RNG

Banned
What if FDR was elected in 1929 and Hoover in 1933, how would this change history?
 
FDR's big government response to the great depression early on would have prompted a good deal of recovery, in the unlikely scenario as stated above, hoover wins in 1933, he would either undo much of the "alphabet soup" or new organizations which FDR formed. However, in my opinion, due to a republican congress at the time, I believe that Hoover, while maybe not immediately, would definitely begin to undo some of FDR's reforms. This could lead to the removal of Social Security Administration(SSA), Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), if not the removal, then most likely the washing down of their effectiveness. It is all a matter of timing, whether Hoover decides to let what portion of FDR's new deal pass through his first term before being removed, or taking it down too soon. It is important to note that with only 3 years in the depression, as well as a Republican Congress and Republican Supreme Court (which in OTL called many of FDR's reforms, unconstitutional) not much of the New Deal would get through legislation, as well as being just as effective. However, in the end, Hoover has a 90% chance of not winning re-election no matter how you look at it, he attempts to break down FDR's progress, and instead Truman takes office in 1937, this leads to a reconstruction of the New Deal, but a much weaker one, also leading to a much more economically unstable US that will soon enter the WW2 era.

In World War 2, the US has to ease up on the lend-lease acts, and instead Truman will be re-elected due his policies in the late 30's.
 

RNG

Banned
FDR's big government response to the great depression early on would have prompted a good deal of recovery, in the unlikely scenario as stated above, hoover wins in 1933, he would either undo much of the "alphabet soup" or new organizations which FDR formed. However, in my opinion, due to a republican congress at the time, I believe that Hoover, while maybe not immediately, would definitely begin to undo some of FDR's reforms. This could lead to the removal of Social Security Administration(SSA), Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), if not the removal, then most likely the washing down of their effectiveness. It is all a matter of timing, whether Hoover decides to let what portion of FDR's new deal pass through his first term before being removed, or taking it down too soon. It is important to note that with only 3 years in the depression, as well as a Republican Congress and Republican Supreme Court (which in OTL called many of FDR's reforms, unconstitutional) not much of the New Deal would get through legislation, as well as being just as effective. However, in the end, Hoover has a 90% chance of not winning re-election no matter how you look at it, he attempts to break down FDR's progress, and instead Truman takes office in 1937, this leads to a reconstruction of the New Deal, but a much weaker one, also leading to a much more economically unstable US that will soon enter the WW2 era.

In World War 2, the US has to ease up on the lend-lease acts, and instead Truman will be re-elected due his policies in the late 30's.
So how would this affect the outcome of the war? Would this mean the war takes longer and there is a likelihood of nuclear bombs being used on Germany? Or would Hitler develop nuclear weapons and a three way cold war develops between America, Germany, and Russia?
 
I've seen this scenario mentioned before as a set-up for a "right-wing Democrats, left-wing Republicans" dynamic. FDR had a reputation as a moderate before his election, while Hoover had progressive tendencies (though there's still a big difference between an early 1900s progressive and a New Dealer). Not sure how plausible it is, but in such scenarios, Roosevelt's response to the Depression is too little too late and he loses in a landslide to the progressive Hoover in 1932, who then implements an ATL New Deal.
How would this happen? Dems were not gonna win in 28.
Maybe a Democratic victory in 1924? IIRC, they initially had a pretty good shot due to the Teapot Dome Scandal, but the Klanbake squandered it. For whatever reason, whoever is elected in 1924 steps down and paves the way for FDR in 1928.
 
Last edited:
I've seen this scenario mentored before as a set-up for a "right-wing Democrats, left-wing Republicans" dynamic. FDR had a reputation as a moderate before his election, while Hoover had progressive tendencies (though there's still a big difference between an early 1900s progressive and a New Dealer). Not sure how plausible it is, but in such scenarios, Roosevelt's response to the Depression is too little too late and he loses in a landslide to the progressive Hoover in 1932, who then implements an ATL New Deal.

Maybe a Democratic victory in 1924? IIRC, they initially had a pretty good shot due to the Teapot Dome Scandal, but the Klanbake squandered it. For whatever reason, whoever is elected in 1924 steps down and paves the way for FDR in 1928.

True, but Democratic policies (especially under McAdoo) would have lessened the negative effects of the depression, so the political impact would not have been as dramatic.
 
So how would this affect the outcome of the war? Would this mean the war takes longer and there is a likelihood of nuclear bombs being used on Germany? Or would Hitler develop nuclear weapons and a three way cold war develops between America, Germany, and Russia?
If Adolf did develop nuclear weapons, there would be no defeating of the Germans in ww2, that would mean the soviets wouldnt get nukes, the US and Russians gained a ton of tech from nazi equipment they took after the war, equipment that allowed them to goto space, the Germans would easily be the first nation in space and maybe even reach the moon, it is possible the Germans with such a huge technological gap could eventually negate mutually assured destruction, thus putting them above the US and able to force demands. However, I highly doubt ww2 would play out the same way.
True, but Democratic policies (especially under McAdoo) would have lessened the negative effects of the depression, so the political impact would not have been as dramatic.
left wing republicans would look something like Marco Rubio? and Right Wing democrats like, Joe Manchin?
Also I agree, I think that due to successful policy from the democrats during the depression it is difficult to create this dynamic, in my opinion it all just leads to Truman taking office, if he still becomes FDR's VP. Similar to how Nixon would take office after Kennedy-LBJ, as he was Eisenhower's VP.
 
left wing republicans would look something like Marco Rubio? and Right Wing democrats like, Joe Manchin?
1928≠2016. A left wing Republican looked like William Borah, while a right-wing Democrat looked like John W. Davis.
in my opinion it all just leads to Truman taking office, if he still becomes FDR's VP. Similar to how Nixon would take office after Kennedy-LBJ, as he was Eisenhower's VP.
Truman was Roosevelt's VP in 1945. From 1933-1941 it was John Garner and from 1941-1945 it was Henry Wallace.
 
Truman was Roosevelt's VP in 1945. From 1933-1941 it was John Garner and from 1941-1945 it was Henry Wallace.

Well Wallace seems like a newbie, and if I remember correctly, Garner was the one with the most political experience and reputation, so I assume that Garner would then potentially be the one who runs for POTUS in '36
 
Top