powers, as opposed to being seen as their replacement.
 
If FDR somehow manages to get the European powers to give up their colonies, their replacement governments will either be right wing military juntas or a Communist regimes. In OTL the US backed regimes worse than the European colonial powers they replaced in many cases. So I don't know how some people think that FDR is going to magically and single handedly make third world countries become democratic and better off.
I don't want to say people living in the Third World are saints, or some kind of noble savages. They're probably as hierarchical as we are.

But they might be able to get some things right which we didn't. For example, ramping up traditional healers and the practice of doctoring. Instead of Organic II in college acting as a de facto IQ test, maybe focusing on the right kind of patience to keep trying things and also being an above average listener? I tend to think so.
 
I never said they wouldn't have gone Communist. I'm saying that the US under FDR might well have been more willing to work with Communist or Socialist governments instead of going fully them-vs-us. Insteasd of "ALL REDS BEING EVIL", maybe something more along the lines of "These are OUR Red, who do whatever the hell they want in their own countries but aren't a threat to international order, unlike the Soviets who are simply Russian Imperialists by another name."

Thus you'd be more likely to get a non-aligned Communist Vietnam willing to play well with the US. Sukarno, without seeing himself as being isolated and oppressed by all the Western powers, might well be willing to see the US as a counterbalance to the British and Dutch in the Indonesian War for Independence, rather than as IOTL, seeing them do nothing and as a result leaning further and further towards the USSR after Independence. In this scenario, you get a still socialist but more Nehruvian Sukarno. Nehru himself would be more willing to warm to a US with anti-Imperialist credentials.

This also allows the US to more effectively counterbalance the USSR in the Third World by disassociating itself from the Colonial powers, as opposed to being seen as their replacement.

The thing is Communism as being seen as evil happened much later than Truman. Truman and Eisenhower both tried to negotiate with Yugoslavia, hell Yugoslavia was considered to be a part of wedge strategy to divide the Second World very early on. The thing is even excluding, the fact the Yugoslavs shot down a U.S plane, the Yugoslavs were seen as too unreliable to be allies. Only the fall of China and to some extent the Korean War made opposing Communism seem to be the only viable option, both can't really be blamed on Truman.

The U.S tried the same with China under Mao for a little bit too, and Mao had reasons to be pissed at Stalin, not really helping them in the Civil War,even after the Maoists won, Stalin made then sign a trade deal that greatly favored the Soviets, and still was pissed off he had to wait during Stalin's birthday to do so. This last part I don't know if this ever made its way into Mao's judgment, but Stalin backed Sheng Shicai the card carrying communist warlord of Xinjiang, who then defected back to the KMT and had Mao's younger brother Mao Zemin killed as well. Mao went with the lean to one side approach, anyway.

So it's not like the U.S was locked in Communism=Evil, at least not abroad. Hell, even the Domino Theory changed with times to point of going from we need to intervene in Vietnam to prevent the spread of Communism, to we need to stay in Vietnam to prevent the much more dangerous Chinese from gaining influence and causing war. Basically, long story short The U.S tried to take a pragmatic approach, but regardless other nations didn't bite.

Don't leave out the Chinese, 3-way competition took place as well, with Maoism and it's National Liberation being an alternative to the Soviets and the U.S.
 
The thing is Communism as being seen as evil happened much later than Truman. Truman and Eisenhower both tried to negotiate with Yugoslavia, hell Yugoslavia was considered to be a part of wedge strategy to divide the Second World very early on. The thing is even excluding, the fact the Yugoslavs shot down a U.S plane, the Yugoslavs were seen as too unreliable to be allies. Only the fall of China and to some extent the Korean War made opposing Communism seem to be the only viable option, both can't really be blamed on Truman.

Yes- but a more robust anticolonial policy would be likely to lay the groundwork for independence movements (whether Communist or not) being more willing to work with the US rather than automatically going non-aligned or leaning Soviet.
 
I don't want to say people living in the Third World are saints, or some kind of noble savages. They're probably as hierarchical as we are.

But they might be able to get some things right which we didn't. For example, ramping up traditional healers and the practice of doctoring. Instead of Organic II in college acting as a de facto IQ test, maybe focusing on the right kind of patience to keep trying things and also being an above average listener? I tend to think so.
Say what now?:confused:
 
Top